Planned Action Draft EIS - Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan by Fregonese Associates

PLANNED ACTION DRAFT EIS for the

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

JUNE 2017

PLANNED ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the

HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN City of Edmonds Department of Development Services

Date of Draft EIS Issuance June 2, 2017

Date of Draft EIS Public Meeting June 20, 2017 Please refer to the project website (www.edmondshwy99.org) or the Fact Sheet of this EIS for the time and location of the meeting

Date Comments are due on the Draft EIS July 3, 2017

CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION

June 2, 2017 Dear Interested Citizen: The City of Edmonds invites your comments on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan Draft Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), prepared in accordance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposal considered in this EIS is a new subarea plan, along with supporting comprehensive plan amendments and supporting regulatory amendments intended to support increased economic vitality, promote new opportunities for housing and employment, and provide for enhanced multi-modal mobility throughout the Highway 99 study area. The proposal would also designate the SR 99 study area analyzed in this EIS as a Planned Action area. If so designated, further environmental review on future development within the designated Planned Action area would not be necessary for development proposals that are consistent with the adopted Planned Action ordinance. This Draft EIS considers two alternatives: • •

Alternative 1 – No Action, future growth consistent with existing land use and zoning designations; and Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative, future mixed use growth supported by a comprehensive set of multi-modal transportation improvements on SR 99, an areawide rezone allowing greater intensity of development and amended development regulations to include new design standards.

The study area considered in this EIS consists of approximately 335 acres that follow the alignment of SR 99 through Edmonds, bounded on the south by the King/Snohomish county boundary line on the south and 210th Street SW on the north. To the east and west, the planning area follows an irregular boundary established by existing development patterns in the City of Edmonds and the boundaries of the adjoining cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County. This Draft EIS identifies environmental impacts and mitigating strategies for each alternative. Environmental issues evaluated in this Draft EIS include: land use, plans and policies; aesthetics; transportation; and public services and utilities.

The public comment period associated with this Draft EIS is: June 2, 2017 through July 3, 2017. Please see the Fact Sheet for information on submitting written comments. In addition, the City invites your comments on the Draft EIS at an open house and public meeting scheduled for 6 PM June 20, 2017. The open house and public meeting will be held at the Brackett Room, which is located on the third floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 Fifth Ave N, Edmonds. Additional information concerning the open house and public meeting is provided on the project website: www.edmondshwy99.org and the Fact Sheet for the Draft EIS. Following the Draft EIS comment period, a Final EIS will be prepared that addresses written comments and public testimony received during the Draft EIS public comment period. Thank you for your interest in the SR Highway 99 Subarea Plan Planned Action EIS. We welcome your comments. Sincerely,

Robert Chave, Manager â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Planning Division SEPA Responsible Official City of Edmonds Development Services

FACT SHEET NAME OF PROPOSAL

Highway 99 Subarea Plan PROPONENT

The proponent is the City of Edmonds. LOCATION

The area considered in this Draft EIS is the SR 99 study area, an approximately 335-acre area that follows the SR 99 alignment and is bounded by the King/Snohomish county line on the south, 210th Street SW on the north, and an irregular boundary established by existing development patterns in the City of Edmonds and the boundaries of the cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline and Snohomish County on the east and west. PROPOSAL

The City of Edmonds proposes the following related actions: 1. Adoption of a Highway 99 Subarea Plan, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). 2. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments to reflect the updated map and text in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. 3. Adoption of an area-wide rezone that would generally apply the CG zone to most of the study area. 4. Adoption of amendments to development standards to implement the Subarea Plan, including: a. Maximum building height in CG zone b. Transit supportive parking standards c. Minimum building frontage and transparency requirements along the primary street frontage d. Parking area location e. Pedestrian Activity Zone designation along all street frontages f. Upper story stepbacks adjacent to single family zones 5. Adoption of an ordinance designating the Highway 99 Subarea as a Planned Acton for the purposes of SEPA compliance pursuant to RCW 43.21.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164. A Planned Action designation by a jurisdiction reflects a decision that environmental review is completed early in the planning stages for an area and/or specific type of project. Further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development proposal or phase, will not be necessary if it is determined that each proposal or phase is consistent with the Planned Action ordinance.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • I

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

Two action alternatives representing varying approaches for accommodating increased development intensity within the Highway 99 study area are evaluated in this Draft EIS, together with a No Action Alternative. The alternatives include: • •

Alternative 1 (No Action). This alternative assumes continued future growth consistent with past development trends. Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would support increased intensity of future mixed use growth along the corridor. Future growth would be supported by a comprehensive set of multi-modal transportation improvements on SR 99 and regulatory amendments that would enhance the street-level pedestrian environment and increase the potential for development of affordable housing.

LEAD AGENCY

City of Edmonds Department of Development Services SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Robert Chave, Manager – Planning Division City of Edmonds Development Services 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 EIS CONTACT PERSON

Brad Shipley, Associate Planner– Planning Division City of Edmonds Development Services 121 5th Avenue North Telephone: (425) 771-0220 Edmonds, WA 98020 E-mail: planning@edmondswa.gov REQUIRED APPROVALS AND/OR PERMITS

The following City actions would be required to implement the Proposal: • •

Adoption of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and supporting regulatory amendments; and Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.

Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce will coordinate state agency review of the legislative proposal. After City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals include but are not limited to: land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and street use permits.

II • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS EIS

This SR 99 Subarea Plan Planned Action EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Edmonds Department of Development Services. Research and analysis associated with this EIS were provided by the following consulting firms: • • •

3 Square Blocks – lead EIS consultant; document preparation; environmental analysis – land use, relationship to plans and policies, aesthetics, public services and utilities DKS – transportation Fregonese Associates – subarea plan, subarea plan alternatives data, graphics, development scenarios

LOCATION OF BACKGROUND DATA

City of Edmonds, Development Services 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THIS DRAFT EIS

June 2, 2017 DATE DRAFT EIS COMMENTS ARE DUE

July 3, 2017 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO:

City of Edmonds Development Services Attn: Robert Chave, Manager – Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 or via e-mail: planning@edmondswa.gov DATE OF DRAFT EIS OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC MEETING

June 20, 2017 Edmonds City Hall Brackett Room, 3rd Floor 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 The purpose of the open house and public meeting is to provide an opportunity for agencies, organizations and individuals to review information concerning the Draft EIS and to make oral comments on the Draft EIS – in addition to submittal of written comments

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • III

AVAILABILITY OF THIS DRAFT EIS

Copies of this Draft EIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A to this document). Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS has been provided to organizations and individuals that requested to become parties of record. A limited number of paper copies of this Draft EIS are available – while the supply lasts – from the City of Edmonds Department of Development Services. Purchase price will be based on printing costs. This Draft EIS and the appendices are also available online at the City’s website http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-project.html and the project website http://www.edmondshwy99.org/document-library/.

IV • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS FACT SHEET ................................................................................................................................................. I 1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 Objectives of the Proposal ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Environmental Review .................................................................................................................. 1-4 Public Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 1-5 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Major Issues, Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty, and Issues to Be Resolved .... 1-13 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................... 1-13

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Planning Context ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 Public Outreach............................................................................................................................. 2-8 Environmental Review .................................................................................................................. 2-9 Proposed Action and Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-11 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation ........................................................ 2-19

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................................ 3-1

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Land Use..................................................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Plans and Policies ....................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 3.3-1 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 3.4-1 Public Services and Utilities ....................................................................................................... 3.5-1

4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 APPENDICES

A B C D E F G

Determination of Significance and Scoping Comments Transportation Improvement Projects Development Capacity Methodology Alternative Land Use Growth Targets by Traffic Analysis Zone Detailed Trip Generation and Adjustment Worksheets 2035 Traffic Projections Intersection and Roadway Level of Service Calculations Reliability of Snohomish County PUD Circuits Serving the Study Area

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • V

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4

Highway 99 Corridor Study Area and Districts within the Study Area............................. 1-2 Study Area and Adjacent Areas Existing Zoning .............................................................. 1-9 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map .............................................................. 1-10 Preferred Alternative Proposed Zoning Designations ................................................... 1-12

Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5

Highway 99 Corridor Study Area...................................................................................... 2-2 Districts within the Highway 99 Corridor Study Area ...................................................... 2-3 Study Area and Adjacent Areas Existing Zoning .............................................................. 2-6 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map .............................................................. 2-16 Preferred Alternative Proposed Zoning Designations ................................................... 2-18

Figure 3.1.1 Figure 3.1.2

Existing Land Use in Study Area and Adjacent Areas.................................................... 3.1-2 Illustration of Proposed Stepback Standards.............................................................. 3.1-10

Figure 3.2.1 Figure 3.2.2 Figure 3.2.3

Highway 99 Vision ......................................................................................................... 3.2-5 Highway 99 Comprehensive Plan Focus Areas ............................................................ 3.2-7 Hospital/Medical Height Envelope Concept ............................................................... 3.2-10

Figure 3.3.1 Figure 3.3.2 Figure 3.3.3 Figure 3.3.4 Figure 3.3.5 Figure 3.3.6 Figure 3.3.7 Figure 3.3.8 Figure 3.3.9 Figure 3.3.10

View of Highway 99 near 240th St................................................................................ 3.3-1 View of Highway 99 near 212th St................................................................................ 3.3-1 View of Highway 99 near 216th St................................................................................ 3.3-2 View of 228th St SW near 76th Ave W ......................................................................... 3.3-2 View of 236th St SW near Highway 99 ......................................................................... 3.3-2 Edmonds Medical Pavilion ............................................................................................ 3.3-2 Swift Bus Rapid Transit Station ..................................................................................... 3.3-4 Pavement Art at Swift Bus Rapid Transit Station.......................................................... 3.3-4 Decorative Light Pole .................................................................................................... 3.3-5 Community Health Center of Snohomish County Edmonds Clinic ............................... 3.3-7

Figure 3.4.1 Figure 3.4.2 Figure 3.4.3

Study Area and Existing Streets .................................................................................... 3.4-3 Existing and Planned Transit System ............................................................................ 3.4-7 Existing and Planned Bicycle System ............................................................................ 3.4-8

Figure 3.5.1 Figure 3.5.2 Figure 3.5.3 Figure 3.5.4 Figure 3.5.5 Figure 3.5.6

Facilities Providing Public Services to the Study Area .................................................. 3.5-3 Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Service Area ...................................................... 3.5-4 Total Emergency and Medical Services Incidents in Edmonds (2012-2015) ................ 3.5-5 Total Emergency and Medical Services Incidents by Edmonds Stations (2011-2015) . 3.5-6 Response Standards at a Glance (2014) ....................................................................... 3.5-7 Park and Recreation Facilities within One-Half Mile of the Study Area ..................... 3.5-14

VI • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Figure 3.5.7 Figure 3.5.8 Figure 3.5.9

Park Access – All Edmonds Parks; Neighborhood Park, Community Park, and Other Sites; Natural Areas (2014) ........................................... 3.5-17 Watershed Boundaries within Edmonds .................................................................... 3.5-21 Stormwater System (2011) ......................................................................................... 3.5-23

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • VII

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Table 1.2

Alternatives Overview...................................................................................................... 1-6 Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives ....................................................................... 1-14

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3

Study Area Existing Zoning............................................................................................... 2-7 Public Outreach Summary ............................................................................................... 2-8 Alternatives Overview.................................................................................................... 2-12

Table 3.1.1 Table 3.1.2 Table 3.1.3 Table 3.1.4

Developed Land Area Mix ............................................................................................. 3.1-1 Compatible Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations ......................................... 3.1-4 Zoning Designations Surrounding the Study Area ........................................................ 3.1-5 Existing Maximum Development Capacity Compared to Existing Development and Growth Targets .............................................................. 3.1-7

Table 3.2.1 Table 3.2.2 Table 3.2.3

City of Lynnwood Land Use Designations ................................................................... 3.2-12 Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals ..................................................... 3.2-16 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals .............................................................. 3.2-18

Table 3.3.1

Zoning Standards for Height, Setbacks and Lot Coverage ............................................ 3.3-6

Table 3.4.1 Table 3.4.2 Table 3.4.3 Table 3.4.4 Table 3.4.5 Table 3.4.6 Table 3.4.7 Table 3.4.8 Table 3.4.9 Table 3.4.10 Table 3.4.11

Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................ 3.4-4 Existing intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) ................................................. 3.4-6 Land Use Assumptions for Alternatives ...................................................................... 3.4-10 Comparison of PM Peak Hour Trip Generation by Alternative................................... 3.4-12 Planned Transportation Improvements (Near Term) ................................................. 3.4-14 Proposed Improvements (Near Term) ........................................................................ 3.4-16 Intersection LOS (PM Peak Hour) Under the No Action Alternative .......................... 3.4-17 Travel Time and LOS (PM Peak Hour) Under the No Action Alternative .................... 3.4-18 Intersection LOS (PM Peak Hour) Under the Preferred Alternative ........................... 3.4-22 Travel Time and LOS (PM Peak Hour) Under the Preferred Alternative .................... 3.4-23 Comparison of LOS (PM Peak Hour) With and Without Capacity Mitigation ............. 3.4-28

Table 3.5.1 Table 3.5.2 Table 3.5.3 Table 3.5.4 Table 3.5.5 Table 3.5.6 Table 3.5.7 Table 3.5.8

Police Department Calls (2011–2015) .......................................................................... 3.5-2 Crime Statistics, Number Reported (2011–2015) ......................................................... 3.5-2 Edmonds School District Facilities ................................................................................ 3.5-9 Edmonds School District Class Size and Facility Design Standards ............................. 3.5-10 Projected Student Enrollment through 2036 ............................................................. 3.5-11 Projected Available Student Capacity (2016–2021, 2036) ......................................... 3.5-12 Parks and Recreation Facilities within One-Half Mile of the Study Area .................... 3.5-13 Total System Level of Service, Acres per 1,000 Population ........................................ 3.5-16

VIII • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Table 3.5.9 Table 3.5.10

Total System Level of Service under Both Alternatives, Acres per 1,000 Population 3.5-26 Additional Police Officers and Staff Assistants Needed under Both Alternatives ...... 3.5-29

Table C.1

Existing Maximum Development Capacity Compared to Existing Development and Planned Growth................................................................ C-2

Table D.1

Snohomish County PUD Circuit Statistics: Ballinger 12-259 and Esperance 12-688 ...... D-1

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • IX

[this page intentionally blank]

X • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1

INTRODUCTION

This Chapter summarizes elements of the proposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan Draft Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), including the purpose of the proposal and alternatives, a comparison of the impacts of the alternatives, and a summary of potential mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. This Chapter is the first of a series of chapters contained in the Draft EIS that provide a summary and more in-depth environmental review of the proposal and alternatives: • •

•

• •

1.2

Chapter 1 Summary: Summary of proposal, impacts, and mitigation measures contained in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 Alternatives: Comprehensive description of the proposal and alternatives including projected growth, proposed changes to land use and zoning designations, and proposed transportation improvements. Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: Evaluates the current conditions and potential impacts of development that may result from the alternatives described in Chapter 2. References: A list of documents and personal communications cited in the Draft EIS. Appendices: Technical information supporting the Draft EIS.

STUDY AREA

The Highway 99 Corridor study area extends approximately two miles along the alignment of SR 99, bounded by the King/Snohomish County boundary on the south and 210th Street SW on the north (see Figure 1.1 on the following page). To the east and west of SR 99, the study area follows an irregular boundary established by existing development patterns in the City of Edmonds and the boundaries of

the adjoining cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County. The study area comprises approximately 335 acres in total. Within the subarea, three distinct districts have been identified. To the south, the Gateway District is a major entrance to Edmonds from the south and east and provides for relatively large scale commercial or mixed use development. In the central portion of the study area, the International District provides a wide array of restaurant, retail services and other supporting development that meet the needs of diverse cultures. To the north, the Health District includes the Swedish Medical Center/Edmonds and related medical services and offices. FIGURE 1.1

Highway 99 Corridor Study Area and Districts within the Study Area

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

1-2 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

1.3

PROPOSED ACTION

The City is considering an updated subarea plan, new transportation improvements, an area-wide rezone and regulatory amendments to the City Code (Edmonds City Code Title 16) to set the stage for transition of the Highway 99 Corridor study area to a vibrant, pedestrian friendly mixed-use corridor, consistent City direction for the study area. Specifically, the proposal by the City of Edmonds consists of the following related actions: 1. Adoption of a Highway 99 Subarea Plan, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). 2. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments to reflect the updated map and text in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. 3. Adoption of an area-wide rezone that would generally apply the CG zone to most of the study area. 4. Adoption of amendments to development standards to implement the Subarea Plan, including: a. Maximum building height in CG zone b. Transit supportive parking standards c. Minimum building frontage and transparency requirements along the primary street frontage d. Parking area location e. Pedestrian Activity Zone designation along all street frontages f. Upper story stepbacks adjacent to single family zones 5. Adoption of an ordinance designating the Highway 99 Subarea as a Planned Acton for the purposes of SEPA compliance pursuant to RCW 43.21.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164.

1.4

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL

The City has identified the following specific objectives of the proposal: • • • • • • •

Establish a clear long-term vision for the Highway 99 corridor that helps guide future public investment decisions, including investments for multimodal improvements to the corridor. Encourage a mixture of land uses throughout the Highway 99 corridor, including residential, office, retail, and civic projects. Create housing choices attractive to people from all walks of life. Create an attractive pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment. Provide opportunities for medical services growth in the area surrounding Swedish Medical Center/Edmonds. Provide for enhanced mobility for all modes of travel along the Highway 99 corridor. Provide a streamlined SEPA review process for future site-specific development proposals.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-3

• •

1.5

Provide an incentive for development proposals that are consistent with the overall intent of the Highway 99 corridor vision. Provide greater certainty to potential developers, city decision-makers, and the general public regarding the future development pattern and likely impacts of future development in the SR 99 corridor.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The purpose of this EIS is to assist the public and decision-makers in considering the potential environmental effects of the proposed Subarea Plan and implementing regulations. SEPA requires government officials to consider the environmental consequences of future actions and to consider ways to accomplish the objectives that minimize adverse impacts or enhance environmental quality. They must consider whether the proposed action will have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the elements of the natural and built environment. The adoption of a subarea plan and implementing regulations is classified by SEPA as a non-project (also referred to as programmatic) action. A non-project action is defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project and involves decisions on policies, plans or programs. An EIS for non-project proposal does not require site-specific analysis; instead the EIS will discuss impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal.

PLANNED ACTION A Planned Action EIS provides more detailed environmental analysis during the early formulation stages of planning proposals rather than at the project permit review stage. Future development proposals consistent with an adopted planned action ordinance do not have to undergo an environmental threshold determination, and are not subject to SEPA appeals when consistent with the planned action ordinance, including specified mitigation measures. Planned actions still need to meet the City’s development regulations and to obtain necessary permits. Please see Chapter 2 for a complete description of the planned action process.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING The City Edmonds issued a Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the SR 99 Corridor Plan on May 4, 2016 for the proposed action. Interested citizens, agencies, organizations and affected tribes were invited to submit comments on the scope of the Draft EIS, which closed on May 24, 2016. The final scope of review for this EIS includes the following: •

Land Use, including an evaluation of the amount, type and pattern of uses. The focus of the analysis is on land use compatibility with existing and planned development within and adjacent

1-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

1.6

to the analysis area. The land use analysis will also include an evaluation of consistency of the proposal with adopted plans and policies. Aesthetics, including an evaluation of the character of the existing corridor and the nature of change to the urban character that may result from the proposal. The analysis will consider the character of the corridor as whole as well as character at various locations along the corridor. Transportation, including consideration of impacts of the proposal and alternatives on trip generation, peak hour vehicular congestion, transit, bicycling and walking, park and safety. An analysis of consistency with Washington Department of Transportation standards for the Highway 99 Corridor, a state-designated highway, will also be evaluated. Public Services/Utilities, including a review of police, fire/emergency services, schools, parks and open space, electricity and stormwater. Existing levels of service, estimated needs and demand for services and measures needed, if any, to respond to projected demand from the proposal are described.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The City’s public engagement effort engaged with the broad and diverse range of interested parties including area residents, businesses and property owners, community organizations, public entities and agencies, and potential developers or investors. The City has provided multiple ways in which stakeholders can participate, including online, social media, and public workshops and meetings. A brief summary of the City’s public engagement activities to-date is provided in Chapter 2 and additional information can be found at the City’s project website: http://www.edmondshwy99.org.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-5

1.7

ALTERNATIVES

As described to a greater degree in Chapter 2, alternatives addressed in this Draft EIS include Alternative 1, No Action—future growth would continue based on existing development regulations—and Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative—future growth assuming a new vision for the area, updated development standards, enhanced transportation system. Each alternative is briefly described below and key features of the alternatives are summarized in Table 1.1, below. TABLE 1.1

Alternatives Overview

FEATURES

ALT. 1 NO ACTION

ALT. 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

New Housing Units by 2035

1,224

3,325

New Jobs by 2035

2,317

3,013

994,958

1,634,685

New Commercial ft2 by 2035 Comprehensive Plan

No change

Proposed update to Highway 99 subarea maps and text to clearly identify three distinct districts in the subarea anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, see Figure 1.1.

Zoning Designations

No change

Rezone the CG2and portions of the RM 1.5, RM-2.4, RM-3, BN, and BC zones throughout the study area to CG (see Figure 1.4)

Development Code Amendments

Existing development regulations would remain unchanged

1-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FEATURES

ALT. 1 NO ACTION

ALT. 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Pedestrian Activity Zone - Designate 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone in place of existing Type IV landscape buffer along all primary street frontages with ground floor retail. Future design standards may consider special circumstances, such as auto dealer locations. Ground Floor Setback - For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a Pedestrian Activity Zone - For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to five feet and encourage enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, usable landscaping, etc.) - Keep current 15-foot setback and 10- foot landscaping requirements for lot lines adjacent to single family zones Upper story stepbacks - Adjacent to single family zones provide 10-foot upper story stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 20foot upper-story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet. - Across the street from single family zones provide eight-foot stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16foot upper story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet.

Transportation Improvements

Future improvements would continue to occur on an incremental basis with new development and as planned by the City’s Transportation Master Plan and WSDOT plans.

Improvements to the Highway 99 Corridor and adjacent local streets would include measures to maintain level of service standards, increase east/west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and improve access to transit. See Appendix B.

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016; 3 Square Blocks 2016.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-7

ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would continue the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications with no changes. Future growth would occur according to existing land use designations, zoning designations and development standards. See Figure 1.2 for existing zoning designations. As shown in the table above, Alternative 1 plans for the less growth in new employment and housing through 2035, compared to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 1 also plans for relatively more new commercial uses compared to residential uses. Accordingly, commercial development would continue to be the primary use along the corridor. The corridor’s existing autooriented commercial character, with large paved areas and limited amenities for pedestrians, bicycles and transit users, would likely continue in the future. Comprehensive Plan No changes are proposed to existing maps or text. Zoning Designations No changes are proposed to existing zoning designations. Development Regulations No changes are proposed to development standards or regulations. Building Heights Existing development regulations in the GC and GC2 zones, the zones found along the Highway 99 Corridor, allow maximum building heights of 60 and 75 feet, respectively, except in the high-rise nodes, where building heights are not limited (see Figure 1.3). In most cases, however, building heights of existing development is significantly less than these maximum limits. Under Alternative 1, it is likely that future development would continue this pattern and new development would consist of relatively low scale and low intensity auto-oriented uses. TRANSPORTATION

No new transportation improvement projects to improve pedestrian character, access or mobility are planned. Improvements would continue to occur on an incremental basis, depending on private development proposals and available capital funding through the City of Edmonds and WSDOT. SEPA REVIEW

A Planned Action Ordinance would not be adopted and proposed future development would be subject to standard SEPA review for individual site-specific proposals.

1-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 1.2

Study Area and Adjacent Areas Existing Zoning

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-9

FIGURE 1.3

Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

1-10 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, proposes redevelopment of the study area into an area characterized by mixed use development with an increase in residential development and character, greater intensity of development and street-frontage and pedestrian amenities. Compared to the Alternative 1, Alternative 2 plans for significantly higher levels of residential and employment growth in the study area (see Table 1.1 above). Under Alternative 2, the study area would evolve toward a land use pattern that is relatively more balanced between residential and commercial uses, compared to existing conditions. Comprehensive Plan The current Comprehensive Plan includes a Highway 99 subdistrict map that designates four focus areas, but does not reflect community interest in a southern “gateway” district that defines the entry into Edmonds. The proposal would establish three focus areas, consisting of a hospital district at the north end, international district in the center and gateway district in the south. Alternative 2 would include map and text updates to the Comprehensive Plan to clearly identify these three distinct districts, see Figure 1.1 on page 2. Zoning Designations Alternative 2 would include an area wide rezone of all of the CG2 and portions of the RM-1.5 RM-2.4, RM-3, BC, and BN zoned areas in the study area to the CG zoning designation, see Figure 1.4. Development Regulations Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.60 would be amended to include the revised development code standards shown in Table 1.1. Building Heights The proposed height limit in the CG zone is proposed to increase to 75 feet, except within the adopted high rise overlay. The proposed height increase is greater than the existing 60-foot height limit for the CG zone and consistent with the current height limit for the CG2 zone. Some areas that are proposed for rezone to CG are currently in a zoning designation, such as the BC or RM zones, with a 25-foot height limit. The proposed area-wide rezone would allow these locations to re-develop at a maximum height of 75 feet, consistent with proposed CG development standards.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-11

FIGURE 1.4

Preferred Alternative Proposed Zoning Designations

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

1-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation improvements to the Highway 99 corridor and adjacent local streets would include measures to maintain level of service standards, increase east/west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and improve access to transit. Proposed transportation projects would specifically address the following categories of improvements: • • • • • •

Pedestrian safety and access to SR 99 Bicycle circulation across and parallel to SR 99 Pedestrian environment along SR 99 Safe pedestrian crossings of SR 99 and transit access Transit mobility and transit stop environment Traffic flow and safe access management

A detailed description of proposed transportation improvement projects is included in Appendix B.

1.8

MAJOR ISSUES, SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY, AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

The major issues to be resolved and under review in this EIS include: • • • •

1.9

Future neighborhood identity, urban form and character as expressed through the community vision, zoning classifications and development regulations; Appropriate mix of uses, including residential, office, retail and civic uses; Planned transportation network improvements, including multimodal circulation and connectivity, measures; and Capacity for public services and utilities to serve anticipated growth.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

This section contains an abbreviated version of Chapter 3, which contains the full text of the Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures sections. For more information, readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues in Chapter 3 in order to gain a more complete understanding of impacts associated with the alternatives.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-13

IMPACTS TABLE 1.2

Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Land Use

The future land use pattern under Alternative 1 is anticipated to be similar to the existing pattern in terms of the mix of uses and intensity of development, because there would be no changes to the City’s current development regulations and Alternative 1 has the lowest growth targets.

Alternative 2 proposes higher growth targets, an area-wide rezone, new development standards, planned transportation improvements and new policy guidance to catalyze transformation of the study area into a lively, pedestrian- and transitfriendly mixed use corridor.

Under both alternatives it is anticipated that zoning regulations would provide sufficient development capacity to meet the City’s 2035 growth targets for the study area.

Existing development does not fully utilize the development capacity available under current zoning, and thus new development and redevelopment may be at greater intensities than currently exist. There would likely be some incremental increases in development intensity as individual projects were constructed over time in various locations throughout the study area. Development and design standards in the City’s code would help to mitigate for potential land use compatibility impacts. Proposed growth targets would slightly reduce the current ratio of jobs to housing units from 2.4 to 2.2, maintaining the study area’s character as an employment center.

Infill development would likely be of greater height, bulk and intensity than under Alternative 1. The area-wide rezone would result in the majority of the study area being able to develop with a mix of uses and buildings up to 75 feet tall. The rezone would also remove some of the existing transitional zones between areas of the study area where higher intensities are permitted and surrounding single family residential neighborhoods. Alternative 2 includes new upper story stepback standards to address this. Proposed new development standards and transportation improvements are expected to result in a land use pattern that is more pedestrian-friendly, and are not expected to create any new land use incompatibilities. Policy language in the proposed Subarea Plan also encourages transit-oriented development, affordable housing, mixed use and mixed income developments. The impacts of this policy language will depend upon how it is implemented but are not expected to create any new land use incompatibilities, since these types of development are already possible in the study area. Proposed growth targets would change the current ratio of jobs to housing units from 2.4 to 1.4, creating

1-14 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE a more equal balance in jobs and housing compared to existing conditions and to growth planned under Alternative 1.

Plans and Policies

Both alternatives are generally consistent with adopted plans and policies reviewed in this EIS. Both alternatives plan for growth according to adopted local and regional targets and are consistent with land use designations in surrounding jurisdictions.

Impacts would be as described under Impacts Common to Both Alternatives.

Under Alternative 2, existing Highway 99 Corridor subdistrict maps and text in the Comprehensive Plan would not be consistent with the recommendations of the proposed Subarea Plan. The proposed Subarea Plan recommends Comprehensive Plan amendments to bring the maps and text into alignment with the Subarea Plan recommendations.

Aesthetics and Urban Design

Growth is assumed to occur under both alternatives and over time this would impact the aesthetic character of the area. Although the alternatives differ in the intensities, locations and types of uses assumed for future growth, a more dense future land use pattern that makes fuller use of available development envelopes than in the past is expected under both alternatives. The locations where the highest buildings heights would be allowed are the same under either alternative.

Growth under existing development regulations would result in incremental increases in density and improvements in aesthetics. This may or may not include individual projects that support the Highway 99 Corridor focus areas described in the Comprehensive Plan.

Alternative 2 proposes changes to the Comprehensive Plan Highway 99 Corridor focus areas, new policy guidance for the urban form of the study area, higher growth targets, an area-wide rezone, new development standards and planned transportation improvements. These changes are intended to help transform the aesthetics and urban design of the study area into a more vibrant urban corridor with a distinct identity and unique neighborhoods that are pedestrian- and transitfriendly. In general, the impacts are expected to be positive and to support the community’s vision for the study area.

There would be overall improvements in the aesthetic appearance of the study area as new development occurs under both alternatives, but the types of improvements would differ. Improvements under Alternative 1 would be subject to the City’s current design and development standards. Improvements under Alternative 2 would be guided by new design and development standards and would also be influenced by new policy guidance and transportation improvement projects in the proposed Subarea Plan.

Existing development regulations in much of the study area allow building heights of 60 feet or more. Most existing buildings are significantly shorter than these maximum limits and it is assumed that future development would continue this pattern. There would be some incremental increases in development intensity as individual projects were constructed over time in various locations throughout the study area, but no significant changes are anticipated to current patterns in building height, bulk and scale. As growth occurred over time the streetscape would be improved on a project by project basis consistent with current regulations. Such

Alternative 2 would amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish three focus areas in the study area, refining the existing Highway 99 Corridor focus areas to reflect current community interest in a southern gateway district. The proposed Subarea Plan contains new policy guidance calling for improvements in signage and wayfinding, using design to strengthen business opportunity, development of a unique district design identity, supporting building types and uses typical of vibrant urban corridors, and making code updates to support more pedestrian- and transit-friendly

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-15

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

improvements could include increased landscaping and pedestrian infrastructure.

building forms and streetscapes. Alternative 2’s proposed higher growth targets and new design and development standards could result in more intense height, bulk and scale of new development in the study area compared to future growth under Alternative 1; building heights of up to 75 feet would be permitted in the majority of the study area. The proposed rezone would also remove some of the existing transitional zones between the study area and surrounding single family residential neighborhoods. The proposed development regulations include new upper story stepback standards in areas adjacent to single family zones to provide transitions in building height and scale. Proposed design and development standards would transform the study area’s streetscape as new development takes place over time; they include increased minimum setbacks to allow space for a new Pedestrian Area between buildings and streets, new requirements for building site placement and transparency, and changes to parking requirements. Additionally, proposed transportation improvements would increase pedestrian, bicyclist and transit infrastructure. These changes would support more street-level activity with people walking or biking to services and jobs.

Transportation

Transportation demand would increase under both alternatives. The change in demand is expected to differ between the alternatives, but there would be some similarities. Both alternatives are expected to have significant impacts on traffic level of service at one or more of the six study intersections in the subarea, to increase corridor travel time, and to have positive impacts on pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of transportation.

Traffic level of service is projected to fall below the City’s established standard for one of the six study intersections: State Route 99 and 212th Street SW.

1-16 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Traffic level of service is projected to fall below the City’s established standard for three of the six study intersections: 1) State Route 99 and 212th Street SW, 2) State Route 99 and 220th St SW, and 3) State Route 99 and 224th St SW.

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Incremental increases in demand for police services are anticipated with the population growth, increased building heights, and increased construction activity proposed under both alternatives. The Department would address future service needs through ongoing capital improvement, planning and budgeting efforts.

In order to maintain the current level of service identified in the Edmonds Police Department’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, approximately 5.0 police officers and 1.5-2 police staff assistants would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases.

In order to maintain the current level of service identified in the Edmonds Police Department’s 20162021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, approximately 10.2 police officers and 1.5-2 police staff assistants would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases.

No impacts other than those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative 2 is expected to result in an increase of about 645 students more than the No Action Alternative, spread across all grades.

Public Services Police

Future development under both alternatives could potentially have a positive impact on crime, by reducing the number of vacant or underutilized parcels and by increasing the number of people in public places. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

Under both of the alternatives, increased growth and development is anticipated to generate incremental new demands for fire and EMS services within the study area, and place additional pressure on Fire District 1 to meet response time standards as growth occurs over time. The District would attempt to maintain response times consistent with or better than current performance levels as the demand for service increases. Fire District 1 would address future service needs through ongoing capital improvement, planning, and budgeting efforts. Additional staffing and equipment may be required incrementally over time in order to maintain performance levels.

Schools

Growth in the study area would likely result in incremental increases in the public school student population and associated incremental impacts on public schools. This

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-17

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

would allow the District to respond through ongoing capacity management planning.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE No impacts other than those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

The District’s projected 2036 capacity is sufficient to accommodate the expected increase in school aged children under both alternatives. Parks and Open Space

Growth in residential and worker populations in the study area proposed under both alternatives is expected to result in increased use of existing parks and open space facilities in the study area, and corresponding increases in operations and maintenance needs.

No impacts other than those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative 2 includes improvements to pedestrian and bicycle character, access, and mobility within the study area, particularly crossing Highway 99. As such, east-west access across Highway 99 to park and recreation facilities would likely improve.

No impacts other than those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Expected growth and development in the study area under both alternatives would further exacerbate existing gaps in geographic access to park and recreation facilities. Total system LOS, however, under both alternatives would be above the City’s adopted standard of 11.45 acres per 1,000 residents if no new acreage were added. Utilities Electricity

Under both alternatives, the existing Snohomish County PUD No. 1 system may need improvements or reconfiguration to meet future growth needs throughout the study area. Potential upgrades could range in scope from local service improvement up to and including new substation and transmission facilities. PUD would continue its practice of upgrading the electrical system, commensurate with

1-18 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

No impacts other than those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Under Alternative 2, the amount of stormwater runoff is expected to decrease more than the No Action Alternative. Redevelopment at higher densities – with a focus on residential development and pedestrian amenities – would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces if new landscaping and open space areas are incorporated into the redevelopment projects, as required by the City code and stormwater regulations. Planned streetscape improvements under Alternative 2 would also increase landscaping along the street – trees and other landscaping provide a natural ability to absorb stormwater and release it slowly to the atmosphere, resulting in positive impacts to stormwater practices in the study area.

anticipated growth in the study area and throughout their service area, in order to ensure adequate electrical services are provided. New customers would be served as the development occurs, on a case-by-case basis. A feasibility study may be required depending on the level of development and associated new loads. In addition, the City and PUD would continue to pursue energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, thereby reducing stress on the utility as residential and jobs growth occurs. Stormwater

Under both alternatives, stormwater volumes would likely be managed in the same manner as they are today. The study area is mostly built out so development under both alternatives would likely not increase the amount of impervious surface area. Regulations governing stormwater requirements for development have also become significantly more comprehensive since much of the study area was developed; any redevelopment or new development under either alternative would be subject to these stricter regulations and may thus improve the hydrologic characteristics and water quality of the study area.

In addition, Alternative 2 provides greater incentive for mixed-use and commercial development in proximity to existing infrastructure on SR-99, making more efficient use of available stormwater capacity.

Source: Edmonds 2016; 3 Square Blocks 2017; DKS 2017.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-19

MITIGATION MEASURES This EIS contains three types of mitigation measures: 1) incorporated plan features, 2) regulations and commitments, and 3) other mitigation measures. Incorporated plan features are mitigation measures contained in plans and policies that are adopted or planned for adoption as part of the proposed action. Regulations and commitments are mitigation measures contained in regulations or other requirements that are adopted or planned for adoption as part of the proposed action. Other mitigation measures include any mitigation measures not included in the other two categories. LAND USE

Incorporated Plan Features •

Under Alternative 2, the proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback development regulations discussed below, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts around the edges of the subarea.

Regulations and Commitments • •

•

Under both alternatives, zoning designations would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s growth targets for the subarea. Under both alternatives, existing development and design standards require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Applicable site development standards include those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others. Under Alternative 2, the proposed new stepback standards would mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones, when combined with the City’s remaining existing development and design standards. Under Alternative 1, existing zoning helps to create transitions between single family zoned areas and areas of the study area zoned for the highest intensity uses. Transitional zoning includes multifamily, community business, neighborhood business, and medical use zones along the edges of the study area.

Other Mitigation Measures •

None

PLANS AND POLICIES

Incorporated Plan Features •

•

For Alternative 2, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and text are recommended to clearly identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses (Recommendation 3.1, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). These amendments would bring the Comprehensive Plan and recommended Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment.

Regulations and Commitments •

As required by GMA, the draft Subarea Plan and regulations will be submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce for review and comment prior to final adoption.

Other Mitigation Measures •

None

AESTHETICS

Incorporated Plan Features •

•

Under Alternative 2, the proposed Subarea Plan contains policy guidance and recommended transportation improvement projects that are intended to enhance the aesthetics and urban design of the study area and support the community’s vision for the future neighborhood character of the corridor. The policy guidance calls for improvements in signage and wayfinding, using design to strengthen business opportunity, development of a unique district design identity, supporting building types and uses typical of vibrant urban corridors, and making code updates to support more pedestrian- and transit-friendly building forms and streetscapes. Under both alternatives, the Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance for development that occurs within the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Comprehensive Plan Map designations. The majority of the study area falls within these designations. Applicable goals and policies call for making the area more attractive and pedestrian friendly, ensuring that the design of new development contributes to the quality and character of the area, encouraging a variety of building types, using landscaping and buffering to soften street fronts and to provide transitions between more and less intensive uses, and fostering distinct subdistrict identities consistent with the Highway 99 Corridor Vision.

Regulations and Commitments •

•

Transitions in building height and bulk between portions of the subarea zoned for the highest intensity uses and adjacent single family zoned areas and would be provided under Alterative 2 by the proposed new upper story stepback standards and by the City’s remaining existing development standards for the study area. Under Alternative 1, these types of transitions would be provided by existing zones along the edges of the study area including multifamily, community business, neighborhood business, and medical use zones. Under both alternatives, existing development and design standards require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Applicable site development

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-21

standards include those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others. Other Mitigation Measures •

None

TRANSPORTATION

Incorporated Plan Features • •

The City of Edmond’s existing planned transportation improvements will help to mitigate for traffic impacts under both alternatives. The near-term and long-term transportation improvements in the proposed Subarea Plan will contribute to the underlying infrastructure that creates transit, pedestrian, and bicycle-friendly places and will indirectly help to mitigate for traffic impacts under the Preferred Alternative.

Regulations and Commitments •

•

• •

Continue to implement the planned transportation improvements identified in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan and subsequent updates using the six year Transportation Improvement Program as the instrument for prioritizing projects and identifying funding. Incorporate the near-term and long-term transportation improvements identified in the proposed Subarea Plan into the Comprehensive Transportation Plan’s capital improvement projects and utilize the City’s current the six year Transportation Improvement Program to prioritize projects and identifying funding. Use the current Comprehensive Transportation Plan process (updating the Plan in a cycle approximately every six years) as the mechanism for monitoring the LOS at impacted intersections. Build flexibility into each cycle of the six year Transportation Improvement Program to modify the priority and funding of the capital projects serving the study area as new development occurs and creates opportunities for matching funds from private development; redirecting project priorities and timing to coincide with major developments. Continue competing for funding from state and federal grants and continue to watch for potential new funding sources. Leverage the proposed Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance to request early distribution of state funds ($10,000,000) earmarked for Highway 99 within Edmonds in the State’s Ten Year Transportation Investment Plan.

1-22 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Other Mitigation Measures Traffic • Stage 1: Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures to potentially reduce intersection level of service impacts under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives. o Within 6-months of occupation of new developments, require tenants or managing organizations such as Homeowners Associations or property managers to implement TDM programs.  Residential (any size), commercial (under 25 employees), and mixed-use developments can select from a menu of TDM measures specifically assembled for these types of land uses. The City will develop guidelines and worksheets for tenants of new developments to formulate a trip reduction plan. Plan must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 

Developments comprised of larger employers are required to develop and implement TDM plans tailored to their workforce. Employers with 25 to 100 employees are required to develop a TDM plan selecting from the menu of TDM measures described above, or customize their own plan. TDM plans for employers with 100 employees or more must conform to the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law that is part of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94).



Menus of TDM strategies should include tiers of measures that have varying levels of effectiveness and cost including measures within the following broad categories and associated example measures: •

Financial incentives, amenities and perks: o

Fully or partially subsidized transit passes

Carpool/vanpool subsidies such as fuel vouchers, provision of vehicles, full or partial coverage of vehicle lease, fuel, insurance and maintenance

Car share membership for use by registered carpool and transit commuters

Emergency ride home program

Company vehicle available for employees who commute by alternative modes

Prize drawings to employees or residents who commute by alternative modes

Subsidized off-site services such as fitness center, daycare, dry cleaning, bicycle repair and maintenance, etc.

Service provided, or delivered, on-site such as dry cleaning pickup and delivery, ATM machine, fitness center, daycare, etc.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-23

•

Parking Management Strategies o

Charge market rate for employee parking

Parking cashout program

Preferential parking for carpool/vanpools

Restrictions or limited on-site parking

Unbundled parking

On-site bike share and/or car share facilities

Support Strategies and Assistance o

Part or full-time on-site TDM coordinator

Commute options package for new employees and/or residents

Commute alternative information kiosk or website

Rideshare matching program

Discounts on purchasing bicycles and accessories

Sponsored events promoting alternative commute options



Promote and encourage formation of a local Transportation Management Association (TMA) to manage programs, provide services, and assist members in developing, monitoring and refining TDM plans. TMA may initially be run by TDM coordinators and eventually evolve into a professionally managed organization that extends beyond the subarea.



Except where required by law or as a condition of approval, monitoring, refinement, and maintenance of individual TDM plans by new development is voluntary after the initial submittal for plan approval.

Stage 2: Implement new capacity-enhancing mitigation measures for intersection impacts under the Preferred Alternative. o Incorporate the following new intersection capacity-enhancing mitigation measures into the City’s standardized six-year Transportation Improvement Program process for funding and prioritizing transportation projects:  State Route 99 / 220th Street SW – Widen State Route 99 to add a second northbound left turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative, exceeding the standard of LOS E even with implementation of the improvement called for in the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan to widen 220th to add a westbound right turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, and an eastbound right turn lane.  State Route 99 / 224th Street SW – Convert the eastbound approach of 224th Street SW to provide an exclusive right turn lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane. This intersection would operate at a LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative. This intersection was not studied in

1-24 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

the 2015 update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and, therefore, does not currently have any planned improvements. Take steps to enable the new capacity-enhancing mitigation measures when and if monitoring shows that the measures are required, and implement the improvements, as the following opportunities arise:  Require any new development, redevelopment or site improvements requiring a building permit on the properties adjacent to the impacted intersections to not construct any form of structure or infrastructure (except landscaping or other streetscape improvements) on, under, or above the right of way potentially needed to be acquired for the intersection capacity improvements.  Coordinate with WSDOT and adjacent municipalities on the potential land acquisitions needed for the intersection capacity improvements located within their jurisdictions and, if possible, request the adjacent municipalities to apply the same building restrictions.  As funds become available through the City’s Transportation Improvement Program process, construct the capacity improvements. This may include acquiring the necessary right of way from adjacent property owners through purchase or negotiated dedication.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Incorporated Plan Features •

•

Proposed transportation projects under the sub-area plan would improve pedestrian and bicycle character, access, and mobility within the study area, particularly crossing Highway 99. As such, east-west access across Highway 99 to park and recreation facilities would improve. The sub-area plan would provide greater incentive for mixed-use and commercial development in proximity to existing infrastructure on SR-99, making more efficient use of available stormwater capacity. Planned streetscape improvements under Alternative 2 would increase landscaping along the street – trees and other landscaping provide a natural ability to absorb stormwater and release it slowly to the atmosphere. Continue to pursue energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, thereby reducing stress on Snohomish County PUD as residential and jobs growth occurs. The sub-area plan encourages sustainable building practices, including considering requiring electric vehicle charging facilities and encouraging solar panels (Recommendation 2.2 and 2.3, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan).

