The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-09-27 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 1. CALL TO ORDER I 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9. 10. SEPTEMBER 27, 2017, 7:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of September 13, 2017 ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on rezone for property located at 9601 Edmonds Way from WMU to BC-EW (File No. PLN20170034) UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Housing Strategy Update NEW BUSINESS A. Low Impact Development Code Update Introduction PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Planning Board Extended Agenda PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda September 27, 2017 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/27/2017 Approval of Draft Minutes of September 13, 2017 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB170913d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 13, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Lovell urged Board Members to participate in the virtual open house and survey for the Urban Forest Management Plan and Tree Plan (http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/urban-forest-mgmt-plan.html). He also asked if the consultant would present the draft plan to the Board sometime this fall, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Lovell also asked if the City has been contacted by the new owner of property at the corner of 6"' Avenue and Main Street to discuss the potential of developing a hotel, and Mr. Chave answered no. Packet Pg. 3 PRESENTATION ON CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT Sandra Ripley Distlehorst, Edmonds, advised that she is a member of the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, as well as part of the steering committee for the community -based education project called "Taming Bigfoot." She reported that in June she joined with about 800 other people from around the world to participate in the Climate Reality Project Training. Her interest in attending the training was to provide the Edmonds community the resources available through the project. She emphasized that she is before the Commission as a private citizen, and not as a representative of the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. Ms. Distlehorst advised that the Climate Reality Project was started in 2011 by Al Gore, and was a merger of two groups that started in 2006. To date, over 7,600 Climate Reality Leaders have been trained from around the world, including scientists, policymakers, educators and advocates from 130 countries. The intent of the project is to review where we are now in our understanding of climate change, where we need to be, and how we can get there. She provided a photograph of the earth taken on December 7, 1972 from the NASA Apollo 13 Mission, as it was heading to the moon. It is the first photograph ever taking of the fully illuminated earth. She also provided a photograph from the International Space Station, illustrating the sun shining over the earth's horizon and through the lower -most layers of the earth's atmosphere, which is very thin. Ms. Distlehorst reported that, currently, we are dumping 110 million tons of manmade global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours. This pollution comes from many difference sources, including thawing permafrost, coal mining, industrial processes, coal plants, fertilization, land transport, landfills, oil production and air transport. The biggest source of pollution is burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel provide 80% of the world's energy. If we could magically stop now, it would take 20 years to reduce the impact by 50%. Ms. Distlehorst explained that, while some pollutants dissipate or breakdown, others remain for 100 or even 1,000 years. All of these gases remain long enough to become well mixed, which means that the amount is roughly the same over all the world, regardless of the source of emissions. This is a global problem that needs a global solution. Global surface temperatures are rising, and 2016 was the hottest year on record. It beat out the previous hottest year (2015), which beat out the previous hottest year (2014). Average temperatures in the Seattle/Tacoma area increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1980 and 2015, and it is predicted that temperatures will rise 5.8 degrees higher by the 2050s. As global temperature rises, so does the number and intensity of fires. Since the 1970s, the Western United States has had longer seasons (105 days), six times the burn area and three times larger wildfires. She noted that Amy Snover, PhD, Director of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and a Climate Reality Project Leader, has said, "We expect to see more fires and bigger firs. People are just beginning to wake up to this. " In addition to increased and more intense wildfires, Ms. Distlehorst said global warming also causes droughts. She recalled that in August of 2015, Washington State experienced its worst drought ever. It resulted in agricultural losses of between $633 and $733 million, and 1.5 million juvenile fish died. It is anticipated that by the 2050s, summer precipitation will decline by 22%. In addition, the number of Washington State glaciers has declined by 3 1 % since 1980. Snow is melting 30 days earlier than in the mid-20"b century in Washington State; and by the end of the century, the average April 15t snowpack is projected to decline by 70%. The loss of snowpack and warmer air temperatures are projected to contribute to increased wildfires and drought severity, jeopardize summer water supplies through reduced natural water storage, and reduce water available for generation of hydroelectricity. Ms. Distlehorst cautioned that extreme heat events cause more deaths annually in the United States than all other extreme weather events combined. There were record high temperatures in a number of locations throughout the world, Including 120 degrees in Arizona (112 deaths), 122 degrees in India (2,300 deaths) and 129 degrees in Pakistan (1,200 deaths). As heat rises, so does the number of hospital admissions and the mortality rate. Ms. Distlehorst advised that global ocean temperatures are also rising. Warmer oceans impact sea level rise, create super storms, and damage marine ecosystems. There are currently 3,000 drone buoys measuring the ocean temperature changes. Worldwide, extreme weather catastrophes are increasing. In 2016 there were three Category 4 hurricanes at one time. Already in 2017 there have been four. There is 4% more water vapor over the oceans than 30 years ago. When ocean based storms cross over warmer waters, they get stronger and more destructive. Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 Ms. Distlehorst pointed out that 2017 was the wettest October to April period on record, with 44.7 inches of rain. The previous record was set in 2016 with 44.5 inches of rain. The normal amount of rainfall is usually 30.9 inches. Heavy rainfall, paired with melting snow, have led to landslides across Washington State. A February 91h landslide in Mason County blocked transit between Seattle and Everett, and heavy rains and flooding in Ferry County caused a road washout on April 14th. A recent Western Washington University Study of sea level rise in Edmonds shows a direct link between climate -linked sea level rise and coastal flooding. Currently, El Nino sea level rise is 12 inches, but winter sea level rise at the Washington Coast and estuaries is 20 inches. It is predicted that floods up to 4 feet will occur by 2050 and 5 feet by 2070. To illustrate the concern, she provided photographs of flooding on Manzanita Road SW on Vashon Island, which has a 13-foot seawall protecting the road from Quartermaster Harbor Tides that are usually 11 feet. Ms. Distlehorst said the questions that need to be considered are: Should we do something? and Can we do something? Currently, enough solar energy is produced every day to supply the world's energy needs for a year. Globally, 9.8 million people are employed by renewable energy industries. In the United States, there are two times as many jobs in solar as in coal. Globally, wind would supply worldwide electricity 40 times over. Solar capacity is increasing in the United States, and its cost continues to fall. Many developing countries are leap -frogging to solar energy. Washington State has continued to increase its capacity, as well, but more can be done. Currently, Washington State has 161 solar employers, providing 3,681 solar jobs and $370 million in solar investments. Also, in 2016, wind energy provided 7.13% of the state's electricity generation and supported 1,001 to 2,000 jobs. Ms. Distlehorst said energy storage is also increasing, with new technologies and incentives. For example, lithium -ion battery prices dropped by half since 2014, and this has become a game -changer for electric vehicles and grids. In addition, LED prices have dropped by 90% since 1980, which saved $20 billion and 100 million tons of COZ in 2015, alone. Electric vehicle use is increasing, with more than 2 million electric vehicles on the road worldwide. Washington State ranks 3Cd in electric vehicle sales, with 23,243, close behind California (#1) with 28,353 and Georgia (#2) with 26,018. Ms. Distlehorst advised that several states have established energy mandates or grid modernization programs, and Washington State continues to be a leader in that regard. Washington is a founding member of the United States Climate Alliance, and Seattle has enacted a number of climate policies, including the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. Bellevue also has a goal of producing 50% of municipal energy from renewables by 2019. Edmonds is a leader, passing Resolution 1389, which calls for 100% renewable energy by 2019, as well as updates to the Climate Action Plan, which will involve the Mayors Climate Protection Committee and the community. Ms. Distlehorst announced the "Taming Bigfoot — Edmonds" Project, which is a fun, community -focused competition to lower the collective footprint. The project is modeled after the Jefferson County Project, and Dr. Bob Bindschadler, a retired NASA climate scientist, has been hired as the consultant to oversee it. She advised that Dr. Bindschadler, along with his team from Port Townsend, developed the contest model and are graciously allowing the program to be adapted to the Edmonds community. The program will include tally sheets, behind the screen calculator, question and answer sheets, and a log that is credited to the Jefferson County group. Shen noted that Dr. Bindschadler will attend the October 3rd City Council meeting to talk more about the project. She reviewed the project's schedule as follows: • October through December — pre -events and team signups • January — baseline data collection • February — 1st month of competition • March — 2nd month of competition • April — competition ends and awards are presented. Ms. Distlehorst advised that there will be "bigfoot sightings" at major City events throughout the contest. She provided an illustration of the Carbon Tally Sheet that would be used for the contest for the Board's information, noting that the categories will include: home energy, water, private and public transportation, non -recycled garbage, food and shopping. The teams will be made up of members with a mix of energy profiles. The intent is for the teams to be evenly challenged and members can learn from each other about different barriers and motivators for lifestyle changes. Ms. Distlehorst reviewed that the "Taming Bigfoot" Project is endorsed by Mayor Dave Earling, State Representative Strom Peterson, Senator Marilyn Chase, State Representative Cindy Ryu, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, the United Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 Methodist Church, Edmonds Climate Connection and more. Sponsors include the Edmonds Tree board, Walnut Street Caf6, Campbell Auto Group, Harbor Square Athletic Club, The Branding Iron, Council Member Buckshnis, Council Member Teitzel, Cheesemonger's Table, Caf6 Louvre, Dewar, Meeks & Ekrem, PC Koenig Financial Group, Lynwood Honda, Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Windermere Real Estate -Edmonds and more. Ms. Distlehorst concluded her presentation by thanking the Board for the opportunity to share the information she learned as part of her training. She commented that the Board plays an important role in making sure that climate change is addressed in all planning decisions in the City. She encouraged them to utilize a climate checklist when reviewing projects. Board Member Lovell asked about the criteria for becoming a sponsor of the "Taming Bigfoot" Project. Ms. Distlehorst answered that it requires a donation of $100, which will be used for operational costs and for prizes. Board Member Lovell asked if the website would be updated throughout the program to provide updates on how the teams are doing, as well as education materials. Ms. Distlehorst answered affirmatively. She noted that the website is just now being set up, but numerous people have already expressed a desire to participate in the program. Once the program gets started, team leaders will be able to input data onto the website. In addition to the information provided on the website, the project will also include two meetings for the teams to share information and learn from each other. Board Member Lovell asked if there is any indication about how well the program will be received in the Edmonds community. Ms. Distlehorst said they anticipate there will be between 20 and 100 teams. She noted that the City of Seattle is doing a similar program, and there seems to be a lot of interest in the concept. Board Member Robles said he understands the importance of changing people's thinking before they can change their behavior. Public opinion is very powerful in this regard. He noted that there are numerous ideas floating around, such as sequestering carbon and using polypropylene instead of copper piping for buildings. He inquired if there is a place at the local level to increase citizen awareness of what they can demand from their community and their government in regard to implementing these new concepts and technology. Ms. Distlehorst agreed that is a good question, and she welcomed ideas from the Planning Board, especially as they entertain the "Taming Bigfoot" project with public events. The ideas could be incorporated into the meetings so they are not only talking about lifestyle changes, but encouraging people to be advocates for other climate change opportunities. Board Member Robles said he has a wealth of information and ideas to share. Board Member Cloutier asked if Ms. Distlehorst has had an opportunity to review previous studies that have been done for Edmonds. He noted that a study was done in 2011 by Climate Solutions to study the carbon footprint of the City and lay out an action plan. The study identified the primary sources of carbon in Edmonds as home heating, water treatment plant, and grocery stores, and the City's Climate Action Plan was written to specifically address issues in Edmonds. Some of the action items were implemented, such as the solar array on the Frances Anderson Center and retrofits at other city buildings. He commented that while solar and wind energy are good, they will not have a significant impact on the City's carbon footprint because the City gets most of its electricity from hydro. When seeking to reduce the carbon footprint of homes, the focus should be on lowering thermostats and providing better insulation. Lowering the thermostat by a few degrees can result in a 30% reduction in energy use. Board Member Cloutier noted that the 2011 study is available on the City's website, and he particularly referred to the graphic on the front page that illustrates carbon usage in the City. Again, he said that while Resolution 1369 is good, it does not really solve the City's problems that are primarily associated with natural gas and petroleum. He suggested that the primary focus for the City should be eating less meat, using vehicle miles and reducing heat consumption. Edmonds is a driving community, and most people work outside of the City. Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the main part of the presentation had to do with what would take place locally (Taming Bigfoot Project) and assembling teams that can support each other in coming up with solution for reducing the carbon footprint. She suggested that the term "carbon footprint" should be replaced with something that sounds better. The intent is for the team members to encourage each other and come up with ideas, and the teams will compete against each other. She voiced concern that, beyond the Climate Reality Project, the presentation contained very little information about the data that would be used to prepare the teams and embolden them to be concerned with the environment. She suggested that the project should be more concerned about providing facts and useful information. It should also be pointed out that the information provided as part of the project could be used by team members, as well as other citizens, to become advocates for climate control. She stressed the importance of presenting the information to the public in a way that is easy to understand, and the Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a goals should be clearly identified. Changing behavior is difficult. She noted that the first seatbelt campaign started in 1965. While there has been significant improvement since that time, the original goal has not yet been met. She summarized that it takes a lot of time to change behaviors. The "Taming Bigfoot" Program is a great motivation for people who are already inclined to be concerned, and it is important to equip them with information that can be shared elsewhere. Via the program, the City will gain a local group of frontline responders to the issue. Ms. Distlehorst said the Edmonds project is modeled after a project in Jefferson County and focuses on climate change and the urgency for change. In addition to stressing urgency, the intent is to provide information about what can be done. She noted that the program will be presented on October 24`h by Davey Montgomery, a geologist at the University of Washington, along with a representative from Port Townsend, to answer questions about how the project works. The intent is to provide information to the public, and she anticipates that many people will attend. Although not everyone will want to join a team, they will move one step closer in their desire to make changes. The Mayors Climate Protection Committee and the Interfaith Climate Action Committee are joining together to present the program. They already have a wide audience and will be able to get the word out. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that in addition to materials from the Climate Reality Project, other information should be provided to the teams. Ms. Distlehorst explained that she thought her presentation was supposed to focus on the Climate Reality Project training, which is separate from the "Taming Bigfoot" Project. She would have made a different presentation for the "Taming Bigfoot" Project. Board Member Cloutier recalled the Save Energy Program that was sponsored by Sustainable Edmonds in 2009. Ten households and 10 businesses participated in the program, and the intent was to show how much energy could be saved by changing lifestyles. Although the goal was to reduce energy consumption by 10%, the average savings was actually 30%. Most of the savings was related to behavioral changes, and the major motivation was cost savings over actually reducing the carbon footprint. Edmonds residents spend $40 million a year on electricity and natural gas. If this amount were reduced by 4% across the board, it would result in a $3 to $4 million stimulus. This can be done by reducing thermostats by just a few degrees. He suggested that this long-term monetary impact who agree that human behavior is causing the impacts. If you can get more people on board, the results will be better. Ms. Distlehorst said she worked with the University of Washington Sustainable Steward Program's Tire Gauge Project, which emphasized both the ecological and monetary benefits. She said she understands the value of making sure the message reaches a wider audience than just those who are interested in reducing the carbon footprint. Again, Ms. Distlehorst invited Board Members to share their ideas and comments as the program is being created. The intent is to come up with a program that works for Edmonds and has as many participants as possible to make the greatest impact possible. REVIEW OF 2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave reminded the Board that they already reviewed the updated Water Comprehensive Plan and a private application for a plan designation change for a specific property, and both items were forwarded to the City Council for action. In addition, there are several minor amendments that are summarized in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 of the Staff Report. The most substantial amendments involve the Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan and the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Mr. Chave advised that Attachment 2 outlines proposed amendments to acknowledge and reference the approved Highway 99 Subarea Plan. The amendment would adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan by reference (Page 19) as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes on Pages 21 and 22 acknowledge that the CG2 zone no longer exists, as per the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. The change on Page 22 acknowledges that the subarea plan identifies three nodes: Health District, International District and Gateway District. The changes on Pages 23 through 25 come verbatim from the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and describe the three districts. Mr. Chave said amendments related to the Street Tree Plan and Urban Forest Management Plan are also proposed (Attachment 3). Although both of the plans are in various stages of development, the update process will not be completed until 2018. The proposed amendment would change the reference dates to 2018, reflecting the final completion dates for both plans. Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 Ms. Hite referred to Attachment 1, which outlines the proposed changes related to the PROS Plan. She reviewed the changes as follows: • The Veteran's Plaza was recently completed, and an amendment has been proposed to introduce it into the PROS Plan as a new Special Use Park. There are three locations where references to the park was added into the PROS Plan. • Earlier this year, the Board forwarded a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Civic Center Master Plan, and the plan was subsequently approved by the City Council. However, the plan still needs to be formally adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. A proposed amendment will add the plan as an appendix to the PROS Plan. Board Member Lovell pointed out that Table 2-5 lists the Dayton Street Plaza as a Special Use Park that is undeveloped. He pointed out that this project was recently completed, and the table should be updated accordingly. Ms. Hite agreed to make that change. Board Member Lovell referred to the Pie Chart on Page 21, which is based on the Buildable Lands Report. He recalled that the consultant doing the Highway 99 Subarea Plan projected the potential maximum development build out in square footage and housing units. He asked if these numbers would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, and Mr. Chave answered no. Board Member Lovell said there have been reports that the banners on the light poles in the International District have had problems. He has also heard that another level of lighting was added to the poles, but he has not seen it. Ms. Hite said that pedestrian -level lighting was added, and she will check on its current status. She reported that the City is working with a contractor to fabricate metal banners that are colorful yet sturdy. The fabric banners have been replaced once, but they are not durable given the amount of traffic and the number of large trucks on Highway 99. The metal banners will be a more permanent solution. Vice Chair Monroe asked about the content of the gateway sign that will be located in the International District. Ms. Hite said the sign is still being designed. She agreed to check on its progress and report back to the Board. Chair Rubenkonig noted that there are no public restrooms available at the current Senior Center facility. She asked if the new Community Center would provide public facilities, and Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments is scheduled for October 1 lth. He encouraged Board Members to forward additional questions and comments to staff. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Board Member Lovell asked if the consultant would be present at the October 25th meeting to provide the final report on the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Chair Rubenkonig noted that the Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan will come before the Board as a study item on October 1 Ith. Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to provide an update on the traffic improvements that are being done at the intersection of 2121h Street and 76th Avenue. Mr. Chave encouraged her to contact Ms. Cunningham to find the appropriate person to provide that information. Board Member Cloutier observed that a Parks & Recreation Quarterly Report is due in October. Mr. Chave agreed to contact Ms. Hite to find out when the report will be scheduled on the Board's agenda. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Board is scheduled to present an update to the City Council, as well. Mr. Chave noted that the update is scheduled on the City Council's December 5t" agenda. Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig reported on the status of the Planning Board's Youth Representative, which can be anyone between the age of 16 and 25. She advised that she sent a recruitment article to the Community Services Director, and she will edit it before it is published. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Planning Board comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Planning Board Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/27/2017 Public Hearing on rezone for property located at 9601 Edmonds Way from WMU to BC-EW (File No. PLN20170034) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History CDA & Pirscher Architects Inc. have applied for a rezone on the property located at 9601 Edmonds Way. The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). A representative of the current property (Columbia State Bank) has signed the land use application for the rezone. Staff Recommendation Provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve a rezone for the subject property from WMU to BC-EW. Narrative The subject property was rezoned in 2015 from BC-EW (Community Business - Edmonds Way) to WMU (Westgate Mixed Use). Given site constraints of the subject property, it is extremely difficult to develop under the WMU design standards. As a result, the applicants are requesting a rezone back to the previous BC-EW zoning classification. Attachments: PLN20170034 Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 10 6.A.a '11c. 189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION To: ❑nds I'lannin rpoard From: Kktrnen Lien Senior Planner Date: September 22, 2017 File: PLN20170034 Hearing Date, Time, and Place: September 27, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 - 5th Avenue North I. INTRODUCTION A. Application CDA & Pirscher Architects Inc. have applied for a rezone on the property located at 9601 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 - 2). The requested rezone would change the zoning of the property from Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). A representative of the current property (Columbia State Bank) has signed the land use application for the rezone (Attachment 1). B. Location The property subject to the rezone request is located at 9601 Edmonds Way. Tax Parcel Number 00937900001000 (Attachment 3). C. Review Process A site -specific rezone is a "Type IV-B" application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board who conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The Council holds a closed -record review of the project and makes the final decision. A combined Notice of Application, Public Hearing, and SEPA Determination notice was issued on August 31, 2017. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the notice requirements of ECDC 20.03 are provided in Attachment 4. Packet Pg. 11 6.A.a II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS A. Site Context The subject property sits on the eastern edge of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Prior to 2007, the site was zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -family Residential with a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area). In 2007 the site was rezoned (along with the two properties directly east of the property) to BC-EW under Ordinance No. 3627. The Edmonds Way designation to BC zone and specific regulations that applied to the BC-EW properties was in part to recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds Way entryway to the City of Edmonds and accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way Corridor. In 2010, Columbia State Bank received a conditional use permit to construct a bank with a drive -through on the site. Ultimately, the building permits for the bank expired and the project was never constructed. In 2015, the property was rezoned to WMU along with other commercially zoned properties in the Westgate area. The WMU zone has some specific design standards that, when applied to the subject property, make for an extremely challengingly site to develop under the WMU zone. Planning staff has discussed the site with a number of potential developers since the WMU zone was adopted and have run into the same constraints with each proposal. The primary issue limiting development is with a contour line intended to protect the steep slope and requirements for amenity space. ECDC 22.110.070 provides the design guidelines for amenity and open space in the WMU zone. At least 15% of a site in the WMU must be established as amenity space and an additional 15% for open space. ECDC 22.110.070.D.2 prohibits development beyond the contour line indicated in Figure 22.110.070.13 (inserted below) which is the 340-foot contour for the subject site. The 340-foot contour line is highlighted on the survey for the property included in Attachment 5. The 340-foot contour prohibits development on approximately a little more than half the site. Note also that the contour line cuts through the existing graveled area of the site. While portions of the site above the 340-foot contour line can count towards meeting the open space requirements, that area cannot be counted towards meeting the amenity space requirements. Once a structure compliant with setbacks (16 feet from Edmonds Way) is placed on the site, required parking spaces are provided and access in and out of the site is established, there simply is not enough room in the limited developable footprint to also provide for the 15% of amenity space. PLN20170034 — Rezone Staff Report Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 12 6.A.a Figure 22.110.070.D Protected Slopes 820 rAGU in 7IAtlR ��a �ai � nvaawui ` 0 22004 $26 �$ 128 J ��QaM1 2a9r1 �. r D dDL 230 23402 .Zff3 PAttrllNG PARKM ��f arc Z 10022 2'30 14 MM 2344 ' 23027 # 23% �• y@� •� 'r 9724 r pR W • �� RT tl�5 ��V 4 � . r � �r[Fi nL 3ti5 ,� � Y f2 1�; 17777 "� .219 22718 922799 ra o i 970[ y 2R71d 1 P �i7s 22r2r 2280 72t111 9920 22731 4' �{.p O w �A, ✓� � �n .1 • 1 � , 22>�8 228�M PL 91V 9� a� 27pW o a2a04 q � NCc kAJAIVN�ti. 0 KAW --RW 0. MIT G GA5 iMldtiN9 Y4R,.YAR1if;V h 9127 IIIAtil< Ma tM 9620 .10030 Inni. t 0 1 f r$ ti 4 2 02 2310 2T105 23107 123111073112 'L31t5 2312, iat,r ns,s' 120 A 2312A �o��% OLD WOODWAY 11,g x? � SAAR 9U1R0'r Ufa,r I an IVA !2024 130, 23021 13ARTEI.L'5 Uj 2305 9112 > 23020 23030 23G27 23031 23024 23M -110 . 15104 3 2ID312 = 23707 2S1o5 w 9Y17 9707 :3170 79111 �. t114 s71 c�j 2311.E r » 7311E a 23119 0748 no s24 9825 b#7 0729 23#8 497n q 2394E l f16, 23265 23214 230f7 my 4�g 23077 oC91 -�` �p P 3 [ti l�1 2:i1Gu 9G1u � � a =Na ST sw 9624 23e 96iI= ter.... - .. 3n Protected slope Ilne (number indicates related slope contour, If applicable) Nate: 4S-faot width of protected area Is adjoining east edge of lot 23105; line otherwise faDows indicated slope contours. B. Neighboring Development and Zoning The subject property is located on the eastern edge of the WMU zone (Attachment 3). The two parcels directly east of the site are zoned BC-EW. A single family neighborhood with an RS-8 zone sits above the site. A PUD substation is located south of the site across Edmonds Way which is zone RM-1.5. West of the site is the WMU zone and a variety of commercial developments including a gas station, bank, drive - through Starbucks, grocery stores, drug stores and other development. B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed rezone on August 31, 2017 with a SEPA appeal deadline of September 14, 2017. There were no appeals of the SEPA determination. The SEPA Checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance are provide in Attachment 6 and 7 respectively. C. Technical Review Committee This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division, which had PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 13 6.A.a no comments on the proposed rezone (Attachment 8). D. Public Comments To date, one public comment has been submitted on the proposed rezone from Colin Adams (Attachment 9) who lives in one of the houses in the single-family neighborhood directly above the site. Mr. Adam had two questions, one related to zoning height changes and the second related to the integrity of the hillside. Staffs Response: Height - Under the existing Westgate Mixed Use zone, a structure on this site could be built up to 35 feet measured from the street front along Edmonds Way. Under the proposed Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW) zone, the base height limit is 25 feet measured from average grade; however, a structure may be allowed to be constructed up to 40 feet if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are spelled out in ECDC 16.50.020.A footnote 3. Those conditions are: 3 The stated height limit may be increased to 40 feet; provided, that: (a) The street setback of any proposed building shall be increased to 15 feet in depth. Type III landscaping shall be located within this setback; (b) Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential (RS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a) of this footnote, the proposed development shall modulate the design of any building facades facing the single-family residentially (RS) zoned property; (c) At least three of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: (1) Achievement of least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units proposed; (3) Public amenities within an area comprising at least 25 percent of the length of any required street setback such as outdoor seating, plazas, walkways or other usable open space. The remainder of the setback area will be landscaped with Type III landscaping; (4) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to: bioretention/rain PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.A.a gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. (d) Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. Slope stability — As described above, in the Westgate Mixed Use zone, an elevation was established along the slope in part to protect the steep slope area and protect the existing vegetation on the slope to help buffer the WMU area from the surrounding single family properties. The elevation line changes throughout the WMU zone and is at 340 feet on the subject property. The City of Edmonds critical area regulations require geotechnical reports for any development within 50 feet of a slope that exceeds 40%. There are specific findings that must be made in a geotechnical report before the City can approve a project. Some of these findings are: ECDC 23.80.060 Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. And ECDC 23.80.070 3. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 15 6.A.a adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas; 4. Design Standards within Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this title. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level offunction. The basic development design standards are: a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. If stability at the proposed development site is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties; Any proposed development on this site would be required to prepare a geotechnical report consistent with ECDC 23.80. E. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance According to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones), the Planning Board shall review the proposed rezone and consider the following factors at a minimum: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan map designation for the subject property is "Edmonds Way Corridor" (Attachment 10). The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals listed for the Edmonds Way Corridor are listed below. Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small- scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 16 6.A.a not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The subject property was the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor designation that was included in the WMU zoning classification (Attachment 10). The majority of the property included in the WMU zone has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Community Commercial, while a few parcels on the west end of the WMU zone have a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Planned Business/Neighborhood Business (which are also in the Westgate Corridor overlay). The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations (Attachment 11). The compatible zoning classifications for the Edmonds Way Corridor are BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone and RM zones. Rezoning the property to BC-EW will is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; According to ECDC 16.00.010, the zoning ordinance has the following purposes: A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan; and PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by: 1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use; 2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and 3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses. At the same time, the purposes of the Business and Commercial Zones include (ECDC 16.40.000): The general purposes of the business and commercial (B or C) zones are: A. To provide for areas for commercial uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers they serve; B. To provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other; C. To provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions which may appropriately locate in commercial areas; D. To require adequate landscaping and off-street parking and loading facilities; E. To protect commercial uses from hazards such as fire, explosion and noxious fumes, and also nuisances created by industrial uses such as noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare and heavy truck traffic. Finally, the Community Business (BC) zone district has its own purposes as identified in ECDC 16.50.005: The BC and BC — Edmonds Way zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community; B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; C. To allow for mixed -use development which includes multiple dwelling unit(s) that support business uses; PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 18 6.A.a D. To implement the policies of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor; E. To meet the goals of the Growth Management Act and the city of Edmonds' comprehensive plan for housing diversity and economic vitality. The subject property is located in the Edmonds Way Corridor comprehensive plan designation. An explicit purpose of the BC-EW zone is "to implement the policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor." Rezoning the site to BC-EW is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; Commercial zoning exists on the east and west side of the subject property. The BC-EW zoned property to the east currently have two single-family residences located on them, but it is only a matter of time before these sites are converted to a commercial use. A PUD substation is located south across Edmonds Way and property to the west is all developed with commercial uses. A single family neighborhood with an RS-8 zoning classification sits above the property. The BC-EW has specific provisions intended to minimize impacts to adjacently zoned property detailed in ECDC 16.50.020 — Site development standards. While the BC zones normally does not require a rear or side setback, properties adjacent to residentially zoned properties must be set back 15 feet from the property line and the required setback must be completely landscaped with Type I landscaping (the City's most dense landscaping type). Additionally, buildings taller the 25 feet adjacent to single family zones must modulate the design which will minimize the visual impact on single family properties. D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; The primary change in the area and the subject property is the establishment of the Westgate Mixed Use zone in 2015. As noted above in the site context discussion, applying the WMU zone to the subject property severely limits development potential of the site. The subject property was the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor comprehensive plan designation to be included in the WMU zone. The purposes of BC zone specifically note that BC-EW zone is intended "to implement the policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor." Rezoning the site back to BC-EW would be more consistent with the City's policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor. E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a There has been a lot of interest in this site over the last couple of years since the WMU zone has been adopted. Given the specific design standards of the WMU and constraints those standards put on the property, it is extremely difficult to design a project for the site that would be economically feasible. As a result the property has remained undeveloped. The BC-EW zone contains many of the features that were incorporated into the WMU zone. For instance, any proposed building above 25 feet must include at least three building and site design techniques of LEED gold certification (or comparable green building certification), inclusion of affordable housing, public amenities of at least 25% the length of any required street setback, or low impact development techniques. The physical constraints of the site is that it is relatively narrow lot with a steep slope on the northern half of the lot. With WMU zone prohibition against development beyond the 340-foot contour, this further limits the developable area of the site. Given the steep slope on the site, any development will have to prepare a geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80 and making the specific findings required by ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report from a previously considered development on the site demonstrating the site could be safely developed without impacting the slope stability (Attachment 12). Any new proposed development will be required to prepare a geotechnical report specific to that proposed development consistent with the current critical area regulations. The BC-EW zone is a more suitable zone for the subject property than the WMU zone. F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Given the difficulties of developing the property under the WMU zone design standards, rezoning the property back to BC-EW will increase (or reestablish) the economic value of the site. At the same time public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely impacted by rezoning the property back to BC-EW. Critical area regulations will ensure slope stability is not impacted, some development standards specific to the BC-EW zone are intended to minimize impacts to adjacent residentially zoned property, and other development regulations also help protection the public health, safety, and welfare. III. CONCLUSIONS A. Applying the Westgate Mixed Use zone to the subject property had unforeseen consequences. Given the specific physical properties of the site, development potentially is extremely limited by the WMU zone. B. The proposed BC-EW zone specifically implements policies of the Edmonds' comprehensive plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor in which the site is located. PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a C. Design standards within the BC-EW zone and other City of Edmonds development regulations will ensure slope stability is not impacted and public health, safety and welfare is protected. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff proposes that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the rezone from contract WMU to BC-EW. V. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Cover Letter 3. Zoning and Vicinity Map 4. Public Notice Documentation 5. Site Survey 6. SEPA Checklist 7. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 8. Engineering Comment Form 9. Colin Adams September 20, 2017 Email 10. Comprehensive Plan Map 11. Public Notice Documentation 12. Engineering Division Comments VI. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 CDA & Pirscher Architects Inc. 23114 — 1001h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN20170034 —Rezone Staff Report Page 11 of 11 Avery Johnson Columbia State Bank 5210 74th Street West, Suite B Lakewood, WA 98499 Colin Adams 22806 — 96th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a f City of Edmonds JUL 27 2017 Land Use Application DEVELOPMENTrSERACES .1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ;J COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT _1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT J HOME OCCUPATION 1 FORMAL SUBDIVISION I SHORT SUBDIVISION J LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT d PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .1 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 7 STREET VACATION I REZONE 1 SHORELINE PERMIT '1 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION J OTHER; • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ■ PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 9601 9601 Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) West ate Station Rezone o u l.a State Ban PROPERTY OWNER Avery Johnson PHONE# 253-305-1933 ADDRESS 5210 74th St W. Suite B Lakewood, WA 98499 ColumbiaBank.com FAX# TAXACCOUNT# 009379 000 010 00 SEC. 36 TWP. 27 N RNG. 3 E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) SEE ATTACHED DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) SEE ATTACHED APPLICANT CDA + Pirscher Architects Inc. PHONE# 206-368-9668 ADDRESS 23114 100th Ave. W, Edmonds, WA 98020 E-MAIL carlp®cdaarch.com FAX# 206-368-9558 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Carl F. Pirscher AIA<LEED AP PHONE# 206-368-9668 ADDRESS (above) E-MAIL carlpocdaarch.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and hislhcr/tts heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraenon based in whole or part upon false, mtsteading, inaccurate or incomplete inron}iation rum ished by the apphcanI, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the ittfarmatio acid exhibits h submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applicati on thcrbe4alf of he - Vr a, listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 7-20-17 Property Owner's Authorlxntion ' 1, /gd¢/� _ .Jj�� _ , ceniR, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foltnHin� is a true and correct stalcmr 1 ltn a aulltorixtd the above ApplieandAgcnt to app4y for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for e p I' officials and the staff of the Ciry of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of in ction and posti all ?d, t to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Que ns'' Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page I of I Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 22 6.A.a PIRSCHER ARCHITECTS A R C H I T E C T S I N T E R 1 O R S July 25, 2017 City of Edmonds — Development Services Department - Planning Division ATTN: Kernen Lien 121 51 Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 PROJECT. Westgate Station Rezone Request CDA# 17013 SUBJECT. Project Description for Request for Rezone Dear Mr. Lien: P L A N N E R S RECIElvig() JUL 2 7 2017 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COZIIVTER I am representing the Owner of a currently vacant parcel located at 3601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. The subject parcel is part of a neighborhood rezone approved by the City in 2015 for much of the four quadrant corners located at the intersection of 100th Ave W (911 Ave W.) and Edmonds Way. The subject site is currently zoned Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) and prior to the 2015 rezone the subject parcel was zoned Business Commercial- Edmonds Way (BC-EW). We are requesting a rezone of the property back to the BC-EW zone for the reasons enumerated below. The subject parcel remains with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Edmonds Way Corridor and we are not requesting a Comprehensive Plan change nor do we think it is necessary. At the time of the rezone to WMU the City of Edmonds imposed a limitation on new development beyond (or above) specific topographic contour lines associated with three of the four corner block quadrants at the intersection of 1001 Ave W. and Edmonds Way. The subject property lies to the east and north of the intersection as noted above and as such the specific topographic contour line that limits development of the site is the 340' elevation line. I have included in this package for a rezone approval a survey of the subject parcel which shows the 340' contour line. Please note that the 340' contour line bisects the subject property and precludes development of approximately 1/3 of the site area. When the 240' contour limitation is added to the 50' utility easement along the east property line and an additional continuous 16' utility easement along the street frontage at Edmonds Way the actual net developable area of the subject property is approximately 18,009 square feet from a total surveyed property area of 46,550 SF or approximately 39% of the total property area. This limitation on any form of development activity which includes "activities such as clearing, grading, or construction of structures or retaining walls uphill of the protected slope line" severely and negatively affects the ability of the property owner to develop a viable project on the subject site that is consistent with the expressed goals and intent of the WMU zone. We are interested in proceeding with a rezone application because we believe that the project that we intend to pursue under the BC-EW zoning regime will very closely adhere to the intent of the WMU District core concept which is to "create a vibrant mixed -use activity center that enhances the economic development of the city and provides housing as well retail and office uses to meet the needs of all age groups". It is our belief that the limitation of development beyond the 340' contour line significantly reduces our FAOBS\I7013 Westgate Station\Word\City\Application\REZONE APPLICATION PACKAGE\LETTER describing project (003) (Recovered).doc Carl F. Pirscher, AIA principal 23114100 AVE Edmonds, Washington 98020 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 23 6.A.a opportunities to develop a viable project that will reflect the core WMU District concepts. The attached Geotechnical report prepared by Golder Associates indicates that with proper engineering and utilization of slope stabilization procedures development above the 340' contour line can be undertaken such that a proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property. The report also indicates that a properly designed and constructed slope retaining system will help assure an industry standard of care for slope stability. A project specific application following the approval of the property rezone will be designed to minimize any impacts possible on the critical slopes and will make extensive use of engineering analysis and geotechnical recommendations in the final placement and design of any structure to be constructed on the subject site. It should also be noted that several abutting sites just to the east of our site remain in the BC-EW zoning regime and therefore we are not proposing to create a "spot zone" at variance with current zoning and development patterns of surrounding and nearby property. As the applicant, I recognize that the City created the Westgate Mixed -Use zone with the very laudable desires to enhance the livability, the desirability and the economic vitality of the Westgate neighborhood. We share in these desires but feel that a prohibition of development beyond the 340' contour line that bisects our site places severe economic constraints on our ability to deliver a quality project that will meet the City's goals for our portion of the Westgate neighborhood. We feel that the City's approval of our "contract rezone" proposal will allow us to develop a currently vacant, and visually dispiriting property into a project that will that will improve the public health and welfare and promote the vision that the City has for the Westgate neighborhood. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, CDA-APIRSCHER ARCHITECTS, INC. Carl' Pirscher, AIA, I. ED AP President enclosure cc F:AJOBS\17013 Westgate StationANord\CityVApplicatiunARF,ZONE AITLICATION PACKAGE\LETTER describing project (003) (Recovcred).doc Carl F. Pirscher, AIA principal 23114100 AVE Edmonds, Washington 98020 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a m 2300 22303 NNO 2230 M� M 22304 2230 23 22226 22301 230 22314 22311 °' 'C 22310 231 30 N2230 2231 2309 •',2> "q 22310 ! 23 "'o ??3pq 230 rc',po 22306 730 1351e m 22328 9919 `7i 3 'S°y N 7 7`2' 2 ? 1T 9875 9811 22315 2231 3 2231 2320 2237 2237 a? 2237 „+� 2312 n� ,a"• 1360 ,0 ^ 997'�' Oa 'p�j 819 9807 ""ry 9717 232 > 9619 9601 9521 9517 9513 9501 2232 M 14TH ST SW m ¢ 33 M w 22 18 N m m �A11 1405 830 840 y 22407 9918 224TH ST SW x m m m 224NT'�;,2242. m 9808 22401 YY40 2240 2240 95149512 9510 9502 22405 ry 9316 201410 .� m n 224 9222 m1415 jK14TH' 1417 22415 22416 2240 O1 241 2241 2241 22405 1416 1423 242 22421 407 ?q7 22409 22408 2409 O1 2240822423 22422242 2242 2241419 x 2242242 1422 1433 2243 22423 °i 22412 22413 22416 22413 22416224 2243 2242 2242 1423 22429 2242 22432 2242 22421 1434 1439 22431 243 250 250 22420 22421 22420 22421 22420 9925 �y 9 2 22432 a 1440 1445 o°j 0 9845 2509 22429 22506 `SO 22507 225TN g0 2509 22507 22506 22507 22506 ?i 3y. y a'43522506 22600 22511 22510^ ?, 25122515 eL225111 22510 22511 h 22510 > > 1452 1457 ,y 'sW 9825 225 2521 PRESBYTER A 22515 22514 3 3 ¢ ?S ??`r? 22521 22514 22515 22516 O ? in SSTH ST SW 2526 2537 CHURCH a z ?? 22527 99 22519 251a ® O �, S3 S.7p '� >q0 804 y 808 2260 ,�h a 22518 =22516 C 22 .2 18 2260 g 1504 F 1505 P 2 oo,'` ? 2260 22605 3 22605 225222260 22604 22605 22604 260 22512 y� 226 1506 1509 9920 a�J, 909 o TH PL SW m G 22615 ° 22608 22622608 06 22609 22608 261522614 !L 221 8 22618 22621 22620 1yog 7y,7 9916 ,Q rn x 262 2262 22612 22613 22612 22613 22612 1515 7 22 2 70 5 r 22629 22620 22619 22620 22619 22704 27 2271 T SQL 9713 22710 e e _ 22711 jo 6 972 022708 22706 22705 22706 9709 22718227TH PL SW 22712 0H WESTGAT C AE 982622714273 9505 PARKING 203 w m m m R 28TH ST —1 22805 p�? ^ ?? ??8p oo STH ST SW 0 2281 228TH PL SW g1 0 9 2280 0� O /(,O2 m goryo � m p>9>ps ryrym ryh ,aop 3 Q QFC 1 > 3 g60 R f 22828 29TH ST SW 9797 qy� yj 76 GASNVVM v �gryy `On ^Ors^O 9` rzrcmc 727 - - 3 229TH PL S f E o,5ry 9715 (LQN SO , 5 3015 P RKING m 8912 SR 104 23001 B = o° 1dds0' 10016 9930 23003 300 2�p oh m 230TH ST BANK 1 9910 m mm m m N g n n 3 23009 2301 C 23019 3 IVAR'S mmmm 23014 G 23017 a 9529> m °y0A y ^1 - E m 3027 0� 23028 23025 9920 23024 23027 m o 23024 23027 9601 Q�, y�o 9505 �°'Y `bh° • PA L'RK G 07 .5 23029 6ARTE6 % 23028 F N S O 3 Q 23029 23030 ?i 23031 n 9609 9S >9' 'Y i REC 23102 3030 3 m m ? ory0 9321 9307 21 RppM 98 7 6 54 23107 103 23105 23107 >o = 23105 23104 23105 9 9507 9 i2o d '7O? 2 9229 • ^^ o f > n 9707 O M c 30 22 15 o ¢ e "� 23 1 14 1 1 11 2311 23119 23121 23114 0 23115 23110 = 23111 H 231ST PL SW 23109 9670 rn �' O1 rn 9 23109 23109 9302 H 1 24 1 132 10 M 23118 23119 9718 9706 gi m 1 S 23125 98m "� N H ry 9409 n 2311 c e 231ST 23127 e9729 23126 r m gi m m M N �, �� 8926 25 232ND ST SW m O1 9411 9327 °�' ST SW f • gory0 9004 23 y f 9924 H 23206 > 23205 23206 9624 23206 9576 "� c n e M H m " s0 9003 w O SALE LUTHERN °1 23214 a 23215 23214 23215 23215 m O1 m a °�' m e m 9210 PAR NG ^ U CHURCH 9828 32"1� 3 2322723216 m 9525 9 O1 M 23227 23 2322 3221 23228232272321 428 Nry 23228 mN ¢ 23301 233RDSTSW 8 e �' e o 23222 •D 23315 y33p6 ?3309 hho6' = 23307 23308 Sp 9426 m °1 m 23232 23229 s 8g e e M F H 23309 M N N e P^ a 23317 ^ GYM ^ ,y^i ry�^i ,y^i O1 23315 23318 23315 9509 "' 9333 ne m m ooA y 9805 ~ry> 23319 N n ' 331 n e 9209 n 9 OFFICE y O 234TH ST SW g01 9809 A� "d �� 9623 23326 23327 H 23327 e e 9208 U a e 4TH ST SW m e N r w BOILER q0 q� 23406 9622 23420 H H v e c KIT V 3q a 2'' m n 23409 23406 9330 po 3406 23405 e 23414 9624 23422 a O1 °1 a?"'y 23411 O1 °1 1h 23411 3 _ 23414 O '1•' 3q = °1 m 23422 3 23415 N ?3y?,zy 341 23421 23414 2347 23415 •,A�/�- 23 lo COMM z 9626 23424 a "' `t' a L T L 4 n gA2 23430 °1 O1 gA4 ?,y4 3422 = 23425 23420 3 2342 23422 23423 23 LIBRARY a e y 235TH ST SW `'u+ >q 3 350A e L sw H 23504 x n e `'u+q, p?o 2343 D n+ 23426 a 23430 23429 1 m m m 235 980 23417 9526 9514 o m 2343 23 .�A m e m 35 rn 23512 m 23513 23511 v yo'' h" w 3508 23509 w 23507 2350 ¢ 23507 za To 4z ryy 981 1 2351 y a°' 'L m 351 23520 23521 H n n n g' �` 3516 � 23517 + 23510 2351 11 2 A 9 23 o ne 2352 552 35TH pL5 23515 lJ 23528 23529 O1 �' g 9q1 23520 9323 m c 9115 23 2352 9508 $�.a 9 e 23529 9205 9107 0 23605 `'J6, y0h $ o� 'o" a 23607 eeee e 3 222333666211 1 ?223336666312826 oo�ry2233662179 QW 9 ��^�,.yQ � M336'N2�' 9j^m2p36mTH 962 9407 m - m m f8 23 SSW H PLW 23611 236142362 23628 236236123621 23619 012 23632 36TH Pl SWs W n 9521 - `,7e. 1 g9l Zoning and Vicinity Map Rezone Application PLN20170034 Attachment 3 a E Scale a 1 inch = 550 feet Packet Pg. 25 6.A.a 0 FILE NO.: PLN20170034 Applicant: Pirscher Architects E 0 L 4- DECLARATION OF MAILING 0 w On the 31 st day of August, 2017, the attached Notice of Application, Public Hearing and SEPA determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 31 st day of August, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 26 6.A.a 0 FILE NOs.: PLN20170034 D Applicant: Pirscher Architects E 0 L. 4- M 0 DECLARATION OF POSTING W On the 31 st day of August, 2017, the attached Amended Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true.rnd correct, this 31 st day of August, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. 0 Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 27 6.A.a Notice of Application, Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number PLN20170034 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40. Name of Applicant: CDA & Pirscher Architects Inc. — Carl Pirscher Location: 9601 Edmonds WA, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00937900001000 File No.: PLN20170034 Date of Application: July 27, 2017 Date of Notice: August 31, 2017 Requested Permits: Rezone Date of Completeness: August 24, 2017 Other Required Permits: SEPA Review Required Studies: None. Existing Environmental Documents: Previous Geotechnical Reports, SEPA Environmental Checklist Phase I Environmental Assessment. Comments on Proposal Due: September 27, 2017 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 8:00 a.m. to noon or online through the City's website at littps_Ilpermits.edmotids.wa.uslcitizen through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20170015. City Contact: Kernen Lien, (425) 771-0220, kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION A public hearing before the Planning Board will be held on Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE* Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 28 6.A.a *NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON REVERSE SIDE* 0 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE E E 0 L Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed rezone at 9601 Edmonds Way >, ca (File No. PLN20170034). � SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. 0 Date of Issuance: August 31, 2017 SEPA Appeal Deadline: September 14 2017 at 4.00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific 0 reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, co Edmonds, WA 98020. a� x "1 „ ]SIN SY ]W 1 KIN +s '3029 22521 22ra7 r.� p PARR G :s kwLo ■Y 22 is It :+ �a e xr 1[iFl eto Ak Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH775022 PLN20170034 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/31/2017 and ending on 08/31/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $99.76. Subscribed and sworn before me on this +.ter day of 1 r ntry Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Linda Phillips Notary Public state of Washington My Appointment Expires 08/2912021 0 E 0 L W c 0 E w Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a C3 CITY OF EDMQNDS —� Notice otAppll0a0dn, Pdbpc ffearung and SERA Determination - File Number PLN2GI'M34 Ni710E OF APPLI,C TA 40 4 DaorNmian a} pygppg�; TheThe appt[cam is pIs roposlh 1a rezona the subject pml;87y from Weslgale Mixed use (wMU 14 Community Business — Edmonds WayyC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained wilhln OMOnds Community 17avatopmant Code 20.40. CDA b Plrschor Architects Inc.— Carl Pirscher i.ecnnan:9601 Edmonds WA, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number My 27, 20117 M AAU�ggut14l24, 2017 dl 31,3017 Rezone n= SE PA Review L=U' 1Cag..Zni7lri€ twnm. ume= Previous Geulechnical Repotta, ccSERA Envlfenmentat Checklist Phase I Environmental Rasessmoltt. CnmmenrsOn &a_c.4S?I DurL a,, mnt na. 27 2017 (see public hearinghaaring lnlarnurtloo halve+}• Any persort has Iha fight to comment on (his application during the ppublre eammenl period, receive notlee and parilcipate in any hoarC75 and request a copy of the decislon on the application. The Ciry may accept public comments at any limo prior to the closing of the record of an open retard predecislon hearing. II any. or, it no open retard predeeislors heafing 16 provided, prior to the daclslort on the project permit. Antyy parties of record as dellnW Tn ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initfato art adminlsreativo'eapppoaf, Irtlormatfon an this deVelappmont appplWallOn can be viewed or obtalned at the City of Edmentls D vetcp02ent Services De parlrnenl, 121 • 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, c88 are Mondays, Tueedny% Thursdays and Fridays from $:l10 a.m. to 4:30 p.rn., and Wednesdays from 8100 a.m, to noon of oonlIA0 th�rrgoqrru10ggh Iha CltNMyy'a websile at lallre"'- Mp.L 1W9 I inr C.ncpw taeQKeme Lien, l425y 71 •l permit nhin 70015, iosed feZone of 9501 ElIMIM5' ncrid�� yInat�on Notice in s hag issued a D_HS9fmi at WAG 197.111-340 $or the abov 0lasu4r&%Allg t31,2017 hN 1 nne. Ssnssrmla st be lied fn writing ci(fag the required lee to the Cityy of Ed Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Nellod: August 31, 2017. will be held on . in the Council for the "GL Appeals for appeal with Division. 121 — EDH7750Q2 0 E 0 L 4— c 0 W Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a _ _ \ OVERHEAD POWER LINE / \ VAULT ACCESS' / TOP 3.s4 W 58VAULT BOTTOM 30.64 CO I 00079op000 00 / 3 0 � I I 1 / CITY/ BAND / C.) / \ I. y 6 2 00937900000700 \ �� bi CITY BANK oi / / �� ^� 00937900000500 lg / `� / T i / / / / / �p5 I I PHILIP Y. JANG I 432 I I I 6 /g�j / / OLyYMPIC /EW AND G / / / /WER VISTRICT SEWER ASEMEN / 00937900000600 E/ ENT P �`tVLAT CITY BANKS / Q � / / �/ 1001- O'j'(.�� ' /' yhe% / / / / / 50' P.U.D. NO. 1 OF ► — / All SNOHOMISH TRANS CN SyLJINN4E 6 _€A-SPER A.F. . 1 I NO. 2027210 i346� d --so' oRIVA � �oRI �oTs i ATHRoucH ��"hp 8 PER PLAT —346 / / / _ / /�Sh� / ' /i ' / / —344-10, / / / / / —342— /i ' /i ' �� O� yap �` 3y2 \\t7♦!. ECOLOGY390 � _ — 'ib BLOCKS � ,,�• 10, —38 CA 88 / 6� iILITY �� — — —'�/ /_ / j /_ / / /3�31*k�/ / �•— —�� 1000, 'S� % POLE \ 1' GA 15' X 50' UTILITY \/ / N, EASEMENT PER A.F. / A N0. 200201310272 / \� GUY% \\` 100, 10, EX. IRON PIPE-1•"�� _--------�/ �/�•-%�� -- /// /—___----\\ s EX. . / 1/338— TOP 337.28 0.2' WEST Z --_ j�i� / �/ i �� yet INV 334.54N / — — —340— _ �� i / / / INV 33439 W — /338 / / ��6' GRAVEL SURFACQ PARKING AREA i`5gI �1 — — — — — 88'�2 40" W 10,/ s b.00' �� 0 i EX. IRON PIN 1 ��ye / / / _ �6� / / UNDER ROCK �5 — �. / 15� I S 29'33' W-0.09' — \ \ �� ° 1-1 RIGHT OW WAY MARGIN PER / / ��6h 9 Fl 5h \ WARRANTY DEED A.F. NO. 2239008AN ----------------- \ / / r" 27033600115700 h \ / / KWICK N KLEEN LLC— / /— G E X . C. B . \ � \ /1yb x TOP 334.51 0W INV 331.71 / / \ _55�6i336' M#1 Q \/ v 15' UTILITY gSh� / Sh5 \ EASEMENT PER PLAT �/ 100, \�► 9 \/ / ROBERTSRE EESS LLC w E X . C C. B B. '/ ,y \ TOP 331.87 10, / y �� INV MAW // 34/'// ext LAN i / OVERHEAD \\ a\\ O / �e ��( / / POWER LINES / h 0 • \ Z /1100, 15' X 87' UTILITY EASEMENT PER A.F. A / / SSCOc b gS�' N0. 200202250726 0 �555 / UTILITY h / / / \\� gS -55 ♦ // POLE > \ EX. C.B. �ti'/ W / �f \ TOP 331.57 / (p. INV 330.09E / J---r ems\ INV 329.90- i /\.\ CLAN AEC E oll / .01 s�ti'ssco �� / Vi%��' — \ —332 �/ ` I C� / \ 1100, w N 1000, W W /// W►� � ♦ // W // W W BASIS OF BEARINGS / N 68'52'49" E 1105.36' PER PLAT / MONUMENT TO MONUMENT 55 CLAN A E C C B A S E) W W ssL- / TOP 330.83 H / AECCBASE) INV 323.30 DESIGN — S5/ / i / / W W LEGEND s FH = FIRE HYDRANT Gt� I WV = WATER VALVE I AV = AIR VACUUM RELEASE I �OB H = CATCH BASIN MANHOLE ce I ■ = CATCH BASIN I CAE— = GUY ANCHOR UTILITY = UTILITY POLE POLE SSMH = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0 ssco = SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT W = WATER LINE —SD = STORM DRAINAGE LINE —SS = SANITARY SEWER LINE G = GAS LINE = ROCK RETAINING WALL = EXISTING ASPHALT - EXISTING CONCRETE O �( V Q \\ol 00� EX. M.H. v TOP 352.85 INV 345.71 AB 1 to 27033600101500 SANDRA L. GREEN .9 3 O o / / egg o O i N / / 0 / / "ok EX. M.H. / TOP 341.21 / BP\NE INV 336.0 AB EX. UTILITY / EASEMENT PER A.F. �\R----------- N0. 200201310273 titi F`R E X . M . H . —-------- —% TOP 338.45 INV 335.82 AB BASIS OF BEARINGS 6• S/1N / N 68°52'49" E 1105.36' PER PLAT 3�— SS �,�8ti MONUMENT TO MONUMENT EX. M.H. INV 330.95 DESIGN 000- "cDloCurveTex CTR CHANNELllol / N CBASE) W E S SCALE : 1 "=20' 0' S' 10' 20' 30' 40' BASIS OF BEARINGS THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH STREET S.W. BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF 44TH AVENUE W. AND 48TH AVENUES W. AS MONUMENTED PER PLAT OF WETHERSFIELD EAST AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9611125001, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BENCH MARK ORIGINATING - INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE NO. 3-43 LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 96th AVENUE W. AND 228th STREET S.W. ELEVATION : 378.00 DATUM OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (M.L.L.W.) TBM#1 - PK NAIL LOCATED ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THE EASTERLY DRIVEWAY CUT AS SHOWN HEREON. ELEVATION : 335.62 TBM#2 - PK NAIL LOCATED ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THE ASPHALT WALK APPROXIMATELY 7' EASTERLY OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 9 OF THE PLAT AS SHOWN HEREON. ELEVATION : 332.14 SURVEY LEGEND °Q EX. 2" CONCRETE FILLED IRON PIPE WITH INVERTED NAIL IN CASING • SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR & CAP STAMPED "LSA 22969" 0 FOUND EX. REBAR/IRON PIN AS NOTED PLAT - REFERS TO PLAT OF K. ELISE / 9 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' (APPROX.) LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 10 OF K. ELISE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 19, 2002 UNDER RECORDING NO. 200206195002, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. TITLE ENCUMBRANCES AS DISCLOSED BY TITLE REPORT ISSUED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2001 UNDER FILE NO. NCS-429179-WAI: 1. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 2027210. AFFECTS THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. 2. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RELINQUISHMENT OF ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE RIGHTS TO LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR, TOGETHER WITH RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO A FROM STATE HIGHWAY AS DISCLOSED BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 2239006. 3. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT TITLE ORDINANCE NO. 3374, RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 2001 AS RECORDING NO. 200112101023. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTAINED THEREIN DESCRIBES THE ADJACENT LOT 9 OF THE PLAT OF K. ELISE. 4. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A UTILITY EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200201310272. AFFECTS SOUTHEAST PORTION OF PROPERTY. SEE MAP FOR LOCATION. 5. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A UTILITY EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200202250726. AFFECTS SOUTHWEST PORTION OF PROPERTY. SEE MAP FOR LOCATION. 6. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, DEDICATIONS, NOTES, EASEMENTS AND PROVISIONS, IF ANY, AS CONTAINED AND/OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF K. EUSE, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2002 UNDER RECORDING NO. 200206195002. FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 53061C1315 E DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1999. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS LYING WITHIN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. AREA 47,923 SQ. FT. OR 1.100 ACRES UTILITY NOTE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE OWNER SHOULD CONTACT THE PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREA TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. SURVEYOR'S NOTES TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IN STEEP SLOPE AREAS MAY NOT REFLECT STANDARD ACCURACY AS THE AREA IS COVERED IN EXTREMELY HEAVY BRUSH AND BLACKBERRIES. THERE IS NO EVEIDENCE THE SITE HAS BEEN RECENTLY GRADED OR USED AS A SOLID WASTE DUMP. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE T0: FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (TITLE ORDER NO. NCS-429179-WAI, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2010); THIS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS", JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS IN 2005, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11(B), 13, 14, 16 AND 18 OF TABLE A THEREOF. PURSUANT TO THE ACCURACY STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THIS CERTIFICATION, UNDERSIGNED FURTHER CERTIFIES THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AS A LAND SURVEYOR REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. THE RELATIVE POSITIONAL ACCURACY OF THIS SURVEY DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED THEREIN. JEFFREY T. TREIBER, P.L.S. CERTIFICATE NO. 22969 oFA. WASpj��'�� a ��d `0 0 22969 is � I�AAL LAB Sv ALTA/AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR FIRST WESTERN DE I/EL OPMEN T SERVICES. INC N N W1 /4, N E1 /4, SECTION 36, T.27 N., R. 3 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Packet Pg. 32 Attachment 5 #P71 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part 13) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Westgate Station Rezone 2. Name of applicant: CDA + Pirscher Architects Im'. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 9 23114 1001h Edmonds, IVA 9802f1 Carl F. Pirscher AIA. LEED AP 206- 368-9668 x-107 (o, fice) 206-853-1904 (cell) Date checklist prepared: July 17, 2017 Revised on 9116116 P71 - SEPA Checklist Page 1 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a 5. Agency requesting checklist: City ofEdmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. 8. 9. The Application for Rezone if approved will allow the submittal of project specific site and building documentation that will be filed soon after final completion of the Rezone process. (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Following the Rezone approval a mixed -use project specific documentation for design review approval will be filed with the City soon after final completion of the Rezone process. It is not anticipated at this time that other than tenant improvement plans for the commercial component of the mixed use project, that further expansion or additions will be undertaken. (STAFF COMMENTS) List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Pi vious derelo ine►N a licationc br• n this cyrrendv ►>acam site hcay been filed irith the Cif f of Isclnrorrds in the L)rrst. A_sharl plat was pMfl ed}or and granted over dent (10) years ago 117at created the individualnar•cel drat is the srtbjecl ro e►7 or this rezone. (STAFF COMMENTS} e Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None identified al this time. Revised on 9119116 P71_--,'EPA- Checklist Page 2 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a [STAF F COMM Revised on 9119116 P71_ - SEPA_Checklist Page 3 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. A Request for Rezone from the Cily of Edmonds SEPA approval for the Request for Rezone. A SEPA checklist will be submitted for a specific project following approval of the rezone. Building permit documentation will also be submitted for a specific project following the a roval of this rezone re nest. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This Rezone AR12lication is to rezone the subject site from it's current WMU - West rate Mixed Use zone back to the zoning that was in effect prior to the creation of this WMU zone which was BC- EW or Business Commercial - Edmonds Way. following apRroval of the rezone for the sub'ect site a mixed use proiect will be Dresented to the City far review. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property that is to be the subiect of this rezone request is located 3601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, W A__See attached propeshy for legal description, tax parcel number and additional information. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71_ _SEPA_Checklist Page 4 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.a 0 E 0 L W TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS c 0 E 1. Earth LU V- a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: CD rn Approximately 213rds of the site is is flat to ro I I ing with the balance of the site in moderate to steep slopes. b. C. d. Revised on 9119116 (STAFF COMMENTS) te- - e. e 1 What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There is a bluff that paralells_a portion of the northern property line that exceeds 45%. (STAFF COMMENTS) What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. See attached eeotechnical rQ urt_for specific information. (STAFF COMM ENTS) vL L, `k I A ci Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is some histoEy of unstable soils on the subject site. Please review the attached eotechnical report for additional information. P71 _ -_ SEPA_ Checklist Page 5 of 31 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 37 6.A.a 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) E L 4- e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. -a c This information will be determined when a protect specific application is filed wish ilie •QV of Edmonds. 0 E u.l (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. This information will be determined when a ro'ect specific al2plication is filed with the 01y of Edmonds. (STAFF CO MENTS) 40 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is unknown at this time and will be addressed when a project specific application is filed with the City of Edmonds. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: This is unknown at this time and will be addressed when a project specific aliRlicalion is filed with [lie City of 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Revised on 9119116 P71 =SEPA Checklist Page 6 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 38 6.A.a b. C. This is unknown at this time and will be addressed when a proiect specific application is riled with the City of e (STAFF COMMENTS) t-y_- Z_(�`�` ' Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS} Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: This information will be determined when a project specific application is filed with the City of_Ednio_nds. (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMM (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None identified at this time. Revised on 9119116 P71 =SEPA Checldist Page 7 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 39 6.A.a (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) ewe-. (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None identified at this time nor anticipated by future project specific submittals. (STAFF COMMENTS) 6v b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Revis9d on 9119116 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Page 8 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.a Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Ground water withdrawels are not anticipated by any project that would proceed following the approval of the reguested rezone. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The primaEy source of runoff for the subject parcel at present is atmospheric precipitation. A proiect specific proposal for the subject 1jarcel will include detailed studies of the means and methods to mane e surface water runoff, and drainage conveyance, the use of infiltration etc. A project specific proposal will most likely evaluate the possibili1y of infiltration as well as 12ipud conveyance to offsite storni sews e systems which are available in the adjoining ROW. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. There are no surface waters in the subject sites vicinity that have been identified. A_project specific ro osal for the subject parcel will include detailed studies of the means and methods to manse surface Revised on 9119116 P71 ;SEPA_Checklist Page 9 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.a 01 4. Plants a. water runoff: drainage conveyance, the use of infiltration cte. that will minimize the possibility of waste products confing into cantact with any round waters. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. A Qroiect specific proposal ror the subject parcel will include detailed studies of the means and methods to manage surface water runoff, and drainage conveyance (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: A 12romect specific proposal for the subject parcel will include detailed studies of the means and methods to mana re surface water runoff,_and drainage conveyance. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:_ X X X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass` pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: Revis9d on 9119116 P71_=SEPA_Checlldist Page 10 of 31 0 41 D E 0 L 4- c� rn c 0 E LU Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 42 (STAFF COMMEN b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Project specific plans will inckide detailed landscape plans that will describe materials and methods to preserve existing vegetation and enhance the site with new plantings. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 --,'EPA— Checidist Page 11 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None identified at this time. (STA FF COM M ENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Pro'ect specific Rians will include derailed iandsca a plaus that will describe materials and methods to Dreserve existin ve. etation and enhance the site with new plantings. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, SONGBIRI).S', other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: RODENYS fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Revised on 9119116 P71_=Si=PA_Checklist Attachment 6 0 E 0 L 4- 0 E w Page 12 of 31 Q Packet Pg. 44 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is part of the Pacific Flyway migratory bird route that extends fron Alaska to Patagonia. (STAFF COMM d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Project specific plans will include detailed landscape plans that will describe materials and methods to preserve existing vegetation and enhance the site with new plantines. This will enhance the opportunity for wildlife to forage and find shelter. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None identified at this time. Revised on 9119116 P71_- SEPA_Checktist Page 13 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a AFF COMM 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Projectspecific plans will include detailed mechanical and electrical engineering lans that will describe Material and methods to meet the completed projects energy needs. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. It is generally believed that anyproject proposed following approval of the rezone would have negligible impact on the ability of adbiningproperties to to install and operate solar eneEgv facilities due to the building setbacks and building height regulations associated with the zoning change requested. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Following the approval of the rezone request any specific project submitted for review will be designed to meet or exceed the current WSEC compliance requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Revis9d on 9119116 P71-_SEPA_Checklist Page 14 of 31 0 E 0 L 4- c 0 E w Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.a Revised on 9119116 0 None identified at this time. +' E 0 L W (STAFF COIN M ENTS) -a 0 E w V- (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 0 W rn None identified at this time. T a� r 0 m (STAFF COMMENTS} p L Q L 0 4- (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS)— (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMM (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Following approval of the rezone and the issuance of a project specific building permit, Public Safety, Fire Suppression and emergency medical services.may be required of a P71=SEPA_Checklist Page 15 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.a completed project such as is normally associated with new construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Following approval of the rezone and the issuance of a project specific building permit, measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards will be developed to include providing safe and well lighted vehicular and pedestrian access pathways; designing the buildings to meet or exceed the minimal standards for life safety as regulated through local, state and national building codes and providing on site management. In addition a completed project will provide additional tax revinues that will largely offset the increased costs of providing emergency service to a completed project. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The current volumn of vehicular traffic associated with Edmonds Way (HWY 104 will be the primNy noise generator for as project proposed for this site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. As noted above the site is primarily impacted by vehicular noise from the sites location adiacent to a well trafficked arterial. If the rezone re uest is approved additional short term noise will be associated with the construction of new mixed use facility. Thereafter, traffic noise will again became the predominant noise generator. A new project designed to meet the requested rezone Mguirements will generate additional traffic that will mimic the current patterns of peak use. P71 - SEPA Checklist Page 16 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a (STAFF COMM (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None identified at this time. (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 =SEPA Checklist Page 17 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. b. A commercial as'station and car wash facility is located west of a currend vacant parcel that fronts the properties western property line. The adjainirtgproperties to the north of the subject parcel are sin ales family hornes. Directly to the east of the subject property is a single family home. Across the street to the south is located a Snohomish Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMM ENTS)__7� Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist Page 18 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 50 0 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? o w None identified at this time. c 0 (STAFF COMM ENTS] E W 0 to T e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? WMU — Westgate Mixed Use District (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Edmonds Wav Corridor (STAFF COMM g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. Yes. the steen slope area located along a portion of the north 12ro2erty line. Revised on 9119116 P71_ ='EPA Checklist Page 19 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.a L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: I f the rezone request is granted, the site will be zoned BC — Edmonds Way which it was zoned until 20I5. Several existingproiects located to the west of the subject property were developed under [lie BC — Edmonts Way zoning regime. Currently there a several tax parcells directly to the east of the subject property that are still zoned BC — EW and therefore the rezone re nest is consistant with the neighborhood context. (STAFF COMMENTS) �r�W v�� L Cfl,`n�.S� w• ►1� ,$ M. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Revisgo' on 9119116 P71 - MPA Checklist Attachment 6 0 E 0 L 4- c� c 0 E w Page 20 of 31 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None identified at this titne. A project specific application will, followingthe lie approval of the requested_rezonc meet the development guidelines and density standards of the BLEW zone. It is anticipated that a mixed use project meeting the development standards of the BC — EW zoning criteria will include residential units that will offer a mix of income standards. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A as the site is currently vacant. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: A project specific application will, following the approval of the reguested rezone, meet [lie development Guidelines and density standards of the BC-EW zone. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist Page 21 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.a a. b. C. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? None identified at this lime. If the subject site is successfully rezoned BC — E"W it is antici ated that a ro'ect specific application of inixed use buiIding_tvoe will not exceed the height limits established far the BC - EW zone by City decree. _ What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMEN b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None identified at this time. Revised on 9119116 P71_ =SFPA Checklist Page 22 of 31 0 D E 0 4- ca c 0 E w Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 54 6.A.a (STAFF COMM C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS} b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMM Rewsad on 9119116 P71_- SEPA_ Checklist Page 23 of 31 0 E 0 L W 0 c 0 E w Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 55 6.A.a C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None identified at this time. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMEN b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None identified at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. The site has been surveyed see attached suryey) and geological reports and Phase 1 evaluations of the site have been conducted and are included with this application for rezone. No cultural or historic resources have been identified by these reports. Revisqd on 9119116 P71_ =SEPA Checidist Page 24 of 31 0 E 0 L 4- c� c 0 E w Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 56 6.A.a (STAFF COMMEN d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None believed necessary at this time. (STAFF COMMEN 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Primary access to the subject property is from Edmonds Way (State HWY 104). There are at present IWO curb cuts from the undeveloped property providing access to Edmonds Way. (STAFF b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Snohomish Transit operates public bus service on Edmonds Way (HWY 104) in both directions. There is a west bound transit stop approximately 1/10 mile to the west of propeM, and an east bound transit stop also approximately 1114 of a mile to the west of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71_ SEPA_Checklist Page 25 of 31 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 57 6.A.a C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? None identified at this time. It is antici aced that following a successful rezone process that any mixed use Rroject proposed i'or the subject property the will meet the minimum narking standards required for the actual project (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). II is assumed that a specific project prnoosal_f_or the subject property following a successful rezone application will be required to provide some level of frontage inil2rovements consistant with the the cay arEdmonds development guidelines such as pedestrian sidewalk and City standard curb cuts and frontage at the street frontage. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Not identified at this time. A project specific application for construction will address this issue in detail. Revised on 9119116 P71 _ SEPA Checklist Page 26 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 58 6.A.a 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) E 0 L 4- g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products c on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. 