Loading...
2015-07-22 Planning Board PacketAgenda Edmonds Planning Board COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 22, 2015, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes of June 10 and July 8, 2015 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director's Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Continued discussion and potential recommendation regarding Critical Area Ordinance update 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Draft Complete Streets SR-104 Corridor Analysis 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda July 22, 2015 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Memo Meeting Date: 07/22/2015 Subject: Approval of Minutes of June 10 and July 8, 2015 Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Department: Planning Division Staff Lead: Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the draft minutes (Attachments 1 and 2). Narrative N/A Attachments: Attachment 1: Minutes of 6/10/2015 Attachment 2: Minutes of 7/8/2015 Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2015 Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5tn Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Chair Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Carreen Rubenkonig Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Nathan Monroe READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2015 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER AND STEWART ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was rearranged to place the Introduction to Irreconcilable Applications Code Amendments to Title 20 (Item 8a) before the Continued Review of the Draft Code for the Critical Areas Ordinance Update (Item 7a). The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Scott Blomenkamp, Edmonds, said he recently closed on a home in Edmonds at 23227 — 97 h Avenue West, and was immensely happy to move in on May 23. He had spent several years searching for the property and specifically chose it for its approximately 14 old growth trees, as well as what he believed to be a great Edmonds community. He thought Edmonds had a reasonable balance between development and environmental concerns, which was reenforced by the large, beautiful apartment complex that is next to his property and extends several blocks. This is an example of responsible development that is balanced and abides to the Edmonds Community Development Code. However, the week he moved in, he was surprised when a developer next to his lot clear cut approximately 13 old growth trees, one over 32 inches in diameter, to build 10 duplexes. In doing so, he severely damaged the health of four of his trees, one approximately 40 inches in diameter, by excavating within two feet of the trees and severely injuring roots. He was grossly amazed and completely astonishment at the fact that there are clear codes that address the situation, but the City administration does not seem to know or understand the code. He has a 7-year-old child and specifically purchased his property for the trees and the backyard. He is not anti -development, but he is anti -destroying his property, excavating needlessly and doing something completely out of character when the code clearly talks about fitting within the character of the local area. It also talks about retaining trees that Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a are over 6 inches in diameter if at all possible for the development. These are things that are reasonable and not extreme and something the administration should be talking about. He said he will continue to come to meetings to talk about his situation on and on. Again, he said he is concerned with the administration's attitude of not following or even understanding the code and implementing it in an unfair and unequal way. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented that trees are a big issue in Edmonds, as evidenced by the large turnout at the Board's last public hearing where the draft Tree Code was the subject of discussion. He suggested that excess by developers caused the City to take emergency action that resulted in the draft Tree Code proposed by the Tree Board. It was a radical reaction to the simple problem of how to deal with developers who cheat. Rather than the draft Tree Code, he suggested the City implement greater penalties for developers who "cheat" and cut down more trees than permitted for development. For example, the City could shut down development, and require developers to wait one or two years before resuming a project. He felt this penalty would be greater than any fine the City could impose, and developers would not likely take a chance by cutting trees illegally. He asked the Board to consider this option as a way to solve the problem of excess clearing. He summarized that, at their last public hearing, the Board got a lesson in how people react when they are informed about an issue that impacts them. The Board should keep in mind that the citizens will come out if they are upset about something that is being proposed. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to her written report and specifically reported that an open house for the Comprehensive Plan was held just prior to the Planning Board meeting. Although the event was sparsely attended, there were a number of display boards available to provide information to the public in attendance. Vice Chair Lovell referred to the list of development projects in Edmonds (Pages 1 and 2), particularly the Woodway Fields Project. He requested an update on the status on using crumb rubber material for the fields and asked if the City Council has the ability to deny the material in response to public concern. Ms. Hope explained that the Edmonds School District (ESD) owns the fields and made the decision to move forward with the crumb rubber material. Although citizens raised concerns before the City Council, it was the City Attorney's legal perspective that the particular type of synthetic material is not regulated by City code. As a principle of law, the City cannot add new regulations once a project comes forward. It must deal with the regulations in place at the time of application. The City Council decided not to take action relative to the proposed materials. It is up to the ESD, who owns the property, to make that call. Mr. Lien reported that a Land Use Petition Act appeal of the City Council's decision was filed and will go to Superior Court. The appeal was filed by the proponent of the project and names both the City and the ESD. Board Member Stewart said she heard that Verdant Health was researching other surface materials. Ms. Hope reported that Verdant Health did complete a study and the results were forwarded to the Planning Board previously. The study indicated that there is no known evidence of a problem with the crumb rubber material. However, Verdant Health has indicated that it would continue to study the issue. Board Member Stewart noted that the material has been banned from sports fields in Europe. Board Member Robles asked if it would be possible to remove and replace the material at some point in the future, and Vice Chair Lovell answered affirmatively. PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION ON 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Ms. Hope recalled that the Board has been reviewing elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update for the past year. She advised that comprehensive plans are intended to be the framework for planning in each community. Under State Law, cities must complete a major review and update of their comprehensive plans at least every eight years. The deadline for the City's update is mid 2015. She advised that no wholesale changes are being proposed as part of the current update. The proposed amendments are primarily intended to provide consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), improve clarity, and update data. Ms. Hope advised that State Law provided direction for the City's Comprehensive Plan update, along with the multi -county planning policies that are part of the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 2040 document, and the county -wide planning policies. She emphasized that the City's Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with these three documents, but the City also has some discretion to add additional goals and policies. She reviewed that, to date, there have been 31 public Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 meetings related to the Comprehensive Plan update, including 9 public hearings before the City Council and 2 open houses. In addition, the City has issued press releases and articles have been published in local media. Notices of meetings have been broadcast on EdTV and posted in the newspaper and other official locations throughout the City. Ms. Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan update has moved forward on an element -by -element basis. Draft elements were presented to the Planning Board for review and comment, followed by a public hearing and additional comments from the City Council. The purpose of the Board's final review and public hearing is to make sure all the elements reconcile with each other and provide any last comments before making a recommendation to the City Council, who will take final action. She emphasized that public comment has been and will continue to be important. Ms. Hope reminded the Board that one meaningful performance measure was added to each of the elements and some elements include action items, as well. She reviewed each of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • Community Sustainability Element. Because this element is not data heavy, few substantive changes have been proposed. The minor changes center on adding text to goals and policies for energy efficiency and wastewater reduction at City facilities. A performance measure and key implementation action was added, as well. • Land Use Element. Updates to this element focused on new data, including population data for the next planning period. With the addition of new data, rewriting of some narrative sections and replacement of outdated figures was required. Other changes include reformatting and streamlining of text. For example, the goals and policies related to urban design were moved to the Urban Design Element. Staff recognizes that the element could be streamlined further, but it would have required even more work. The goal was to focus on eliminating text that was clearly not needed. Housing Element. City staff worked with the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) to update the element and incorporate new census data and updated housing targets consistent with the countywide planning policies. The AHA, a countywide organization of which Edmonds is a member, completed a housing profile for the City, and data from this document was used to update the housing element. References to the County's Housing Affordability Strategy (no longer applicable) were removed, and the new partnership with the AHA was noted. The goals and policies were reformatted and minor changes were made to the text. A performance measure was added relative to the number of housing units added over a period of time compared with the City's goal. A key implementation action step was added, as well, which calls for the City completing a detailed housing strategy by 2019 to identify different options, tools and information by which the long and mid-term decisions could be considered. • Economic Development Element. Much of the background narrative in this element was rewritten to account for outdated information. For example, the policies were modestly revised to address tourism and to provide more information about the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) which was adopted after the original Economic Development Element was written. A performance measure was added to report the number of new jobs within the City each year compared with the City's target over the next 20 years. Community Culture and Urban Design Element. In this element the urban design goals and objectives were simplified, and the urban design goals and objectives contained in the Land Use Element were moved to the Community Culture and Urban Design Element. Text was added to the narrative to recognize the importance of trees and the significance of arts and historic preservation. In addition, the data was updated and housekeeping and formatting changes were made. Rather than a performance measure, two implementation action steps were added. First, is developing an updated Street Tree Plan in 2016; and second, is developing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) by 2017. Although some minor revisions have been made to the Street Tree Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, a more significant update is needed in the future. In addition, the Planning Board has expressed support for an UFMP, as it would provide a lot more policy and oversight with regard to tree management. • Utilities Element. Few changes have been proposed for this element because detailed information is included in separate functional plans for each utility. However, a new performance standard was added relative to the amount of lineal feet of old water, sewer and stormwater mains replaced or rehabilitated both annually and program -to -date. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 Capital Facilities Element. More detailed inventory maps and a list of capital facilities was added to this element, consistent with State Law that requires an inventory of major facilities. Text was added relative to concurrency management, and several minor changes were made to the project list in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) based on the capital needs of the City and available funding. The project list also includes a list of projects that would be nice to do if funding becomes available, but there is no reasonable funding source at this time. Data, housekeeping and formatting updates were also made. A performance measure is project delivery based on a comparison of expected results from the approved CFP to the actual results. She recalled that the Board asked that this performance measure be clarified, and she suggested possible rewording could read: `Project delivery results —based on comparing projects in the Capital Facilities Plan to what was actually done on the projects. " • Transportation Element. This element would be reviewed in greater detail by Mr. Hauss, Transportation Engineer. Mr. Hauss recalled that he and the consultant came before the Planning Board in February to discuss the goals and policies in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and in May to review the project list and Level of Service (LOS) standards. He provided a matrix outlining the staff and consultant's response to each of the questions raised previously by the Board and reviewed each question and response as follows: • Revise the Introductory Statement. The statement was rewritten to read, "Goals are generalized statements which broadly relate the physical environment to values. Under each goal, policies are listed that provide specific direction for meeting the goals. " • Add additional references to maintenance. This was addressed in Goal 7 of the policies. • Add reference to pedestrian connections and protection of the natural environment. This was addressed in Policy 3.18. • Add a reference to "walkway path" instead of "sidewalk." This was addressed in revised Goal 4. • Add a reference to Complete Streets. This was added in Policy 5.1. • Add a reference to electric vehicles and charging stations. This was addressed in Policy 6.22. • Add a reference to transit connections. This was addressed throughout Goal 6. • Add Level of Service (LOS) criteria. This specific criteria was included in Table 3-3. • Add an in-depth definition for "non -motorized transportation." Definitions for motorized and non -motorized transportation were provided in the Definition Section found at the beginning of the Transportation Plan. • Provide alternative solutions to certain projects such as Main and 9`h and Puget Drive at 88`h. These alternative solutions are identified as footnotes in Table 4-1. • Identify a future parking lot at the proposed light rail station on the 220`h Corridor. This was added to Figure 3-18. • Add a project preliminary cost estimate and prioritization. A detailed cost estimate and prioritization was completed for each of the projects, and the information is included in Tables 3-12 and 4-1. • Identify whether any projects in Lynnwood (such as the Highway 99 intersection improvement projects) would have any impact on projected intersection delay and LOS at Edmonds intersections? Since most improvements are located more than one mile away from the Edmonds' intersections, the impact on intersection delay would be very limited. • Identify the sharrows along Sunset Avenue as temporary. A footnote would be added below the figure to make it clear that the current system on Sunset Avenue is temporary on a trial basis. • Explain why there is a priority for walkway paths along collector streets. This will be addressed by removing "according to the priority list" to eliminate confusion. Board Member Robles asked if Mr. Hauss received the written comments he submitted a few weeks ago. Mr. Hauss answered that he forwarded the comments directly to the consultant, and they were considered and addressed in the updated version where appropriate. Board Member Robles said he particularly asked that the terms be defined consistent with the definitions found in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). He also noted some glitches between what is considered a walkway and what is considered a bike path. These inconsistencies can drive someone to an illegal condition or endanger them. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Board Member Stewart voiced appreciation for the handout that outlines the staff and consultant's response to each of the Board's questions and comments. However, she noted that some of the comments she submitted were not addressed. For example, she asked that Policy 3.18 be modified by replacing the word "preserve" with "encourage." She explained that, not only is it important to protect existing easements, but it is also important to encourage even more easements. Changing this one word would facilitate this goal. Mr. Hauss said this change was made in the latest version from the consultant. Board Member Stewart said she also recommended that Policy 3.2 be modified by adding "and sustainable" after "innovative" and before "materials." Mr. Hauss agreed to add this change. Board Member Stewart also recalled her request that the map be updated to identify the bike locker storage facility that is currently available at the train station. Mr. Hauss advised that the storage facility was added to the most recent version of the map. Vice Chair Lovell observed that, although there have been numerous discussions in the City about the need to provide some type of crossing over the railroad tracks, the main body of the Comprehensive Plan does not identify either an overpass or underpass at Dayton and Main Streets to solve the issue. He noted that the language in the last two paragraphs on Page 3-82 of the Transportation Plan specifically addresses the need for an Edmonds waterfront at -grade crossing, and he wants to make sure it is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hauss clarified that the Transportation Plan would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as the Transportation Element, including the statement referenced by Vice Chair Lovell regarding the need for an at -grade crossing. However, there is nothing in the Transportation Plan that specifies that either an overpass or an underpass would be the preferable solution. The City Council has allocated funding for a study in 2016 to determine the best approach for addressing the problem. Chair Tibbott noted that the performance measure uses the term "sidewalk" rather than "walkway path." Mr. Hauss said the term has been changed to sidewalk throughout the latest version of the document. Ms. Hope explained that the current Comprehensive Plan includes a lot of documents that were adopted by reference, and most would be removed in an effort to streamline. However, some (i.e. Shoreline Master Program, Edmonds Swedish Hospital Master Plan, Community Cultural Plan, and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan) would be retained. She noted that the latter two were recently updated in 2014. The proposed appendices include the Streetscape Plan and the Street Tree Plan, which was recently updated to replace the poor performing species with other species as recommended by the Tree Board. Ms. Hope invited the Board Members to conduct the public hearing, ask questions and identify additional changes, and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. A public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for June 16th, followed by a study session and discussion on June 23rd and final adoption on July 7`h. This schedule allows the City to meet the State's deadline of mid 2015. A copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan has been forwarded to the State as required, and they may provide comments in the interim period. Chair Tibbott reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, said she already submitted written comments outlining the heavy editing she believes is required in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center in regards to Edmonds Crossing. However, she also asked that the section related to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center be modified by removing the reference to taller buildings. She said the language is vague and suggests that the City Council has approved taller heights in the bowl, which the Harbor Square discussion indicated they have not. Including this reference is misleading to the public. In addition to the changes outlined in her written comment letter, Ms. Shippen asked the Board to consider adding a major project to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and give it top priority over all other measures. The goal would be to complete the project in two years and it would be financed by a bond issue. This approach would be unlike the City's usually cumbersome planning process. The Planning Board would initiate action and fast track the project. Rather than waiting for 10 years for the project to be funded, the Board could ask Edmonds residents to invest in their community. The project she has in mind is improvements on Main Street from 3rd or 4th Avenues to Sunset Avenue, similar to the work that was done on Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues, which is attractive and successful. She questioned why Main Street has yet to be finished in a City that will be 125 years old next August. She also questioned why any self-respecting town with the resources Edmonds has would accept 10 years as the minimum wait time for the completion of any project. She noted that it Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a did not take 10 years for the underground utilities along 4"' Avenue to be completed, even considering the delay caused by a court case. It didn't take 10 years for the decorative lighting on Main Street to be installed or the first corner parks to be developed. The Planning Board is in a position to bypass the planning inertia that now plaques Edmonds, and she suggested that they try. Stan Piha, Seattle, said he has served as a member of the Highway 99 Task Force since its inception, and he owns property within the Highway 99 district. He noted that he submitted written recommendations to the Planning Board. He said the Highway 99 Task Force has discussed the concept of creating mixed -use nodes around the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations along the Highway 99. This concept has been utilized by both the City of Everett and the City of Lynnwood relative to their Highway 99 districts. The BRT stations are one thing the City of Edmonds has in common with jurisdictions to the north, and the mixed -use nodes within '/4 miles distance of the BRT stations could easily accomplish many of the elements that are being discussed in the Comprehensive Plan (Economic Development, Transportation, Housing and Sustainability). Creating the nodes can also benefit the corridor, itself. The other cities have created ordinances with much greater detail than what is ready to be adopted by the City of Edmonds, but taking a bite out the apple by providing the mixed use nodes around the BRT stations could provide stimulus to start some very positive activity along the corridor. He encouraged the Board to include the concept in the Comprehensive Plan. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed that the temporary pathway on Sunset Avenue is non-standard and does not meet the requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). It should be a walkway only and bicycles should be prohibited. Allowing both pedestrians and bicyclists to use the walkway could result in liability issues for the City. The pathway should either be made wide enough to accommodate both uses safely, or it should be limited to pedestrians only. Mr. Hertrich noted that the project description for the aquatic facility (Page 7 of the Capital Facilities Element Project List) indicates that a feasibility study was done. However, it is important to note that the study did address the opportunity to locate the facility at the old Edmonds Woodway High School site. Although the ESD has been resistant to the idea in the past, they may be more open to the idea in light of major changes that are occurring at the school site. He suggested the City meet again with representatives from the ESD to explore this option further. Mr. Hertrich referred to the third paragraph on Page 54 of the Land Use Element, which contains the statement referenced earlier by Ms. Shippen regarding taller buildings on the waterfront. The fact that there are existing taller buildings on the waterfront is not a reason to develop new taller buildings in that area. He suggested that this sentence be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hertrich recalled that at the recent hearing related to the draft Tree Code, view blockage was a significant concern of the citizens. Property owners are interested in maintaining their property values, which can be significantly impacted by the loss of view. He suggested that public views should be considered in every discussion the Board has regarding land use. For example, although the Street Tree Plan identifies a number of appropriate species for the downtown area, it does not specify how tall they will grow at their maximum height. Mr. Hertrich referred to Vice Chair Lovell's earlier comments about the need to provide safe pedestrian and emergency access over the railroad tracks. He noted that a Sunset Avenue to the waterfront over -the -track connection, providing emergency access for pedestrians and vehicle, would be possible to do at grade level using the street and bluff for height over the tracks. This option could meet all of the City's safety needs and provide a wonderful overlook for pedestrians and tourists who look out over the waterfront. He asked that a study of this option be added to the priority list. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The Board indicated that they received the written comments from Mr. Piha, but some did not receive the written comments submitted by Ms. Shippen. Mr. Lien provided hard copies of Ms. Shippen's comments. Vice Chair Lovell referred to Mr. Piha's earlier suggestion that the City create mixed -use nodes along Highway 99, within proximity of the BRT stops. Mr. Piha suggested that the City follow the concept used by the City of Lynnwood. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that the Edmonds portion of Highway 99 is not large enough to create separate mixed -use nodes. As far as he is concerned, anywhere along Highway 99 in Edmonds is ripe for mixed -use development, and there is no need to limit it to the BRT nodes. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 Board Member Cloutier asked staff to elaborate on why they continue to include the Edmonds Crossing Project in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said that, although many people feel the project will never move forward, the State is considering the project again and it would be reasonable to keep some reference to it in the plan. A lot of work has been done to date. If the project does not move forward, there is no harm in having it in the Comprehensive Plan, but the plan provides important information on how to deal with this important subject. Mr. Lien added that some of the State's responses to the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) related to how the SMP would impact the Edmonds Crossing Project. This leads him to conclude that the Edmonds Crossing Project is still very much on the Washington State Department of Transportation's mind. Board Member Cloutier indicated support for Mr. Hertrich and Ms. Shippen's request that the 3Cd sentence in the last paragraph on Page 54 of the Land Use Element be eliminated. It does not guide public policy or provide a vision for the City that anyone has elaborated on or asked for. In fact, it implies that only the view corridors should be protected when the City's vision is to maximize everyone's view, as well as maximize the use of the land. It is not intended to allow taller buildings outside of the view corridors. The Board agreed to eliminate the 3rd sentence in the last paragraph on Page 54 of the Land Use Element which reads, "The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl," could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. " Board Member Cloutier agreed with Vice Chair Lovell that rather than creating separate BRT nodes on Edmonds' portion of Highway 99, the entire corridor is appropriate for mixed -use development. As written, the proposed language would encourage mixed -use development along the entire corridor, and no additional language is needed. The remainder of the Board concurred that rather than creating specific nodes for BRT stops, the goal is to have mixed -use development all along the corridor. However, they acknowledged that, from a development standpoint, mixed -use development will likely occur first near the transit stops because the BRT service is successful and highly used. Board Member Robles asked if zoning changes have been implemented for Highway 99. Ms. Hope said the City Council did recently adopt some changes that were recommended by the Board that allowed for more residential uses and eliminated the requirement that the first two floors of a development be commercial use. The City Council also allocated funding for a Highway 99 Subarea Plan that will provide more details, and this work will start later in 2015. Chair Tibbott asked if adoption of a Highway 99 Subarea Plan would require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said the subarea plan could be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan or it could be adopted as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan. While it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it would provide much greater detail and involve a lengthy public process, as well. Board Member Stewart suggested that the concept of sustainability should be inserted where appropriate throughout the document. For example, Policy B.1 on Page 57 of the Land Use Element, could be changed to read, "New development should be high quality and varied and encouraged to use sustainable building practices. " Also, Policy B.2 on Page 64 of the Land Use Element could be changed to read, "The City's development policies encourage high -quality and sustainable site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. " Adding the concept throughout the document, where appropriate, would provide consistency with other policies and goals, such as Policy C.3 on Page 67 of the Land Use Element, which states, `Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. " Board Member Stewart suggested that the word "native" be inserted in place of "natural" throughout the entire document. For example, the second paragraph on Page 73 of the Land Use Element could be changed to read, "The beauty of then native growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one development from another. Areas where native vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and education opportunities. " She pointed out that the term "natural" would cover the whole gammit of species, and "native" would be specific to the region. Board Member Steward recommended that Policy B.2 at the top of Page 74 of the Land Use Element be changed to read, "Erect and maintain educational displays that identify some of the more common plants and animal ecosystems and habitat. " She also suggested that the examples of major habitat should be changed by eliminating those that are not natural, such as Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 pilings. She explained that habitat is where organisms live in their native environments. Rocks and sand are places where animals can live, but pilings are man-made structures that should not be included on the list. Board Member Robles recalled that the Board spoke early on about sustainability being defined as natural sustainability, as well as resilience (the community's ability to withstand an externality). There is a lot of good language in the Comprehensive Plan that makes this distinction, but the word "resilience" isn't resident at least in the beginning. The terms should be able to be used interchangeably. Including the word resilience is important because the measurement is different. Resilience could actually encompass the earlier suggestions related to access over the tracks to the water. Having the ability to evacuate people quickly in the event of a disaster is a form of resiliency. Board Member Robles noted that the Housing Element does not mention short-term housing or at least short-term rentals. While it is not necessary to specifically name the platform by which those transactions are conducted, it could be part of the housing component and part of the resilience component. If something were to happen, why should someone have to live outside of Edmonds while their home is being rebuilt? Board Member Robles expressed support for the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals for Highway 99, particularly the buffer areas. This was important to the adjacent residential property owners, and he assumes it will also include the back of commercial buildings. While it may be seen as an infringement on the commercial property owners' rights, it is something that must be included in the plan to protect residential property owners. Board Member Robles observed that the plan talks a lot about having a pedestrian atmosphere and there is a lot of information about how communities are forming intellectual atmosphere as well. Maybe there's an opportunity to suggest this concept. For example, an engineering company wanted to locate in downtown Edmonds but the zoning restricted the use in certain parts of downtown. The City's Economic Development Director was very flexible and helped the company define what they are in order to fit within the code. Perhaps this approach could be codified to allow for some exceptions under certain conditions. It is important to have the ability to accept new ideas that come up. He also said he likes the removal of the term "economic growth" and the emphasis on economic development, which will pay dividends into the future. Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich's concern about Sunset Avenue and whether or not the temporary walkway is ADA compliant and sufficient in width to be used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. Ms. Hope said it is important to understand that there are differing opinions about what the appropriate width should be, and the Comprehensive Plan is not the appropriate place to address the issue. Width would be more appropriately addressed in the Development Code. Mr. Hauss explained that the Sunset Avenue Project is a trial, but it does meet the ADA's requirement for both bicycle and pedestrian activity. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that any permanent solution on Sunset Avenue would have to be ADA compliant, as well. Ms. Hope explained that after the trial period, the Public Works Department and Transportation Engineer will review the data collected and report back before a final decision is made. A permanent solution will also require a public process. Board Member Rubenkonig invited staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich's recommendation that the old Woodway High School site be studied as a possible location for a new aquatic center. Vice Chair Lovell said he participated on the task force for the aquatic study, and the Woodway High School site was considered. In fact, he said he met personally with a representative from the ESD to discuss the possibility. The Edmonds School District Board has jurisdictions of the site, and they have indicated they do not want a pool in this location. Therefore, the study focused on the Yost and Harbor Square Athletic Club sites and not the Woodinville High School site. He summarized that the aquatic study is a well -researched plan that has sat on the shelf for a number of years. The school facility is still being used by students, and the ESD has made it clear that they do not want a pool or related activities on the school grounds. He does not believe it would be appropriate to further consider this location. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that view protection is addressed in broad terms in the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically in the Development Code. However, perhaps it is not covered as broadly as some members of the public would like. She asked how the City would go about considering future changes to the Development Code to address view. Ms. Hope said language related to view protection was added into the Urban Design Element, particularly regarding trees. Perhaps future code updates will be needed to address the issue more specifically. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that views are also addressed in the framework goals included in the introduction to the Activity Centers Section on Page 41 of the Land Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Use Element. Specifically, the third bulleted item states, "Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes with views and the waterfront. " Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Ms. Shippen's recommendation that the Board initiate a project for Main Street Improvements that would follow a fast track and require funding via a bond. She said she understands the City must follow a certain process for prioritizing capital improvement projects and obtaining funds. She asked if there is also a specific process the City must follow for emergency projects that may take precedent over other projects on the list. Ms. Hope answered that emergency projects may take precident over other projects on the list. She explained that a lot of work goes into identifying the capital projects, and prioritization is based on the perceived needs of the community as well as grant funding opportunities. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important for the process to be transparent so the public understands where the funding comes from and how viable a project is. She recognized that this is all difficult for the staff to predict. Ms. Hope agreed that funding sources for each of the projects is something the City does not always know in advance. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Planning Board has ever dealt with the financing side of projects. Ms. Hope said funding issues are typically addressed by the City Council and not the Planning Board. While the Planning Board can make recommendations to the City Council on issues related funding, they should be sensitive about making recommendations without know a lot of the other associated facts. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands there are limits on what the Planning Board can and cannot do as far as project prioritization and funding. She asked if the State has any discretion over the City Council's decisions. Ms. Hope answered that the State reviews the City's CFP and project list, but they seldom take action unless it is something that affects a State project or goes below the minimum amount of safety required. Board Member Rubenkonig said she believes Ms. Shippen's intent was to help citizens understand where the money for projects comes from and what is taking place with the City's bonding ability to support projects. It is not a matter of it being a lake of transparency, but it is a difficult subject to track. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan update is to include performance measures that will allow the City to be more transparent, but the issue will always come back to money. Ms. Hope explained that the CFP indicates where the funding is expected to come from in each year for a variety of projects. It is based on the best understanding that City staff has about where the money is likely to come from and can be adjusted each year as new information comes available. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that it is up to the City Council to ask the Chief Financial Officer to identify funding opportunities and provide reports relative to funding. Ms. Hope said that, in her experience, Planning Board's do not get into the level of detail that involves funding. Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that a bond level at the magnitude recommended by Ms. Shippen ($7 to $8 million) would require a public vote. If the mechanisms of City government select the project they could perhaps obtain some grant funding, but a bond levy would be required to make the project happen quickly, and the public would have to vote in support of the levy. Unless they request a special ballot, which is costly, it will take several months to put the idea out for public vote. In order to request a bond measure, the City would have to have to complete a significant amount of design work, including costs estimates that are within 5% to 10% of the total cost of the project. This will require considerable expenditure, as well. He summarized that the process will be long and not something that can be done on an emergency basis. He reminded the Board the City Council just authorized the City staff to make an offer of $300,000 for the Conference Center, with the idea that they will come up with money from somewhere. He does not anticipate the City will have any funding to move a Main Street project forward in the near future. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the Comprehensive Plan Update process was close to exhaustive in terms of the number of times the Board was able to review and discuss the changes with the City staff and consultants. It represents the best product the Board can come up with at this time. While the update includes a lot of reformatting, she felt it could be further streamlined in the future to help it be more readable. However, it does provide clear guidance for the City's future and sufficient information to update the Development Code as needed. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 Chair Tibbott said he particularly focused on the performance measures identified at the end of each element. He feels the measures provide additional transparency and accountability to the process and allows the city to review its performance on an annual basis. He asked staff to provide more information about the performance measure for the Housing Element. Ms. Hope referenced the countywide planning policies, which are required by State Law to deal with future growth over the next 20 years. She explained that the State Office of Financial Management identifies the projected growth for the Counties and there is some discretion for each county to allocate the growth among the jurisdictions in a way that is still consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The cities and counties work together to decide how to take on the population over the next 20 years. This effort is further guided by the PSRC's Vision 2040. The preferred location for growth over the next 20 years is within cities rather than in the rural areas. Even within cities, the growth will be focused where there is already infrastructure in place. The idea is to focus most of the growth in the medium and large cities. Chair Tibbott noted that the Housing Element's performance measure calls for tracking the number of units that are created in the City each year. He asked if this would include accessory dwelling units in addition to single-family and multi -family residential units. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively. Chair Tibbott said the performance measure identified for the Economic Development Element would count the number of new jobs added in the City each year. He asked if the City could also count jobs based on type. Ms. Hope said this would be challenging because there would not be sufficient data available on a yearly basis. When data is available, staff could report on both the number and type of jobs created. Chair Tibbott noted that in the performance measures identified for the Community Culture and Urban Design Element, updating the Street Tree Plan would come before adopting an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He suggested that the UFMP be adopted first, as it might provide guidance relative to the Street Tree Plan. Ms. Hope said the City Council is very aware of the need to move forward with the UFMP, but it requires that budget dollars be set aside. Staff has committed to coming back to the City Council with a funding request to begin the UFMP in 2016. Just because the performance measure indicates a deadline of 2017, does not mean the City could not choose to move the UFMP forward in 2016. Chair Tibbott strongly suggested that the UFMP should be adopted prior to updating the Street Tree Plan. Ms. Hope explained that the Street Tree Plan was identified to be first because the changes will be easier, and the UFMP will require a significant public process and require significant funding. While the work could start in 2016, it may not be completed until 2017. Chair Tibbott asked if there is a reason why the Street Tree Plan must be updated prior to adoption of an UFMP. Ms. Hope said staff has received comments that the minor tweaks that have been made to the Street Tree Plan are not enough and additional work is needed. Mr. Lien explained that the Street Tree Plan is applied to new development and requires that trees be planted within the right-of-way in front of the building. One concern is that the trees currently identified in the Street Tree Plan are not the appropriate species for the location. The Tree Board recommended some changes to the Street Tree Plan on a interim basis, but the larger update would not only address species, but the mix and proportion of the different species, as well. This can be more easily addressed outside of the UFMP, but he acknowledged that adoption of an UFMP could inform the Street Tree Plan, as well. He suggested that perhaps the two plans could be done simultaneously. Chair Tibbott said the performance measure for the Capital Facilities Plan is based on project delivery. He said he likes the idea of being able to track the status of each project, but he is not clear how the City would track this information. Ms. Hope said staff discussed this with the Public Works Director who is a proponent of the measure. Without having the exact methodology worked out, the idea is to look at what the CFP says each year and then report back with what has been done on each project. Chair Tibbott summarized that the intent is to provide a broad overview of the status of each project in the CFP. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that many projects take more than one year to complete, but it is important to know the progress that is made each year. He said the Economic Development Commission is working hard to create a performance matrix for the action items identified in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP), as well. They intend to use a similar approach and provide a status report to the public regarding each of the action items. Chair Tibbott said he appreciates that the Comprehensive Plan will adopt, by reference, the Shoreline Master Program, Edmonds Swedish Hospital Master Plan, Community Cultural Plan, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, but he questioned how the City would measure the progress of these plans. Ms. Hope said these plans are related to specific elements within the Comprehensive Plan and will be adopted by reference because they provide critical information, but it is not staffs intent to measure their progress. Vice Chair Lovell said it is likely that the performance matrix that is created for Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a tracking the action items in the SAP will also measure many of the goals and policies contained in the fore mentioned plans. He noted that there are currently 82 action items identified in the SAP, and all have been assigned leads. Again, he said the EDC is working to create a tracking mechanism that is available to the public on line to find out the status of each of the action items. Chair Tibbott said it is his understanding that most, if not all, of the Main Street Project east of 4th Avenue was funded via a grant, and the City paid for the utilities to be undergrounded. Ms. Hope said a large portion of the project was grant funded. Chair Tibbott asked if there are any grant opportunities that might be applicable to a project that improves Main Street towards the water. Ms. Hope said there are no known funding sources at this time, but staff will continue to look for opportunities. Chair Tibbott asked to what extent the Comprehensive Plan could address aesthetic issues, particularly on Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered that the Comprehensive Plan could contain broad statements, but specific codes and regulations would come as part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan that is planned for the near future. The Development Codes would have to be updated to implement the goals and policies contained in the subarea plan once it is adopted. Board Member Stewart suggested that Policy B.2 on Page 74 of the Land Use Element should be expanded to address more than just the beach and near -shore environments. She recalled that, as a leader in the Discovery Program, she also took children into the forested areas to teach them to leave elements in place for animals to use. She suggested the language be changed to read, "Prevent unnecessary disturbances of native species in their respective habitats. " Ms. Hope referred to Board Member Stewart's earlier suggestion that the term "natural" should be changed to "native" throughout the document. She reported that Mr. Chave reviewed the document and tried to identify when "natural" and "native" would be the appropriate. She asked for additional direction from the Board about whether or not they want to change "natural" to "native" in all cases throughout the document. She pointed out that native habitat and plants are important, but there are times when non-native plants are also very useful in the environment. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible to identify specific areas in the City where native plants would be required, and the term "natural" could be applied to all remaining areas. Ms. Hope explained that the language in the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies will help inform what the Development Code should be. If the Comprehensive Plan says "native" but the intent is really to allow some other "natural" species, it may be difficult to adopt or amend the code while taking this policy into account. Chair Tibbott asked if it would be possible to articulate natural landscaping, with a preference for native. Ms. Hope agreed that this approach would put the focus on native species, but it would not be exclusive. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the City has been identified as a National Wildlife Habitat Community, which means it should encourage property owners to plant species that benefit and support wildlife. However, she agreed that perhaps it would not be appropriate to require native species in all situations, and she encouraged the staff to use their best judgment. Chair Tibbott inquired how staff would address the comments and recommendations put forth by the Board. Ms. Hope commented that the input and suggestions provided by the Board would not be considered substantive changes in policy direction. The Board could simple make a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Update, including the changes the have been discussed. Chair Tibbott noted that the City Council would also have the benefit of the meeting minutes, which will become part of the public record. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED AND INCLUDING THE INPUT AND COMMENTS DISCUSSED AND AGREED TO BY THE PLANNING BOARD DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10, 2015. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTRODUCTION TO IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3992 as an emergency interim zoning ordinance on March 17t". As the interim ordinance expires in six months, the Planning Board must review the language and forward a recommendation for a permanent ordinance to the City Council by September. A public hearing before the Planning Board is tentatively set for July 8th. He explained that the intent of the interim ordinance is to address irreconcilable applications on the same Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal, he provided the following examples: 1. An applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three -lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four -lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi -family development and subsequently, another design review is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space, they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples. 1. An applicant submits a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. 2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site -improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant could not be able to resubmit an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change. Vice Chair Lovell requested clarification of the provision that would be in ECDC 20.02.006. Mr. Lien said this provision is already in the code, and the proposed change would simply relocate it from its current location in 20.07.007. The title to the section would be changed, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig asked who would be responsible for determining whether or not there has been significant change. Mr. Lien answered that the decision would be made by the Planning Director. Board Member Rubenkonig also asked why the first application, rather than the second application would be deemed withdrawn. Mr. Lien pointed out that applications can only be submitted by property owners, and it is assumed that the most recent application would be the one the property owner wants to put forward. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the draft ordinance would be scheduled for a public hearing on July 8th The Board took a break from 9:15 to 9:25. CONTINUED REVIEW OF DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE WAO) UPDATE Chair Tibbott explained that Mr. Lien would present the Staff Report relative to the CAO Update. However, due to the lateness of the hour, the Board Members would not be invited to comment and discuss the proposed changes following the presentation. Instead, the Board Members can email their comments and recommendations directly to staff so they can be incorporated into the final version that is scheduled for a public hearing in July. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a Mr. Lien reviewed that he introduced the CAO update to the Board on March 25th and presented modifications to the CAO on April 22nd. At this meeting, staff will discuss proposed changes related to Frequently Flooded Areas (FFA), which are, by definition, considered critical areas. They will also discuss the existing native vegetation requirement contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.040.C, as well as a proposed new section in ECDC 23.40.215, which pertains to Critical Area Restoration Projects. Freauentiv Flooded Areas Mr. Lien reported that the consultant is recommending the City require compensatory storage for development around Lake Ballinger. He explained that because of existing geology, particularly the 25 feet of peat on the south side, it is not feasible to do compensatory storage mitigation around Lake Ballinger. As such, staff is not proposing a compensatory storage requirement at this time. Mr. Lien said the consultant is also recommending that the City require that new residential structures within the floodplains be elevated to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), which is the elevation of the 100-year flood event). He pointed out that the City's floodplains are largely contained in two areas: the downtown waterfront area and around the shores of Lake Ballinger. He provided maps to illustrate the floodplains around the shores of Lake Ballinger, as well as along the waterfront. He advised that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a Coastal Flood Risk Review for Snohomish County in 2014. Although the map provided in the review is not currently effective, it does illustrate the likely location of the floodplains along the waterfront. He noted that the floodplain area was significantly expanded in the draft map, which also establishes the BSA at about 12 feet above sea level. There are a few other floodplains identified in the City, including Shell Creek downstream of Caspers and a few more along the shoreline to the north. Mr. Lien noted that Lake Ballinger is a highly -controlled environment with the level of the lake controlled by a structure at the McAleer Creek outlet of the lake, and it is not likely that the flood events that happened in 1997 and 2007 will occur in the future around the lake. At this time, staff is not proposing any changes regarding construction being elevated above BFE around Lake Ballinger. Mr. Lien said sea level rise should be considered when allowing development within the FFA near waterfront area. He provided a graph to illustrate the results of recent studies from the Mote Marine Laboratory and the National Research Council (NRC) relative to sea level rise. As per the NRC study, the mean projection for sea level rise by 2050 is 6.5 inches, and the mean project by 2100 is 24.3 inches. By the end of the century, there is likely to be a sea level change of two feet. When considering development along the waterfront, the City should consider the life of the buildings and whether or not the City should plan for potential sea level rise. Mr. Lien explained that flood plain areas are largely regulated by the Building Code (ECDC 19.00.025), the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. He noted that the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above BSE, but the IBC does require structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. Staff is recommending that the building code be amended (ECDC 19.00.025) to include a Design Flood Elevation (DFE) of 2 feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Ares and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, he acknowledged that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE would impact the overall height allowed. The maximum allowable height is currently measured from an average level of the undisturbed soil as defined by ECDC 24.40.030. Where existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, requiring structures to be built 2 feet above BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain existing height allowances, the Planning Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation from which the maximum height of the structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 2r.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16). Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Zones Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.a Mr. Lien said staff is proposing to change ECDC 23.90.040, which requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He explained that the provision has characteristics of a provision in King County's CAO that was struck down by Washington Court of Appeals. Currently, the requirement is tied to the zone rather than to habitat. For example, he is working on an application for a 7-lot subdivision at the corner of 9t" Avenue and Caspers Street. It is currently a grass field that has no habitat, and the current provision requires the applicant to provide a native landscaping plan to show how they will provide a 30% native vegetation area. He reviewed that, initially, staff and the consultants drafted provisions that would replace this section with new requirements for biodiversity areas and corridors. However, it is clear that more study is needed to fully develop standards for retention and connection of biodiversity areas and corridors. Based on the current budget and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new biodiversity areas and corridors code provisions. However, it could be addressed at a later time with information developed in association with an Urban Forest Management Plan. Mr. Lien said staff is now proposing changes to provide more definition to specific habitat features to be retained by the provision such as indigenous species, native significant trees and snags. Additionally, a section would be added to allow the Director to waive the provisions of ECDC 23.90.040.0 where the habitat is nonexistent on a particular property. He explained that the proposed revisions will provide continued protection for naturally vegetated areas of the City that are important for wildlife habitat while also providing a more defensible code in line with the findings of the court case mentioned previously. Restoration Proiects Mr. Lien explained that the City does not wish to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's critical areas. Therefore, staff is proposing a new section (ECDC 23.40.215) that would grant relief for restoration projects not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief would be a reduction to the standard buffer otherwise required by the critical area regulations. He further explained that two types of projects would be eligible for relief under ECDC 23.40.215: • Daylighting of a stream, or • Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland and/or its buffer Mr. Lien advised that a restoration project may apply a buffer equal to 75% of the standard buffer. A restoration project proponent may request a buffer be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer if: • A 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property. • It is the minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project. • There would be a net environmental benefit. • Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that a public hearing on the draft CAO has been scheduled for July 8`h. He recalled that the Board was scheduled to discuss the CAO at their May 27th meeting, but the discussion was postponed due to time constraints. He invited Board Members to forward their comments and suggestions to him for consideration as he prepares a draft code for the public hearing. He anticipates the Board will have an additional meeting after the public hearing to discuss the more complicated provisions contained in the draft CAO further. Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that it will be important for the draft CAO to provide specific language and methodology for implementing the various provisions in the CAO prior to the hearing. He said this is particularly important for the issue related to height of structures in Coastal Flood Hazard Zones given the currently proposed provision that would require new residential structures to be elevated. Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to email him their thoughts on the issue and said the draft CAO that is presented for public hearing will provide specific language to address this issue. He reminded them that he previously presented two options for addressing height: through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 24.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code (ECDC 16). Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.a Board Member Robles questioned if the City really wants to legislate the elevation of buildings in the Coastal Flood Hazard Zones. Another option would be a "build at your own risk" approach. Developers know that sea level is rising. Mr. Lien pointed out that the IBD already requires some structure to be built above the BFE. Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members to submit their comments and recommendations to Mr. Lien as soon as possible. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott announced that the Planning Board's retreat is scheduled for June 24"b in the Edmonds Swedish Hospital Board Room, starting at 6:00 p.m. At least a portion of the meeting would involve a conversation with representatives from Verdant Health regarding their future plans for the hospital property. He agreed to provide more detailed information about the location soon. It was noted that the retreat would be open to the public, and staff would notice the meeting details as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott did not have any additional items to report. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Cloutier observed that a public comment earlier in the meeting appeared to suggest that the Planning Board prepared and endorsed the draft Tree Code, which was the subject of a public hearing before the Board on May 27`'. He clarified that the Board reviewed the Tree Code in a public meeting, but it was not something the Board wrote. The fact that people came to the hearing does not mean the Board is not doing its job correctly. The Planning Board fulfilled its responsibilities by publicizing a public hearing and encouraging the public to participate. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their hard work on the heavy documents the Board has received in past months. She also thanked the Board Members for taking time to review the documents and participate in the discussions. She asked that staff date each draft that is prepared so the Board Members can easily identify the most recent version. She also suggested it would be helpful for the Board to reach a consensus on whether they will work from the clean or marked up copies. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is a Waste Warrior for the Snohomish County Extension's Sustainable Community Stewards Program. Her group recently worked at the Rotary Club's Edmonds Waterfront Festival, diverting over 900 pounds of organic waste from the landfill, and the are waiting for numbers for the amount of recyclable materials that was diverted, as well. She concluded that they were able to improve over last year's, and they plan to work at the Taste of Edmond, as well. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 10, 2015 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 8, 2015 Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Chair Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Carreen Rubenkonig (arrived at 7:05) Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Nathan Monroe BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 2015 RETREAT BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board postponed approval of the June 10, 2015 minutes until the next meeting. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, recognized that the Board does not make laws and regulations for the City, but he urged them to carefully read and review the draft code language that comes before them before making a recommendation to the City Council. The language should be written in very general terms that are easy for everyone to understand. He referred the Board to the clear cut that occurred on a property on 232nd Street. He noted that his property is located just behind the property that was cleared and four of his trees were damaged and likely destroyed by the activity that occurred. One of the damaged trees is a 160-foot Douglas Fir. He reviewed that on July 6, 2004, the City Council adopted a code change allowing procedural exemptions for projects that require Architectural Design Board review. During its review, a City Council member specifically asked if the provision was intended to be an exemption from the tree clearing code or to get past the small item of not being able to clear for a subdivision. Staff emphasized that the provision was intended to be a procedural exemption and that the process would be required to adhere to the code. Now the Planning Division staff is interpreting the provision as an exemption for all projects (see ECDC 18.45.50 and ECDC 18.45.030). Packet Pg. 18 2.A.b Mr. Blumenkamp referred to the design standards, which require that trees and shrubs be shown on the proposed landscape plan and incorporated into the landscape plan if they are reasonably attractive and of good quality. He noted that with the project he referenced earlier on 232nd Street, the developer removed approximately 13 trees that were 20 inches or more in caliper. His guess is that most of these trees were healthy and attractive. He summarized that the City needs to be very careful when writing and interpreting code, and they need to follow the adopted codes that are in place. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Mr. Chave referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director and included in the Board's packet. Vice Chair Lovell referred to the information provided in the report relative to the State Legislature approving an operating budget, including a transportation package that provides funding for a number of projects that will benefit Edmonds. The report also notes that the Legislature authorized local jurisdictions to raise their vehicle license tab fee from $20 to $40 per year to fund local transportation districts for local improvements. He asked if the City intends to pursue this option. Mr. Chave answered that the issue has not been discussed by the City Council, but it may come up as part of the upcoming budget discussions. Board Member Robles asked if the railroad crossing study would only address vehicular traffic or if it would include pedestrian and human -powered vehicles, as well. He also questioned if the study would be coordinated with the work that is being done at South County Park. Mr. Chave answered that the two projects are not related, but the City's analysis would look at all modes of travel and not just focus on vehicular traffic. The intent is to review the alternatives and identify the best and most feasible solutions. Chair Tibbott confirmed that Vice Chair Lovell would be the Planning Board representative at the sand sculpting contest on July 17th Vice Chair Lovell thanked the Development Services Director for producing the report on a regular basis. The report provides value and keeps the Planning Commission up to date. He commented that he is encouraged by the State Legislature's approval of a number of items that are important to Edmonds, and he hopes it leads to some positive developments in the future. PUBLIC HEARING ON IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 (FILE NUMBER AMD20150001 Mr. Lien recalled that the proposed amendments were first introduced to the Planning Board on June loth. He reviewed that the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 3992 on March 17d' as an interim ordinance to address irreconcilable applications on the same property (ECDC 20.02.004). Interim ordinances may be effective for no longer than six months. The Planning Board is being asked to review the interim ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council on a permanent ordinance that addresses irreconcilable applications. He referred to the draft ordinance (Attachment 2), noting that it is the same language that is contained in the interim ordinance. He explained that the intent of the interim ordinance is to address irreconcilable applications on the same property. As per the interim ordinance, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that could be irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed withdrawn and would not be processed further. To clarify the interim ordinance as it relates to irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal, he provided the following examples: 1. An applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three -lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven lots, the two applications would be considered irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence the four -lot short plat application would be deemed withdrawn. 2. An applicant submits an application for design review of a 20-unit, multi -family development and subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit development whose footprint would substantially Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 2 Packet Pg. 19 2.A.b overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy the same space, they would be considered irreconcilable and the 20-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. To clarify the ordinance as it relates to applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable resulting in withdrawal, Mr. Lien provided the following examples. 1. An applicant submits a four -lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. 2. An applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site -improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a correct version of at least one of the two plans, City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. Mr. Lien said a second part of the interim ordinance relocated a section that had to do with the resubmission of an application after denial from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.07 (Closed Record Appeals) to ECDC 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). As per the language in this provision, an applicant would not be able to resubmit an application within a 12-month period of denial unless there has been a significant change. Mr. Lien recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the code amendments for Irreconcilable Applications and Resubmission of Application After Denial as contained in Attachment 2. Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, pointed out that the term "substantial" is very open and vague. He suggested that a better definition be provided. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chair Lovell requested further clarification of the proposed language related to the resubmission of applications after denial. Mr. Lien emphasized that this proposed change would simply relocate the existing language in ECDC 20.07.007 to ECDC 20.02.006. The existing language has to do with applications that are denied at some point during the review process, and is unrelated to the proposed language relative to irreconcilable applications. As currently written, an application cannot be resubmitted within a 12-month period unless substantial changes have been made. Vice Chair Lovell referred to Mr. Blumenkamp's comment and asked staff to provide some examples of what would be considered "substantial change" to an application that was denied that might warrant looking at it again. Mr. Lien said it would be difficult to provide specific standards for "significant change," since the provision can apply to numerous types of projects. However, he explained that applications are denied for specific reasons, and a significant change could be that the application was altered to address the reasons for denial. For example, if a building permit is denied because it does not meet coverage or setback requirements, the applicant could alter the proposal to meet the standards and then resubmit the application without waiting for 12 months. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps the language could be revised to make it clear that revising an application to correct the findings that led to the denial would be considered a "substantial change." Board Member Cheung reviewed that, as proposed, if a second application is made on the same property as a previous application and the two applications are considered irreconcilable, the first application would be deemed invalid and the second application would apply. He asked if staff would notify the applicant when these situations occur, and Mr. Lien answered that applicants would be notified in writing. Board Member Cheung asked if applicants would also have the ability to modify and/or clarify the first application before it is deemed invalid. Mr. Lien said applicants would have the ability to modify the first application to correct mistakes and then withdraw the second application instead. Mr. Lien explained that the interim ordinance was adopted to address an emergency situation related to a current project application that is under appeal in Superior Court. The applicant expressed a desire to submit a second application without withdrawing the first application. The interim ordinance, as well as the draft permanent ordinance, would require the Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 3 Packet Pg. 20 2.A.b applicant to choose between the first or second application. He noted that this applicant was notified of the interim ordinance right after it was adopted. Chair Tibbott asked staff to provide examples of "substantial changes" in conditions. Mr. Lien said that, in the case of a rezone application, substantial changes could include changes in the rezone criteria, encroachment of additional development, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it would be difficult to cite specific examples of substantial change in the code language because the provision applies to many different application types. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than coming up with specific examples of what would be considered substantial change, it is more important to identify who would be responsible for making the determination. As currently written, the Development Services Director would make the determination, and he/she would be required to act within certain constraints as a representative of the City. The proposed amendment is intended to tidy up the code by placing the provision in a more appropriate location. If the City experiences a rash of situations, precedence could be established over time on how to handle the issue. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the draft language is consistent with the language that was adopted as part of the interim ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the interim ordinance is outlined in Attachment 1, and the proposed language for the permanent ordinance is contained in Attachment 2. Although the language in both attachments is consistent, the Board is only being asked to review the draft language in Attachment 2 and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Cheung asked how other cities address irreconcilable applications. Mr. Lien said he does not know how other cities address the issue. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATIONS AND RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATION AFTER DENIAL AS CONTAINED IN ATTACHMENT 2. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CODE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board received an introduction to the CAO update on March 25th and was provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science (BAS) Report and 2015 Addendum, as well as a Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachments 1 and 2). Staff reviewed potential updates to the CAO (Attachment 3) on April 22nd and June loth. He reminded the Board that all cities and counties in the State are required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt critical areas regulations. State law also requires that the regulations be updated periodically. Critical areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, critical aquifer recharge areas (none in Edmonds), frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas (erosion, landslide and seismic hazard areas). Mr. Lien advised that the City's current CAO was last updated in 2005, and the BAS Report was last updated in 2004. The City hired consultant, ESA, to assist in updating the 2004 BAS Report and identify changes that are needed in the CAO for consistency with BAS. The consultant and staff reviewed the administrative procedures, as well. He highlighted the proposed changes as follows: • Geologically Hazardous Areas. Changes to this section include revising how landslide hazard areas are defined and updating the geotechnical report requirements. In addition, rather than establishing standard buffers and setbacks from landslide hazard areas, appropriate buffers and setbacks will be determined by a geotechnical report. Wetlands. Changes in this section include updating the delineation standards and wetland categories to be consistent with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Guidance for Small Cities. Specifically, buffer widths would be determined by a combination of the category of wetland and habitat score. Required mitigation ratios were also changed to be consistent with the DOE's Guidance for Small Cities. In addition, the exemption section (ECDC 23.50.040(K) was updated to address small hydrologically isolated wetlands (Category III and IV wetlands that are less than 1,000 square feet). As proposed, certain wetland provisions would not apply to small isolated wetlands, but they would not be exempt Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 4 Packet Pg. 21 2.A.b from all wetland development standards as per the existing code. As proposed, small isolated wetlands could be altcred if lost functions are replaced. Native Vegetation on RS-12 and RS-20 Lots. Staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.90.040(C), which requires retention or establishment of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on undeveloped or redeveloped property within the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. He noted that this provision has characteristics of a provision in King County's CAO that was struck down by the Washington Court of Appeals. To address the concerns raised in the court findings, the proposed amendments provide more definition relative to the specific habitat features to be retained. In addition, a section was added that would allow the Director to waive the provision where habitat is nonexistent on a particular property. Mr. Lien recalled that staff and the consultants initially drafted provisions that would replace this section with new requirements for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. However, it later became clear that more study would be needed to fully develop standards for retention and connection. Under the current budget and time constraints, it is not possible to fully flesh out new code provisions at this time. However, the concept could be explored further when the City pursues the development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as currently being discussed in the draft Tree Code review. He expressed his belief that the proposed revisions would provide continued protection for naturally -vegetated areas of the City that are important to wildlife habitat, and also provide a more defensible code in line with recent court findings. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers. BAS for critical areas is largely determined by rural areas where streams and habitat exist. Applying BAS buffers in Edmonds, which is largely built out, does not always make sense. The proposed provision in ECDC 23.40.320(C)(4) would allow development in areas that are functionally isolated and physically separated from a wetland by impervious surface of at least 8 feet. For example, a property located on the opposite side of a road from a stream could be within the proscribed buffer distance, but the road provides a barrier to any benefit the site could provide to the stream. New language was added to the definition of buffer to define a "functionally separated buffer" and a new paragraph was added in the allowed activities section (ECDC 23.40.220) to allow for development within physically separated and functionally isolated portions of a stream or wetland buffer. Development within the Footprint of Existing Development. Because Edmonds was developed prior to the establishment of critical area regulations, many wetland and stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and provide limited function in terms of stream and/or wetland protection. Many buffers are substantially developed and contain impervious surfaces and commercial or residential buildings. Simply applying the standard buffers in situations like this will not provide the necessary characteristics to protect a stream and/or wetlands function. In these situations, it can be better to restore the buffer through enhancement activities. To address these situations, a new definition for "Footprint of Existing Development" (ECDC 23.40.320) was added and new sections were added to the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas that would allow development within the footprint of existing development and require enhancement of the remaining buffer in order to improve functions of the buffer. As proposed new development must be sited as far away from the critical area as possible, and an enhancement ratio of 1:1 would be required. Mr. Lien explained that language in the existing code also allows additions to structures in the critical area buffer that expand the footprint based on a hierarchy of criteria. The proposed amendment would also allow for expansion of the footprint, based on these same criteria. However, additional mitigation would be required as outlined in ECDC 23.50.040(I)(1). As proposed, expansion of the footprint outside the inner 25% of the standard wetland buffer by 300 square feet or less would require a 3:1 mitigation ratio. An addition of 500 square feet or less would require a 5:1 mitigation ratio. Again, he explained that the goal of the proposed change is to improve the critical areas and buffers over what currently exists. Applying standard buffers to all properties would not result in an improvement. Allowing some development within the developed footprint would result in some improvement to the critical areas and their buffers over time rather than keeping the status quo. • Frequently Flooded Areas. While frequently flooded areas are, by definition, critical areas, development within the flood zones in Edmonds (Lake Ballinger and the Puget Sound Shoreline) is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, International Building Code (IBC), and International Residential Code (IRC). While the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the floors must be constructed to Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 5 Packet Pg. 22 2.A.b at least the BFE. The IBC requires structures to be constructed at or up to two feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He referred to Attachment 8, which contains the draft Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the downtown area, which were recently updated in 2014 and will become effective in 2016. Another issue to consider in the Coastal Flood Risk Zones is the effect of sea level rise. The most recent projection for sea level rise in the mid -Puget Sound Region is 24 inches by the year 2100 (National Research Council 2012). Given the pending FIRM map update and projections for sea level rise in Puget Sound, staff is recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to Attachment 4, which provides draft language for incorporating the recommendation into ECDC 19.00.025. Mr. Lien explained that requiring structures to be constructed above the BFE will have impacts on the overall height for structures as allowed by the zoning code. The height of structures is currently measured from an average level of the undisturbed soil. The existing grade along the waterfront is at or below the BFE, so requiring structures to be built 2 feet above the BFE would effectively eliminate 2 feet of the allowable height for a structure. In order to maintain the existing height allowances, the Board should consider whether to modify the development code to establish a new base elevation from which the maximum height of structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones are measured. This could be accomplished through a modification to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030 or through specific allowances within the zoning code. Attachment 4 provides examples of how this could be accomplished. Restoration Projects. The City does not want to discourage restoration projects that would provide a net benefit to the City's critical areas. Therefore, a new section has been proposed (ECDC 23.40.215) to grant relief for restoration projects that are not required as mitigation for a development proposal. The proposed relief is a reduction to the standard buffer otherwise required by the CAO. Two types of projects would be eligible for the relief. Daylighting of a stream or the creation/expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of a wetland and/or wetland buffer. As proposed, a property owner may apply for a buffer that is less than 75% of the standard buffer to the restoration project boundary. The buffer could be reduced to as little as 50% if a 75% buffer would significantly limit the owner's use of the property. The buffer reduction would have to meet the following criteria: minimum necessary to achieve the restoration project, provide a net environmental benefit, and be consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations. Rebecca Wolf, Edmonds, said her home is located within a critical area on 2nd Avenue South (Willow Creek). She said she has attended the Marina Beach Master Plan workshops, at which daylighting of Willow Creek has been a significant topic of discussion. She said she purchased her property because of the creek, and she would like the City to maintain the current buffers and not allow the footprint of development to increase. She shared examples in her neighborhood of how the creek and its buffer have been impacted by activities that the City has allowed to occur. She said she is presently taking a college course relative to the issue of sea level rise. Apparently, there are updated projections that sea level rise of up to one meter is anticipated by 2050 in some areas. She asked that the Board consider these newer projections. Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, stressed that many of the City's codes are vague and not enforced. He particularly referred to a code provisions that prohibits developers from filling, excavating or storing equipment within the drip line of any tree to be retained. However, the example he referenced earlier on 232°d Street illustrates that this requirement is not being enforced by the City staff. He invited the Board Members to visit the property where the clearing occurred. Regardless of the code provisions that are put in place, it is up to the City staff to enforce them fairly and consistently. Ms. Wolf agreed that enforcement of the code provisions is important. She questioned if the City's code prohibits property owners from using chemical fertilizers, etc. within wetlands and their buffers. If so, she asked that the City do more to enforce the requirement. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has current maps of the critical areas inventory that are available to the public. Mr. Lien said the City does have critical area maps that are available to the public, but they do not have them set up as a web - based program yet. He emphasized that the maps are not intended to be regulations; they are more used to inform the staff. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 6 Packet Pg. 23 2.A.b If the maps indicate that a critical area may exist on a subject property, staff visits the site before making a final determination on whether a Critical Area Report would be required. This report would specifically map the critical areas on the property and would be submitted as part of a development application. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 23.40.270(D), which states that the Director may require that critical areas tracts be dedicated to the City as a condition of approval of a subdivision application. This provision would require that the tract be recorded on title. Vice Chair Lovell asked if all critical areas must be recorded on title. Mr. Lien answered that the requirement would only apply to new development proposals. Vice Chair Lovell asked if someone who wants to build a deck in a critical area or its buffer would be required to obtain a permit. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and said a critical area report would be required if it is determined there is a wetland or its buffer on the site. He pointed out that critical area determinations and reports are only valid for five years. Because BAS for critical areas changes over time, this time limit is important. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.40.110(A) and ECDC 23.40.120(A)(3) and said she would like the City's regulations to require more than just "no net loss." The goal should be to improve the existing situation over time. Mr. Lien explained that allowing some development within the buffers, with an enhancement requirement, can result in an improved situation over time as opposed to applying a standard buffer. He noted that the mitigation sequencing (avoid the impact, minimize the impact, rectify the impact) contained in the current and draft CAO are standard across the board and consistent with BAS and the DOE's requirements. A qualified professional would have to show how the mitigation sequencing provision has been met. Mr. Lien specifically referred to 23.90.040(D)(3), which provides different scenarios based on how much a development will encroach into the buffer. He explained that if the code provisions remain the same, there will be no improvements along streams. Allowing development to occur within the buffer areas, with enhancement, will result in improvements that will not likely occur otherwise. The goal is to improve the current situation, not just maintain the status quo; and language regarding this goal was added in various places throughout the draft CAO. Board Member Stewart suggested that the enhancement ratio should be increased from 1:1 to 1.5:1 so there is always an improvement expected of someone who wants to encroach into the buffer area. This would require them to do better than just simply improving the buffer equal to the encroachment. Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3)(e), which applies to buffers that have already been disturbed by existing development. A 1:1 replacement ratio would result in greater than the status quo because it would be enhancing an area that has been previously disturbed. Again, Board Member Stewart voiced concern that requiring a 1:1 ratio would simply result in enhancing a buffer that is equal to the encroachment of new development and would not result in a net gain. Mr. Lien said the City frequently receives requests from property owners who want to add garages where paved areas exist. The garage would not expand the footprint or increase the impact to the stream, but the City would require a 1:1 enhancement somewhere else along the stream. This will improve the condition over what already exists. Board Member Stewart agreed that the provision, as explained by Mr. Lien and Mr. Chave, makes sense. Board Member Stewart asked staff to explain how the proposed definition for "footprint of existing development" came about. Mr. Lien said staffs first attempt was "legally established impervious surface area," but that did not include packed earthen materials. The current definition is the result of several iterations and includes not only structures and areas of pavement, but also packed earthen materials, etc. As currently proposed "footprint of existing development" means " It does not include yards which are not necessarily in their natural condition. Board Member Stewart suggested that a buffer that is separated from a wetland by an 8-foot sidewalk should not be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. She noted that there are numerous options for converting impervious sidewalks to pervious pathways. Vice Chair Lovell felt that requiring a developer to replace an existing sidewalk with pervious materials would be an unreasonable demand. Board Member Stewart said she is not comfortable with designating a buffer area as physically separated and functionally isolated if it is separated from the critical area by an 8-foot sidewalk. At the very least, the separation should be 15 feet. Mr. Lien said it is important to provide a definition of what the width should be, and the consultant has recommended that 8 feet of paved area provides sufficient separation where the area Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 7 Packet Pg. 24 2.A.b on the other side is not providing function to the critical area. He emphasized that the provision only applies to wetlands and not landslide hazard areas. He suggested that perhaps the sidewalk width could be increased to 12 feet, which is the standard driveway width in the single-family zones. Board Member Stewart requested examples from other jurisdictions relative to the physically separated and functionally isolated provision. She wants to ensure the City is not being too aggressive and that the proposed language is consistent with the City's values. Mr. Lien agreed to talk with the consultant about whether or not the current driveway standard could be applied to sidewalks in this situation, as well. However, he said it might be difficult to find examples from other jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions end the buffer where the pavement starts and do not require enhancement, which is different than what the City envisions. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Army Corps of Engineers has changed how they look at buffers. Roadways used to be considered legal barriers. Chair Tibbott asked if roadways that bisect critical areas and their buffers would be allowed to drain into the critical areas and /or buffers. Mr. Lien answered that the City's stormwater regulations require that stormwater runoff associated with new development be contained on site, and it would not allow the water to drain into a stream. The City would not approve a development that allows runoff to go across the street and into the critical area. Board Member Stewart asked if eagles have been delisted as endangered species, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Lovell asked if redevelopment of an entire block would be required to meet the standard buffer provisions if there is a stream or wetland present or would a developer be allowed to develop consistent with the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien answered that the standard buffers would apply. However, there are specific non -conforming provisions that would allow a house that is destroyed by fire to be rebuilt using the same footprint. Board Member Robles voiced concern that requiring redevelopment to meet the standard buffer would reduce property values significantly. Board Member Stewart said her interpretation was that a property could be redeveloped using the existing footprint. Again, Mr. Lien said that would only be allowed if the structure burns down. If a developer purchases an entire block for redevelopment, development would be allowed within the critical area buffers but enhancement would be required. Board Member Monroe observed that, as currently proposed, developing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that encroaches into the buffer area would require enhancement. Mr. Lien agreed and referred to 23.40.040(D)(4), which outlines the sequencing criteria for locating additions. He reminded the Board that the first choice is to locate the structure outside of the standard stream buffer, followed by outside the stream buffer averaged with enhancement and then outside of a stream buffer reduced with enhancement. The last choice would be outside the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer. He noted that a 500 square foot ADU that is outside the inner 25% of the standard stream buffer would require a 5:1 enhancement ratio or 2,500 square feet of enhancement. Board Member Monroe asked what happens if there is not sufficient area to provide the required 2,500 square feet of enhancement. Mr. Lien said there are other enhancement options (ECDC 23.40.140) such as removing some of the stream armament or paying into an in -lieu -of fund for an enhancement project elsewhere in the City. Board Member Cheung asked how many properties in Edmonds are impacted by the CAO. Mr. Chave said that would be difficult to identify. Board Member Robles asked if a buffer would be required for the stream in his backyard, which is in a culvert. Mr. Lien answered that if the stream is converted, no buffer would be applied to it. However, it would be great if the code language included provisions that encourage people to open the culverts via restoration projects without being penalized by larger buffers. He noted that some streams are both open and in culverts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the critical area report that is done by a qualified professional would simply identify the wetland and/or buffer that is on the subject property or if it would also identify how the wetland is part of a larger contiguous area. Mr. Lien said the goal of the wetland determination is to determine whether or not a wetland delineation will be required. If a critical area report is required, the qualified professional will identify whether or not all three conditions for a wetland can be met. The analysis will also address the size of the wetland, which is part of the overall rating system. The analysis may extend off site. While the consultant may not have the authority to go on neighboring properties, they can use aerial photographs, etc. to make this determination. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 8 Packet Pg. 25 Board Member Rubenkonig asked if a developer would only be required to address buffer requirements for the subject property. Mr. Lien answered that the CAO requirements would only apply to the property that is proposed for development. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it is possible for portions of a wetland to be classified to a higher category. Mr. Lien answered that a wetland would not likely have different categories. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to ECDC 23.50.010(B), which outlines the proposed rating system for wetlands. She suggested that the introductory paragraph be modified to identify the number of points that qualify wetlands for the various categories. For example, the higher classifications wetland classifications require 23 points, and the lower require just 16 points. Mr. Lien agreed to seek input from the consultant regarding this request. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that there is no size connected with bogs. Mr. Lien explained that, as per DOE's requirement, bogs are categorized as Type I Wetlands regardless of size, but there are no bogs in Edmonds currently. Board Member Rubenkonig referenced ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(b) and suggested that the language could be worded to be a more positive statement. Mr. Lien pointed out that ECDC 23.50.030(F)(1)(a) states what is required if the standard buffer is applied, and the following item outlines what is required if an applicant chooses not to comply with the mitigation measures. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that she finds the approach used for the proposed CAO update to be appropriate and effective, as it merges all of the different authorities into one place. This will be less confusing for the residents of Edmonds. Chair Tibbott asked staff to elaborate on the other innovative options for buffer enhancement when there is no reasonable opportunity on site. Mr. Lien said the options include removing armament, paying into an in -lieu -of fund for another enhancement project in the City, or participating in a state -certified wetland mitigation bank. He explained that both Jacobsen's Marine and American Brewing Company utilized the in -lieu -of option. In each case, the property owners paid into the fund an amount commiserate with the size of the project. Chair Tibbott asked if it was easy to identify the mitigation that was required. Mr. Lien answered that a 1:1 ratio is easy to apply. Chair Tibbott asked what would happen if there is no City project to contribute to. Mr. Lien said applicants could contribute a fee -in -lieu of fund for future City projects, or they could choose to participate in a mitigation bank. He explained that mitigation banks have been established throughout the State, but it is difficult for the City to participate in the programs because they are not really connected to the larger water sheds and all of the City's drainage goes into Puget Sound. The City would prefer that the mitigation funds be used for projects within the same watershed. While banks are an option, there are no established banks that include Edmonds in their service area. The code, as written, would allow the City to participate if and when a bank is available. Chair Tibbott asked if the code promotes the establishment of mitigation banks, and Mr. Lien said it does not necessarily promote banks, but it does allow them. Mr. Chave commented that he does not believe the City will run out of enhancement projects with all of the culverts and impacted streams throughout the City. The in -lieu -of option would be superior to contributing to a vague mitigation bank Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), which requires the City to establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands. Rather than a covenant, Mr. Lien said limiting the use of pesticides could be a condition of project approval. Chair Tibbott asked if herbicides and other chemicals can be applied within critical areas and/or their buffers. Mr. Lien said the consultant recommended that language be added to the CAO to address this issue. He referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7), which allows for the removal of vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment. It provides a list of vegetation that can be removed to include: invasive and noxious weeds, English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Evergreen blackberry, Scot's Broom and Hedge and Field Bindweed. ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7)(d) allows the application of herbicides, pesticides, organic and mineral -derived fertilizer or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the City, provided that their use shall be restricted in accordance with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Management. The consultant recommended the provision because, in some cases, the use of herbicides is the best approach for controlling invasive species and noxious weeds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City would not independently allow the use of herbicides. They will refer to the regulatory authority to determine what types of herbicide are allowed for particular applications. Homeowners would not be allowed to use herbicides that have not been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 9 Packet Pg. 26 2.A.b Board Member Rubenkonig asked what a citizen should do if they see someone using chemicals in wetland areas. Mr. Lien suggested they submit a code enforcement request. Chair Tibbott asked if the property owner or the company applying the chemical would be held responsible. Mr. Lien said that, ultimately, both the property owner and the company would be held responsible. Board Member Robles asked if a citizen complaint would become part of the public record. If so, this would create a disincentive for someone to report a problem? Mr. Chave said the complainant can ask to remain anonymous, recognizing that there is no guarantee that his/her name won't be revealed through some type of subsequent action. Mr. Lien referred to the list of plant species that can be removed via hand tools and/or herbicides as per ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7). He noted that the list does not currently include alder, which come up by the thousands as seedlings. He suggested the Board consider adding alders to the list of species that can be removed. Board Member Stewart pointed out that alders propagate well, but they also put nitrogen into the soil and provide shade for streams. Mr. Lien said he is not talking about removing all alder trees in Edmonds, but just the seedlings. Board Member Stewart pointed out that if all the seedlings are removed, no new alders will grow. Vice Chair Lovell said he printed the DOE's list of invasive and noxious weeds. He asked if Mr. Lien is suggesting that alders be added to the list. Mr. Lien clarified that he is not proposing that alders be added to the list of noxious weeds. Instead, they could be listed as a separate item in ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7). He pointed out that, as currently proposed, the removal of vegetation would be limited to 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over a three-year period. Board Member Stewart asked if the City's stream inventory is really as old as 2002. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and advised that the inventory is being updated by the consultant as part of the current update. Board Member Stewart requested further explanation relative to provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, which were struck from the most recent draft. Mr. Lien said the staff and consultant originally proposed Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, but they struggled with the applicable criteria. During the Tree Code discussions, the Board discussed the concept of creating an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), which could include an inventory of the City's forested areas and corridors. Creating provisions for Biodiversity Areas and Corridors will be a large project, and the City does not have the time and/or money to complete the task as part of the CAO Update. Instead, the language was modified to protect the areas in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with streams and steep slopes. The new provisions are tied to the type of habitat to protect throughout the City. He noted that future changes can piggyback with the UFMP. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has maps that identify the corridors. If so, will these corridors be protected as they wait for the UFMP to be adopted? Mr. Lien said the provisions for protecting corridors will remain in the CAO via the requirement that 30% of the native vegetation be retained. However, the new language that was proposed relative to Biodiversity Areas and Corridors is no longer part of the draft proposal. He reminded the Board that the proposed language is intended to tie the requirement to the specific habitats that are being protected. Board Member Stewart indicated support for the proposed new language. Mr. Lien requested Board feedback related to Attachment 4, which outlines options for amendments to the Frequently Flooded Areas Code (ECDC 23.70). He reminded the Board that staff is recommending that the building code be amended to require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of two feet above the BFE for all new structures within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. However, staff also recognizes that this requirement will create issues relative to the height limit. Board Member Robles asked if the City is bound to the requirements of the IBC. And Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. He explained that, depending on the category of structure, the current buildings are either at BFE or two feet above BFE. The proposed amendment would not only be consistent with FEMA's updated FIRM map that will be effective in 2016, it will also address the anticipated sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100 as identified in the NRC's 2012 study. Mr. Lien explained that the BFE elevation within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones is 12 feet, and a survey of the Senior Center indicates it is at 11 feet. If the City requires structures to be built 2 feet above the BFE, they will essential take away three feet of available height. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 10 Packet Pg. 27 Board Member Robles commented that the construction industry finds ways to mitigate for the calamities that are anticipated. He suggested that perhaps sea level rise should be handled the same way. Rather than putting a law in place to regulate it, they could leave it to the market. Mr. Lien responded that the best way to mitigate for sea level rise is to build up so buildings do not get damaged in the future. He said he had a discussion with the Building Official about how to mitigate for sea level rise. Options include building a wall around the building, but the height of the wall would have to be sufficient to keep flood waters out. The building code requires that certain structures be built two feet above the BFE now and the recommendation is that this requirement should apply to all structures. Mr. Chave added that staffs thought is that inserting provisions relative to sea level rise is a first step. The Board can revisit the issue as additional science becomes available. He summarized that a series of steps need to be taken to fully address the issue, and staff feels it is time to introduce the idea that some sort of mitigation needs to be in the code. Vice Chair Lovell commented that he not only supports the proposed provision, he believes it makes good sense for a city that is very environmental conscious and observant. The City should not ignore this federal guideline and the recommendation is based on BAS. He knows for a fact that not only the Senior Center, but the adjacent condominium development, are flooded regularly. Other approaches are not viable given what science says. While the details of science may change, sea level will continue to rise, and BAS says the City better do something to accommodate it. The only issue left to decide for him is how to best address the height issue. He did not believe it would be viable to reduce the overall height allowed for structures. While allowing additional height may rile some people in the City, he supports a proposal that would measure the 30-foot height from the BFE. Mr. Chave agreed that if the base height of structures is increased by two feet, then the height allowance should be increased accordingly. He emphasized that this would not allow a developer more building. Chair Tibbott asked how often FEMA updates its flood elevations. Mr. Lien said they are not updated often. Mr. Chave explained that while there is a lot of information about sea level rise along the coast, it varies substantially. The most generally accepted study for Edmonds is the 2012 study that was done by the NRC, which indicates the average rise will be two feet. The City will monitor this going forward. If the science changes at some point, the City has an obligation to revise codes to reflect the changes. The proposed amendment will introduce the subject into the code and get people used to the idea. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that the proposed language does not address sidewalks, railroad tracks, roadways, etc., all of which could be impacted by sea level rise. Perhaps sea level rise should be considered as the City studies options for addressing access over or under the railroad tracks. Board Member Robles agreed and questioned how many other projects need to address this same issue, such as the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. He questioned if there is a technological way to mitigate things in a way that complies with future science but is not bound by the two foot above BFE requirement. Again, Mr. Lien said the only other option offered by the Building Official was building a wall. Mr. Lien noted that, as proposed, the BFE will be measured at the finished grade of the first floor of the structure. There are certain building code standards for how the materials below the first finished grade must be treated. Board Member Robles noted that, as proposed, a developer could construct a parking garage below the BFE. Mr. Lien referred to the examples in Attachment 4 for addressing the height issue. One option would be to add a footnote to the maximum height within the site development standards table for each zone impacted by the Coastal Flood Hazard Zones (CW, P, MP2, BC, BD2, OR, RM-2.4, RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20, OS and CG). Again, he noted that this same footnote would need to be added to each zone. A second option would be to add the same language to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030. In either case, the language would read, `For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. " Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that any new language, either in the footnote or the height exception, should include a reference to the applicable FEMA Flood Plan Map. It should be clear to the reader that the requirement is coming from outside of the City. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 11 Packet Pg. 28 2.A.b Mr. Chave suggested that it would make more sense to add language in the height definition, and the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said it is quite likely that the height definition will be relocated as part of the overall Development Code Update. Typically, the City avoids having regulations buried in the definitions. However, the way the code is currently set up, it makes more sense to add the new language to the height definition. Mr. Lien advised that the Board will have one more meeting regarding to the CAO on July 22nd. At that time, staff anticipates the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. He summarized that the Board would like him to work further on the language for "physically separated and functionally isolated" language, particularly relative to 8-foot sidewalks. Board Member Monroe said he would like more information about regulations pertaining to structures that are torn down and redeveloped. He would like the Board to consider language that would allow these structures to be rebuilt if they are within the same footprint. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the non-conformance standards address when structures are destroyed by fire, but Board Member Monroe is interested in addressing replacement of structures in general. He agreed to provide additional information regarding this issue. Board Member Monroe said he is concerned that the proposed language would result in housing of the 1970s, with nonconforming structures being maintained instead of taking advantage of new building techniques. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROCESS Mr. Chave referred the Board to the written report prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that the consultant is working on code language and options, which will be presented to the Board for review in the near future. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott reminded the Board that they would continue their discussion relative to the CAO Update at their July 22nd meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott thanked the Board Members for their participation at the recent retreat. He felt it was worthwhile to hold the retreat off site to give the Board Members a flavor for another location in the City where a lot of development activity is occurring. He encouraged the Board Members to visit the Verdant site and take note of the projects that are in progress. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the June Economic Development Commission (EDC) Meeting. There wasn't a quorum present, so they were unable to conduct official business. The Director of the Chamber of Commerce provided an update on the group's activities, and there was some discussion about activities the Chamber sponsors. He said he plans to attend the next EDC meeting on July 15th Board Member Robles said he accepted Versant's invitation to visit their facilities. The office and classroom space is a fantastic resource for health care professionals who serve citizens in Snohomish County. Board Member Stewart reported that she attended the open house for the Marina Beach Park Master Plan, which was held just prior to the Board's meeting. There is currently one option presented for public review, and the electronic open house will start on July 9d' via the City's website. She encouraged the public and Board Members to participate. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2015 Page 12 Packet Pg. 29 5.A Planning Board Agenda Memo Meeting Date: 07/22/2015 Subject: Development Services Director's Report Prepared By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Staff Lead: Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Director's periodic report/update is attached. Attachments: Director. Report.07.22.15 Packet Pg. 30 5.A.a oY EDM MEMORANDUM Date: July 22, 2015 line From: Subject Planning Board Members Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report Upcoming Public Meeting on Sign Code Whether and how the City's sign code should be updated will be the subject of an August 3 public meeting/open house sponsored by the Development Services Department. The primary focus is expected to be on A -frame signs in the downtown area. Residents and business representatives are likely to be most interested. The event will start at 6 pm in the Council Chambers, 250 5t" Ave N. Feel free to let people know about the August 3 open house. Also, their comments on sign code issues may be emailed to: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. To view the existing sign code on the City webpage, go to : http://www.edmondswa.gov/rules-and-regulations.html. Then click "Community Development Code (ECDC)", then "Title 20", then "20.60 Sign Code". Historic Preservation Commission The Historic Preservation Commission met July 9 and discussed various topics, including: ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness for the Frances Anderson Center amphitheater ❑ Concept for a downtown historic district Mayors Climate Protection Committee The group's July 9 meeting included: ❑ Briefing on the Comprehensive Plan update ❑ Report on projects in schools ❑ Information on Third National Climate Assessment ❑ Reports from 3 subcommittees Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) The CEDC's July 15 meeting included: ❑ Quarterly communication report ❑ Reports from 3 subcommittees (Tourism, Strategic Action Plan, Business Enhancements) City Council Activities Activities listed below are those most relevant to the Planning Board's interests and work. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 31 5.A.a On July 14, the City Council: ❑ Heard about and discussed the draft SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (which goes next to the Planning Board before returning to the City Council) ❑ Decided to not make a higher offer to acquire the Edmonds Conference Center ❑ Postponed discussion about boards and commissions, due to the lateness of the hour On July 21, the Council agenda includes: ❑ Public hearing on interlocal agreement with Edmonds School District for Woodway fields ❑ Adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Calendar ❑ July 17: Sand Sculpting Contest at Marina Beach 10 am — 12:30 pm ❑ July 19: Free Concerts in the Park (City Park) begins at 3:00 - 4:00 pm ❑ July 19: Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tour ❑ August 11: Edmonds 125t" Birthday Celebration ❑ August 14 - 16: A Taste of Edmonds ❑ August 22: Moonlight Beach Adventure 7:30 — 9:30 pm ❑ August 24: David Stern Memorial Golf Classic ❑ August 29: Petanque Tournament for the Edmonds Food Bank at Civic Playfield 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 32 7.A Planning Board Agenda Memo Meeting Date: 07/22/2015 Subject: Continued discussion and potential recommendation regarding Critical Area Ordinance update Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Department: Planning Division Staff Lead: Background/History The Planning Board received an introduction to the CAO update at the March 25, 2015 meeting and was provided copies of the 2015 Best Available Science report and Gap Analysis Matrix (Attachment 5). Staff reviewed potential updates to the CAO at the April 22, 2015 and June 10, 2015 Planning Board meeting (Attachments 6 - 7) and the Planing Board held a public hearing July 8, 2015. Staff Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the critical area regulations as contained in Attachment 3 and the amendments to the building code and definition of height regarding frequently flooded areas as contained in Attachment 4. Narrative All cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). As defined by the GMA, "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b)areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. [RCW 36.70A.030(5)] Counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. All jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to an update schedule. The City of Edmonds critical area ordinance (CAO) update is due in 2015. The City of Edmonds selected environmental consultants ESA to assist the City in updating the City's 2004 Best Available Science Report (Attachment 1) and to evaluate the City's critical area regulations given the changes in science. Attachment 2 contains the Best Available Science addendum and Gap Analysis Matrix of the existing code prepared by ESA. Attachments: a: BAS Addendum Packet Pg. 33 8.A Planning Board Agenda Memo Meeting Date: 07/22/2015 Subject: Draft Complete Streets SR-104 Corridor Analysis Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Department: Planning Division Staff Lead: Background/History The Planning Board previously reviewed the Westgate analysis as part of its review and recommendations on the Westgate plan and code amendments. Staff Recommendation Forward the study/analysis to the City Council for approval. Narrative The SR-104 Corridor Analysis focuses on a 5-mile stretch of principal arterial, from 76th Ave W to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along this regional corridor (high vehicle ADT, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of this analysis was to develop a corridor master plan, identifying safety, access management and streetscape improvements based on Complete Streets principles and integrated with the proposed form -based code for Westgate Village (SR-104 & 100th Ave) and other zoning on SR-104. The City has been working with the engineering firm Fehr and Peers on this Analysis. The traffic modeling, accident history, access management, and safety of all modes of transportation were analyzed along the entire corridor. Recommended improvements are identified to resolve those various deficiencies and then prioritized based on a set of different criteria (safety, accessibility, identity, financial, and grant eligibility). The document also doesn't recommend the addition of bike facilities along SR-104 and therefore identifies alternate routes (for north - south / east — west connections). The interactions between transportation and land use in the Westgate Area were also examined and future recommendations on this matter are included in Appendix C. The analysis was presented to Council on July 14th, 2015 and another meeting will be scheduled at a later date. The project began in October 2014. Comments regarding this analysis were received from citizens at two Open Houses (on February 25, 2015 & June 10,2015), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at a meeting on February 27, 2015, and the SR-104 Committee (which held monthly meetings for the entire duration of the project). Attachments: Draft Complete Streets Analysis.072015 Packet Pg. 34 Draft SR 104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis Cit&ond-s E Washington r OWN 4 VIM i Table of Contents STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................1 ProjectOverview..................................................................................................................................................................1 GuidingPrinciples................................................................................................................................................................1 CommunityOutreach.........................................................................................................................................................2 CORRIDORPROFILE...........................................................................................................................................4 Character.................................................................................................................................................................................4 LandUse..................................................................................................................................................................................7 PhysicalConditions.............................................................................................................................................................9 RoadwayCross-Section....................................................................................................................................9 trafficcontrol.....................................................................................................................................................11 SightDistance....................................................................................................................................................12 AccessManagement.......................................................................................................................................15 TransportationOperations............................................................................................................................................16 N 0 Intersection traffic level of service.............................................................................................................19 Transit.................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Existing................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Future.................................................................................................................................................................... 34 WashingtonState Ferries...............................................................................................................................................36 Parking.................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 RECOMMENDED PLAN....................................................................................................................................37 Corridor Project Recommendations..........................................................................................................................38 ProjectPrioritization........................................................................................................................................................46 QuickWin Projects...........................................................................................................................................................48 WestgatePlan Concept..................................................................................................................................................50 RoadwayCross-Section.................................................................................................................................................. 54 July 2015 DRAFT /A Packet Pg. 36 Jrl rnorrl�; Appendix A Project Diagrams Appendix B Prioritization Results Appendix C Westgate Memoranda Appendix D Level of Service Calculations Appendices List of Figures Figure1. Study Area............................................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Planning Context FOr the SR 104 Complete Street Corridor...........................................................................5 r N O Figure3. Land Uses..............................................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Roadway Cross -Sections And Traffic Control......................................................................................................10 Figure5. Sight Distance Issues.....................................................................................................................................................14 Figure6. Traffic Volume..................................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 7. Intersection Level of Service -PM Peak Hour........................................................................................................22 Figure8. Crashes Along SR 104...................................................................................................................................................25 Figure 9. Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104..............................................................................................26 Figure10. Pedestrian Facilities.....................................................................................................................................................29 Figure11. Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................................................................................................31 Figure12. Existing Transit Service............................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Future Priority Transit Corridors............................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 14a. Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................39 Figure 14B. Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................40 July 2015 DRAFT Packet Pg. 37 Jrl rr�r�rrl�; Figure14C. Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................41 Figure 14D. Recommended Projects.........................................................................................................................................42 Figure14E. Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................43 Figure 14F. Recommended Projects..........................................................................................................................................44 Figure 15. Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan............................................................................................ 53 Figure 16. SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections............................................................................................................................55 List of Tables Table1. Existing and Future Land Use.........................................................................................................................................7 Table 2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics...............................................................................................20 Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections............................................................................................................... 21 r N O Table 4. Total Collisions And Collision Rates..........................................................................................................................23 Table5. Observed Corridor Speeds...........................................................................................................................................24 Table6. Recommended Projects.................................................................................................................................................45 Table 7. Prioritization Criteria And Weighting.......................................................................................................................47 Table8. Recommended Projects.................................................................................................................................................48 Table9. Quick Win Projects...........................................................................................................................................................49 July 2015 DRAFT /A Packet Pg. 38 r N O r LO r O N ti O N .y R C Q N d d L d Q O U R L cd C t U 2 a June 2015 DRAFT S-1 Packet Pg. 39 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY PROJECT OVERVIEW The SR 104 Corridor Complete Streets Corridor Analysis evaluates existing transportation conditions, relies on input from stakeholders and users, and analyzes potential safety and mobility improvements for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and transit. The study identifies key improvements that may be included for future consideration in the city's Capital Improvement Program. SR 104, shown in Figure 1, extends for four miles between Downtown Edmonds and 761" Ave W, just west of I-5. It serves as one of two primary east -west arterial connections in Edmonds. GUIDING PRINCIPLES After consulting with stakeholders, a corridor vision was developed that is based on the following guiding principles: • Support both local and regional mobility • Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking, and transit access • Reinforce land use vision, including at Westgate • Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront • Coordinate with the state and other entities • Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time • Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality Working with a Technical Advisory Committee and conducting extensive public outreach, the City used these principles to identify and prioritize the corridor recommendations outlined in this report. July 2015 DRAFT 1 Packet Pg. 40 FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA Puget Sound Olym pic V iew Dr Caspers�St—L > Z ¢ a� = o, U E ¢ O21 L th v -a m Main St City of Dayton St Edmonds Maple St 1 I I +-196th=St=SW 1 1 1_ 200th st SW 1 r I 1 I I I 1 1 �stsw mow. ,Walnut Staj 212th St SW > > ¢' ¢ Bowcioln Y Way L 1°PineSt d 216thStSW > v > 218thStSW = < ¢ oo L v-220thStSW-------- rn I ¢ L 2 a 46 1 Q1 L 3t 224th St SW i 1 226th St S_W - �$ 228th St'S-�, y Robin— s� I m 1 _ Q J 1 a -0 1 f E I 1>j *. H 1 Q 1 r d Snohomish County 1 cf P -- 0 9� --- King County !_------`~ -- ---- R- -' =244th•st SWz VIP COMMUNITY OUTREACH r-d Community involvement was important in developing and implementing a successful corridor plan for SR 104. To prepare a common vision for future improvements to the corridor, the City gathered input from the community at two public open houses and use of the city's website. A technical advisory committee July 2015 DRAFT 2 Packet Pg. 41 was also formed to serve as a forum for information sharing among city staff, City Council, WSDOT, Community Transit, and the Planning Board. The project team conducted stakeholder interviews, created informational materials and website content, and facilitated the committee meetings. COMMUNITY OUTREACH The City identified key target audiences to engage: • Businesses and residents along the project corridor and within the City of Edmonds • Users of the project corridor; local and regional • Local agencies, such as Edmonds School District and Community Transit • Washington State Department of Transportation • City of Edmonds staff • Elected officials July 2015 DRAFT 3 Packet Pg. 42 CORRIDOR PROFILE This section characterizes existing and future conditions on SR 104 in the City of Edmonds. The following sections describe the corridor in terms of character, land, use, physical conditions, and transportation operations. CHARACTER The four -mile section of SR 104 changes character several times, from a downtown environment near Puget Sound, to neighborhood zones with frequent property access, to commercial areas that serve multiple businesses. The changing character means that a single design concept may not be appropriate along the entire corridor. SR 104 can be thought of as having four primary 'zones', as shown in Figure 2. The project recommendations were tailored to best meet the needs of the surrounding land uses and roadway function as shown in these zones. WSDOT Main Street Design WSDOT has developed Chapter 1150 of its Design Manual (July 2014) that defines Context and Modally Integrated Design- Main Streets. WSDOT realizes that many state highway segments function as the main streets of communities. The main streets not only move people and goods, but provide a sense of place. In these locations, there is a need for design flexibility to address tradeoff aspects in design. These tradeoffs can be articulated once a community vision is created for a street. Along SR 104, WSDOT and the City of Edmonds collaborated to create a vision for the roadway, which changes character throughout its length. While SR 104 is an important highway connector within the region, and a Highway of Statewide Significance, it also serves as one of the main streets for the Edmonds community. This is particularly apparent in the Westgate area, which the City is planning to redevelop over time into a mixed use, pedestrian - oriented neighborhood. In this context, WSDOT is supportive of street design on SR 104 that facilitates safe and efficient mobility for all travel modes. This means that there are tradeoffs between such factors as vehicle speed and delay, roadway width, and pedestrian treatments. WSDOT has indicated that it has no plans to widen SR 104 or to add turning lanes throughout its length. The existing roadway configuration will allow for efficient movement of vehicles through the corridor, while still providing an opportunity to calm the traffic speeds and facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movements. July 2015 DRAFT /i 4 Packet Pg. 43 8.A.a N O Neighborhood Connections Boulevard Pedestrian -Oriented Ferry Terminal Area Commercial Figure 2 Planning Context for the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Packet Pg. 44 Jrl rnorrl�; Pedestrian -Oriented Ferry Waiting Area The section of SR 104 in downtown Edmonds provides access to downtown land uses and also serves as a waiting area for auto traffic entering and leaving the ferry terminal. The roadway accommodates a mix of pedestrians, stopped cars, and other multimodal activities. Insert Photo Boulevard Portions of the corridor at the east and west ends function like a boulevard, providing users with smooth flowing entry and exit points to/from the city. Property access is limited in these segments. Insert Photo r N O Commercial The Commercial zone around the Westgate area serves all modes and trip types. The roadway in this area accommodates business access and transit stops, emphasizing multimodal interaction and gateway elements. Frequent pedestrian movements require safe crossings of SR 104 and side streets. Insert Photo Neighborhood Connections The segment from around 95' Ave W and 2401h St SW emphasizes connections to neighborhoods on both sides of SR 104. The corridor in this area serves all trip types but focuses on balancing access needs from side streets and driveways with safety for bicycle, pedestrian and auto trips. Insert Photo July 2015 DRAFT 6 Packet Pg. 45 LAND [JcF Land use in the vicinity of SR 104 consists largely of single and multi -family homes combined with commercial development focused in downtown Edmonds, Westgate, and SR 99. To the west of SR 104 are two elementary schools and one K-8 school, as shown in Figure 3. At the west end of the corridor, SR 104 is adjacent to Edmonds City Park and Edmonds Marsh. Along the waterfront, SR 104 provides convenient access to Brackett's Landing and Marina Beach Park. Table 1 summarizes existing land use and the amount of growth expected to occur by 2035 both citywide and within approximately a one-half mile vicinity of SR 104. By 2035, almost 40 percent of the city's households and 50 percent of the employment will be located within the general SR 104 corridor. TABLE 1. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE Area Existing 2035 Total Growth Percentage Growth HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP Corridor Vicinity 6,700 4,600 8,350 5,750 1,650 1,150 25% 25% Edmonds Citywide 19,300 10,000 22,650 12,450 3,350 2,450 17% 24% Notes: HH = Households; EMP = Employment Sources: City of Edmonds July 2015 DRAFT /i 7 Packet Pg. 46 8.A.a 10 4k I = 200thStSW Puget Sound / � ■'� �■ ,Ij N Q� Z r r ■ L , L , �M� ♦ ♦ ■ �z rn > Q ° Ed �nds ' 4 218thStSW 1 D ■ N Westgate Elementary r - - - - - - - - 220[h.St,SW. Scholl i a I L I Q W L r I � 224fh St SW _ 1 N _ 1 3 1 ■� xr 3 v ¢ 226th St SW I Sherwood Q r° 1 ?zsthstsw 00 Elementary o 1 • ■ 0 1 School 0 � I O I Robb � I � I u I I 9 3 oLu � ¢ I L 5 _ , Madrona U � aj ■ N L LIP Y N� Snohomish County • ■ '11l T -- -- — - ! a -- -King County - _ _ - ----- — - - -- - - - — - O N Q - Other School Residential - Commercial Medical Vacant/Open Space - Recreation Government '�. ¢ n `^ cam■ id� ii� hStSW _ ' ■ Dayton St t — p Maple St 1 ,r 1 11 I Ste` Walnut St 1 ■ ` ¢ 1 dL 21 th St SW t ram.. 0 �■ - I o+ `o'nway � � 216thStSW En, 1 m� IL[ Ia aJqi rES Figure 3 Land Uses Packet Pg. 47 R C 0 U 0 Cn ry+ L co d d Q. O U L In N O T.