Regulations and Commitments Police • Implement the 2016 agency goals in the Department’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan. These goals include bringing the Street Crimes Unit and second K-9 team back on line;

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-25

•

partnering with City Council and the Edmonds School District to secure funding for a School Resource Officer for Edmonds-Woodway High School; establishing by policy the Peer Support Team to assist Department members and their families in time of need; and working with SNOCOM and Bair Analytics to secure a crime analysis workstation which interfaces with records management and helps bring a public crime mapping portal on-line. As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, maintain, at a minimum, the current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents. Continue looking to future budget cycles and preparing to pursue and justify the addition of commissioned staff as the economic climate allows. As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, restore the Crime Prevention Officer position to aid the Department’s ability to conduct crime prevention training and strategies for businesses, apartment management, various concerned groups, and individuals.

Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) • Ongoing capital facilities improvement, budgeting, and operational planning by Fire District 1 and the City of Edmonds are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for fire services, including the need for additional personnel, additional apparatus, and facility improvements. Fire District 1 recently completed the first Phase of a Capital Facilities Plan which evaluates existing conditions, including an inventory and assessment of existing facilities. Phase 1 of the plan indicated a need for minor near and mid-term maintenance and repairs at Stations 16 and 17, as well as potential seismic or safety upgrades. Station 20 is identified as one of 5-6 stations throughout the district which should be considered for replacement to support operation needs and code deficiencies (Fire District 2016c, 46, 48, C114C145). Phase 2 will forecast future needs and phase 3 will provide an estimate of capital facility funding necessary to execute the plan, an implementation timeline and a recommended funding approach. • All potential development in the study area would be constructed in compliance with the City’s current Fire Code (ECDC 19.25), which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with Edmonds Amendments. Adequate fire flow to serve potential development would be provided as required by the Fire Code. Potential development would also be required to comply with code requirements for emergency access to structures. The Department of Fire Prevention also reviews proposed street improvements on a project–by-project basis to identify potential negative impacts on response times and ensure street improvements are consistent with the City’s Fire Code. • A portion of the tax revenue generated from potential redevelopment in the study area would accrue to the City and Fire District 1 to help fund additional fire and emergency medical services. Schools • Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by the District and City of Edmonds are anticipated to accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next twenty years.

1-26 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

• •

Continue to replace, expand, modernize, and upgrade District facilities as approved by voters in the 2014 Capital Construction Bond. Implement the goals identified in Edmonds School District’s Strategic Direction (ESD 2014).

Parks and Open Space • Implement goals identified in the 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan which improve the park system within or near the study area to address geographic gaps in service (Edmonds 2014, 4-1 – 4-11). Specifically: o Expand the partnership with the Edmonds School District, including negotiating an agreement for expanded, year-round public use of school grounds, sports fields and gyms for recreation purposes (Goal 1.A). o Explore property acquisition and development with partners, including the School District, Snohomish County and other public and private entities – continue to partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions (cities, counties, school districts) as well as private entities (i.e. churches) to expand recreation opportunities for the community; continue discussions for possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, and other recreation features; and consider acquisition of County park land within or adjacent to Edmonds (if made available), such as Chase Lake (Goal 2.C). o Acquire park land in the Highway 99/SR 104 areas to provide adequate park service in redeveloping areas. Create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreation needs, especially where service gaps exist, or higher residential impact is planned (Goal 2.G). o Define the best routes for and treatments to create central north-south and east-west pedestrian and bicycle corridors, incorporate these into the City’s transportation plans, and implement improvements (Goal 2.N). o Increase connections to the Interurban Trail, using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions, and other pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially focusing on crossing Highway 99 (Goal 2.O). • Strongly consider the formation of a Metropolitan Park District in order to sustain the level of quality expected by the community while growing to meet future needs (Edmonds 2014, 5-5). Electricity • Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by Snohomish County PUD are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for electricity. Depending on the level of development and associated new loads, conduct feasibility studies for individual projects as part of the development review process. Develop system capital projects to meet the demands of future loading if capacity improvements are necessary (Ha pers. comm.).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-27

Stormwater • Any redevelopment or new development under both alternatives would be subject to today’s stricter regulations governing stormwater. The City’s Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010) will guide infrastructure improvements. Specific elements of the stormwater improvements will be defined by the requirements of the State-mandated NPDES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures to protect and improve runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. The City of Edmond’s stormwater management requirements and ongoing efforts are included in: o Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30 and Stormwater Code Supplement to 18.30 (Edmonds 2010b; Edmonds 2016c) – the City is nearly finished updating the Stormwater Code and Supplement, anticipated to be adopted January 1, 2017 (Cawrse pers. comm.) o Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2010a) o Stormwater Management Program Plan (Edmonds 2016f) • The types of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are source control, treatment, and flow control. Source control BMPs typically prevent pollution, or other adverse effects of stormwater, from occurring – examples include methods as various as mulches and covers on disturbed soil, putting roofs over outside storage areas, and berming areas to prevent stormwater run-on and pollutant runoff. Treatment BMPs can accomplish significant levels of pollutant load reductions if properly designed and maintained – examples include facilities that remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, centrifugal separation, filtration, biological uptake, and media or soil adsorption. Flow control BMPs typically control the volume rate, frequency, and flow duration of stormwater surface runoff – examples include construction of a detention pond (the most common means of meeting flow control requirements) or an infiltration facility. Green design and construction methods should be employed in buildings, streetscapes, and drainage features to detain and treat stormwater (Ecology 2014, 8-10). Other Mitigation Measures Police • Monitor growth and demand for police services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel are needed. Regularly review trends to ensure the Police Department has enough advance time to address the needs. • Require or encourage Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques – implement incorporation of design features into development that would help reduce criminal activity and calls for service, including orienting buildings toward the sidewalk and public spaces, providing connections between buildings, and providing adequate lighting and visibility. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) • Monitor growth and demand for fire and emergency medical services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel, equipment, or facilities are needed. Regularly

1-28 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have enough advance time to address the needs. The City and Fire District 1 should work together to plan for pedestrian improvements, such as wider sidewalks, to ensure that the opportunity for emergency vehicle maneuvering is maintained. Continue efforts to find sufficient resources to retain and improve Fire District 1’s current level of services provided. Efforts include exploring additional funding sources – such as a Fire Benefit Charge or Levy Lid Lift; pursuing ways to reduce unnecessary costs/eliminate redundancy, including potential opportunities to partner with neighboring cities, Fire District 7, and other Fire Protection agencies through regional consolidation; and planning for the possible formation of a Regional Fire Authority in South Snohomish County.

Schools • Monitor growth in enrollment and demand for educational program offering across all grade spans in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel or facilities are needed. Regularly review trends to ensure the City and Edmonds School District Number have enough advance time to address the needs, including grade configuration, optimum facility size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization, scheduling requirements, and the use of temporary classroom facilities. • Continue to evaluate both condition and capacity of existing facilities at Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools to determine if a bond should be issued. Parks and Open Space • Provide on-site open space as a residential amenity through new development. • Develop, manage, and program public open spaces through public/private partnerships. • Implement pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to provide greater access to existing facilities within one-half mile of the study area, with a focus on removing Highway 99 as a physical barrier. • Existing recreational programs may see increased enrollment and increased revenue as people living in the study area enroll in more programs. This increased enrollment may marginally help offset the costs of providing additional facilities. Electricity • Evaluate and identify future service system needs through coordinated electricity demand planning between the City Planning Department and Snohomish County PUD. • PUD is currently undergoing smart grid infrastructure modernization of its electrical distribution system to improve reliability and increase efficiencies for its customers. • Reduce the use of power in building heating and cooling with passive systems and modern power saving units. Stormwater • None.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 1-29

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS LAND USE

No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated under either alternative. PLANS AND POLICIES

No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to future subarea plan consistency under either alternative. AESTHETICS

No significant unavoidable adverse to aesthetics and urban design are expected under either alternative. TRANSPORTATION

The traffic impact to the intersection of State Route 99 and 212th Street SW is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact under both alternatives. This intersection is projected to fall below the City’s established level of service standard under both the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, even with implementation of the planned improvements for this intersection called for in the 2015 update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which include widening 212th to add a westbound and eastbound left turn lane and providing protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound movements. To mitigate the impacts of both the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative on this intersection would require widening State Route 99 to add a second northbound and southbound left turn lane, in addition to the improvements already planned in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This is not feasible because a proposed development project located on the southwest corner of the intersection is in the process of finalizing its site plan with the City, and the site plan places infrastructure within the right of way that would need to be acquired to implement the mitigation measure. It is anticipated the proposed development will remain in place for the duration of the 20-year Subarea Plan timeframe. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire and emergency medical services, parks and open space, electricity, or stormwater. Although demand for these services would increase, the application of existing plans and codes or other mitigation measures can reduce impacts associated with future growth under both alternatives.

1-30 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposal by the City of Edmonds consists of the following related actions: 1. Adoption of a Highway 99 Subarea Plan, consistent with the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Comprehensive Plan and Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). 2. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments to reflect the updated map and text in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. 3. Adoption of an area-wide rezone that would generally apply the CG zone to most of the study area. 4. Adoption of amendments to development standards to implement the Subarea Plan, including: a. Maximum building height in CG zone b. Transit supportive parking standards c. Minimum building frontage and transparency requirements along the primary street frontage d. Parking area location e. Pedestrian Activity Zone designation along all street frontages f. Upper story stepbacks adjacent to single family zones 5. Adoption of an ordinance designating the Highway 99 Subarea as a Planned Acton for the purposes of SEPA compliance pursuant to RCW 43.21.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan envisions a lively mixed use corridor along SR 99 that will include more housing, employment opportunities, pedestrian, transit and bicycle mobility, and community gathering places. The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to provide a more detailed environmental analysis during this planning stage, rather than at the project permit review stage. This Draft EIS identifies specific environmental impacts and ways to mitigate impacts in advance of

development. Advanced review will facilitate development consistent with the vision of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan by streamlining future environmental review and permitting.

PROPONENT The Highway 99 Subarea Plan is proposed by the City of Edmonds. The City is the lead agency for this Draft EIS.

PROJECT LOCATION The Highway 99 Corridor study area extends approximately two miles along the alignment of SR 99, bounded by the King/Snohomish County boundary on the south and 210th Street SW on the north (see Figure 2.1). To the east and west of SR 99, the study area follows an irregular boundary established by existing development patterns in the City of Edmonds and the boundaries of the adjoining cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County. The study area comprises approximately 335 acres in total.

FIGURE 2.1

Highway 99 Corridor Study Area

Within the subarea, three distinct districts have been identified (see Figure 2.2). To the south, the Gateway District is a major entrance to Edmonds from the south and east and provides for relatively large scale commercial or mixed use development. In the central portion of the study area, the International District provides a wide array of restaurant, retail services and other supporting development that meet the needs of diverse cultures. To the north, the Health District includes the Swedish Medical Center/Edmonds and related medical services and offices. Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

2-2 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

FIGURE 2.2

Districts within the Highway 99 Corridor Study Area

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL The City has identified the following specific objectives of the proposal: • • • •

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-3

• • • • •

Provide opportunities for medical services growth in the area surrounding Swedish Medical Center/Edmonds. Provide for enhanced mobility for all modes of travel along the Highway 99 corridor. Provide a streamlined SEPA review process for future site-specific development proposals. Provide an incentive for development proposals that are consistent with the overall intent of the Highway 99 corridor vision. Provide greater certainty to potential developers, city decision-makers, and the general public regarding the future development pattern and likely impacts of future development in the SR 99 corridor.

The alternatives considered in this Draft EIS include No Action (Alternative 1) and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Under Alternative 1, future growth would continue based on existing development regulations and past development trends. Alternative 2 assumes future mixed use growth and assumes a new vision for the area supported by transportation system improvements, an area-wide rezone and amendments to existing development regulations.

2.2

PLANNING CONTEXT

GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT The Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted by the 1990 Washington State Legislature and amended periodically thereafter, contains a comprehensive framework for managing growth and development within local jurisdictions. Many of the provisions of the GMA apply to the State’s largest and fastest growing jurisdictions, including Snohomish County and all cities within the county. Additionally, some provisions, such as requirements to identify and regulate critical areas, apply to all local jurisdictions. Comprehensive plans for cities planning under GMA must include a land use element (including a future land use map), housing element, transportation element, public facilities element, parks and recreation element, economic development element, and utilities element. Additional elements may be added at the option of the local jurisdiction. The GMA plan must provide for adequate capacity to accommodate the city’s share of projected regional growth. The plan must also ensure that planned and financed infrastructure can support planned growth at a locally acceptable level of service. As required by the GMA, the City has prepared and adopted a local Comprehensive Plan to guide future development and fulfill the City’s responsibilities under GMA.

2-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year plan that provides guidance for how Edmonds will accommodate growth in a way that is consistent with the vision of the residents of the City. The City implements the plan through the City’s Official Zoning Map, zoning regulations, design review processes and other programs and actions. Consistent with the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), the City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan that incorporates updated estimates of employment and population growth through 2035. The Comprehensive Plan contains general community information and chapters that address sustainability, land use, housing, economic development, community culture and urban design, utilities, capital facilities, and transportation. The Comprehensive Plan contains several references to the study area, including vision statements and goals and policies for a Highway 99 Corridor area that is slightly smaller in size than the study area, and a Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center in the vicinity of the Swedish Edmonds Campus. Comprehensive Plan design objectives applicable to the study area establish that it should support its function as a center for commercial and mixed use activity, building on the availability of multiple forms of transportation and proximity to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Adopted Comprehensive Plan guidance addressing the study area is more specifically discussed in Chapter 3.2 Plans and Policies.

EXISTING ZONING There are eight zoning designations within the study area. As shown in Figure 2.3, the primary zoning designations in the study area are the GC and GC2 zones, which extend along the frontage of SR 99 through the entire study area. The remaining zoning designations are found on properties to the east and west of SR 99 and include zones for medical use (MU), focused on the Swedish Medical Center and adjacent properties, commercial uses (BN, BC), multifamily development (RM 1.5 and RM 2.4) and single family development (SR 8). Each of these zoning designations is briefly described in Table 2.1.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-5

FIGURE 2.3

Study Area and Adjacent Areas Existing Zoning

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

2-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TABLE 2.1

Study Area Existing Zoning

ZONING DESIGNATION

SUMMARY

CG, CG2 General Commercial

The CG and CG2 zones are both intended to encourage the development and retention of commercial uses that provide high economic benefit to the city. A development pattern that supports transit and pedestrian access in mixed use and transit-oriented developments is encouraged. The purpose statement for these zones address the SR 99 Corridor specifically, stating that development should: • • •

Provide the opportunity for different sections of the SR 99 Corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities Upgrade architectural and landscape design quality Provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land in high rise nodes through adequate services and facilities and including the following design features: – – –

Use of distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping and similar techniques Design to take advantage of automobile, transit and pedestrian access Adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods

Both the CG and CG2 zones allow for a wide range of commercial and residential uses and differ only in the standards for building height. Maximum permitted height in the GC zone is 60 feet and for the GC2 zone is 75 feet. At the north and south ends of the study area, areas designated as a high rise node by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map do not have a maximum height limit. (See Figure 2.4) BN Neighborhood Business

The BN zone is intended to provide for retail and office services that offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents or a neighborhood area and to ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. Neighborhood scale businesses, certain community facilities and single family dwellings are permitted in this zone.

BC Community Business

The BC zone is intended to provide for retail, office, service and amusement establishments that offer goods and services to the entire community; to ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings; and to allow for mixed-use development which includes multiple dwelling units that are compatible with business uses. A range of commercial, residential and commercial uses are permitted in this zone.

MU Medical Use

The MU zone is intended to provide for hospitals and related medical facilities; enable master planning for medical campuses; allow for the concentration of medical facilities in order to enable the efficient provision of a wide spectrum of medical services. Uses permitted this zone are intended to be functionally related or serve medical or health care services.

RM 1.5, 2.4, and 3 Multiple Residential

The purpose of the multiple residential zones are to provide for a variety of housing types and a range of greater densities than are available in the single family residential zones and to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. The RM-1.5 zone allows one dwelling unit per 1,500 sf of lot area, the RM-2.4 zone one dwelling unit per 2,400 sf of lot area, and the RM-3 one dwelling unit per 3,000 sf of lot area. Primary permitted uses include multiple and single family dwelling units; retirement, group and boarding homes and other uses permitted in the single family residential zones.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-7

ZONING DESIGNATION

SUMMARY

RS-8 Single Family Residential

The single family residential zone is intended to provide for family living in single family dwellings and to provide for additional nonresidential uses which complement and are compatible with single family dwelling use. The RS-8 zone allows one dwelling unit per 8,000 sf of lot area. Primary permitted uses include single family dwelling units and schools, churches, local public facilities and parks, subject to specific conditions.

Source: Edmonds 2016c, Title 16.

2.3

PUBLIC OUTREACH

The City’s public engagement effort is intended to engage with the broad and diverse range of interested parties including area residents, businesses and property owners, community organizations, public entities and agencies, and potential developers or investors. The City is providing multiple ways in which stakeholders can participate, including online, social media, and public workshops and meetings. A brief summary of the City’s public engagement activities to-date is provided in Table 2.2 Public Outreach Summary and additional information can be found at the City’s project website: http://www.edmondshwy99.org. TABLE 2.2

Public Outreach Summary

DATE

ACTIVITY

March 2016

Public workshop to brainstorm ideas for the vision and action plan for the SR 99 area. Topics included design and function of streets and buildings, land use, economic development and housing. Following a short presentation, the majority of the meeting focused on small group brainstorming in an interactive mapping exercise to record ideas, concerns and questions. For those who could not attend the meeting, an online survey provided additional opportunity for input.

May 2016

Public open house to review short and long-term scenarios for what Edmonds Highway 99 area could be like in the future, consider potential transportation and development impacts in the study area, and provide comments on the proposed environmental topics that are considered in the planned action EIS.

November 2016

Public open house to review draft policy recommendations, implementation strategies and actions for the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Draft recommendations address the following topics: zoning and development, affordable housing, signage and wayfinding, transit, and transportation infrastructure. Participants had the opportunity to review the recommendations in detail, ask questions and provide input to the project team.

Source: http://www.edmondshwy99.org/past-events/

2-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

2.4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The purpose of this EIS is to assist the public and decision-makers in considering the potential environmental effects of the proposed subarea plan and implementing regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING Scoping is the process of identifying the elements of the environment to be evaluated in an EIS. Scoping is intended to help identify and narrow the issues to those that are significant. Scoping includes a public comment period so that the public and other agencies can comment on key issues and concerns. Following the comment period, the City considers all comments received and determines the scope of review for the environmental analysis. The City Edmonds issued a Determination of Significance (DS)/Scoping Notice for the SR 99 Corridor Plan on May 4, 2016 for the proposed action. Interested citizens, agencies, organizations and affected tribes were invited to submit comments on the scope of the Draft EIS, which closed on May 24, 2016. The City’s DS and a summary of scoping comments are included in Appendix A. The final scope of review for this EIS includes the following: •

•

Land Use, including an evaluation of the amount, type and pattern of uses. The focus of the analysis is on land use compatibility with existing and planned development within and adjacent to the analysis area. The land use analysis will also include an evaluation of consistency of the proposal with adopted plans and policies. Aesthetics, including an evaluation of the character of the existing corridor and the nature of change to the urban character that may result from the proposal. The analysis will consider the character of the corridor as whole as well as character at various locations along the corridor. Transportation, including consideration of impacts of the proposal and alternatives on trip generation, peak hour vehicular congestion, transit, bicycling and walking, park and safety. An analysis of consistency with Washington Department of Transportation standards for the Highway 99 Corridor, a state-designated highway, will also be evaluated. Public Services/Utilities, including a review of police, fire/emergency services, schools, parks and open space, electricity and stormwater. Existing levels of service, estimated needs and demand for services and measures needed, if any, to respond to projected demand from the proposal are described.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-9

ordinance, including specified mitigation measures. Planned actions still need to meet the City’s development regulations and to obtain necessary permits. According to the SEPA law and rules, a planned action is defined as a project that has the following characteristics: 1. Is designated a planned action by ordinance or resolution adopted by a GMA county/city; 2. Has had significant environmental impacts addressed in an EIS, though some analysis can be deferred at the project level pursuant to certain criteria specified in the law; 3. Has been prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, master planned development, a phased project, or in conjunction with subsequent / implementing projects; 4. Is located within an urban growth area; 5. Is not an essential public facility, as defined in RCW 12.36.70A.200, unless an essential public facility is accessory to or part of a residential, office, school, commercial, recreational, service, or industrial development that is designated a planned action; and 6. Is consistent with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan adopted under GMA. In designating a planned action, the jurisdiction must define of the types of development included and has option to limit the boundaries and to establish a time period during which the planned action will be effective. Review of a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects. If a planned action ordinance is adopted, the City would follow the applicable procedures contained in the ordinance to determine if the proposed project impacts are consistent with the EIS. When a permit application and environmental checklist are submitted for a project that is being proposed as a planned action project, the City must first verify the following: • • •

The project meets the description of any project(s) designated as a planned action by ordinance or resolution. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the EIS. The project includes any conditions or mitigation measures outlined in the ordinance or resolution.

If the project meets the above requirements, the project qualifies as a planned action project and a SEPA threshold determination is not required. However, the following City actions are still applicable: • • •

The project must continue through the City’s permit process pursuant to any notices and other requirements contained in the City’s development regulations. The project must still be analyzed for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Designation of a planned action project does not limit the city from using other authority (e.g. conditional use permit) to place conditions on a project. The City may still use applicable laws or regulations to impose conditions on a project qualifying as a planned action project.

2-10 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

Public notice for a planned action project is tied to the underlying permit. If notice is required for the underlying permit, then the notice will indicate that the project qualifies as a planned action.

The manner in which the City would monitor the development levels approved in the designated Planned Action area is likely as follows: • •

•

2.5

Determine if the proposed land uses are within categories of land use authorized in the planned Action Ordinance, including residential, commercial, and office. Consider the Planned Action Ordinance to contain an authorized number of housing units, employment (commercial and office) space, and peak-hour traffic trips. As development is proposed the City would deduct approved development from these totals. Once the authorized number of development and/or peak hour trips is reached, the Planned Action Ordinance would expire and any new development would be required to follow the City’s adopted SEPA process.

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE

The City is considering an updated subarea plan, new transportation improvements, an area-wide rezone and regulatory amendments to the City Code (Edmonds City Code Title 16) to set the stage for transition of the Highway 99 Corridor study area to a vibrant, pedestrian friendly mixed-use corridor, consistent City direction for the study area. The proposal is based on a comprehensive public stakeholder process as summarized in Section 2.3 of this EIS. The legislative action, if taken, would apply within the study area considered in this EIS. The alternatives considered in this Draft EIS include No Action (Alternative 1) and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). Under Alternative 1, future growth would continue based on existing development regulations and past development trends. Alternative 2 assumes future mixed use growth with a mix of residential, commercial and office development, an area-wide rezone, amendments to development regulations, and a new vision for the area supported by transportation system improvements... Key features associated with each alternative are summarized in Table 2.3 and both alternatives are described in more detail following the table.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-11

TABLE 2.3

Alternatives Overview

FEATURES

ALT. 1 NO ACTION

ALT. 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

New Housing Units by 2035

1,224

3,325

New Jobs by 2035

2,317

3,013

994,958

1,634,685

New commercial ft2 by 2035 Comprehensive Plan

No change

Proposed update to Highway 99 subarea maps and text to clearly identify three distinct districts in the subarea anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, see Figure 2.2.

Zoning Designations

No change

Rezone the CG2and portions of the RM 1.5, RM-2.4, RM-3, BN, and BC zones throughout the study area to CG (see Figure 2.5)

Development Code Amendments

Existing development regulations would remain unchanged

Building height - Increase maximum building height in CG zone from 60 feet to 75 feet Transit supportive parking standards - Non-residential: 2 spaces/1,000 leasable sf - Residential: minimum average 0.75 spaces per unit over an entire project - Exempt the first 3,000 feet of sf of commercial within mixed use buildings that have a shared parking plan Building frontage standards - On a primary frontage, minimum of 50% of primary street frontage should have buildings within 10 feet of front property line (edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone, see below) - 50% of side and rear frontages to have buildings, walks or hedges at least four feet in height within 10 feet of property lines Building transparency standards - 50% of primary building frontage façade within two and 10 feet of height, as measured from the adjacent sidewalk, the bottom of which may not exceed four feet above the adjacent sidewalk, should be transparent windows and doors - All other frontages require 30% transparency - Windows shall not be mirrored or have glass tinted darker than 40%. Parking lot location - Parking areas may comprise a maximum of 40% of street frontage Pedestrian Activity Zone - Designate 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone in place of existing Type IV landscape buffer along all primary street frontages with ground floor retail. Future design standards may consider special circumstances, such as auto dealer locations. Ground Floor Setback - For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a Pedestrian Activity Zone - For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to five feet and encourage enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks,

2-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FEATURES

ALT. 1 NO ACTION

ALT. 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE usable landscaping, etc.) - Keep current 15-foot setback and 10- foot landscaping requirements for lot lines adjacent to single family zones Upper story stepbacks - Adjacent to single family zones provide 10-foot upper story stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 20foot upper-story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet. - Across the street from single family zones provide eight-foot stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16foot upper story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet.

Transportation Improvements

Future improvements would continue to occur on an incremental basis with new development and as planned by the City’s Transportation Master Plan and WSDOT plans.

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016; 3 Square Blocks 2016.

SUBAREA PLAN As noted previously, the proposed action includes adoption of a subarea plan for the Highway 99 Corridor. The proposed subarea plan includes the following elements: • • • • • • • •

Introduction Vision and Community Values Background and Existing Conditions Community and Stakeholder Engagement Constraints and Challenges Opportunities Alternative Scenarios Implementation Strategies, Policy Recommendations and Actions

The vision and implementation strategies established in the Subarea Plan are summarized below and described in greater detail in the Subarea Plan. VISION

The Subarea Plan vision represents the themes that surfaced through the community discussions and describe the qualities that the community would like to see in the Highway 99 corridor area. Five major themes are included: •

Economic Development. Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new businesses, investment, and redevelopment.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-13

• • •

•

Safety and Walkability. Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to move along and get across Highway 99. Housing and Development. Encourage and incentivize mixed use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. Identity. Establish a distinct identity along the corridor that supports existing cultural destinations and amenities and creates a welcoming and attractive environment for visitors and residents alike. Transportation. Create more efficient and accessible connections between districts and destinations, and other transit centers/stations.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The recommended implementation strategies in the Subarea Plan generally focus on aligning the City’s planning and regulatory structure to support the vision, and to identify those public and private investments that will lead to the vision’s realization. Major implementation strategies are generally categorized below and described in greater detail in the Subarea Plan: •

• • • •

Identification of actions to support public and private investment, including recommendations to amend Edmonds land use and transportation policies and regulations for the entire 99 Subarea Specific land use and transportation strategies, actions, policies and investments Specific recommended changes to zoning and development standards Timing and priority actions - organized into short, medium and long term action items Matrix of potential capital improvement projects along with preliminary costing and relevant partner agencies

2-14 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

Alternative 1 would continue the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications with no changes. Future growth would occur according to existing land use designations, zoning designations and development standards. See Figure 2.3 for existing zoning designations. As shown in Table 2.3, Alternative 1 plans for the less growth in new employment and housing through 2035, compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 also plans for relatively more new commercial uses compared to residential uses. Accordingly, commercial development would continue to be the primary use along the corridor. The corridor’s existing auto-oriented commercial character, with large paved areas and limited amenities for pedestrians, bicycles and transit users, would likely continue in the future. Comprehensive Plan No changes are proposed to existing maps or text. Zoning Designations No changes are proposed to existing zoning designations. Development Regulations No changes are proposed to development standards or regulations. Building Heights Existing development regulations in the GC and GC2 zones, the zones found along the Highway 99 Corridor, allow maximum building heights of 60 and 75 feet, respectively, except in the high-rise nodes, where building heights are not limited (see Figure 2.4). In most cases, however, building heights of existing development is significantly less than these maximum limits. Under the No Action Alternative, it is likely that future development would continue this pattern and new development would consist of relatively low scale and low intensity auto-oriented uses. TRANSPORTATION

A Planned Action Ordinance would not be adopted and proposed future development would be subject to standard SEPA review for individual site-specific proposals.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-15

FIGURE 2.4

Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

2-16 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

Overall, Alternative 2 proposes redevelopment of the study area into an area characterized by mixed use development with an increase in residential development and character, greater intensity of development and street-frontage and pedestrian amenities. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 plans for significantly higher levels of residential and employment growth in the study area (see Table 2.3). Under Alternative 2, the study area would evolve toward a land use pattern that is relatively more balanced between residential and commercial uses, compared to existing conditions. Comprehensive Plan The current Comprehensive Plan includes a Highway 99 subdistrict map that designates four focus areas, but does not reflect community interest in a southern “gateway” district that defines the entry into Edmonds. The proposal would establish three focus areas, consisting of a hospital district at the north end, international district in the center and gateway district in the south. Alternative 2 would include map and text updates to the Comprehensive Plan to clearly identify these three distinct districts, see Figure 2.2. Zoning Designations Alternative 2 would include an area wide rezone of all of the CG2 and portions of the RM-1.5 RM-2.4, RM-3, BC, and BN zoned areas in the study area to the CG zoning designation, see Figure 2.5. Development Regulations Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.60 would be amended to include the revised development code standards shown in Table 2.3. Building Heights The proposed height limit in the CG zone is proposed to increase to 75 feet, except within the adopted high rise overlay. The proposed height increase is greater than the existing 60-foot height limit for the CG zone and consistent with the current height limit for the CG2 zone. Some areas that are proposed for rezone to CG are currently in a zoning designation, such as the BC or RM zones, with a 25-foot height limit. The proposed area-wide rezone would allow these locations to re-develop at a maximum height of 75 feet, consistent with proposed CG development standards. It is anticipated that new development along the Highway 99 corridor would be developed closer to maximum building height limits established in the applicable zoning classification, compared to Alternative 1.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-17

FIGURE 2.5

Preferred Alternative Proposed Zoning Designations

Source: Edmonds 2016; Fregonese 2016.

2-18 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TRANSPORTATION

A detailed description of proposed transportation improvement projects is included in Appendix B. SEPA REVIEW

The Highway 99 corridor study area would be designated as a Planned Action, allowing streamlined environmental review for individual development proposals that are consistent with the planned action designation. This streamlined process would greater efficiency and certainty for new development and increased potential to achieve the vision for the Highway 99 corridor.

2.6

BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEFERRING IMPLEMENTATION

Deferring implementation of the proposal would allow for residential and commercial development to occur in a more scattered and ad hoc manner in the study area over a longer period of time due to lack of substantive civic and infrastructure benefits. In the absence of a catalyst for redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization, economic development would occur more gradually. Benefits of new housing and employment – such as improved transportation safety and mobility and greater local employment – along the Corridor would not occur. Each development would undergo separate environmental review, which would allow public comment on each individual development proposal, but would also lengthen permit review time.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 2-19

[this page intentionally blank]

2-20 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This chapter analyzes the impacts of the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) on the following elements of the environment: • • • • •

Section 3.1: Land Use Section 3.2: Relationship to Plans and Policies Section 3.3: Aesthetics Section 3.4: Transportation Section 3.5: Public Services and Utilities

For each element of the environment, the analysis reviews existing conditions of the affected environment, potential significant impacts, and provides mitigation measures for identified impacts. It also summarizes whether there are significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Existing conditions of the affected environment include present features of the study area. Impacts analysis identifies how existing conditions could change with implementation of the alternatives. Mitigation measures include the features of the alternative that can self-mitigate impacts (e.g., upperstory setbacks), applicable regulations and commitments that will apply to future development allowed by the alternatives (e.g., design standards), and other potential mitigation measures that may further reduce the significant environmental impacts of the alternatives.

[this page intentionally blank]

3-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

SECTION 3.1

LAND USE

3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EXISTING LAND USE There is a mix of existing land uses in the study area including commercial, residential, industrial, public and educational uses. Table 3.1.1 shows the square footage and the percent of total square footage of land area for each type of developed land use. Commercial uses make up the largest amount of square footage and include office, retail, services and motels. Multi-family residential uses make up the second largest amount, the majority of which are apartments but which also include townhomes. Vacant lands are not shown in Table 3.1.1 since they are not developed, however Figure 3.1.1 shows that there are vacant parcels located throughout the study area, with a concentration in the south-central part of the study area. Existing development in the study area is generally low-intensity, with one or two story buildings and large surface parking areas. The Swedish Edmonds Campus, a major employer and health service provider located in the northern portion of the study area, includes a cluster of commercial uses including medical offices and clinics and some higher-intensity and higher-scale buildings. TABLE 3.1.1

Developed Land Area Mix

DEVELOPED LAND USE TYPE

TOTAL SQ FT

% OF TOTAL

Commercial

5,729,924

50%

Multi-Family Residential

3,070,474

27%

Industrial

1,123,311

10%

Public and Educational

808,607

Single Family Residential

643,907

11,376,223

100%

Total Source: Fregonese 2016.

FIGURE 3.1.1 Existing Land Use in Study Area and Adjacent Areas

Source: Fregonese 2016.

3.1-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Figure 3.1.1 shows the location of existing land uses. Commercial uses are located throughout the study area along Highway 99 and other major roads. Residential uses tend to be located on the edges of the study area. As shown in Table 3.1.1 the majority of residential uses in the study area are multifamily but there are also some single family uses. Much of the surrounding areas to the east and west of the study area are developed as single family residential, and the residential uses on the edges of the study area help to provide transitions to these areas. The surrounding areas to the south and northeast of the study area are primarily commercial along Highway 99. A large public use, the Edmonds Woodway High School, is adjacent to a portion of the northwest border of the study area next to the Swedish Edmonds Campus.

FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING FUTURE LAND USE

The City of Edmond’s Comprehensive Plan Map establishes intended future land uses for the study area. It includes the designations and overlays shown in Figure 2.4 in Chapter 2. The Highway 99 Corridor Comprehensive Plan Map designation covers a large part of the study area, including the area south of 220th St SW and areas to the north along Highway 99. Other Comprehensive Plan Map designations include Mixed Use Commercial, Hospital/Medical and Single Family Urban 1. The Hospital/Medical designation corresponds to the Swedish Edmonds Campus. The Single Family Urban 1 designation is for a small residential enclave located on 215th St SW. There are three Comprehensive Plan Map overlays in the study area. The Corridor Development overlay covers the same area as the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center overlay encompasses the portion of the study area north of 228th. Both the Corridor Development overlay and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center overlay indicate areas that are planned for a mix of uses and for which the Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance (Edmonds 2015a, 37). There are two high rise overlays in the north and south of the study area. These areas do not have building height limits, as discussed in the zoning section on the following page. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan specifies the land use types and zoning designations that are compatible with each of the Comprehensive Plan Map designations. Based on this guidance, the entire study area is planned for a mix of commercial and other uses, with the exception of the Swedish Edmonds Campus which is planned for continued medical use and the residential enclave 215th St SW that is planned for continued single family residential use. As shown in Table 3.1.2, the Highway 99 Corridor Comprehensive Plan Map designation is compatible with CG and CG2 (General Commercial) zoning designations and appropriate transitional zones. As discussed in Chapter 2, the CG and CG2 zones allow for a wide range of commercial, residential and other uses. Appropriate transitional zones could include those that allow for moderate density residential uses and community or neighborhood business uses. The Mixed Use Commercial Comprehensive Plan Map designation is compatible with a mixture of zoning designations, and thus also allows for a wide range of land uses. The Hospital/Medical Comprehensive Plan Map designation is compatible with hospital or medical zoning designations. The City’s MU (Medical Use) Zone is currently the only applicable zoning designation and exclusively allows

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-3

for medical, health care and supporting uses (Edmonds 2016b, Chapter 16.62). The Single Family Urban 1 Comprehensive Plan Map designation is compatible with the RS-6 and RS-8 (Single Family Residential) zoning designations. TABLE 3.1.2

Compatible Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION

COMPATIBLE ZONING DESIGNATION

Highway 99 Corridor

CG, CG2 (General Commercial) or transitional zones as appropriate

Mixed Use Commercial

Mixture of zones

Hospital/Medical

Hospital or medical zones

Single Family Urban 1

RS-6, RS-8 (Single Family Residential)

Source: Edmonds 2015a, 37.

ZONING

The City’s current zoning designations for the study area are shown in Figure 2.3. They are consistent with the corresponding designations in the Comprehensive Plan. There are nine zoning designations: CG and CG2; BN (Neighborhood Business); BC (Community Business); MU (Medical Use), RM-1.5, RM-2.4, and RM-3 (Multiple Residential), and RS-8 (Single Family Residential). The uses allowed in each zone are described in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2. The CG and CG2 zones cover the largest area. The CG zone allows buildings up to 60 feet tall and the CG2 zone allows buildings up to 75 feet tall. The BN, BC, RM and RS zones allow buildings up to 25 feet tall, with some exceptions for roofs that reach 30 feet. The MU zone allows buildings up to 35 feet tall, unless development applicants choose to use the height restrictions permitted in the Comprehensive Plan; under Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Policy E.3 buildings of up to nine stories are allowed in limited locations in the MU zone. Zone height limits can also be exceeded in the two high-rise overlays shown in the City of Edmond’s Comprehensive Plan Map in the northern and southern portions of the study area. These areas are currently zoned CG, CG2 and MU. There are no height limits on structures in these areas (Edmonds 2016b, Sections 16.45.020, 16.50.020, 16.30.030, 16.20.020, 16.60.020, and 16.62.020). Zoning for the areas surrounding the study area is established by the cities of Edmonds, Lynwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County. In general, areas to the south, west and northeast are zoned for a mix of commercial and residential uses; areas to the east, southeast and southwest are zoned primarily for single family residential uses; and areas to the north and northwest are zoned for a mix of residential and public uses. Specific zoning designations in the area surrounding the study area are shown in Figure 2.3 and Table 3.1.3 below.

3.1-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TABLE 3.1.3

Zoning Designations Surrounding the Study Area

JURISDICTION

ZONING DESIGNATIONS

City of Edmonds

RS-8 (Single Family) RM 1.5 and 2.4 (Multiple Residential) P (Public Use) BN (Neighborhood Business)

City of Shoreline

R-6 (Residential) MC (Mixed Commercial)

City of Lynnwood

CG (General Commercial) RMM (Multiple Residential Medium Density) BTP (Business Technical Park)

City of Mountlake Terrace

CG (Commercial General), REC (Recreation and Park District) RS 7,200 and 8,400 (Single Household Residential) LI/OP (Light Industrial/Office Park)

Snohomish County

CG (General Commercial) R-8,400 (Residential) MR (Multiple Residential) LDMR (Low Density Multiple Residential) PCB (Planned Community Business).

Source: 3 Square Blocks 2016.

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY As noted previously, single family residential neighborhoods border much of the study area. Multifamily development and zones along the east, southeast, southwest, west and northwest edges of the study area help to create transitions from the more intensive commercial area to single family neighborhoods and reduce the potential for land use conflicts between these uses. Public use zones and community and neighborhood business zones, which are relatively low intensity commercial zones, on the west and northwest edges of the study area also serve to buffer residential areas from the more intensive commercial zones along Highway 99. There are some areas along the boundaries of the study area where single family residential zones directly adjoin more intensive zoning designations, such as CG or Hospital zones. Examples include a small segment of the eastern border at 77th Pl W; small segments of the western border at 240th St SW, 77th Ave W and 223rd St SW; and area around 215th St SW inside the study area that is zoned single family and whose northeast border abuts a general commercial zone.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.1-5

Existing and planned land uses in the areas around the north, northeast and south edges of the study area include commercial, mixed use or mixed residential designations. In general, these land uses and designations have intensities and activity levels that are compatible with those planned for the study area. Development and design standards in the City’s code help to mitigate for potential land use compatibility impacts. They require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area, and include standards for screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others (Edmonds 2016b, Sections 20.11.030 and 16.60.020).

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING MIX The study area currently has approximately 3,800 jobs and 1,600 housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2012 and 2014; Snohomish County Assessor 2015). There are about 2.4 jobs for every housing unit. As such, the subarea is currently an employment destination, with more than twice as many employees as households.

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY With the exception of the Swedish Edmonds Campus, much of the development in the study area is generally low-intensity and low-scale. In general, existing development does not fully utilize the development capacity available under current zoning. As part of the subarea planning process, existing maximum development capacity in the study area was estimated by Fregonese using the Envision Tomorrow model. Because current zoning in the study area allows for a mix of uses, Fregonese chose a maximum development capacity scenario with relatively balanced future job and housing growth. Table 3.1.4 shows the existing maximum development capacity numbers in comparison to existing development in the study area and growth targets for both alternatives. Development capacity estimates are not a prediction that a certain amount of development will occur or when it may occur, but instead a measure of the maximum development that could occur in a given area. As Table 3.1.4 shows, estimated development capacity is significantly greater than the sum of existing and new growth planned under the alternatives and indicate sufficient development capacity in the study area to accommodate growth under both alternatives. Please see Appendix C for a description of the development capacity methodology used in this analysis.

3.1-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TABLE 3.1.4

Existing Maximum Development Capacity Compared to Existing Development and Growth Targets HOUSING

JOBS

Existing Maximum Development Capacity1

18,450

26,028

Existing Development

1,579

3,797

Alternative 1 (No Action)

1,224

2,317

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

3,325

3,013

Alternative 1 (No Action)

2,803

6,114

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

4,904

6,810

Alternative 1 (No Action)

6.6

4.3

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

3.8

2035 Growth Targets (New Jobs and Housing)

2035 Total Development Estimate

Ratio of Maximum Development Capacity to 2035 Total Development Estimate

Source: Fregonese 2016. Note 1: Assumes all parcels are developed to the maximum extent allowed under current zoning, with a relatively balanced mix of jobs and housing growth. It is not expected that the study area will completely redevelop to the maximum allowable extent.