0 E No. LU 0 cn h. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N./.A 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The Rezone request will not result in itself, for any additional public services. A specific project application will require additional public services such as community policing, emergency medical services, fire protection, health carepublic transit and educational services consistant with a an expansion of the built environment. (STAFF COMMEN I-S) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Revised on 9119116 P71_ --,'EPA— Checklist Attachment 6 Page 27 of 31 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.a Any project specific application foll_o%N!ing [lie_succ_e:sslbI request for rezone_tc 13C - f:W will be_des igned I uteet Current building and fire code requirements which will tend to minimize the expected need for additional tiro and (STAFF COMM 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS WATER, REFUSE SI;RVICE.'rELEPHONE, SANITARY SEWER, septic system, other: (STAFF COMM b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declarylunder penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the I ad age tcy i yi on them to make its decision. a _ July 20, 2017 Sign to of Proponent Date Submitted Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEP,4 Checklist Attachment 6 Page 28 of 31 Packet Pg. 60 0 E 0 L W c 0 E w 6.A.a D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? If the rezone from WMU to BC-EW is approved it is possible that any resulting project specific application may be larger in square footage and unit density than might be the case under the current designated zoning given the prohibitionnof development above the 344' contour line. . This "far er" proiect potential might be associated with slightly reate environmental impacts on an a ate basis but most likely not on a net basis. Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The technical documentation for p_roiect development that would be required for a project specific application will minimize the aggragle increase in environmental in acts from a project that might be submitted under the requested rezone from that allowable under the current. zone. This is because the greater project scope or size that might result from the requested_ rezone approval while important for a potential pr_oIects financial success is not significant from that allowed under ilte current zonins_ How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The rezone request in itself will not affect plants, animals, fish or marine life. A project specific application if conceived correctly should have a net positive benefit to local plantings and wildlife (see answer to No. 2 below). Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Should the rezone request be successful a proposal for a specific project will be submitted for City review which will involve converting a presently vacant parcel into a mixed use pro iect. The site contains critical slopes that will be preserved along with the associated vegetation buffers. Additional landscaping will be provided that will further enhance foraging and nesting opportunities for local species of animal life. Fish and marine life should not be impacted by a project specific proposal. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The rezone request w i i I not in itself have an iinpact on the depletion of energy or natural resource. A project specific application would involve the increased utilization of energy sources — natural Us, electricity, water — through the normal operation of a human occupied structure. Revised on 9119116 P71_-__SEPA_Checklist Page 29 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.a Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Fo I I owi ng an Approved req uest For a rezone to BC —EW a s pecific V roieel will be submitted far review that be designed to protect or conserve energy and natural resources by develaping enhanced thermal envelope stratus, utilization of energy conserving fixtures a ]iances and equipment and utilization of Energy Star by i Iding or Built Green construction technolo Les. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? There are steep slope critical areas as noted along a p_o_rtion of the northern property line as noted above and shown on the attached surve . No additional anvironmentally sensitive areas have been identified as being associated with the subject property. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: A protect specific application. should this rezone request be approved, will address the technical and engineering issues associated with Rreserving and protecting critical slope areas that affect both the subject properly and adjoiningro erties to the north. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? We are rerluesting a rezone from WMU to BC-EW. This _is_essentially the zoning designation that was in place up until the City of Edmonds changed the zonijig fornially in 2015. Many of the structures in [lie Lmmediatc vicinity were cQqstrucled under the previous BC- EW zoning designation. It should be added that this rezone application will not affect shoreline use. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: N/A with regards to shoreline use. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Revised on 9119116 P71_=SEPA_Checklist Page 30 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.a The Rezone request will not result in itself, for any addilional public services. A specific project application WHI reeuire additional public services such as community policing. emergency medical_ services,_ fire protection, health carepublic transit and educational services consistent with a an expansion of the built environment. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: A project s2edfic proposal for the subject property will be constructed in accordance_ with the most _up-t_o-date building, and life safety code requirements including alarm systems, fire safety systems and building technoloeies that will significantly limit the demands on public safety services. The completed mixed use project will undouptedly include transportation reduction plans to reduce the transportation impacts for the residents. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not believed that this rezone application will have any conflicts with any local state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Revisod on 9119116 P71_=SEPA_ChecMist Page 31 of 31 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.a 0 r E 0 L 4- 0 E W T- T R ci 0 L Q 0 L L 0 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.a CITY OF EDMON DS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) to Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The review criteria for rezones are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code 20.40 (File No. PLN20170034). Proponent: CDA & Pirscher Architects Inc. — Carl Pirscher Location of proposal, including street address if any: 9601 Edmonds WA, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00937900001000 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: August 31, 2017 Signature: f �� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than September 14. 2017 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on August 31, 2017 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit _ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at https:Hpermits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20170034. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION 8/28/17 SEPA Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.a Notice Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 1525 7511 St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 pc: File No. PLN20170034 SEPA Notebook XX Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District 8128 228'h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 dayid.mat_ulir,h(a)pse.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION 8/28/17.SEPA Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.a 0 41 CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION D STAFF COMMENT FORM 8 PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Building o W Project Number: PLN20170034 0 Applicant's Name: CDA & Pirscher Architects 'D w Property Location: 9601 Edmonds Way rn T 7.27.17 7.31.17 f° Date Application Received: Date Application Routed: � r Zoning: WMU o Project Description: Rezone from WMU to BC-EW o 0 Q L 0 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: 0 N d Responsible Staff: Kernen Lien Ext. 1223 0 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: JoAnne Zulauf Title: Engineering Technician 8 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and 1 do not have any comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Date: August 25, 2017 ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have the following comments or conditions: Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.a Lien, Kernen From: Colin Adams <cadams05O2@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:21 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: File No. PLN20170034 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Kernen, My family and I are one of the houses directly above 9601 Edmonds Way (Parcel #00937900001000). I was just writing to see if you could give me some more clarifications on the rezone application. I met with the developer a week or so ago and it sounds like they just want to use more of the land then the current zone permits, which is why they are applying to have it rezoned. That made sense to me. I have two concerns I was hoping you could address. One: they told me the height limit would increase by 5 feet under the Community Business rezone, is that accurate and how high would that allow them to build? Obviously a much taller building potentially looking into our back yard is a concern of ours. At our meeting with the architect on the project he said he would work on getting us a to scale potential building layout in relation to our property, which would be very helpful and informative for us. I am following up with him next week. Second: The integrity of the hillside is another concern of ours. Would the rezone allow them to potentially build right up to our property line on the hillside? Did the original rezone to the Westgate Mixed Use and the limits on building past the 240 contour line have anything to do with the integrity of the hillside? If the property is rezoned we have been told by the developer that steps would be taken to make sure the hillside is reinforced and looked at by engineers. Is that a requirement the city will make anyone who develops on that land do? I appreciate any insight you can give us on this. Thanks! Colin Adams Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 68 2300 22304 23 42 22 226n 3`a02 320216 0 330 + 3 e„1 22310 22311 2230 2230 223 23 &22 23022314 22306 ryy ° °mD78 51$17P51 22328 981$ 9811 2 22315 3 2231 2320 ? 231 ^ry,5�2'`O2 1730 2231 232 ST SW 859 9807 9717 j1360 967 960114TH 22 2 mfne26O .�� F.3 02 8 224TH ST SW H ST SW 01 1417415 22407 9808 22415 22 mQm N2242 94912 9510 9502 22405H9316224 9222 91 22404 91041410 87210w9°M 1a416 16 242 2241 22405 407 q7224991 0 23 22408 40 22408 244419 xam EH¢41 1422 1423m 1433 22423 2242 2242 2243 224222422 22423 24' 22413 22413 22416 m142 22 022416817 224 4m 423 — 81$ 1 439814 22429 2242 243 22432 2242 22422242 22421 2242. 22420 2242. 2242822420 813 2250250 22429 22506 22420312243 2 2243214TH 250 22507 22506 506 5TH PL5225T 251 20Nmna°en3 3�1aSa 805 811 22506 y2^T1A55H 2515 22511 22510 22511 22510 511 2251$ 807 809 EDMONDS 2521 PRESBYTER A22515 22514 22515 22514 3aui 3225151439 ot0+cm e4" S �3m3$ 15TH 2531 CHURCH 22579519 22516 22517 mz y3 252 804 a808 1505 001 e 2602752eO1 22605 Ti x ~2607 an22604 C 22605 22518>40 22604 2172242 22603 012122608 16a lb 1506 1509 p26TH PLSW 9920 22615 226222608 606 22609 22608 226091504 y111pcm1444g30 1. 08 22618 x~3jQ 26222 2 62123 22613 22612 22613 22612 22 2622 > � 22 lev 26 22619 22620 22619 227042 2'm2S 214 2TPL i 6H e aA °'mn ' 2 97242 9709 22718 22711 22706 22765 22766 326?32•''mhe�I H ST SW 22707ublis � 229gg2°m2wg9'76 a M A1 c W C E > 0 2r271$22719 22714 22271729773 "22721 ry o;9>0 H^� O1 950$ PARKING C 220 ox 82mH 6 g 22726 m N 9�? N > m m N a?g �Po Jymp 1^ �> '✓ STH ST SW Rw G 228TH � p •+ PL SW 22804 9j06 m O 4'00 m m m m em em 22819 0o n m m 22825 030 29TH ST SW 22903 �SryA c 892$ SEQUOIA 3229TH PL gtih V_ Comm.unit Commercial Edmonds Way Corridor A 23015 PARKIN g9,12 ¢ ,Sop �1. + I. 1 D A OO B x m 2301 23019 027 ,Spy 23[ 103 23105 23,. 11 2311 23119 23121 - — 41, OHO Y ur z� PARKING � Q GYM OFFICE y O LU U w BOILER KIT V m W � COMM W O LIBRARY 23 TO 42 23605 O H oPL� SW 23fi11 2367p C 2361 23618 e e 3 2362 23626 3 012 '1p 23632 23003 23001 m 2300 <'3 o0 y z m 230TH ST 23009 e h 9,p?7 o A O� 9 ry0 41 C w m 23024 23024 23017 ;� gyp 9529 SyJ 98p8 ry e H p'�^ E D 0>S 23027 23028 x 23027 9601 Q� 9 S>y ,yory0 u' o> 3 ryh PARKING 23030 3 23031 23030 m 9609 96? ,gyp 1' 0 9321 9307 8 REC �o 23104 23105 H 9717 9707 M 9507 hp 01 23�0 h 9229 2 30 22RR.". 015 9 231215 q32 23110 Q 23111 231ST PL SW 23109 9670 rn O1 m 0 rn n ryph 23109 9302 n H 2 1 24 117 111 3 10 ^+ 2938121$8 x m 23119 w m7 N 3109 ' 2311 H � H 32 O8 23127 9729 312 yy9411 c m°m ST SW O1 gNgi 9327 m232ND 9924 H 23206 ; 23205 23206 9624 23206 9516 "� e e yen Hj T SW fO 6ALEM LSALERN CHURCH L9828 °1 23214 F 23215 232. 23215 2321$ m O1 rn n e g' g' m f m 9210 321 O1 Z3? ?7 23220 3 23221 23216 F .- m c ON~O 321 2321 ,Sry°'O ?3? c� 23228 23227 > 23228 m 9525 gyp 9428 M e 23227 9 ?3309 Q 23301 233RD 5T 6W �+ 9 SO b e e mm o ry 2 2 m 23232 23229 23315 M "e' ^e' M e y330p 'SOS x 23307 23308 ev 9426 m 23309 N r •y" 9805 "'� > ry�A ,,^�' m 23315 23318 23315 0 9509 23317 M 9333 n n e n m g0 yy eat ryp 23319 M i 331 n e e 9209 234 i w a9809 �ry0 A 3?s ^3� 9623 23326 a 23327 c ' 23327 m m 1O 234TH ST 3qo SW :Sin uVle-Famil . Ur ,ea„ ban-1 N N 2 e 9330 e o 3406 2340$ IV P� 'hOyA aq „ y 23414 9624 23422 a O1 rn ?3y ��'7'"vtrl 341 23411 2 3414 1 3qmm0 3m42x 23422 �H 9626 23424 rn2g 4P>'�'L 3422 23421 23414 37 22333454442021 7L m+ 23430 A = 23425 23420 23422 2 p3A L mA9988 23504 ne 235TH T 3430 323 23430 A y1h,am,3Sp•hS .py m"o= 0 o Hrn 10" 23512 23417 2 3y5�m91 OQ? wP 3508 2w 3509 2343 235072350 7$1 3m 3330m5m6s11 3516 3517 23510 0 2351 ZN 23515 911123520 H 6'dT1.ag-HS 25 235 15 mmmm 2352 rnrn rn m e 9115 $ m 22na335522 0er?833,'5gva g235209323 r 9407 23529 9205 910 ,86� •SO^ e 23607 23610 30os 236TH ST S 1 3 2362 23611 w 23614 n m w ro w m m 23607 SW m ! ¢ 23628 ,y •6"'OQ 2361 23618 m 9jOy. 962 2361$ � 3621 23621 9621 23619 23632 �.`1' ^' m 23622 362 A236TH PLSW 23627 OV E & Comprehensive Plan Map TP Rezone Application PLN20170034 I'. 1890 Attachment 10 9004 231 9003 3 L23221 _ J a E Scale a 1 inch = 550 feet Packet Pg. 69 6.A.a Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density ........................................................................................... Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations within activity center Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations within corridor See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion in plan See appropriate category below; also refer to specific corridor discussion in plan Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible with neighborhood. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 < 4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG, CG2; transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification 0 E 0 L c 0 w Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 70 6.A.a Golder Associates 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 TO: A.D. Shapiro Associates 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Tony Shairo SENT VIA: ❑ Federal Express ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Courier C� Hand Delivery ❑ Other: Per David Cotton/Mike Lum-pkjWtp TRANSMITTAL LETTER L;,'AssociatesGolder 0 L 4- DATE: October 4, 2004 PROJECT NO.: 043-1277 E w Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 71 Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond WA USA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 www,golder.com Distribution: i Copy - 3 Copies - 2 Copies - October- 4, 2004 I00404m12_doC Sj w 6.A.a 0 �W n o r VVI(e E REPORT ON WESTGATE TEI;1E ACE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Hans Lammersdorf Valhalla, LLCP. 0. Box 251 Edmonds, Washington Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road Suite 200 Redmond, Washington 98052 Valhalla, LLC A.D. Shapiro Associates Golder Associates Inc, 043-1277,100 O L 4— c O E w OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRAUA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -I- TABLE OF CONTENTS 043-1277.100 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. I 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .AND SITE CONDITIONS..................................................2 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................3 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................4 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 ...................................................................................6 General..........................................................................................................................6 5.2 Foundations.............................................................................................. 6 5.3 Retaining Wall Options and Design Criteria.................................................................6 5.4 Seismic Criteria............................................................................................................7 5.5 Building Slabs...............................................................................................................7 5.6 Drainage Provisions......................................................................................................8 6.0 STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION..........................................................................................9 6.1 Slope Stability Analysis..............................................................................................10 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 .......................................................................11 General........................................................................................................................11 7.2 Soil Nail Shoring Installation ....................................................................................11 7.3 Temporary Cut slopes.................................................................................................11 7.4 . Subgrade and Footing Preparation.............................................................................. 12 7.5 Earthworks..................................................................................................................12 7.5.1 General....-......................................................................................................I2 7.5.2 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction....................................................12 7.5.3 Use of Excavated Soils..................................................................................12 7.5.4 Imported Fill Materials..................................................................................13 7.6 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring......................................................................13 8.0 CLOSING.........................................................................................................................14 9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................15 0 E 0 L 4- c 0 E w Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -ii- 043-1277.100 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Conceptual Geologic Section of Slope at Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 Figure 4 Conceptual Geologic Section of Fill Slope at Test Pits TP-3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Test Pit Logs Appendix B Slope Stability Analysis I ON04mll.&c Q Guider Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -1- 043-1277.100 1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to present this report on contently known as: Westgate Terrace :Multi :use. Complex (Figure;' 1). The purpose of This investigation was to evaluate the soil arid; groundwater conditions, and the presence of fill at your property for your proposed construction of retail, apartment and town homes on your site. The scope of services for a geotechnical investigation for this site was presented in a proposal to Valhalla, LLC dated July 13, 2004. Written authorization to proceed with the geotechnical investigation was received from you on September 2, 2004. The scope of work included the following primary tasks: • Excavate up to twelve test pits on the three parcels, the excavator was arranged by you; • Coordinate utility locate requests and schedule with the excavator operator; • Perform an engineering analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the retail/apartment buildings and retaining structures; and • Preparation of this report including a Steep Slopes Exemption analysis according to City of Edmonds requirements. The results of our study are summarized in the following sections of this report. Section 2 summarizes the project and site conditions, Section 3 summarizes Golder's geotechnical field investigation, Section 4 summarizes the geologic setting and the findings of our investigation, Section 5 presents our design recommendations, Section 6 presents our evaluation of the steeps slopes exemption, and finally Section 7 includes our discussion on construction considerations. Closing remarks are presented in Section S, and references cited are listed in Section 9. 