- PHYSICAL CONDITION The guiding principles emphasize addressing safety needs for all travel modes, while maintaining the corridor's identity. This section describes the physical conditions that frame many of the corridor's needs. Many of the safety concerns along SR 104 relate to the physical conditions along the corridor. The following section describes: • Roadway cross-section • Traffic Control • Topography • Sight Distance • Drainage • Illumination go]a ll� & UO3���ialto] 01 WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY N • Improving safety in the corridor is very 21 important; especially for bicycles and Q L pedestrians 0 :2 L • Any improvements should be context L ti sensitive of the blend between v Co r neighborhoods and commercial areas N • Traveling the corridor can be difficult m a� L during rush hours and during ferry N loading/unloading, but there is minimal a) interest in widening the corridor for0. E 0 more automobile lanes. v • Providing good access to and from o Westgate is important r N O SR 104 is characterized as a four to five -lane roadway along its length. Figure 4 shows typical sections for the existing roadway. The five -lane sections typify SR 104 where left turns are required. A four -lane section is provided where SR 104 passes through the SR 99 interchange and approaching downtown Edmonds. The roadway also provides ferry vehicle queuing north of Pine Street to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Most of the corridor has a right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, the right-of-way is not readily usable in some sections due to slopes, vegetation, and other impediments. Bus pull-outs are provided at several bus stops along SR 104. July 2015 DRAFT 9 Packet Pg. 48 200" St z I z a a> Q L L Ferry Ferry Loading Loading ii M :AmS A—M% A - _ - - -- -11\ 212th St Bowd� n _. r Q 'L--lty-Of 218thStSW L ono Edmonds 3 a> L 220th St SW iD Q L W > a � C � 3 / a 224thStSW s rn 226thStSW 3 I v O 7 Q L 228YhStSW a qS/ � L dy � Q L King Cou Mnty y---------- ---- Traffic Signal 4 Lanes t aii: Emergency Signal 5 Lanes 4 Figure 4 Roadway Cross Sections and Traffic Control Packet Pg. 49 rashington SR 104 Complete Street Corridor An dmon TRAFFIC CONTROL Along the four -mile SR 104 corridor, eight traffic signals are in operation, as well as an emergency signal The signals locations are as follows (see Figure 4): Traffic Signals: Main St • Dayton St 226th St SW • 100th Ave W • 95th PI W • 236th St SW • 244th St SW (2 SB) • 76th Ave W Emergency Signal: • 232nd St SW The emergency signal has a yellow light for traffic along SR 104. In the event of an emergency response, vehicles along SR 104 will then be given a red light. At 244th St SW, there are two coordinated signals for southbound traffic; northbound vehicles only experience a signal if turning onto 244th St SW from SR 104. Northbound traffic boarding the ferry has a designated holding area. This begins at the SR 104 and 5th Avenue W split, and continues along the duration of the corridor. Signs along the corridor notify drivers of the ferry loading and warn drivers of other vehicles making a right turn off of SR 104 and across the ferry loading lanes. During ferry loading/unloading, traffic is controlled manually to enable continuous movements to/from the boat. July 2015 DRAFT 11 Packet Pg. 50 SIGHT DISTANCE The SR 104 Corridor is characterized by curving road segments with limited sight distance in some sections. Motorists need adequate sigh distance or visibility for turning onto and from SR 104. The combination of frequent driveway and side street approaches to SR 104, along with some tight roadway curves, creates several areas with challenging or severely limited sight distance. Figure 5 shows those areas with sight distance issues for side streets/driveways (i.e. drivers wanting to turn onto SR 104) and for SR 104 itself (i.e. drivers wanting to turn left from SR 104 into a side street or driveway). These locations of limited sight distance are correlated with the locations of collisions, as described in a later section. SR 104 Corridor Functional Classification SR 104 is one of two main east -west corridor s connecting downtown Edmonds with SR 99 and I-5. It also provides a direct route to the Ferry terminal. The City of Edmonds and WSDOT classify SR 104 as a principal arterial. SR 104 connects to one other principal arterial — the north/south running SR 99. Minor arterials intersect SR 104 at 51" Ave S, 1001" Ave W 228t" St SW, 238t" St SW, and 76t" Ave W. These arterials feed Edmonds traffic from local and collector streets onto the principal arterial routes. An example of sight distance issues along SR 104 can be seen going northbound when approaching Pine St. At higher speeds, vehicles may be unable to react in time to a right -turning vehicle out of Pine Street. The recent speed limit reduction has helped improve access at this location. Rockeries and overgrown brush encroach on the right of way and restrict sight distance for cars attempting to turn onto SR 104, as shown in the image on 232" 1 Street SW. July 2015 DRAFT /i 12 Packet Pg. 51 T r N O LO T" O N ti O N N R C Q N d d L v/ 0 0 Q E 0 U L cd C t ci f+ Q ITJuly 2015 DRAFT 13 Packet Pg. 52 8.A.a Sight Distance Issues - Along SR 104 From Side Street / Driveway Figure 5 Sight Distance Issues Packet Pg. 53 N O Jrl rnorrl�; Numerous commercial and private driveways along the corridor complicate the sight distance and traffic safety issues. WSDOT requires strict access management for new development, but the existing access patterns result in driveways that are hidden due to vegetation, topography or geometric conditions. i" Although there is limited access management, some locations have features in place. In the eastbound direction at 100th Ave W, a C-curb prevents vehicles from attempting an early left turn into the QFC shopping center. The C-curb also prevents the cross traffic from coming out of the Bartell's and going straight across to QFC. LIGHTING Lighting is a direct contributor to safety. Existing light levels were determined using lighting analysis that examined average light levels (i.e. average light visible per square foot on the roadway) and what is called the uniformity ratio, the average light level to the darkest areas on the roadway. The analysis indicates that below -standard light levels on SR 104 exist at both westbound and eastbound approaches to 971h Ave. W and 2361h St. SW, as well as mid corridor between 232" d PI. SW and 2361h St. SW. The remainder of the corridor appears to meet the standards in the current configuration, but may warrant upgrades with proposed improvements, such as intersection improvements to 100th Ave. W (Westgate area). Refer to Appendix A for a lighting diagram of the corridor. July 2015 DRAFT 15 Packet Pg. 54 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS The guiding principles emphasize safety for all modes. Understanding the transportation operations is important to the safety issues. This section describes existing transportation operations along SR 104 for each supported transportation mode: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit. Traffic flow, corridor safety, speed, and parking are discussed as they relate to these four modes of travel. TRAFFIC FLOW Peak hour and average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts were collected at three locations along SR 104 in October 2014 (Figure 6). Counts were performed for a 24-hour period on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, days which represent the most typical weekday traffic conditions. Daily traffic totals for the FERRY TRAFFIC EFFECTS three days were averaged to obtain the final AWDT values. Ferry loading and unloading can cause spikes in vehicle volumes during a short timeframe. The corridor carries from 11,000 daily vehicles (mostly stopped or moving slowly) at the Pine Street intersection to more than 20,000 daily vehicles travelling at 40 mph at the east end of the corridor. AM peak hour counts range from 700 vehicles at the Ferries leave Edmonds approximately every 45 minutes during peak periods, and with each ferry holding up to 188 vehicles, this surge of volume can affect the corridor. Pine Street intersection up to 1,300 vehicles at the Westgate area near 100t" Ave W. PM peak hour counts range from 900 vehicles at the west end of the corridor to 1,600 vehicles between Westgate and the east end of the corridor. Afternoon commute traffic on SR 104 is heaviest in the northbound direction, while morning commute patterns show similar volumes in both directions. As with the daily counts, AM and PM peak hour demand is heaviest near Westgate and the east end of the corridor. July 2015 DRAFT /i 16 Packet Pg. 55 To better understand how peak hour travel patterns impact corridor traffic conditions, additional traffic counts were collected at eight intersections along SR 104: • 10011 Avenue W • 238th Street • Meridian Avenue • Sunset Avenue R July 2015 DRAFT • Dayton Street • 226t" Street • 95th Place W • 236t" Street SW 17 Packet Pg. 56 8.A.a N O Average daily Traffic Signal traffic volume Morning peak hour vehicle traffic volume Emergency Signal Afternoon peak hour vehicle traffic volume Figure 6 r Traffic Volumes Packet Pg. 57 Jrl rnorrl�; INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 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 2 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. Level of Service Criteria Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) were used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop -controlled intersections. Table 3 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. July 2015 DRAFT 19 Packet Pg. 58 TABLE 2. TYPICAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Level of Service I Characteristic Traffic Flow Free flow — Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high A — — — — — —®I - - speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal. Stable flow — Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at ®I 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. 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. Stable flow — Represents high -density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom ®I " to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian D — — — — — — — — — — experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small ® I® increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. Unstable flow — Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely ®I ®I ®I ®I difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian E ®I ® ® 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 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. F — — — — — — — — — — 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, and then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 July 2015 DRAFT 20 Packet Pg. 59 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS LOS Designation A B C D E F Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Intersections Stop -Controlled Intersections <-10 510 Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 >10-20 >10-15 >20-35 >15-25 > 35 - 55 1 > 25 - 35 >55-80 1 >35-50 > 80 > 50 Figure 7 shows the existing and 2035 forecasted LOS values along SR 104. All intersections along the corridor will experience vehicular growth between 2015 and 2035. The average intersection volumes are expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.5%. Table 4 summarizes the existing and future traffic operations at eight intersections along SR 104, listed from downtown Edmonds at Main Street to the intersection of SR 104 and 761h Ave W. The traffic operations at the Main St and Dayton St signalized intersections are strongly affected by ferry operations. While these intersections operate at LOS A during typical PM peak hour conditions, delays build temporarily during ferry loading and unloading. The signalized intersection at 1001h Avenue W operates at LOS C, increasing to LOS D in 2035. Queues occasionally exceed the established left turn pockets on both northbound and southbound approaches. The intersection at 238th St. SW is a side -street stop controlled intersection. This intersection sees substantial delay on the eastbound approach (LOS E), despite having a very low traffic volume. This delay will increase substantially by 2035 due to growing volumes on SR 104 and fewer gaps available for traffic entering from 2381h St. SR 104 and 76th Ave W is technically a Shoreline intersection, but it affects the overall traffic operations along SR 104. Currently it operates at LOS C, but it is expected to degrade to LOS E by 2035. Heavy westbound left turn volumes exceed the turn lane storage and affect through traffic conditions on SR 104. A table summarizing the specific intersection results is provided in Appendix D. 2 76 c Q L 0 �L L 0 U v 0 r U m a� r U d .r d Q- E 0 U M L r N 0 July 2015 DRAFT /i 21 Packet Pg. 60 8.A.a PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Designation OSignalized Intersection AD" 2014 2035 Figure 7 Intersection Level of Service - PM Peak Hour Packet Pg. 61 N O SAFETY Along SR 104, the existing roadway geometry, multiple driveway access points, relatively high vehicular volumes and limited sight distance present potential safety concerns. Collision data for vehicles were collected to determine where design or operational concerns translate into safety deficiencies. Collision data were obtained from the City of Edmonds over a period of five years (January 2009 — September 2014). There were a total of 324 collisions, for an average of 68 collisions per year. Reports provided details about individual collisions, including type, probable cause, severity, and time -of -day (summarized in the text box). COLLISION STATISTICS (JANUARY 2009 — SEPTEMBER 2014) • Magnitude o SR 104 and 1001h Ave W had the largest collision rate. o The segment with the most collisions is between 51h Ave S & east of 1001h Ave W o No segment or intersection had high collision rates • Severity o There were no reported casualties during the timeframe o 33% of the 324 total crashes led to an injury • The most cited collision type was Vehicle collision rates at study intersections can be rear end. seen in Table 4. While the total number of collisions is larger than those on most other Edmonds roadways, this can be attributed to the larger volumes of vehicles on the corridor. The collision rates are typical of urban arterials and do not indicate a substantial safety problem. There are no recorded crashes that led to a fatality, although 33% of the collisions resulted in injuries. Despite there not being many reported pedestrian or bicycle collisions, exposure is high due to speeds and lack of separation from motor vehicles. TABLE 4. TOTAL COLLISIONS AND COLLISION RATES Location Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W SR 104 and Main Street SR 104 and Dayton Street SR 104 and 226th Street SW SR 104 and 951h Place W SR 104 and 2361h Street SW CollisionsICollisions/year/year 90 13.24 Collision Rate (PMEV) 1.18 7 1.03 0.14 18 2.65 0.18 19 2.79 1.03 21 3.09 0.62 9 1.32 0.18 33 4.85 0.66 16 2.35 0.31 21 N 21 c a L 0 �L `o c) v 0 r m a� L m m a E 0 U 0 L 0 N 0 July 2015 DRAFT /i 23 Packet Pg. 62 For analysis purposes, SR 104 was split into 5 segments, with each segment showing various collision statistics. (See Figure 8.) In general, most collisions that occurred on SR 104 were from rear end collisions, caused by abrupt stops or trailing vehicle unawareness. Sight distance issues were referenced multiple times. The emergency signal on 232nd St SW, which is constantly flashing yellow, led to confusion among some drivers. Drivers unaccustomed to the signal would decelerate, leading to trailing vehicles being surprised and an increase in rear end collisions. SPEED Speed is an important factor in the safety and perception of comfort along SR 104. Speed studies were conducted at three locations along SR 104 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Figure 9 and Table 5 summarize the posted speed limit and observed speed levels at these locations. Two values are shown: • 85th Percentile Speed — 85 percent of motorists travel below this speed, and 15 percent of motorists exceed this speed. Typically, the 85th percentile speed is used to establish posted speed limits. • Percent of drivers exceeding the speed limit • Times of day in which over 10% of people exceeded the speed limit by at least 10 mph. TABLE S. OBSERVED CORRIDOR SPEEDS W1 Percentile Location on SR Speed (mph) 104 Posted Speed (Refer to Limit (mph) Figure 8) Southbound Northbound North 40 47 48 Central 35 37 40 South 40 46 47 July 2015 DRAFT /i 24 Packet Pg. 63 8.A.a St St 324 total crashes between January 2009 - September 2014 z a' m ¢' H 68 crashes/year 0 0 fatalities Mainst 108 crashes leading to injury 23 crashes (7% of total along SR 104) 4 involving injury N 158 crashes (49% of total along SR 104) 53 involving injury w � 5 � a .ti `w a U E 0 O N N _ Snohomish -County / ■ � King County M O N N Q m a a 220th St S W L b v O1 3 a > L � O 3 a 224thSt5W 3 r m a St SW 2Z8th St SW - 76 crashes (23% of total along SR 104) 28 involving injury - 4 crashes (1% of tot;alongR 104) 2 involvin - 63 crashes (20% of total along SR 104) T 77 21 involving injury 21 76 c Q L L L O U I* 0 W W L CO d L a O _ U 4= L N 0 Figure 8 ri Crashes Along SR 104 (January 2009 - September 2014) Packet Pg. 64 8.A.a so 1 45 o. 40 �aa a� 35 Qa 30 Average daily 85th % speed: 47.9 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 82% More than 30 mph over speed limit: 7% st 85% of people drive slower than this speed;15% ° exceed this speed Posted speed limit At this time of day, over 10% of people exceed the speed limit byat least 10 mph Speed limit changed to 2AM 6AM 12 PM fiPM 35mph in early2015 Time of Day 77 t t55 PinleSt Average daily 85th %speed: 39.6 mph so Percent of drivers: I Exceeding speed limit: 51% a45 More than 10 mph over speed limit: 2% Q � w n 40 N 35 30 12 AM 6AM 12 PM fiPM X Time of Day E N I ya a 224thSt: NI Average daily 85th %speed: 47.2 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 80% More than 30 mph over speed limit: 6% t 12 PM bPM e of Day m 5 ss Average daily 85th % speed: 36.9 mph 50 Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 28% L Morethan 10mph over speed limit: Q1% w 40 Y / a � E 35 � f C O E 30 W 12 AM 6AM 12 PM 6PM of Time of Day O r.� N U. N O a` v— o N N (ti O N N n M ■ O 0) Speed Limit on State Route 104 35 mph 40 mph N SW I 3 f 20th St SW 55 50 s n 4s E a w 4o 35 30 218th StSW I W Average daily 85th %speed: 46.5 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 73% More than 30 mph over speed limit: 4% 12 AM 6AM 11 PM fiPM Time of Day 55 50 L n 4s E C 6 � Average daily 85th % speed: 46.1 mph 35 Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 67% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 3% 30 12 AM 6AM 12 PM - Time of Day MO-024,11 I A& Figure 9 Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 Packet Pg. 65 Jrl rr�r�rrl�; The north section of the corridor (i.e., 511 Ave S to Dayton Ave) experienced a speed limit drop from 40 mph to 35 mph in early 2015. The speed data in Table 5 were collected before the speed limit change, and all values and comparisons reflect the 40 mph speed limit in place during the data collection. Results show that the majority of drivers exceed the posted speed limit throughout the study area. Speeding is more prevalent in the north and south sections, while speeds are closer to the speed limit in the commercial center section. For example, in the northern section, over 80 percent of drivers exceed the posted speed. While speeding occurs throughout the corridor, the amount of extreme speeding is relatively low. Time of day data associated with the observations indicate that most extreme speeding occurs at night, especially in the early hours before the AM peak occurs. July 2015 DRAFT 27 Packet Pg. 66 Jy PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS This section describes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the SR 104 study area. Pedestrians Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and crosswalks. Along SR 104, sidewalks are provided on at least one side of the road for most of the study area. The lone exception occurs to the south of 5th Ave W, where a pedestrian path is used off of the roadway instead. Figure 10 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within this portion of the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area of downtown and the ferry terminal. 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. Marked crosswalks are provided at the following locations: Traffic Signals Midblock Crossings • Main St, • Dayton St. 0 North of Pine Street (new HAWK signal) • 226th St SW 0 5th Ave S (SB only) • 1001h Ave W • 95th PI W • 2361h St SW • 76th Ave W Pedestrian push buttons are located at all signalized intersections. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (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 SR 104 sidewalk ramps were constructed before ADA requirements. As pedestrian improvements have been made along the corridor, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards. July 2015 DRAFT /i 28 Packet Pg. 67 8.A.a — Existing Paved Walkway -- Proposed Walkway Project ® Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Figure 10 Pedestrian Facilities Packet Pg. 68 N O Bicycles SR 104 is not a designated bicycle route and has no bicycle lanes existing along the travelled way. However, Edmonds is a well-connected city, and various bicycle facilities are available parallel to, and connecting with the corridor. Figure 11 shows existing and proposed bicycle facilities within this portion of the city. These facilities include bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, trails, sharrows and bicycle parking facilities. The bicycle projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The projects are concentrated around two major efforts: creating east -west bicycle connections between downtown Edmonds and the Interurban Trail, and creating north -south bicycle connections between the northern and southern portions of Edmonds. While SR 104 itself is not a designated bicycle route, the following roadways provide existing or proposed convenient and safe bicycle travel within the study area; East-West Travel • Main St/Dayton St • 220th St SW • 2261h St SW • 2281h St SW • 244th St SW • 238th/2361h St SW North -South Travel • 3rd Ave S/Woodway Park RD • 5th Ave S • 9th Ave S/100th Ave W • 84th Ave W Bicycle parking is available throughout the city. The areas with the most parking options are along the beaches, in downtown, and in the Westgate area. 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 for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bicycle racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bicycle racks. July 2015 DRAFT 30 Packet Pg. 69 8.A.a • Proposed Bike Parking — Bike Lane — Existing — Bike Route Proposed Existing Bike Parking/Locker . Trail/Path _ Major Bicycle Corridor — Bike Sharrow Figure 11 Bicycle Facilities Packet Pg. 70 TRANSIT EXISTING Community Transit provides public transit service along portions of SR 104. Figure 12 shows the two bus routes (130 and 416) that serve the corridor. Details of bus routes are described below: Route 130 — Route 130 connects Edmonds Station to Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace Transit Center and Lynnwood Transit Center. The route serves downtown Edmonds via W. Dayton St, then travels on 5th Avenue S to reach SR 104. There are only two stops each direction on SR 104 before the bus turns south onto 100th Avenue through the Firdale area. Route 130 operates weekdays at 30 minute headways until 6pm and evenings, Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays with 60-minute headways. Route 130 is the only local route that continues to serve the west side of the railroad tracks with stops at Brackett's Landing Park and the South County Center. Route 416 — Route 416 is an express route between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. It serves SR 104 between 5th Avenue S and 238th St SW, where it turns off of SR 104 to approach the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station on SR 99. Route 416 operates five runs on weekdays southbound between 5:45 am — 8:00 AM and northbound between 3:30 pm — 6:00 PM. Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile of residents. Figure 12 shows that residents living along the SR 104 corridor have reasonably good walking proximity to bus stops. As discussed previously, however, there are limited safe opportunities to cross SR 104 for access to/from bus stops. Sound Transit provides four (4) round trips from Edmonds Station on the Sounder North commuter rail line. These trips travel south from Everett in the AM peak period and return north in the PM peak period. King Street Station (Downtown Seattle) is the only destination available from Edmonds. In Seattle, commuters can connect with Link Light Rail and other transit routes. Edmonds Station is also served by Amtrak Cascades and Empire Builder trains traveling to Vancouver, BC and Chicago, IL respectively. King County Metro operates peak hour express and local routes in the study area south of the Snohomish -King County line. The Rapid Ride E line BRT provides frequent direct service from Aurora Village Transit Center where it connects with Swift BRT throughout the Hwy 99 corridor to downtown Seattle. July 2015 DRAFT 32 Packet Pg. 71 Community Transit Commuter Route (416) Traffic Signal Community Transit Local Route (130) m Emergency Signal 0 Bus Stop Sounder Station / Park and Ride Lot 1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone Figure 12 Existing Transit Service N O Packet Pg. 72 Jrl rnorrl�; FUTURE Figure 13 depicts a future transit system with potential priority transit corridors shown in green. These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. With the expected opening of Link Light Rail to Lynnwood during the planning horizon, it is likely that several Community Transit bus routes will be redesigned within Edmonds and surrounding areas to integrate with light rail. SR 104 would provide a major transit corridor to tie into Link and SWIFT BRT. As vehicle capacity on the Ferry is constrained, the walk-on transit passengers will need to increase to meet this rising demand for travel alternatives. The future transit plan also recommends new transit service along 100t" Ave W/91" Ave S between Main Street and SR 104. This local bus service would provide enhanced accessibility to Westgate and provide connections to the priority transit corridor bus services. Any service changes would need to be closely coordinated with Community Transit. In addition, the city should coordinate with Sound Transit on improvements that will attract more riders to Sounder north train service and access to the SR 104 corridor. Edmonds should seek reverse peak - direction trips that could bring travelers to town in the AM peak period and return them to Seattle and points south in the PM peak period. Bus Stops along SR 104 Community Transit currently uses the bus pull-outs provided at several locations along SR 104. However, the agency prefers having buses stop in the travel lane to avoid delays reentering the traffic stream. Currently, the traffic volumes along SR 104 do not create many delays for buses, and the volume of buses on the corridor is fairly low. This could change in the future depending on the service provided along the priority transit corridors and access to Sound Transit Link light rail. At that time, the city could consider removing the bus pull-outs tied to other SR 104 enhancements. July 2015 DRAFT 34 Packet Pg. 73 8.A.a Existing Bus Route Proposed Link Light Rail [a Park and Ride Lot New Transit Service Options Swift BRT Sounder Train Station Priority Transit Corridor Q Swift BRT Stop El Link Light Rail Station Figure 13 Future Priority Transit Corridors Packet Pg. 74 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 70 minutes. In 2013, the Edmonds -Kingston route carried 3.9 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per day. This is slightly less than the 4.3 million people the route carried in 2006. The annual Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Report indicates that in -vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 86 percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted 14 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. PARKING Parking along the SR 104 corridor is limited to private off-street lots. There is no on -street parking allowed on SR 104 itself. The largest concentration of parking is within the Westgate commercial area, with over 600 off-street spaces serving a variety of retail uses. While certain parking areas immediately adjacent to the QFC and PCC supermarkets can be busy for short periods of the day, there is ample parking capacity to meet the daily parking demands within the Westgate area. Parking supply and demand will be closely monitored by the city as Westgate redevelops over time. July 2015 DRAFT 36 Packet Pg. 75 Jrl rnorirl�; RECOMMENDED PLAN The SR 104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study's guiding principles and can be phased over the next several years. The evaluated projects were developed in coordination with the Technical Advisory Committee, public outreach, and city staff. The following sections describe the corridor plan recommendations in further detail. The plan recognizes that SR 104 passes through a wide variety of land use zones (see Figure 2) and is a major route bisecting a predominantly conventional grid street system. This land use variety and road alignment dictates the treatments that are appropriate to address safety, access, and mobility needs. The plan contains features important to the upgrade of corridor facilities for all modes - pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. The plan features include: Basic roadway cross-section that contains two travel lanes in each direction and a sidewalk along most sections. In some sections, the conversion of the two-way left -turn lane to a median or dedicated turn lane (also referred to as access management treatments) is an option. • Pedestrian crosswalks with flashing beacons. • Intersection treatments, such as traffic or pedestrian signal, turn pockets, turn radius reductions (to shorten pedestrian crossing distances), better sight distance, and signage Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements. The corridor plan does not recommend the addition of vehicle travel lanes, because the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and traffic analyses completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan did not show the need for additional vehicle capacity. Completing all of the proposed corridor projects is an expensive undertaking and will take several years to fund and implement. The plan sets priorities and identifies some 'quick win' projects that could be funded in the near future as funding becomes available. These 'quick win' projects are projects that best meet the criteria developed to support the guiding principles. July 2015 DRAFT 37 Packet Pg. 76 CORRIDOR PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The corridor plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical regions from north (Edmonds Ferry Terminal) to south, shown in Figures 14A to 14F and summarized in Table 6. The total cost of the plan is approximately $8 million. The costs are considered to be conservative with contingencies applied. July 2015 DRAFT 38 Packet Pg. 77 8.A.a r� Figure 14-A Recommended Projects c Q L 21 �L L 0 U Iq O r N Y d N L Y N Y d 0. E 0 U Y tc L r N O r LO r O N ti O N .y R C Q N Y d d L 'Y^ V/ Y E O U R L Y cd C t U 2 Y Y a Packet Pg. 78 8.A.a r� Figure 14-B Recommended Projects r N C LO 0 N ti 0 N N 21 C Q N d d L Cn d d Q E O U L cd G L V a Packet Pg. 79 8.A.a 226th St SW / 15th Street SW • Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach (across SR 104) • Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians' signage on eastbound 226th St • Add bike detection for traffic signal • Add exclusive pedestrian phase • Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane to 226th St SW To Main Street Install Westgate "Gateway' sign in eastbound direction 61 Access management 100th Ave W to 10211 PI W Option: Rechannelize for bicycles (along 100th Ave) G Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations City of Edmonds I L C All - U 100th Ave W m C4 Midblock pedestrian connection Q. +e- between FC and PCC V .C-5 Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan (see Figure 5) N O Midblock pedestrian connection (location to be determinded) Figure 14-C Recommended Projects Packet Pg. 80 8.A.a r N C LO 0 N ti 0 N N 21 C Q N d d L Cn d d Q E O U L cd G L V a Figure 14-D Recommended Projects Packet Pg. 81 8.A.a r� Figure 14-E Recommended Projects r N C LO 0 N ti 0 N N 21 C Q N d d L Cn d d Q E O U L cd G L V a Packet Pg. 82 I I , 1�1L\• , I I I !VF J ————————————- 240th St SW ----------- 241st St SW ' I .1 — — — — — — — — — — — i� Wj 242ndStSW ---------- -------- ----. --E - ---------=---- E r - —I 243nd PI SW I, } Aw —10� I I I � _ NMMSt __77. _ `----------------' rLCS---------.----------------------- s 1•,304th P. .- .. .. J* 40 A� r � w. zbio i. "' �. � of fw �� • , „• . - ..n, r 1... .� 'ti � N 201st St m N 200th St Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps Right of Way and signals at appropriate locations JrI rrlorrl�; TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS #1 Project Location Project Description p Estimated Cost Rating c$1,000> g Ferry Terminal / Al Main Street to Pine Additional Ferry Storage. $ 490 30 Street Improve west approach to meet current ADA A2 Pin Street & SR standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR $ 66 30 104 104. Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the B1 5th Avenue and SR bus sto Seed limit feedback sign for WB traffic P� P g $ 440 34 104 exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south 226th Street SW/ approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on Cl 15th Street SW eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th $ 194 43 St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. C2 Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 C3 100th Avenue W to Access Management $ 314 26 102nd Place W C4 Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $ 165 39 100th Avenue W Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and C5 (North of SR 104) PCC. $ 132 43 C6 100th Avenue W Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $ 132 43 (South of SR 104) Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid -block C7 100th Avenue W pedestrian crossings. (See projects C5 and C6) $ 588 38 D1 West of 95th Place Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $ 11 26 on SR 104 D2 West of 95th Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 Place W Change signal to protected left -turn signal phasing. D3 95th Place W Update ADA rams Add C curbs for access P ramps. $ 495 30 Intersection management. July 2015 DRAFT /i 45 Packet Pg. 84 Jy #1 Project Location Project Description p Estimated Cost f$1,000> Rating g 21 Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation. >+ D4 232nd Street SW Maintain early emergency detections. $ 1,535 32 Q Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian L 0 El 236th Street SW facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate $ 531 34 signal with 238th St SW. V Iq 0 Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St E2 238th Street SW SW. Revise geometry for safer turns. $ 1338 36, N U) Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add d L E3 240th Street SW sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 110 26 N d .r d E4 West of SR 99 on SR "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $ 55 22 Q' E 104 0 U SR 104 & 76th Add a second westbound left turn lane; bicycle lane F1 Avenue W striping through intersection on 761h Avenue $ 3,017 21 p Along the SR 104 Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at r 04 0 G Corridor appropriate locations $ 534 38 LO Total $10,257 r 0 1 Corresponds to identification numbers on Figures 14A through 14F A .y PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The projects in Table 6 were rated using criteria that were developed based on the projects guiding principles. The prioritization criteria were as follows: • Safety elements of the proposed projects were evaluated based on whether they enhanced safety. Some traffic collision data along the corridor was available to review mostly intersection related issues. Public input on locations with safety concerns were also incorporated into the evaluation. Improvements that received a higher rating improved a known high collision area or addressed a safety concern. Because there were July 2015 DRAFT /i 46 Packet Pg. 85 no areas of recorded high collision rates all projects received either a lower or medium rating. • Accessibility components of the proposed projects were evaluated whether they provide access to various transportation modes along the corridor and/or connect land uses. Projects that rated high improved access for multiple modes or removed an existing access barrier (completed a movement that could not be made today). • Identity improvements were evaluated based on a proposed projects consistency with the SR 104 corridors identity and surrounding land uses. Projects that enhanced the identity of the area received a higher rating. Examples include additional ferry storage to reduce the queue length and place marker signs such as the Westgate signs. Because all projects were developed with the guiding principles in mind, no project was considered to diminish (receive a lower rating) the identity of the corridor or surrounding land uses. • Financial investment for the proposed projects was evaluated based the range of estimated improvement costs. Projects with an estimated construction cost of less than $100,000 received a higher rating while improvements over $1 million received a lower rating. These cost ranges represent a general level of complexity and difficulty for a projects implementation. Half of the proposed projects are estimated to cost less than $100,000. • Grant Eligibility was evaluated qualitatively based on the project teams (which included city staff) understanding of the current grant environment. Generally, improvements that benefited walking and bicycling, improved connections to schools, and/or addressed safety received a higher rating. Table 7 summarizes the weighting and rating for each prioritization criteria. Guidance on how the ratings were evaluated is also provided. TABLE 7. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING Criterion Weight Rating Lower Medium Higher Safety 5 Limited or no effect Direct safety benefit Improves high collision location Improves single mode, Improves multiple modes, Accessibility 4 Limited or no effect enhances an existing completes a crossing that crossing can't be made today Identity 1 Diminishes identity Neutral effect Enhances identity Financial 2 High project cost Medium project cost Low project cost (>$1,000,000) ($100,000-$1,000,000) (<$100,000) Grant 4 Low likelihood of grant Likely to compete for Good potential for grant/ Eliaibilitv fundina arant funds other fundina July 2015 DRAFT /i 47 Packet Pg. 86 Table 6 includes the ratings (higher, medium, or lower) for each project using these criteria. Appendix B includes the detailed prioritization results and more complete project descriptions. A summary of project costs and the percent of costs for higher, medium, and lower ratings is summarized in Table 9. TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Rating Cost Percent of Cost Higher $1,745 30% Medium $4,895 35% Lower $3,617 35% Total $10,257 100% Over 60 percent of the corridor plan costs are represented by proposed projects that rate as higher or medium priority. The prioritization process will be helpful to the city seeking grant funds or packaging project elements along the corridor. QUICK WIN PROJECTS Realizing the high implementation cost of the entire plan, the team identified several actions that could produce immediate benefits — "quick wins". Table 10 lists these quick win projects in order of priority rating. The total quick win project costs total $1,305,000. Sixty (60) percent of the quick win project costs are tied to higher or medium priority projects. Several are also tied to the implementation of the Westgate Plan. July 2015 DRAFT 48 Packet Pg. 87 Jrlrnorirl�; TABLE 9. QUICK WIN PROJECTS # Rating 1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) 226th Street Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Cl H SW/ 15th Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St. $194 Street SW Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. C4 H Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $165 100th Avenue C5 H W (North of Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $132 SR 104) 100th Avenue C6 H W (South of Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $132 SR 104) Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path 5th Avenue 131 M to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th $440 and SR 104 Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. Pine Street & Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian A2 M $66 SR 104 crossing of SR 104. Near 15th Way C2 L Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 SW West of 95th D1 L Place on SR Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $11 104 West of 95th D2 L Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 Place W West of SR 99 E4 L "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $55 on SR 104 'Rating: L=Lower; M=Medium; H=High TOTAL: $1,305 July 2015 DRAFT /i 49 Packet Pg. 88 WESTGATE PLAN CONCEPT A key part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis was to examine transportation and land use interactions within the Westgate area. Appendix C contains the results of this investigation, consisting of a memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) that summarizes the team's review of a variety of transportation, land use n--,, I, I,c1, focusses on the Western0 transportation issues. Gatewayo,� This section provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions: 1 2 3 Northernm ' GatewayM 1g� What are the10, g long-term{ rI street lane 10 and width "*` requirements t uRKT Eo T f :ie i Ise Southern0 ■ on SR 104 Gateway0 Y and 100t" Avenue W through Westgate? How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? How should property access and internal circulation be considered? 21 N 21 c Q L 0 �L `0 c) Iq o_ rn m as r m m a E 0 U 0 L N 0 July 2015 DRAFT so /i Packet Pg. 89 Jy What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100' Avenue W through Westgate? The team evaluated the current and forecasted (2035) traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 1001h Avenue W. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re -stripe either or both roads and re - phase the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the acquisition of additional right-of-way. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? Bicycles Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bicycle routes are included within the comprehensive transportation plan. Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are included in the city's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 100th Avenue W is an important non -motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline and Edmonds. As discussed in the text box, the team examined a potential rechannelization on 100th Avenue W to accommodate bicycle lanes. Within Westgate, bicycles could be accommodated on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district. These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W. What About Creating Bicycle Lanes on 100th Avenue? The team analyzed an option to rechannelize 100th Avenue W (from the south city boundary to Main Street) to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. This rechannelization would have a 3-lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks. The traffic analysis indicated that a 3- lane section would operate acceptably under existing traffic conditions. In the future, this design would also be expected to work well to the south and north of SR 104. At the SR 104/1001h Avenue intersection, vehicle delays would increase on the north and south approaches of 1001h Avenue and may exceed the city's desirable Level of Service at that location. Retaining a northbound right turn lane on 100th Avenue approaching SR 104 would reduce vehicle delays; however, some roadway widening might be needed to retain the bicycle lane in that location. The rechannelization concept represents a tradeoff between auto queueing and delay versus and creating a continuous bike lane and a 'calmer' traffic environment. A more in-depth corridor analysis and design is desirable to examine these tradeoffs. 21 N 21 c Q L 0 �L L 0 c) v 0 r m a� L m m a E 0 U L r N O July 2015 DRAFT /i Packet Pg. 90 Jrlrnorirl�; Pedestrians Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. Pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W1. Two midblock pedestrian crossings of 100th Avenue W are recommended, one connecting the entrances of the QFC and PCC to the north, and another one located to the south of SR 104. These pedestrian crossings could also serve as traffic calming and safety devices along 100th Avenue W. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems. As shown in Figure 15, the Westgate plan envisions consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and encouragement of internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in- and -out driving on the arterials and encourage one -stop parking. The plan also recommends access management treatments using curbing along SR 104 to the west of 1001h Avenue (see Project C-3 in Table 6). This treatment will improve safety for turning vehicles into and out of the Westgate area and facilitate driveway consolidation. The signal at the SR 104/1001h Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants. 1 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian experience in Westgate. July 2015 DRAFT 52 Packet Pg. 91 Pi Figure 15 VIiWestgate Access Management Conceptual Plan C Packet Pg ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION SR 104 is largely built -out within its 80+- foot right-of-way. However, there are opportunities to make more efficient use of the available width or to add mobility improvements by acquiring some additional right-of-way. Currently, the predominant five -lane cross section consists of four 12 foot travel lanes, a 13 foot left turn lane and sidewalks that vary in width from 5.5 to 7.5 feet. Some sections have planter strips where new infill development has occurred. Two potential cross -sections are depicted in Figure 16. The top diagram shows a 'full -build' section that would be preferred if the roadway were rebuilt. Slightly narrower travel lanes would provide opportunities for a wider sidewalk and planter strips. As shown, an additional 2 feet of right-of-way may be required on both sides of the corridor. The bottom diagram shows what could be accomplished with a roadway overlay project. The curb locations would not change. The travel lanes would be reduced in width, providing a 1-3 foot buffer between the outside travel lane and the sidewalk. This buffer would provide some visual separation between vehicles and pedestrians and offer a slight increase in sight distance. As new development occurs within the corridor, hybrid cross sections are possible, in which the existing curbs remain but width is added for planter strips and wider sidewalks. In some cases, this requires dedication of some right-of-way by the developer. July 2015 DRAFT 54 Packet Pg. 93 R.A.a (UP TO 2' OUTSIDE ROW) STRIP STRIP (UP TO 2' OUTSIDE ROW) I _ 80' t RIGHT OF WAY 1 TYPICAL SR104 FULL BUILD -OUT CROSS-SECTION 240TH ST. SW TO 226TH ST. SW • MEETS CLEAR ZONE REQUIREMENTS PER ECDC 18.70.030 • STREET ILLUMINATION AT BACK OF SIDEWALK ROW ROW EXISTING FEATURES EXISTING FEATURES TO REMAIN TO REMAIN I o I VARIES VAIRES VARIES VARIES 2.5'-6b' 5.5'-7.5' 10.5' 10.5' 13' 10.5' 10.5' 5.5'-7.5' 2.5'45' EX. SIDEWALK TRAVELLANE TRAVELLANE TURN LANE TRAVELLANE TRAVEL LANE EX. SIDEWALK VARIES 1'-3' BUFFER VARIES 1'.3' BUFFER TYPICAL SR104 OVERLAY CROSS-SECTION 240TH ST. SW TO 226TH ST. SW • MEETS CLEAR ZONE REQUIREMENTS PER ECDC 18 70.030 • STREET ILLUMINATION AT BACK OF SIDEWALK Figure 16 SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections a Packet Pg. 94 APPENDIX A Project Diagrams a luty 2014 FINAL A-1 /i Packet Pg. 95 APPENDIX B Prioritization Results r N O luty 2014 DRAFT C-1 /i Packet Pg. 96 Appendix B 8.A.a Criteria Weight T �' = 'o m Estimated Project ID Rating Location w 'N c m W Total Priority Rating Description w V c - C Cost a U Al M Ferry Terminal / Main Street to 3 3 3 1 30 Additional Ferry Storage. $ 489,500 jn Pine Street ' C Q Improve west approach to meet current ADA A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 2 2 2 3 1 30 standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing $ 66,000 O of SR-104. i L O U O I Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and CO) from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign y B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 2 2 2 3 2 34 $ 440,000 ++ for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide 4) ADA ramps to cross SR-104, accompanied by r flashing beacons. CO) d d CL E O Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to i 226th Street SW/ 15th Street Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bike Cl H 2 3 3 3 3 43 $ 193,600 SW loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. Modify signal to G provide pedestrian only phase. 7' LO O N ti C2 L Near 15th Way SW 1 1 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing $ 55,000 O N eastbound. .N ca C Q 100th Avenue W to 102nd C3 L 2 1 2 3 1 26 Access Management $ 314,000 y Place W F y L C4 H Westgate Area 2 3 3 3 2 C5 H 100th Avenue W (North of SR 2 3 3 3 3 104) 39 Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $ 165,000 43 Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC $ 132,000 and PCC. Packet Pg. 97 Appendix B 8.A.a Criteria Weight Z m Project ID Rating Location w c m—Total Priority Rating Description y � c y LL C Q i F Estimated Cost 100th Avenue W (South of SR Midblock pedestrian connection (Location N C6 H 2 3 3 3 3 43 $ 132,000 104) TED). to R I C Q L Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid -block 0 C7 H 100th Avenue W 2 2 2 3 3 38 $ 588,468 •i pedestrian crossings O U Relocate westbound speed limit to east of DI L West of 95th Place on SR 104 2 1 2 3 1 26 $ 11,000 intersection. CO) 0 O L D2 L West of 95th Place W 1 1 3 1 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing $ 55,000 CO) eastbound. d d CL E Change signal to protected left -turn signal O U D3 M 95th Place W Intersection 2 2 2 3 1 30 phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for $ 495,000 access management. i Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle NG D4 M 232nd Street SW 2 2 2 2 2 32 activation. Maintain early emergency $ 1,534,716 detections. Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and N El M 236th Street SW 2 2 2 3 2 34 pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA $ 531,330 p standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW. fA .N Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with E2 M 238th Street SW 2 3 2 2 2 36 $ 1,337,960 Q 236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns. N d d Include current ADA standards for side streets. fn E3 L 240th Street SW 2 1 2 3 1 26 Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR $ 110,000 N 104. y E O U E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 1 1 3 3 1 22 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $ 55,000 $ O L Add a second westbound left turn lane, bicycle d Fl L SR 104 & 76th Avenue W 1 1 2 1 2 21 $ 3,017,000 E striping V O Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals Q G H Along the SR 104 Corridor 2 3 2 3 2 38 $ 534,000 at appropriate locations 5 4 1 2 4 TOTAL: $ 10,257,000 Packet Pg. 98 Appendix C Westgate Memoranda a July 2014 DRAFT C-2 /i Packet Pg. 99 Appendix D r Level of Service Calculations r July 2014 DRAFT C-3 /i Packet Pg. 100