3.1.2 IMPACTS IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES GROWTH

Growth is assumed to occur under both alternatives. The alternatives differ in the intensities, types of uses, and design of future development, as well as subsequent impacts on land use patterns, land use compatibility and employment and housing mix. Under both alternatives, the locations where the highest buildings heights would be allowed are the same. These areas include the currently adopted high rise overlay areas shown on Figure 2.4 and limited locations in the MU zone. As discussed in Affected Environment, there are no height limits on structures in the high rise overlays, and buildings of up to nine stories are allowed in limited locations in the MU zone. DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

As discussed in Affected Environment, it is anticipated that existing zoning designations will provide adequate capacity for both alternatives.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.1-7

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION LAND USE PATTERNS AND COMPATIBILITY

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would carry forward the City’s current plans and development regulations for the study area. It plans for the least amount of overall job and housing growth compared to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). For these reasons, the future land use pattern under Alternative 1 is anticipated to be similar to the existing pattern in terms of the mix of uses and intensity of development. Existing development regulations in much of the study area allow building heights of 60 feet or more. Most existing buildings are significantly shorter than these maximum limits and it is assumed that future development would continue the existing low-rise pattern of development. There would likely be some incremental increases in development intensity as individual projects were constructed over time in various locations throughout the study area. Alternative 1 is not anticipated to create new land use compatibility impacts due to the fact that there would be no changes to the City’s current development regulations. Because existing development does not fully utilize the development capacity available under current zoning, new development and redevelopment may be at greater intensities than currently exist. However, compared to the Alternative 2, development under Alternative 1 would generally be less intensive. Development and design standards in the City’s code would help to mitigate for potential land use compatibility impacts, as discussed in Affected Environment. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING MIX

Alternative 1 assumes approximately 1,200 new housing units and 2,300 new jobs would occur in the study area by 2035. This growth would slightly reduce the current ratio of jobs to housing units from 2.4 to 2.2, maintaining the study area’s character as an employment center with more than twice as many employees as households.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PATTERNS AND COMPATIBILITY

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) proposes higher growth targets, an area-wide rezone, new development standards, planned transportation improvements and new policy guidance to catalyze transformation of the study area into a lively, pedestrian- and transit-friendly mixed use corridor. These factors would result in a different land use pattern compared to Alternative 1. Growth Targets Under Alternative 2, growth targets for jobs and housing in the study area would increase and there would be corresponding increases in the amount of future development. Infill development would likely be of greater height, bulk and intensity than existing development or development expected under

3.1-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Alternative 1. With increased infill development, there may be some abrupt transitions in building height, density and intensity, especially in the updated CG zone and the high rise overlay areas. It is likely that these impacts would be limited in magnitude and duration as the area redevelops. As discussed under Affected Environment, modeling conducted in 2016 by Fregonese indicates that there is sufficient development capacity under existing zoning to accommodate the Alternative 2 growth targets. The area-wide rezone proposed under Alternative 2 would further increase development capacity, providing greater flexibility for future growth. Area-wide Rezone The area-wide rezone would result in the majority of the study area being able to develop with a mix of uses and relatively tall buildings. The rezone would combine the existing CG and CG2 zones into one CG zone with a 75 foot height limit, and would apply the updated CG zone to portions of the study area currently zoned RM-1.5, RM-2.4, RM-3, BN and BC. This would increase allowed building heights in areas currently zoned CG from 60 to 75 feet. It would increase allowed building heights in the other areas from 25-30 feet to 75 feet, and would also increase the mix of uses allowed in these areas. Existing zoning is shown in Figure 2.3 and proposed zoning is shown in Figure 2.5. The updated CG zone would cover the majority of the study area. Areas where existing non-CG zoning would continue to apply include the Swedish Edmonds Campus and residential zones and a neighborhood business zone directly to the north of the campus, including the only area within the study area currently zoned for single family uses, and limited residential and community business zones on the southeast side and south end of the study area. The rezone would remove some of the existing transitional zones between areas of the study area where higher intensities are permitted and the surrounding single family residential neighborhoods. To address this, Alternative 2 includes new stepback standards for the updated CG zone. The standards are illustrated in Figure 3.1.2. For uses directly adjacent to single family zones, the standards call for upper story stepbacks of 10 feet for portions of buildings 25-55 feet in height, and for stepbacks of 20 feet for portions of buildings above 55 feet. For uses across the street from single family zones, the standards call for similar setbacks of 8 feet for portions of buildings 25-55 feet in height, and 16 feet for portions of buildings above 55 feet. The existing CG zone 15-foot setback and 10- foot landscaping requirements for lot lines adjacent to single family zones would continue to apply. Existing CG zone design standards including standards for screening and buffering adjacent to single family zones would also continue to apply. Together, these standards would mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone is adjacent to single family zones.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.1-9

FIGURE 3.1.2 Illustration of Proposed Stepback Standards

Source: Fregonese 2017.

Development Standards and Transportation Improvements The new development standards for updated CG zone and the transportation improvements proposed under Alternative 2 would also affect land use patterns, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.3 Aesthetics and Urban Design. In general, the proposed changes would result in a land use pattern that is more pedestrian-friendly, with buildings located closer to street frontages, fewer parking areas located between buildings and primary street frontages, more areas designed for pedestrian use, and more pedestrian infrastructure. These changes are not expected to create any new land use incompatibilities and are expected to have a positive impact on quality of life in the study area. Subarea Plan Policy Guidance The proposed Subarea Plan supports the area-wide rezone, development standards and transportation improvements described above. It also includes additional policy language that may influence land use patterns, for instance by encouraging transit-oriented development (pg. 53), affordable housing (pgs. 64-65), mixed use and mixed income developments (pgs. 64-65). The impacts of this policy language will depend upon how it is implemented but are not expected to create any new land use incompatibilities, since these types of development are already possible in the study area. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING MIX

Alternative 2 assumes more balanced jobs and housing growth than Alternative 1, in addition to more overall growth. Approximately 3,300 new housing units and 3,00 new jobs would be developed in the study area by 2035. This growth would change the current ratio of jobs to housing units from 2.4 to 1.4,

3.1-10 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

creating a more equal balance in jobs and housing compared to existing conditions and to growth planned under Alternative 1. This would be a significant change for the character of the study area. New residents would create more of a 24-hour presence in the area and there would be more housing opportunities for those working in the area to live close to their jobs.

3.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED PLAN FEATURES •

REGULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS • •

•

OTHER PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES •

None

3.1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated under either alternative.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-11

[this page intentionally blank]

3.1-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

SECTION 3.2

RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES

This section of the Draft EIS describes pertinent plans and policies that guide or inform the proposal. Plans and policies evaluated in this section include the Growth Management Act, Vision 2040, and the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, each establishing a regulatory or policy framework with which comprehensive plans and their elements must be consistent. In addition, local policy guidance established by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides a basis for evaluating change and potential impacts associated. Because the study area adjoins the cities of Lynnwood, Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, applicable policies from these jurisdictions are also considered.

3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted in 1990 in response to concerns over uncoordinated growth and its impacts on communities and the environment. The GMA includes 13 planning goals to help guide its implementation. These goals address the following: 1) encouraging growth in urban areas, 2) reducing sprawl, 3) encouraging multimodal transportation systems, 4) encouraging a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, 5) encouraging economic development, 6) recognizing property rights, 7) ensuring timely and fair permitting processes, 8) protecting agricultural, forest and mineral lands, 9) retaining and enhancing open space and supporting recreation opportunities, 10) protecting the environment, 11) encouraging citizen involvement in planning processes, 12) ensuring adequate public facilities and services, and 13) encouraging historic preservation. A fourteenth goal was added to the GMA to reference the use preferences of the Shoreline Management Act.

Comprehensive plans are mandated by the GMA to include specific chapters, referred to as elements. Required elements include land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and recreation. The GMA and other state and regional policies provide specific guidance for the contents of these elements. Cities are also allowed to include optional elements in their comprehensive plans, such as subarea plans. The entire comprehensive plan, including the required and optional elements, must be internally and externally consistent. Internal consistency means that all elements of a plan are consistent with the future land use map contained in the land use element, and that the different elements are mutually supportive. For instance, the transportation projects outlined in the transportation element must support the land use patterns called for in the land use element. The requirement for external consistency means that the comprehensive plan must be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions. The GMA also requires that comprehensive plans address provision of sufficient land capacity to meet growth targets, establishment of level of service (LOS) standards, and public participation. A city must designate adequate land to accommodate twenty-year growth forecasts from the Office of Financial Management, based on the requirement to provide sufficient capacity to meet growth targets. A comprehensive plan must include LOS standards for transportation facilities and may include LOS standards for other types of public facilities as well. The comprehensive planning process must include a public participation program providing for early and continuous opportunities to share input and ideas for the plan and its implementation. Implementation of comprehensive plans is accomplished largely through development regulations and capital budget decisions. The GMA states that jurisdictions’ development regulations and budget decisions must conform to their comprehensive plan.

VISION 2040 Vision 2040, developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and its member governments in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, is the regional plan for where and how growth would occur in the four-county region. Vision 2040 includes a regional growth strategy, an environmental framework, policies to guide growth and development, implementation actions, and measures to track progress. The growth strategy is based on a centers concept, in which the majority of the region’s growth is directed to centers within five Metropolitan Cities and 13 Core Cities. Vision 2040 designates Edmonds as a Large City, providing important transportation connections and expected to become important sub-regional job, service, cultural and housing centers over time. Vision 2040 includes multi-county planning policies with which all jurisdictions in the four-county area are required by the GMA to comply. Vision 2040 divides the multi-county planning policies into three categories: 1) general, 2) environment, and 3) development patterns. The general policies call for coordinated planning, monitoring Vision 2040’s implementation and performance, and finding the revenues needed to maintain and operate current services and facilities and to develop new facilities to serve growth. The environmental policies call for greater environmental sustainability through improved coordination and commitment to protecting habitat, restoring natural systems, conserving resources,

3.2-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

and developing green technologies. The development pattern policies call for concentrating growth and future development into existing urbanized areas to create more vibrant communities, reduce reliance on the automobile, minimize growth in the region’s rural areas, protect resource lands, and ensure that resources are available to meet the needs of future generations.

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES The Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) were developed by Snohomish County Tomorrow, a collaborative public inter-jurisdictional forum consisting of representatives from the county, 19 Snohomish County cities and the Tulalip Tribe. The CPPs address growth management issues, provide a countywide vision for the future, and support Vision 2040 and the GMA. The GMA requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with the CPPs. The Snohomish County CPPs were last amended in 2014. CPP goals related to development patterns, orderly development, housing, economic development and employment, and transportation are listed below. GOALS

Development Patterns. The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will promote and guide well-designed growth into designated urban areas to create more vibrant urban places while preserving our valued rural and resource lands. Orderly Development. These policies have been prepared under authority of RCW 36.70A.210(3) which states that, "A countywide planning policy shall at a minimum, address the following...Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provisions of urban services to such development..." Housing. Snohomish County and its cities will promote an affordable lifestyle where residents have access to safe, affordable, and diverse housing options near their jobs and transportation options. Economic Development and Employment. Cities, towns, and Snohomish County government will encourage coordinated economic growth by building on the strengths of the county’s economic base and diversifying it through strategic investments in infrastructure, education and training, and sound management of land and natural resources. Transportation. The County and cities will work proactively with transportation planning agencies and service providers to plan, finance, and implement an efficient multi-modal transportation system that supports state-level planning, the Regional Growth Strategy, and local comprehensive plans.

CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Edmonds developed its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Growth Management Act, Vision 2040, and the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. Last adopted in June 2015, the City’s Comprehensive Plan contains nine elements, including community sustainability, land use, housing, economic development, community culture and urban design, utilities, capital facilities,

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-3

transportation, and parks, recreation and open space. Relevant to the proposal, applicable goals and policies in the Land Use, Urban Design and Economic Development are listed below. LAND USE

The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the majority of the study area, extending along Highway 99 through the entire study area, as the Highway 99 Corridor. The second largest land use designation is for Mixed Use Commercial, in the area surrounding the Swedish/Edmonds Campus. Together, these land use designations comprise the large majority of the study area. Other smaller land use designations in the study area include a Hospital/Medical designation for the Swedish/Edmonds Campus and a small area immediately north of the Swedish/Edmonds Campus is designated Single Family – Urban 1. The Single Family, Urban 1 designation is intended for low density single family residential development at a density of five to eight units per acre. There are three Comprehensive Plan Map overlays in the study area. The Corridor Development overlay covers the same area as the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center overlay encompasses the portion of the study area north of 228th. Both the Corridor Development overlay and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center overlay indicate areas that are planned for a mix of uses and for which the Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance (Edmonds 2015a, 37). There are two high rise overlays in the north and south of the study area. These areas exempt development from the building height limits established in the underlying zoning. See Figure 2.4 for the Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Goals and policies supporting the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center designations are listed below. Highway 99 Corridor Figure 3.2.1 provides an illustration of the Highway 99 vision developed during a planning process in 2003–2004. Supporting goals and policies are listed below.

3.2-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.2.1 Highway 99 Vision

Source: Edmonds 2015a, 61.

Goal A Improve access and circulation. Access to businesses for both pedestrians and automobiles is difficult along major portions of the corridor. The inability of pedestrians to cross the street and for automobiles to make safe turns is a critical limitation on enhanced development of the corridor into a stronger economic area. Better pedestrian crossings are also needed to support transit use, especially as Highway 99 becomes the focus of future high capacity transit initiatives. Policy A.1 Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas, while coordinating with high-capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.2-5

Policy A.2 Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization and other measures. Policy A.3 Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian-friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and – when available – public investment. Policy A.4 Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Goal B The City should consider the different sections along the corridor and emphasize their unique opportunities rather than view the corridor as an undifferentiated continuum. Street improvements and, in some cases regulatory measures can encourage these efforts. Focus on specific nodes or segments within the corridor. Identity elements such as signage should indicate that the corridor is within the City of Edmonds, and show how connections can be made to downtown and other Edmonds locations. Policy B.1

New development should be high-quality and varied – not generic – and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons while encouraging sustainable practices.

Policy B.2

The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area.

Policy B.3

Provide a system of “focus areas” along the corridor which provide opportunities for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus areas identified in the “Highway 99 Corridor Vision” include the following: The “Residential Area Retail Center” concept allows for mixed use development while providing access and services to adjacent residential neighborhoods.

3.2-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

The “Hospital Community and Family Retail Center” would be positioned to take advantage of its proximity to the many hospital and related medical services in the area and it would be easily reachable from the Interurban trail. The idea of an “International District” is organized around the international flavor of development in the area combined with the concepts of visibility and internal connection. Access to the “District” is marked by specific gateways, and the many focal points for activity in the area (and the new development in between) are connected with a strong pedestrian corridor. Similar mixed use development, linked to surrounding neighborhoods, could occur in the “Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area.” In addition, this area has the potential to provide large sites suitable for larger commercial or mixed use development, such as hotels or large retail complexes. Internal circulation between sites is a key to development. FIGURE 3.2.2 Highway 99 Focus Areas from the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan

Residential Area Retail Center

Hospital Community and Family Retail Center

International District

Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area

Source: Edmonds 2015, 63.

Goal C Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. During the City’s Highway 99 Task Force work, residents noted that they needed a number of services that are not presently provided along the corridor. This can provide an opportunity that might be part of a larger business strategy. At the same time, new development should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. Policy C.1

Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses.

Policy C.2

New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and the arrangement of

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-7

uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially-zoned properties Policy C.3

Provide adequate buffering between higher intensity uses and adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Goal D Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur. Policy D.1 Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. Policy D.2 Within the Corridor, high-rise nodes should be located to provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. High-rise nodes should be: D.2.a

Supported by adequate services and facilities;

D.2.b

Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques.

D.2.c

Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access.

D.2.d

Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods.

Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Medical/Highway 99 Vision. The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of pedestrian and transit oriented area on two master planned developments, Swedish/Edmonds medical center and Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high-intensity development corridor along Highway 99. â&#x20AC;Śthe overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian-friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park-like atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: Goal A Expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center.

3.2-8 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

Goal B Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting of a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and landscaped surroundings and inter-connected development. Policy B.1

Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region.

Policy B.2

Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher-intensity mixed use development to nearby single family residential areas.

Policy B.3

Provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into the City of Edmonds.

Goal C Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character provided by the Highway 99 Corridor versus the local travel and access patterns on local streets. Policy C.1

Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density. However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center – and adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor – should still be provided in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit.

Goal D Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. Policy D.1 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of links to future high-capacity transit that develops along corridors such as Highway 99. Goal E To provide a buffer between the high intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR 99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West as indicated in the 1994 Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan (see Figure 3.2.3). Policy E.1

Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between more intensive use areas through a combination of building design, landscaping and visual buffering, and pedestrian-scale streetscape design.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-9

FIGURE 3.2.3 Hospital/Medical Height Envelope Concept

Source: Edmonds 2015a, 59.

Goal F To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mix of single family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with public facilities. Policy F.1

In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential uses.

Goal G To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school, the hospital, and transit services and facilities. Policy G.1 Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access.

3.2-10 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

URBAN DESIGN

Goal C Highway 99 Corridor. Additional Design Objectives for the Highway 99 Corridor should support its function as a locus of commercial and potential mixed use activity, building on the availability of multiple forms of transportation and its proximate location to surrounding neighborhoods. Policy C.1

General Appearance and Identity. Design of buildings and spaces along Highway 99 should encourage a feeling of identity associated with different sections of the highway.

Policy C.2

Site Design. Site design should allow for vehicular access and parking as well as safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever possible, sites should provide connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby residential neighborhoods.

Policy C.3

Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping, fencing or other appropriate techniques should be used to soften the street front of sites and also used to buffer more intensive uses from adjoining less intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from residential development)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Policy B.8 Work to “brand” and promote distinct business districts where there is a natural identity, such as the Highway 99 International District, Westgate, the Swedish Hospital Medical District, and the waterfront, among others. Policy B.9 Work with property owners, developers and investors to see appropriate redevelopment in underdeveloped and/or emerging business districts, such as the Highway 99 medical services district, Five Corners, etc. Ensure that redevelopment in business districts provide a quality environment with character, walkability and amenities for patrons and residents to enjoy. Other land use designations immediately adjacent to the study area include a Public designation on the campus of the Edmonds Woodway High School and an Edmonds Way Corridor designation adjacent to the southwest boundary of the study area. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between 100th Avenue West and Highway 99. The land use pattern along this corridor consists of multi-family residential development along the corridor, small scale businesses located primarily near intersections, and established residential areas on either side of the corridor.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-11

CITY OF LYNNWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The City of Lynnwood adjoins the study area along the eastern and northern boundaries (see Figure 2.4). The Plan designates these adjoining areas as Highway 99 Corridor (H99) and Medium-Density MultiFamily (MF-2). Property along the western boundary of the MF-2 designation is also designated with a Mobile Home Park (MH-1) Overlay. Comprehensive Plan Table LU-6 provides a description of these designations and is excerpted below in Table 3.2.1. TABLE 3.2.1 ABBR.

City of Lynnwood Land Use Designations DESIGNATION

PRIMARY LAND USE

LOCATIONS

DESIGN

Locations with good access to arterial and collector streets

Typical density of 12 -20 dwellings per acre. Lot configuration shall support public safety and emergency response. Lots shall have frontage upon a public street or a separate tract. Buildings may be 1-4 stories in height. Compliance with Citywide Design Guidelines.

Initial application of this overlay designation included the following existing parks:

Minimum lot size is 1 acre, with typical density of 4-14 dwellings per acre. Onsite open space and recreation area provided.

Multifamily Residential (MF) Land Use Designations MF-2

Medium Density

Attached dwellings

Mobile Home Park Land Use Designations MH-1

Mobile home park (overlay designation for any SF or MF designation)

Mobile home park (recreational vehicles and travel trailers not permitted)

Spacette Mobile Home Community, 7028 208th St SW (note: only the site pertinent to this analysis is included) Mixed Use Land Use Designations H99

Highway 99

Non-node properties: retail, auto sales, office, service, food and drink. Existing light industrial uses allowed as permitted use. Node properties: Same as above, but with mixed use and without auto sales.

Properties along Highway 99. Locations near rapid transit stops may be designated as “Node” and zoned HMU.

Single or multi-story buildings with orientation to automobiles and pedestrians. Compliance with Citywide Design Guidelines (nonnode properties) or Design Guidelines for Highway 99 (node properties).

Source: Lynnwood 2015, Table LU-6.

3.2-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Other applicable policies include: Policy LU-40 Encourage mixed use development at major intersections along Highway 99, as provided by the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and associated development regulations. Allow mixeduse development upon other properties along Highway 99 where land use compatibility can be achieved. HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

The City of Lynnwood adopted the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in 2011. The plan establishes a vision for the Highway 99 corridor as described below. This plan envisions the corridor as a linear community that includes a broad spectrum of commercial businesses, focal points for vibrant residential neighborhoods, and a number of local and regional attractions. In such a community, residents, students, workers and visitors have easy access to those services and attractions found in any livable community. The community could effectively extend north into Everett and south to Edmonds and Shoreline, with an even greater string of specialized notes of recreational, civic, medical, educational, and commercial attractions. (City of Lynnwood, 2011) Major goals identified in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan include: • • • • • • • •

Create nodes of activity Allow a wide variety of business types Support housing Support improved linkages between the Corridor and Edmonds Community College Keep people moving Enhance community gathering spaces Improve identity and image of the corridor Improve public safety

CITY OF SHORELINE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Shoreline adjoins the south boundary of the study area, see Figure 2.4. In this area, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the majority of the area adjoining the study area as Mixed Use 1. Other designations include Public Facility and Low Density Residential. The Land Use Element contains policies that define these designations, as listed below. LU1

The Low Density Residential land use designation allows single-family detached dwelling units. Other dwelling types, such as duplexes, single-family attached, cottage housing, and accessory dwellings may be allowed under certain conditions. The permitted base density for this designation may not exceed 6 dwelling units per acre.

LU9

The Mixed-Use 1 (MU1) designation encourages the development of walkable places with architectural interest that integrate a wide variety of retail, office, and service uses, along with form-based maximum density residential uses. Transition to adjacent single-family

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-13

neighborhoods may be accomplished through appropriate design solutions. Limited manufacturing uses may be permitted under certain conditions. LU18

The Public Facilities land use designation applies to a number of current or proposed facilities within the community. If the use becomes discontinued, underlying zoning shall remain unless adjusted by a formal amendment.

CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Mountlake Terrace adjoins the study area in two small areas along the east boundary of the study area. In the first, a small area immediately north of 228th Street SW adjoins a portion of the study area. This area is designated as Urban Low Residential (ULR). The second area is located between 220th Street SW and 216th Street SW, and is bounded to the east by the Interurban Trail. This area is designated as General Commercial. Both of these areas are shown in Figure 2.4. The Comprehensive Plan describes these designations as follows: The City has four types of residential designations (or classifications): (1) Urban Low, primarily for single-family residential use; (2) Urban Low-Medium, primarily for low density multifamily residential use; (3) Urban Medium, primarily for medium density multifamily residential use; and (4) Mobile Home Park, primarily for the residential use of mobile or manufactured housing units. Other designations provide for businesses as a primary use. These designations are as follows: (1) Community Business; (2) General Commercial; (3) Freeway-Tourist; (4) Town Center; and (5) Light Industrial/Office. The Comprehensive Plan also designates the area that is designated General Commercial as part of the North Melody Hill Activity Hub. Regarding the Activity Hub, the Plan states: The Melody Hill Subarea Plan identifies the needs and vision for this activity hub, envisioning a strong employment base that supports and is served by efficient transit. Additionally, from a regional perspective, the activity hub borders both Edmonds and Lynnwood where many other jobs exist.

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN An area of unincorporated Snohomish County, commonly referred to as the Esperance neighborhood, adjoins the west side of the study area, generally between 234th Street SW on the south and 220th Street SW on the north, see Figure 2.4. The Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan designates this entire area as part of the City of Edmonds Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA). This designation indicates that this area may be annexed by the City of Edmonds at some future time. The primary Comprehensive Plan designation for this area is Urban Medium Density Residential. Urban High Density Residential and Urban Commercial designations are also found on properties near or on

3.2-14 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

the Highway 99 corridor. Public Institutional Use designations are also found in this area. These designations are described in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as listed below: Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR). This designation allows a combination of detached homes on small lots, townhouses, and apartments in medium density, multifamily residential developments. Urban High Density Residential (UHDR). This designation allows high density residential land uses such as townhouses and apartments, generally near other high intensity land uses. Urban Commercial. This designation identifies commercial designations within the UGA which allow a wide range of commercial as well as residential uses. In the Southwest County UGA, no rezones to General Commercial shall be approved outside of the State Route 99 corridor. Public Institutional Use (P/IU). The Public/Institutional Use designation can be applied to existing or planned public and privately owned and/or operated properties including churches, schools, parks, government buildings, utility plants and other government operations or properties within UGAs or adjacent to UGAs. Examples of such uses adjacent to the study area include Esperance Park and Olympic View Water and Sewer district facilities.

3.2.2 IMPACTS The impacts analysis below considers consistency of state, regional and local plans with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan alternatives.

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT

Both alternatives are consistent with the intent of the GMA goals. However, as noted below, Alternative 2 allows the City new momentum in reinvigorating the Highway 99 and Medical/Highway 99 activity centers. See Table 3.2.2 for a summary of consistency of the alternatives with GMA goals.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.2-15

TABLE 3.2.2

Consistency with Growth Management Act Goals

GMA GOAL

DISCUSSION

Encourage growth in urban areas

Both alternatives focus growth in the Highway 99 Corridor. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) for 1,224 new households and 2,317 new jobs, consistent with the City’s updated 2015 – 2035 growth estimates. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) plans for higher levels of growth in the Corridor, with 3,325 new households and 3,013 new jobs by 2035.

Reduce sprawl

Both alternatives either meet or exceed the City’s updated 2015 – 2035 growth estimates for the Highway 99 Corridor. By accommodating growth in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, both alternatives contribute to reducing sprawl. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 promotes relatively more focused growth in the Corridor, with greater development intensity and compact mixed-use development.

Encourage an efficient multimodal transportation system

Both of the alternatives would support the mobility improvements planned or being considered for the study area. In addition, Alternative 2 would include measures to maintain level of service standards, increase east/west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and improved access to transit. See Appendix B for a description of recommended transportation improvements.

Encourage a variety of housing types, including affordable housing

Both of the alternatives plan for a diversity of housing, including affordable housing. Compared to the Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would provide the greatest amount of overall housing development and would propose implementation of a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program for affordable housing (Recommendation #8, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). For these reasons, Alternative 2 could result in the greatest opportunity for affordable housing to support new residents.

Promote economic development

Both of the alternatives would accommodate the City’s 2015 – 2035 employment growth estimates. Comparatively, Alternative 2 would plan for the greatest amount of employment growth (3,013 jobs), followed by Alternative 1 (2,317 jobs). In addition, Alternative 2 identifies strengthening economic opportunity as an important goal supported by several specific implementation strategies (Recommendation #1, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan).

Recognize property rights

Neither alternative would restrict or constrain reasonable use of property in the study area.

Ensure timely and fair permit procedures

Both alternatives are consistent with the goal of timely and fair permit procedures. The proposal does not include any changes to permit procedures, and it is anticipated that the City would continue to process permits consistent with its adopted code. If adopted, the planned action designation proposed as part of Alternative 2 could help streamline future project-level SEPA review.

Protect agricultural, forest and mineral lands

The study area is not located near and would not affect any designated agricultural, forest, or mineral lands.

Retain and enhance open space and support recreation opportunities

The study area does not contain any designated open space or recreational areas. Alternative 2 would plan for increased informal gathering spaces, green open space and pedestrian routes in the study area. See Draft EIS Section 3.5 for discussion of open space and recreation impacts associated with the alternatives.

3.2-16 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

GMA GOAL

DISCUSSION

Protect the environment

Future development under either alternative would be subject to requirements of the City’s adopted critical area and stormwater regulations.

Foster citizen participation

Both alternatives allow for citizen participation. The future vision and development scenarios for the study area have been considered through a public outreach process that included community meetings, and online survey and additional opportunities to comment. Additional public outreach is planned for this Draft EIS (see Draft EIS Fact Sheet).

Ensure adequate public facilities and services

As required by GMA, planning and development under both alternatives is required to apply adopted City level of services for public services and utilities. See Draft EIS Section 3.5 for a discussion of public services impacts associated with the alternatives.

Encourage historic preservation

The proposal does not include any changes to the City’s current regulations protecting cultural and historic resources. These regulations would continue to apply under both alternatives.

Source: 3 Square Blocks 2016.

VISION 2040

Consistent with the development pattern goals and policies contained in Vision 2040, both alternatives would encourage efficient use of urban land by focusing future growth in the Highway 99 activity centers, as established in the City’s vision for this area. Both alternatives would also support the Vision 2040 guidance for enhancing existing neighborhoods to create vibrant, sustainable compact urban communities that provide diverse housing choices and connectivity to accommodate walking, bicycling and transit use. Consistent with the policy guidance for a Large City in Vision 2040, both of the alternatives would allow the City to establish the Highway 99 corridor as a focal point where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living and recreation in an area served by regular local and regional transit. While both alternatives would provide for future transportation mobility, Alternative 2 specifically plans for a complete network of sidewalks to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility and to increase access to transit facilities (see Appendix B). SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES

Consistency of the proposal and alternatives with applicable Snohomish County CPPs is discussed below. Please see the Affected Environment discussion for the full text of the goals. Development Patterns. Consistent with this goal, both alternatives would plan for a more vibrant activity center on the Highway 99 Corridor. Both alternatives would focus growth in the study area and would promote mixed use development, a more active and vital setting, a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere and an enhanced identity and character along the Corridor. Compared to Alternative 1,

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-17

Alternatives 2 would focus more growth along the Corridor, provide for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and improved access to transit facilities. Orderly Development. Both alternatives would focus growth in a locally-designated activity center in the City of Edmonds and would provide for adequate urban services to the activity center. Both alternatives are consistent with the CPP goal for orderly development. Housing. Consistent with this goal, both alternatives would provide increased housing opportunities located near transportation facilities and employment centers, such as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. To varying degrees, both alternatives would also support infill development to provide increased housing opportunities in the study area, which is likely to be associated with increased options for affordable housing. In addition, Alternative 2 would support implementation of the MFTE program for affordable housing (Recommendation 8, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). Economic Development and Employment. Both alternatives would provide additional employment opportunities in the study area, building on the strength of existing economic drivers, such as the Swedish/Edmonds campus. Among the alternatives, Alternative 2 would plan for the greatest number of jobs. In addition, Alternative 2 identifies strengthening economic opportunity as an important goal supported by several specific implementation strategies (Recommendation 1, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). Transportation. Both alternatives are consistent with this goal to varying degrees. Alternative 2 explicitly plans for an improved transportation network that would include measures to maintain level of service standards, increase east/west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and improved access to transit. Alternative 1 would continue to plan for improvements to the Highway 99 Corridor in conjunction with new development and as capital funds are available. CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3.2.3 GOAL

City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals DISCUSSION

LAND USE ELEMENT: Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal A

To the extent that the proposal includes a planned action designation that would streamline future project-level SEPA review, Alternative 2 is most consistent with the intent of Goal A. Neither alternative would preclude additional incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in the activity centers.

Goal B

Both alternatives are intended to provide an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community in a mixed used, pedestrian friendly setting. Compared to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) contains additional measures to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment, including capital improvement projects to provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility, improved access to transit, and enhanced landscaping and hardscaping in pedestrian areas.

3.2-18 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

GOAL

DISCUSSION

Goal C

Consistent with Goal C, both alternatives focus greatest development intensity, including greatest building height and bulk, along the Highway 99 Corridor. In addition, Alternative 2 includes specific capital improvement projects to promote pedestrian linkages and east-west connectivity in the adjoining areas around the Corridor.

Goal D

Consistent with Goal D, both alternatives propose to promote development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides greater support for this goal through the proposed adoption of a planned action ordinance and specific capital improvement projects to enhance a pedestrian-friendly environment, increased connectivity and enhanced access to transit service.

Goal E

Both alternatives are consistent with the established standards to provide a buffer between the high intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR 99 and the established neighborhoods west of 76th Avenue West.

Goal F

Both alternatives would discourage strip commercial development and encourage a functional and cohesive mixed use activity center. In particular, Alternative 2 would include standards and guidelines to support a pedestrian activity zone, locate parking to the rear of the site, and promote ground floor transparency – all intended to encourage pedestrian activity and a vibrant street character. Consistent with this goal, Alternative 2 also includes a recommendation for facilitation of a mixed-use, mixed income demonstration project.

Goal G

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides greater focus and emphasis on providing integrated pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connect the activity centers to residential areas, the high school, the hospital and transit services. These include new bicycle route designations and lanes, street frontage improvements for pedestrians and new pedestrian crossings. See Appendix B for a description of proposed improvements.

LAND USE ELEMENT: Highway 99 Corridor Activity Center Goal A

While both alternatives are generally consistent with the goal for improved access and circulation, Alternative 2 provides greater emphasis on this goal, compared to the Alternative 1. As noted previously, Alternative 2 includes a comprehensive package of transportation improvement projects intended to maintain level of service standards, increase east/west connectivity, provide greater bicycle and pedestrian mobility and improve access to transit. See Appendix B for a description of proposed improvements.

Goal B

Both alternatives would provide a system of focus areas along the corridor. As shown in the Figure 3.2.2, Alternative 1 provides for four focus areas. From north to south, these include the Hospital Community and Family Retail Center, the International District, the Residential Area Retail Center, and the Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area. Alternative 2 would retain the focus areas concept, but would simplify the system to consist of three districts – the Health District, the International District, and the Gateway District. While consistent in overall intent and direction for development along the Highway 99 Corridor, these proposed districts are not specifically consistent with the focus areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan (February 2017) includes a recommendation (Recommendation 3) to replace the current Comprehensive Plan maps and text with updated materials that clearly identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses). Implementation of this recommended action would bring the existing Comprehensive Plan and Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment.

Goal C

Both alternatives would encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, Alternative 2 would encourage development to the fullest extent possible while ensuring that design qualities and amenities enhance the overall character and quality of the Corridor, including upperstory stepbacks for buildings adjacent to or across the street from single family zones. Alternative 2 would also promote pedestrian connections to link residents to commercial and service uses along the Corridor.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-19

GOAL Goal D

DISCUSSION Both alternatives would encourage a variety of uses and building types. Alternative 1 emphasizes development variety based on the focus areas established in the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 2 would focus development according to the three districts established in the Subarea Plan. The Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan (February 2017) includes a recommendation (Recommendation 3) to replace the current Comprehensive Plan maps and text with updated materials that clear identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses). Implementation of this recommended action would bring the existing Comprehensive Plan and Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment.

URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Goal C

The proposal and alternatives are consistent with adopted policy guidance to encourage a feeling of identity associated with different sections of the Corridor. As noted previously, the focus areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Subarea Plan are similar, but have some slight differences. Both alternatives are consistent with the site design and landscaping and buffering guidance provided under Urban Design Goal C. Specific design standards included in Alternative 2, but not in Alternative 1, include building transparency standards, creation of a pedestrian activity zone, focusing parking lots away from the street frontage, ground floor setbacks and upper-level step backs adjacent to single family zones.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Policy B.8

Both alternatives would promote distinct business districts, such as the Highway 99 International District and the Swedish Hospital Medical District, consistent with this policy.

Policy B.9

Both alternatives would be consistent with this policy guidance to seek appropriate redevelopment in emerging business districts, such as the Highway 99 medical services district. As noted previously, Alternative 2 would provide a greater emphasis on walkability and amenities, compared to the Alternative 1.

Source: Edmonds 2015a.

CITY OF LYNNWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

In the City of Lynnwood, the Highway 99 (H99), Multifamily Residential (MF-2), land use designations would adjoin the Mixed Use designation for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and/or the Highway 99 Corridor land use designation in the City of Edmonds (see Figure 2.4). These City of Edmonds’ designations are similar to and compatible with the City of Lynnwood H99 mixed use and MF-2 multifamily designations. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the adjoining City of Lynnwood and City of Edmonds land use designations. The City of Lynnwood Highway 99 Subarea Plan provides a plan for Highway 99 north of the City of Edmonds. Much of the policy direction provided in Lynnwood’s Subarea Plan is similar to and consistent with direction established by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 99 Corridor. Specifically, both plans seek to provide a mix of commercial uses and vibrant residential neighborhoods, create nodes of activity, provide linkages between the Highway 99 corridor and surrounding areas, improve the identity and character of the corridor, and improve safety. Because both cities are planning for a consistent vision, range of uses and character along the Highway 99 corridor, no potential policy conflicts are anticipated.

3.2-20 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CITY OF SHORELINE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The majority of the area in the City of Shoreline adjoining the study area is designated as Mixed Use 1 (See Figure 2.4) and intended for a mix of retail, office and form-based maximum density residential development. This designation adjoins area in the City of Edmonds as Highway 99 Corridor and the two designations propose a range of uses and development character that are similar and consistent with each other. To the east and west of the Mixed Use 1 designation, property in Shoreline designated as Public Facility and Low Density Residential adjoins the City of Edmonds Highway 99 Corridor designation. In this area, NW 205th Street/244th Street SW provides a physical separation between the two jurisdictions, reducing the potential for conflict between developments in the two designations. In addition, City of Edmonds development standards, including setbacks, screening and buffering, site design and layout, lighting, building design and massing, and operating restrictions should further reduce potential land use conflicts. CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

As described previously, two areas within the City of Mountlake Terrace adjoin the study area (see Figure 2.4). The first area, designated as Urban Low Residential, is bounded to the north, west and south by properties in the City of Edmonds with a similar designation (Single Family – Urban 1). Similar to residentially-designated properties in the City of Edmonds, a small number of properties in the area adjoin the Highway 99 Corridor land use designation, which provides for a range of commercial, residential and mixed use development. Potential land use conflicts between the lower intensity single family residential designation and adjoining commercial land uses should be addressed through City of Edmonds development standards, including setbacks, screening and buffering, site design and layout, lighting, building design and massing, and operating restrictions. In addition, Alternative 2 would include specific upper-level stepback standards to minimize any potential land use compatibility impacts. Please see the Land Use Element of this Draft EIS for additional discussion of potential land use conflicts. The second area, designated as General Commercial, adjoins the City of Edmonds Highway 99 Corridor designation. These two designations are compatible and no adverse impacts are anticipated. SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

In unincorporated Snohomish County, properties adjoining the study area, including those properties adjoining Highway 99, are designated UHDR and UC (see Figure 2.4). These designations provide for high density residential and commercial uses consistent with the City’s vision for Highway 99. The only exception to this is a small area on the north side of 244th St SW, which is designated as UMDR. These properties adjoin a cul-de-sac in the City of Edmonds designated as Single Family – Urban 1, a designation that is similar to the County’s UMDR designation. Both of these areas are currently developed with single family residential homes. Because these combined areas are relatively small, they do not represent a significant conflict in land use designations. However, because they are surrounded on multiple sides by more intensive land use designations in both Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds, it may be appropriate to consider a more intensive land use designations for these areas in the future.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.2-21

3.2.3 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED PLAN FEATURES •

•

Under both alternatives, the locally-designated role of the Highway 99 Corridor would continue to be maintained and reinforced through the plan vision for a high density, walkable mixed-use neighborhood with urban amenities. For Alternative 2, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and text are recommended to clearly identify the three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses (Recommendation 3.1, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). These amendments would bring the Comprehensive Plan and recommended Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment.

REGULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS •

As required by GMA, the draft Subarea Plan and regulations will be submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce for review and comment prior to final adoption.

OTHER PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES •

None

3.2.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to future subarea plan consistency under either alternative.

3.2-22 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

SECTION 3.3

AESTHETICS

3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The neighborhood character of the study area is largely defined by its location along Highway 99, which is a regional commercial corridor stretching from Seattle to Everett. The study area contains a mix of low-scale, auto-oriented uses including retail, office, residential, light industrial and motel uses that are located along Highway 99 and major cross streets such as SR 104/Edmonds Way, 228th St SW, 220th St SW and 212th St SW. See Figure 3.3.1 through Figure 3.3.6 for views along the corridor. The majority of the study areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential uses, which are predominately multi-family but also include single family, are located on the edges of the study area on both minor and major streets. These help to provide transitions to surrounding single family residential neighborhoods that border the study area, as discussed in Chapter 3.1 Land Use.

FIGURE 3.3.1

View of Highway 99 near 240th St

FIGURE 3.3.2

View of Highway 99 near 212th St

FIGURE 3.3.3

View of Highway 99 near 216th St

FIGURE 3.3.4

View of 228th St SW near 76th Ave W

FIGURE 3.3.5

View of 236th St SW near Highway 99

FIGURE 3.3.6

Edmonds Medical Pavilion

Most buildings in the study area are one to two stories tall and are 25 to 60 years old (Snohomish County Assessor 2015). Many cover 25 percent or less of lot area (Snohomish County Assessor 2015), are surrounded by surface parking areas and are set back from the street. There are limited green features in the study area. These include areas planted with trees, grass and other landscape elements around the edges of buildings and parking lots. The edges of the study area have the highest concentration of green features, including some mature trees along roads and between buildings. This helps to support the transition between the core of the study area and the surrounding areas. Most land in the study area is developed with buildings, surface parking and streets. There are no parks or other public land uses aside from public right of ways. CHARACTER AREAS

While the overall character of the study area is generally consistent, there are some differences. In order to provide a finer-grained description of study area character, the following discussion breaks the study area into three smaller areas: • North Study Area, generally located between the north study area boundary and 220th St SW • Central Study Area, generally located between 220th St SW and 232nd St SW • South Study Area, generally located between the 232nd St SW and the south study area boundary

3.3-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

North Study Area The northern end of the study area is anchored by the Swedish Edmonds Campus, a major employment center with medical/office character and some of the tallest buildings in the study area. The Edmonds Woodway High School is another significant use in the area located just outside the northwest edge of the study area. The north and northwestern sides of the Swedish Medical Campus are developed with residential uses. This residential area consists primarily of multifamily residential uses, but also includes the only single family zoning in the study area. WinCo Foods, a large grocery store, is located south of Swedish Medical Campus at 220th St SW. Access to the Interurban Trail is also provided at 220th St SW, on the east side of Highway 99. South of here there is a concentration of automobile dealers along Highway 99 that creates a transition to the center of the study area. Central Study Area This portion of the study area is characterized by businesses that serve a range of cultural and ethnic groups, including those located in and around the Boo Han Market, 99 Ranch Market, Plum Tree Plaza and Brentwood Plaza. These shopping centers are clustered between 223rd St SW and 228th St SW. South of 230th St SW the mix of uses begins to transition to fewer retail and more multifamily uses. Other notable uses in the center of the study area include the Community Health Center of Snohomish County Edmonds Clinic, a non-profit community services provider, and a concentration of public storage uses between 224th St SW and 232nd St SW. South Study Area The character of the southern end of the study area is influenced by the interchange with SR 104/Edmonds Way, which provides connectivity between downtown Edmonds, Highway 99 and Interstate 405. A large cloverleaf intersection serves as the informal southern entrance to the study area. The area between the interchange and the center of the study area is predominantly commercial in character with some hotel uses. The Doces Mall, which contains Burlington Coat Factory and other uses, Aurora Marketplace and a number of small motels are located here. The southern part of the study area also has the highest concentration of vacant lots, which pose potential development opportunities. Comprehensive Plan Focus Areas The Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance for the character of future development in the study area. It designates the majority of the study area as Highway 99 Corridor or Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, and generally calls for the area to be developed into an economically vibrant pedestrian- and transit-friendly area in a manner that builds on existing character strengths and is sensitive to the needs of surrounding neighborhoods. See Chapter 3.2 for a description of the Comprehensive Plan’s policy direction for the study area. Specific to character areas, Highway 99 Corridor Goal B.3 in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan calls for providing a system of four focus areas along Highway 99, as shown in Figure 3.2.2 in Chapter 3.2 Plans and Policies. These focus areas were developed with community input in 2003-2004

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-3

and are rooted in existing character. For instance, the Hospital Community and Family Retail Center focus area seeks to build on existing hospital and medical services in the north of the study area. The International District focus area is envisioned to grow the diverse mix of existing businesses in the center of the study area that provide cultural products and services. The Residential Area Retail Center and the Commercial Redevelopment/Hotels Improvement Area focus areas recognize the potential for redevelopment that is compatible with existing residential and commercial uses in the center and south of the study area.

STREETSCAPE AND PUBLIC REALM The “streetscape” includes streets, sidewalks and transit station areas. The streetscape includes the only public space in the study area and as such plays an especially important role in defining aesthetic character. Public parks and recreation facilities near the study area include Esperance Park, Lake Ballinger Park, Echo Lake Park, South Lynnwood Neighborhood Park and the City of Lynnwood Municipal Golf Course. See Figure 3.5.6 in Chapter 3.5 for a map of nearby parks. The study area’s current streetscape is auto-oriented in design with wide travel lanes, long blocks and limited pedestrian infrastructure. There are sidewalks along Highway 99 and along some cross streets; these are generally narrow and without buffers between pedestrians and cars. There are some crosswalks along Highway 99 but the limited number and relatively long large distance between them create a barrier for pedestrians wanting to cross from one side of the study area to the other. FIGURE 3.3.7

Swift Bus Rapid Transit Station

FIGURE 3.3.8

Pavement Art at Swift Bus Rapid Transit Station

There have been some recent improvements to the streetscape. There are two new Swift Bus Rapid Transit stations in the study area, located on both sides of Highway 99 on 238th St SW and 216th St SW. These have pedestrian and aesthetic amenities including covered seating areas, wayfinding signage and pavement art as shown in Figure 3.3.7 and Figure 3.3.8. The decorative light poles recently installed by the City in the center of the study area along Highway 99 are another streetscape improvement in the study area. These are intended to support the International District focus area theme described in the Comprehensive Plan. An example light pole is show in Figure 3.3.9.