300404mll.doc Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -2- 043-1277.100 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS The Westgate Terrace project site consists of three.. adjacent parcels. and .includes, from east.to west; addresses 3521, 3.53t and 3601 Edmonds Way. in:Edmonds, W shington. The site is located on the north side of Edmonds Way approximately one -quarter mile east of 100th Avenue West. The 3601 address is used for a vacant parcel on the west side of the site that currently does not have a street address with the Snohomish County Assessor's office. The three parcels consists of a roughly 'T" shaped site with a total area of approximately 2 acres. The vacant western parcel (3601) is rectangular in shape. Its long sides (south and north sides) are parallel to Edmonds Way. This parcel is approximately 280 feet along Edmonds Way and about 160 feet deep. The majority of the western parcel is level to gently sloping downward to the south and west with bare soil at the surface. A steep bluff more than 30 feet high is Iocated at the back of the parcel along the northern property line on the west half of the western parcel. A 15 foot high vertical cliff is exposed along the top of the bluff. The slope on the eastern half of the parcel angles moderately downward to the south (2 horizontal: I vertical). The site was reportedly used as a gravel quarry in the past, which accounts for the over -steepened bluff (Bruce, 2001). Trees and bushes grow at the base and top of the slope. A north -south, 50 foot wide utility easement is located on the eastern side of the vacant parcel. The two eastern parcels (9521 and 9531) are relatively narrow and deep (60 feet by 320 feet) and a single family house occupies the middle of each parcel. The houses are rentals and are currently occupied. Scattered trees and shrubs are currently on both lots. The preliminary architectural plans for the Westgate Terrace project, dated 08/18/04, show the proposed development of mixed use including restaurant, retail space, and parking at the street level on the western parcel with two three-story apartment buildings constructed over the street level retail level. The top of the first -level retail space will be used as a parking deck. between and. around the apartment structures. An earth -fill ramp will connect the street to the parking deck one level above the street. Two, two to three-story, multi -family units are planned on the eastern two parcels. Construction of the project as conceived will require a deep cut and retaining wall along the property line on the north - back side - of the western parcel of the site. The highest portion of the cut will rangc from 40 to 48 feet on the western 120 feet and decrease to about 20 feet high along the east half of the back wall. 100404ad I &c Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 76 6.A.a October 4.2004 -3- 043-1277.100 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION A one -day field investigation was conducted on Friday September 17, 2004. The investigation consisted of excavating twelve geotechnical test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-12) at selected locations spread around the site. The depth of the test pits ranged from 6 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) to 24 feet bgs. All were greater than 10 feet deep except TP-12 which was completed to 6 feet bgs. The test pits were excavated by Northend Excavating of Edmonds using a Hitachi 200, a medium- sized tracked excavator (trackhoe) under agreement with you. After the test pits were completed they were backfilled using the excavated soil and tamping with the excavator bucket. Some settlement of the backfilled soil can be expected over time. The general test pit locations were determined prior to the geotechnical investigation based on topography, proposed building and retaining wall locations and potential geotechnical issues. The actual locations were chosen in the field by Golder during the field investigation. The test locations were plotted on the site topographic survey by measuring distances from existing site features. Utility locating services for the site were coordinated by Golder prior to the field investigation. The test pit locations are shown the Figure 2. At test pit locations TP-1 through TP-3, located along cliff section on the western parcel, the excavator boom was extended overhead to the limit of its reach and was used to rake down the face of the slope to expose fresh soil, estimate the density of the soil, and to collect soil samples. At the toe of the slope excavation was advanced downward to an elevation approximately 2 feet below the proposed footing elevation of the building (Elevation 238). This resulted in exposed soil from about 20 feet overhead to about 12 feet below the ground surface at the base of the slope. Figures 3 and 4 show this relationship. Conventional test pit excavations were dug at the other locations. Logging and sampling of soils were performed in accordance with Golder Associates Technical Procedure TP-1.2-6, "Field Identification of Soil", .based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil conditions were examined and logged by the Golder Geologist. Pertinent information was recorded on field test pit logs, including soil classification, depths and locations, stratigraphy, soil moisture conditions, and other information. Samples of each soil unit encountered were collected from each test pit. The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Technical Procedure TP-1.2-6 and are summarized on the Soil Description Index in Appendix A. All samples were placed in labeled one -gallon plastic zip -lock bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and classification. Summary test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. The soil contacts indicated on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil conditions were those recorded for the locations and dates excavated, and may not represent those of other times and locations. 100404TW Ldoc Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 77 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -4- 043-1277,100 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Edmonds, Washington is located in the central Puget Lowlands and native soils are predominately glacial in origin although more recent alluvial, marsh, lake, landslide and man-made fill deposits arc present over much smaller areas. The Edmonds area is generally underlain by a glacial sequence of soils including till, advance outwash and transitional beds (Minard, 1983). According to the geologic map by Minard (1983), the near surface geology in the vicinity of the site consists of till (Q,t) overlying advance outwash (Q„a) of the Vashon glaciation. The subsurface conditions encountered during our site investigation confirmed that the native soils were generally till overlying advance outwash at the site. The .soils encountered at the site, from upper to lower stratigraphic position, consist of fill, lodgment till, and advance outwash. A thin cover of lawn, topsoil and forest duff was encountered in two eastern parcels. The till and advance outwash were the native soils exposed in the steep cliff face. The transition from till to advance outwash was indistinct and gradational. A "cone -shaped" area of uncontrolled fill, at least 17 feet deep, was encountered in the slope on the eastern half of the western parcel. An excavated cliff face is likely concealed behind the fill. The fill thins to the south away from the slope. The fill cone is believed to be reworked soil that was pushed from the top of the slope during grading of the upper lots. This fill cone is shown in Figure 2. Fill of irregular thickness (1.5 to 8 feet), and possibly from variable sources, was encountered in the flat area of the western parcel. The flat area has been used to stockpile soils for various local construction sites. Localized areas of fill were encountered in the two eastern parcels. Generalized descriptions of the soil units encountered are provided below, in their descending order of occurrence: Topsoil: A thin layer of loose topsoil, containing sod and forest duff -was present at the surface in test pits TP-5 through TP-7, and TP-10 on the two eastern residential lots. This material is relatively thin ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 foot thick. Fill: Areas of fill were observed at the back slope of the cast half of the western parcel (3601 Edmonds Way) in test pits TP-3 and TP4; at the flat area of the west parcel in pits TP-8, TP-9 and TP-12 The fill cone appeared to be derived from local soils and consisted of compact, banded tan and gray to dark gray, silty fine sand, little to some gravel to silty gravelly sand, trace small cobbles, trace construction debris and scattered roots. The material was damp. The fill has a SM soil classification. Based on site topography and the surrounding properties, the fill was probably a result of development of adjacent properties and for leveling of the ground surface on the site. The fill at the flat portion of the western parcel could be derived from both local and imported sources. It consisted of compact, banded tan and gray, crudely stratified to stratified, silty gravelly sand, damp to moist. A thin (less than I foot thick) fill consisting of ground asphalt and angular crushed gravel was present at the surface. The fill varied up to 6 feet thick. Areas of a similar fill were encountered in test pit TP-5 at the back of the western residential lot and in TP-11 in the front of the eastern residential lot. The fill was dense in TP-5 and loose to compact in TP-11. The USCS soil classification of the fill was SM. Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -5- 043-1277.100 Lodgment Till: An approximately 15 foot -high cliff of till was exposed in the upper face of the cliff on the western half of the west parcel. The base of the till was encountered above an elevation of about 358 feet in the cliff face and the excavator's boom was just able to reach the bottom of the till in test pits TP-1 and TP-2. Till was encountered below 17 feet of fill in TP-3. Till was also encountered in several test pits scattered around the site, although it was not found in all of the test pits. A variable thickness of till, from 2 feet to 10 feet thick, was encountered in test pits TP-5, TP-6 and TP-7 in the back of the two eastern lots; in TP-10 in the front of the western residential lot and in TP-9 at the east side of the flat portion of the western parcel. The till was uniformly very dense, gray, silty gravelly sand. A weathered till was encountered in test pits TP-6, TP-7, and TP-10. Weathered till was of similar composition as the other till but was compact to dense with an orange -tan color. The USCS soil classification of the till was mainly SP, and to a lesser degree SP-SM. Advance Outwash: Advance outwash was a widespread basal unit in all of the test pits except TP-5 at the back of residential lot 9531 and in TP-9 in the front of the western parcel 9601. The Unit most -likely underlies the entire site at depth. The thickest exposure was at the lower slope on the western below the till in test pits TP-1 through TP-4 on the western parcel. The maximum thickness observed was 23 feet in test pit TP-2. The advance outwash was dense to very dense, tan to gray, compact to very dense, nonstratilxed, fine to medium or fine to coarse sand with some gravel and cobbles, none to trace silt, no organics, and damp to moist. The USCS soil classification of the advance outwash was mainly SP-GP, and to a lesser degree SW-SP, SW and SP-SM. No groundwater was observed in the test pits. The site slopes appeared to be stable with no indication of recent or ancient landsliding and no landslide deposits were observed. None of the following conditions were observed during our investigations: • No impermeable soils were interbedded with granular soils; • No springs or groundwater seepage; • No landslide deposits; and • No evidence of slope instability. 100404niJLda Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 79 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -6- 043-1277.100 0 r 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS � 5.1 General o L 4- The main geotechnieal issues at the site include a high cut at the back of the slope and designation of f° the slope as a sensitive slope and specifically include the following: c • A high cut will be required at the back of the western 0 q property to reach building proposed foundation and slab elevations requiring ground support; w • Presence of uncontrolled fill in areas of the site to be developed; and c co • Selection and design of a retaining wall system up to 48 feet high, which will need to accommodate surcharge loading associated with development of the adjacent sites. a� r 5.2 Foundations cf°i The undisturbed, native hard Till and the compact to dense Advance Outwash units are suitable for supporting lightly to moderately loaded foundations. Footings can also be supported on compacted structural fill provided any topsoil, underlying loose soil zones, and/or existing fills are stripped to firm competent ground prior to placing the fill. Foundation design criteria include: • ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE: 3,000 psf, this value can be increased by 1/3 for seismic design. • ALLOWABLE BASE FRICTION COEFFICIENT: 0.4 for Outwash sand, 0.4 for Till • MINIMUM SIZE: 18-inch width for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated footings. • MINIMUM DEPTH: 18-inches below exterior grade for exterior footings; 6-inches below grade for interior footings. • ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT: Less than 1-inch total and 1/2 differential settlement • EARTH PRESSURES: For walls free to rotate at the top, the earth pressure can be based on a fluid with a density of 30 pcf while 50 pef should be used if the wall is restrained. These values assume a level backslope behind the wall. Backslopes up from the wall will require increased pressures. • PASSIVE RESISTANCE ON SIDES OF SHALLOW FOOTINGS: For design purposes, we recommend that the allowable passive pressure be based on a fluid with a density of 300 pcf on the sides of buried footings above the water table. This value can be increased by 1/3 for seismic or wind loads. 5.3 Retaining Wall Options and Design Criteria The soil conditions at the retaining wall location are considered suitable for a standard soil nail wall and this is considered the most feasible type of retaining wall. Vertical elements may be required on the eastern side of the wall in the area of deep fill. A subsurface easement will be required for soil nails. However, other options for construction of a retaining wall exist and include the following: Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -7- 043-1277,100 • Cast -in -place cantilever wall; • Composite soil nail wall; • Soldier pile tie back wall; or, • Soldier pile wall with facing. These options have drawbacks not inherent in conventional soil nail walls including requiring more space, potentially higher costs, more difficult construction, and possibly permission from the adjacent property owner to allow excavation on their property. However, these options exist and alternatives to conventional soil nail walls can be evaluated as the design proceeds, if needed. 5.4 Seismic Criteria Washington ,State adapted the International Building Code (ICC, 2003) as the state standard for construction on July 1, 2004. The seismic design criteria for the site are presented below for IBC. The buildings should be designed using the following criteria based on the design procedure presented in the International Building Code (ICC, 2003). Design accelerations are obtained from figures in the code that show contours of maximum considered ground motion. Two figures are provided; one for 0.2 second spectral response "and one for 1.0 second spectral response, illustrated on IBC Figure 1615.1.1 and Figure 1615.1.2 respectively. Both of the figures give ground motion parameters for a Site Class C soil profile (IBC Figure 1615.1.1),. which must be adjusted if the soil profile is different. For this site, we recommended the use of a Site Class C soil profile, which is defined by a stiff soil profile for the average properties in the upper 100 feet. The soils considered most susceptible to liquefaction generally consist of very loose to loose saturated granular deposits. In general, the site is underlain by compact to dense soils with a minor amount of localized shallow zones of loose soils. Where encountered in the explorations the loose soils were relatively shallow and with no observed groundwater. We conclude that the potential for liquefaction at this site is negligible. 5.5 Building Slabs Conventional slab -on -grade floors can be supported on the compact to dense or hard native soils or on compacted structural fill. It is not recommended that floor slabs be supported on organic rich soils, topsoil, uncontrolled fill, loose, disturbed soils or wet soils. Should subgradc conditions be comprised of any of these soils, we recommend that they be removed and replaced with structural fill or that a structural slab be constructed. In places, loose, granular soils may be remediated by in -place compaction to provide adequate bearing. Fill placed beneath floor slabs shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. All slabs should be underlain by a capillary break which consists of at least four inches of clean, free draining coarse sand or gravel meeting the gradations presented below. Capillary Break Gradation Sieve Size Percent diameter inches Passin 1 inch 100% Passing No. 4 0% to 70% No.10 0% to 10% No. 200 0% to 3% IM404mu.ea Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -8- 043-1277.100 A vapor barrier consisting of heavy plastic sheeting should be placed over the capillary break. Two inches of clean drainage sand can be placed over the plastic sheeting at the owner's discretion to help cure the concrete. 5.6 Drainage Provisions The drainage system should consist of footing drains for all structures. The drainage system should consist of: e FOOTING DRAINS: A perimeter footing drain should be placed consisting of a 4-inch- diameter, heavy -walled, perforated PVC pipe or equivalent. The pipe should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of drainage gravel material as described above. Clean outs should be provided. • Wall Drains: Continuous mirror drains or drain rock curtain. DISCHARGE: The drainage system should drain by gravity if feasible to positive discharge such as the storm drain or infiltration system. If leak free walls are desired, a waterproof barrier, such as bentonite panels, should be placed on the outside of the concrete walls prior to backfilling. Any backfil . below the groundwater table should consist of clean, free draining material, such as drain rock, pea gravel or coarse sand. A filter fabric will be required over the perforated pipe to prevent migration of the subgrade materials into the drainage system. Cleanouts should be provided for maintance. �ooaoa��.aa Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -9- 6.0 STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION 043-1277,100 The City of Edmonds requires a Steep slope Exemption evaluation for development of the site and a Steep Slope Exemption may be requested. In order for a property to qualify for a steep slope exemption two sets of criteria need to be met. These criteria are, 1) Site Standards, and 2) Development Characteristics. These are presented in the Steep Slopes Exemption document provided by the City, dated 02/27/02. A summary of the criteria include: Site Standards — the physical features of the site and adjacent sites. - The site slopes will be stable after the permitted development is complete. - The development has to be located in an area that is either mapped as till, advance outwash, and or Olympia gravels on the "Geological Map of Edmonds East and part of Edmonds West Quadrangles", by J.P. Minard, or comprised of engineered fill placed, compacted, observed and tested to confirm that the fill is uniformly compacted on slopes of the same materials. - Any fill must be placed under a legal grading permit, grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional engineer, underlying soils were prepared in accordance with engineering design and compaction testing confirms uniform compaction to the minimum specified density. - The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or loose soils on or adjacent to the steep slope may not exceed three feet. In addition to the above, none of the following conditions can exist on the steep slope area: Impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, Springs or groundwater seepage, or significant visible groundwater seepage, or, Previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits Development Characteristics - criteria that the development has to put into place to qualify. - All excavations on steep slopes will not exceed 35-degrees down from the property lines, unless retained by structural shoring designed by a registered professional engineer. - All retaining structures shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code. No rockeries greater than four feet in height are permitted. - A buffer of 15 feet shall be maintained. - The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property. - Requires an engineering analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed in Washington State, and include a description of the specific requested steep slope exemption and explain how the proposed exemption meets all of the criteria. Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 83 6.A.a October 4, 2004 6.1 Slope Stability Analysis -10- 043-1277,100 As a part of the steeps slope exemption, a slope stability analysis was performed on the native slope as it now stands using computer program SLIDE, version 5.0 by Roescience, Inc. The results of the slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix B. The stability analysis was calculated for the steepest section of the slope, along the critical section of the slope, and for seismic design criteria. The factor of safety for the entire slope — under static conditions was calculated at 1.15. A global Factor of Safety of 1.5 is considered by the industry standard of care to be stable_ This condition was not achieved with the calculated factor of safety. A slope retaining system will be designed and constructed to provide a minimum global Factor of Safety of 1.5 and the industry standard of care will be achieved. The stability of the slope was verified during our field investigation. All sections of the slope view appeared to be stable in the current conditions. The proposed exemption meets the requirements for the Steep Slopes Exemption and include the following: • Retaining walls are recommended for cuts into the slope at the north side of the western parcel. The retaining walls will produce stability greater than that of the current slope conditions. • The slope was mapped on the "Geological Map of Edmonds East and part of Edmonds West Guardangles", by J.P. Minard, as Till at the upper portion of the slope, and Advance Outwash at the lower portion of the slope Test pit soil conditions confinned the mapped units. Test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. • Grading and fills on the site will be engineered and designed by a licensed professional engineer and compaction testing will be performed during construction to verify that the fills are compacted to the design criteria_ • Organic soils, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or loose soils will be removed or restrained by retaining walls during construction. • Excavations on the slopes will be retained by structural shoring or retaining wall designed by a licensed engineer or will not exceed 35-degrees. Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 84 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -11- 043-1277.100 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 General General geotechnical related site construction should consist of demolition of the existing houses, site clearing, site grading, subgrade preparation, construction of retaining walls, casting of building walls, footings and slabs, placement and compaction of fills, and installation of the drainage systems. This section discusses selected elements of these construction issues. 7.2 Soil Nail Shoring Installation The basic concept of soil nailing is to reinforce and strengthen the existing ground by installing closely spaced steel bar inclusions commonly referred to as "nails" into a slope or excavation as construction proceeds from the top downward. This method is referred to as top -down soil nail wall. This produces a reinforced zone that is itself stable and helps to support the unreinforced ground behind it. The nails are passive in that they are untensioned at the time of installation; over time, they become tensioned as they resist the deformation of the adjacent soil_ The nail reinforcement improves slope stability in two ways. First, soil nails reduce the driving force along potential failure surfaces of the slope. Second, in frictional soils, nails increase the normal force and hence the soil shear resistance along potential slip surfaces. Construction of a soil nail wall involves the following major steps: i . Excavate soil, typically a 6 foot lift, leaving a small berm in place. 2. Drill hole for the soil nail. 3. Install and grout nail. 4. Excavate out a berm to form vertical cut face. 5. Place drainage system. 6. Place water proofing (if specified). 7. Place reinforcements, bearing plates, and studs. 8. Apply shotcrete wall. 9. Repeat process down to final excavation grade. 7.3 Temporary Cut slopes Based on the conceptual design, the maximum depth of the construction excavation will be about 48 feet. Safe temporary construction cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the details of the overall site and construction conditions at the time. We have observed stable unsupported slopes in the lodgment till at this site in a near vertical condition up to about 15 feet high. Within the dense till or advance outwash, cuts on the order IMV, up to 20 feet high appear to be feasible. The temporary cut slopes should be protected from precipitation and drying out. Direct rainfall or surface water can destabilize the face of the excavation, however, if the face becomes too dry, raveling will occur. We recommend that the temporary slopes be protected with visqueen plastic sheeting secured in placed with stakes and sandbags. Alternatively, a flash coat of shotcrete (2-inches thick) will also protect the slope face from erosion and drying. If shotcrete facing is used to protect 1004a4ml r.&c Golder Usoclafes Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 85 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -12- 043-1277.100 the slope, weep holes on 5-foot spacing are recommended to provide drainage of water that may build up behind the wall. 7.4 Subgrade and Footing Preparation Based on the test pits, the foundation subgrade will likely consist of dense till or outwash sands and gravels, or gravelly sand, and possibly compacted structural fill depending on the depth and elevation of the footing. The subgrade soils could become loosened and disturbed under the influence of surface water, groundwater, and construction equipment. The contractor will have to implement suitable procedures to protect the subgrade such as excavating with a back hoe without tracking on the native soils, use of a crushed rock or gravel -working mat, soil admixing the subgrade, geotextiles and other suitable procedures during wet weather. Native competent subgrade that becomes loosened by the contractors operation, and wet and unsuitable soils should be over -excavated and replaced with a suitable fill material, or admix the soil with a moisture reducing agent or cement treated base (CTB), at the contractor's expense. The footing excavations should be free of any loose, soft disturbed material, mud or water prior to placement of reinforcing bar and concrete. 7.5 Earthworks 7.5.1 General Although the site work will be mainly excavations, some structural fill may be required for backfill against walls, around foundations, and to establish final site grades. To the extent possible, the major earthwork should be completed during the dry time of year. Although feasible, earthwork construction during wet weather will significantly increase costs associated with off -site disposal of unsuitable excavated soils, increased control of water, and increased problems with subgrade disturbance and need for soil admixtures, geotextiles, or rock working mats. 7.5.2 Structural Fill Placement and Com action Where needed, structural fill should be a well -graded sand and gravel that when placed and compacted will meet the required compaction specifications. Below all footings and within three feet of final grade in pavement areas any fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum ASTM D 1557 dry density. Beneath floor slabs and other structural components such as utility service trenches, not underlying pavements or footings, a minimum dry density of 90 percent ASTM D 1557 is required. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture content, recompacted, and re- tested, or removed and replaced. 7.5.3 Use of Excavated Soils In general, organic material, silty soils, and the silts and clays should not be used for structural fill. The outwash sands and gravels are considered the best materials for use as structural fill provided that oversize material is removed and they are placed and compacted near the optimum moisture content and in accordance with the compaction requirements presented in Section 7.4.2, above. If density tests indicate that compaction is not being achieved due to moisture content, the fill should be scarified, and moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, recompacted, and re -tested, or removed and replaced. Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 86 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -13- 043-1277.100 7.5.4 InIported Fill Materials If off -site structural fill is used during wet weather, it should be well -graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent silt. Fills used for drainage should consist of washed gravels with less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve or equivalent. 7.6 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring We recommend that a qualified geotechnical-engineering firm is on -site full time during critical aspects of the project. This would include installation of any shoring walls, footing and slab subgradc preparation, and placement of structural fills. Typically, geotechnical special inspection is required during the shoring and foundation phases of the project. 10""W L&C Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 87 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -14- 043-1277.100 8.0 CLOSING This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Valhalla, LLC and their consultants and contractors for specific application for the Westgate Terrace Multi -use project. We encourage review of this report by bidders and/or contractors as it relates to factual data only (logs of test pits, conclusions, etc). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations and observations completed for this study and conversations regarding the proposed site develop and are not intended, nor should they be construed to represent, a warranty regarding the proposed development, but arc forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Considerable judgment has been applied in interpreting and presenting the results. Variations in subsurface conditions over small distances are common in glacial environments such as those encountered in Edmonds, and actual conditions encountered during construction may be different from those observed in the test pits. When the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with the conditions described in this report. The test pits were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services for this project, to provide information for the areas explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the test locations and variations over time. It.has been a pleasure to provide this consulting service to you on the Westgate Terrace project. If you have any questions, please call us at (425) 883-0777. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael Lumpldn, L.E.G. Project Engineering Geologist &LQA0a:: David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal JSS/CCK/se EXPIRES 100404fW1.d0C Golder Associates IE? GeV* Michael S. f..tv sr, [D 4(©4 17418 �fONAL fir' Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 88 6.A.a October 4, 2004 -15- 043-1277.100 9.0 REFERENCES Bruce, D. M. (2001). Geotechnical Evaluation, Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Ten Single Family Residences, 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington. ICC (2003). International Building Code. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, Illinois. Minard, J.P. (1983). Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Reston, Virginia. Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.a FIGURES Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 90 6.A.a 0 2000 4000 FEET N FIGURE 1 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, SITE VICINITY MAP Edmonds East, WA (1989) VALHALL.AIWESTGATE TERRACE STUCYIWA LJ wVVINU NLJ. u4J1Z(1 iUUT9U1LM11 uni t WIZJIU4 uNAYVN BY U Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 91 6.A.a Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.a 350' - O'ao 345'-- Native Soil .Q Q Existing Ground Surface 340'— :b:.Q:• u:.o;.. o a" .a :• Q :.�,. . Ouiwash - "" Q 335'— Q :•� .... b: Q. �..r` b: p . .. .:r b �.ca.:'n ,... �: �a�+G '� -:o�: �: 0.:4i-:o:'�a.; �: Q.:q.=.o. a�,: �:Q••.:a.�.',o":.mac?: �:� �- p?a:`' N Area Excavated S FIGURE 3 CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC SECTION OF SLOPE AT TEST PITS TP-1 AND TP-2 VALHALLAMIESTGATE TERRACE STUDYMA --"Nu- v Olzff$t guz.Mll WUt: 1WU1R14 lJKAVVNt1Y RMF /k§L to-4—ff Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 93 6.A.a Elev. 365' - v c a. 366' - �.-rli °- 18'.1 ♦►irr rariri►rir►aaririr4•irii►irrrfrr►a►►ri r`� • i r►flrl►arta11►1►i1fiii•1i1r►►1►11•i•1ai i•1i�•1r1 >•-r � �f►r►frrra+.;ra►i•1rr►arrrarirarr•1rr•1r1•►►rrrfrr►1•4 f1•1•1►� //� Oi►i•rriiririii4ii•i►i►iii►i►ii►O400iiiiii•i+,0i•OOiirii`r . �O•ii::r r:•fai►i►ia:•i►rrf0•i6*irirOirOii Qiiii►i►i►i►i►i►i•F. ►►•Oro•r•�i0►•i••r•OD►•♦•►ppipippii•••i aiiL+O Oi'r'irr►iri. %,�Ii Or0 •iri:•iriOrrir riirfri•i�i�iri�►►iri•Oi*irrai �+Oiri►i•�►ii►ii►i•rrifii`. Lu // are•O►•ifiiriiirir0i4ri4►iriir�ri►iiiarii!ii►i i� •i►iiiai►i+i4•iri r�+•i'a �' �riri iiri•iri•iriOri00s►i•Oiiai►i*iairaiaiirifDiriri•4irfrfri*ai►iiiiii►i. Y •irr rrarrrrrrrrrrr►rr►rii►rr►►►r►O♦r♦ ��iairiri 'Ir++i►iriiiriai iirii'airiOri i4fOJ4!irrii4•i!%iir%i�%i+i%itirii•%%ii 7 riiiriiriaiariiiarr►iri►iLriri►i►iri►riii eri►i• rii►►►iri ri►i►i:► i::riifi♦ fr � arrOirOiriiiri►i•ri4•OPir►rrrran►girrria►�►r*�iariri►i+iri•OirOOJia►r►iriirO�r►i r . �►►� �i o riiiii::•r•:ririri*i►iri►Or'Oi4ii►iOLi9b+iiri►irii4ri►iG►iriiriairiririiriiiri•�4•ai, �� riir►rir►riri• ririiriri•�►iQ•iri•►:riO•: friii riririiria►irirrrirr+iriiriiriririri rri•Oi►i S M •Dirt: rriirf•Jiriririri4rOirOi•iri• rrsrs►irliirOi►ir♦•►ri4riairia0ii•Oi•Jr D►ri•Oi•i: i * r A�A+. �rJ±+!i! �i!r�%i!i! i!±�i!I!i!i±•i� ali!i±ti±ii±i!*±i!i±0*!i!i4 ��i!iii±i!i!i!i±i±i!� 346' — O:n..ad...'. p.�.o�..'.. gip.. 335'-oo:.� ..o ^ Outwash? :- o..dU.:.c:QQ'.:q.:.q:�: c:o..:q...o0utwash. '.=.'op �,.. Qa:..Q:o::a q' Q.:a:o ©:o.Q:'.:.�..:0.4..�b= �-..' o:o..p:b..O:....Q.�:b:: a�..p.:o'..: •c -.�.�.•:..o :'.:�ao: -4: �:a:":a ::•o��: O': �:'�-�:o•��.':40: o:.��-��'�'o''-:':o:o: o:'":.a:"�- � :.a�4:.0�: •:a: o . c ..a . � ".. ' D.:x : n'• 4 �.'. � EY.'� ' b� 4 .. -.. � Ei.;" : o' 4 .. •.' ES...: � o'. 4 .-...� �. E?-:'� ' o'• 4 . "' .0 : r-� O: �:Q�'.. O: -'.Ci .r � � : c.'p�'.. n-".p :'� Q ' ��_'.: n.'�.c7 : •�. O � ��_•.. n-'.c5 :.�. O ' r �b_:. n.'• .c� NNW SSE FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC SECTION OF SLOPE AT TEST PIT TP-3 VALHALLAANESTGATE TERRACE STUDYMIA DRAVANG NO. 04312771M903.fh11 DATF 09/3 N DRAWN BY AMP A5L to —#--Of Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.a APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.a (tw&%ociatesGolder LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 Temp 60 °F Weather light showers Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northe nd Excavatinq Date 9117104 Elevation 357.0 ft Datum MSL . _,. Job 043-1277.100 Location 9601 Edmonds Wa N 12 18 24 0 e •. a •. a . A 0.0 - 2.0 ft: Very dense, gray, silty gravelly SAND, damp. (SM) (LODGEMONT TILL) B 2.0 - 24.0 ft; Dense, tan. to gray, thinly laminated to thickly stratified, alternating fine to medium SAND, fine SAND, and gravelly SAND with scattered lenses of sandy GRAVEL, damp. (SPIGP) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) Bottom of Test Pit at 25.0 ft SAMPLES NO. DEPTH (it) MOISTURE G-1 G-2 1.0 8.0 G-3 15.0 TimE DEPTH OF HOLE {rt) DEPTH TO W!L 00 DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit started at mid -bluff at north property boundary and excavated through colluvial prism to native soil. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed 5L Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.a (FA=c-artes LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2 Temp 60 OF Weather partly cloudy Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9117104 Elevation 359.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location T 9601 Edmonds Way N -n - 12 18 24 P%1 . f . . . i A 0.0 -1.0 ft: Very dense, gray, silty gravelly SAND, damp. (SM) (LODGEMONT TILL) B 1.0 - 24.0 ft. Dense to very dense, tan to gray, thinly laminated to thickly stratified, alternating fine to medium SAND, fine SAND, and gravelly SAND with scattered lenses of sandy GRAVEL, gravel is rounded to subrounded to 4-inch diamter, damp. (SPIGP) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) Bottom of Test Pit at 25.0 ft SAMPLES NO. DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE [%} G-1 G-2 0.0 8.0 G-3 20.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO W!L (ft) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit started at mid -bluff at north property boundary and excavated through colluvial prism to native soil. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed `lo—fa Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.a Admk WWI LOG of TEST PIT TP--3 Temp 60 OF Weather partly cloudy Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9117104 Elevation 355.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location 9601 EdmondsWay N i 18 24 B C Bottom of Test Pit at 20.0 ft A 0.0 - 17.0 ft: Compact, banded tan and gray, silty fine SAND, little to some gravel, trace small cobbles, damp, scattered roots, trace construction debris, uncontrolled till fill. (SM) (FILL). B 17.0 -18.0 fit: Very dense, gray, silty fine SAND, little to some gravel, damp. (SM) (LODGEMONT TILL/ ADVANCED OUTWASH) C 18.0 _ 20.0 ft: Dense to very dense, speckled tan to gray, stratified, gravelly fine to coarse SAND with interbeds of fine to medium SAND, damp, subrounded to rounded. (SW/SP) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SANIPLES NO. DEPTH iIft) MOISTURE G-1 G-2 4.0 9.0 G-3 17.0 GA 18.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO W!L (fit) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE t111 SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located near top of fill slope near north property line. Test pit excavated through thick layer of focal fill to native soil. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 98 SAF�%Ider LOG OF TEST PIT TP�-4 dattes Temp 60 OF Weather partly cloudy Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating _ Date 9/17/04 Elevation 358.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location 9601 Edmonds Wa 1 18 24 A Bottom of Test Pit at 19.0 ft A 0.0 -12.0 ft: Compact, mostly dark gray with scattered tan bands, silty gravelly SAND, trace cobbles to 6-inch diameter, damp, scattered roots and woody debris, locally -derived glacial till fill. (SM) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) B 12.0 -16.0 ft: Compact, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, little to some silt and fine gravel, damp, scattered roots, locally -derived till fill. (SP-SMISM) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) C 16.0 -19.0 ft: Dense to very dense, speckled tan to gray, fine to coarse SAND, little to some gravel, damp, subrounded to rounded. (SW) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES NO. DEPT" (ft) MOISTURE VQ G-1 G-2 4.0 15.0 G-3 18.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (�) DEPTH TO W!L (h) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE lit) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at top of fill slope near north property line. Test pit excavated through thick layer of local fill to native soil. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed i-, o Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.a (#GU�dei LOG OF TEST PIT 1 P-5 Associi�es Temp 65 aF Weather sunny Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9/17104 Elevations 355.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location9_531 Edmonds_ WV N S - - t2 18 4 A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Loose, brown, silty gravelly SAND, moist, prevalent organics and roots. (SM) (FOREST DUFF and TOPSOIL) B 0.5 - 3.0 ft: Compact to dense, light tan to tan -gray, silty gravelly SAND, damp. (SM) (FILL) C 3.0 - 10.0 ft: Dense to very dense, light tan -gray to gray, crudely stratified, gravelly SAND, little to some silt, dry to damp, brittle with trace tiny air pockets. (SP-SM/SM) (SANDY TILL) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE r/o) G-1 G-2 2.0 7.0 G-3 9.0 TIME DEPTH of HOLE M DEPTH TO WIL R DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at rear of residential lot, in blackberry bushes. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.a Golder Associates Temp 70_ _ °F Weather Elevation Location LOG OF TEST PIT TP-6 Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Contractor Northend Excavating _ Date 9117/04 Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 N - 12 1 1 16 1 4 2 8 A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Loose, brown, silty gravelly SAND, moist, prevalent organics and roots. (SM) (LAWN and TOPSOIL) B 0.3 - 2.5 ft: Compact to dense, orange -tan, gravelly SAND, little silt, dry. (SP-SM) (WEATHERED TILL) C 2.5 -10.0 ft: Dense to very dense, tan, crudely stratified, gravelly SAND and sandy GRAVEL, little silt, trace small cobbles, dry to damp, alternating layers of poorly -graded sand and layers with gravel socketed in silty sand matrix. (SP-SMIGP-GM) (WEATHERED TILUOUTWASH) D 10.0 - 11.0 ft: Dense, speckled dark tan, gravelly SAND, trace cobbles, damp, subrounded to rounded. (SW) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE (%} G-1 G-2 2.0 6.0 G-3 11.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO WIL (ft) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at rear of residential lot, on grass surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed dAi6--to-4-o4 0 E 0 L 4- c 0 E LU Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.a (#A%d e1es Temp 70 °F Weather Equipment MD1 Yutani Elevation 350.0 ft Location 9531 Edmonds LOG OF TEST PIT TP-7 Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9117/04 Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 N s 24 A 1% Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 ft 2 8 A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Loose, brown, silty gravelly SAND, moist, prevelent organics and roots. (SM) (FOREST DUFF and TOPSOIL) B 0,5 - 3.0 ft: Compact, orange -tan, silty gravelly SAND, trace small cobbles, dry to damp. (SM) (WEATHERED TILL) C 3.0 -10.0 f#: Dense, light gray, crudely stratified, alternating layers of silty gravelly SAND and gravelly SAND, dry to damp, brittle and cohesive zones and granular zones. (SM/SW) (WEATHERED TILL/OUTWASH) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) VM G-1 2.0 G-2 5.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE DEPTH To WIL DEPTH TO SEEPAGE SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at rear of residential lot, in blackberry bushes. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed co- o 0 0 L 4- c 0 E Lu Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.a G�Ider LOG OF TEST PIT TP-8 rues Temp 70 OF Weather light showers Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9/17/04 Elevation 337.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 N - 18 24 2 8 A B .G .D Bottom of Test Pit at 10„0 ft A 0.0 - 1.0 ft: Compact, black to brown -gray, ground asphalt with little crushed gravel. (ROAD FILL) B 1.0 - 6.0 ft: Compact, banded tan and gray, crudely stratified, silty gravelly SAND, damp to moist, fill consisting of locally derived glacial till and outwash. (SM) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) C 6.0 - 8.0 ft: Compact, tan, gravelly SAND, little to some silt, damp to moist, fill consisting of locally derived glacial till and outwash. (SP-SM/SM) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) D 8.0 -10.0 ft: Dense, tan, gravelly SAND, little silt, damp, iron staining at top. (SP-SM) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH tKi STURE MOISTURE 1��1 1 G-1 G-2 2.0 4.0 G-3 10.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE 00 DEPTH TO W1L (tt) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE 00 SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at middle of residential lot, on a graded surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving. observed No seepage observed 0 0 L. 4- 0 E LU Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.a (NLdgMes LOG OF TEST PIT TP-9 Temp 70 °F Weather sunk Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Equipment MC71 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend ExcavatingDate 9117/04 Elevation 339.