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