3.3-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.3.9

Decorative Light Pole

HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE As mentioned under Neighborhood Character, most buildings in the study area are one or two stories in height, separated from the street by surface parking areas and cover a small portion of the lots on which they are situated. This creates a visual appearance of relatively low building intensities in the study area. While height is relatively consistent, there is a range of building footprint sizes that contribute to differences in bulk and scale. Big box retailers, shopping centers, office buildings and automobile dealers have the largest building footprints and greatest bulk and scale in the study area. Multi-family residential and moderately-sized commercial and light industrial buildings have the second largest footprints and bulk and scale. Small retailers and single family residences have the smallest. Building footprint sizes are mixed throughout the corridor, consistent with land use patterns.

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS The aesthetic appearance of new development in the study area is guided by the City’s development and design standards. The City of Edmonds has two types of design review, general review and districtbased review. The district-based review applies to all of the study area except a small area in the northwest of the study area that does not have CG or CG2 (General Commercial) zoning and is outside of the Highway 99 Corridor as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map. Development in this area goes through the City’s general review process (Edmonds 2016b, Section 20.10.010). Both review processes require proposed developments to meet the requirements of the zoning code. Table 3.3.1 shows the height, setback and lot coverage requirements in the City’s zoning code for the nine zoning designations in the study area. The majority of the study area is zoned CG or CG2, as shown in Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2. The Swedish Edmonds Campus is zoned MU (Medical Use). Other zoning designations are generally located around the edges of the study area and include BN (Neighborhood Business); BC (Community Business); RM-1.5, RM-2.4 and RM-3 (Multiple Residential); and RS-8 (Single Family Residential). The greatest building heights are permitted in the CG, CG2 and Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio MU zones. These zones have height limits of 60, 75, and 35 feet of a building's total floor area respectively, and they do not have floor area ratio (FAR) maximum (gross floor area) to the size of the limit. The height limits can be exceeded in specific places including piece of land upon which it is built. in the high-rise overlays shown in Figure 2.3 and in the MU zone consistent with Comprehensive Plan guidelines for development in the Swedish Edmonds Campus. There is no height limit for structures within the high rise overlays, and buildings can be up to nine stories/108 feet in limited locations within the MU zone.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-5

The BN, BC, RM-1.5, RM-2.4 and RM-3 zones limit building heights to 25 to 30 feet or less and have lot coverage or FAR limitations, as shown in Table 3.3.1. In places where these zones are located along the edges of the study area, they help to provide transitions to surrounding areas that do not have an urban corridor character, such as single family residential neighborhoods. Requirements in all zones for side and rear setbacks help to buffer residential uses. TABLE 3.3.1

Zoning Standards for Height, Setbacks and Lot Coverage MAX. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)

HEIGHT LIMIT*

MIN. STREET SETBACK

MIN. SIDE/REAR SETBACK

CG/CG2 (General Commercial)

60/75’

4’, must be fully landscaped

None, except 15’ from lot lines adjacent to residential zones

MU (Medical Use)

35’, except up to 9 stores/108’ in areas that meet Comprehensive Plan guidelines

15’

15’ from side/rear, except 25’ from lot lines adjacent to residential zones

BN (Neighborhood Business)

25’

20’

None, except 15’ from lot lines adjacent to residential zones

3:1

BC (Community Business)

25’, except roof may extent to 30’ if criteria are met

None

None, except 15’ from lot lines adjacent to residential zones

3:1

RM-1.5, RM-2.4 and RM-3 (Multiple Residential)

25’, except roof may extent to 30’ if criteria are met

15’

10’ side setback 15’ rear setback

45% maximum coverage

RS-8 (Single Family Residential)

25’

7.5’ side setback 15’ rear setback

35% maximum coverage

ZONE

None

*Note: There is no height limit for structures within the high rise overlays shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map Source: Edmonds 2015a, 59; Edmonds 2016b, Sections 16.45.020, 16.50.020, 16.30.030, 16.20.020, 16.60.020, and 16.62.020.

GENERAL REVIEW

In addition to meeting zoning code requirements, under the general review process proposed development must meet criteria listed in Edmonds City Code Section 20.11.030. These criteria are consistent with objectives in the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. They state that no one architectural style is required, but all elements of building design should form an integrated development that is harmonious in scale, line and mass. The code also states that site design should be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. The code specifically calls for providing landscaping to enhance site design and provide buffers where needed to avoid land use conflicts, and for avoiding excessive bright lighting and long, unbroken buildings surfaces.

3.3-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

DISTRICT-BASED REVIEW

The district-based review process that applies to the majority of the study area has the same requirements as the general review process, plus additional requirements. These include consistency with design standards for the CG and CG2 zones established in the zoning code and with the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan addressing the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center (Edmonds 2016b, Sections 20.12.020, 20.12.030 and 20.12.070). Design standards for the CG and CG2 zones provide requirements for screening and buffering to avoid land use incompatibilities and to reduce the visual prominence of parking areas; requirements for site design to promote individuality of structures and avoid uniformity; requirements for massing to ensure buildings visually convey a distinct top and bottom, to reduce the effect of large single building masses and to avoid large blank, unattractive walls; as well as requirements for lighting and parking and access (Edmonds 2016b, Section 16.60.030). One example of recent development that is consistent with these design standards is the Community Health Center of Snohomish County Edmonds Clinic, which is located at 234th St SW and Highway 99 and was built in 2014. The clinic is shown in Figure 3.3.10. Comprehensive Plan policy guidance for the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is discussed in Chapter 3.2 Plans and Policies. Goals and policies related to aesthetics call for fostering the four Highway 99 Corridor focus areas, making the area more attractive and pedestrian friendly, ensuring that the design of new development contributes to the quality and character of the area, encouraging a variety of building types, and using landscaping and buffering to soften streetfronts and to provide transitions between more and less intensive uses. Additionally, Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Policy E.1 provides guidelines for exceeding the MU zone height limits shown in Table 3.3.1 in specific locations and in a manner that provides transitions between more and less intensive uses.

FIGURE 3.3.10 Community Health Center of Snohomish County Edmonds Clinic

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.1-7

3.3.2 IMPACTS IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES Growth is assumed to occur under both alternatives and over time this would impact the aesthetic character of the area. Although the alternatives differ in the intensities, locations and types of uses assumed for future growth, a more dense future land use pattern that makes fuller use of available development envelopes than in the past is expected under both alternatives. The locations where the highest buildings heights would be allowed are the same under either alternative. These areas include the currently adopted high rise overlay areas shown on Figure 2.4 and limited locations in the MU zone. As discussed in Affected Environment, there are no height limits on structures in the high rise overlays, and buildings of up to nine stories are allowed in limited locations in the MU zone. There would be overall improvements in the aesthetic appearance of the study area as new development occurs under both alternatives, but the types of improvements would differ. Improvements under Alternative 1 would be subject to the City’s current design and development standards. Improvements under Alternative 2 would be guided by new design and development standards and would also be influenced by new policy guidance and transportation improvement projects in the proposed Subarea Plan.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would carry forward the City’s current plans and development regulations for the study area. It plans for less overall job and housing growth compared to Alternative 2. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

As discussed under Impacts Common to Both Alternatives, growth under existing development regulations would result in incremental increases in density and improvements in aesthetics. This may or may not include individual projects that support the Highway 99 Corridor focus areas described in the Comprehensive Plan. HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE

3.3-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

STREETSCAPE

As growth occurred over time the streetscape would be improved on a project by project basis consistent with current regulations. Such improvements could include increased landscaping and pedestrian infrastructure.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) proposes changes to the Comprehensive Plan Highway 99 Corridor focus areas, new policy guidance for the urban form of the study area, higher growth targets, an area-wide rezone, new development standards and planned transportation improvements. These changes are intended to help transform the aesthetics and urban design of the study area into a more vibrant urban corridor with a distinct identity and unique neighborhoods that are pedestrian- and transit-friendly. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

All of the changes proposed under Alternative 2 could impact neighborhood character. In general, the impacts are expected to be positive and to support the community’s vision for the study area. Comprehensive Plan Amendment As described under Affected Environment, the existing Comprehensive Plan includes a Highway 99 subdistrict map that designates four focus areas but does not reflect current community interest in a southern gateway district that defines entry into the subarea and the City of Edmonds. Alternative 2 would amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish three focus areas in the study area, consisting of a hospital district at the north end, international district in the center and gateway district in the south. The proposed districts are shown in Figure 2.2. The impact of this policy change will depend upon how it is implemented, however is likely to have the greatest effect on neighborhood character in the southern portion of the study area, since the two other proposed districts are relatively consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan guidance. As noted in the Subarea Plan, the prior district designations identified the southern portion of the study area as “Residential Retail Center” and “Hotels Area Improvement.” The proposed designation would allow these types of uses to continue, but would also emphasize creation of a clear entry point in and out of Edmonds. Subarea Plan Policy Guidance The Subarea Plan that is proposed for adoption under Alternative 2 includes policy guidance for aesthetics and urban design. This includes policies that call for using signage to identify the south end of the gateway district, to identify a transit hub at the intersection of Highway 99 and 228th St SW, to improve wayfinding along the corridor, to strengthen economic opportunity through design, to develop a unique district design identity, and to prohibit new pole signs (Subarea Plan, pgs. 52, 68-70); to encourage transit-oriented development, green building, affordable housing, mixed use and mixed income developments (Subarea Plan, pgs. 53, 64-65); and to conduct an area-wide rezone and make corresponding updates to design and development standards (Subarea Plan, pgs. 55-62). The impacts of

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-9

these policies will depend upon how they are implemented, but are generally expected to foster neighborhood character that is lively, urban, mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-friendly. Alternative 2 includes proposed new design and development standards to begin implementing certain Subarea Plan policies; these are discussed in more detail below. HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE

Alternative 2 plans for more jobs and housing growth compared to Alternative 1. Additionally, new design and development standards proposed under Alternative 2 include an area-wide rezone and increases in allowed building heights. Together, these elements of the proposal could result in more intense height, bulk and scale of new development in the study area compared to future growth under Alternative 1. The rezone would combine the existing CG and CG2 zones into one CG zone with a 75 foot height limit, and would apply the updated CG zone to some portions of the study area currently zoned RM-1.5, RM2.4, RM-3, BN and BC. This would increase allowed building heights in areas currently zoned CG from 60 to 75 feet. It would increase allowed building heights in the other areas from 25-30 feet to 75 feet, and would increase the mix of uses allowed in these areas. The rezone would also remove some of the existing transitional zones between areas of the study area where greater building intensities are permitted and the surrounding single family residential neighborhoods. To address this, the proposed development regulations include new stepback standards for the updated CG zone that would create transitions in height and bulk between buildings in the updated CG zone and in single family zones. Additionally, many existing CG zone design standards for setbacks, screening and buffering adjacent to single family zones would continue to apply. See the discussion of the area-wide rezone in Chapter 3.1 Land Use for additional information. STREETSCAPE

New design and development standards are proposed under Alternative 2 that would transform the study area’s streetscape as new development takes place over time. Also, transportation improvements called for in the proposed Subarea Plan would increase pedestrian, bicyclist and transit infrastructure (See Appendix B). Such changes would support more street-level activity with people walking or biking to services and jobs, which could in turn increase the sense of community safety and vitality in the study area. The proposed new design and development standards include the stepback requirements discussed in the prior section, as well as increased minimum setbacks to allow space for a new Pedestrian Area between buildings and streets, new requirements for building site placement and transparency, and changes to parking requirements. These code changes are envisioned to work together to create a walkable and attractive urban environment, with businesses located next to sidewalks, landscaped buffers between people and vehicle traffic on main roads, human-scale building materials, and less visually prominent parking areas compared to current conditions. These code changes are expected to have positive impacts on aesthetics and urban design. Additionally, many existing design and

3.3-10 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

development standards for the study area would remain in place under Alternative 2 and would provide for some consistency as new development occurs. Transportation improvements are proposed under Alternative 2 to enhance the pedestrian and bicyclist environment and improve mobility and access to transit in the study area. Key projects identified in the Subarea Plan include adding a crosswalk at the intersection of Highway 99 and 234th St SW, to close the most significant gap in pedestrian crossings within the corridor, and improving pedestrian access at the SR 104 interchange, at the gateway to the study area (Subarea Plan, pgs. 77-78). Other proposed projects would address the pedestrian environment along Highway 99, transit station area environments, and multimodal safety and access. See Chapter 3.4 Transportation and Appendix B for additional detail on the planned improvements. As with the proposed new design and development standards, the transportation improvements are expected to have a positive impact on aesthetics and urban design.

3.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED PLAN FEATURES •

•

REGULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS •

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.1-11

•

be provided by existing zones along the edges of the study area including multifamily, community business, neighborhood business, and medical use zones. Under both alternatives, existing development and design standards require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Applicable site development standards include those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others.

OTHER PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES •

None

3.3.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated under either alternative.

3.3-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

SECTION 3.4

TRANSPORTATION

This section of the Draft EIS describes the affected environment, analyzes potential impacts, and provides recommendations for mitigation measures for multimodal transportation, including motor vehicle traffic, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. The affected environment—or the existing setting—of the multimodal transportation system is described in the following section. Following the affected environment section, the impacts section describes the assumptions and methods used to forecast and evaluate future travel demand; analyzes conditions with development under the alternatives, implementation of the City’s planned multimodal improvements, and features of the proposed Subarea Plan that support and encourage the use of transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The impacts section, which identifies potential impacts to traffic, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation, is followed by the mitigation measures section which recommends capital improvements and programmatic approaches to lessen transportation impacts to less than significant.

3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION The study area for the transportation analysis is the Edmonds 99 Subarea, as shown in Figure 2.1. Transportation services analyzed in this section include the street network and traffic, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. Evaluation of the affected environment included review of the following relevant plans and studies: • • • • •

City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan, November 2009. Update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, July 2015. 2015 Bicycle Plan of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, July 2015. 2015 Walkways Plan of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, July 2015. SR 99 Access Management and Safety Study, July 2015.

• •

SR 99 Safety Improvements Study between 216th Street SW and 224th Street SW, May 2016. City of Edmonds Capital Improvement Program (2017-2022) and the Final Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2017-2022).

STREET NETWORK

Regional Access Interstate 5 (I-5) is a limited access freeway classified as a highway of statewide significance. It provides access from the Highway 99 subarea south to Seattle, and points south including the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. To the north, I-5 accesses Everett, Bellingham, and the Canadian border. I-5 serves as a principal corridor for regional express bus service provided by Sound Transit. From within the Highway 99 corridor there are several streets that lead to an interchange with I-5 including 244th Street SW/ SR 104, Lakeview Drive (via 228th Street SW), and 220th Street SW. The I-5 interchange accessed by Lakeview Drive also provides access to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center served by local and regional express bus service. State Route 104 serves as both a regional and a local facility. It connects to Highway 99 in the southernmost part of the study area. SR 104 connects Highway 101 on the Olympic Peninsula to State Route 522 in Lake Forest Park. The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry serves as SR 104 across Puget Sound. State Route 99 is a regional access facility—it is classified by the Washington Department of Transportation as a Highway of Regional Significance (north of SR 104). It is a managed access highway 1 serving as one of Edmonds principal arterials and primary commercial corridors. Local Access Key local streets intersect Highway 99 on an east-west and north-south grid with principal streets spaced approximately a half mile apart. These key local streets provide access between the study area and downtown Edmonds, the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry, Interstate 5, the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, Edmonds Community College, and the numerous communities surrounding the City of Edmonds on three sides. Figure 3.4.1 shows the study area boundaries within the Highway 99 corridor and identifies key regional and local access routes.

From the point just north of the SR 104 interchange northward through both Edmonds and Lynnwood, the designation of SR 99 is Managed Access Class 4. Managed access highways are intended to accommodate vehicular throughput by limiting access to adjacent private properties to side streets and right-in/right-out driveways.

3.4-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Figure 3.4.1 Study Area and Existing Streets

Source: DKS Associates 2017.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-3

TRAFFIC

Level of Service Criteria A common metric to evaluate intersection operations is average seconds of “controlled delay” per vehicle. The technical measure of controlled delay is translated into a letter grade for Level of Service (LOS) as shown in Table 3.4.1, providing a measurable way of determining conformance with the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and compliance with the transportation concurrency requirements of the State’s Growth Management Act. Table 3.4.1 Level of Service Criteria LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (Veh/Sec)

< 10

> 10 - 20

> 20 - 35

> 35 - 55

> 55 - 80

> 80

Source: Transportation Research Board 2010.

The letter grade system that defines LOS is a measure of the quality of traffic operating conditions varying from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing highly congested conditions). Level of Service Standards The City, through the Comprehensive Plan, has adopted LOS standards for city streets and state routes in the city that are subject to concurrency as follows: • • • •

City streets designated as Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes); City streets designated as Collectors: LOS C or better. State routes designated as Highways of Regional Significance subject to concurrency including SR 99 north of SR 104 and SR 524: LOS E or better. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance not subject to concurrency including SR 104 and SR 99 south of SR 104: Not subject to City LOS standards. Although state routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to City standards, the Comprehensive Plan calls for identifying situations where WSDOT’s basic standard of LOS D is not being met. For the purposes of this EIS, the City has decided to use LOS E as the threshold for identifying significant traffic impacts to the intersection of SR 99 and 244th St SW, which is

3.4-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

on a Highway of Statewide Significance. The reason for doing this is to apply the same threshold (LOS E) to all study intersections in the subarea. The Comprehensive Plan states that for intersections of roads with different functional classifications (e.g., arterial and collector), the standard for the higher classification shall apply. For the study intersections on Highway 99, the state route has the highest functional classification of Principal Arterial and therefore the LOS standards for SR 99 described above apply. These standards apply to the calculation of LOS at intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). Finally, the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on identifying and mitigating LOS impacts consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. An intersection found to operate below the established LOS standards is considered deficient under concurrency. Deficiencies are identified either as existing deficiencies, meaning they are occurring under existing conditions and not as the result of future development, or as projected future deficiencies, meaning that they are expected to occur under future projected conditions. Mitigating future deficiencies resulting from new development requires that transportation capacity expansion, or demand management strategies, be in place or have committed funding and a mitigation implementation plan in place within six years of occupation of the development. Existing Intersection Level of Service The existing conditions evaluation uses data, where available, from the 2015 update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to describe current traffic operations, and supplements that information with data from recent studies conducted in 2015. Table 3.4.2 presents existing PM peak hour levels of service at the six study intersections. All of the study intersections currently operate at the City’s LOS standard or better.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-5

Table 3.4.2 Existing intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS INTERSECTION

LOS STD

Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

State Route 99 / 212th Street SW

State Route 99 / 216th Street SW

State Route 99 / 220th Street SW

State Route 99 / 224th Street SW

State Route 99 / 238th Street SW

State Route 99 / 244th Street SW

E [1]

[1] South of SR 104, Highway 99 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance and does not have a level of service standard. For the purposes of this EIS, the City of Edmonds is using LOS E on Highway 99 south of SR 104 as a threshold to identify intersections with future operational deficiencies. Source: Edmonds 2015b; Edmonds 2016g.

TRANSIT

Public transportation within the Highway 99 corridor is provided by Community Transit which operates the local bus routes as well as the Swift Bus Rapid Transit service on Highway 99. Only a few local bus routes travel on Highway 99, some only for a short distance. One line—Route 101—travels the entire length of Highway 99 through Edmonds. This route connects the Mariner Park & Ride in Lynwood to the Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline. Community Transit operates nine bus routes serving Edmonds. Eight of the nine routes cross Highway 99 or travel on a segment of the highway in the study area, or operate on parallel streets within walking distance of the Highway 99 corridor. From Highway 99, local bus routes provide service to three regional transit centers, the regional ferry system, downtown Edmonds, and access to regional express services. Community Transit also operates the Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system using Highway 99 for most of the system’s Blue Line route connecting Everett Station in Everett with the Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline. The Swift Blue Line is a full BRT service with BAT (Business Access and Transit) lanes and features that define true BRT including very high frequencies, permanent stations with pay stations, fast loading buses with three doors, and traffic signal priority for most of the route. Swift provides two stations in the Highway 99 corridor; one located at 216th Street SW in the north end of the corridor and another located at 238th Street SW. Figure 3.4.2 illustrates Community Transit’s local bus routes and Swift BRT system serving the study area.

3.4-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Figure 3.4.2 Existing and Planned Transit System

Source: DKS Associates 2017.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-7

Figure 3.4.3 Existing and Planned Bicycle System

Source: DKS Associates 2017.

3.4-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

The Highway 99 subarea includes a variety of bicycle facility types—including routes with sharrows, marked bike lanes, and separated off-street paths—that parallel and crisscross the Highway 99 corridor. Figure 3.4.3 shows the current system of bicycle facilities and where noticeable gaps in bike facilities exist. The figure also identifies the planned bicycle system. Highway 99 itself does not have bicycle facilities and is not considered a bicycle-friendly street. The City and State’s transportation planners have indicated that the preference is to provide a dense system of bike facilities crossing Highway 99 and connecting to key routes running parallel to the corridor. The offstreet Inter-Urban Trail roughly parallels the east side of Highway 99 from about 240th Street SW to 212th Street SW. Access to the trail from Highway 99 is via numerous cross streets. The furthest the trail is located from Highway 99 in the study area is about a half mile to the east at the southern end of the corridor where the trail uses 74th Ave W between 236th Street SW and 230th Street SW. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Highway 99 through the entire study area. However, the sidewalks are old, narrow and lack illumination in many locations. Pedestrian crosswalks crossing Highway 99 are provided at signalized intersections—of which there are only six within the study area’s 2.3 mile length of Highway 99. The distance between crossing points is as long as 2,000 feet in segments in the southern half of the corridor. Signal spacing is closer in the northern part of the corridor, but at 1,000 feet between crossings, it still requires substantial out-of-direction travel for pedestrians to safely cross Highway 99. The lack of crosswalks across this seven lane, high speed (45 mph posted speed limit) principal arterial is a significant deterrent to walking within the study area. The neighborhoods adjacent to Highway 99 were primarily developed from the 1940s through the 1970s when street standards did not require sidewalks. As a result, most of the non-arterial streets today do not have them. However, the lack of sidewalks on residential streets is not a significant issue for residents, but at public meetings for the proposed Subarea Plan they have expressed concerns about the lack of sidewalks and lighting on side streets approaching Highway 99. Lack of sidewalks on side streets with narrow lanes and poor to non-existent lighting was a priority issue expressed by residents who live adjacent to the corridor.

3.4.2 IMPACTS PROJECTED 2035 TRAFFIC VOLUMES METHODOLOGY

This section describes the procedure used to develop the year 2035 traffic projections for the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). The traffic projections build off of the year 2035 traffic forecasts prepared for the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan update. The projections were developed using a citywide travel demand forecasting model which estimates traffic

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-9

based on land use projections. The citywide growth in housing and jobs between 2014 and 2035 used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan update included: • • • • • •

800 Single Family dwelling units 2,080 Multi-Family dwelling units 840 Retail jobs 1,410 Service jobs 30 Industrial jobs 970 students

The citywide land use projections include some level of growth within the study area based on allowable land uses and residential densities and commercial floor area ratios. Because a regional travel demand forecasting model was used as the framework for developing the citywide model, the model included regional travel demand to and from Edmonds, or demand passing through Edmonds without stopping (through traffic). These 2035 Comprehensive Plan projections produced a credible starting point for the subarea forecasts. The forecasting procedure for the No Action and Preferred Alternative is the same and described below: 1. Disaggregate the growth targets for the alternatives into the City’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) system, including estimates of the growth in residential and commercial land uses and estimates of the existing land use that will replaced by redevelopment of the study area. 2. For each TAZ in the study area, calculate the trip generation of the new growth and the existing land use to be redeveloped using standard rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). These initial traffic estimates reflect typical isolated land uses in suburban environments where most trips are by automobile, and require adjusting. 3. Subtract the traffic estimates of the existing land uses to be redeveloped from the traffic estimates of the new growth. This step eliminates the potential for double counting traffic from displaced land uses and results in estimates of the net new traffic generated by the land use growth in the study area. 4. Adjust the traffic estimates from step two to reflect the travel characteristics of the type of development envisioned in the proposed subarea plan (development that is compact and concentrated at key centers and nodes, with higher density residential and more intense commercial, with a range of land use types in mixed-use buildings served by a robust rapid transit system within an attractive and walkable / bikeable environment). Adjustments to the trip generation estimates are described in the section on trip generation. 5. Distribute and assign the net new traffic generated within each TAZ to the street network and study intersections and add these new trips to the year 2035 projections at each study intersection resulting in revised 2035 traffic projections that reflect the regional and citywide demand in the Highway 99 corridor and the travel characteristics of the study area’s compact, transit-oriented, mix of land uses.

3.4-10 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS

Table 3.4.3 summarizes the land use forecasts used to estimate the trip generation of both alternatives. Note that the amount of land use to be replaced by redevelopment is a negative number representing a removal of trips in the trip generation estimation step. Table 3.4.3 Land Use Assumptions for Alternatives

LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

MF RESIDENTIAL REPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT (Dwelling Units)

NEW MF RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)

NEW SF RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)

RETAIL DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT (Square Ft)

NEW RETAIL SPACE (Square Ft)

NEW OFFICE SPACE (Square Ft)

Alternative 1 No Action

(70)

1,096

133

(82,563)

119,951

875,007

Alternative 2 Preferred

(211)

3,520

(220,644 )

512,685

1,121,999

Difference

(141)

2,424

(133)

(138,081)

392,734

246,991

MF = Multi-Family Source: Fregonese 2017.

As shown in the table, the Preferred Alternative projects more than twice the number of residential units and substantially more commercial land use within the study area than the No Action Alternative. In particular, the difference in office space between the alternatives reflects the development opportunities for medical office space and other hospital-supportive uses in response to the planned expansion of the Swedish Hospital in the corridor’s health care district. Appendix D contains a breakdown of the alternative land use growth targets by TAZ. TRIP GENERATION

Methodology The primary source of trip generation data for land uses is in a publication titled Trip Generation (currently in its 10th edition) produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation is a compilation of thousands of studies of the trip-making characteristics of specific land uses. Traffic counts and land use data—which has been collected since the 1960s—is used to establish a correlation between traffic and the type and size of land uses. For ease of collecting data, most of the sites where the data was collected are single use sites (only one land use occupies the site), isolated from surrounding land uses by surface parking and large landscaped areas. These sites are typically found in suburban locations with infrequent or no transit service and ample free or subsidized parking. The sites often have high quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities, but are widely segregated from other land uses by zoning and long distances making active transportation

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-11

modes non-viable. In these locations the data consistently shows the single-occupant-vehicle as the predominant mode of transportation. When estimating traffic for infill development in urbanized places with certain characteristics, it is common practice to make adjustments to the traffic estimates derived from standard ITE trip generation rates. Characteristics of the development and the surrounding context that justify adjustments to standard rates include: • •

•

Development in the form of buildings vertically mixed with high density residential or office above ground floor retail, or horizontally mixed in close proximity; Development located in a compact district with a diverse mixture of housing, commercial and employment uses where residents and workers can fulfil many of their daily needs by walking, biking, and short automobile trips between complementary land uses on the same site or nearby that reduce the amount of traffic to the corridor’s external gateways; and An area served by a frequent and efficient transit system supported by a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The adjustments applied to the initial trip generation estimates of both alternatives include: • • • •

Reduction in residential, office, and to a smaller extent, retail trips reflecting the use of transit. Reduction in residential, retail, and to a smaller extent, office trips reflecting the use of active modes of transportation. Adjustment to retail trips to reflect “pass-by” trips—existing traffic that is already traveling on streets adjacent to the retail site and stop at the site as an intermediate stop. Internal capture of trips within mixed-use sites or districts.

The trip generation reductions for transit and active modes of transportation are less in the No Action Alternative than in the Preferred Alternative. This difference in trip adjustment reflects the difference in the anticipated travel characteristics resulting from the type, density, and mix of land uses and the larger investment in multimodal improvements in the Preferred Alternative. Appendix E contains detailed tables that step through the process used to calculate the initial trip generation estimates and apply the adjustments described above. Trip Generation Estimates Table 3.4.4 summarizes the estimated PM peak hour trip generation (adjusted as described above) for both alternatives. Because of its higher growth in both residential and commercial uses, Alternative 2 (Preferred) generates about sixty percent more PM peak hour trips than Alternative 1 (No Action), primarily from the difference in residential-generated trips. About forty percent of these trips remain internal to the study area with the remaining sixty percent traveling external to the study area.

3.4-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Table 3.4.4 Comparison of PM Peak Hour Trip Generation by Alternative NET NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

MF Residential Trips

Retail Trips

Office Trips

Total Trips

Alternative 1 No Action

597

(5)

1,157

1,749

Alternative 2 Preferred

1,293

159

1,302

2,755

696

164

145

1,006

Difference MF = Multi-Family

See Appendix E for a breakdown of the trip generation by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) including trip reductions. Source: DKS Associates 2017.

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS This section summarizes improvements to the future multimodal transportation system that are relevant to the study area. The effects of improvements that modify the capacity of a signalized study intersection (such as the addition of lanes or changes in signal operations) can be quantified in the traffic analysis by changes in delay and level of service that can result in a measurable offset to the effect of growth on the operation and LOS of an intersection. Improvements that implement and expand facilities for transit, bicycles, and walking help achieve the multimodal vision in the proposed Subarea Plan, advance the multimodal goals and policies in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and support and validate the trip generation adjustments applied to the land use alternatives. The effects of these improvements are not directly evident in the analysis of individual intersections, but are a considerable factor in adjusting the trip generation estimates to reflect multimodal travel. As such, the effects of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements can be quantified as a reduction in automobile trips, and assessed qualitatively as to the degree the improvements serve the study area to support the anticipated mode shift in future developments. The following sections describe transportation improvements planned by the City of Edmonds or other agencies that would foreseeably occur by the year 2035 under either the No Action Alternative or the Preferred Alternative. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS BY CITY AND OTHER AGENCIES

City of Edmonds The analysis of year 2035 intersection level of service integrates transportation improvements planned by the City of Edmonds through the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six year Transportation Improvement Program, and recent safety studies to the extent the improvements affect intersection capacity and its ability to accommodate the projected growth in traffic.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.4-13

Table 3.4.5 lists the planned transportation improvements that are relevant to the study area. They are organized with respect to the primary function of the improvement (e.g., Improve Bicycle Circulation Across and Parallel to SR 99 Corridor, Improve Transit Mobility and Transit Stop Environment). Table 3.4.5 Planned Transportation Improvements (Near Term) TYPE OF IMPVT

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TO/FROM SR 99 CORRIDOR Sidewalk construction: 216th St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to SR 99 Sidewalk construction: 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Sidewalk construction: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Complete street: 238th Street SW, between SR 104 and SR 99. Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk Complete street: 228th Street SW, between SR 99 and 95th Pl. W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk

IMPROVE BICYCLE CIRCULATION ACROSS AND PARALLEL TO SR 99 CORRIDOR Bike lanes: 212th Street from Main Street to 68th Avenue crossing SR 99 Bike route designation: 224th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to interurban trail Bike lanes: 228th Street SW from SR 104 across SR 99 to connect to existing bike lanes on 76th Avenue W. The road connection between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (including bicycle lanes) was completed in 2016 Bike lanes: 76th Avenue W from 208th to 220th and bike route designation to 224th Street SW Bicycle Circulation (Also see Figure 3.4.2)

Bike route designation: 238th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to existing bike lanes on 76th Avenue W Bike lanes: 84th Avenue W from 212th Street SW to 236th Street SW and bike route designation on 84th Avenue W south to 238th Street SW Bike lanes: 236th Street SW from SR 104 to 84th Avenue W Bike route designation: 80th Avenue W from 206th Street SW to 228th Street SW Bike route designation: 72nd Avenue W from 208th Street SW to 216th Street SW and continuing on 216th Street SW to SR 99 Bike route designation: 73rd Pl W from 224th Street SW to 226th Pl SW

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT Install raised median (with potential gateway features) between 240th and 238th Streets Channelize westbound traffic on 240th for right turns only - allow U-turns at 238th Traffic Safety /

Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99 between:

Access Management

• • • •

236th Street and 234th Street - restrict left turns from stop-controlled 236th Street 234th Street and 230th Street - restrict left turns from stop-controlled 234th Street 230th Street and 228th Street 224th Street and 220th Street

IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

3.4-14 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TYPE OF IMPVT

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT Priority Transit Corridor: SR 99 from 208th to SR 104

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Priority Transit Corridor: 228th Street SW from SR 104 to 76th Avenue W continuing to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. A new SWIFT station may be considered at SR 99 and 228th Street SW, but is not currently planned Community Transit anticipates expanding service and transit facilities along the 228th Street SW and Lakeview Drive corridors in coordination with the opening of the LINK light rail station at the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center in 2023

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW WITH INTERSECTION CAPACITY PROJECTS SR 99 and 212th Street SW: widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length - provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements SR 99 and 220th Street SW: widen 220th to add a 325-foot westbound right turn lane and a 300-foot eastbound right turn lane - widen 220th to add a second westbound left turn lane Intersection Capacity / Vehicular Safety

SR 99 at 216th Street SW: widen to allow one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes - add eastbound right turn overlap with northbound protected left turn Signal Coordination on 220th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to SR 99 Operational and safety strategies to help SR 99 traffic flow optimization include: • •

Access management restricting turns from driveways at mid-block locations in coordination with U-turns at signalized intersections to maintain property access Community transit is collaborating with local jurisdictions within the SR 99 SWIFT rapid transit corridor to implement adaptive traffic signals which can change signal timing in real time in response to changes in traffic demand and also improve transit priority detection

Sources: Edmonds 2015b; Edmonds 2015c; Edmonds 2016g; Edmonds 2017a; Edmonds 2017b.

PLANNED TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

Community Transit Community Transit’s Transit Development Plan (2016-2021) includes service improvements to the Swift Blue Line serving the Highway 99 Corridor. Community Transit is extending Swift’s operation by an additional hour in the evening and adding six new evening buses (three in each direction). This service extension is planned to be implemented in early 2017. Community Transit’s plans include service and route restructuring and new facilities within the 228th Street SW and Lakeview Drive Priority Transit Corridor in coordination with the opening of the LINK light rail station at the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center in 2023 (see planned improvements by Sound Transit).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-15

Sound Transit Sound Transit is extending its LINK light rail system to Lynnwood with one of the five new stations located at the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. The extension is planned to be completed in the year 2023. Once completed, the Highway 99 Corridor Subarea will have access to a rail system connecting the City of Lynnwood to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport through downtown Seattle. According to Sound Transit, traveling between downtown Seattle and the Mountlake Terrace station by LINK would take about 20 minutes. SUBAREA PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

The proposed Subarea Plan includes pedestrian safety improvements intended to eliminate deficiencies and encourage walking and bicycling to, and across, the Highway 99 corridor from the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as to provide safe and attractive routes to transit stops on Highway 99. These subarea plan improvements indirectly reduce traffic impacts of the subarea by reducing automobile trip generation through the provision of infrastructure that encourage walking, bicycling and transit. Table 3.4.6 presents the list of near-term improvements in the proposed Subarea Plan that would address current concerns. Table 3.4.6 Proposed Improvements (Near Term) TYPE OF IMPVT

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TO/FROM SR 99 CORRIDOR Improve sidewalks, sight distance visibility, street and safety lighting on 240th from 84th Ave W to 80th Way W (primarily along commercial frontages) Implement safety improvements at 224th Street SW and 76th Avenue W including constructing new or improving existing sidewalks on both sides of 224th approaching 76th Ave and SR 99.

Pedestrian Safety / Regionally Significant Transit Emphasis Corridor

There is an identified need to widen the sidewalks on 228th Street SW east of SR 99. In the Summer of 2016 a number of pedestrian improvements were completed in this regionally significant multimodal corridor. Where narrow sidewalks still remain within the corridor or on connecting residential streets, the following pedestrian improvements may be considered inlieu of widening sidewalks: • • • •

Buffer pedestrians from moving traffic with street trees in tree wells constructed within parking lanes. Consistent application of high visibility crosswalk markings at intersections. Ensure street lighting illuminates entire width of street. Currently, street lights are located on one side of the street. Intersections with marked crosswalks should have safety lighting illuminating each end of crosswalks. Install bus shelters at local bus stops with street lighting. Where right of way doesn’t permit a shelter, use curb extensions to add width.

General need for safety and street lighting on residential streets surrounding SR 99, particularly pedestrian-scaled lighting. IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG SR 99 CORRIDOR Pedestrian

Install pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) with high-visibility

3.4-16 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

TYPE OF IMPVT

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

Safety

crosswalk markings at the pedestrian crossings of the SR 104 on and off-ramps and provide safety lighting to illuminate the crosswalks Implement corridorwide wayfinding signage to local districts and major multimodal facilities

PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF SR 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT Improve connection between the Swedish Hospital Campus and the Swift Stations at 216th Street SW by implementing a pedestrian walkway system (potentially covered) internal to the campus with wayfinding to direct pedestrians to the various campus facilities including future land uses that support hospital expansion such as hotels and medical office buildings within the Health Care District.

Access to / from Transit and Major Employment Center Access to/from Transit and Interurban Trail Safe Pedestrian Crossing / Development Access / Access to Transit

Provide pedestrian and bicycle links that connect the Interurban Trail to the SWIFT Stations and Community Transit bus stops serving the Health Care District. When the property on the east side of SR 99 between 216th Street SW and 220th Street SW redevelops, require the development to dedicate an easement connecting the trail to SR 99. Concurrent with development at the 234th Street node, install a traffic signal with pedestrian crossings at 234th Street / Highway 99 which is the approximate mid-point of the corridor's large gap in crossings

IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

Access to Transit / Transit Stop Environment

Improve local bus stops between 234th and 230th that serve Community Health Center and new development within the International and Gateway Districts Provide enhanced local transit stops near Swedish Hospital

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Safety improvements at the intersection of SR 99 / 224th Street SW and between 224th and 76th Avenues (particularly left turn access into Ranch 99 Market)

Sources: DKS Associates 2017.

Appendix B contains a list of long-term planned improvements in the proposed Subarea Plan. Long-term is generally defined as beyond the current six year capital improvement cycle and likely beyond the timeframe of two consecutive capital improvement cycles.

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES Transportation demand increases under both alternatives. The change in demand differs between the alternatives and is described in the following sections.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.4-17

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION TRAFFIC

Intersection Level of Service The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) contains less development than the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) and therefore generates less traffic, even when adjustments are taken into account. As discussed above, the City’s existing planned transportation improvements would be implemented under either alternative, including capacity-enhancing lane additions and reconfigurations at several intersections. Table 3.4.7 compares the PM peak hour level of service at the study intersections between existing conditions and at build out of the land uses in Alternative 1. The table also includes the City’s level of service standards. Table 3.4.7 Year 2035 Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) Under the No Action Alternative EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

LOS STD Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

State Route 99 / 212th Street SW

State Route 99 / 216th Street SW

State Route 99 / 220th Street SW

State Route 99 / 224th Street SW

State Route 99 / 238th Street SW

State Route 99 / 244th Street SW

E [1]

[1] Intersections on SR 99 located south of SR 104 (Highways of Statewide Significance) do not have a Level of Service (LOS) standard. For the purposes of this EIS, the City of Edmonds is using LOS E on this segment of SR 99 to identify existing or potential future deficiencies. Bold text signifies intersections that exceed the established level of service standard. Source: DKS Associates 2017.

Five of the six study intersections would operate at the level of service standard or better. The northernmost study intersection of Highway 99 and 212th Street SW would operate at LOS F under the No Action Alternative which is considered a significant impact. Appendix F contains the level of service calculation worksheets for Alternative 1.

3.4-18 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Corridor Travel Time Table 3.4.8 presents travel time, average speed and associated LOS for segments of the Highway 99 corridor. 2 This analysis is presented as supporting information only since the City of Edmonds has not adopted a LOS standard for travel time on arterial corridors. Level of service based on travel time is a performance measure that represents how drivers will perceive the corridor’s operating conditions during the peak hours. Drivers take less notice of the delay they experience at an individual intersection than the number of intersections they stop at, and the amount of time it takes to traverse the corridor. The metric of how much time it takes to drive a certain distance is a concept that the traveling public intuitively understands through comparing the metric against their own driving experiences. Table 3.4.8 Year 2035 SR 99 Travel Time and Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) Under the No Action Alternative ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ROADWAY SEGMENT

Travel Time (Min)

Speed (Mph)

LOS

Segment 1: 224TH St SW to 212th St SW

3.1

Segment 2: 244th St SW to 224th St SW

3.6

Overall Corridor 244th ST SW to 212th St SW

6.7

Segment 1: 212th St SW to 224th St SW

4.8

Segment 2: 224th St SW to 244th St SW

3.6

Overall Corridor 212th St SW to 244th St SW

8.4

State Route 99 Northbound

State Route 99 Southbound

Urban Street Characteristics Urban Street Class Range of Free Flow Speeds (FFS) Typical FFS FFS for Highway 99

LOS II 34 - 44 MPH 40 MPH 45 MPH

A B C D E F

Average Travel Speed (MPH) 37 > > 29 to > 21 to > 16 to > 13 to < 13

37 29 21 16

Source: Transportation Research Board 2000, Chapter 15 Urban Streets; DKS Associates 2017.