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location 9601 Edmonds Way - N t t8 24 A Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 ft A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Compact, black to brown -gray, ground asphalt with little crushed gravel. (ROAD FILL) B 0.5 -10.0 ft: Dense to very dense, tan -gray to gray, massive to crudely stratified, silty gravelly SAND, damp. (SM) (LODGEMONT TILL) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH 00 MOISTURE M G-1 G-2 2.0 4.0 G-3 10.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO W/L (ft) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at middle of residential lot, on a graded surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed Mt_ to- 4-a Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.a Golder Associates Temp 70 °F Weather Location LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 O Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Contractor Northend Excavating _ Date 9/17/04 Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 w E 18 24 2 8 0040000+A 000000 B X. Bottom of Test Pat at 10.0 tt A 0.0 -1.0 ft: Compact, orange -tan, silty fine SAND, damp to moist, prevelant tree roots, 2-inch thick layer of 518-inch crushed rack on surface. (SM) (WEATHERED SOILITOPSOIL) B 1.0 - 3.0 ft: Compact, light tart, Silty fine to medium SAND, little gravel, dry to damp. (SM) (WEATHERED TILUOUTWASH) C 3.0 -10.0 ft: Dense to very dense, speckled tan and gray, gravelly SAND, trace small cobbles, rounded to subrounded, damp. (SW) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES DEPTH MOISTURE NO. (ft) G-1 2.0 G-2 8.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO WIL (ft) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (ft) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located in front driveway of residential property, on a gravel surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed tn^4- Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.a (#A%�� Temp 70 OF Weather sunny Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Location LOG OF TEST PIT TP-11 Engineer JdLC Operator Todd Zuanich Contractor_Northend Excavating Date 9117/04 Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 N n - 1 18 24 2 B 4..........0...E •;•G`:• Bottom of Test Pit at 10.0 ft A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Compact, gray and tan, stratified, successive thin layers of sandy fine gravel and imported 5/8-inch crushed rock (SM) (FILL) B 0.5 - 2.0 ft: Loose to medium dense, orange -tan, gravelly SAND, damp, scattered roots. (SW) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) C 2.0 - 2.2 ft: BURIED TOPSOIL (SM) D 2.2 - 7.0 ft: Compact to dense, tan, crudely stratified, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, trace to little silt, little fine cobbles, damp. (GW/SW) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) E 7.0 -10.0 ft: Dense, tan -gray, fine to medium SAND, little to some gravel, damp to moist. (SP) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES N�. DEPTH (ft) MOISTURE (%) G-1 G-2 3.0 5.0 G-3 10.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE 00 DEPTH TO WiL (fit) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (n) SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located in front driveway of residential property, on a gravel surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed to-4- O E 0 L 4- c O Lu Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 106 6.A.a - Golder LOG OF TEST PIT' TP-12 Ciates Temp 70 °F Weather sunny Engineer JdLC Operator Todd ,Zuanich Equipment MD1 Yutani 140 Contractor Northend Excavating Date 9/17104 Elevation 334.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1277.100 Location 9601 Edmonds Way 3 1 24 80 A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Compact, black to brown -gray, mostly ground asphalt with little crushed gravel. (ROAD FILL) B 0.5 -1.5 ft: Compact, banded tan and gray, stratified, silty gravelly SAND, damp, fill consisting of locally derived till and outwash. (SM) (UNCONTROLLED FILL) C 1.5 - 6.0 ft: Dense, tan, fine to medium SAND, little fine gravel, damp. (SP) (ADVANCED OUTWASH) SAMPLES NO. DEPTH MOISTURE (ft) M G-1 3.0 TIME DEPTH OF HOLE (ft) DEPTH TO w1L #ft) DEPTH TO SEEPAGE (R} SPECIAL NOTES: Test pit located at west edge of lot, on a graded surface. Test pit terminated at target depth, no refusal. No caving observed No seepage observed L. --o Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 107 6.A.a APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Golder Associates Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.a Slide Analysis Information Document Name File Name: section 1.sli PrOlect Settings Project Title: Westgate Terrace - Slide Analysis Failure Direction: Right to Left Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Pore Fluid Unit Weight: 62.4 Ib1ft3 Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Data Output: Standard Random Numbers: Pseudo -random Seed Random Number Seed: 10116 Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3 Anaivsis Methods Analysis Methods used: Bishop simplified Janbu simplified Number of slices: 25 Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of iterations: 50 Surface Options Surface Type: Circular Radius increment: 10 Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Composite Surfaces: Enabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Loading 1 Distributed Load present: Distributed Load Constant Distribution, Orientation: Vertical, Magnitude: 250 lblft Material Properties Material: Glacial Till Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 Iblft3 Cohesion: 400 psf Friction Angle: 38 degrees Water Surface: None Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.a Material: Advance Outwash Deposits Strength Type: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight. 120 Ib/ft3 Cohesion: 1 psf Friction Angle: 38 degrees Water Surface: None Global Minimums Method: bishop simplified FS: 1.148640 Center: 6.625, 66.193 Radius: 63.699 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 25.495, 5.353 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 66.237, 43.744 Resisting Moment=1.57893e+006 lb-ft Driving Moment=1.37461e+006 lb-ft Method: ianbu simplified l=S: 1.184110 Center. 11.997, 66.193 Radius: 63.285 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 14.860, 2.972 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 72.112, 46.415 Resisting Horizontal Force=29628.E lb Driving Horizontal Force=25021.9 lb Valid 1 Invalid Surfaces Method: bishop simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 4311 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 540 Error Codes: Error Code -106 reported for 23 surfaces Error Code -1000 reported for 517 surfaces Method: janbu simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 4013 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 838 Error Codes: Error Code -106 reported for 23 surfaces Error Code -108 reported for 217 surfaces Error Code -111 reported for 81 surfaces Error Code -1000 reported for 517 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation: -106 = Average slice width is less than Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 110 6.A.a 0.0001 * (maximum horizontal extent of soil region). This limitationis imposed to avoid numerical errors which may result from too many slices, or too small a slip region. -108 = Total driving moment or total driving force < 0.1. This is to limit the calculation of extremely high safety factors if the driving force is very small (0.1 is an arbitrary number). -111 = safety factor equation did not converge -1000 = No valid slip surfaces are generated at a grid center. Unable to draw a surface. Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.a Packet Pg. 112 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/27/2017 Housing Strategy Update Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History The Planning Board has discussed housing issues several times during the past year. Meeting housing needs in Edmonds is a significant interest of the Planning Board. Staff Recommendation Consider and discuss information that is presented. Narrative The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, in its housing element, requires the City to take this step: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Why was this step adopted into the Comprehensive Plan? During the last update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council and others realized that housing was a very important topic, yet complex, and needed more attention than could be given in a high-level comprehensive plan. To not lose track of such an important topic, a deadline was set for developing a more detailed strategy that could analyze a number of housing issues and recommend actions the City could take. The Strategy's scope will include: Background information about Edmonds & its housing profile Housing agencies and resources in our area Summary of housing needs & barriers Opportunities: Partnerships, tools and resources Homelessness: Issues & options Priorities & recommendations Implementation We expect the Strategy to identify certain actions that can be taken in the short-term (less than 5 years) and others over a longer -term (5-10 years). The Planning Board has already provided some input into development of the Housing Strategy. It may continue to do so. The Planning Board will also review the draft Housing Strategy in detail. Meanwhile, Mayor Dave Earling appointed a Housing Task Force in late July 2017 The Task Force's mission is to recommend priority approaches for incorporation into the Housing Strategy. These recommendations will be presented to the public, the Planning Board, and the City Council. Task Force membership was intended to bring broad perspectives and a range of housing expertise into the housing discussion. However, the number of appointees was limited so that the group would be Packet Pg. 113 7.A small enough for meaningful conversation and to be able to reach conclusions. Development Services Director Shane Hope will lead the group through the process. Edmonds is a city of about 41,000 people. For a quick look at our community, with attention toward housing issues, the Alliance for Housing Affordability has put together a data "dashboard". (See Attachment 1.) This is supplemented by a set of graphics. (See Attachment 2.) The Alliance's website also contains information about other cities in Snohomish County. The City's Housing Element (from the Comprehensive Plan) contains background information (including additional housing -specific data), some high-level strategies to promote affordable housing, and various housing goals and policies for the City to carry out. It also contains one implementation action (regarding the development of a housing strategy by 2019) and one performance measure. Progress on Comprehensive Plan performance measures are reviewed every year. The housing performance measure is: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units annually from 2011 to 2035. In 2016, the City issued permits for 128 new housing units (net, after excluding replacement units). More than 77% of the land in Edmonds is zoned for single-family residential. After subtracting for parks. etc., that leaves a relatively small amount of land available for multifamily or mixed use. Two of the mixed -use areas with particularly noticeable potential are the Westgate area and the Highway 99 area. Recently, plans and/or new zoning codes have been prepared for these areas and opportunities for new multifamily housing there are promising. At the Planning Boards' September 27 meeting, more information about housing issues and next steps for the Housing Strategy will be presented by the Development Services Department and the Alliance for Housing Affordability. Attachments: Att. 1: Edmonds Dashboard Att. 2: Edmonds Data - Updated Packet Pg. 114 Dashboard: Edmonds I Alliance for Housing Affordability Page 1 7.A.a Dashboard: Edmonds Arlington I Edmonds I Everett Granite Falls I Lake Stevens I Lynnwood I Marysville I Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace I Mukilteo City of Snohomish I Snohomish County I Stanwood I Woodway Demographics' Population Housing Units Renter Households Median Household Income (2015 dollars) Households <50%AMI Cost -Burdened Homeowners Cost -Burdened Renters Average Household Size: Homeowners Average Household Size: Renters Single Family Home Share Single Person Households Jobs -Total Housing Ratio Jobs -Occupied Housing Ratio Employed People/Occupied Housing Unit 2000 2010 2013 2014 2015 39,544 39,709 39,950 39,950 40,490 17,519 18,725 18,829 18,693 18,805 31.7% 28.5% 30.5% 31.3% 31% $74,172 $75,650 $74,006 $73,512 $75,044 10.5% 30.1% 30.1% 29.6% 27% 23.1% 36.6% 33.6% 31.0% 20.6% 40.7% 47.8% 48.1% 46.2% 47.0% 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.37 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.09 65% 64.7% 64.3% 65.0% 65% 29% 32.5% 31.1% 30.9% 30.8% 0.59 0.57 0.65 0.61 0.60 0.69 1.19 1.12 1.08 m a a� a� L r.+ co aM c .y 7 0 x L 0 c� 0 c 0 E w Q r c m E 0 0 a http://www.housingallies.org/hi-snoco/hi-edmonds/ Packet Pg. 115 Dashboard: Edmonds I Alliance for Housing Affordability Page 2 o Location Affordability Index HUD's Location Affordability Index provides estimates on the typical cost of housing and transportation combined in a given location balancing a wide range of factors. These estimates are expressed in terms of a share of household income, with 45% as the recommended maximum portion of income devoted to the two. Estimates of what several types of households could expect to spend on housing and transportation in the City of Edmonds are as follows: ■ Regional median income household - 50.7% of income ■ Family at 80%AMI - 56.4%of income ■ Single parent family at 50%AMI - 79% of income • Retired couple at 80%AMI - 50.7%of income • Individual at national poverty line-183.4% of income Typical Housing Costs - All Households3 2000 Median Rent (2015 dollars) $1,080 Required Income $43,182 Median Home Value (2015 $330,102 dollars) Required Income $85,319 Ratio: Median Value -Median 4.5 HH Income Assisted Housing Stock All Assisted Housing Units Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: HASCO 2010 2013 2014 2015 $1,012 $1,078 $1,100 $1,155 $40,492 $43,106 $43,991 $459,205 $385,989 $384,565 $393,700 $90,870 $77,883 $76,226 6.1 5.2 5.2 2003 2007 2010 2013 2014 2015 504 196 189 172 177 173 213* m r �a a a� a� CU r .y 7 0 x E L CU 0 0 c 0 w Q r c m E t r r a http://www.housingallies.org/hi-snoco/hi-edmonds/ Packet Pg. 116 Dashboard: Edmonds I Alliance for Housing Affordability Page 3 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: EHA 17 24 *Large increase from 2014-2015 reflects HASCO's conversion of units at Olympic and Sound View properties from HUD Multifamily Project -Based Section 8 to Project -Based Vouchers. These units would have previously been counted with "all assisted housing units", but not with Housing Choice Vouchers. Market Information The table below differs from the "Typical Housing Costs" table in that it specifically shows rents and home prices for new renters or homebuyers in that year, as opposed to values for the entire market as in "Typical Housing Costs". 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Median Rents - Dupre and Scott (2015 Dollars) Studio $704 $752 $766 $765 One Bedroom $758 $808 $830 $875 Two Bedrooms $973 $973 $1,028 $1,119 Three Bedrooms $1,195 $1,507 $1,700 $1,639 Four+ Bedrooms $2,146 $2,414 $2,300 $2,294 Median Home Sale (2015 Dollars) $372,092 $363,657 $357,852 $440,000 Required Income $80,582 $73,377 $70,931 $87,346 $435,425 $86,164 1. Unless otherwise noted, 2010 and 2013 data in "Demographics" table is from 5 year US Census American Community Survey estimate. Data from 2000 is from the 2000 Census SF-3 file. 2. Washington State Office of Financial Management 3. Unless otherwise noted, 2010 and 2013 data in "Typical Housing Costs" table is from 5 year US Census American Community Survey estimate. Data from 2000 is from the 2000 Census SF-3 file. 4. Minimum income is based on a calculation of estimated monthly debt service payment, insurance, and taxes for the median value home using average mortgage terms for the specified year from the Federal Hous- ing Finance Agency. Due to differences in average mortgage terms over the years, the degree of change in minimum income may not seem to match the degree of change in median home value. http://www.housingallies.org/hi-snoco/hi-edmonds/ Packet Pg. 117 Dashboard: Edmonds I Alliance for Housing Affordability Page 4 o r a http://www.housingallies.org/hi-snoco/hi-edmonds/ Packet Pg. 118 7.A.b 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 City Population O -i N M V Ln l0 I, W M O -1 N M I Ln l0 I, W M O -1 N M V Ln l0 D7 D7 01 01 Q7 Q7 at al al al O O O O O O O O O O .--I ci ci ci c-I c-I ci 01 01 01 01 01 01 at at at at O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ci c-I c-I c-I ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Age of Housing Stock 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 0.00% Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or Later 2010 or later ■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County Packet Pg. 119 7.A.b Units in Structure by Tenure 100% _ 90% 80% 70% 60% _ 50% 40% 0% 1-Unit structurJO% [VALUE] 10% 1-unit Structure: [VALUE] 0% Owner Renter ■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 or 4 ■ 5 to 9 ■ 10 to 19 ■ 20 to 49 ■ 50 or more ■ Mobile Home Rents by Number of Bedrooms and Price No 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom Bedrooms Units Units Units Less o 32 15 0 than $300 $300to 0 85 0 52 $499 $500to 6o 150 47 41 $749 $75oto 18 771 472 73 $999 $1000 to 14 476 1,390 284 $1499 $1,500 0 47 28o 86o or more Source: American Communities Survey 2011-2015 Table B25068 Packet Pg. 120 7.A.b Household Share of Income by Income Level 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Extremely Very Low Low Low Edmonds Studio: $1,100.00 $1.000.00 $900.00 $800.00 $700.00 — $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 11 Moderate Middle Above Middle ■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County Average Rent ($) Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 Edmonds 1-Bedroom/1Bath: Average Rent ($) $1.100.00 $1.000.00 $90O.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 N r ry CL Im m ra L Y Market Vacancy N N a� c .N 0 x 12 v 10 � 8 6 4 r 2 0 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring S N 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 C Spring 0 E 2017 -0 W N r r Market Vacancy N Q :.; c a� E 10 V 9 f° 8 ! a+ Q 6 5 4 3 2 1 Spring Spring 1997 2001 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Spring Spring Spring 2005 2009 2013 Packet Pg. 121 7.A.b Edmonds 2bedroom/lbath: Average Rent ($) $1,300.00 $1,200.00 $1,100.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 $700.00 $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Edmonds 2bedroom/2bath: Average Rent ($) $1,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Edmonds 3-bedroom/2bath: Average Rent ($) $1,600.00 $1,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 Spring Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Spring 1997 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2017 Market Vacancy M 14 12 10 8 e a z 0 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spri 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 20' d m C. i� O m L Market Vacancy M a� C o x 7- 5- 3- 2 � 1 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 Q W C O E m W N Market Vacancy M Q C a) E z 14 (� 12 r r.+ 10 _ Q s e a 2 0 Spring 1997 Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall 8 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Packet Pg. 122 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/27/2017 Low Impact Development Code Update Introduction Staff Lead: Jeanie McConnell Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History The City of Edmonds is one of 94 cities that has been issued a Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) by the Department of Ecology. This Permit mandates cities reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent feasible and implement a stormwater management program that integrates Low Impact Development Practices into City policy and code. The City has for many years worked towards reducing the concentration of pollutants in City stormwater and has revised codes, policies and practices to better address these issues. As part of this continued effort, and as required by the Permit, the City began a process in 2015 of reviewing and revising codes, policies, and standard details. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The City's Storwmater Code (ECDC 18.30) went through a major overhaul process to address the new permit requirements and was approved by City Council on October 4, 2016, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. The stormwater code requires, through the development process, that stormwater runoff be managed on site where feasible. Stormwater management systems include for example, rain gardens and pervious pavements. In addition to updating the City's Stormwater Code, all other development -related codes and enforceable documents have been reviewed to eliminate barriers that would prevent the incorporation of low impact development principles and best management practices. The City has been working with a consultant since 2016 to help identify any potential barriers. Staff will provide in introduction on potential code revisions at this Planning Board meeting. Next steps will include a public hearing before Planning Board with a recommendation to the City Council on potential code amendments. Packet Pg. 123 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/27/2017 Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 09-27-2017 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 124 ov. E pMo� o Items and Dates are subject to change N p�f�[�Of�C� oOOQaD Extended Agenda September 27, 2017 Meeting Item SEPTEMBER Sept. 27 1. Update on LID integration code amendments 2. Regional Growth Trends 3. Rezone WMU to BC-EW at 9601 Edmonds Way (Columbia Bank / PLN20170034) OCTOBER Oct. 11 1. Public Hearing on LID integration code amendments 2. Five Corners Area -Development Feasibility Analysis —Status report 3. Presentation on CIP / CFP for 2018 - 2023 4. Housing Strategy Update (# 1) Oct. 25 1. Public Hearing on the proposed 2018 - 2023 CIP / CFP 2. Comp Plan Amendments hearing? NOVEMBER Nov. 8 1. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) 2. Five Corners Area -Development Feasibility Analysis —Final report Nov.22 HOLIDAY DECEMBER Dec. 13 1. Housing Strategy Update (#2) Dec. 27 HOLIDAY 9.A.a Q Packet Pg. 125 items ana Bates are sumeci 9.A.a to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2017 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Q Packet Pg. 126