Loading...
2021-07-21 Architectural Design Board PacketC)p E 04 � O Architectural Design Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, July 21, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting at: <https://zoom.us/j/93308631804?pwd=QXVDeGIUN3ozY2xUZlRCdW5mUnd4QTO9> Meeting ID: 933 086 31804. Password: 955982 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 I. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5662) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve last meeting minutes ATTACHMENTS: • ADB210602d (PDF) IV. Audience Comment V. Public Meeting 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5670) Waster Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 711512021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 21, 2021 M VII. Recommend approval of the design review aspects of the Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project to the Hearing Examiner. ATTACHMENTS: • PLN2021-0030 ADB Staff Report with Attachments (PDF) ADB Member Comments Adjournment Architectural Design Board Page 2 Printed 711512021 3.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/21/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve last meeting minutes. Narrative June 2nd ADB draft meeting minutes attached. Attachments: ADB210602d Packet Pg. 3 3.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 2, 2021 Chair Lauri Strauss called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Lauri Strauss Bruce Owensby Maurine Jeude Kim Bayer BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Joe Herr STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien Michele Szafran Lauri Strauss: I will call. Kernen Lien: Hello? Go ahead, Lauri, you're in charge. Lauri Strauss: So, it is 7:00 p.m. I'll call this meeting to order. Let's do a roll call. Kernen Lien: Lauri Strauss? Lauri Strauss: Present. Kernen Lien: Bruce Owensby? Bruce Owensby: Present. Kernen Lien: Kim Bayer? Kim Bayer: Here. Kernen Lien: Joe Herr? I don't see him over on the side. Maurine Jeude? Maurine Jeude: Present. Kernen Lien: And I think that's all we have for ADB right now. m r 4- 0 �a 0 L Q a N 0 co 0 N m G a c d E t U M Q Packet Pg. 4 Lauri Strauss: I think we have a quorum. So, four out of five of us are there. Joe may jump in later. He may not remember that we were meeting today. But I think we're good. We have a quorum. Next item is approval of the agenda. You all had a chance to take a look at it? Bruce Owensby: Yes. Kim Bayer: I had a chance to look at it, but I had a question. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kim Bayer: The meeting minutes are from the May 31 meeting. Where are the meeting minutes from the May 191 meeting? Maurine Jeude: I had the same question. Kernen Lien: I don't think we have them yet. So, I'm not sure if you all are aware. But Karen, our note -taker for the past 30 years — I think she'd been around that long — has retired. So, we don't have a new minute -taker yet. We're working with a company right now that we send the recording out to, and they basically do a verbatim transcript of the meetings. I know Mike Clugston was reviewing that maybe earlier today, but they didn't make it in this packet for tonight. But they'll be available at the next meeting. Lauri Strauss: I figured that was an extra one. So, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Maurine Jeude: I move that we approve the agenda. Lauri Strauss: Second? Kim Bayer: I second. Lauri Strauss: Agenda is approved. Next is approval of the minutes of the May 5th meeting — May 3,d or May 5th� Kim Bayer: I could be off. Kernen Lien: Well, let's see what we got. Kim Bayer: I guess it was May 5th Lauri Strauss: Yeah. Sorry. I heard May 31. I wanted to make sure. Is there a motion to approve? Bruce Owensby: I'll make a motion to approve. Lauri Strauss: And the second? Maurine Jeude: Second. Lauri Strauss: I have only one question on those meeting minutes. We have a Bob in the meeting minutes, but we didn't have a last name for Bob. Kernen, do you know if you we can get that put in the minutes? Bruce Owenby: I actually thought we dealt with this last meeting because Bob was — Lauri Strauss: We may have. Bruce Owensby: — the elderly gentleman who was in his house with his wife — Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: Right. Bruce Owensby: — talking. So, I think that was him. I thought Mike talked about that. Lauri Strauss: Yeah, I think he added it to the May 19' minutes, but he didn't add it to this one, so just making sure. It's actually highlighted in yellow on these minutes. Bruce Owensby: Right. Lauri Strauss: So, just making sure that we get that. All right. With that one correction, the minutes are approved. All right. Next is audience comments. Do we have any audience comments before we start the public hearing? Kernen Lien: So, just a note that the comments now would be on anything that's not one of the two public hearings before the Architectural Design Board tonight. If you wanna talk on one of the two projects, hold your comments for those public comment periods. If you wanna have a general comment, please raise your virtual hand, and I'll allow you to speak. If not, we will move on with the agenda. And I do not see anybody raising their hands. Lauri Strauss: All righty. We will move on then to the public hearings. So, the first one tonight is the Port of r Edmonds Administration Building. All right. Kernen Lien: Let everybody in on that project. — Lauri Strauss: So, everyone can hear me? Ta o L Bruce Owensby: Yes. 0. 0- Kim Bayer: Excuse me. Can I ask a question in regards to just order of the meeting? If somebody from the public N would like to make comments and somehow they didn't get in the queue in time before you shut it off, are they available to do that? Or is it just during that brief moment that you were looking, Kernen, since we don't have control over who's trying to raise their hand and who's not. We can't see them. pNp So, how does that... a Kernen Lien: If somebody wanted to speak later in the meeting after we get past the public hearings — still, nobody is d raising their hands at this point in time on there. When we get to the public hearing, if you click on the E participant's tab at the bottom, you can see panelists and attendees. And the attendees are the ones that are off to the side, and that's kinda what I'm keeping my eye on at the moment to see if anybody raises M, their virtual hand. a Kim Bayer: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: So, I would just like to make sure that when we're in deliberations that the attendees are all muted. Is that possible? Kernen Lien: They are at the moment until we raise their hand. When we get to the public hearing — Lauri Strauss: Exactly. Kernen Lien: I will give them the ability to speak. Lauri Strauss: I just wanted to make sure. All right. Thank you. All right. The purpose of the open record hearing is for the ADB to address Thor Sunde's design review application for the Sunde Townhomes. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong one. Scratch that. Start over. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 3.1.a The purpose of this open record hearing is for the ADB to address the Port of Edmonds design review application for a new 6650 square foot administration building located at 471 Admiral Way. The public hearing is now open. I would like to ask your cooperation in the following procedure: The City will make a recording of the proceedings. Therefore, if you address the ADB, begin by stating your name and address. Speak slowly and clearly. Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time. This hearing is open to public testimony. Because this is an open record hearing, the staff, the applicant, and any member of the public will have an opportunity to introduce evidence into the administration record. This evidence can be in the form of public testimony and/or through the submission of written comments or other documents, and it should be germane to the design review criteria. It will be of great assistance to the board and city staff if speakers could identify the design review criteria that their comments are intended to address. If you'd an opportunity to speak at any future appeal of this matter, you will need to testify today to ensure that you preserve your ability to participate in the future. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance, and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. Therefore, I would like to r ask whether any member of this decision -making body has engaged in communications with the 0 opponents or proponents regarding the issue in the design review matter outside of the public hearing 2 process. This is for the board members. I have not had any communications on this project with — anybody — proponents or opponents. 0 Bruce Owensby: I have not had any communications as well. 0. a Maurine Jeude: Neither have I. Q Lauri Strauss: Kim? Kim Bayer: Sorry, hold on here. I have not. Sorry. I wasn't sure if I was muted. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Is there any member of the board who has a conflict of interest or believes that he or she cannot hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner? Bruce Owensby: No. Maurine Jeude: No. Kim Bayer: No. Lauri Strauss: No. All right. All nos. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to my participation or to any of the board members' participation as a decision -maker in this hearing? Kernen Lien: If you're not promoted to a panelist and if you're in the audience and you object, please raise your hand virtually. No hands are being raised. Lauri Strauss: All right. Then we will continue. Because we are making an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in the future, it is important that the board members ask any and all questions of speakers during the hearing. One of the most important purposes of this hearing is to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light through this process. So, if board members have questions, they should ask them. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 At this point, I would like to ask that everyone planning to testify today stand and raise their right hand. Anyone? Attendees? Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Kernen Lien: Yes. Michele Szafran: I do. Lauri Strauss: It sounds like we're good. All right, we will begin with the testimony from staff. Kernen Lien: All right. So, public hearing on the Port of Edmonds Administration building. The presentation will outline the review process. I'll give an overview of the proposal, the staff presentation recommendation followed by the applicant's presentation, the public hearing, then questions and deliberations by the ADB. You guys may recognize this project. Back in 2017, there was a similar building that was proposed. At that time, it was gonna be a marine retail building. The building is basically the same size as what was proposed in 2017. In 2017, they also got the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit because this area is within shoreline jurisdictions. Design reviews are only good for 18 months. Before that 18 months expired, the board got a one-year extension. But that previous project still was not built. So, design review has expired. Shoreline permits are good for five years. So, the shoreline permit on this project — we're saying it's still valid because the building footprint and the developed footprint is still the same. So, right now just design review has to come back through the process. And that previous shoreline permit on this project is still valid. This is a type III permit process. So, any project that triggers SEPA review goes before the Architectural Design Board. And the ADB reviews project for consistency with 20.11.030, which is the general design standard in this one, and the comprehensive plan urban design chapter and also consistency with the zoning ordinance. The project location — it's on the waterfront on the backside of Admiral Way and just west of the railroad tracks. The next one here is the aerial photo. When I get to talking about the landscape, I want to note that where this project is — this here is the project site. But this here is really just one long parcel on there that all belongs to the Port of Edmonds. This is the Jacobsen Marine building down here. This is the boatyard. So, this here is the site where the Port Administration building would be going. This here is currently the Port Administration building. And one of the reasons they're doing this is in the coming years they are gonna be rebuilding the seawall along here and kinda need to get the current building out of the way to stage for that larger project. They're moving it over here, and this will be a much nicer building than the old cinder block building that's over there now. Sorry, Bob. I think you might like your building. So, some zoning stuff — the setbacks for the CW zone are 15-feet landward of the bulkheads. Parking has to be 60 feet from the bulkhead or 15 feet from an R-zoned property. It's more than 60 feet from the bulkheads, which are over here. There are no R-zoned properties on the other side, and it's also more than 60 feet from the Marsh property over there. The railroad right of way is about 100 feet through here. So, because of just where it's located, there essentially are no setbacks on this site where it's located because it's away from the bulkheads and all that. The height in the