Travel time analysis is conducted for each direction of Highway 99 which allows a comparison of performance in the peak direction versus the non-peak direction. The analysis also divides the 2.2 mile

Corridor level of service is determined using the urban streets operations analysis methods in the 2000 and 2010 Highway Capacity Manuals. The level of service is based on speed but travel time is also commonly reported as a more useful metric. The calculation of speed and travel time includes running time on the segments between controlled intersections and the delay encountered as drivers approach, stop, and depart intersections.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-19

length of Highway 99 between 212th Street and 244th Street into two segments using 224th Street as the dividing line. Based on average speeds and travel times, the overall peak direction of Highway 99 under the No Action Alternative is southbound, but when viewed by segment, both directions appear to have similar levels of congestion in opposing directions. Overall, under the No Action Alternative, the corridor operates at a LOS D in the non-peak direction (northbound) during the PM peak hour, and at a LOS E in the peak direction (southbound) during the PM peak hour. TRANSIT

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the currently robust transit system serving the study area would likely remain at current levels and see some level of service changes as described in Community Transit’s Transit Development Plan (2016-2021). Sound Transit will extend the LINK light rail system to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center and beyond. The No Action Alternative will gain the same existing planned transit improvements as the Preferred Alternative (Action 2). However, it is unlikely that the study area under the No Action Alternative will gain the same benefits from the transit system as under the Preferred Alternative because the No Action Alternative—if development follows past trends—will lack the density, mix, concentration, and progressive development standards (e.g., parking) to establish functional transit-oriented or transit-adjacent development. Another important factor is that the type development in the study area under the No Action Alternative would be less likely to attract households with a lifestyle predisposition for transit-oriented living that prefer housing within an easy walk of a transit node. These “self-selecting” households choose to live near transit for many reasons including that they find commuting by transit less stressful and/or because they don’t own many, or any, automobiles. Surveys of residents of transit-orienteddevelopments find that being near transit and being able to regularly get around via a rapid transit system weighs heavily in the residential location choice of self-selective households. High transit ridership rates are an outcome of this lifestyle preference. The No Action Alternative would continue growing existing types of land uses and densities, which under-utilize the current transit system and are less supportive of increases in transit service frequency compared to the Preferred Alternative. While the future light rail station would provide regional mobility, it would essentially serve to export residents from the study area to work or visit other places. Without a critical mass of households and jobs, and diverse mix of uses that create a destination, the light rail service is unlikely to significantly change travel patterns in the study area. The increase in traffic under this alternative is not offset by an increase in transit and active modes. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

Under the No Action Alternative, the bicycle network would be expanded with the existing planned improvements specified in the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, resulting in a denser network of bicycle facilities and the closure of some of the gaps in the current system. However, expansion of the bicycle network is most effective when serving an urbanized area emphasizing mixed-use and transitoriented development with development patterns, infrastructure improvements, and urban design that

3.4-20 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

create a high quality walkable and bikeable environment. Under these conditions, expanding the bicycle network would result in a high benefit to cost ratio. The development in the No Action Alternative may benefit from the expansion of the bicycle network to some extent, but—based on past trends—is unlikely to generate a high level of bicycling and thus a low benefit to cost ratio. The existing planned transportation improvements include a number of pedestrian safety projects, but do little to improve the major obstacles to walking including increasing the frequency of crosswalks on Highway 99 and improving access to the corridor, and particularly to transit, from the surrounding neighborhoods. Most importantly, it is less likely that the level and type of development needed to create nodes of activity in the study area will occur under the No Action Alternative than under the Preferred Alternative, and as such residents of the surrounding neighborhoods may not access the corridor any more frequently than they do currently.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC

Intersection Level of Service The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) contains a substantially higher level of development and generates about 60% more traffic at build out than the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), even when adjustments for transit, active modes, pass-by and internal capture are taken into account. The City’s existing planned transportation improvements would be implemented under either alternative, including capacity-enhancing lane additions and reconfigurations at several intersections. In addition to the existing planned transportation improvements, a number of pedestrian safety and transit improvements are proposed under the Preferred Alternative. These improvements encourage walking, bicycling and transit use—essential for achieving the desired change in mode share and justifying the trip generation adjustments. The quantitative effect of these improvements on intersection and roadway levels of service results from a reduction in automobile demand as opposed to an increase in capacity. Table 3.4.9 presents the PM peak hour level of service at the study intersections at build out of the land uses in Alternative 2 and compares the findings with existing conditions and those for Alternative 1. For reference, the table also provides the City’s level of service standards. In comparison to Alternative 1, there is increased delay under Alternative 2 at nearly all of the study intersections, but not uniformly. The intersections located in the northern half of the Highway 99 corridor (212th Street SW, 220th Street SW and 224th Street SW) have incrementally higher changes in delay between the alternatives. The change in delay at the intersection with 224th Street—which experiences the highest incremental increase in delay—is partly due to the constraints on the east-west

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-21

Table 3.4.9 Year 2035 Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) Under the Preferred Alternative EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION

LOS STD

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED)

Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

State Route 99 / 212th Street SW

State Route 99 / 216th Street SW

State Route 99 / 220th Street SW

State Route 99 / 224th Street SW

State Route 99 / 238th Street SW

State Route 99 / 244th Street SW

E [1]

approaches (relatively narrow side streets and permitted signal phasing) and partly due to the increase in demand from growth under this alternative. The midway intersections experience some overlap in traffic generated by development in the north and south ends of the corridor. Three of the six study intersections operate at LOS F under this alternative with two of those changing from a LOS E under Alternative 1 to a LOS F under Alternative 2. The levels of service at the Highway 99 intersections with 212th Street SW, 220th Street SW, and 224th Street SW exceed the City’s established standard for the Highway 99 corridor north of SR 104 and therefore are considered significant impacts. Corridor Travel Time Table 3.4.10 presents travel time, average speed and associated LOS for segments of the Highway 99 corridor at build out of the land uses in Alternative 2 and compares the findings with those for Alternative 1. Based on average speeds and travel times, the overall peak direction of Highway 99 under the Preferred Alternative is southbound. Overall, the corridor operates at a LOS D in the PM peak hour in the northbound direction and a LOS E in the southbound direction. As stated earlier, this analysis is presented as information only since there are no adopted performance standards for corridor-wide travel time.

3.4-22 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Table 3.4.10

Year 2035 SR 99 Corridor Travel Time and Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) Under the Preferred Alternative ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED)

ROADWAY SEGMENT Travel Time (Min)

Speed (Mph)

LOS

Travel Time (Min)

Speed (Mph)

LOS

Segment 1: 224th St SW to 212th St SW

3.1

3.6

Segment 2: 244th St SW to 224th St SW

3.6

3.9

Overall Corridor 244th ST SW to 212th St SW

6.7

7.5

Segment 1: 212th St SW to 224th St SW

4.8

5.6

Segment 2: 224th St SW to 244th St SW

3.6

4.0

Overall Corridor 212th St SW to 244th St SW

8.4

9.6

State Route 99 Northbound

State Route 99 Southbound

Urban Street Characteristics Urban Street Class Range of Free Flow Speeds (FFS) Typical FFS FFS for Highway 99

LOS II 34 - 44 MPH 40 MPH 45 MPH

A B C D E F

Average Travel Speed (MPH) 37 > > 29 to > 21 to > 16 to > 13 to < 13

37 29 21 16

Source: Transportation Research Board 2000, Chapter 15 Urban Streets; DKS Associates 2017.

Appendix F contains the intersection and roadway level of service calculation worksheets for Alternative 2. TRANSIT

The existing planned transportation improvements are supportive of pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure and also support policy direction in the proposed Subarea Plan to maximize the existing transit system and the expanded system in the next 10 years. The near-tem and long-term improvements called for in the proposed Subarea Plan would further support transit service and transitoriented development, addressing most of the current critical deficiencies with respect to safely accessing the Highway 99 corridor and its transit facilities. Implementation of the near-term transit-supportive improvements in the proposed Subarea Plan concurrent with new development will help to ensure accessibility to transit as growth occurs over time, and will also indirectly help to minimize traffic impacts.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-23

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

As development occurs under the Preferred Alternative, the demand to access transit, regional multimodal facilities and other nodes of development would increase. Implementation of the pedestrian- and bicycle-supportive infrastructure called for in the proposed Subarea Plan concurrent with new development would help to achieve the vision and goals of the plan. Transit-oriented, transitadjacent, and transit-supportive development is most successful when served by multimodal connections.

3.4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES INTRODUCTION AND RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO MITIGATING IMPACTS This section describes mitigation measures to address impacts under each of the alternatives. It is important to note that the traffic, transit, and active mode impacts identified in the previous section are based on build out of the 2035 growth targets for each of the alternatives. The growth targets would likely be achieved gradually over time, rather than suddenly in the near-term. The recommended measures in this section include the supportive improvements that help form the multimodal transportation system that complements the proposed Subarea Plan’s land use density, diversity, and urban design to achieve the travel benefits of substantially reduced automobile trip generation. These measures are addressed qualitatively in the impacts section since the City of Edmonds has not established standards to indicate when such measures need to be implemented. The recommended measures also include physical capacity increases at the intersections shown to exceed LOS standards at buildout of the alternatives. There are reasons why the capacity improvements should not be implemented immediately, rather, the impacted intersections should remain in their current configuration until monitoring indicates that the intersection is approaching failure, while still conforming to concurrency requirements. The reasons for waiting before implementing capacity increasing measures include: •

Secondary impacts. Adding capacity to intersections is typically done through the addition of vehicular travel lanes requiring widening the intersection approaches. Widening intersections for vehicular capacity often results in secondary impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and adjacent land owners. Wider streets increase the crossing distance for pedestrians which translates to longer exposure to potential vehicular conflicts. Wider streets increase the minimum green times for pedestrian crossings and bicycle clearance intervals, potentially increasing the intersection’s cycle length and increasing delay overall as a result. Adjacent land owners may be required to avoid building on the portions of their property where widening for mitigation might occur. The study area will benefit if these secondary impacts can be avoided by monitoring conditions until the mitigation measures are clearly necessary.

3.4-24 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

Integrated land use and transportation systems need time to mature. The transportation benefits of planned development and multimodal transportation strategies will not be evident for years. Development needs to reach a certain critical mass; trip reduction strategies require cycles of implementation, monitoring, and refinement before reaching goals; and the residents and employees of the study area need time to acclimate to a changing environment and develop their own strategies for changing travel behavior. For these reasons, it is important to wait for the system to mature.

•

Implement less impactful measures and monitor their effectiveness. Transportation Demand Management and Parking Demand Management strategies can be very effective if the programs are managed correctly, vigorously promoted, and constantly refined and improved. A Transportation Management Association, managed by professionals taking direction from the study area’s stakeholders could be used in the near-term to maximize the return on investment in multimodal infrastructure.

Rather than construct the capacity increasing mitigation measures immediately or in the first few years after adoption of the proposed Subarea Plan, a staged approach of monitoring and instituting demand management programs as interim mitigation measures may determine the capacity increasing measures are not required over time, or it may delay constructing the capacity increases to a point in time where the change has less impact. The capacity enhancing mitigation measures described in this section are proposed to be implemented when the operating conditions of an intersection identified as impacted in this EIS reaches a threshold that indicates the intersection will exceed the established LOS standard in the near future.

INCORPORATED PLAN FEATURES •

•

The City of Edmond’s existing planned transportation improvements (listed in detail in the previous section on Planned Improvements by City and Other Agencies) will help to mitigate for traffic impacts under both alternatives. The near-term and long-term transportation improvements in the proposed Subarea Plan (listed in detail in the previous section on Subarea Plan Improvements) will contribute to the underlying infrastructure that creates transit, pedestrian, and bicycle-friendly places and will indirectly help to mitigate for traffic impacts under the Preferred Alternative.

REGULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS •

•

Incorporate the near-term and long-term transportation improvements identified in the proposed Subarea Plan (listed in Table 3.4.6 and detailed in Appendix B) into the Comprehensive

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-25

Transportation Plan’s capital improvement projects and utilize the City’s current the six year Transportation Improvement Program to prioritize projects and identifying funding. •

Use the current Comprehensive Transportation Plan process (updating the Plan in a cycle approximately every six years) as the mechanism for monitoring the LOS at impacted intersections.

•

Build flexibility into each cycle of the six year Transportation Improvement Program to modify the priority and funding of the capital projects serving the study area as new development occurs and creates opportunities for matching funds from private development; redirecting project priorities and timing to coincide with major developments.

•

Continue competing for funding from state and federal grants and continue to watch for potential new funding sources.

•

Leverage the proposed Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance to request early distribution of state funds ($10,000,000) earmarked for Highway 99 within Edmonds in the State’s Ten Year Transportation Investment Plan.

OTHER PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES TRAFFIC

Stage 1: Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Mitigation Measures to Potentially Reduce Intersection Level of Service Impacts Under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives •

Within 6-months of occupation of new developments, require tenants or managing organizations such as Homeowners Associations or property managers to implement TDM programs. o

Residential (any size), commercial (under 25 employees), and mixed-use developments can select from a menu of TDM measures specifically assembled for these types of land uses. The City will develop guidelines and worksheets for tenants of new developments to formulate a trip reduction plan. Plan must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.

Menus of TDM strategies should include tiers of measures that have varying levels of effectiveness and cost including measures within the following broad categories and associated example measures:

3.4-26 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

Financial incentives, amenities and perks:  Fully or partially subsidized transit passes  Carpool/vanpool subsidies such as fuel vouchers, provision of vehicles, full or partial coverage of vehicle lease, fuel, insurance and maintenance  Car share membership for use by registered carpool and transit commuters  Emergency ride home program  Company vehicle available for employees who commute by alternative modes  Prize drawings to employees or residents who commute by alternative modes  Subsidized off-site services such as fitness center, daycare, dry cleaning, bicycle repair and maintenance, etc.  Service provided, or delivered, on-site such as dry cleaning pickup and delivery, ATM machine, fitness center, daycare, etc.

•

Parking Management Strategies  Charge market rate for employee parking  Parking cashout program  Preferential parking for carpool/vanpools  Restrictions or limited on-site parking  Unbundled parking  On-site bike share and/or car share facilities

•

Support Strategies and Assistance  Part or full-time on-site TDM coordinator  Commute options package for new employees and/or residents  Commute alternative information kiosk or website  Rideshare matching program  Discounts on purchasing bicycles and accessories  Sponsored events promoting alternative commute options

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-27

Stage 2: Implement New Capacity-Enhancing Mitigation Measures for Intersection Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative •

•

Incorporate the following new intersection capacity-enhancing mitigation measures into the City’s standardized six-year Transportation Improvement Program process for funding and prioritizing transportation projects: o State Route 99 / 220th Street SW – Widen State Route 99 to add a second northbound left turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative, exceeding the standard of LOS E even with implementation of the improvement called for in the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan to widen 220th to add a westbound right turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, and an eastbound right turn lane. o State Route 99 / 224th Street SW – Convert the eastbound approach of 224th Street SW to provide an exclusive right turn lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane. This intersection would operate at a LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative. This intersection was not studied in the 2015 update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and, therefore, does not currently have any planned improvements. Take steps to enable the new capacity-enhancing mitigation measures when and if monitoring shows that the measures are required, and implement the improvements, as the following opportunities arise: o Require any new development, redevelopment or site improvements requiring a building permit on the properties adjacent to the impacted intersections to not construct any form of structure or infrastructure (except landscaping or other streetscape improvements) on, under, or above the right of way potentially needed to be acquired for the intersection capacity improvements. o Coordinate with WSDOT and adjacent municipalities on the potential land acquisitions needed for the intersection capacity improvements located within their jurisdictions and, if possible, request the adjacent municipalities to apply the same building restrictions. o As funds become available through the City’s Transportation Improvement Program process, construct the capacity improvements. This may include acquiring the necessary right of way from adjacent property owners through purchase or negotiated dedication.

Table 3.4.11 compares the intersection level of service before and after implementation of the proposed new capacity-enhancing mitigation measures. With the exception of SR 99 / 212th Street SW, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures improves the level of service at each intersection under buildout of the Preferred Alternative resulting in a less than significant impact. The intersection of SR 99 / 212th Street SW remains a significant unavoidable adverse impact under either alternative, as discussed in the following section.

3.4-28 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Table 3.4.11 Comparison of Intersection Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) With and Without Proposed New Capacity-Enhancing Mitigation Measures INTERSECTION

State Route 99 / 212th Street SW

WITHOUT MITIGATION

WITH MITIGATION

LOS

Mitigation Measure: No feasible mitigation beyond what is currently planned.

Preferred Alternative

Not Applicable

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

State Route 99 / 216th Street SW

Mitigation Measure: None Required

Preferred Alternative

Not Applicable

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

State Route 99 / 220th Street SW [1]

Mitigation Measure: Add second left turn lane to northbound approach of intersection.

Preferred Alternative

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

State Route 99 / 224th Street SW

Mitigation Measure: Convert eastbound approach to an exclusive right turn lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane.

Preferred Alternative

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

State Route 99 / 238th Street SW

Mitigation Measure: None Required

Preferred Alternative

Not Applicable

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

State Route 99 / 244th Street SW

Mitigation Measure: None Required

Preferred Alternative

Not Applicable

No Action Alternative

Not Applicable

[1] Planned improvements under baseline conditions include dual left turn lanes southbound and westbound at Highway 99/220th Street SW. Source: DKS Associates 2017.

TRANSIT

No significant negative impacts were identified under either alternative to transit. As such, there are no transit-related mitigation measures.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.4-29

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION

No significant negative impacts were identified under either alternative to pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. As such, there are no mitigation measures for pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation.

3.4.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The traffic impact to the intersection of State Route 99 and 212th Street SW is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact under both alternatives. This intersection operates at a LOS F under buildout of both the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. The LOS exceeds the level of service standard of E even with implementation of the planned improvements for this intersection called for in the 2015 update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which include widening 212th to add a westbound and eastbound left turn lane and providing protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound movements. To mitigate the impacts of both the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative on this intersection would require widening State Route 99 to add a second northbound and southbound left turn lane, in addition to the improvements already planned in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This is not feasible because a proposed development project located on the southwest corner of the intersection is in the process of finalizing its site plan with the City, and the site plan places infrastructure within the right of way that would need to be acquired to implement the mitigation measure. It is anticipated the proposed development will remain in place for the duration of the 20-year Subarea Plan timeframe. As a result, the impact at State Route 99 and 212th Street SW is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact under either alternative.

3.4-30 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

SECTION 3.5

PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The study area for public services and utilities is the Edmonds 99 Subarea, as shown in Figure 2.1. Public services analyzed in this chapter include police, fire and emergency medical services, schools, and parks and open space. Utilities analyzed include electricity and stormwater.

POLICE The Edmonds Police Department (EPD) is a general authority law enforcement agency providing a full range of law enforcement services to the community. It is divided into two divisions: Field Services (Patrol, Traffic, K-9, Special Operations, Street Crimes, Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement) and Support Services (Administration, Professional Standards, Detectives, Police Services Assistants/Records, Property/Evidence, Training, and the Domestic Violence Coordinator) with an Assistant Chief over each division. The Department is currently staffed by 55 commissioned personnel, including a police chief, two assistant chiefs, nine sergeants, seven detectives (with one detective assigned to the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force), five corporals, four traffic officers, two street crime offices, and 26 patrol officers. The Department also includes two animal control officers (includes one K-9), who operate as limited commission personnel, and nine full- and part-time support staff who provide records, evidence, administrative, and domestic violence prevention support (EPD 2016b, 25). EPD provides 24-hour coverage to the city. There are three patrol districts in the city and patrol officers work in 12 hour shifts, 6 AM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 PM and 6 PM â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 AM (Lawless pers. comm.). The Highway 99 study area does not contain any key law enforcement facilities. Average response time is approximately 5.6 to 9.0 minutes depending on the priority level of the call (EPD 2016a). Dispatch services are provided by Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency (SNOCOM), a separate organization. Table 3.5.1 shows the number of calls the Police Department responded to in the years 2011 through 2015. During that five-year period the number of total calls decreased from 30,413 to 29,426, representing an average annual decrease of approximately 0.6 percent. The average annual decrease in traffic stops was six percent.

TABLE 3.5.1

Police Department Calls (2011-2015)

CATEGORY

2011

2012

2013

2015

5-YEAR AVERAGE

Total Calls (Including Traffic Stops)

30,413

28,369

29,703

27,977

29,426

29,178

Change from Previous Year

-0.30%

-6.72%

4.70%

-5.81%

5.18%

-0.59%

Traffic Stops (Expressed Separately from Total)

8,395

6,358

7,914

5,219

5,552

6,688

Change from Previous Year

-2.54%

-24.26%

24.47%

-34.05%

6.38%

-6.00%

Source: Edmonds Police Department 2016a.

Table 3.5.2 illustrates the trends in crime in the years 2002 through 2006. TABLE 3.5.2

Crime Statistics, Number Reported (2011-2015)

Part 1 Crimes per 1,000 Residents

2011

2012

2013

2015

5-YEAR AVERAGE

25.7

26.5

26.6

30.9

31.7

28.3

0.4

Crimes Against Persons Homicide Rape

Assault-Aggravated

Robbery

Crimes Against Property Motor Vehicle Thefts

115

Burglary (Residential, Commercial, and Other)

255

260

230

279

209

247

Arson

Larceny

630

694

706

782

766

716

207

174

177

180

170

182

Domestic Violence Crimes Source: Edmonds Police Department 2016a.

Within the study area, crime activity is highest in areas surrounding Highway 99, particularly near hotels in the southern portion of the study area and further north towards 220th St SW. The EPD hopes to further address crime in these areas through the reinstitution of their Street Crimes Unit in September 2016 (Lawless pers. comm.). The Police Department contracts with Snohomish, Okanogan, and Yakima counties for jail services. Overcrowding at the Snohomish County Jail has been a large concern for the last three years and the Department has made operational changes to adjust to the jail’s booking restrictions (EPD 2016b).

3.5-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

There are currently 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents in the City (as of 2016; EPD 2016b, 22). This ratio is improved over years past, but remains below comparative cities and below the statewide ratio of 1.59 (EPD 2016b, 23). However, the EDP does not have a formally adopted optimal ratio of officers per 1,000 residents (Lawless pers. comm.). The Police Department is located in the Edmonds Public Safety Complex, a nearly 31,000-square-foot building that was built in 2000. Police Department offices are open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. See Figure 3.5.1 for the location of the Public Safety Complex that includes the Police Department. FIGURE 3.5.1 Facilities Providing Public Services to the Study Area

Source: Edmonds 2015a, 138-139; Fire District 2016b.

The City of Edmonds does not formally implement crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) standards (Lawless pers. comm.). CPTED is a an approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design – it is based on the idea that the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime, and an improvement in the

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-3

quality of life. In other words, if a site is laid out well, the likelihood of it being targeted for a crime may be reduced. Due to budget cuts in 2011, EPD lost and has not yet restored their Crime Prevention Unit. In eliminating these positions, the Department lost most of their ability to conduct CPTED training and strategies for businesses, apartment management, various concerned groups, and individuals. When able, the Department conveys CPTED concepts to members of the public during neighborhood meetings or when they receive a specific request for information from a resident (Lawless pers. comm.). The Department’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan recommends restoring the Crime Prevention Officer position.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) In 2010, the City of Edmonds entered into a 20-year Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (Fire District 1) to provide fire, emergency medical, and fire prevention services to the City (Edmonds 2016e). Fire District 1 is responsible for serving nearly 230,000 citizens in a 45.6 square-mile area as of 2016 (see Figure 3.5.2; Fire District 2015a, 3; Fire District 2016b). The District includes 200 budgeted uniformed full-time and non-uniform support staff, and 24 budgeted volunteers (Fire District 2015a, 35; Zweber pers. comm.). All firefighters are certified as either emergency medical technicians or paramedics (Fire District 2015b). FIGURE 3.5.2 Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Service Area

Source: Fire District 1 2016b.

3.5-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Firefighters responded to 5,291 fire and EMS-related calls in the City in 2015, 81 percent of which were for emergency medical services (Fire District 2015b, 14). 1 Calls are more frequent during the day when people are most active, and drop off at night when most people are asleep. There is no notable increase in emergency medical service calls to hotels in the southern portion of the study area and further north towards 220th St SW where crime is highest in the study area (see discussion of affected environment under police above; Zweber pers. comm.). Fire District 1 also provided 1,307 inspections – including 384 new business license inspections – and issued 595 construction and operational permits (Fire District 2015b, 8). Overall, the Fire District 1 call load continues to increase as development occurs (see Figure 3.5.3). Fire District 1 responded to a total of 22,866 incidents in the Fire District 1 service area in 2015 (Fire District 2014; Zweber pers. comm.). FIGURE 3.5.3 Total Emergency and Medical Services Incidents in Edmonds (2012-2015)

Source: Fire District 1 2015, 14.

Fire District 1 operates 12 fire stations in total, of which three serve the City: Stations 16, 17, and 20 (see Figure 3.5.1). All three stations are owned by the City but operated by Fire District 1 (Edmonds 2015a, 137). Station 20 is closest to the study area. There are at least three firefighters on duty at each station 24 hours a day. •

Station 16 is located at 8429 196th St SW in the Maplewood neighborhood and is staffed 24 hours a day by three firefighters and a Battalion Chief. Apparatus based at Station 16 includes a command unit, an aid unit, and one fire engine.

All 2015 annual data reported by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, except call load totals, is for Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 14, 2015, due to a change in software.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-5

•

Station 17 is located at 275 Sixth Ave N in downtown Edmonds and is staffed 24 hours a day by three firefighters and two paramedics with advanced training for life-threatening emergencies. One fire engine, an aid unit, and a medic unit are based here. Station 20 is located at 23009 88th Ave W in the Esperance neighborhood and is staffed 24 hours a day by three firefighters. Apparatus based at Station 20 includes a ladder truck, an aid unit, and one fire engine.

In 2015, Station 16 responded to 1,447 incidents, Station 17 to 1,526 incidents, and Station 20 to 2,146 incidents (see Figure 3.5.4; Fire District 2015b). The City’s 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program includes plans for maintenance at each station, including interior and exterior painting, carpet replacement, HVAC replacement, and stair/deck replacement (Edmonds 2016a, 11). In 2015, Fire District 1 awarded a professional services agreement for a Capital Facilities Plan and placed all non-essential projects on hold pending the results of the evaluation of existing facilities (Fire District 2015a, 62).The District’s 2016 budget does, however, include replacing a compressor at Station 16 (Fire District 2015a, 62). FIGURE 3.5.4 Total Emergency and Medical Services Incidents by Edmonds Stations (2011-2015)

Source: Fire District 1 2015, 15.

Fire District 1 and their partner cities, including Edmonds, have adopted response time standards built around assembling enough firefighters and equipment in time to effectively mitigate emergencies. The Fire District 1 standard is to arrive at an emergency incident within 8 minutes for 90 percent of all calls, and to provide an effective force within 12 minutes 90 percent of the time; crews arrived at incidents within 8:38 minutes for 90 percent of the calls in 2015, 38 seconds below standard (see Figure 3.5.5; Fire District 2014; Fire District 2015a, 32).

3.5-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.5.5 Response Standards at a Glance (2014)

Source: Fire District 1 2014, 20.

For fire calls, the Fire District 1 standard is for the first fire engine to arrive within 6:30 minutes 90 percent of the time – the average response time of the first arriving fire engine in Edmonds was 6:49 minutes for 90 percent of all fire calls in 2015, 19 seconds below standard (the City of Edmonds has never met this standard). Fire District 1 was also 4 seconds below standard for the arrival of paramedics on 90 percent of medical aid calls requiring advanced life support in 2015 (6:49 minute response time versus 6:45 minute standard). However, the District’s response time in Edmonds is at or better than standard for total turnout time and basic life support response (2:39 minute turnout time on 90 percent of calls versus 2:45 minute standard and 5:15 minute response time on 90 percent of calls versus 5:15 minute standard, respectively; Fire District 2015b, 4, 16, 17). Fire District 1’s cardiac arrest save rate – at an annual average of 60 percent – is also the highest in Snohomish County and well above the national average of approximately 20 percent (Fire District 2016a). The District also offers programs reaching out to the community. These programs include monthly first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation classes, monthly child car seat clinics and child passenger safety education, smoke alarm installation programs, “Remembering When” fire and fall prevention for senior citizens, post-fire neighborhood meetings, and low-cost bicycle helmet programs. In addition, the Fire District coordinates with the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency, which provides Community Emergency Response Team training. Firefighters reached 2,073 citizens to provide fire and injury prevention education at community events in 2015 (Fire District 2015b, 8).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-7

The Fire Chief of Fire District 1 is designated as the City of Edmond’s Fire Chief. Fire District 1 also provides a Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector local to the City. The Department of Fire Prevention, located at Edmonds City Hall, is staffed by individuals appointed by the Fire District 1 Fire Chief and provides services for the following: • • • • • • • • • •

Fire plans review Construction inspections Code enforcement and analysis Business license and special events review Operational fire permits administration Fire company inspections management Administers national standards, rules, statutes, and fire safety laws Drafts local fire- and life-safety ordinances Administration and management of City’s fire-related records Public records request administration

There is a system of mutual and automatic aid agreements with adjoining jurisdictions. Additional resources can be summoned by using the Snohomish County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). For extraordinarily high risk/high loss incidents, Fire District 1 participates in the Washington State Fire Response Plan using task force and strike team resources from across the region, as well as military and other governmental agency resources. Fire District 1 participates in a joint HazMat Team and Technical Rescue team serving Snohomish County. Dispatch services are provided by SNOCOM. Fire District 1 equipment includes 11 fully equipped engines, two ladder trucks, and 13 fully equipped medic units, as well as multiple staff and support vehicles (Fire District 2015a, 52). Fire District 1 has a schedule for regularly replacing all apparatus, including those in the contract cities (Zweber pers. comm.). By approaching capital facility planning this way more resources are available for all of the areas in Fire District 1, including the City of Edmonds. Fire District 1’s revenues are primarily made up of property taxes (Fire District 2015a, 74). After several years of real estate property values declining, the District’s preliminary assessed valuation (AV) has increased for the third year in a row (Fire District 2015a, 7). In addition, the District is currently pursuing new ways to reduce unnecessary costs and eliminate redundancy, including potential opportunities to partner with other Fire Protection agencies through regional consolidation. Fire District 1’s Commissioners have joined with neighboring cities and Fire District 7 to plan for the possible formation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) in South Snohomish County (Fire District 2015a, 3). Swedish Edmonds Campus, located in the northwest portion of the study area, is a significant resource for medical services.

3.5-8 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

SCHOOLS Edmonds School District Number 15 is the largest school district in Snohomish County and the eleventh largest school district in Washington State (ESD 2016, 1). The Edmonds School District services residents of 36 square miles including those in the cities of Edmonds, Brier, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and the Town of Woodway, as well as residents in portions of southwest unincorporated Snohomish County. CURRENT ENROLLMENT

The Edmonds School District currently serves Enrollment refers to the headcount, or actual 20,511 students (as of October 2015). Student number of students, enrolled at a school. Headcount enrollment was at its highest between the late differs from full time equivalency (FTE) in that the 1960s and the early 1970s. Enrollment reached figure reflects total number of students served by its lowest level in 1985, increased between 1987 District educational programming, while FTE adjusts and 1998, and then generally decreased to its for half day attendance by Kindergarten students (for current level of 20,511 students (ESD 2015; ESD example, a kindergartner must be reported as half of 2016, 3). Between 2011 and 2015 student a full time student and is reported as a 0.5 FTE, but counts as a 1 in headcounts). enrollment in grades K-6 increased by 47 students (0.4 percent); enrollment in grades 7-8 decreased by 29 students (1.0 percent); and enrollment in grades 9-12 decreased by 165 (2.7 percent). Total District enrollment dropped by 147 students between 2011 and 2015, a decrease of 0.7 percent (Mhyre pers. comm.). SCHOOL FACILITIES

The number of schools in the District is shown in Table 3.5.3 below. TABLE 3.5.3

Edmonds School District Facilities

GRADES SERVED

NO. OF SCHOOLS

Grades K-6

Grades K-8

Grades 7-8

Grades 9-12

Grades K-12

Resource center for grades K-12 for home-schooled students

Regional school for disabled students

Reserved facility for schools being displaced due to construction or remodeling (former elementary school)

Source: Edmonds School District No. 15 2016, 11.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.5-9

The schools serving the study area are listed below. The most proximate schools in relation to the study area are shown in Figure 3.5.1. • • • •

Elementary Schools: College Place Elementary, Chase Lake Community School, Westgate Elementary, Sherwood Elementary Middle Schools: College Place Middle High Schools: Edmonds-Woodway High School, Scriber Lake High/eLearning Other: Madrona School (K-8), Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8), Edmonds Heights (K-12), Maplewood Center (disabled students ages 5-21)

In February 2014, District voters approved a $275 million dollar bond issue to replace, expand, modernize, and upgrade multiple District facilities. Design and construction of a new Madrona School (K8), and demolition of the existing building, is one of the capital projects included in this bond. The District anticipates issuing an additional bond in 4-5 years that will likely include adding classrooms at Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools (the District will evaluate both condition and capacity of existing facilities as they prepare to issue this bond; Mhyre pers. comm.). In addition, Edmonds Community College is located just north of the study area. LEVELS OF SERVICE

The need for more educational space is driven by several factors including grade configuration, optimum facility size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization, scheduling requirements, and the use of temporary classroom facilities. All of these factors are taken into account in the Edmonds School District class size and facility design standards (Table 3.5.4). TABLE 3.5.4

Edmonds School District Class Size and Facility Design Standards

SCHOOL TYPE

CLASS SIZE

21.5 students (K-1) Elementary (K-6)

25.5 students (2-4) 27.5 students (5-6)

Middle (7-8)

High (9-12)

Average: 25.6

Average: 24.8

DESIGN CAPACITY FOR NEW SCHOOLS

NOTES

21-27 teaching stations assigned as K6 or K-8 basic educational program classrooms and 2 or more teaching stations designated as self-contained resource or program-specific classrooms. School capacity will vary from 450-600 students

It would require about 23-29 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 450 to 600 elementary school students in new facilities.

750 students

It would require about 36 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 750 middle school students in new facilities.

1,600 students

It would require about 73 classrooms to accommodate an enrollment of 1,600 high school students in new facilities.

Source: Edmonds School District No. 15 2016, 9-10.

3.5-10 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CAPACITY

The Edmonds School District forecasts projected student enrollment using two methods: •

•

Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) methodology forecasts an increase of 1,865 students in Edmonds School District schools by 2021, a 9.3 percent increase from existing enrollment levels. Edmonds School District conservative cohort model forecasts an increase of 1,345 students in Edmonds School District schools by 2021 under Alternative 1 (No Action), a 6.6 percent increase from 2015 enrollment levels (ESD 2016, 5).

The year 2036 student enrollment projections are used by the District in determining its twenty-year facility plan. The long-range plan also operates as a “check” on the six-year plan, and, therefore, is a means to ensure that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is internally consistent, as well as ensuring the CFP’s consistency with other elements of the local planning jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans. The District projects 23,028 students enrolled by the year 2036 (see Table 3.5.5). TABLE 3.5.5

Projected Student Enrollment through 2036

GRADE SPAN

2021 PROJECTED STUDENT HEADCOUNT

2029 PROJECTED STUDENT HEADCOUNT

2036 PROJECTED STUDENT HEADCOUNT

Elementary (K-6)

11,512

12,036

12,271

Middle School (7-8)

3,369

3,352

3,477

High School (9-12)

6,711

6,984

7,280

Total (K-12)

21,592

22,372

23,028

Source: Edmonds School District No. 15 2016, 7.

The District anticipates adjusting their projections and methods of calculating capacity in the next CFP update to more accurately reflect the reality of how their teaching spaces are used (Mhyre pers. comm.). Minimum Levels of Service Using the class size and facility design capacity standards discussed above, the Edmonds School District has made the following conclusions (ESD 2016, 10): •

•

With a total of 603 classrooms, the District could accommodate 14,472 elementary school children based upon current capacity. With significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase current enrollment by 3,615 students if conditions required it. Current enrollment is 10,857 and projected 2036 enrollment is 12,271. With a total of 170 teaching stations, the District could accommodate 4,336 seventh and eighth graders in its K-8 and Middle Schools based on actual capacity. With significant alteration to

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-11

•

educational programming criteria, the District could increase enrollment by 1,315. Current enrollment is 3,021 and projected 2036 enrollment is 3,477. The District could accommodate 8,599 high school students based upon actual capacity. With significant alteration to educational programming criteria, the District could increase enrollment by an additional 2,230. Current enrollment is 6,369 and projected 2036 enrollment is 7,280.

According to the current Capital Facilities Plan, the District estimates it will have sufficient capacity at all grade span categories through the year 2021. While Edmonds School District is not anticipating dramatic fluctuations in student enrollment until after 2021, population forecasts suggest that by 2036 the District may still have sufficient capacity but may wish to create capacity in other areas of the district (see Table 3.5.6; ESD 2016, 20-21). Changes in funding ratios from the State Legislature can also impact capacity. TABLE 3.5.6

Projected Available Student Capacity (2016–2021, 2036)

GRADE SPAN

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2036

Elementary (K-6)

3,615

3,526

3,319

3,145

3,035

3,001

2,960

2,201

Middle School (7-8)

1,315

1,251

1.284

1,286

1,162

979

967

859

High School (9-12)

2,230

2,268

2,129

1,993

1,978

1,935

1,888

1,319

Source: Edmonds School District No. 15 2016, 20.

The District will not need to construct any additional classrooms during the short term (ESD 2016, 20). The District does have schools that are in need of rebuilding or remodeling within the twenty year planning horizon. When construction funding opportunities arise, the District may seek voter approval for capital construction funds, use revenues from real estate, or evaluate the use of non-voted debt that could be re-paid with property revenues. Several sources of funding for school facilities are available, including General Obligation Bonds, State Match Funds, sales and ground lease of District surplus property, and developer contributions. Snohomish County is the only agency in the Edmonds School District that has adopted an impact fee ordinance (SCC Title 30.66C; ESD 2016, 24). PRIVATE SCHOOLS

In addition to Edmonds School District facilities, there are two private schools located in the City. Solomon International School is a day and boarding school for students in grades 7-12 and Holy Rosary Parish School serves grades Pre-K to 8. Solomon International School is located at 8021 230th St SW in the Esperance Neighborhood. Holy Rosary Parish School – located at 770 Aloha St – has ten classrooms, 29 teachers and administrative personnel and an enrollment of 266 students from 177 families as of November 2016 (Holy Rosary Parish, 2016; Orsi pers. comm.).

3.5-12 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The City of Edmonds includes 44 City-owned parks and recreation sites totaling 188.98 acres (Edmonds 2014, 2-1). No facilities are located within the study area – ten facilities are within one-half mile of the study area, including those owned and operated by the cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline and Snohomish County (see Table 3.5.7 and Figure 3.5.6). Facilities within one-half mile of the study area include playfields, sports courts, fishing and boating access, golf courses, and trails. TABLE 3.5.7

Parks and Recreation Facilities within One-Half Mile of the Study Area

NAME

LOCATION

OWNERSHIP/MAINTAINED

SIZE

Mathay Ballinger Park

24100 78th Pl W

City of Edmonds

0.51 acres

Interurban Trail

Various

City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace City of Lynnwood City of Shoreline Seattle City Light

1.2 miles 1.5 miles 3.8 miles 3 miles

Ballinger Park

23500 Lakeview Dr

City of Mountlake Terrace

2 acres

Ballinger Island

Lake Ballinger

City of Mountlake Terrace

3 acres

Ballinger Playfield

23000 Lakeview Dr

City of Mountlake Terrace

7 acres

Lynnwood Municipal Golf Course

20200 68th Ave W

City of Lynnwood

76 acres

Golf Course Trail

Golf Course at 208th St SW

City of Lynnwood

1.5 miles

South Lynnwood Park

20915 61st Ave W

City of Lynnwood

4.25 acres

Echo Lake Park

1521 N 200th St

City of Shoreline Seattle City Light

2.4 acres

Esperance Park

7830 222nd St SW

Snohomish County

6.2 acres

Source: City of Edmonds 2014; City of Lynnwood 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace 2015b and 2016; City of Shoreline 2016; Snohomish County 2016.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-13

FIGURE 3.5.6 Park and Recreation Facilities within One-Half Mile of the Study Area

Source: City of Edmonds 2014; City of Lynnwood 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace 2015b and 2016; City of Shoreline 2016; Snohomish County 2016.

3.5-14 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

The City currently tracks overall level of service (LOS) by acres per 1,000 residents and by geographic distribution, as identified in Goals 2.A and 2.B of the 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan; Edmonds 2014, 4-3-4-4): 2.A Utilize level of service standards to track the status of the overall system of park and open space lands in Edmonds. •

•

• •

Continue to track overall level of service by acres per 1,000 residents. For consistency and simplicity, count all sites that serve park and recreation functions for community members that are within the city limits (including school and partner sites) or to which Edmonds contributes to the operation even if outside of the city limits (primarily Meadowdale Playfield and Lynndale Skate Park). Establish a method of identifying and measuring sites that balances simplicity (parcels indicated in County GIS data) and common understanding (not including underwater acreage or beautification areas not perceived as park land). Eliminate the park classification-specific standards of past PROS Plans as well as the “aspirational standard” of the 2008 PROS Plan. Track the provision of sports fields by number in each type of field (adult, youth; soccer/multi-sport, baseball, softball). Eliminate numerical standards for sports facilities.

2.B Adopt a revised methodology for measuring level of service based on travel distance and access to key experiences. Provide desired recreation experiences (a place to play, nature, open lawn, gathering places and sports courts or fields) close to home, or within ½ mile walking or biking distance as measured using Edmonds’ street and trail network. Existing LOS based only on City-owned parks is 4.75 acres per 1,000 residents – this is less than half of the adopted 2008 LOS standard of 11.45 acres per 1,000 residents (Edmonds 2014, 2-10). According to the PROS Plan, however, a more meaningful and rigorous LOS analysis of system performance includes all sites that serve park and recreation functions for community members that are within the city limits, as well as those outside the city limits that Edmonds contributes to the operation of. Using this method, existing total system LOS is 14.08 acres per 1,000 residents. While this level of service is higher, the measure includes property not under the control of the City of Edmonds, reflecting the reality of community users and emphasizing the importance of partner sites (see Table 3.5.8; Edmonds 2014, 2-9 2-11).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-15

TABLE 3.5.8

Total System Level of Service, Acres per 1,000 Population

PARK TYPE

ACREAGE

EXISTING LOS (ACRES/1,000)

City of Edmonds Parks

188.98

4.75

Additional Sites within Edmonds System*

371.71

9.33

Total System Level of Service

560.70

14.08

* Includes all sites that serve park and recreation functions, including County, Edmonds School District and sites operated in partnership between the City and community entities. Source: Edmonds 2014.

In addition to acres per 1,000 residents, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department aims to provide desired recreation experiences close to home, or within one-half mile walking or biking distance as measured using Edmonds’ street and trail network (see Goal 2.B above). The Department uses a network model – built from the streets, trails, and actual entry points to the park sites – and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis to identify gaps in service based on walking distance. 2 Gaps in service are most prevalent in the south and east portions of the City, generally overlapping the study area (see Figure 3.5.7). These gaps are further exacerbated when considering only the subset of sites which currently provide most or all of the basic recreation opportunities Edmonds residents indicated they would like to have close to home (neighborhood and community parks). Other parks and “park-like” sites, particularly school sites and neighboring city sites, help provide some recreation opportunities to the study area. While these sites fill many of the gap areas north of 234th St SW, most of the study area south of 234th St SW remains underserved. Nearly all of the study area also does not currently have access to natural environments. As illustrated in Figure 3.5.7, Highway 99 is a significant barrier to east-west park access within the study area.

Past PROS plans have included a service area distance that sets a goal for how far each park should “reach” into the community. Setting this distance from a park aims the development of the park system toward a more even distribution, identifying gaps and avoiding overlapping service. The basic method for analyzing the service area coverage relied on drawing a circle centered on each park and considering everyone within that circle served. The problem with this approach is the assumption that park users can travel in a straight line to that park or facility.

3.5-16 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.5.7 Park Access – All Edmonds Parks; Neighborhood Park, Community Park, and Other Sites; Natural Areas (2014)

Source: Edmonds 2014, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-17

The Department’s 2014 PROS Plan includes several long-term concepts to improve the park system within or near the study area. Specific goals identified in the plan include: 1.A Expand the partnership with the Edmonds School District, including negotiating an agreement for expanded, year-round public use of school grounds, sports fields and gyms for recreation purposes. 2.C Explore property acquisition and development with partners, including the School District, Snohomish County and other public and private entities. •

•

Continue to partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions (cities, counties, school districts) as well as private entities (i.e. churches) to expand recreation opportunities for the community. Continue discussions for possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, and other recreation features. Consider acquisition of County park land within or adjacent to Edmonds (if made available), such as Chase Lake.

2.G Acquire park land in the Highway 99/SR 104 areas to provide adequate park service in redeveloping areas. Create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreation needs, especially where service gaps exist, or higher residential impact is planned. 2.N Define the best routes for and treatments to create central north-south and east-west pedestrian and bicycle corridors, incorporate these into the City’s transportation plans, and implement improvements. 2.O Increase connections to the Interurban Trail, using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions, and other pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially focusing on crossing Highway 99 (Edmonds 2014, 4-1 – 4-11). In addition, the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan suggests the City should strongly consider the formation of a Metropolitan Park District in order to sustain the level of quality expected by the community while growing to meet future needs (Edmonds 2014, 5-5). Public outreach suggest residents are generally supportive of this idea –71 percent of respondents to a statistically valid phone survey conducted as part of the Plan’s development indicated they would strongly or somewhat support the creation of a district at a cost of approximately $10 per month.

ELECTRICITY Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 provides electricity to the study area. As of December 2014, the PUD’s electrical generation sources are approximately 81 percent hydroelectric, 8

3.5-18 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

percent nuclear, 5 percent coal, 4 percent wind, and 2 percent natural gas (PUD 2016a). 3 The majority of the power distribution system in the study area is overhead on poles. According to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), all new or extended utilities shall be undergrounded. “Whenever a building or commercial development in a business and commercial area has additions, alterations or repairs which exceed 50 percent of its value in a one-year period, its private utility service shall be put underground” (2016c, ECDC 18.05.010). Electrical facilities are typically located within the public rightof-way or in adjacent utility easements. One of the most significant measures used to monitor performance annually by the PUD is “reliability”. Indices such as the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), Customer Average Interruption Index (CAIDI), and System Average Frequency Index (SAIFI), highlight the worst performing circuits due to trees, equipment, or animals and provide justification for system improvement projects. The two circuits that feed the study area are Ballinger 12-259 and Esperance 12-688, both of which have a high degree of reliability (see Appendix G; Hayslip pers. comm.). In addition, the new Swamp Creek Switching Station, scheduled for completion in 2018, will improve transmission reliability in south Snohomish County, including the study area (Hayslip pers. comm.). The PUD has several ongoing programs to maintain and/or expand their facilities, including wood pole inspection and replacement, treatment and replacement of aged underground cables, and tree trimming. The PUD also adds and upgrades protective equipment as needed to improve service reliability. Though the PUD does not fund conversion of existing overhead infrastructure to underground, they will underground distribution feeder circuits at the cost of the requesting party if requested. Most new commercial and residential construction is served with underground distribution lines (Hayslip pers. comm.). Smart grid generally refers to a class of technology people are using to bring utility electricity delivery systems into the 21st century, using computer-based remote control and automation. These systems are made possible by two-way communication technology and computer processing that has been used for decades in other industries. They are beginning to be used on electricity networks, from the power plants and wind farms all the way to the consumers of electricity in homes and businesses. They offer many benefits to utilities and consumers -- mostly seen in big improvements in energy efficiency on the electricity grid and in the energy users’ homes and offices (SGIC 2016).

The PUD is currently undergoing smart grid infrastructure modernization of its electrical distribution system to improve reliability and increase efficiencies for its customers. In 2012, as part of this modernization, PUD installed automation hardware at 42 of its 85 substations; the remainder of PUD’s substations were scheduled to have automation hardware by the end of 2016. These upgrades provide

The PUD does not have coal or natural gas resources in its power supply portfolio. It does make market purchases to balance or match its loads and resources. The state requires the PUD to assume that a portion of these market purchases are attributed to coal even though the utility intentionally strives to avoid purchases from carbonemitting resources.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-19

more rapid and effective responses to grid disturbances, reduce the frequency and duration of outages, and reduce operations and maintenance costs. With the upgrades, during power outages, for example, the utility will be able to automatically re-route power and isolate problem areas before line workers arrive in the field to repair the damage (PUD 2016b).

STORMWATER Edmonds is divided into two major drainage basins (or watersheds): those that that drain to or can overflow into Puget Sound and those that drain to Lake Ballinger (see Figure 3.5.8). The majority of the stormwater runoff from the city eventually drains into Puget Sound – approximately 86 percent of the city land area – with the balance entering the greater Lake Ballinger watershed that discharges into Lake Washington. With the exception of a small portion of land near the SR-99 and Edmonds Way interchange, stormwater from the study area flows to Lake Ballinger either directly (generally south of 230th St SW) or via Hall Creek (generally north of 230th St SW). 4 The City’s stormwater system is regulated as a Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) under the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (effective January 16, 2015) issued by the state Department of Ecology. The Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater runoff from the City’s stormwater system into the state’s surface waters (i.e., streams, rivers, lakes, sounds, wetlands, etc.) and groundwater as long as the City implement Permit-specified actions and activities known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect these receiving waters. The City of Edmonds’ Public Works Department, Engineering, and Storm Divisions run a comprehensive program to ensure compliance with the Permit requirements. Edmond’s stormwater management requirements and ongoing efforts are included in: Best Management Practice (BMP) is the schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State (ECDC 18.30.010).

•

• •

Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30 and Stormwater Code Supplement to 18.30 (Edmonds 2010b; Edmonds 2016c) – the City is nearly finished updating the Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30), anticipated to be adopted January 1, 2017 (Edmonds 2016d; Cawrse pers. comm.) Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2010a) Stormwater Management Program Plan (Edmonds 2016f)

Hall Creek lies outside Edmond’s City limits and is entirely within the Cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The creek discharges into the north end of Lake Ballinger in Mountlake Terrace. (Edmonds 2016f, 2-11).

3.5-20 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.5.8 Watershed Boundaries within Edmonds

Source: Edmonds 2010a, 2-3.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-21

The City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Utility (SMU) owns, operates and maintains a system of drainage pipes and ditches to convey stormwater runoff in the city in a manner designed to prevent and minimize damage to private property, streets, and other infrastructure, and to improve water quality and habitat in the environment by reducing the impacts of stormwater pollution (Edmonds 2015a). Figure 3.5.9 shows storm drain structures and piping in the study area – storm drain piping and manholes or catch basins have been provided for most streets (Edmonds 2011). Nearly all streets in the study area with curb and gutter also have pipes and manhole or catch basin infrastructure in place, while in a limited number of secondary streets surface water drains to ditches with driveway culverts or pipes and catch basins on at least one side of the street without additional storm drainage infrastructure (Cawrse pers. comm.). Due to extensive alteration of the natural landscape in most areas of Edmonds, including the study area, the amount of stormwater that runs off the land in larger storm events is substantial, and runoff in all storm events carries a variety of pollutants that wash off of their source areas into receiving waters (Edmonds 2010a, p.1-3). Flooding problems currently occur on properties surrounding Lake Ballinger and downstream along McAleer Creek during large storm events. 5 McAleer Creek has also been impacted by scouring flows during large flood events. These problems were evaluated as part of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum strategic action plan (Otak et al. 2009) and a prioritized list of projects, and associated cost estimates, was identified to address these problems. As a member of the Forum, the City is committed to assisting in implementation of a range of projects and other actions to address flooding problems occurring at and downstream of the lake (Edmonds 2010a, p. 2-15).

Though Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek are not within the study area, the study area is almost entirely within the Lake Ballinger or Halls Creek Watersheds, both of which drain to Lake Ballinger.

3.5-22 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

FIGURE 3.5.9 Stormwater System (2011)

Source: Edmonds 2011.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-23

3.5.2 IMPACTS Under both alternatives, population density and average building heights are expected to increase in various amounts and locations in the study area, construction and redevelopment is expected to occur, and transportation improvements are planned.

IMPACTS COMMON TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES POLICE

Growth under both alternatives would result in an incremental increase in calls for police service. Increased retail and office establishments could result in increased crimes of shoplifting and fraud at a rate similar to other city retail businesses. In order to maintain the current ratio of commissioned officers to residents, an increment of additional officers would need to be added as the population increases. Additional law enforcement services would not be needed immediately, but would be added incrementally as development occurs, first by shifting duties between existing officers and ultimately by adding personnel. See the discussion of impacts under both alternatives. Construction activity under both alternatives may also affect demand for police services. Service calls to the Edmonds Police Department could increase during construction due to site theft and vandalism. Existing Department staff and equipment are anticipated to be sufficient to handle the potential increase in service demand from construction activities (Lawless pers. comm.). FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

As discussed above, call load in the region has increased significantly over the past two years for the District and surrounding departments (Fire District 2015b, 26). Under both alternatives, growth and development in the study area would create more demand for fire and emergency medical services and place additional pressure on Fire District 1 to meet response time standards. The District would attempt to maintain response times consistent with or better than current performance levels as the demand for service increases. Over time, additional staffing and equipment may be required in order to maintain performance levels. Emergency medical services typically generate the highest demand for Fire District 1. Growth and development are expected to occur incrementally as individual development projects are constructed and the associated impacts are expected to occur incrementally as well. This would allow time for the District and City to address future needs for fire and emergency medical services in the study area through planned personnel, apparatus, and facility improvements. In addition, property values in the study area would likely increase as growth and development occur. Increased tax revenues from greater retail activity and increases in property values could offset some of the additional costs to Fire District 1 and the City of Edmonds for improvements needed to meet additional service needs.

3.5-24 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

Increased building heights will impact the amount of additional staffing and equipment needed to support increased fire and emergency medical service demands (Zweber pers. comm.). Under Alternative 1 (No Action), it is assumed that future development would likely continue the pattern of relatively low scale and low intensity auto-oriented commercial uses; most existing buildings are significantly shorter than the allowed maximum building heights of 60 to 75 feet and it is assumed that future development would continue this pattern (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.3). The anticipated lower buildings heights and densities under Alternative 1 would necessitate fewer ladder trucks and other equipment than the Alternative 2. Building heights are expected to increase in the study area under Alternative 2, with the greatest intensities reaching the allowed maximum heights of 60 to 75 feet, thus increasing the potential for emergencies requiring a ladder truck. The existing ladder truck at Station 20 (closest to the study area) is equipped to provide services to buildings of the heights proposed under both alternatives. In addition, fire related safety features in any new multi-story buildings, such as automatic sprinkler systems and fire-resistant construction, would slow the spread of fire and provide more time for firefighters to extinguish a fire before it spreads to adjacent properties. This time would allow other fire stations to respond, thereby avoiding the need to increase staffing at any of the Edmonds stations. Increased construction activities could also result in an increase in demand for fire and emergency medical services because the District makes service calls related to inspection of construction projects and responds to construction-related accidents. Existing personnel and equipment are anticipated to be sufficient to handle increased service needed for construction activities. Changes in population demographics may also impact the amount of additional staffing and equipment needed to support increased fire and emergency medical service demands – multi-story senior housing, for example, would likely require more personnel than office development (Zweber pers. comm.). Monitoring and regularly reviewing the demographic trends of future growth in the study area would allow the City and Fire District 1 to determine if/when additional personnel, equipment, or facilities are needed to accommodate any demographic shifts. Future traffic growth under both alternatives may impact the response time of emergency vehicles as Fire District 1 is dependent upon the capability of the city’s street network to handle traffic flows. Changes to the street network have the potential to impact the mobility of fire and emergency response vehicles. The Department of Fire Prevention reviews proposed street improvements on a project–byproject basis to identify potential negative impacts on response times and ensure street improvements are consistent with the City’s Fire Code. SCHOOLS

There is sufficient capacity district-wide to accommodate the additional school aged children under both alternatives. The District projects additional capacity for 2,201 elementary students (K-6), 859 middle school students (7-8), and 1,319 high school students (9-12) in 2036 (see the capacity discussion under affected environment and Table 3.5.6; ESD 2016, 20).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-25

The District could experience slightly greater growth in enrollment than projected by forecast models as a result of Alternative 2, which calls for 3,325 new housing units, compared with 1,224 housing units under the Alternative 1 (No Action). However, multifamily housing units have lower rates of children than single-family homes. The expected increase in school aged children is about 645 students more for Alternative 2, compared to Alternative 1. Projected 2036 capacity is sufficient to accommodate the additional school aged children under Alternative 2, regardless of grade level. The expected increase in school aged children under Alternative 2 would likely be spread across all grades. Though it is unlikely that all of these students would be within the same grade span (either all elementary, middle, or high school age), projected 2036 capacity under each grade span is enough to accommodate the expected increase of 645 school aged children in their entirety. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

The City’s 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan establishes an adopted LOS standard of 11.45 acres per 1,000 residents. Assuming approximately two residents per new housing unit, total system LOS under both alternatives would be above this standard if no new acreage were added. To maintain the existing total system LOS of 14.08 acres per 1,000 residents (above the adopted standard), approximately 44 or 103 acres of park land, depending on the alternative, would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases (see Table 3.5.9). TABLE 3.5.9

Total System Level of Service under Both Alternatives, Acres per 1,000 Population IMPACT ON ADOPTED TOTAL SYSTEM LOS

IMPACT ON EXISTING TOTAL SYSTEM LOS

Acreage

Total System Los (Acres/1,000)

Acreage (Change From Existing)

Total System Los (Acres/1,000)

Existing

560.70

14.08

560.70

14.08

Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 1,224 New Housing Units by 2035

560.70

13.06

604.57

14.08

Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative 3,325 New Housing Units by 2035

560.70

(+43.87) 11.89

663.73

14.08

(+103.03)

Note: calculations assume approximately two residents per new housing unit. Based on existing April 2015 population of 40,490. Source: Edmonds 2014.

As discussed above, there is an existing identified need to address gaps in park service in most of the study area (Hite pers. comm.). Expected growth and development in the study area under both alternatives will likely result in increased demand for additional access to park and recreation facilities, further exacerbating the existing gaps in service (see gaps identified in Figure 3.5.7). Residential growth would result in additional demand for parks and recreational facilities during the weekday and weekend periods. Employment growth would also result in greater demand for park facilities, particularly before

3.5-26 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

and after work and during the lunch hour. Park use would also increase outside of the study area, particularly at facilities located within one-half mile of the study area (see Table 3.5.7 and Figure 3.5.6) While the geographic access deficiencies outlined above do not differ from one alternative to the other, there are differences between the alternatives in terms of the distribution of development, and ease of access for future residents to get to open space. ELECTRICITY

Development under both alternatives could increase electrical loads in the study area, with the greater increase in future housing and job growth under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) likely resulting in a greater increase in loads than Alternative 1. Given existing load capacity, it may be challenging to back up these new loads, especially during the summer (Hayslip pers. comm.). During the summer, dense commercial areas often peak, whereas residential loading drops, when temperatures are high and the system capacity is derated. Both commercial and residential loadings peak in the winter, but the capacity ratings of the system are greater (Ha pers. comm.). The existing Snohomish County PUD No. 1 system may need improvements or reconfiguration to meet future growth needs throughout the study area under both alternatives, particularly if unusually high power uses are developed. An example of a high power user would be the data center for an internet service provider or medical services requiring uninterrupted power supply. Potential upgrades could range in scope from local service improvement up to and including new substation and transmission facilities. Impacts to the system would be mitigated through existing agency planning processes and new customers served as the development occurs, on a case-by-case basis. A feasibility study may be required depending on the level of development and associated new loads (Hayslip pers. comm.). Power in part of or all of the study area may be undergrounded depending on the availability of funding and the extent of redevelopment or new development (ECDC 18.05.010; Hayslip pers. comm.). STORMWATER

Any new development or redevelopment will result in changes to the Hydraulic regime includes the hydraulic regime of the stormwater flows in the study area. However, rates, volume, and pattern of the study area is mostly built out so development under both flow of stormwater. alternatives would likely not increase the amount of impervious surface area. Stormwater volumes would likely be managed in the same manner as they are today (Cawrse pers. comm.). In addition, regulations governing stormwater requirements for development have become significantly more comprehensive since much of the study area was developed; under both alternatives, any redevelopment or new development would be subject to these stricter regulations and may thus improve water quality (Edmonds 2010a, 1; Cawrse pers. comm.). The City currently has a well-developed permitting process that requires plan review and site inspections for new development and redevelopment projects. Edmonds Community Development

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017 â&#x20AC;˘ 3.5-27

Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30 identifies minimum technical stormwater requirements for development, and the Storm Water Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (the Supplement) was adopted to implement the applicable requirements listed in City Code Section 18.30. The City is nearly finished updating the Stormwater Code and Supplement, anticipated to be adopted January 1, 2017, which will require the use of low impact development (LID) techniques for stormwater management (unless infeasible; Cawrse pers. comm.). 6 Low impact development (LID) is a set of stormwater management and land development strategies applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that seek to minimize or completely prevent alterations to the natural hydrology of the site. LID includes site planning and design to reduce alterations of natural soil and vegetation cover, minimize impervious surfaces, and specific practices that help to replicate natural hydrology such as permeable pavements, green roofs, soil amendments, bioretention systems, and dispersion of runoff.

Specific permit requirements for redevelopment and new development are listed in the Supplement and portions of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (as identified in the Supplement; Ecology 2014) – examples include LID techniques, pollutant control, preservation and maintenance of natural drainage patterns, runoff treatment and flow control BMPs, and construction stormwater pollution prevention plans (Edmonds 2010b). Projects that drain to Lake Ballinger which require water quality measures are required to provide phosphorous treatment (Cawrse pers. comm.). The anticipated effects of the Proposal on the Lake Ballinger watershed would be improvements in hydrologic characteristics and water quality because of the increased regulations governing stormwater requirements since existing development occurred.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION Alternative 1 (No Action) would carry forward the City’s current plans and development regulations for the study area. Alternative 1 is expected to include the least amount of growth by 2035 (1,224 new housing units and 2,317 new jobs). As such, the increase in demand for public services and utilities would be less than under Alternative 2. Impacts would be similar under Alternative 1 to those described under Impacts Common to Both Alternatives for fire and emergency medical services, schools, and electricity. Police, parks and open space, and stormwater are further discussed below. POLICE

In order to maintain the current level of service, approximately 5.0 police officers and 1.5-2 police staff assistants would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases (Lawless pers.

The City currently strongly encourages the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques whenever feasible, but will not begin requiring their use until the updated Stormwater Code is adopted.

3.5-28 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

1,224

3,325

2,317

3,013

4,765 (11.8%)

9,663 (23.9%)

3,434

6,963

Additional Police Officers Needed 3 ‘Increase in Calls for Service’ / ‘Avg. Incidents Handled Per Patrol Officer Over Past 5-Years’

5.0

10.2

Commissioned Officers Per 1,000 Residents 1

1.40

1.38

1.5 - 2

New Housing Units by 2035 New Jobs by 2035 2035 Population Increase (Percent Increase) ‘New Residents’ + ‘New Jobs’

Increase in Calls for Service 2 ‘Avg. Calls for Service Over Past 5-Years’ x ‘Percent Increase of Population’

Additional Police Office Assistants

1 Assumes an average household size of two residents per new housing unit. The existing population was 40,490 as of April 2015. 2 The Department received an average of 29,177 calls for service over the past 5-years. 3 An average of 685 incidents were handled per patrol office over the past 5-years. Source: Lawless pers. comm.; Edmonds Police Department 2016a, 34.

EPD’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan recommends the Department should, at a minimum, strive to maintain its current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents (EPD 2016b, 22-23). The ratio of commissioned police officers per 1,000 residents would increase to 1.40 with the addition of 5.0 commissioned police officers (EPD 2016b, 6, 25). 7 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

The City’s 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan establishes an adopted LOS standard of 11.45 acres per 1,000 residents. Assuming approximately two residents per new housing unit, total system LOS under the Alternative 1 (No Action) would be 13.06 acres per 1,000 residents if no new acreage were added (above the adopted standard). To maintain the existing total system LOS of 14.08 acres per 1,000

Based on the April 2015 existing population of 40,490, 55 existing commissioned officers, and approximately two residents per new housing unit.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-29

residents, approximately 43.9 additional acres of park land would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases (see Table 3.5.9). No new projects to improve pedestrian character, access, or mobility are planned under Alternative 1. Highway 99 would thus continue to be a barrier for east-west access to park and recreation facilities in the study area. STORMWATER

The Alternative 1 (No Action) would involve less development of the study area, and therefore less implementation of stormwater water quality improvements. As sites redevelop, implementation of onsite stormwater management required under ECDC 18.30 and the Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan would continue to reduce adverse impacts that would otherwise occur under existing conditions. However, there would potentially be less redevelopment and less implementation of on-site stormwater management under the Alternative 1 than Alternative 2. While the amount of impervious surface area would likely not increase, no significant improvements to stormwater runoff would be expected beyond planned infrastructure investments in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) is expected to include more growth by 2035 than the Alternative 1 (3,325 new housing units and 3,013 new jobs under Alternative 2). Impacts to fire and emergency medical service, schools, and electricity would be similar under Alternative 2 to those described under Impacts Common to Both Alternatives. Police, parks and open space, and stormwater are further discussed below. POLICE

Under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative), future development would result in the expected addition of 3,325 new dwelling units and 3,013 new jobs, compared with 1,224 new housing units and 2,317 new jobs under Alternative 1. The potential increase in residential and employment density that could occur under Alternative 2 would result in a more consistent and increased level of activity in the study area. A well-used street can both increase public safety and calls for service. Expected growth in population and employment associated with development would be incremental and would result in associated incremental increases in demand for police services. Increased retail and office establishments may result in increased crimes of shoplifting and fraud at a rate similar to other city retail businesses. Greater increases in vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic under Alternative 2 may also result in the need for additional traffic enforcement. In order to maintain the current level of service, approximately 10.2 police officers and 1.5-2 police staff assistants would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases (Lawless pers.

3.5-30 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

comm.). This estimate assumes approximately two residents per new housing unit, accounts for the increased transient population from job growth, and is based on the average number of incidents handled by patrol officer over the past five years (see Table 3.5.10). EPD’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan recommends the Department should, at a minimum, strive to maintain its current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents (EPD 2016b, 22-23). The ratio of commissioned police officers per 1,000 residents would increase slightly to 1.38 with the addition of 10.2 commissioned police officers (EPD 2016b, 6, 25). 8 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

Future development under Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative) would result in the addition of 3,325 new dwelling units – the greater increase of the two alternatives – likely resulting in the greatest increase in demand for park and recreation facilities overall. Because of the focus on residential development under Alternative 2, demand would be most pronounced during the weekday and weekend periods. The City’s 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan establishes an adopted LOS standard of 11.45 acres per 1,000 residents. Assuming approximately two residents per new housing unit, total system LOS under Alternative 2 would be 11.89 acres per 1,000 residents if no new acreage were added (above the adopted standard). To maintain the existing total system LOS of 14.08 acres per 1,000 residents, approximately 103.0 additional acres of park land would need to be added incrementally by 2035 as the population increases (see Table 3.5.9). Proposed transportation projects under Alternative 2 would improve pedestrian and bicycle character, access, and mobility within the study area, particularly crossing Highway 99. As such, east-west access across Highway 99 to park and recreation facilities would improve. STORMWATER

Under Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative), the amount of stormwater runoff is expected to decrease. Redevelopment at higher densities – with a focus on residential development and pedestrian amenities – would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces if new landscaping and open space areas are incorporated into the redevelopment projects, as required by the City code and stormwater regulations. For example, the conversion of a large surface parking lot to higher density mixed-use development would result in increased intensity and quantity of development, but would likely result in a decrease in impervious surfaces and increase in stormwater facilities (especially those which improve water quality, such as LID features).

Based on the April 2015 existing population of 40,490, 55 existing commissioned officers, and approximately two residents per new housing unit.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-31

3.5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED PLAN FEATURES •

•

REGULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS POLICE

•

Implement the 2016 agency goals in the Department’s 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan. These goals include bringing the Street Crimes Unit and second K-9 team back on line; partnering with City Council and the Edmonds School District to secure funding for a School Resource Officer for Edmonds-Woodway High School; establishing by policy the Peer Support Team to assist Department members and their families in time of need; and working with SNOCOM and Bair Analytics to secure a crime analysis workstation which interfaces with records management and helps bring a public crime mapping portal on-line. As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, maintain, at a minimum, the current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents. Continue looking to future budget cycles and preparing to pursue and justify the addition of commissioned staff as the economic climate allows. As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, restore the Crime Prevention Officer position to aid the Department’s ability to conduct crime prevention training and strategies for businesses, apartment management, various concerned groups, and individuals.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

•

Ongoing capital facilities improvement, budgeting, and operational planning by Fire District 1 and the City of Edmonds are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for fire services, including the need for additional personnel, additional apparatus, and

3.5-32 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

•

facility improvements. Fire District 1 recently completed the first Phase of a Capital Facilities Plan which evaluates existing conditions, including an inventory and assessment of existing facilities. Phase 1 of the plan indicated a need for minor near and mid-term maintenance and repairs at Stations 16 and 17, as well as potential seismic or safety upgrades. Station 20 is identified as one of 5-6 stations throughout the district which should be considered for replacement to support operation needs and code deficiencies (Fire District 2016c, 46, 48, C114C145). Phase 2 will forecast future needs and phase 3 will provide an estimate of capital facility funding necessary to execute the plan, an implementation timeline and a recommended funding approach. All potential development in the study area would be constructed in compliance with the City’s current Fire Code (ECDC 19.25), which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with Edmonds Amendments. Adequate fire flow to serve potential development would be provided as required by the Fire Code. Potential development would also be required to comply with code requirements for emergency access to structures. The Department of Fire Prevention also reviews proposed street improvements on a project–by-project basis to identify potential negative impacts on response times and ensure street improvements are consistent with the City’s Fire Code. A portion of the tax revenue generated from potential redevelopment in the study area would accrue to the City and Fire District 1 to help fund additional fire and emergency medical services.

SCHOOLS

•

• •

Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by the District and City of Edmonds are anticipated to accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next twenty years. Continue to replace, expand, modernize, and upgrade District facilities as approved by voters in the 2014 Capital Construction Bond. Implement the goals identified in Edmonds School District’s Strategic Direction (ESD 2014).

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

•

Implement goals identified in the 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan which improve the park system within or near the study area to address geographic gaps in service (Edmonds 2014, 4-1 – 4-11). Specifically: o Expand the partnership with the Edmonds School District, including negotiating an agreement for expanded, year-round public use of school grounds, sports fields and gyms for recreation purposes (Goal 1.A). o Explore property acquisition and development with partners, including the School District, Snohomish County and other public and private entities – continue to partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions (cities, counties, school districts) as well as private entities (i.e. churches) to expand recreation opportunities for the community; continue discussions for possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-33

•

gardens, picnic shelters, and other recreation features; and consider acquisition of County park land within or adjacent to Edmonds (if made available), such as Chase Lake (Goal 2.C). o Acquire park land in the Highway 99/SR 104 areas to provide adequate park service in redeveloping areas. Create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreation needs, especially where service gaps exist, or higher residential impact is planned (Goal 2.G). o Define the best routes for and treatments to create central north-south and east-west pedestrian and bicycle corridors, incorporate these into the City’s transportation plans, and implement improvements (Goal 2.N). o Increase connections to the Interurban Trail, using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions, and other pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially focusing on crossing Highway 99 (Goal 2.O). Strongly consider the formation of a Metropolitan Park District in order to sustain the level of quality expected by the community while growing to meet future needs (Edmonds 2014, 5-5).

ELECTRICITY

•

Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by Snohomish County PUD are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for electricity. Depending on the level of development and associated new loads, conduct feasibility studies for individual projects as part of the development review process. Develop system capital projects to meet the demands of future loading if capacity improvements are necessary (Ha pers. comm.).

STORMWATER

•

Any redevelopment or new development under both alternatives would be subject to today’s stricter regulations governing stormwater. The City’s Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010) will guide infrastructure improvements. Specific elements of the stormwater improvements will be defined by the requirements of the State-mandated NPDES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures to protect and improve runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. The City of Edmond’s stormwater management requirements and ongoing efforts are included in: o Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30 and Stormwater Code Supplement to 18.30 (Edmonds 2010b; Edmonds 2016c) – the City is nearly finished updating the Stormwater Code and Supplement, anticipated to be adopted January 1, 2017 (Cawrse pers. comm.) o Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2010a) o Stormwater Management Program Plan (Edmonds 2016f) The types of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are source control, treatment, and flow control. Source control BMPs typically prevent pollution, or other adverse effects of stormwater,

3.5-34 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

from occurring – examples include methods as various as mulches and covers on disturbed soil, putting roofs over outside storage areas, and berming areas to prevent stormwater run-on and pollutant runoff. Treatment BMPs can accomplish significant levels of pollutant load reductions if properly designed and maintained – examples include facilities that remove pollutants by simple gravity settling of particulate pollutants, centrifugal separation, filtration, biological uptake, and media or soil adsorption. Flow control BMPs typically control the volume rate, frequency, and flow duration of stormwater surface runoff – examples include construction of a detention pond (the most common means of meeting flow control requirements) or an infiltration facility. Green design and construction methods should be employed in buildings, streetscapes, and drainage features to detain and treat stormwater (Ecology 2014, 8-10).

OTHER PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES POLICE

•

Monitor growth and demand for police services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel are needed. Regularly review trends to ensure the Police Department has enough advance time to address the needs. Require or encourage Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques – implement incorporation of design features into development that would help reduce criminal activity and calls for service, including orienting buildings toward the sidewalk and public spaces, providing connections between buildings, and providing adequate lighting and visibility.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

•

Monitor growth and demand for fire and emergency medical services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel, equipment, or facilities are needed. Regularly review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have enough advance time to address the needs. The City and Fire District 1 should work together to plan for pedestrian improvements, such as wider sidewalks, to ensure that the opportunity for emergency vehicle maneuvering is maintained. Continue efforts to find sufficient resources to retain and improve Fire District 1’s current level of services provided. Efforts include exploring additional funding sources – such as a Fire Benefit Charge or Levy Lid Lift; pursuing ways to reduce unnecessary costs/eliminate redundancy, including potential opportunities to partner with neighboring cities, Fire District 7, and other Fire Protection agencies through regional consolidation; and planning for the possible formation of a Regional Fire Authority in South Snohomish County.

SCHOOLS

•

Monitor growth in enrollment and demand for educational program offering across all grade spans in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel or facilities are

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 3.5-35

•

needed. Regularly review trends to ensure the City and Edmonds School District Number have enough advance time to address the needs, including grade configuration, optimum facility size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization, scheduling requirements, and the use of temporary classroom facilities. Continue to evaluate both condition and capacity of existing facilities at Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools to determine if a bond should be issued.

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

• • •

•

Provide on-site open space as residential amenities through new development. Develop, manage, and program public open spaces through public/private partnerships. Implement pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to provide greater access to existing facilities within one-half mile of the study area, with a focus on removing Highway 99 as a physical barrier. Existing recreational programs may see increased enrollment and increased revenue as people living in the study area enroll in more programs. This increased enrollment may marginally help offset the costs of providing additional facilities.

ELECTRICITY

• • •

Evaluate and identify future service system needs through coordinated electricity demand planning between the City Planning Department and Snohomish County PUD. PUD is currently undergoing smart grid infrastructure modernization of its electrical distribution system to improve reliability and increase efficiencies for its customers. Reduce the use of power in building heating and cooling with passive systems and modern power saving units.

STORMWATER

•

None.

3.5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire and emergency medical services, parks and open space, electricity, or stormwater. Although demand for these services would increase, the application of existing plans and codes or other mitigation measures can reduce impacts associated with future growth under both alternatives.

3.5-36 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES

REFERENCES 3 Square Blocks. 2016. Visual survey of study area based on Google Earth imagery and site visits. DKS Associates. 2017. Transportation analysis of study area. City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2009. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Available online at http://edmondswa.gov/services/education/353-departments/public-works/pw-transportationmain/pw-transportation-main-page-accordian/1046-transportation-comprehensive-plan.html (accessed May, 2017). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2010a. Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/stormwater-utility-system/storm-surfacewater-documents.html (accessed July 21, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2010b. Stormwater Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/doing-business/358departments/public-works/pw-utilities-main-page/pw-utilities-storm/pw-utilities-stormwateraccordian/1071-pw-utilities-stormwater-development-requirements.html (accessed August 16, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2011. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Stomwater System Map.â&#x20AC;? Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/maps-text/services-maps-menu-choice.html (accessed July 21, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2014. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/parks-recreation-departments/park-planning-projects.html (accessed August 18, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2015a. Comprehensive Plan. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/planning-long-range.html (accessed July 21, 2016).

City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2015b. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/transportation-text/transportationplanning.html (accessed May, 2017). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2015c. SR 99 Access Management and Safety Study. City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016a. Capital Improvement Program 2016-2021. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/capital-improvement-program-text/capital-improvementprogram.html (accessed September 1, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016b. Edmonds City Code. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/rules-and-regulations.html. City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016c. Edmonds Community Development Code. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/rules-and-regulations.html. City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016d. “Engineering Codes and Design Information.” http://www.edmondswa.gov/development-a-design-stds-text/engineering-codes-design.html (accessed September 8, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016e. “Snohomish County Fire District #1.” http://www.edmondswa.gov/fire-text/fire-district.html (accessed July 21, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016f. Stormwater Management Program Plan. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/stormwater-utility-system/phase-ii-municipal-stormwater-permitcompliance-npdes.html (accessed July 21, 2016). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2016g. SR 99 Safety Improvements Study between 216th Street SW and 224th Street SW. City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2017. Capital Improvement Program 2017-2022. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/capital-improvement-program-text/capital-improvementprogram.html (accessed May, 2017). City of Edmonds (Edmonds). 2017. Transportation Improvement Program 2017-2022. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/capital-improvement-program-text/capital-improvementprogram.html (accessed May, 2017). Edmonds Police Department (EPD). 2016a. 2015 Annual Report. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/police/crime-workload-statistics.html (accessed August 15, 2016). Edmonds Police Department (EPD). 2016b. Multiyear Strategic Plan 2016-2020. Available online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/police-department-text-15/policy-manual.html (accessed August 17, 2016). Edmonds School District No. 15 (ESD). 2014. “Strategic Direction.” Available online at http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/domain/3200 (accessed February 3, 2017). Edmonds School District No. 15 (ESD). 2015. “Enrollment Information.” http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu//site/Default.aspx?PageID=9201 (accessed August 18, 2016).

4-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Edmonds School District No. 15 (ESD). 2016. 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan. Fregonese. 2016. Study area analysis using Envision Tomorrow model. Holy Rosary Parish. 2016. “Schools History.” http://school.hrsedmonds.org/?page_id=47 (accessed August 18, 2106). Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 10th Edition. City of Lynnwood (Lynnwood). 2015. Comprehensive Plan. Available online at http://www.lynnwoodwa.gov/Government/City-Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning---Zoning/Comprehensive-Plan.htm. City of Lynnwood (Lynnwood). 2016. “Parks & Trails.” http://www.lynnwoodwa.gov/PlayLynnwood/Parks.htm (accessed August 18, 2016). City of Mountlake Terrace. 2015a. Comprehensive Plan. Available online at http://www.cityofmlt.com/172/Comprehensive-Plan. City of Mountlake Terrace. 2015b. Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan. Available online at http://www.mltrec.com/448/Recreation-Parks-and-Open-Space-Master-P (accessed August 18, 2016). City of Mountlake Terrace. 2016. “Recreation & Parks.” http://www.mltrec.com/ (accessed August 18, 2016). Otak et al. 2009. Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Study Strategic Action Plan. Prepared for the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum by Otak, Inc.; Golder Associates, Inc.; Clear Creek Solutions, Inc.; and EnviroIssues. July 10, 2009. Available online at http://www.cityofmlt.com/496/Reports-Documents (accessed August 16, 2016). Puget Sound Regional Council. December 2009. Vision 2040. City of Shoreline. December 10, 2012. Comprehensive Plan. City of Shoreline. 2016. “Parks.” http://www.cityofshoreline.com/government/departments/parksrecreation-cultural-services/parks-and-facilities/parks (accessed August 18, 2016). Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse (SGIC). 2016. “Learn More.” http://www.sgiclearinghouse.org/LearnMore (accessed September 6, 2016). Snohomish County. 2011. Countywide Planning Policies for Snohomish County. Available online at http://snohomishcountywa.gov/168/Snohomish-County-Tomorrow. Snohomish County. 2014. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). Available online at http://snohomishcountywa.gov/2244/Sno-Co-CEMP (accessed August 17, 2016). Snohomish County. 2015. General Policy Plan. Available online at http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1566/General-Policy-Plan. Snohomish County. 2016. “Parks and Recreation.” http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/1074/ParkDirectory (accessed August 18, 2016).

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 4-3

Snohomish County Assessor. 2015. 2015 Tax Assessor Data. Available online at http://snohomishcountywa.gov/2934/Assessor. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2014. Snohomish County Fire District 1 2014 Annual Report. Available online at http://www.firedistrict1.org/about-us/advanced-components/listdetail-pages/document-folder/-folder-67 (accessed August 16, 2016). Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2015a. 2016 Operating Budged. Available online at http://www.firedistrict1.org/divisions/finance/budget (accessed August 17, 2016). Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2015b. Snohomish County Fire District 1 2015 Annual Report to the City of Edmonds. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2016a. “Emergency Medical & Community Health Services.” http://www.firedistrict1.org/our-services/emergency-medical-services (accessed July 21, 2016). Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2016b. “Fire Stations and Facilities Directory.” http://www.firedistrict1.org/stations/fire-stations (accessed July 21, 2016). Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (Fire District). 2016c. Snohomish County Fire District 1 Capital Facilities Plan, Phase 1 – Final Plan. Available online at http://www.firedistrict1.org/aboutus/advanced-components/list-detail-pages/document-folder/-folder-106 (accessed February 28, 2017). Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD). 2015. 2015 Electric System Reliability Report. Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD). 2016a. “Quick Facts.” http://www.snopud.com/?p=1350 (accessed August 15, 2016) Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD). 2016b. “Smart Grid Technology.” http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/smartgrid.ashx?p=1869 (accessed August 15, 2016) Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2012 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics. Available online at https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Available online at https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2014/. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2014. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html (accessed August 15, 2016). Washington State Fire Defense Committee and Washington State Fire Marshal’s Office. 2016. Washington State Fire Services Resource Mobilization Plan. Available online at http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/mobilization.htm#forms (accessed August 17, 2016).

4-4 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Cawrse, Mike. Stormwater Engineering Technician. City of Edmonds. August and September 2016—Email communication. Ha, Hoon. Distribution Planning Engineer‐O1. Snohomish County Public Utility District. September 2016—E-mail communication. Hayslip, Gordon. Manager Distribution Engineering. Snohomish County Public Utility District. August and September 2016—Phone and e-mail communication. Hite, Carrie. Director of Parks and Recreation. City of Edmonds. August and September 2016—E-mail communication. Mhyre, Stewart. Executive Director, Business & Operations. Edmonds School District No. 15. August and September 2016—E-mail communications. Lawless, Jim. Assistant Chief of Police, Field Services. Edmonds Police Department. August and September 2016—E-mail communications. Orsi, Cheir. Office Manager. Holy Rosary School. November 2016 – E-mail communication. Zweber, Kevin. Deputy Chief Fire Marshal. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. August and September 2016—E-mail communications.

PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017 • 4-5

[this page intentionally blank]

4-6 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

APPENDICES

PLANNED ACTION DRAFT EIS for the

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

JUNE 2017

APPENDIX A

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPING COMMENTS Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

A-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

CITY OF EDMONDS '121 sTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS,

WA 98020 (4251771-0220

WAC 197-1 1-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS)

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS Description

of proposal: The City of

Edmonds is proposing

to prepare a subarea plan, adopt

implementing regulations, prioritize future capital investment and adopt a planned action designation for the SR 99 Corridor Planning Area. The legislative action, if taken, would apply within the SR 99 Corridor Planning Area. 197-11-164 lo 172, would indicate that the completed EIS adequately addresses significant impacts of the proposed action, and that future projects consistent with the analyzed projects and parameters of the Planned Action Ordinance would not require

A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted pursuant to WAC

future SEPA threshold determinations or ElSs. Therefore, comment during this Scoping period

encouraged.

Alternatives to be addressed in the EIS include No Action, or continued growth under current development patterns and development regulations; and one action alternative that will consider growth under different development patterns, development standards and levels of transportation investment.

Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: The SR 99 Corridor Planning Area follows the alignment of SR 99, bounded by the King/Snohomish County boundary on the south and 21Oth Street SW on the north. To the east and west the planning area follows an irregular boundary established by existing development patterns in the City of Edmonds and the boundaries of the adjoining cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County. The study area comprises approximately 335 acres. Lead agency: City of Edmonds EIS Required: The lead agency has determined that this proposal is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment. An Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS) is required pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030 (2Xc) and will be prepared.

The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: The EIS will consider potential impacts associated with land use/plans and policies, aesthetics, transportation, public services, and utilities.

Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the ElS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The methods and deadlines for giving the city comments are: Provide written or verbal comment at the public scoping meeting scheduled for: Thursday, May 19,2016 7:00 to 8:30 pm Swedish Hospital Auditorium, 4th Floor 2160176th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026

Mail written comments to the Responsible Official at the address below or email comments to

plannino@edmondswa.qov. The City must receive comments by 5:00 pm on May 24,2016 for the

comments to be considered.

Page 1 of3 HIGHWAY 99 SEPA DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE.DOCX s/3/l6.sEPA

Responsible Official

Robert Chave

Position/Title:

Manager - Planning Division

Phone:

425-771-0220

Address:

City of Edmonds 121

sth

Avenue North

Edmonds,

Date: XX

WA 98020

Mav 3. 2016

Signature:

You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a wrยกtten appeal citing the specยกfic reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee no later than 4:30 p.m. on Mav 24.2016. You should be prepared to make specifยกc factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.

xx xx

Posted on May 3, 2016, at the City Hall, Edmonds Public Library, and Edmonds Community Services Building. Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form

Mailed to the following XX

Puget Sound Regional Council

Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunit@ecv.wa.qov

Attn.: S.R.C.

COMCAST

Marysville,

1011 Western Avenue., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035

Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road

Outside.plant Engineer, North Region

152575"'St. SW Ste 200

Everett, WA 98203 XX

Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard MillCreek, WA 98012 Washi ngton State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710

Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-0917

Puget Sound Partnership P.O. Box 40900 Olympia, WA 98504-0900

Snohomish County Fire District No. I Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764

Gary Kriedt, Senior Env. Planner King County Transit Division Attn.: Env. Planning & Real Estate, MS KSC-TR-0431 201 South Jackson St. Seattle, WA 981 04-35856

City of Lynnwood Attn.: Senior Planner P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046

Page2 of3 HIGHWAY 99 SEPA DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE.DOCX 5/3/16.SEPA

Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201

Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300

WA 98270

City of Mountlake Terrace SEPA Repponsbile OffÃ¬cial 6100 219'' St. SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

B12B'22Bth

Edmonds,

xx XX

City of Shoreline Attn.: Permit Services Manager 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 981 33-4905

Attn.: Clerk-Treasurer 23920113th Place West

WA 98020

City of Mukilteo 11930 Cyrus Way Mukilteo, WA 98275

Snohomish County Health District Attn: Bruce Straujhn 3020 RockerAve Everett, WA 98201-3900

Swedish Hospital 21601761h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Lorinda Anderson lnteragency Comm. Outdoor Recreation PO Box40917 Olympia, WA 98504-0917

Edmonds School District No. 15

Attn.: Stephanie Hall

M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1 107 Everett, WA 98206-1107

Kristin Kelly Snohomish Co/Skagit Co Program Director 1429Avenue D, PMB 532 Snohomish, WA 98290 kristin@futurewise.orq

Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400

Community Transit

Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203

Attachments

pc: SEPA Notebook

Page 3 of 3 HIGHWAY 99 SEPA DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE.DOCX 5/3/l6.SEPA

Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 d avid. matu ich (@ pse. com

20420 68th Avenue West XX

Alderwood Water District 3626 156th Street Southwest Lynnwood, WA 98037

North City Wqter District 1519 NEiTTth sr Shoreline, WA 98155

XX XX

st. sw WA 98026

Elizabeth McNagny DSHS Lands & Bldg Div P.O. Box 45848 Olympia, WA 98504-5848

Town of Woodway Woodway,

Olvmoic ViewWater & Sewer District

From: To: Subject: Date:

fluglhc@aol.com brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov; planning@edmondswa.gov Fwd: SR 99 Corridor planning area Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:29:37 AM

Brad I`m forwarding this to you as I got your Email wrong on the original Thanks Paul

-----Original Message----From: fluglhc <fluglhc@aol.com> To: brad.shipley <brad.shipley@edmondeswa.gov>; planning <planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: flugstaddan <flugstaddan@gmail.com>; FlugLHC <FlugLHC@aol.com>; fcwills <fcwills@gmail.com>; flugstad5 <flugstad5@msn.com> Sent: Tue, May 24, 2016 10:22 am Subject: SR 99 Corridor planning area Brad My name is Paul Flugstad and I am the owner(in a partnership) of the Sunset building at 23607 Hy 99 We also own the building next to 236th and the land to the south between the pancake house and the Sunset building. I was out of the country and not able to make it to the meeting on the 19th. We do have a lot of interest in seeing the height limits increased in that area as it would help in developing the area that as you know is badly needed. This would increase the tax base, also, for the city. Much development is going on south of 205th with a lot of help and push by the city of Shoreline, which I'm sure you are aware. As a owner in Edmonds Id like to see the same. This would create many more options. We have been working with CBRE and consultants, also, as to how to develop our properties. Increasing the height limits would make that easier and more feasible. I would like to talk with you as to where The SR 99 corridor study is headed, if that would be possible I would like this E-Mail included in the comments to the Planning Division Thanks Paul Flugstad Cell 206 718 1928 or 206 550 1724 Sunset Building 23607 Hy 99 Edmonds, Wa 98026

From: To: Subject: Date:

Squarespace planning@edmondswa.gov Form Submission - New Form Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:27:30 PM

Name: Wendy Kendall Email Address: Wendywrites@yahoo.com Topic: Specifically related to EIS scope Comment: Causing too many car traffic jams and weekday commutes that are way too slow. Too many people living in too small a space (Sent via Edmonds Highway 99)

From: To: Subject: Date:

Squarespace planning@edmondswa.gov Form Submission - New Form Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:48:59 PM

Name: Andrew Kluess Email Address: andrewkluess@gmail.com Topic: Specifically related to EIS scope Comment: I am an Edmonds homeowner just outside the Hwy 99 subarea boundaries. I am in favor of the proposed changes, including improved pedestrian and bicycle access, improved transit access, and increased density to allow 6 story mixed use multifamily developments within the boundaries. Within the documents, I do not agree that the intersection of 238th ST SW and Hwy 99 is currently safe for pedestrians. While it is currently signalized and has crosswalks, the odd angle of the intersection combined with the steep hill and lack of left turn lanes and left turn signal arrows on 238th combine to make this an exceptionally dangerous intersection for pedestrians. I have witnessed pedestrians get hit by cars in the crosswalks, several near misses, and have nearly been hit myself several times. I am a bus commuter to downtown Seattle and would walk to ride the Route 416 bus more often, but crossing that intersection is so extremely dangerous in the dark I drive over to the park and ride in Mountlake Terrace to avoid walking across that intersection. (Sent via Edmonds Highway 99)

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Stanley Piha planning@edmondswa.gov Comments to May 19th Meeting - Attn: Shane Hope Monday, May 23, 2016 8:03:50 AM Lynnwood Highway+99+Subarea+Plan.pdf

Dear Shane, As you are aware, I have an ownership interest in a vacant parcel within the Highway 99 corridor just shy of 2 acres. It abuts the Aurora Market Place shopping center anchored by Safeway and TJ Maxx and is sited at the SEC of 84th and 236th SW. It is presently zoned RM 1.5, which is an antiquated multifamily zone allowing up to three stories. Our parcel has a tail that connects to 238th SW. At the intersection of 238th and Highway 99 are two of the four BRT stations serving the Edmonds Highway 99 corridor. I believe our site is ripe for a transit oriented development. It meets many of the criteria generally articulated to meet the goals of a TOD. Yet the near term development board at the May 19th presentation suggests that our site be developed with 3 story multifamily. This is no different than what is presently allowed and fails to promote the goals described by all the prior presentations to enhance the economic and housing conditions of the corridor. This was quite disappointing to see. Even though all cities have different issues to deal with, the cities of Everett, Lynwood and Shoreline all have the Highway 99 corridor dissecting their jurisdictions and all have completed and put in place ordinances dealing with the redevelopment of their Highway 99 subareas. Lynnwood is most like Edmonds given the “angle” of the highway and the existing conditions on both sides of the highway. In my opinion, they did a very good job identifying the issues to enhance the activity in their corridor. The issues they faced are very similar if not identical to those your department is working on with Fregonese Assocaites for the City of Edmonds. Within their subarea plan Lynnwood focused on activity nodes around their BRT stations. This seems to be missing from the present Edmonds plan. Lynnwood encouraged TOD development in the nodes, which also seems to be missing from the Edmonds plan. Lynnwood acknowledged the relationship of properties like ours that are sandwiched between high density commercial on one side and residential on the other by encouraging high density next to the existing high density and protecting the residential areas with setbacks or landscaping requirements. I believe this makes most sense as it transitions between the two uses. With the future light rail station coming to the Mountlake Terrace I-5 station, and the present and future BRT stations along the Edmonds corridor, I would encourage your thought process to focus more on the transportation nodes. This will encourage TOD developments that will enhance the economic and social conditions within the corridor that have been described. I am attaching the Lynnwood subarea plan which identifies the goals they established to create a viable corridor. I think there a nuggets that can be used in Edmonds that will be beneficial to the future of the Edmonds corridor.

Should you wish to discuss any of this further I would be happy to explore these with you and your team. Sincerely, Stanley V. Piha Stanley Real Estate, Inc. 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 206-441-1080 X1 Stanley@stanleyre.com www.stanleyre.com

From: To: Subject: Date:

Squarespace planning@edmondswa.gov Form Submission - New Form Friday, May 20, 2016 7:03:56 AM

Name: Norm Pouliot Email Address: norm@njpouliot.com Topic: Specifically related to EIS scope Comment: One of the most important aspects of improving this section of hwy99 is providing consistent and sufficient lighting all along 99 both for drivers and for pedestrians. This (along with proper sidewalks) would not only reduce accidents but act as a deterrent to crime in the area. (Sent via Edmonds Highway 99)

From: To: Subject: Date:

Hope, Shane Alex Joyce; "Jim Daisa"; "Deborah Munkberg" FW: WSDOT comments on Determination of Significance and PA-EIS scoping input for the SR 99 Corridor subarea plan Friday, May 27, 2016 9:26:21 AM

See below for a correction to WSDOT’s SEPA comments. Useful for other transportation planning too. -Shane From: Chave, Rob Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 9:20 AM To: Hope, Shane; Shipley, Brad Cc: Hauss, Bertrand Subject: FW: WSDOT comments on Determination of Significance and PA-EIS scoping input for the SR 99 Corridor subarea plan

Rob Chave | Planning Manager City of Edmonds

From: Bolotin, Leah [mailto:BolotiL@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 2:00 PM To: Chave, Rob Cc: Gavino, Miguel; Swires, Mike; Prestrud, Charles; Pazooki, Ramin; Gunderson, Frank; Leth, Mark; Briggs, Barbara Subject: RE: WSDOT comments on Determination of Significance and PA-EIS scoping input for the SR 99 Corridor subarea plan

Hi Rob, I am sending a correction to the managed access information contained in the email below. The existing access along SR 99 through Edmonds is as follows:

From the southern border at the county line (MP 43.50) until approximately 1/4 mile to the north, just past the interchange area but before 240th Street SW (MP 43.72), the designation is Limited Access Partially Controlled. This is defined as "At-grade intersections are allowed for selected public roads and approaches for existing private driveways, no commercial approaches allowed, and no direct access if alternate public road access is available". From that point northward through both Edmonds and Lynnwood (MP 43.72 - 48.92), the designation is Managed Access Class 4. This is defined as "Access spaced 250 feet apart, only a single access for individual or contiguous parcels under the same owner, and variance permits may be allowed". Please direct detailed access inquiries to Miguel. Thanks again,

Leah

From: Bolotin, Leah Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:53 PM To: Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov Cc: Gavino, Miguel; Swires, Mike; Prestrud, Charles; COM GMU Review Team; 'Stevens-Wajda, Yorik (ystevens-wajda@psrc.org)'; Pazooki, Ramin; Gunderson, Frank; Leth, Mark; Briggs, Barbara Subject: WSDOT comments on Determination of Significance and PA-EIS scoping input for the SR 99 Corridor subarea plan

Rob, WSDOT commends and supports the city’s efforts in pursuing the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan (SAP) for the segment of SR 99 from the County line north to the intersection with 210th Street SW (MP 43.50 to 45.86). Any recommended concept or design adopted by Edmonds for SR 99 must preserve, if not enhance, the throughput capacity and flow efficiency of SR 99 for the benefit of all users, including transit riders, non-motorized users, and inter-community or regional travel. WSDOT endorses such designs and features that allow for the safe and convenient crossing of SR 99 to connect neighborhoods on either side of the highway. We concur with current city plans to limit access breaks along the SR 99 median, enhancement of connectivity and continuity of the local street network in the immediate vicinity to the extent possible, and keeping signalized intersection spacing to no closer than every ¼ mile. In addition, we recommend the following: · ·

Revision of the side street channelization at 224th to avoid the need for a split phase. We suggest changing the shared thru/left and right-only lanes to a left-only and shared thru/right configuration. Consideration of operational strategies to help SR 99 traffic flow optimization, including: o U-turns (recommended at intersection in the access management memorandum). Note that 50 feet is the minimum U-turn diameter accepted in the past, with justification. o Jug handle movement accommodations at intersections o Use of adaptive traffic signals. WSDOT assumes that a properly designed street lighting system will be provided along SR 99 to facilitate safe travel by all users. We additionally recommend that the SAP reduce lighting spillover from developments off of SR 99 onto the highway.

Note that although most SR 99 segments in Edmonds are a Managed Access Class 1, there are also segments with a Managed Access Class 4 designation. On Class 4 segments, signal spacing is limited to ½ mile “when no reasonable alternative access exists”. Seven signals already exist in the 2.36-mile section of SR 99 within Edmonds, and four more are proposed. These were shown on the display aerials at the Open House at the locations of 76th Avenue W, a midblock crossing at the Community Health Center in the vicinity of MP 44.25 (which would have to be signaled in order to cross five lanes), an unlabeled location in the vicinity of 236th, and at 240th.

The above elements, combined with a well-operated traffic signal system, will ensure good traffic flow on SR 99 and help to reduce use of local streets as diversion routes. For bicycle travel, WSDOT endorses a signed bicycle route along facilities that run parallel, but separate from, SR 99. As with the SR 99 segment through Shoreline, we do not believe that heavy

traffic volumes, high levels of bus use, and high speeds on SR 99 are compatible with safe bicycle travel on SR 99 itself. Rather, the SAP should provide for safe, well-designed and well-signed eastwest connections between bicycle facilities (such as the Interurban Trail) on either side of SR 99, as well connections with bus stops on SR 99 where cyclists can board their bicycles on buses. WSDOT also recommends features along SR 99 (i.e. vegetation) to reduce driver distraction caused by strip development facades and their associated marketing signs, banners and/or markings. To counter any perceived loss of business by such features, a moderate amount of well-designed wayfinding signage for major destinations can be incorporated into specific highway projects that are implemented from the SAP. Note that information regarding highway advertising is available on the WSDOT highway advertising control webpage. We look forward to our continuing partnership with the City towards development of a transportation section of the SAP that delivers optimal and safe travel for both local and regional trips. Please contact Miguel Gavino, Area Traffic Engineer for Snohomish/Mt. Baker, at 206-4404418 or miguel.gavino@wsdot.wa.gov directly for any further information. Sincerely, Leah Bolotin ________________________ Leah Bolotin, AICP Senior Planner WSDOT Sno-King Planning Office 206-440-5057 WSDOT Planning Resources

From: Cunningham, Diane [mailto:Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 4:01 PM To: 'Bill Trimm'; 'Brian Harding'; 'City of Everett'; 'City of Shoreline'; 'Clarissa Barrett'; 'Corbitt Loch'; 'D. Scheil'; 'Darryl Eastin'; 'David Matulich'; 'Edith Duttlinger'; 'Joyce Bielefeld'; 'Kate Tourtellot'; Fordjour, Kojo; 'Kristin Kelly'; 'L. Balisky'; 'lnelson'; 'Marsha Engel'; Olympic View Water; 'Planning'; Pazooki, Ramin; 'Review Team'; Olson, Rick; 'Sepa Desk'; 'SnoPUD'; Zweber, Kevin (Fire District Address); 'questions@snohd.org'; 'Lorinda.Anderson@rco.wa.gov'; 'customerservice@northcitywater.org' Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: Highway 99 Determination of Significance

Good Afternoon Attached is a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS for City of Edmonds to prepare a subarea plan, adopt implementing regulations, prioritize future capital investments and adopt a planned action designation for the SR 99 Corridor Planning Area. If you have any questions please contact Kernen Lien, Senior Planner at 425.771.0220 or planning@edmondswa.gov. Thank you Diane Cunningham

Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov

City of Edmonds

Planning Division 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 425.771.0220 x 1335

City of Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan May 19, 2016 Public Meeting Scoping Comments Are there additional topics or concerns that you would like to see addressed in the Planned Action EIS? • • • • •

Height restrictions of new apartments with retail underneath that may block sun? Perhaps local wildlife refuge areas? Let’s be proud! No more concrete walls!! If residential property taxes go way up how will you help us pay that if we can’t afford the increase? EIS on the heavy traffic on highway 99, it already has long time periods. Add a lane each way or have light cycles on red be much shorter. For people who community on 99 every day, how will they get to work on time. Example: community 230th & 99 to Lynnwood transit center to take bus to Bellevue.

Do you have comments or suggestions related to the scope of the Planned Action EIS? • • •

With all of these new high rise residences highway 99 will not be able to work for so many people and with so many added pedestrian surface crossings. Too many people living in too small a space, too dense. Too many rats in a maze creates insanity. I just think that new median is very cold and uninviting. It reminds me of a concrete jungle. It definitely does not say welcome to Edmonds. If something could be added to it. Please no more like that. We want something to be proud of and that definitely does not fit the bill.

APPENDIX B

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

B-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

IMPLEMENTATION

ift Sw

80th Ave

NEW BIKE ROUTE DESIGNATION

STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIANS ACCESS MANAGEMENT (RAISED 216th Street MEDIANS)

S17

INTERSECTION CAPACITY & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (S35)

S16

SWIFT RAPID STATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NEW CLASS II BICYCLE LANES

Swif t

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

72nd Ave

ift

INTERSECTION CAPACITY & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (S33) Sw

PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 212th Street INTERSECTION SAFETY & CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

S17

76th Ave

S16

78th Ave

EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND PED XING

74th Ave

S12

LEGEND

70th Ave

Figure 22: PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION (S4) S12

SIGNAL COORDINATION (S36)

84th Ave

S14

ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S28)

224th Street

S10 S18

S11

TRANSIT

S16 228th Street

COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (S8)

230th Street

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER

ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S27)

S14

ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S25)

236th Street

S13

240th Street

S13

ift

S15

COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (S7)

REGIONALLY SIGINIFICANT TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR (S3)

ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S26)

234th Street

238th Street

TRANSPORTATION

S10

INTERSECTION CAPACITY & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (S34)

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

220th Street

SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (S5) SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (S6)

ACCESS MANAGEMENT (S24)

244th Street

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 23: SHORT-TERM PROJECT SUPPORTIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

LEGEND EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND PED XING PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PED XING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FLASHING BEACON

ENHANCED LOCAL TRANSIT STOPS (S31)

IMPROVED INTERNAL CONNECTIONS AND WAYFINDING BETWEEN SWIFT STATIONS AND HOSPITAL CAMPUS (S20)

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEW CONNECTION BETWEEN SR 99 AND INTERURBAN TRAIL (S21)

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA, AND LIGHTING) (S2)

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER

IMPROVED LOCAL BUS STOPS SERVING COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (S30)

DESIGNATED TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDOR NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS ON ALL APPROACHES (S22)

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS + PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS ON SR 104 ON AND OFF-RAMPS (S19)

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (SIDEWALK, SIGHT DISTANCE VISIBILITY, ADA AND LIGHTING) (S1)

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

IMPLEMENTATION

TRANSPORTATION

TRANSIT

This page is left intentionally blank.

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TO/FROM HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

Pedestrian Safety

Improve sidewalks, sight distance visibility, street and safety lighting on 240th from 84th Ave W to 80th Way W (primarily along commercial frontages)

Pedestrian Safety / Ped Circulation

Implement safety improvements at 224th and 76th Avenue W including constructing new or improving existing sidewalks on both sides of 224th approaching 76th Ave and SR 99.

Not Shown

General Safety

General need for safety and street lighting on residential streets surrounding SR 99, particularly pedestrian-scaled lighting.

Workshop participants identified the need to widen sidewalks on 228th east of SR 99. In the Summer of 2016 a number of pedestrian improvements were completed in this regionally significant multimodal corridor (see notes). Where narrow sidewalks still remain within the corridor or on connecting residential streets, the following pedestrian improvements may be considered in-lieu of widening sidewalks:

Regionally Significant Transit Emphasis Corridor

1. Buffer pedestrians from moving traffic with street trees in tree wells constructed within parking lanes. 2. Consistent application of high visibility crosswalk markings at intersections. 3. Ensure street lighting illuminates entire width of street. Currently, street lights are located on one side of the street. Intersections with marked crosswalks should have safety lighting illuminating each end of crosswalks. 4. Install bus shelters at local bus stops with street lighting. Where right of way wont permit a shelter, use curb extensions to add width.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Sidewalk construction projects: 216th St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to SR 99

Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Sidewalk construction projects: 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W

Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Sidewalk construction projects: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W

Complete Streets Impvts

238th Street SW, between SR 104 and SR 99. Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk.

Complete Streets Impvts

228th Street SW, between SR 99 and 95th Pl. W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk, as well as intersection improvements at 228th @ 95th.

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

This type of corridorwide frontage improvement typically occurs as a condition of approval when the fronting property redevelops.

Workshop

224th Street, as a route, provides access to a few destination such as the interurban trail, but is not a primary route to major generators. However, many residential neighborhoods feed into 224th and it may serve as a lower volume and lower speed alternative for pedestrians and bicyclists. Near SR 99 224th lacks sidewalks on one or both sides of the street.

Workshop

Many of the workshop participants commented on the lack of street lighting on streets intersecting or paralleling SR 99. Safety lighting (lighting that illuminates intersection corners where pedestrians are expected to cross) and street lighting (overhead lighting that generally illuminates the width of the street) as well as pedestrian-scaled lighting (lighting on 12-17-foot tall standards that illuminate the pedestrian walkway) are fundamental prerequisites for walkable areas. Streets that cannot be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists at night, will experience limited travel during the day.

Workshop

228th Street SW is one of the study area's only Complete Streets. It connects the SR 99 corridor to numerous destinations including Highway 104 into downtown, the interurban trail, parks and recreational facilities, and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center where Sound Transit's extension of the Lynnwood LINK light rail will connect with local, commuter, and regional busses by the year 2023. 228th is also a local bus route. Class II bicycle lanes on 228th connect SR 99 to the interurban trail. The City recently extended 228th from 76th Avenue to complete its connection to SR 99. Other recent pedestrian improvements in the corridor include new ADA compliant ramps at corners, sidewalk repair, driveways moved to side streets, and an improved crosswalk at the Interurban Trail crossing with new curb extensions. The very narrow sidewalks on 228th that once connected to the Trail (two to three feet wide) have been augmented with a multi-use path parallel to the west side of the street extending to the Interstate 5. The pedestrian environment along some segments of 228th need improvement.

Workshop

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

SOURCE

Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Element

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Element

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

Project identified as a high priority in the Comprehensive 2015 Transportation Element

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2022-2035.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2022-2035.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element - Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

TRANSPORTATION

TRANSIT

NOTES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TO/FROM HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE BICYCLE CIRCULATION ACROSS AND PARALLEL TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

Bicycle Circulation

Class II bike lanes on 212th Street from Main Street to 68th Avenue crossing SR 99.

S10

Bicycle Circulation

Bike route designation on 224th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to interurban trail.

S11

Bicycle Circulation

Class II bike lanes on 228th Street SW from SR 104 across SR 99 to existing Class II lanes on 76th Avenue W.

S12

Bicycle Circulation

Class II bike lanes on 76th Avenue W from 208th to 220th and bike route designation to 224th Street SW.

S13

Bicycle Circulation

Bike route designation on 238th Street SW from 84th Avenue W across SR 99 to existing Class II bike lanes on 76th Avenue W.

S14

Bicycle Circulation

Class II bike lanes on 84th Avenue W from 212th Street SW to 236th Street SW and bike route designation on 84th Avenue W south to 238th Street SW.

S15

Bicycle Circulation

Class II bike lanes on 236th Street SW from SR 104 to 84th Avenue W.

S16

Bicycle Circulation

Bike route designation on 80th Avenue W from 206th Street SW to 228th Street SW

S17

Bicycle Circulation

Bike route designation on 72nd Avenue W from 208th Street SW to 216th Street SW and continuing on 216th Street SW to SR 99.

S18

Bicycle Circulation

Bike route designation on 73rd Pl W from 224th Street SW to 226th Pl SW.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

SOURCE City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

72nd Avenue from 208th to 212th is a heavily utilized transit route. Because of the frequency of buses on this street, Community Transit recommends providing bicycle lanes instead of a route designation, or, if bicycle lanes cannot be provided, to relocate the route designation to an alternative parallel street.

City of Edmonds Bicycle Master Plan & Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NOTES

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

IMPROVE BICYCLE CIRCULATION ACROSS AND PARALLEL TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

OTHER

TRANSIT

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

S19

Pedestrian Safety

Install pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) with high-visibility crosswalk markings at the pedestrian crossings of the SR 104 on and off-ramps and provide safety lighting to illuminate the crosswalks.

Not Shown

Pedestrian and General Multimodal Circulation

Implement corridorwide wayfinding signage to local districts and major multimodal facilities

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

SOURCE

This is an interim improvement prior to the proposed reconfiguration of the ramp termini to eliminate high-speed movements.

DKS Associates

A corridorwide wayfinding system should be established providing signing at key intersections conecting to major destinations such as downtown, train station, SWIFT stops, nearest bicycle facilities, interurban trail access, parks and open space, local districts along the corridor, and freeway access.

Workshop and DKS Associates

TRANSPORTATION

TRANSIT

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

NOTES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPEW

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

S20

Access to/from Transit and Major Employment Center

Improve connection between the Swedish Hospital Campus and the Swift Stations at 216th Street SW by implementing a pedestrian walkway system (potentially covered) internal to the campus with wayfinding to direct pedestrians to the various campus facilities including future land uses that support hospital expansion such as hotels and medical office buildings within the Health Care District.

S21

Access to/from Transit and Interurban Trail

S22

Pedestrian Safety / Access to Transit

"New pedestrian crossing at 234th Street which is the approximate mid-point of the large gap in crossings. This crossing may be achieved as shown in the notes column. "

S24

"Traffic Safety Access Management / Safe Pedestrian Crossing"

Install raised median (with potential gateway features) between 240th and 238th. Channelize westbound traffic on 240th for right turns only. Allow u-turns at 238th. See note [1] below.

S25

"Traffic Safety Access Management / Safe Pedestrian Crossing"

236th Street to 234th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict left turns from stop-controlled 236th Street.

S26

"Traffic Safety Access Management / Safe Pedestrian Crossing"

234th Street to 230th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict left turns from stop-controlled 234th Street.

S27

"Traffic Safety Access Management / Safe Pedestrian Crossing"

230th Street to 228th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99. Restrict left turns from stop-controlled 234th Street.

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

SOURCE

The SWIFT stations at 216th Street SW serve corridor's largest employment center-the Swedish Hospital campus and its associated medical offices. The SWIFT bus rapid transit system and these stations are an ideal opportunity for employees and patients/ visitors to access the campus by transit. However, the connection between the stations and the various facilities in the campus are by 216th Street SW and SR 99 driveways requiring pedestrians to walk up steep grades and through parking lots to access building entrances. The lack of connections, direction and amenities discourages people from taking transit to the site.

Community Transit and DKS Associates

The Interurban Trail generally parallels SR 99 and its alignment is closest to SR 99 between 216th Street SW and 220th Street SW--with only one parcel of land separation-an opportunity to provide a more direct link to the SWIFT stations (via crosswalks) and Community Transit bus stops located on the near and far sides of 216th Street SW. When the under-utilized land separating the trail from SR 99 redevelops, a condition of approval should require the property owner to dedicate an easement for this connection.

Community Transit and DKS Associates

A. With significant high density development at 234th node, potentially intersection would warrant a traffic signal (see long-term improvements) B. Install a HAWK pedestrian activated signal C. Install a temporary two-stage unsignalized crossing in the interim timeframe befotre a signal is warranted.

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

NOTES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT

DKS Associates

TRANSIT

The crossing at this location should be a priority given it improves access to the community health facility from transit and closes a 3,500 foot gap in protected crossings within this segment of Highway 99 Improvements at 240th are geared towards obtaining a pedestrian crossing of SR 99 to close one of the crossing gaps in the corridor and to improve vehicular safety and access to the Burlington Coat Factory site. 240th Avenue at SR 99 is one of the highest vehicular collision locations in the corridor and it is not prudent to add an unsignalized crossing at thgis location. Current crossing demand is too low to warrant a short-term pedestrian crossing improvement. See long-term improvements.

SR 99 Access Management and Cross Section Focused Assessment

For long segments with numerous driveways, use intermittently placed medians to allow left turn in/out functions at key driveways. Access managed segments must permit u-turns at adjacent signalized intersections. Use median to restrict left turns from stopcontrolled side streets with high collision histories unless the restriction conflicts with a short-term improvement or other proposed change in traffic control.

SR 99 Access Management and Cross Section Focused Assessment

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT, CONT'D.

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

S28

"Traffic Safety Access Management / Safe Pedestrian Crossing"

224th Street to 220th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99.

S29

Safe Pedestrian Crossing / Development Access

Install traffic signal at SR 99 / 234th including pedestrian crosswalks on all approaches.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

Not Shown

Transit Mobility

Implement a Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system along SR 99 for the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit system.

S30

Access to Transit / Transit Stop Environment

Improve local bus stops between 234th and 230th that serve Community Health Center and new development within the International and Gateway Districts.

S31

Access to Transit / Transit Stop Environment

Provide enhanced local transit stops near Swedish Hospital.

S37

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Priority Transit Corridor: SR 99 from 208th to SR 104

S38

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Priority Transit Corridor: 228th Street SW from SR 104 to 76th Avenue W continuing to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. A new SWIFT station is proposed at SR 99 and 228th Street SW.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT, CONT'D.

NOTES

SOURCE

SR 99 Access Management and Cross Section Focused Assessment

Workshop and DKS Associates

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

This improvement may only be feasible with significantly high density development at 234th Street node and with access from 234th Street to meet signal warrants. New development fronting SR 99 adjacent to the intersection should be required to dedicate land to provide width for wider sidewalks.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) systems allow BRT vehicles to trigger a change in traffic signal phasing in favor of the buses approaching a signalized intersection. TSP can either expedite a green light for buses passing through an intersection, or expedite buses stopping at far-side bus stops and using the traffic signal's following cycle to load / unload passengers thus avoiding the delay waiting to cross to the far-side stop.

DKS Associates

Provide shelters, benches, lighting, and buffer the stop from moving traffic.

DKS Associates

The Swift Rapid stations are excellent examples of Bus Rapid Transit stations with ample rider amenities. The nearby local bus stops are established some distance away and most have only signs, some have a bench and waste receptacle. Enhancements should be considered at local stops near major employment centers, major retail concentrations, or institutions where employees may commute by transit. Local bus stops enhanced with wider waiting areas with shelters, benches, shade, lighting, bike racks, etc. may help encourage transit ridership, particularly in combination with employer trip reduction programs.

TRANSPORTATION

SOURCE

TRANSIT

IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

NOTES

Workshop

These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. Although the LINK light rail extension to the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center is still six years out (2023) implementing incremental Priority Transit Corridor improvements on 228th is recommended in the short term to improve current bus service in the corridor as well as prepare the corridor for LRT service in 2023.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

S39

Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety / Ped Circulation

Safety improvements at the intersection of SR 99 / 224th Street SW and between 224th and 76th Avenues (particularly LT into Ranch 99 Market).

S40

Intersection Capacity & Safety / Ped Safety

SR 99 and 212th Street SW-widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.

S41

Intersection Capacity & Safety / Ped Safety

SR 99 and 220th Street SW Widen 220th to add a 325-foot westbound right turn lane and a 300-foot eastbound right turn lane. Widen 220th to add a second westbound left turn lane. (This would add about 24 additional feet of croswalk distance).

S42

Intersection Capacity & Safety / Ped Safety

SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Add eastbound right turn overlap with northbound protected left turn.

S43

Intersection Capacity

Not Shown

Access Management & Traffic Flow Improvements

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

Signal Coordination on 220th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to SR 99.

"Consideration of operational strategies to help SR 99 traffic flow optimization, including: - U-turns (recommended at intersections in the access management memorandum). - Jug handle movement accommodations at intersections. - Use of adaptive traffic signals."

NOTES: 1. From the southern border at the county line (MP 43.50) until approximately 1/4 mile to the north, just past the interchange area but before 240th Street SW (MP 43.72), SR 99 is designated as Limited Access Partially Controlled. This is defined as "At-grade intersections are allowed for selected public roads and approaches for existing private driveways, no commercial approaches allowed, and no direct access if alternate public road access is available". 2. From the point just north of the SR 104 interchange (MP 43.72) northward through both Edmonds and Lynnwood (MP 43.72 - 48.92), the designation of SR 99 isÂ Managed Access Class 4.

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT

This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

This project is recommended for inclusion in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for 2016-2021.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element Recommended Roadway Capital Projects

Should be implemented in coordination with a Transit Signal Priority system (see S37).

U-turns will be extremely important with implementation of median access management. Thus, use of various and innovative measures to accommodate changes in traffic patterns is encouraged and might come as a result of site redevelopment. Note that 48-50 feet is the minimum U-turn diameter accepted in the past by the State, with justification.Â

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

Workshop and WSDOT

TRANSIT

Revision of the side street channelization at 224th to avoid the need for a split phase. WSDOT suggests changing the shared thru/left and right-only lanes to a left-only and shared thru/right configuration.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SOURCE

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

TRANSPORTATION

NOTES

WSDOT

3. State of Washington Legal Requirements of M4 Highways. Class 4 Managed Access highways are designed to have a posted speed limit of 30 to 35 mph in urbanized areas and 35 to 45 mph in rural areas. In urban areas and developing areas where higher volumes are present or growth that will require a change in intersection control is expected in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that the location of any public access point be planned carefully to ensure adequate traffic progression. Where feasible, major intersecting roadways that might ultimately require intersection control changes are planned with a minimum of Â˝-mile spacing. Private access connections to the highway are spaced 250 feet apart, only a single access for individual or contiguous parcels under the same owner, and variance permits may be allowed. 4. Within Incorporated Cities. Under RCW 35.78.030 and RCW 47.50, incorporated cities and towns have jurisdiction over access permitting on streets designated as state highways. Accesses located within incorporated cities and towns are regulated by the city or town and no deviation by WSDOT will be required. Document decisions made on these accesses in the DDP.

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

Pedestrian Circulation

Widen sidewalks on SR 99 from 212th street to 240th Street to include a minimum 4-foot wide planting strip to buffer pedestrians from moving traffic. Use space for placement of appropriate street trees.

Vehicular / Pedestrian Safety

Install street lighting on SR 99 corridor to close gaps and to achieve uniform spacing and illumination. Install safety lighting at intersections as part of this improvement.

SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

Pedestrian Circulation

Install new signal at 240th (with crosswalks on all four legs) concurrent with new development at 240th node. Consolidate and relocate driveways to 240th (helps meet signal warrants)

L16

Vehicular / Pedestrian Safety

Reconfigure off-ramps as conventional 90-degree stop control intersections. The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) recommended as an interim short-term improvements (S19) may continue to be used with the reconfigured ramps.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

SOURCE

This improvement requires approximately 6-feet of right of way. The City should require dedication of right of way (or a permanent public access easement) from private property when redeveloped. Dedication or easement may also be used when properties adjacent to local bus stops redevelop in order to obtain width for ADA compliance and bus shelters.

"Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates"

This improvement may also be implemented in conjuction with district identity, streetscape, or themed urban design projects.

"Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates"

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

NOTES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT ALONG HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR

SOURCE

"Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates"

This improvement may also be implemented in conjuction with district identity, streetscape, or themed urban design projects.

"Highway 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (2007) DKS Associates"

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

TRANSPORTATION

NOTES

TRANSIT

SAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 99 AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT

IMPLEMENTATION

PROPOSED LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

The following Transit Priority Corridor improvement designations are included in Edmond's Comprehensive Plan. Improvements specific to Transit Priority Corridors are not specifically defined but generally include frequent and reliable service, and bus stop amenities which can include wider waiting areas, shelters, seating, shade, good illunination, accessibility for the disabled, and buffers from moving traffic. L6

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Priority Transit Corridor: 220th Street SW from 76th Avenue W to proposed light rail transit station at I-5 interchange.

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Priority Transit Corridor: 238th Street SW from SR 104 to SR 99.

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Improve local bus stop northbound at 240th (provide seating, shelter, refuge can, lighting, etc.) concurrent with new development at 240th Street node.

L10

Transit Service / Ped Amenities

Improve local bus stop southbound at 240th (provide seating, shelter, refuge can, lighting, etc.) concurrent with new development at 240th Street node.

L11

Transit Service Efficiency

Extend BAT lanes on SR 99 onto overcrossing of SR 104 and continuing to 244th Street.

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT

MAP IDENTIFIER

IMPROVEMENT TYPE

L12

Access Management

238th Street to 236th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99.

L13

Access Management

228th Street to 224th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99.

L14

Access Management

220th Street to 216th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99.

L15

Access Management

216th Street to 212th Street. Install raised median and limited c-curb on SR 99.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNED IMPROVEMENT

OTHER ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT SUPPORTIVE

IMPROVE TRANSIT MOBILITY AND TRANSIT STOP ENVIRONMENT

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive.

Comprehensive Plan 2015 Transportation Element

This improvement would best benefit from the installation of a traffic signal at SR 99 / 240th Street. Extension of the BAT lanes through the bottleneck created by the four-lane overcrossing provides additional efficiency for SWIFT service which has experienced a drop in reliability due to congestion within the corridor.

Workshop

Workshop and DKS Associates

Community Transit TRANSIT

This improvement most likely needed when higher intensity redevelopment occurs within the 240th node.

SIGNAGE + WAYFINDING

These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SOURCE

TRANSPORTATION

NOTES

IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND GENERAL SAFETY WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT

NOTES

SOURCE

SR 99 Access Management and Cross Section Focused Assessment (2015) and Workshop

EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN

APPENDIX C

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

Development patterns in the study area are currently low-intensity and low-scale. Many sites are less than 25 percent covered with buildings 1 and most improved lots have buildings that are one or two stories high 2. Heights of 60 to 75 feet are allowed in much of the study area under current zoning designations and if existing lots were redeveloped they could provide a much greater amount of space for jobs and housing than currently exists. A maximum existing development capacity number was estimated by Fregonese using their Envision Tomorrow model for the purposes of this EIS analysis. The Envision Tomorrow model is a suite of planning tools that includes analysis and scenario design tools. The analysis tools allow users to analyze aspects of their current community using commonly accessible GIS data, such as tax assessor parcel data and Census data in the instance of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. The scenario painting tool allows users to "paintâ&#x20AC;? alternative future development scenarios on the landscape, and compare scenario outcomes in real time for a range of measures from public health, fiscal resiliency and environmental sustainability. For the development capacity analysis, Envision Tomorrow was utilized to test a maximum buildout at the parcel level based on current zoning code and development standards. Current zoning in the study area allows for a mix of uses. For this reason, Fregonese chose a maximum development capacity scenario with relatively balanced future job and housing growth, similar to what is envisioned under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). The scenario assumed 44 percent of new floor area would be in employment uses and 56 percent of new floor area would be in residential uses. The model also assumed 100 percent of parcels were developed to the extent allowed under current zoning. The resulting maximum development capacity findings are shown in Table C.1. These are hypothetical numbers. The study area is not expected to develop to this extent, due to a number of factors that typically limit development capacity and prevent 100 percent site utilization. These factors include critical areas and buffers, utility easements, future rights-of-way and land needed for other capital facilities, individual property owner decisions, and market

1 2

Snohomish County, WA, Tax Assessor Data, 2015. 3 Square Blocks, visual survey of study area using Google Earth imagery, 2016.

factors. While the maximum development capacity numbers shown in Table 3.1.3 are not expected to be reached, they are nearly four times greater than needed to accommodate planned job and housing growth under Alternative 2, which is the alternative that plans for the greatest level of growth. Additionally, zoning changes proposed under Alternative 2 would increase development capacity beyond what currently exists. Many parcels could be developed, redeveloped or partially developed within the next twenty years. As shown in Figure 3.1.1, there are a number of vacant lots that could be developed. Most buildings in the study area are 25 to 3 60 years old. As buildings age their improvement value to land value ratio generally decreases, making them more attractive for redevelopment. Additionally, many sites have Floor Area Ratios (FAR) of 0.25 or less, which is a relatively low site area utilization rate for an urban mixed use corridor. 4 These sites could become attractive for partial or complete redevelopment or as growth occurs in the study area. Some existing buildings and site improvements will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future, especially those that were recently constructed or that are producing a high return on investment for owners. TABLE C.1

Existing Maximum Development Capacity Compared to Existing Development and Planned Growth

HOUSING

JOBS

Existing Maximum Development Capacity

18,450

26,028

Existing Development

1,579

3,797

Alternative 1 (No Action)

1,224

2,317

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

3,325

3,013

Alternative 1 (No Action)

2,803

6,114

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

4,904

6,810

Alternative 1 (No Action)

6.6

4.3

Alternative 2 (Mixed Use)

3.8

2035 Growth Targets (New Jobs and Housing)

2035 Total Development Estimate

Ratio of Maximum Development Capacity to 2035 Total Development Estimate

3 4

Snohomish County, WA, Tax Assessor Data, 2015. Snohomish County, WA, Tax Assessor Data, 2015.

C-2 â&#x20AC;˘ PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN â&#x20AC;˘ JUNE 2017

APPENDIX D

ALTERNATIVE LAND USE GROWTH TARGETS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

D-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

Highway 99 Subarea Plan Traffic Analysis Zone Map

ALTERNATIVE LAND USE GROWTH TARGETS ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE

EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW MULTI-FAMILY

NEW SINGLE FAMILY

EXISTING RETAIL DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW RETAIL FLOOR AREA

EXISTING OFFICE DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW OFFICE FLOOR AREA

(SEE TAZ MAP)

(DWELLING UNITS)

(SQUARE FEET)

20 11 0 27 7 33 4 32 133

(3,284) 0 (50,118) 0 (3,925) 0 (1,626) (23,610) (82,563)

19,904 0 50,432 18,614 0 14,315 16,686 0 119,951

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

247,612 0 627,395 0 0 0 0 0 875,007

2588 0 0 2626 (40) 74 2627 0 0 2629 0 251 2644 0 129 2645 (30) 173 2646 0 125 2647 0 344 TOTAL (70) 1096 Note: TAZ 2642 is combined with TAZ 2629. Source: Fregonese Associates, GIS files dated March 17 and April 28, 2017.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (SEE TAZ MAP) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED)

EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW MULTI-FAMILY

NEW SINGLE FAMILY

EXISTING RETAIL REPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW RETAIL FLOOR AREA

EXISTING OFFICE DISPLACED BY REDEVELOPMENT

NEW OFFICE FLOOR AREA

(DWELLING UNITS)

(SQUARE FEET)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(14,856) (42,110) (63,912) (16,393) (30,139) 0 (6,590) (46,644) (220,644)

118,978 41,386 153,083 57,700 22,015 27,586 40,335 51,602 512,685

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

397,658 41,386 483,717 56,307 23,408 27,586 40,335 51,602 1,121,998

15 370 44 460 22 573 8 517 6 301 39 273 64 432 13 594 TOTAL 211 3,520 Note: TAZ 2642 is combined with TAZ 2629. Source: Fregonese Associates, GIS files dated March 17, 2017.

APPENDIX E

DETAILED TRIP GENERATION AND ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEETS Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

E-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

ESTIMATED VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION (ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION) Trips Generated by Multi and Single-Family Residential Land Uses Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647 Total Unadjusted Trips

PM Peak Hour

Trips Generated by Office Land Uses

Trips Generated by Retail Land Uses PM Peak Hour

Total Unadjusted Trip Generation

PM Peak Hour

New Housing Units

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

Floor Area (KSF)

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

19 85 0 278 134 206 128 375

8 34 0 112 54 83 51 151

4 18 0 60 29 45 28 81

12 52 0 172 83 128 79 232

19.904 0 50.432 18.614 0 14.315 16.686 0

48 0 122 45 0 35 40 0

26 0 65 24 0 19 22 0

74 0 187 69 0 53 62 0

1,224

493

266

759

119.951

289

156

445

Floor Area (KSF)

PM Peak Hour In-bound

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

247.612 0 627.395 0 0 0 0 0

63 0 159 0 0 0 0 0

306 0 776 0 0 0 0 0

369 0 935 0 0 0 0 0

875.007

222

1,082

1,304

1,004

Out-bound

118 34 281 157 54 118 92 151

Total 454 52 1,122 241 83 181 141 232

336 18 841 84 29 63 49 81 1,503

2,507

Adjustment for Internal Capture Within TAZs (PM Peak Hour Only) Percent Int. Capt.

Internal Capture Residential

Internal Capture Retail

Internal Capture Office

Percent Int. Capt.

2588

0.0%

2.7%

(1)

(2)

0.5%

(0)

(2)

(4)

2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 39.3% 9.0% 0.0%

0 0 (5) 0 (33) (5) 0

0 0 (3) 0 (18) (2) 0

0 0 (8) 0 (50) (7) 0

0.0% 2.7% 10.1% 0.0% 0.1% 11.1% 0.0%

0 (3) (5) 0 (0) (4) 0

0 (2) (2) 0 (0) (2) 0

0 (5) (7) 0 (0) (7) 0

0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0

0 (4) 0 0 0 0 0

0 (5) 0 0 0 0 0

0 (4) (10) 0 (33) (9) 0

0 (6) (5) 0 (18) (5) 0

0 (10) (15) 0 (50) (14) 0

(42)

(23)

(65)

(14)

(7)

(21)

(1)

(5)

(7)

(57)

(36)

(93)

Subtotal

Percent Int. Capt.

Total Internal Capture Trips

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

Adjustment for PM Peak Hour Retail Pass-By Trips (Applied to Non-Internal Trips Only) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

Pass-By Trips Generated by Multi-Family Residential Land Uses

Pass-By Trips Generated by Retail Land Uses 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647 Subtotal

Pass-By Trips Generated by Office Land Uses

Total Retail Pass-By Trips

(12) 0 (31) (12) 0 (9) (11) 0

(7) 0 (17) (7) 0 (5) (6) 0

(19) 0 (48) (19) 0 (13) (17) 0

(12) 0 (31) (12) 0 (9) (11) 0

(7) 0 (17) (7) 0 (5) (6) 0

(19) 0 (48) (19) 0 (13) (17) 0

(76)

(41)

(116)

(76)

(41)

(116)

Adjustment for Trips Made by Transit Transit Trips for Residential

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%

Subtotal

Transit Trips for Retail

(0) (2) 0 (5) (2) (4) (2) (7)

(0) (1) 0 (3) (1) (2) (1) (4)

(1) (2) 0 (8) (4) (6) (4) (10)

(22)

(12)

(34)

0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%

Transit Trips for Office

(0) 0 (1) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0

(0) 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0

(0) 0 (1) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0

(1)

(2)

9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5%

Total Transit Trips

(6) 0 (15) 0 0 0 0 0

(29) 0 (74) 0 0 0 0 0

(35) 0 (89) 0 0 0 0 0

(7) (2) (16) (5) (2) (4) (3) (7)

(29) (1) (74) (3) (1) (2) (1) (4)

(36) (2) (90) (8) (4) (6) (4) (10)

(21)

(103)

(124)

(45)

(116)

(160)

Adjustment for Trips Made by Active Modes of Transportation Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

Active Mode Trips for Residential Land Uses 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Subtotal

Active Mode Trips for Retail Land Uses

(0) (1) 0 (3) (1) (2) (1) (4)

(0) (0) 0 (2) (1) (1) (1) (2)

(0) (1) 0 (4) (2) (3) (2) (6)

(12)

(7)

(19)

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Active Mode Trips for Office Land Uses

(0) 0 (1) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0

(1) 0 (2) (1) 0 (1) (1) 0

(3)

(2)

(4)

1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Total Trips by Active Modes

(1) 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0

(4) 0 (10) 0 0 0 0 0

(5) 0 (12) 0 0 0 0 0

(1) (1) (3) (3) (1) (2) (2) (4)

(4) (0) (10) (2) (1) (1) (1) (2)

(6) (1) (14) (5) (2) (4) (3) (6)

(3)

(14)

(16)

(18)

(22)

(40)

Adjustment for Trips Generated by Existing Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647 Subtotal

Trips from Existing Residential displaced by Redevelopment

Trips from Existing Retail Displaced by Redevelopment

Trips from Existing Office Displaced by Redevelopment

0 (186) 0 (15) 0 (6) (88)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(8) (16) (121) 0 (9) (12) (4) (57)

(4) (9) (65) 0 (5) (7) (2) (31)

(12) (25) (186) 0 (15) (19) (6) (88)

(306)

(227)

(122)

(350)

0 (16) 0 0 0 (12) 0 0

0 (9) 0 0 0 (7) 0 0

0 (25) 0 0 0 (19) 0 0

3.284 0.00 50.118 0.00 3.925 0.00 1.626 23.610

(8)

(4)

(12)

0 (121) 0 (9) 0 (4) (57)

0 (65) 0 (5) 0 (2) (31)

(28)

(15)

(43)

82.563

(199)

(107)

Trips Generated by Multi and Single-Family Residential Land Uses Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

Trips Generated by Retail Land Uses

New Housing Units

Trips Generated by Office Land Uses

PM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour In-bound

Out-bound

Total

Floor Area (KSF)

Total Trips from Displaced Existing Land Uses

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0 40 0 0 0 30 0 0

Total Net New Trip Generation PM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

Office Floor Area (KSF)

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

19 85 0 278 134 206 128 375

7 16 0 99 50 33 43 140

4 8 0 53 27 18 23 76

11 24 0 152 77 50 66 216

19.904 0.000 50.432 18.614 0.000 14.315 16.686 0.000

26 0 (36) 27 (9) 25 20 (57)

14 0 (19) 15 (5) 14 11 (31)

40 0 (55) 42 (15) 39 31 (88)

247.612 0.000 627.395 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

56 0 141 0 0 0 0 0

272 0 689 0 0 0 0 0

327 0 830 0 0 0 0 0

88 16 105 126 41 58 63 83

289 8 669 68 22 31 34 45

378 24 775 194 63 89 97 128

Grand Total Net New Trips in SR 99 Subarea

1,224

388

209

597

119.951

(4)

(2)

(5)

875.007

197

960

1,157

581

1,167

1,749

ESTIMATED VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION (ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED) Trips Generated by Multi-Family Residential Land Uses PM Peak Hour

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647 Total Unadjusted Trips

Trips Generated by Office Land Uses

Trips Generated by Retail Land Uses PM Peak Hour

New Housing Units

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

370 460 573 517 301 273 432 594

149 185 231 208 121 110 174 239

80 100 124 112 65 59 94 129

229 285 355 321 187 169 268 368

3,520

1,419

764

2,182

Floor Area (KSF)

Total Trip Generation

PM Peak Hour

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

118.978 41.386 153.083 57.700 22.015 27.586 40.335 51.602

287 100 369 139 53 67 97 124

154 54 199 75 29 36 52 67

441 154 568 214 82 102 150 191

512.685

1,236

666

1,902

Floor Area (KSF)

PM Peak Hour

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

397.658 41.386 483.717 57.700 22.015 27.586 40.335 51.602

101 10 123 15 6 7 10 13

492 51 598 71 27 34 50 64

593 62 721 86 33 41 60 77

537 296 723 362 180 184 282 377

727 205 921 258 121 129 196 260

1,263 500 1,644 621 301 313 478 637

1,121.999

284

1,388

1,672

2,939

2,817

5,756

(14) (4) (19) (6) (3) (4) (4) (6) (60)

(71) (25) (93) (34) (14) (16) (23) (31) (308)

Adjustment for Internal Capture Within TAZs (PM Peak Hour Only) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

Percent Int. Capt.

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

21.4% 6.3% 18.3% 7.2% 5.3% 6.5% 6.0% 5.7%

Internal Capture Residential (32) (12) (42) (15) (6) (7) (10) (14) (139)

Subtotal

(17) (6) (23) (8) (3) (4) (6) (7) (75)

Internal Capture Retail

Percent Int. Capt. (49) (18) (65) (23) (10) (11) (16) (21) (213)

(37) (13) (48) (18) (7) (8) (12) (16) (159)

12.9% 13.0% 13.0% 12.6% 13.4% 12.7% 12.0% 13.1%

(20) (7) (26) (9) (4) (5) (6) (9) (86)

Internal Capture Office

Percent Int. Capt. (57) (20) (74) (27) (11) (13) (18) (25) (245)

(2) (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (10)

2.4% 6.5% 2.6% 7.0% 9.1% 9.8% 6.7% 7.8%

(12) (3) (16) (5) (2) (3) (3) (5) (50)

Total Internal Capture Trips (49) (17) (64) (23) (10) (12) (15) (21) (210)

(120) (42) (158) (56) (24) (28) (38) (52) (518)

Adjustment for PM Peak Hour Retail Pass-By Trips (Applied to Non-Internal Trips Only) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

Pass-By Trips Generated by Retail

Pass-By Trips Generated by Multi-Family Residential

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

NOT APPLICABLE

(81) (28) (104) (39) (15) (19) (27) (35) (349)

Subtotal

(44) (15) (56) (21) (8) (10) (15) (19) (188)

Pass-By Trips Generated by Office (125) (43) (160) (60) (23) (29) (42) (54) (537)

Total Retail Pass-By Trips (81) (28) (104) (39) (15) (19) (27) (35) (349)

NOT APPLICABLE

(44) (15) (56) (21) (8) (10) (15) (19) (188)

(125) (43) (160) (60) (23) (29) (42) (54) (537)

Adjustment for Trips Made by Transit Transit Trips for Residential

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

(30) (37) (46) (42) (24) (22) (35) (48) (284)

Subtotal

(16) (20) (25) (22) (13) (12) (19) (26) (153)

Transit Trips for Retail (46) (57) (71) (64) (37) (34) (54) (74) (436)

4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

(11) (4) (15) (6) (2) (3) (4) (5) (49)

(11) (14) (18) (16) (9) (8) (13) (18) (109)

3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%

Transit Trips for Office (6) (2) (8) (3) (1) (1) (2) (3) (27)

(18) (6) (23) (9) (3) (4) (6) (8) (76)

16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%

(15) (5) (20) (7) (3) (4) (5) (7) (67)

2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

(16) (2) (20) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (45)

Total Transit Trips (79) (8) (96) (11) (4) (5) (8) (10) (222)

(95) (10) (115) (14) (5) (7) (10) (12) (267)

(57) (43) (81) (50) (27) (26) (40) (55) (379)

(15) (2) (18) (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (42)

(20) (13) (28) (16) (8) (8) (12) (17) (121)

(101) (30) (129) (37) (19) (19) (29) (39) (401)

(158) (73) (209) (86) (46) (45) (69) (94) (780)

Adjustment for Trips Made by Active Modes of Transportation

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

Active Mode Trips for Retail Land Uses

Active Mode Trips for Residential Land Uses

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Subtotal

(7) (9) (12) (10) (6) (6) (9) (12) (71)

(4) (5) (6) (6) (3) (3) (5) (6) (38)

(10) (3) (13) (5) (2) (2) (3) (4) (43)

(5) (2) (7) (3) (1) (1) (2) (2) (23)

Active Mode Trips for Office Land Uses (3) (0) (3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (7)

(12) (1) (15) (2) (1) (1) (1) (2) (35)

Total Trips by Active Modes (22) (8) (28) (10) (5) (5) (8) (10) (96)

(42) (21) (56) (26) (13) (13) (20) (27) (217)

Adjustment for Trips Generated by Existing Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647

Trips from Existing Residential Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment 15 44 22 8 6 39 64 13

(6) (18) (9) (3) (2) (16) (26) (5)

(3) (10) (5) (2) (1) (8) (14) (3)

Trips from Existing Retail Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment

(9) (27) (14) (5) (4) (24) (40) (8)

14.856 42.110 63.912 16.393 30.139 0.000 6.590 46.644

(36) (102) (154) (40) (73) 0 (16) (112)

(19) (55) (83) (21) (39) 0 (9) (61)

Trips from Existing Office Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment (55) (156) (237) (61) (112) 0 (24) (173)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trips from Existing Land Uses Displaced by Redevelopment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal

(42) (119) (163) (43) (75) (16) (42) (118) (617)

(23) (64) (88) (23) (40) (8) (22) (63) (332)

(64) (184) (251) (66) (116) (24) (64) (181) (949)

Grand Total Net New Vehicular Trips (Total Unadjusted minus Total of Adjustments) Trips Generated by Retail Land Uses

Trips Generated by Multi-Family Residential Land Uses Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)

2588 2626 2627 2629 2644 2645 2646 2647 Grand Total Net New Trips Source: DKS Associates, 2017.

PM Peak Hour

Trips Generated by Office Land Uses

PM Peak Hour

New Housing Units

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

370 460 573 517 301 273 432 594

74 110 122 138 82 60 94 161

40 59 66 74 44 32 51 87

114 169 188 212 126 92 145 247

840

453

1,293

Floor Area (KSF) 118.978 41.386 153.083 57.700 22.015 27.586 40.335 51.602

Total Net New Trip Generation

PM Peak Hour

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

Office Floor Area (KSF)

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

In-bound

Out-bound

Total

112 (50) 35 32 (46) 34 35 (49)

60 (27) 19 17 (25) 18 19 (26)

172 (78) 54 50 (70) 53 54 (75)

397.658 41.386 483.717 57.700 22.015 27.586 40.335 51.602

80 8 97 11 4 5 8 10

389 38 472 53 20 24 37 47

469 46 569 64 24 29 45 57

265 67 254 181 40 99 137 121

489 70 557 145 39 75 107 107

754 137 810 326 80 174 244 229

104

159

1,121.999

221

1,081

1,302

1,165

1,589

2,755

APPENDIX F

2035 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS  ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION  ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

F-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017

2035 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:02 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Turning Movement Report Alternative 1 No Action Volume Northbound Type Left Thru Right

Southbound Left Thru Right

Eastbound Left Thru Right

Westbound Total Left Thru Right Volume

#1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW Base 319 1860 149 329 1766 Added 0 30 5 0 34 Total 319 1890 154 329 1800

277 5 282

214 28 242

294 8 302

114 0 114

203 1 204

283 3 286

136 0 136

5944 114 6058

#2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW Base 161 2166 70 99 1812 Added 32 7 0 7 24 Total 193 2173 70 106 1836

42 4 46

74 25 99

128 60 188

257 28 285

150 0 150

92 11 103

114 2 116

5165 200 5365

#3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW Base 193 1673 336 176 1862 Added 39 11 0 6 42 Total 232 1684 336 182 1904

131 4 135

141 27 168

440 127 567

121 222 343

339 0 339

623 24 647

167 2 169

6202 504 6706

#4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW Base 260 1980 50 180 2000 Added 2 26 0 31 130 Total 262 2006 50 211 2130

120 23 143

70 4 74

120 29 149

170 3 173

40 0 40

120 26 146

30 6 36

5140 280 5420

#44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW Base 78 1297 212 238 1152 Added 0 37 16 0 20 Total 78 1334 228 238 1172

184 2 186

257 3 260

496 1 497

55 0 55

327 9 336

584 0 584

548 0 548

5428 88 5516

#46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW Base 260 1665 34 33 1658 Added 7 9 9 0 5 Total 267 1674 43 33 1663

218 52 270

250 13 263

44 9 53

150 4 154

16 5 21

83 13 96

31 0 31

4442 126 4568

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 22-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Turning Movement By Zone Report Alternative 1 No Action Volume Northbound Type Left Thru Right

Southbound Left Thru Right

Eastbound Left Thru Right

Westbound Total Left Thru Right Volume

#1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW [Base(LOS=E-,Del=79.4,V/C=1.104)][Future(LOS=F,Del=87.9,V/C=1.133)][+8.539 D/V] Base 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 5944 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 5944 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 0 20 5 0 3 3 20 0 0 1 0 0 52 Zn 8 0 9 0 0 31 2 7 8 0 0 3 0 60 Added 0 30 5 0 34 5 28 8 0 1 3 0 114 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 319 1890 154 329 1800 282 242 302 114 204 286 136 6058 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 319 1890 154 329 1800 282 242 302 114 204 286 136 6058 #2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW [Base(LOS=C,Del=29.9,V/C=0.924)][Future(LOS=D,Del=39.4,V/C=0.961)][+9.523 D/V] Base 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 5165 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 5165 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Zn 7 31 0 0 0 0 4 25 52 25 0 8 0 145 Zn 8 0 7 0 7 24 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 49 Added 32 7 0 7 24 4 25 60 28 0 11 2 200 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 193 2173 70 106 1836 46 99 188 285 150 103 116 5365 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 193 2173 70 106 1836 46 99 188 285 150 103 116 5365

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 22-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume

#3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW [Base(LOS=E+,Del=55.3,V/C=1.028)][Future(LOS=E-,Del=78.6,V/C=1.135)][+23.304 D/V Base 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 6202 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 6202 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Zn 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 11 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 35 3 0 0 21 4 27 119 220 0 19 0 448 Zn 8 0 5 0 6 18 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 40 Added 39 11 0 6 42 4 27 127 222 0 24 2 504 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 232 1684 336 182 1904 135 168 567 343 339 647 169 6706 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 232 1684 336 182 1904 135 168 567 343 339 647 169 6706 #4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW [Base(LOS=D,Del=49.5,V/C=1.036)][Future(LOS=E,Del=74.4,V/C=1.124)][+24.961 D/V] Base 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 5140 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 5140 Zn 1 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 Zn 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Zn 3 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Zn 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 19 0 29 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 7 Zn 7 0 18 0 27 112 21 3 0 0 0 0 4 185 Zn 8 0 2 0 5 6 2 1 14 0 0 4 1 35 Added 2 26 0 31 130 23 4 29 3 0 26 6 280 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 262 2006 50 211 2130 143 74 149 173 40 146 36 5420 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 262 2006 50 211 2130 143 74 149 173 40 146 36 5420

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 22-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume

#44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW [Base(LOS=E,Del=63.7,V/C=0.992)][Future(LOS=E,Del=66.1,V/C=1.006)][+2.394 D/V] Base 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 5428 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 5428 Zn 1 0 8 8 0 4 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 26 Zn 2 0 8 8 0 4 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 26 Zn 3 0 15 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 Zn 4 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 37 16 0 20 2 3 1 0 9 0 0 88 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 78 1334 228 238 1172 186 260 497 55 336 584 548 5516 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 78 1334 228 238 1172 186 260 497 55 336 584 548 5516 #46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW [Base(LOS=D,Del=46.3,V/C=1.020)][Future(LOS=D-,Del=53.2,V/C=1.055)][+6.863 D/V] Base 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 4442 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 4442 Zn 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 19 Zn 2 0 9 0 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 19 Zn 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 19 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 9 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Zn 7 0 0 0 0 0 49 8 0 0 0 0 0 57 Zn 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 7 9 9 0 5 52 13 9 4 5 13 0 126 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 267 1674 43 33 1663 270 263 53 154 21 96 31 4568 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 267 1674 43 33 1663 270 263 53 154 21 96 31 4568

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.133 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 87.9 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7 7 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 Added Vol: 0 30 5 0 34 5 28 8 0 1 3 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 319 1890 154 329 1800 282 242 302 114 204 286 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 339 2011 164 350 1915 300 257 321 121 217 304 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 339 2011 164 350 1915 300 257 321 121 217 304 145 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 339 2011 164 350 1915 300 257 321 121 217 304 145 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.45 0.55 1.00 1.36 0.64 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 1787 2488 939 1787 2306 1096 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.57 0.10 0.20 0.54 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 Volume/Cap: 1.08 1.13 0.21 1.13 1.08 0.38 1.13 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.13 1.13 Delay/Veh: 128.0 79.7 7.0 145.2 60.7 8.1 165.6 116 116.4 135.7 153 152.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 128.0 79.7 7.0 145.2 60.7 8.1 165.6 116 116.4 135.7 153 152.8 LOS by Move: F EA F E A F F F F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 18 60 1 24 59 4 19 16 16 15 17 17 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.961 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.4 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permit+Prot Permit+Prot Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 5 10 10 5 10 10 5 7 7 5 7 7 Y+R: 4.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 Added Vol: 32 7 0 7 24 4 25 60 28 0 11 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 193 2173 70 106 1836 46 99 188 285 150 103 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 205 2312 74 113 1953 49 105 200 303 160 110 123 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 205 2312 74 113 1953 49 105 200 303 160 110 123 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 205 2312 74 113 1953 49 105 200 303 160 110 123 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.57 0.99 0.84 0.52 0.99 0.84 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 1088 1881 1599 986 1881 1599 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.65 0.05 0.06 0.55 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.60 0.60 0.22 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.16 Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.99 0.07 0.99 0.92 0.05 0.36 0.99 0.81 0.65 0.59 0.48 Delay/Veh: 104.9 27.1 3.8 152.0 23.3 7.3 55.9 128 67.4 67.6 70.0 58.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 104.9 27.1 3.8 152.0 23.3 7.3 55.9 128 67.4 67.6 70.0 58.4 LOS by Move: F C A F C A E+ F E E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 9 51 0 5 34 0 4 13 15 8 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.135 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 78.6 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: E******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 5 10 10 7 10 10 5 7 7 7 10 10 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Added Vol: 39 11 0 6 42 4 27 127 222 0 24 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 232 1684 336 182 1904 135 168 567 343 339 647 169 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 247 1791 357 194 2026 144 179 603 365 361 688 180 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 247 1791 357 194 2026 144 179 603 365 361 688 180 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 247 1791 357 194 2026 144 179 603 365 361 688 180 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.91 0.94 0.84 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1583 1787 3574 1599 3467 3574 1599 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.51 0.23 0.06 0.57 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.10 0.19 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.19 0.19 Volume/Cap: 1.14 0.90 0.40 0.90 1.14 0.18 1.00 0.84 1.14 1.14 1.00 0.58 Delay/Veh: 168.0 24.7 12.3 104.5 96.6 15.5 134.7 66.3 151.8 160.3 94.8 57.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 168.0 24.7 12.3 104.5 96.6 15.5 134.7 66.3 151.8 160.3 94.8 57.9 LOS by Move: F C B F F B F E F F F E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 18 36 6 4 61 2 12 16 25 14 22 8 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 13-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.124 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 74.4 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 5 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 Added Vol: 2 26 0 31 130 23 4 29 3 0 26 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 262 2006 50 211 2130 143 74 149 173 40 146 36 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 279 2134 53 224 2266 152 79 159 184 43 155 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 279 2134 53 224 2266 152 79 159 184 43 155 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 279 2134 53 224 2266 152 79 159 184 43 155 38 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.53 0.53 0.83 0.60 0.60 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 334 672 1583 247 902 1583 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.60 0.03 0.13 0.64 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.59 0.59 0.12 0.57 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 1.12 1.03 0.06 1.03 1.12 0.17 1.12 1.12 0.55 0.82 0.82 0.12 Delay/Veh: 159.1 46.1 8.1 134.2 83.7 9.9 158.5 158 55.0 76.1 76.1 48.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 159.1 46.1 8.1 134.2 83.7 9.9 158.5 158 55.0 76.1 76.1 48.1 LOS by Move: F D A F F A F F E+ EED HCM2kAvgQ: 20 61 1 15 73 2 17 17 8 11 11 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 17-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.055 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 53.2 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: D******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 5 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 Added Vol: 7 9 9 0 5 52 13 9 4 5 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 267 1674 43 33 1663 270 263 53 154 21 96 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 284 1781 46 35 1769 287 280 56 164 22 102 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 284 1781 46 35 1769 287 280 56 164 22 102 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 284 1781 46 35 1769 287 280 56 164 22 102 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.57 0.57 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.80 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.83 0.17 1.00 0.14 0.65 0.21 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 903 182 1615 216 986 318 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.50 0.03 0.02 0.50 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 1.05 0.86 0.05 0.51 1.05 0.38 1.05 1.05 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Delay/Veh: 133.6 19.3 8.0 76.9 69.8 20.7 118.6 119 42.1 42.2 42.2 42.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 133.6 19.3 8.0 76.9 69.8 20.7 118.6 119 42.1 42.2 42.2 42.2 LOS by Move: F BA EE C+ F F D D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 19 31 0 2 53 6 22 22 6 6 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 15-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.006 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 66.1 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 5 10 10 5 10 10 4 7 7 4 7 5 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 Added Vol: 0 37 16 0 20 2 3 1 0 9 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 78 1334 228 238 1172 186 260 497 55 336 584 548 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 83 1419 243 253 1247 198 277 529 59 357 621 583 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 1419 243 253 1247 198 277 529 59 357 621 583 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 83 1419 243 253 1247 198 277 529 59 357 621 583 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 0.20 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 1769 3138 347 1769 3538 1583 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.40 0.15 0.14 0.35 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.37 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.74 1.01 0.38 1.01 0.74 0.26 1.01 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.78 1.01 Delay/Veh: 91.5 65.9 29.1 122.7 27.1 18.9 119.3 92.7 92.7 100.0 60.0 86.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 91.5 65.9 29.1 122.7 27.1 18.9 119.3 92.7 92.7 100.0 60.0 86.5 LOS by Move: F E C F C BF F F F E+ F HCM2kAvgQ: 5 41 7 16 21 4 18 19 19 21 16 33 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 20-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report Urban and Suburban Generalized 2000 HCM Operations Arterial Method Future Volume Alternative ******************************************************************************** Route #1 SR 99 Southbound ******************************************************************************** I. Arterial Level of Service Summary - southbound Free Artrl Flow Sect Seg Class Speed 1 2

1 1

II II

45.0 45.0

Length (mi.) 0.830 1.391

Running End Time Stppd Intrs Appr Other (sec.) Delay LOS Delay Delay

Section Travel Time Speed LOS

84.1 118.1

287.6 214.9

203.5 96.9

F F

203.5 96.9

0.0 0.0

10.4 23.3

F C

Overall(southbound) 2.221 202.2 300.4 0.0 502.6 15.9 E -------------------------------------------------------------------------------II. Arterial Node LOS Data - southbound

Node

Adjust Cycl Dir Turn Volume Len

Method

g/C

Mvmnt Capac

Lanes

v/c

Arr Prog Typ Fctr

Ctrl Delay

2 00Ops SB thru 1953 150 0.60 2.00 3538 0.92 4 0.58 23.3 3 00Ops SB thru 2026 150 0.50 2.00 3538 1.14 4 0.76 96.6 63 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 4 00Ops SB thru 2266 150 0.57 2.00 3538 1.12 4 0.64 83.7 24 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 25 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 60 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 5 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 6 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 7 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 8 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 46 00Ops SB thru 1769 150 0.47 2.00 3538 1.05 4 0.80 69.8 9 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 10 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 44 00Ops SB thru 1247 150 0.48 2.00 3538 0.74 4 0.80 27.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III. Arterial Description Node Node Sect Segmt Bgn End 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 63 4 24 25 60 5 6 7

2 3 63 4 24 25 60 5 6 7 8

Name SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Artrl Class

Func/Dsgn

II II II II II II II II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

Bgn->End Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.280 0.280 0.130 0.140 0.130 0.001 0.075 0.075 0.140 0.280 0.140

End->Bgn Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.280 0.280 0.130 0.140 0.130 0.001 0.075 0.075 0.140 0.280 0.140

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 20-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Node Artrl Bgn->End End->Bgn Sect Segmt Bgn End Name Class Func/Dsgn Speed Dist Speed Dist 1 1 1 1

8 46 9 10

46 9 10 44

SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99

II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.140 0.150 0.120

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.140 0.150 0.120

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 21-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report Urban and Suburban Generalized 2000 HCM Operations Arterial Method Future Volume Alternative ******************************************************************************** Route #2 SR 99 Northbound ******************************************************************************** I. Arterial Level of Service Summary - northbound Free Artrl Flow Sect Seg Class Speed 1 2

1 1

II II

45.0 45.0

Length (mi.) 1.391 0.830

Running End Time Stppd Intrs Appr Other (sec.) Delay LOS Delay Delay

Section Travel Time Speed LOS

118.1 84.1

183.5 215.6

65.5 131.5

F F

65.5 131.5

0.0 0.0

27.3 13.9

C E

Overall(northbound) 2.221 202.2 197.0 0.0 399.2 20.0 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------II. Arterial Node LOS Data - northbound

Node

Adjust Cycl Dir Turn Volume Len

Method

g/C

Mvmnt Capac

Lanes

v/c

Arr Prog Typ Fctr

Ctrl Delay

10 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 9 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 46 00Ops NB thru 1781 150 0.59 2.00 3538 0.86 4 0.60 19.3 8 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 7 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 6 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 5 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 60 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 25 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 24 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 4 00Ops NB thru 2134 150 0.59 2.00 3538 1.03 4 0.61 46.1 63 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 3 00Ops NB thru 1791 150 0.56 2.00 3538 0.90 4 0.65 24.7 2 00Ops NB thru 2312 150 0.66 2.00 3538 0.99 4 0.41 27.1 1 00Ops NB thru 2011 150 0.50 2.00 3538 1.13 5 0.33 79.7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III. Arterial Description Node Node Sect Segmt Bgn End 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

44 10 9 46 8 7 6 5 60 25 24

10 9 46 8 7 6 5 60 25 24 4

Name SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Artrl Class

Func/Dsgn

II II II II II II II II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

Bgn->End Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.120 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.280 0.140 0.075 0.075 0.001 0.130

End->Bgn Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.120 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.280 0.140 0.075 0.075 0.001 0.130

Alternative 1 No Action Mon May 1, 2017 10:34:06 Page 21-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Node Artrl Bgn->End End->Bgn Sect Segmt Bgn End Name Class Func/Dsgn Speed Dist Speed Dist 2

1 1 1 1

4 63 3 2

63 3 2 1

SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99

II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.130 0.280 0.280

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.130 0.280 0.280

2035 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AT STUDY INTERSECTIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED

Preferred Alternative Mon Apr 17, 2017 03:14:09 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Turning Movement Report Preferred Alt Volume Northbound Type Left Thru Right

Southbound Left Thru Right

Eastbound Left Thru Right

Westbound Total Left Thru Right Volume

#1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW Base 319 1860 149 329 1766 Added 0 28 4 0 52 Total 319 1888 153 329 1818

277 0 277

214 0 214

294 14 308

114 0 114

203 2 205

283 8 291

136 0 136

5944 108 6052

#2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW Base 161 2166 70 99 1812 Added 35 22 0 12 40 Total 196 2188 70 111 1852

42 2 44

74 4 78

128 35 163

257 32 289

150 0 150

92 19 111

114 6 120

5165 207 5372

#3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW Base 193 1673 336 176 1862 Added 89 28 0 10 52 Total 282 1701 336 186 1914

131 10 141

141 23 164

440 114 554

121 188 309

339 0 339

623 56 679

167 5 172

6202 575 6777

#4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW Base 260 1980 50 180 2000 Added 4 64 0 30 123 Total 264 2044 50 210 2123

120 21 141

70 10 80

120 66 186

170 5 175

40 0 40

120 62 182

30 14 44

5140 399 5539

#44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW Base 78 1297 212 238 1152 Added 0 58 28 0 48 Total 78 1355 240 238 1200

184 4 188

257 5 262

496 1 497

55 0 55

327 23 350

584 1 585

548 0 548

5428 168 5596

#46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW Base 260 1665 34 33 1658 Added 10 17 16 0 14 Total 270 1682 50 33 1672

218 53 271

250 32 282

44 18 62

150 8 158

16 13 29

83 20 103

31 0 31

4442 201 4643

Preferred Alternative Mon Apr 17, 2017 03:14:14 Page 20-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Turning Movement By Zone Report Preferred Alt Volume Northbound Type Left Thru Right

Southbound Left Thru Right

Eastbound Left Thru Right

Westbound Total Left Thru Right Volume

#1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW [Base(LOS=E-,Del=79.4,V/C=1.104)][Future(LOS=F,Del=84.6,V/C=1.116)][+5.271 D/V] Base 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 5944 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 5944 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 Zn 8 0 28 0 0 52 0 0 14 0 0 8 0 102 Added 0 28 4 0 52 0 0 14 0 2 8 0 108 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 319 1888 153 329 1818 277 214 308 114 205 291 136 6052 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 319 1888 153 329 1818 277 214 308 114 205 291 136 6052 #2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW [Base(LOS=C,Del=29.9,V/C=0.924)][Future(LOS=D+,Del=37.6,V/C=0.959)][+7.651 D/V] Base 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 5165 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 5165 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 Zn 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 8 Zn 7 31 0 0 0 0 2 4 21 28 0 10 0 96 Zn 8 0 22 0 12 40 0 0 11 0 0 6 6 97 Added 35 22 0 12 40 2 4 35 32 0 19 6 207 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 196 2188 70 111 1852 44 78 163 289 150 111 120 5372 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 196 2188 70 111 1852 44 78 163 289 150 111 120 5372

Preferred Alternative Mon Apr 17, 2017 03:14:14 Page 20-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume

#3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW [Base(LOS=E+,Del=55.3,V/C=1.028)][Future(LOS=F,Del=85.2,V/C=1.146)][+29.824 Base 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Zn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 5 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 84 8 0 0 17 10 23 99 183 0 45 0 Zn 8 0 16 0 10 30 0 0 11 0 0 6 5 Added 89 28 0 10 52 10 23 114 188 0 56 5 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 282 1701 336 186 1914 141 164 554 309 339 679 172 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 282 1701 336 186 1914 141 164 554 309 339 679 172

D/V] 6202 1.00 6202 0 0 7 2 20 0 469 78 575 0 6777 1.00 6777

#4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW [Base(LOS=D,Del=49.7,V/C=1.036)][Future(LOS=F,Del=98.3,V/C=1.180)][+48.659 D/V] Base 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 5140 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 5140 Zn 1 4 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 18 Zn 2 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Zn 3 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Zn 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 28 0 50 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 21 0 41 Zn 7 0 42 0 22 93 17 8 0 0 0 0 10 192 Zn 8 0 6 0 8 11 4 2 24 0 0 13 4 72 Added 4 64 0 30 123 21 10 66 5 0 62 14 399 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 264 2044 50 210 2123 141 80 186 175 40 182 44 5539 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 264 2044 50 210 2123 141 80 186 175 40 182 44 5539

Preferred Alternative Mon Apr 17, 2017 03:14:14 Page 20-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume

#44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW [Base(LOS=E,Del=63.7,V/C=0.992)][Future(LOS=E,Del=68.1,V/C=1.015)][+4.404 D/V] Base 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 5428 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 5428 Zn 1 0 14 14 0 12 1 1 1 0 12 1 0 56 Zn 2 0 14 14 0 12 2 2 0 0 12 0 0 56 Zn 3 0 21 0 0 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 Zn 4 0 9 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zn 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 58 28 0 48 4 5 1 0 23 1 0 168 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 78 1355 240 238 1200 188 262 497 55 350 585 548 5596 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 78 1355 240 238 1200 188 262 497 55 350 585 548 5596 #46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW [Base(LOS=D,Del=46.3,V/C=1.020)][Future(LOS=E,Del=61.5,V/C=1.091)][+15.172 D/V] Base 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 4442 Growth 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InitBs 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 4442 Zn 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 6 0 13 5 0 40 Zn 2 0 16 0 0 13 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 40 Zn 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 0 7 0 30 Zn 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Zn 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 16 Zn 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 Zn 7 0 0 0 0 0 41 19 0 0 0 0 0 60 Zn 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 10 17 16 0 14 53 32 18 8 13 20 0 201 PassBy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future 270 1682 50 33 1672 271 282 62 158 29 103 31 4643 UseAdj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 270 1682 50 33 1672 271 282 62 158 29 103 31 4643

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 99 / 212th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.116 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 96.5 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 7 7 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 319 1860 149 329 1766 277 214 294 114 203 283 136 Added Vol: 0 28 4 0 52 0 0 14 0 2 8 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 319 1888 153 329 1818 277 214 308 114 205 291 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 339 2009 163 350 1934 295 228 328 121 218 310 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 339 2009 163 350 1934 295 228 328 121 218 310 145 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 339 2009 163 350 1934 295 228 328 121 218 310 145 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.46 0.54 1.00 1.36 0.64 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1467 1769 3538 1467 1787 2498 925 1787 2311 1080 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.57 0.11 0.20 0.55 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 Volume/Cap: 1.08 1.12 0.22 1.12 1.08 0.40 1.12 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.12 1.12 Delay/Veh: 134.3 88.4 15.5 147.6 73.1 17.5 164.1 134 133.7 153.3 146 146.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 134.3 88.4 15.5 147.6 73.1 17.5 164.1 134 133.7 153.3 146 146.1 LOS by Move: F F B F E B F F F F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 18 59 3 24 59 6 17 17 16 15 17 17 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 SR 99 / 216th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.960 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 48.5 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permit+Prot Permit+Prot Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 5 10 10 5 10 10 5 7 7 5 7 7 Y+R: 4.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 161 2166 70 99 1812 42 74 128 257 150 92 114 Added Vol: 35 22 0 12 40 2 4 35 32 0 19 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 196 2188 70 111 1852 44 78 163 289 150 111 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 209 2328 74 118 1970 47 83 173 307 160 118 128 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 209 2328 74 118 1970 47 83 173 307 160 118 128 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 209 2328 74 118 1970 47 83 173 307 160 118 128 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.47 0.99 0.80 0.53 0.99 0.80 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1547 1769 3538 1544 886 1881 1515 1008 1881 1515 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.66 0.05 0.07 0.56 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.67 0.67 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.99 0.07 0.99 0.92 0.05 0.35 0.99 0.91 0.65 0.59 0.49 Delay/Veh: 102.5 39.5 8.7 147.4 33.0 12.0 58.9 131 85.3 67.1 68.8 57.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 102.5 39.5 8.7 147.4 33.0 12.0 58.9 131 85.3 67.1 68.8 57.4 LOS by Move: F D A F CB+ E+ F F E E E+ HCM2kAvgQ: 9 53 1 5 39 1 4 12 17 8 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 SR 99 / 220th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.154 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 85.7 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 5 10 10 7 10 10 5 7 7 7 10 10 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 193 1673 336 176 1862 131 141 440 121 339 623 167 Added Vol: 89 28 0 10 52 10 23 114 188 0 56 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 282 1701 336 186 1914 141 164 554 309 339 679 172 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 300 1810 357 198 2036 150 174 589 329 361 722 183 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 300 1810 357 198 2036 150 174 589 329 361 722 183 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 300 1810 357 198 2036 150 174 589 329 361 722 183 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.90 0.93 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.91 0.94 0.82 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1496 3432 3538 1483 1787 3574 1548 3467 3574 1555 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.51 0.24 0.06 0.58 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.10 0.20 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 1.15 0.88 0.41 0.88 1.15 0.20 1.09 0.90 1.15 1.15 1.09 0.64 Delay/Veh: 167.8 21.6 11.1 100.2 105 16.2 166.7 74.7 162.7 167.5 124 61.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 167.8 21.6 11.1 100.2 105 16.2 166.7 74.7 162.7 167.5 124 61.2 LOS by Move: F C+ B+ F F B F E F F F E HCM2kAvgQ: 22 34 6 4 63 2 13 17 23 14 25 9 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 SR 99 / 224th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.180 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 98.5 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 5 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 260 1980 50 180 2000 120 70 120 170 40 120 30 Added Vol: 4 64 0 30 123 21 10 66 5 0 62 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 264 2044 50 210 2123 141 80 186 175 40 182 44 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 281 2174 53 223 2259 150 85 198 186 43 194 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 281 2174 53 223 2259 150 85 198 186 43 194 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 281 2174 53 223 2259 150 85 198 186 43 194 47 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.51 0.52 0.81 0.60 0.60 0.69 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.30 0.70 1.00 0.17 0.75 1.08 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1540 1769 3538 1539 295 685 1544 190 864 1421 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.61 0.03 0.13 0.64 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.56 0.56 0.12 0.54 0.54 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 1.18 1.10 0.06 1.10 1.18 0.18 1.18 1.18 0.49 0.92 0.92 0.13 Delay/Veh: 180.8 74.1 10.0 157.8 111 12.3 172.3 172 49.7 85.5 85.5 44.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 180.8 74.1 10.0 157.8 111 12.3 172.3 172 49.7 85.5 85.5 44.3 LOS by Move: F E A F F B F F D F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 21 68 1 16 78 2 21 21 8 15 15 2 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Preferred Alternative Mon Apr 17, 2017 03:14:13 Page 15-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #46 SR 99 / 238th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.091 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 61.5 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 5 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 260 1665 34 33 1658 218 250 44 150 16 83 31 Added Vol: 10 17 16 0 14 53 32 18 8 13 20 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 270 1682 50 33 1672 271 282 62 158 29 103 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 287 1789 53 35 1779 288 300 66 168 31 110 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 287 1789 53 35 1779 288 300 66 168 31 110 33 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 287 1789 53 35 1779 288 300 66 168 31 110 33 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.57 0.57 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.18 0.63 0.19 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 886 195 1615 236 838 252 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.51 0.03 0.02 0.50 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.57 0.57 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 1.09 0.88 0.06 0.53 1.09 0.40 1.09 1.09 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.42 Delay/Veh: 145.7 22.8 9.1 78.5 84.7 22.3 127.4 127 40.2 41.7 41.7 41.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 145.7 22.8 9.1 78.5 84.7 22.3 127.4 127 40.2 41.7 41.7 41.7 LOS by Move: F C+ A EF C+ F F D D D D HCM2kAvgQ: 20 34 1 2 56 7 24 24 6 6 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #44 SR 99 / 244th Street SW ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 150 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.037 Loss Time (sec): 12 Average Delay (sec/veh): 72.5 Optimal Cycle: 150 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 5 10 10 5 10 10 4 7 7 4 7 5 Y+R: 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module:PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 78 1297 212 238 1152 184 257 496 55 327 584 548 Added Vol: 0 58 28 0 48 4 5 1 0 23 1 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 78 1355 240 238 1200 188 262 497 55 350 585 548 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 83 1441 255 253 1277 200 279 529 59 372 622 583 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 83 1441 255 253 1277 200 279 529 59 372 622 583 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 83 1441 255 253 1277 200 279 529 59 372 622 583 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.76 0.93 0.93 0.74 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 0.20 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 3538 1435 1769 3538 1411 1769 3136 347 1769 3538 1500 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.41 0.18 0.14 0.36 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.39 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.39 0.39 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.37 Volume/Cap: 0.77 1.04 0.45 1.04 0.77 0.30 1.04 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.74 1.04 Delay/Veh: 97.0 79.7 34.2 132.1 35.2 24.8 128.3 92.0 92.0 97.6 56.6 94.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 97.0 79.7 34.2 132.1 35.2 24.8 128.3 92.0 92.0 97.6 56.6 94.6 LOS by Move: F ECF D+ C F F F F E+ F HCM2kAvgQ: 5 43 9 17 26 6 18 19 18 22 15 34 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ********************************************************************************

ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS яБо ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 14-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report Urban and Suburban Generalized 2000 HCM Operations Arterial Method Future Volume Alternative ******************************************************************************** Route #1 SR 99 Southbound ******************************************************************************** I. Arterial Level of Service Summary - southbound Free Artrl Flow Sect Seg Class Speed 1 2

1 1

II II

45.0 44.0

Length (mi.) 0.830 1.391

Running End Time Stppd Intrs Appr Other (sec.) Delay LOS Delay Delay

Section Travel Time Speed LOS

84.1 120.0

333.1 241.0

249.0 121.0

F F

249.0 121.0

0.0 0.0

9.0 20.8

F D

Overall(southbound) 2.221 204.1 370.0 0.0 574.1 13.9 E -------------------------------------------------------------------------------II. Arterial Node LOS Data - southbound

Node

Adjust Cycl Dir Turn Volume Len

Method

g/C

Mvmnt Capac

Lanes

v/c

Arr Prog Typ Fctr

Ctrl Delay

2 00Ops SB thru 1970 150 0.61 2.00 3538 0.92 3 1.00 33.0 3 00Ops SB thru 2036 150 0.50 2.00 3538 1.15 4 0.77 105.0 63 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 4 00Ops SB thru 2259 150 0.54 2.00 3538 1.18 4 0.70 111.0 24 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 25 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 60 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 5 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 6 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 7 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 8 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 46 00Ops SB thru 1779 150 0.46 2.00 3538 1.09 4 0.82 85.8 9 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 10 None SB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 44 00Ops SB thru 1277 150 0.47 2.00 3538 0.77 3 1.00 35.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III. Arterial Description Node Node Sect Segmt Bgn End 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 63 4 24 25 60 5 6 7

2 3 63 4 24 25 60 5 6 7 8

Name SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Artrl Class

Func/Dsgn

II II II II II II II II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

Bgn->End Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 45.0

0.280 0.280 0.130 0.140 0.130 0.001 0.075 0.075 0.140 0.280 0.140

End->Bgn Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.280 0.280 0.130 0.140 0.130 0.001 0.075 0.075 0.140 0.280 0.140

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 14-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Node Artrl Bgn->End End->Bgn Sect Segmt Bgn End Name Class Func/Dsgn Speed Dist Speed Dist 1 1 1 1

8 46 9 10

46 9 10 44

S9 SR SR SR

99 99 99 99

II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.140 0.150 0.120

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.140 0.150 0.120

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 15-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Level Of Service Computation Report Urban and Suburban Generalized 2000 HCM Operations Arterial Method Future Volume Alternative ******************************************************************************** Route #3 Northbound SR 99 Alt ******************************************************************************** I. Arterial Level of Service Summary - northbound Free Artrl Flow Sect Seg Class Speed 1 2

1 1

II II

45.0 45.0

Length (mi.) 1.391 0.830

Running End Time Stppd Intrs Appr Other (sec.) Delay LOS Delay Delay

Section Travel Time Speed LOS

118.1 84.1

215.2 233.5

97.2 149.4

F F

97.2 149.4

0.0 0.0

23.3 12.8

C F

Overall(northbound) 2.221 202.2 246.6 0.0 448.8 17.8 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------II. Arterial Node LOS Data - northbound

Node

Adjust Cycl Dir Turn Volume Len

Method

g/C

Mvmnt Capac

Lanes

v/c

Arr Prog Typ Fctr

Ctrl Delay

10 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 9 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 46 00Ops NB thru 1789 150 0.57 2.00 3538 0.89 4 0.64 23.1 8 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 7 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 6 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 5 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 60 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 25 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 24 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 4 00Ops NB thru 2174 150 0.56 2.00 3538 1.10 4 0.66 74.1 63 None NB thru >>>>>>>>>>>> Unsignalized Cross Street <<<<<<<<<<<< 3 00Ops NB thru 1810 150 0.58 2.00 3538 0.88 4 0.62 21.6 2 00Ops NB thru 2328 150 0.67 2.00 3538 0.99 3 1.00 39.5 1 00Ops NB thru 2009 150 0.51 2.00 3538 1.12 4 0.75 88.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III. Arterial Description Node Node Sect Segmt Bgn End 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

44 10 9 46 8 7 6 5 60 25 24

10 9 46 8 7 6 5 60 25 24 4

Name SR SR SR S9 SR SR SR SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

Artrl Class

Func/Dsgn

II II II II II II II II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

Bgn->End Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.120 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.280 0.140 0.075 0.075 0.001 0.130

End->Bgn Speed Dist 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.120 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.280 0.140 0.075 0.075 0.001 0.130

Preferred Alternative Mon May 22, 2017 13:23:38 Page 15-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edmonds SR 99 Subarea Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Node Artrl Bgn->End End->Bgn Sect Segmt Bgn End Name Class Func/Dsgn Speed Dist Speed Dist 2

1 1 1 1

4 63 3 2

63 3 2 1

SR SR SR SR

99 99 99 99

II II II II

Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr Prin/Intr

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.130 0.280 0.280

45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

0.140 0.130 0.280 0.280

APPENDIX G

RELIABILITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD CIRCUITS SERVING THE STUDY AREA Planned Action DEIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan

TABLE D.1

Snohomish County PUD Circuit Statistics: Ballinger 12-259 and Esperence 12-688

NO. OF CUSTOMERS

NO. OF OUTAGES

CUSTOMER MINUTES

SAIDI

CAIDI

SAIFI

Annual (2015)

693

0.0

0.00

5 Yr. Avg. (2010-2014)

688

2.2

64,822

94.7

217.3

0.70

Annual (2015)

1,183

211,133

178.5

155.0

1.15

5 Yr. Avg. (2010-2014)

1,179

1.4

13,641

11.7

158.2

0.23

SUBSTATION/CIRCUIT NO. Ballinger/259

Esperance/688

Note: Transmission and distribution outages, major event outages not included Source: Snohomish County Public Utility District 2015, 45, 50.

G-2 • PLANNED ACTION DEIS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN • JUNE 2017