CW zone is 30 feet max. One thing that's a little different about the CW zone, and that's that this site is within the 100-year flood plain. So, new flood plain were just adopted by the city a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 3.1.a and issued by FEMA last year, I think it was, and expanded the flood zone in the downtown area. A few years ago when we updated our critical area codes, one of the things we did there was required buildings within the coastal flood hazard area, such as this site, to be constructed at 2 feet above the base flood elevation. Normally, zoning height is measured from an average grade. So, the elevations at the four corners — divide by four gives you your average grade. Since we're requiring them to build above the base flood elevation, 2 feet above — properties down here — the zoning height is measured from that point that's 2 feet above base flood elevation, which is 12 feet here. So, the 30 feet will be measured from the 14- foot elevation. The building that they're showing here is under 30 feet. So, it would comply with the height requirements. Parking within the downtown commercial zones is one space per 500 square feet of floor area of the building. This here is a 6600 square foot building. So, 13 spaces would be required, and they are providing 24 parking spaces along here. And just kind of the layout of this, I had mentioned the 2017 building. The footprint of that building is in the same spot. The parking layout had changed a little bit. All the parking used to be behind the building before, and there was a display area over here. But given the function of the building is gonna be a little bit different, the main entrances to the Port's offices are gonna be over here, some visitor r parking over there. And I think this area back here will be shops and whatnot. So, the layout's likely different, but the footprint is still basically the same. Something else I wanna point out on this slide that this here is the lighting image from their pack as 4- 0 Ta well. So, there's four light standards — so, pole -mounted skylights on the corners. There'll be lighting > 0 underneath the canopy for the site and then a couple of wall -mounted panels along the side there. So, a. that would be the lighting for the site. Q- a This here is the landscape plan for this. One thing I want to point out on landscape is that ECDC 20.13, which is our landscape chapter, gives the ADB authority to interpret and modify the requirements of the landscaping code provided that modification is consistent with the purposes of the design chapters. Type IV landscaping would be required along the street, which they're providing. Type V landscaping was in the parking lot, which require 400-and-some square feet — 420 square feet. Another 1000 square feet have been provided. So, along the street and within the parking lot, it complies. Normally, if this development was surrounded by other property owners, type III landscaping would be required along the other sides — the north, east, and the souths sides over here. They do have landscaping along the building. They're quite compliant with the type III requirement because there's not trees there. But it does provide that. In the staff report, I noted that staff thinks that given the location of the site, it makes sense that they don't have that landscaping on all sides. Back into the design standards, it says that landscaping treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result. I'll go back to the aerial photo that I was showing. The Port owns all the property around it. There's boatyards on the other side and railroad along the backside here. So, there really would be no conflict there. So, staff's recommendation to the ADB that it would be okay to deviate from the landscape requirements in this instance given the location of the site from the Port of Edmonds. Elevation views of the building — I'll let the architects do most of the talking about this but just a few highlights. The building's mass and bulk is broken up both vertically and horizontally. This image up here would be what you'd see from Admiral Way — large expanses of windows, awnings that wrap around the buildings on both sides there, kind of a large parapet in the northwest corner of it, and it makes the main entrance stand out a little bit. But we have two entrances on the north side and one off Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 3.1.a the sidewalk here. And this here is kinda the Port [inaudible] [00:20:09] office. I think this is where their bays are gonna be for maintenance and whatnot. I got another slide. So, staff recommends approval with conditions. And the conditions are kinda straight up. Applicant has to obtain all necessary permits. Staff will verify compliance with all relevant codes, land use conditions, the review the building permit. And one thing that was not shown on the plans was mechanical equipment. So, I'm not sure if there's gonna be mechanical equipment on top of the building or what's on the grounds there. But there are design standards that mechanical equipment shall be screened to mitigate from view access impacts from street level. So, I added a condition on there. Given that parapet around the top of the building and how tall the building is, there should be no problem screening in the mechanical equipment on top of the building if it's necessary for this height. That's my presentation. Are there any questions before we go to the applicant? Bruce Owensby: No. Lauri Strauss: I have a quick question, Kernen. So, on the landscaping, you spent a little time on that. So, normally, type III landscaping would be required around all three other sides if it was other property -owners? th r Kernen Lien: Yeah. So, what type III landscaping is — let me get that code up here. So, what I'm reading now from is 20.13.030, which lists all the different types, and C is type III landscaping. So, type III landscaping is — intended to provide a visual separation of uses from streets and visual separation from compatible uses Ci so as to soften the appearances of streets, parking areas, and building elevations. > 0 L So, we do have the type IV along the street. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide a visual relief Q- a where a clear site is desired to see signage or adjacent space for safety concerns. So, normally, commercial uses want type IV along the front so you can still see the building, see into the site, and N whatnot. Type V landscaping is for the parking areas. CD to But back to the type III again — intended to provide a visual separation of the uses from the street and visual separations from compatible uses. This whole site is all Port of Edmonds parcel. So, this here is one parcel. They got the boatyard next. And this area would be where there administration building has gone. So, it's really just all one use there. And given that Port is in control of all that property along there, I felt it be okay to deviate from the... Lauri Strauss: So, there's not really a property line between these? Kernen Lien: There is no a property line. That is all one large parcel. Kim? Kim Bayer: I was just down there right before the meeting — beautiful night by the way. And, yes, the building definitely needs to be redone. But, again, I'm going back to the landscaping. So, I'm trying to understand. Right now, there isn't a whole lot, right? I didn't see... Kernen Lien: It's basically a gravel area. So, there is some street landscaping on the boatyard here. There is no landscaping on this side at all right now, just a gravel parking lot. So, with this project, there'll be landscaping that will be provided along the street. There'll be new sidewalks that's provided along Admiral right here. There will be some landscaping along the south side over here against the building. It doesn't quite meet the type III requirements for trees. So, it's mainly shrubs and stuff being planted along and underneath the awning on that side. But there is no landscaping proposed along the railroad tracks or along the north side here. I'll go back to the... Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 3.1.a Kim Bayer: So, that was my question. I'm just looking at esthetics but just so many people are walking down, and is it just going to look empty there with no landscaping on either side? No shrubs or anything that would make sense? Lauri Strauss: That's deliberation stuff. Kim Bayer: Sorry. I apologize. Lauri Strauss: It's okay. Kim Bayer: Thank you for keeping me in order. Lauri Strauss: Sorry. Kim Bayer: That's good. Kernen Lien: So, here's kinda the oblique view of what it would look like from there. Lauri Strauss: There you go. r Kernen Lien: So, we do have the type V landscaping that's gonna be in those areas there, a new sidewalk. There is no sidewalk on this portion right now. It's just kinda gravel along and down the way. So, there will be — some landscaping in the parking lot to screen the building and along the front. I don't know if I have a Ta view of the other side of the building. It doesn't look like that. > 0 L But there will be landscaping on the south side of the building to kind of right against the building. 0. 0- a This awning like you see here also wraps around the building on the other side. So, there will be landscaping over there. The only place that there really will not be is kinda these parking areas along N here or the railroad tracks on the back. CM Kim Bayer: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: All right. Shall we continue with the testimony from the applicants? Kernen Lien: Katerina or Meghan, who's going? Meghan Craig: Hi, this is Meghan. Katerina Prochaska: I'll just introduce myself. I'm Katerina Prochaska with Jackson Main. And I'll turn it over to my colleague, Meghan Craig. Meghan Craig: Thanks, Katerina. And thanks, Kernen, for that in-depth walkthrough. I think you covered a lot of the points that we have. So, first of all, thank you, everyone, for being here. As Kernen mentioned, the project is located off of Admiral Way. And the footprint does align with what was previously approved in 2017. There are changes to the parking lot as he mentioned. We have added additional parking to the north portion of the site there. So, then it provides additional parking for the retail and the Port of Edmonds' use. And it also provides a continuous track around the building, which also assists with the fire truck access in and around the site. So, that's a benefit that we see there in that change. This site plan does show the hatched area as a screened rooftop mechanical equipment area. So, if we do end up having rooftop mechanical equipment, it will be screened behind that parapet. And then we also have located a trash enclosure in the back. So, we saw in your notes to coordinate the size of that Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 3.1.a with the district on trash collection. So, we will verify that that size meets all the necessary needs based off of the building end use. So, just some general information on what will happen on the interior of the building here — the front section of the building right off of Admiral Way is intended for leasable commercial retail. So, you can see on that front west elevation where we have a lot of glass and transparency into those spaces from the sidewalk and from Admiral Way as well as some canopies to protect the users inside that space and heat gain that might occur from that west elevation. The back of the building, the east elevation, you can see that back half of the building is gonna be used for the Port of Edmonds' maintenance space and garage usage. And then on the second floor is gonna be the plan for the Port of Edmonds' office spaces. So, they all have those smaller windows on top, views out to the port and to the street. We also currently have signage shown on the west elevation and the north elevation on the prominent corner of the building. So, we look forward to hearing your feedback then and answering any additional questions you might have on the building. Oh, one more thing. So, the elevations show some [inaudible] [00:29:33]. Again, it's very similar to what was previously submitted in 2017, and we feel it does match the environment that is currently around the location of the port. We have a stone masonry unit base along the entire exterior. And then r as you move up, then you have different varying colors and patterns of the metal panel. Katerina Prochaska: Yeah, Meghan, the coloration of the building is in line with the Port of Edmonds' logo and coloration — of the existing building. We've just extended it over here to help mark that this building is for the Port of Edmonds. So, in addition to the signage, I also wanted to address a little bit about the type III > 0 landscaping or any sort of visual barriers between this section of the single long parcel versus another a. is there's fencing incorporated into our plan between the railroad, yes, and also along that north side. C So, there will be some fencing to add visual barrier. And this landscape plan doesn't show it, but at the northwest corner of the adjacent section of this parcel — right there, yes. There is currently a one-story building. So, there is a structure there that also will for some intents and purposes provide a clear visual distinction between this section of the parcel and the neighboring one. And then at this time I'd also like to add — and, Bob, I hope this isn't premature — but we have made the decision as a team to pursue LEED certification for this building. So, that was not known when we submitted to the Design Review Board. But I just wanted to pass that along. And we're very excited about pursuing LEED for this building. I suppose I could add that in somewhat of a anticipation and hoping that we would move in this direction, some of the awnings and the sun shading of the windows above is intended to start moving the design forward in that direction. Lauri Strauss: All right. Does anyone on the board have an immediate question from the applicants' presentation? I have one. So, you're only required 13 parking spaces. Why did you provide so many? Just because you had room? Katerina Prochaska: Whoops, trying to unmute myself unsuccessfully there. In our discussions with the Port, it's known that in this area parking is needed regardless. So, it seemed to make sense to provide as much parking as possible. Lauri Strauss: So, will the Port open it up for people to park there on the weekends when they're not working and take their dogs down to the dog park? Katerina Prochaska: I will have to turn that over to Bob. That is an operational question that I'm not... Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: I was down there last weekend, and it's super crowded. Kim Bayer: Lauri, you asked my exact question. Who is the parking intended for? And, obviously, if you're gonna have businesses, clearly, that would take priority I would think. Katerina Prochaska: So, the parking is intended for the Port staff, for the maintenance staff. And then as Meghan alluded, there's retail along the entire front of this building. So, we anticipate that that parking will support the retail spaces. Bruce Owensby: This is Bruce. Will the retail be open to anybody? Or is it gonna be basically just Port -oriented in terms of like boat sales and things like that? Katerina Prochaska: In our discussions, we anticipate it to be open to uses that are appropriate for that area, probably boat sales. I don't know that the retail spaces are large enough for that kind of an operation. But we've discussed things, such as small coffee, ice cream type of shop or supporting some of the tourist activities, the boat tours, and that kind of thing. Bruce Owensby: Bob, I see you're on mute. Did you wanna say something? Bob McChesney: No, I guess just as it pertains to parking, the parking that's shown on the site plan really is to service r the Port. And we have customers that come and go all day long as well and just our Port staff. And then as Katerina just pointed out, there is opportunity for some commercial tenants on the first floor. 2 So, we would not expect that any of that parking would be available to the general public for day use, — for example, to walk down to Marina Beach or stroll along the promenade. It's really not intended for ci that. But, yeah, that's what we have in mind. > 0 L Lauri Strauss: All right. Let's continue with testimony from the public. So, this is where you raise your virtual hand 0. 0- and get to talk about this project. N Kernen Lien: I'm gonna stop sharing for a minute. If anybody wants to submit comments for this right now, please W raise your virtual hand. I do see one other Port commissioner out there. I don't know if you wanna talk, Dave. There is one call -in person. And I don't know how to do raise your hand if you're on the phone. pNp So, I'm gonna allow the person that's the call -in number to speak if you want to right now. So, 206- Q 702-1743, if you want to make a comment on this proposal, you can unmute yourself and speak. Lauri Strauss: Sounds like no. Kernen Lien: Anybody else want to comment? And I see nobody else raising their hands. So, I'll kick it back to the ADB. Lauri Strauss: All right. Well, I'm gonna say at this point we have finished with all the public testimony. Maurine Jeude: Steve Johnston has his hand raised. Bruce Owensby: Yeah. I see that too. Steve Johnston: Yes, I did. Kernen Lien: There he is. I was looking at the attendees. Sorry, Steve. Steve Johnston: Oh, no. No problem. No problem. I just wanna thank the board for reviewing what we think is an excellent project. It's gonna be a great amenity to the waterfront. And it's been a pleasure to listen to it laid out so professionally by our contractors as well as what seems to be, I hope, reception from the board. I thank you just for helping us improve our waterfront. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: All right. Kernen Lien: Nobody else is raising their hands. Lauri Strauss: I just saw in the Q&A section, Kernen, Mary Tragus-Campbell is the call -in number that you just mentioned. She says she has no comments until the 238' Street plan. So, I think we're okay. Kernen Lien: Okay. Lauri Strauss: All right. Steve, if you don't have any other comments, I don't know if you can put your hand down. But does anybody else have anything before I close it? All right. At this point, we have finished with all the public testimony. If the board has questions remaining, it may now ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to anyone who testified with an opportunity for the staff, applicant, or public to rebut the response. If members of the public wish to rebut an answer given in response to a question, they should raise their hand and wait to be called to the microphone by the chair or until Kernen unmutes you. Questions? Board members, this is your turn. Bruce Owensby: I don't have any. m r Maurine Jeude: All mine were already asked by others. 0 Lauri Strauss: Good. Kim? — �a Kim Bayer: Sorry, my dog has her squeaky toy. So, my apologies. It's not me. I think it's great. The landscaping, > 0 again, knowing there's so many people walking down there — and as far as what you explained, 0. Kernen, that it is not following code? I just didn't quite understand that. Or it is, and we're allowed to 0- make adjustments. Can you just briefly explain that again? My apologies. Just so you know, I'm a citizen member. So, I'm not up to all the standards. M Kernen Lien: So, within the scope of the landscape chapter, it says that the Architectural Design Board and the hearing examiner in reviewing projects shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained herein within the landscaping chapter. So, the ADB has the ability to interpret or modify the landscaping requirements on this. And staff s position given that it's basically one large parcel that's all part owned — you can kinda see that building that was mentioned previously right here. It's kind of flattened out. There is a building that's located there right now, which will kinda screen this view of that. And the landscape on the site is gonna be greatly improved over the gravel parking lot that's essentially there right now with the sidewalk being installed along the front, the landscaping along the front. It does wrap around the south side of the building. There aren't any trees over here, but there's landscaping that's located along the south side of the building. So, the only place where there really wouldn't be landscaping would be along here and along the railroad tracks. It was noted that there was gonna be a fence along here. The previous proposal called for a slatted fence. I don't know if that's what's being proposed here. I didn't see that mentioned. Katerina or Meghan, do you know if those are gonna be slats or kind of a cyclone fence? Or what type of fence is gonna be proposed along there? Katerina Prochaska: I think we are proposing a vinyl -coated chain link fence. And I don't think that we currently are showing slats. Lauri Strauss: I don't like the slatted fences, sorry. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 3.1.a Bruce Owensby: I don't either. I'd rather see the train. Katerina Prochaska: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: If there are no further questions, we will close the testimony portion of this public hearing. Are there any further questions before I close the testimony portion? Bruce Owensby: No. Lauri Strauss: I don't see any attendees' hands up. And it looks like we're all shaking our heads. All right. The public testimony portion of the hearing is now closed. The board may begin deliberations. So, I guess this is an opportunity for me just to have a suggestion. Kernen, can you put the landscape plan back up there? Kernen Lien: I just realized I wasn't sharing my screen when I was talking. Lauri Strauss: I know. You were pointing to stuff. Kernen Lien: I'm just pointing. Lauri Strauss: So, I get that it doesn't quite meet the type III landscaping, and we kinda know why. I would love to r see one less parking space and one more space with landscaping in it, maybe across from the one by the handicap — that corner right there. You have more than enough parking. Yeah, maybe right across from the other landscape area by the handicap, so down a couple spaces. Right there. So, I was trying — to think of a way that I could say, well, since you're not meeting the type III, then we're gonna condition it on making landscape out of that. But I get where it's at it's not that big of a deal. So, > 0 maybe this is fine. Any other board members have any comments about that? Q. a a Maurine Jeude: I tend to agree with you on that. I was looking and wondering about even the east side of the property. We're such a tree city that that would be an opportunity to put something that would buffer against the N trains. But that was what I thought on that. to Lauri Strauss: The train side doesn't bother me. But just driving through here or walking through here, it might be nice to add another shady spot for a car that's parked in this parking lot. Kim Bayer: It's not a deal -breaker for me. But I definitely think if there's an opportunity to add a little more green — and I know it's way better than what's currently there. Lauri Strauss: So, I don't think that I would put a condition on that but just like a said, a suggestion. Maurine Jeude: I did have one question. The building that's coming down — there's nothing that's gonna go back up in that space, is there? This is going to be the new offices, and nothing is gonna replace the old ones? Lauri Strauss: Kernen, can you answer that? Kernen Lien: I have Bob unmuted. I'll let me respond to that. Bob McChesney: If you mind, Bob McChesney. I'm Executive Director at the Port of Edmonds. And the idea is this building that we're discussing tonight is really a component piece of a much larger project that Kernen discussed in his comments. And that is to say that we're in the public access business. And a portion of the public access promenade, the wooden portion, approximately from our administration office all the way out to the fishing pier is wooden, the seawall needs to be replaced. So, the short answer to the board is once our existing building, which is really a pile of bricks with a roof on it, once that goes, then that can be open space and integrated with the rest of the public access Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 3.1.a features. For example, there is likely to be a public restroom there because there's public restrooms in this building now. So, we don't want to minimize those public facilities that are necessary and a little plaza and maybe some art. So, it will be integrated into our public access project is really the short answer. Maurine Jeude: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Any other deliberations, comments from the board? Bruce Owensby: No. Lauri Strauss: All right. Well, I think it meets our design code. I think it's a nice little building. I think it looks even a little bit better than the last one that we approved here. I love the awnings. I love that you're going after LEED. That's a big push for me. So, I would say that we can go to the suggested motion. Maurine Jeude: I agree. Bruce Owensby: I agree. Lauri Strauss: All right. Kim? r Kim Bayer: I agree. 2 4- 0 Lauri Strauss: All right. I'm gonna read the motion. So, I will make the motion, and then we'll need a second. M 0 The Architectural Design Board adopts the findings, conclusion, and analysis of the staff report and 0. finds this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies of chapter 20.10 ECDC design Q- a criteria of ECDC 20.11.030 and zoning regulations and approves the design of the proposed Port of Edmonds Administration building with the following conditions: N 1.) The applicant must obtain all necessary permits. The application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code, and it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with various provisions contained in these codes. 2.) Staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions through review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of the building permit without further design review by the board as long as the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. 3.) All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or building shall be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping, and/or fencing or a parapet as you guys are gonna have. Second? Maurine Jeude: I second it. Lauri Strauss: All right. All those in favor? Bruce Owensby: Aye. Maurine Jeude: Aye. Kim Bayer: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Aye. You're approved. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 3.1.a Bob McChesney: Just on the behalf of the Port of Edmonds, I'd just like to thank the board for giving us the opportunity to review this project. We're really excited about it. We'd like to thank Kernen for his help in putting together the staff report and also our architectural team. But thank you very much and looking forward to having a real nice project that the whole community can be proud of. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Meghan Craig: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: All right. With that, we will move on to the next agenda item. This is — let's see — agenda item No. 5555. All right. Let me get my script here. Kernen Lien: All right. Lee, is there anybody else I need to let in besides you? I don't know who's all on this project. Lee Michaelis: It's just gonna be me tonight. Lauri Strauss: The purpose of this open record hearing is for the ADB to address Thor Sunde's design review application for the Sunde Townhomes located at 8629 2381h Street Southwest. The public hearing is now open. I would like to ask your cooperation in the following procedure: The City will make a recording of the proceedings. Therefore, if you address the ADB, begin by stating your name and address. Speak slowly and clearly. Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time. This hearing is open to public testimony. Because this is an open record hearing, the staff, the applicant, and any member of the public will have an opportunity to introduce evidence into the administrative record. This evidence can be in the form of public testimony and/or through the submission of written comments or other documents. Evidence should be germane to the design review criteria. It will be of great assistance to the board and city staff if speakers could identify the design review criteria that their comments are intended to address. If you would like an opportunity to speak at any future appeal of this matter, you will need to testify today to ensure that you preserve your ability to participate in the future. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance, and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it also must appear to be fair. Therefore, I would like to ask whether any member of this decision -making body has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issue in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. Board members? Bruce Owensby: No, I have not. Maurine Jeude: I have not. Kim Bayer: No. Lauri Strauss: No. No for me as well. All right. Is there any member of the board who has a conflict of interest or believes that he or she cannot hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner? Maurine Jeude: No. Kim Bayer: No. Bruce Owensby: No. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: Not me either. That's all of us. All right. Next, is there anyone in the audience who objects to my participation or to any of the board members' participation as a decision -maker in this hearing? Kernen Lien: Raise your virtual hand if you object, please. I see none. Lauri Strauss: All right. See none. Because we are making an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in the future, it is important that the board members ask any and all questions of speakers during the hearing. One of the most important purposes of this hearing is to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light through this process. So, if board members have questions, they should ask them. At this point, I would like to ask that everyone planning to testify today stand and raise their right hand. All right. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Michele Szafran: I do. Lauri Strauss: All right. We will begin with testimony from staff. Michele Szafran: All right. Let me go ahead and share my screen here. All right. So, first, I'll introduce myself. I'm Michele Szafran with the Planning Division. And I will be presenting on behalf of the city regarding r PLN2019-0055 for the proposed Sunde Townhomes. Le me make sure I've got this just — perfect. 0 So, first, I'd like to go over the outline for tonight's meeting. So, we'll kinda go over the review — process, the proposal overview, staffs presentation and recommendation, the applicant's presentation, ci and then we'll have the public hearing followed with questions and deliberation. > 0 L The review process — per ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a type III- Q- a A decision. SEPA was required for the proposal. And pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a SEPA threshold determination are reviewed by the ADB in a public N hearing. to Type III decisions are not administratively appealable but just subject to appeal at Snohomish County Superior Court. The city has issued a SEPA determination of non -significance on November 26th, 2019, which is included as Attachment 6 of the staff report. The city has not received appeals of the SEPA determination. The city has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 for the notice of application and SEPA threshold determination as well as the notice of public hearing, which are attached to the staff report as Attachments 6 and 11. The city has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 for public notice. So, the proposed overview — the project is located at 8629 238th Street Southwest. The subject property contains 10,836 square feet. The property is zoned RM-1.5. Multiple dwellings are permitted primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1. So, the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM-1.5 zone. Maximum density is one dwelling unit for every 1500 square feet of lot area. The proposal is for five dwelling units, which is consistent with the density requirements. The site currently contains a single-family structure and shed along with an existing driveway, which will be demolished. The property slopes up slightly from 238th Street Southwest. But, in general, the proposal should include minimal grading to the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a five -unit multi -family development with associated parking. The units are proposed to be divided between two structures, a duplex and a triplex, and each unit will contain two bedrooms. The proposed townhomes will be accessed via the existing easement along the west side of the property boundary. And this will reduce the number of access points directly off of 238th Street Southwest. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 3.1.a The application has been reviewed by Snohomish County Fire, City of Edmonds Public Works, Engineering and Building divisions of the Development Services Department. Comments from each department are included as Attachments 12 through 15 of the staff report. During the notice of application, a public comment was received by Paul Svenkerud — I'm not sure; I probably might've gotten that name wrong — of the Fir Grove HOA. Paul has been included as a party of record and has been sent a copy of the staff report. And here is an image of the proposed triplex. The applicant's proposal appears to be consistent with the design guidelines provided in the urban design chapter of the comprehensive plan and ECDC 20.11.030. The project uses a mix of traditional materials with an arrangement of forms, rooflines with varied roof pitches, projections, use of windows in various shapes and sizes that are unique to these buildings and help break up the mass of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. Entries to each unit are recessed, which will provide weather protection and a small gathering space. Adequate but minimal site lighting is provided via wall -mounted lights that will illuminate the entryway to the units. The light from these fixtures should be directed down onto the site in order to avoid off -site spillage. The proposed color scheme avoids excessive brilliance or brightness and is included as Attachment 3 of the staff report. Here's the proposed elevation views for the proposed duplex as well. No exterior r mechanical equipment is proposed according to the associated plans. However, any exterior equipment should be screened by the proposed landscaping. The overall theme of the development appears to 2 have a unified residential appearance. — The proposal appears to be consistent with the zoning ordinance. Setbacks are shown here. So, we've Ta > 0 got a 15-foot required street setback. This would be the rear setback up here on the north property 0. boundary, which is gonna be a 15-foot required setback. And then we have a 10-foot required side Q- Q setback off of both the east and west property boundaries. The proposed building heights — the maximum building height will be 25 feet. But you are able to go an additional 5 feet to a maximum of 30 feet with a roof pitch of 4 and 12 or greater. So, these images here — the one on the right is actually the duplex there. And it's gonna be slightly just below the 25- foot max height. And then the one here on the left is the triplex, which there is a slight section that would be slightly over that 25 feet, but it would still be less than the 30-feet maximum with the roof pitch. Parking — so, there's two bedrooms proposed per unit. And based on ECDC 17.50, two bedrooms would require 1.8 parking spaces per unit. So, with the five units, that's a total of nine required parking spaces. Fourteen parking spaces are provided, nine full-sized spaces, which are the ones highlighted in yellow. And then there are a few additional reduced parking spaces provided as well. Chapter 20.13 is the landscaping section. ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB is permitted to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Type III landscaping has been provided along the north, south, over here, and the eastern property boundaries as shown on Attachment 2, Sheet L-1 of the staff report. Along the eastern property boundary, there are large trees that are proposed to be retained. And thus, planting additional trees at this time is not feasible due to the proximity of the existing vegetation. The applicant provided a landscape modification request for the western property boundary, which is included as Attachment 10, Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. The request appears to be consistent with ECDC 20.10.000. The western property line subject site abuts a private access easement. This is the western property line right here. This is the western property line right here, and this is the existing property access Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 3.1.a easement, which serves back to the existing condo back over here. And the west side of this existing access easement here currently provides mature landscaping, which you can see these trees shown here. There's an adjacent condo development right over on the other side of these trees here, which appear to meet the intent of the type III landscaping. Staff finds that the proposed landscaping appears to meet the intent of the type III standards per ECDC 20.13 for softening the appearance of the building, elevations, and providing screening to adjoining similar uses. I will note about the tree code update. The city has adopted a new tree code, which requires the site to provide 25% tree retention. It appears that the trees along the eastern property boundary will need to be retained in order to meet the 25% retention requirements. The tree code also requires tree replacement consistent with ECDC 23.10.080, which appears that it may be met as part of the required landscaping. A tree protection plan per ECDC 23.10.0603 and protection measures during development per 23.10.070 will also be required. So, an arborist will be required with submittal of future permits. Tree appraisals may also be required for each tree over 24-inch DBH that is removed. So, staff makes the following recommendation that based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and Attachments 1 through 16 within the staff report, staff recommends that the ADB approve the design r for the proposed development under file No. PLN2019-0055 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: The Architectural Design Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and analysis of the staff report and 4- 0 Ta finds the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, policies of ECDC 20.10, design criteria > 0 of ECDC 20.11.030, and zoning regulations and provides the design of the proposed multi -family a. homes with the following conditions — that the applicant must obtain all necessary permits. The Q- a application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code, and it is up to the applicant to ensure compliance of various provisions contained in these codes. N Staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions for review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the board as long as the design is substantially similar to that original approved. Mechanical equipment should be screened from view from street level. Landscaping must be protected with curbing for the parking spaces along the northern property boundary. All exterior lighting must be shielded in order to avoid offsite spillage. And then that concludes my presentation — staff s presentation. And now, I guess, we can open up if anybody has any questions? Lauri Strauss: All right, board members, any questions? Kim Bayer: Go ahead. You go first. Bruce Owensby: No, go ahead if you have a question. Kim Bayer: I do have a question. So, you said on the east side property the landscaping will provide the 25% tree retention, is that correct? Yeah, I was gonna say can you show that? And then the west side because there are already trees dividing the two properties, that meets the requirements, right? Michele Szafran: Yeah, it seems to meet the intent of the type III requirements with what's already provided on this side of the access easement. So, this easement is actually part of the development of the condo back here. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 Kim Bayer: Oh. So, the condo goes all the way down. Michele Szafran: You can see there's an existing condo that you can see here in the back. Kim Bayer: And I couldn't tell by the drawings. So, is there landscape along 238t''9 Michele Szafran: Yes. There is proposed landscaping, which is shown here. Kim Bayer: Oh, that's 2381 on the bottom? Michele Szafran: Yeah, 2381 is down here. Kim Bayer: So, how much open space would there be? Is there a percentage that you have? I don't know what the code is for residential. Michele Szafran: There's not anything in the code that requires specific open space requirements for multi -family development. There's just the landscaping requirements, which is what they're showing on the property boundaries there. Kim Bayer: Thank you. r Lauri Strauss: So, last question. This is Lauri. The existing mailboxes that I saw on 2381— are those gonna stay? Are those gonna be replaced with new because you're going from one single family home here to five — units. Is that incorporated into the landscaping somehow? M 0 Michele Szafran: So, those are out in the right-of-way. Q. a Lauri Strauss: Oh, they are, okay. Q Michele Szafran: Yeah. So, they're not going to have an impact. This is the right-of-way out there. Let me go back. Lauri Strauss: So, it's past the landscaping they're proposing. Michele Szafran: So, you can see out here. So, the property line is here, and then the mailboxes are out here. Lauri Strauss: So, the landscaping that's past the property line will remain. Is that correct? Michele Szafran: Right, yes. Lauri Strauss: So, there will actually be some additional landscaping along 2381h that's existing. Michele Szafran: Right. Lauri Strauss: It's offsite. And my other question — is this other condo, their easement — is there any requirement for them to get an easement that they could use this same alleyway to get to their houses? Michele Szafran: You're referring to this condo back here? Lauri Strauss: Yeah, that's the easement for them. Is it okay for these guys to use it I guess? Michele Szafran: And that was the question in the beginning of the review process that we had as well. I might get the dates mixed up. But back in 2012, there was a lot line adjustment process that these guys went through, I think, in conjunction with the condo owners behind here. They all were involved in a lot line adjustment. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: Michele Szafran: Bruce Owensby: Michele Szafran: Lauri Strauss: Bruce Owensby: But following the recording of that lot line adjustment in 2012, they had not recorded the new deeds. So, the county never recognized that property line adjustment. So, in the beginning of this process, the property owner had gone back to the current owners of the condo. And they have a document that they've recorded. It's in my attachments here too. They've basically dissolved that initial 2012 lot line adjustment to basically reverse back to the 2006 lot line, which actually includes this easement as part of the condo property and reestablished the access easement that went along with that lot line adjustment with the 2006 lot line boundary. So, they currently have an access easement for this property. It sounds like it was a little bit of a confusing process. Yes. I have a question, which is more just curiosity. What is that space that goes between the two buildings? What's that for? How's it gonna be used? So, which space between the two buildings? Do I need to go to a different slide? Or is this the slide we're referring to? The landscape plan. I'm looking at the plan right now. So, you've got one building that's got two units in it and then one building that's got three units in it. And it's got a small space in between. I'm kinda wondering the purpose of that small space. Michele Szafran: Well, as far as the landscape code requirements, that's just a perimeter -landscaping requirement. Whatever they wanna do between those units is kinda up to them what they wanna do. It looks like they have proposed some ground cover and some little shrubs through there. There's also a little retaining wall proposed in here as well. Bruce Owensby: So, is that for slope then mostly? Michele Szafran: Yeah. Bruce Owensby: My thought was whether or not that space could be somehow manipulated and moved to where one to two end spaces could get more space and could become a little bit more of a public space for everybody. Michele Szafran: And, honestly, I'm not sure right now, too, what's provided there is like fire separation requirements too? I don't know. But as far as open — yeah. Bruce Owensby: Fire separation should be 10 feet, right? Michele Szafran: Again, I'm not sure what that is exactly. Bruce Owensby: It looks less than 10 feet. Michele Szafran: But Fire has reviewed the proposal. So, they did provide comments at the early part of the review of this. Lauri Strauss: That's not part of our review. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 3.1.a Michele Szafran: Right. But the applicant looks like is available too. So, we can always have him speak as well. Lauri Strauss: Right. Well, I think we're gonna move on to that if your testimony is done. Any other questions relating to this presentation? Bruce Owensby: No. Lauri Strauss: Then let's continue with testimony from the applicant. Lee Michaelis: Good evening, and thank you very much. My name is Lee Michaelis. I'm with Puget Sound Planning. I'm here tonight to present the project for Thor Sunde. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen as well. I just wanna go through a couple slides just to show what the existing conditions are. This is the existing house that's gonna be torn down. It's been vacant for quite a while. There was actually a fire there several years ago. So, this is just kinda the existing house that'll be torn down. This is some of the vegetation along the east property line that really needs to be cleaned up. So, this will all be cleaned up, and then additional vegetation that was shown on the landscape plan to provide that 25% as well as that type III buffer. This is the access road that's shared with the Fir Grove Condominiums. So, this line here is the line that will have the parking. So, each unit will have parking going in this direction. And this is 238th frontage. There's the bus stop. The mailboxes are off to the left. This is the existing driveway that will go away. The curb and gutter will be replaced with an elevated sidewalk to match everything else in the neighborhood. And this is the site plan that you've already seen, but I just wanna go through it really quick. This project came before the ADB back in 2008 — so, similar to the previous application you heard tonight. This one was approved. However, the building permits did expire. So, the ADB review approval also expired. Some of the things that have changed since the original approval — one of them is the parking configuration. The previously approved one had all nine stalls all crammed together. So, each one was 9-feet wide. And it went asphalt from north to south. In this iteration, we've reduced the driveways down to 8 feet, which frees up some of this space in between where you saw that we were able to put in some landscaping to try to meet that intent of the type III landscaping along the west property line. The separation between the two buildings — the landscape plan did look a little short on the 10 feet. But the intent is to do a transition to take advantage of the slope. So, there will be a rockery or a retaining wall in there so that the duplex will sit higher than the triplex. So, it'll kinda gradually increase in height as the property slopes back. And, again, this is the east property line. The darker trees are the ones that are proposed to be retained. Depending on what gets taken out during construction, anything above the 25% will be replanted. Anything below the 25%, we'll need to work with the city and onsite contracts to make sure that we maintain the tree code. This is the access easement that was given by the Fir Grove Condominium. It gives access to the back. Again, the landscape plan — here are the little strips of ground cover and shrubs that were able to be put in by reducing the width of these stalls. Edmonds City Code — my understanding is they don't allow tandem. So, these driveways out in front of the garages, we can't count those as parking stalls. So, that's why we have these three that are kind of off to the side. This one's gonna be kinda in between the two buildings. These two to the north — these are required parking stalls. These will be used for parking, but they don't meet the intent or the code requirements. So, we can't count those towards our requirement. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 3.1.a This is the west elevation of each unit. I wanna go back to the previous approval. One of the things that came out of it was this elevation that faced 238th. One of the things that came out of it was bumping out this second floor to provide some relief from the public view. And then these are the paint colors. You had them in your packet, but I just wanted to show those. The lighter one will be the body of each building, and then the darker one will be the trim for each building. And that concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Any questions from this presentation from the board? I just wanna say thank you for listening to previous comments that we've made and making some changes that look like they're for the better. I like the little strips of landscaping between the driveways. I think that'll be a lot of fun for the residents to plant little flower beds and stuff going up there, which is really nice, very appealing. I don't have any questions I don't think. Also, kudos for saving trees. I don't know if it's kudus to our tree code, but any time you can save those giant existing trees that's really great. So, appreciate that. Any other comments? Then we'll go on to public testimony. All right. Let's continue with testimony from the public. So, you'll need to raise your virtual hand if you have questions or comments I guess. Mary Tragus-Campbell: Hi, this is Mary Tragus-Campbell. Can you all hear me? r Lauri Strauss: We can. 4- 0 Bruce Owensby: Yes. 0 Mary Tragus-Campbell: Wonderful. I apologize for my technical difficulties early. For the record, Mary Tragus-Campbell. 0. I am at 8705 238t' Street Southwest in Edmonds. I am Unit A. So, when you guys are looking at that C map and you look up that easement driveway, the very first residence that you see there, that's mine. My husband, Michael Campbell is also here with me. And we are very concerned about the N landscaping plan. When you take a look at the driveway — I have concerns about the safety as well with that many cars parked along that driveway too. I understand that that's not the purview for this particular board. But there is one tree that is marked at 40 inches DBH on the bottom left of the plan. I believe it's marked in the second to the bottom parking space as you're looking at that. When you look around the plans and when you look in person, it is the largest tree on any of the adjoining properties. And, currently, the way it is designed, that tree will be removed. I understand that there's trees that would remain on the west side of the easement. But the way it's designed currently, when you take out that 40-inch DBH plus all the other trees and shrubs that are in that divider, you are removing all of the barriers between the proposed development and Fir Grove Condominiums. So, right now, we have a little bit of green space between our property and the current single-family residence. And one of the items that's not marked on the current landscaping plan is actually a very large tree. I think it's a magnolia. It's kind of shrubby in format as opposed to having been groomed up. But it takes over both of the two parking spaces on the farthest north end of that plot — is one single tree/bush — however, one categorizes it. So, we would lose that barrier as well along the north side of the property. So, there are people's balconies that currently — their decks are on the south edge of it. And they would be looking straight over onto someone's garage with zero separation between them. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 3.1.a Kernen Lien: There is somebody else that wants to talk. Allison Arditty? Allison Arditty: Yes. Hi. I am Allison Arditty. And my husband is sitting next to me, Sabin. We live on 8705 238' Street Southwest. We're Unit J. So, our unit looks right into the lot behind us, which is where these five units are proposed. So, I think we agree with everything Mary said. She sounded so much smarter than I'm gonna sound. And I'm nervous, and now I'm just rambling. Lauri Strauss: Don't be nervous. Allison Arditty: But we're concerned about the number of units. It is kind of a small lot. I guess it's really vegetated. So, it's kind of hard to see how big it is. But with those five units being put right in our backyard, it's gonna be blocking a lot of the light that we get. I don't think we'd be able to see any sky from our house. That's really sad. And then we're also concerned about the number of parking spaces and that driveway use because all of the units at Fir Grove — we have to walk down that driveway to get our mail and drop our recycling and everything off. So, the addition of 14 cars to that single lane driveway is really gonna impact our safety and privacy. I think that might be all I was going to say. I think we were in favor of the land being developed for r sure because we've had a lot of safety issues over the past few years with that lot being abandoned. But maybe three units instead of five. So, we can have some sunlight and retain some of those beautiful big trees. — Lauri Strauss: All right. Thank you, Allison. Ta > 0 L Bruce Owensby: And nobody else has their hand raised. David Christian's a work commissioner, and I don't know if 0. 0- he's still around. Lauri Strauss: All right. Well, I guess we can conclude the public testimony then. But if the board has any remaining questions, it's now a good time to ask clarifying questions on disputed items to anyone who testified with an opportunity for the staff, applicant, or public to rebut the response. If the members of the public wish to rebut an answer given a response to a question, they should raise their hand and wait to be called by the chair. Maurine Jeude: I have a question. Is there any way to go back to the overview picture to see what area they are actually referring to in their comments? Michele Szafran: Let's see. I can share. Because the first comments were regarding the trees and landscaping. So, I pulled up the site plan here and then the landscape plan over here. Kernen Lien: Michele, why don't you show that aerial photo that you had up at the site so they can see what it looks like now with the condos in behind? Michele Szafran: This one here? I've got that, which I believe somebody mentioned you can see their condo directly down this. So, that would be down this access easement here. Maurine Jeude: Is there an aerial view? Michele Szafran: Can you see that? So, the condo development is back in here that shares that access here. Maurine Jeude: So, what trees are they talking about being taken out? Michele Szafran: It sounded like it was something referred to along the northern property boundary it sounded like. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 3.1.a Maurine Jeude: I guess that one. Michele Szafran: Yeah. Sorry about that. Maurine Jeude: And then the second question was from the condo owner to the east of the property? Michele Szafran: Yeah, I believe they were both located in this condo development back here. [No dictation] [01:27:51 — 01:28:23]. Maurine Jeude: Where'd Lauri go? Have we lost Lauri? Kernen Lien: Yeah, it looks like we lost Lauri somehow. Michele Szafran: She's coming back it looks like maybe there? There she is. Lauri Strauss: Sorry, guys. My computer just completely froze. I'm back. What did I miss? Maurine Jeude: I was asking if we could see where the trees were that were in question and the blocking of the — the second respondent, Allison — that it was going to block light. And I was wondering if she is to the east of the property or also north of the property and what trees are potentially coming out that they're concerned about. I don't know if the builder can comment on whether those trees can stay or not in their plans. Kernen Lien: Lauri, most of the people who have commented have their hands open. Do you want me to allow them to speak? Lauri Strauss: Yes. One at a time, please. Allison Arditty: Hi, this is Allison. I was just typing in the comments. So, I think the trees that Mary mentioned — the largest one is right when you pull into the driveway. So, it kinda looks like it is right where Unit A's first parking spot is. And then that large bush-ish tree is right where the two guest spots are at the top of this driveway — so, by Unit E, those two guest spots. One of the units in Fir Grove right now, his patio looks out over that bush. So, he would have absolutely no privacy anymore. And then our unit, Unit J, would look right out onto Unit E's wall. So, I think that's where I was concerned about losing all of our light and definitely diminishing our privacy as well because the building would be very tall, two stories. So, hopefully, looking at this and then hearing those comments makes a little more sense. Maurine Jeude: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: We wanna call on Lee to respond to that maybe. Lee Michaelis: Thank you. Absolutely. First, unfortunately, we don't have any guest parking due to the no tandem requirement. The ones that are there are required. The driveways are not parking stalls per the city's requirements. So, yes, the two trees as mentioned will be removed as part of the improvements. As Michele stated and I will reiterate, we will be retaining the trees that are needed for future subdivision, which I believe is 25%. As far as proximity to the neighbors, we're 15 feet away from the north property line and at least 2 feet if not more below them. So, they're 5 feet, maybe 10 feet, depending on if it's deck or house. These units will be at least 20 feet away from them. So, that should give enough room for light, air, sense of enjoyment. The type III landscaping — again, we are proposing that across the north line to meet the type III, which is a screening buffer. So, there will be some vegetation replanted there. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 3.1.a And then the number of units — Michele stated and I'll reiterate. The property can yield seven units. We're only doing five. So, I think the developer is actually backing off what he can do on the property. Thank you. Maurine Jeude: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Michele, can you just show that landscaping plan. I don't know why. I have a weird screen here. So, Allison, you can see along that north edge, there will be trees planted back in, just not at the parking space. So, I think the type III buffer — it doesn't extend all the way to the property line on the east — the east — west. But it seems like a pretty good landscape area. And we were looking at this other plan. It doesn't look like there's any trees going back in, but there are trees going back in there. Lee, can we call on you again? Do you still have your hand up? Lee Michaelis: Oh, I'm sorry. Bruce Owensby: Actually, I'd like to ask Lee a question if he could get back on. Is there any possibility of having a parking space at the front of the project down near the street rather than having both of them at the rear -end? I don't know what the code allows, if it's too close — the zoning I mean. I'm just wondering r if that could save one of those trees. Michele Szafran: I can comment to that too. Michele, the planner here. So, we actually wouldn't allow for parking stalls — to be placed within a required setback. 0 Bruce Owensby: That's what I was wondering. Q. a Kim Bayer: Lauri, I had a question. Q Lauri Strauss: Go ahead, please. Kim Bayer: The 40-inch tree diameter — where is that that's being removed? That was brought up that by one of the... Bruce Owensby: It looks like it's in the top parking space, I think, from looking at the plans. I've got a map pulled up Lee Michaelis: Michele, you wanna hover over Unit B's driveway? Right there. Kim Bayer: Can you make it a little bigger on our screen? It's really hard to see. I guess I could exit full screen. Michele Szafran: And which? Lee Michaelis: The driveway for Unit B. Michele Szafran: Driveway, Unit B. There's a tree shown here. Is that the one? Lee Michaelis: No, it's actually in the driveway of Unit B. Bruce Owensby: You see it in the car. It's over the car. Michele Szafran: All right. Lauri Strauss: Down a little lower, to the left. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 3.1.a Michele Szafran: I think I'm there. Oh, oops. Sorry. Bruce Owensby: It's right at the car. Lauri Strauss: Right, yeah. That's the one. Michele Szafran: Oh, yeah. Lauri Strauss: Well, I'd hate to see what this looks like with more units on it and more parking required, but I think that they've done a pretty decent job of trying to get it all on there and get the landscape in between. Bruce Owensby: I agree. Lauri Strauss: I guess that's part of deliberations. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about that just yet. Kemen Lien: Lauri, Mary has her hand up again if you wanna let her speak. Lauri Strauss: Please, Mary, go ahead. Mary Tragus-Campbell: There we go. Can you hear me? r Lauri Strauss: Yup. 2 4- 0 Mary Tragus-Campbell: Hi. This is Mary again. So, looking at, again, that very large tree that I was referring to that is in that driveway of Unit B, is there a way that that — because that is the largest of the trees that we have, > 0 could that driveway, could that unit be shifted over a little bit to save that tree or maybe the parking be a. put into the easement instead for it? Q- a I think that the argument of we're keeping 25% of the trees when you're looking at the actual habitat that's being lost when you lose a 40-inch diameter conifer is far, far greater than some of the smaller scrubbier trees or the debris in some of the other areas that was going to be cleaned. So, the value of that particular one I just don't think can be overstated, and I would really love if you all could come up with another alternative to where we could keep that size — I don't know how many years old that particular tree is, but it is absolutely massive. And it makes both a visual barrier. It's good wildlife habitat. It's a sound barrier off of 238th. I think we would be losing an important feature in that area. Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Mary. Lee, do you have a response for that? Male Speaker: I want my money. So, I'm gonna deal with it. Lee Michaelis: I would love to see the 15-foot rear setback get reduced so that we can shift those things north. I just don't know if the neighbors want those units coming closer nor do I think the city wants to reduce that setback. Male Speaker: Oh, he's an asshole. Female Speaker: Fuck you. I was not muted. Whoops. Lauri Strauss: Mary, did you have another comment? Mary Tragus-Campbell: My personal opinion is I think that there should be less units in there and that by completely removing Unit B altogether and having it be a four -unit complex instead of a five -unit complex would be beneficial to keeping the habitat, still having the opportunity to develop this property further, reducing the amount of safety concerns for folks walking up and down the driveway, and be able to be Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 3.1.a a happy medium changing it from one single family residence to five units — to be perfectly honest with you when we purchased our house back in January, we were under the impression that it was supposed to be future development of three units. I probably would not have purchased if I knew that it was going to be five going in there. I think the loss of the trees and the greenery will be very bad for property values. I'm very concerned about it. Michele Szafran: And I was wondering if I could just speak a little bit again too? Lauri Strauss: Yes, Michele, please. Michele Szafran: So, I will say, too, with the new tree code, there is priority tree retention requirements. And one of those is to provide significant trees that form a continuous canopy. So, there's obviously gonna be a pretty good benefit to retaining these trees along this property boundary because those are gonna form a broader canopy by retaining those. Anyways, I just wanted to point that out because a lot of those trees along this property boundary are also significant trees too. So, I just wanted to add that. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Any other board member comments? Bruce Owensby: No. m r Lauri Strauss: Hold on. Give me just a minute here. Kernen Lien: Lee still has his hand up. Do you have something to say, Lee? — Ta Lee Michaelis: I do. I just wanna reiterate kind of what I started my presentation with. This project's been going since > 0 2006, which we're now 15 years into it. It's been five units from day one. So, I'm not quite sure how Q. the three units was ever publicly disclosed to anybody because that's never been the intent. The intent C- has always been five units for the last 15 years. Lauri Strauss: Sorry, guys. You're gonna have to give me a minute. Since I switched computers, I gotta find the script again. There we go. Any other comments, questions? All right. I am then going to our map. If there are no further questions, we will close the testimony portion of this public hearing. No further questions, right? Public testimony portion of the hearing is now closed. The board may begin deliberations. All right, board members, thoughts, comments? Bruce? Bruce Owensby: I sympathize with Mary, and I can't remember the other person that spoke. Lauri Strauss: Allison. Kim Bayer: Allison. Bruce Owensby: Allison. I can sympathize with their desires, but I also have to look at what they've done. And I think that they're doing the most they can under the conditions they can. They're doing the best that they can. And having worked for a lot of developers in my career, I also realize that there's certain costs that on with development. And it's just not so easy to take out two units and expect the developer still to be able to do what he's doing. So, while I sympathize with them, I can't really side with them. Lauri Strauss: Well, I think what we have to remember, Bruce, is that we're looking at the design criteria — Bruce Owensby: Right. Lauri Strauss: — and, unfortunately, the zoning has probably been around for a really long time. If the zoning had changed 15 years ago, then that's how long this zoning's been in place. Bruce Owensby: Correct. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: And there's, unfortunately, not much we can do about. Bruce Owensby: I would like to just put it forward towards somebody that if they want to put in the tree ordinance they did to save the big trees, maybe there should be leeways made toward developers, such as Lee, so that maybe there's ways of working around it, either little adjustments to lot lines or to setbacks so that he'd be able to save a tree like that. Kim Bayer: So, my question is — I thought with the tree code — and, again, it was that legacy tree that I thought — and, Michele, I think you touched upon this. So, just to confirm, there's nothing in the tree code that would prevent the developer from removing that. Is that correct? Lauri Strauss: Michele. Kim Bayer: Edmonds Michele. Kernen Lien: Do you want me to offer to help? Michele Szafran: Oh, go ahead. Kernen, did you just say you wanted to answer? m r Kernen Lien: I will for you. So, Kernen Lien of planning. I worked on the tree code and spent a lot of time with the council talking about it. You mentioned the heritage tree. So, there was a landmark tree ordinance that was passed. That does not apply to properties that are going through the development process. So, trees 4- 0 can be removed through that process on there. Michele did mention the priorities for trees. So, the tree Ci code has three tier priorities — priorities one, two, and three on there. > 0 L And the trees that form a continuous canopy are the priority one trees like the trees on the eastern side Q- a there. And also, priority two trees are trees that form a buffer within the setback. So, those trees along the eastern property lines are the higher priority trees than the one large tree that's within the parking N lot area. CM Lauri Strauss: So, what's priority three — trees? Kernen Lien: Priority three are older cottonwoods, kinda these trees that are really the greatest urban trees. Lauri Strauss: All right, folks. Well, hearing that, it sounds like they're meeting the tree code. They're meeting the priorities. Maurine, any comments, questions from you? Maurine Jeude: Nope, I think you started to speak to it a little bit earlier that it looks like there's some plantings on the backside there that aren't in that one diagram. And if those trees are actually put in, it will give them a little bit more privacy from those back condos or triplex, I guess. And I like what they've done between the parking spaces. I think they're adding some greenery and landscaping there that is conducive to keeping us green and with the trees. I don't think there's much else we could comment on with respect to that. Lauri Strauss: Unfortunately, I don't think we have any power over parking spaces. We couldn't reduce the amount of parking spaces on there, unfortunately. So, we have to go by the design criteria. And it appears that they're meeting it. I hate losing big trees as well. At least this is going with the new tree code. I think with the old tree code, it could've been worse. But they're saving all those trees along the east property line. I think that's good. Like I said, I think that's kudos to the tree code and the developer for getting that done. I think it meets the design criteria that we're tasked with reviewing. So, I'm ready to vote on it. I don't know. Is everybody ready to do a vote? Kim, do you have any other comments that you wanna say? You look a little frustrated. All right. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 3.1.a All right. So, there is a motion. I'll read it. And then I guess someone can actually make the motion since I made the last motion, and someone can second it. So, the motion is — the Architectural Design Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and analysis of the staff report and finds the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, policies of ECDC 20.10, design criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, and zoning regulations and approves the design of the proposed multi -family homes with the following conditions: No. 1, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirement in the Edmonds Community Development Code, and it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with various provisions contained in these codes. No. 2, staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions through review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the board as long as the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. No. 3, mechanical equipment should be screened from view from the street level. No. 4, landscaping must be protected with curbing for the parking spaces along the northern property boundary. No. 5, all exterior lighting must be shielded to avoid offsite spillage. Someone wanna make the motion? r Bruce Owensby: I'll make the motion. Lauri Strauss: Is there a second? 4- 0 Maurine Jeude: Second. 0 Q. a a Lauri Strauss: All right. All those in favor of approval? Bruce Owensby: Aye. Maurine Jeude: Aye. Kim Bayer: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Aye. All right, motion's approved. All right. I think that's all we have for that review. Kernen Lien: So, next on the agenda was ADB member comments. Lauri Strauss: Yes, ADB member comments. All right, applicants and folks, if you wanna stick around, you certainly are welcome to. But this part of the meeting is just kinda where we go into other issues. All right. Anybody have any board comments? Bruce Owensby: Not really. Lauri Strauss: I have a comment. Hold on. Let me pull this up. So, I kinda wanna get this on the record because the last meeting that we had, it was a little contentious, yeah. Kim and I actually had a further conversation with the city's attorney just to see if what I did was correct. And I think that I found out that I could've done more. So, I think the meeting going off course was my fault. I should've stopped the disruptions during our deliberation sooner rather than kinda letting them get out of hand. That being said, I did feel like the applicant was rude and out of line in the way that he responded to my questions. I actually looked back through the meeting minutes from the 5th, and they were all captured. Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 3.1.a After that meeting on the 5th, I really felt like the applicant was trying to bully the board into an approval by saying he could always design something worse for that site. And I still feel that way. And even reading back through the meeting minutes, I feel like that's exactly what he was trying to do. Bruce Owensby: He was. Lauri Strauss: And several times, I was disappointed at the meeting of the 19' when this came up yet again. And some of our board members agreed with the applicant that he could put something worse there. If we reviewed projects based on — well, it could be worse, we will be approving every project no matter what it looks like or how it will function for the people who will use it. Our design standards are clear, I think. Our task is to represent the citizens of Edmonds, the City of Edmonds, and to ensure projects built in this beautiful city, which I know we all feel is beautiful, are held to our specific design standards. We're not here to let developers bully us into approving their projects based on some unknown could - be -worse design. I also believe that if someone can design something worse for a site, by that same logic they should be able to design something better. That's my thought. I just want to remind everybody that we're here to do our best, to follow the guidelines set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code. And I will try my best to not let developers and such bully us. But let's try to remember also that even though it could be worse, it could also be better. And let's remember that when we're looking at our design standards. That's my comment. Kim Bayer: Lauri, I know you and I had spoke. And I also was very upset about how the last two meetings have occurred, especially the last one. I thought the behavior was unacceptable. So, I think now talking to the city attorney, you have a better idea of how you can get control. The board meeting is our meeting. City staff, which you guys are great. The city staff is there to support and bring forth, but it's our meeting. And I think we forget that in this Zoom world. We're not there in person. We're not there to be able to see body language and look somebody in the eye. Zoom is one thing, but it's completely different than being in person. So, kudos to you, Lauri. I totally agree with what you just said. And I hope that we can move forward and all be able to ask the right questions. I think the other issue was the fact that the developer and even the condominium owner that had concerns was not — they were allowed in during our deliberations. So, we're deliberating, and then they're countering things that we're discussing amongst ourselves, which we realized is not a good thing to have happen. So, I appreciate that. And I absolutely agree. Lauri Strauss: I'll try and keep control of that a little bit better in the Zoom world. Bruce Owensby: Lauri, can you enlighten us a little bit to what the city attorney said as to how we can handle or deal with somebody like that who becomes belligerent? Lauri Strauss: Yeah, he said I should have a gavel, and I should've brought the meeting back to order. So, I need to get a gavel or pound on something. I got a big Yeti right here. Maybe I'll pound on that. Bruce Owensby: Or a hammer. Lauri Strauss: So, I should've done that. Kim Bayer: They shouldn't have been allowed in the deliberations. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 Lauri Strauss: Right. The other thing was I should've told Mike to mute him. We're deliberating, and he's not allowed to speak right now. I think part of the problem too is sometimes we're asking question because we don't know. So, then we let them in and let them talk. And then it just gets out of hand, and they just stay on the line. And we're trying to talk, and they're talking over us. So, I felt like I needed to get that on the record that we do have options to be better, and I will try to be better. Kernen Lien: So, we do have the ability to mute people and kick them off the panel and whatnot. So, you can point to us for the virtual gavel saying, "Mute them," and we can do that. For the people that were participating tonight, I was letting them in only to speak and then kicking them out again. Then asking you if they wanted to participate. So, that's something that we can do, and we can have that discussion with staff, too, to have better control the audience in the Zoom world. Lauri Strauss: Move to adjourn. Bruce Owensby: I second. Lauri Strauss: All right. We're adjourned, 9:00 p.m. exactly — two hours. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. a Planning Board Minutes June 2, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 5.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/21/2021 Waster Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Recommend approval of the design review aspects of the Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project to the Hearing Examiner. Narrative The City of Edmonds is proposing a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility. The WWTP is located at 200 2nd Avenue South and is zoned Public (P) which requires a 25-foot setback from property lines for structures. The existing building is approximately 7.5 feet from the property line with SR104 on the west side. The proposal includes installing a carbon filter on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the western property line and a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 foot from the western property line. Variances are required to place these structures within the 25-foot setback. As a public project, the Carbon Recovery Project is also subject to design review. The design review and variance applications are consolidated pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. The ADB first holds a public meeting (no public comment will be accepted) and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will issue the decisions on the variances and design following a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner meeting has been scheduled for August 2, 2021. Attachments: PLN2021-0030 ADB Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 34 5.1.a 117c. ] 89" Project: File Number: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028 (Variance Carbon Filter), PLN2021-0029 (Variance Loading Dock) and PLN2021-0030 (Design Review) Date of Report: July 15, 2021 O Staff Contact: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager ADB Meeting: Wednesday —July 21, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. Due to COVID-19, a virtual public meeting will be held via Zoom. The Zoom meeting may be joined at: https://zoom.us/I/93308631804?pwd=QXVDeGIUN3ozY2xUZlRCdW5mU nd4QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 933 0863 1804 Password: 955982 I. PROJECT PROPOSAL The City of Edmonds is proposing a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility. The WWTP is located at 200 2nd Avenue South and is zoned Public (P) which requires a 25-foot setback from property lines for structures. The existing building is approximately 7.5 feet from the property line with SR104 on the west side. The proposal includes installing a carbon filter on the west side of the building approximately 5 feet from the western property line and a loading dock for future maintenance activities approximately 1 foot from the western property line. Variances are required to place these structures within the 25-foot setback. As a public project, the Carbon Recovery Project is also subject to design review. Packet Pg. 35 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 II. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION Since the WWTP site is zoned Public (P), the Architectural Design Board must review the design of the proposed improvements ["...each public use will undergo extensive review by the ADB in light of its relationship to its surrounding neighbors..." Section 16.80.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)]. There are few specific design standards for a project like this but the code does contain design guidance applicable to certain elements such as screening mechanical equipment and landscaping. The design review and variance applications are consolidated pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. The ADB first holds a public meeting (no public comment will be accepted) and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will issue the decisions on the variances and design following a public hearing. The following Attachments are included with this report: 1. Land use applications 2. Applicant's narratives 3. Site Plan 4. Relevant Plan Set Pages 5. Planting Plan 6. Height Calculations and Elevation Views 7. Critical Area Report 8. SEPA documentation 9. Engineering Memo of Compliance B. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION A SEPA review for the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project was initially conducted in 2019 and a Determination of Nonsignificance issued on March 15, 2019. The project was modified since the initial SEPA review, but the modification did not substantial alter the SEPA analysis and the City adopted the DNS in December 2020. SEPA documentation is provided in Attachment 8. C. NOTICE A "Notice of Application and Public" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on July 16, 2021 respectively (Attachment 4). Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. No public comments have been received as of the date of this report. The public comment period will run through the close of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on August 2, 2021. Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 36 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 D. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by South County Fire as well as the Building and Engineering Divisions (Attachment 9). Each group, in addition to Planning, Public Works and others, will review the associated building permit for compliance with all applicable codes. E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The parcel that the WWTP plant is located on is almost completely covered by the WWTP. There is some existing landscaping around the perimeter of the site. A wetland is located just south of the WWTP and the buffers from the wetland extend into the project site. 1. Critical Areas: A critical area determination was issued for the project site under critical area file number CRA2021-0080 which noted the presence of the wetland just south of the site. The wetland area is also included on the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species map. Portions of the property is located within the 100 year flood plain boundary with a base flood elevation of 12 feet. The site is also identified as a high liquefaction hazard area. The proposed loading dock would be located within the buffer of the wetland, which may be allowed in accordance with ECDC 23.50.040.1 if mitigation is provided. A critical area report detailing the buffer impact and mitigation has been submitted with the project and provided in Attachment 7. Additional plantings will also be provided in the buffer areas as detailed in the planting plan provided in Attachment 5. 2. Shoreline: The subject property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The WWTP plant is bounded by SR104 to the west, Dayton Street to the north and 2nd Avenue South to the east. The Harbor Square commercial center is located across SR104 to the west and Salish Crossing commercial development kitty corner to the NW. A senior living facility is located north across Dayton Street and some multi -family residential development is located across 2nd Avenue South. The old Public Works building is also located directly east of the WWTP site. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is primarily "Public" within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center overlay. The WWTP plant is also identified in the Capital Facilities Plan which is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 37 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 H. APPLICABLE CODES 1. Chapter 16.80 ECDC Public Use (P) zone The WWTP is a public facility and a permitted primary use in the P zone. There are a couple of site development standards applicable to the design review of this project. ECDC 16.80.030.B notes that the required setbacks shall be fully landscaped and ECDC 16.80.030.E notes that site landscaping requirements shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Landscaping is discussed by in Section H.3 of this report. 2. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review Pursuant Chapter 20.10 ECDC (Design Review), General Design Review is required for this project since it is not located in an area that has district -based design standards. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design, Site Treatment, and Other Criteria that must be addressed. These criteria are general for all types of development and do not neatly fit the subject project which will only result in minimal change to the exterior of the WWTP. A. ECDC 20.11.030.A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets. The WWTP plant building is an existing building. The only addition to the building will be the carbon filter located on the west of the building. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area. No brilliant colors are proposed. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level. The carbon filter located on the west side of the WWTP plant will be screened with landscaping. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 38 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 The proposed carbon filter and loading dock with not significantly alter the appearance of the existing WWTP building. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. No signage is proposed at this time. Any signage will require a separate building permit. B. ECDC 20.11.030.B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. It is necessary to remove vegetation in a small area on the side of the WWTP in order to install the carbon filter and other elements of the Carbon Recovery Project. The new loading dock will only add approximately 300 square feet on new impervious surface. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. New landscaping is proposed to replace the vegetation that will be removed during the construction phase of the project. (Attachment 5). 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. The landscaping proposed for the project only addresses the landscaping impacted by the proposed project. The proposed landscaping will be an improvement over the existing landscaping. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. All of the proposed landscaping is set back from parking areas, streets and sidewalks. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. No service yards are located on the west side of the WWTP and this standard is not applicable to this project. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. The trees, shrubs and groundcover in the planting plan (Attachment 5) are primarily evergreen species and should provide effective screening year round. Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 39 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) maybe substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. No such areas are proposed. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. No applicable to the WWTP project. C. ECDC 20.11.030.C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The WWTP currently exists and the Carbon Recovery Project will not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. No street furniture is proposed along the SR104 side of the WWTP. 3. Chapter 20.13 ECDC Landscaping Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. Type III landscaping would be appropriate to buffer the WWTP and carbon filter from the SR104 right-of-way. Type Ill landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 40 5.1.a Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project PLN2021-0028, PLN2021-0029, and PLN2021-0030 b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. The landscaping in Attachment 5 appears to be consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements. III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments with this report, staff suggests that the ADB RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the design of the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project under file number PLN2021-0030 with the following motion: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT IN FILE PLN2021-0030 AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT RECOVERY PROJECT lyA I_1.4 91*Sol 2 :itf[a] .07 City of Edmonds 121— 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 41 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT/U.Ci�� DATE May 10, 2021 Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER (:tiA� DATE May 10, 2021 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Attachment 1 Pao c 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 42 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application �onQthe behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT yJ/u-t ���� DATE May 10, 2021 Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER � , X&ate DATE May 10, 2021 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Attachment 1 Pao c 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 43 5.1.a Technical Memorandum TO: Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds CC: Michael Derrick, Wastewater Treatment Plant Program Administrator FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: May 7, 2021 RE: Zoning Variance — Carbon Filter City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0074209.010.012 Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally occur within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. The project site' is zoned as Public Use (P), which, in part, requires minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet (ft) from a public street or property line in accordance with the development standards in Edmond Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.80.030. A portion of the carbon filter to be constructed outside the existing WWTP will encroach into the setback adjacent to State Route (SR) 104, and requires variance from the development standards. The encroachment into the setback includes the construction of a cantilevered concrete slab to support the carbon filter equipment. The concrete slab will be approximately 9 ft wide by 25 ft long and 1 ft thick, constructed partially on an existing concrete structure associated with the WWTP (Attachment 1), and only the westerly 3 ft of the 9 ft width of the new slab will extend into the setback area. The cantilevered slab will be located within approximately 5 ft of the SR 104 right-of-way line. Type III landscaping in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030(C) will be provided in areas of temporary clearing required for construction. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is providing this technical memorandum to provide evaluation of the proposed carbon filter location with the criteria for variance provided in ECDC 20.85.010. ' The project site is located on Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409100, which also includes the Edmonds Dayton Street Plaza located east of 2nd Avenue South. LANDAU AS5OCmm 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 44 Landau Associates 5.1.a Variance Criteria The following regulations (in bold) were copied from ECDC Chapter 20.85.010, which identifies criteria required for approval of variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance. Project evaluation in regard to the proposed carbon filter is provided following each regulation. A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. The WWTP was constructed prior to enactment of the current setback requirements in the ECDC, and the existing setback in the area of the proposed carbon filter is approximately 7 ft, which is below the current zoning standard of 20 ft (see Attachment 1). The carbon filter supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. The WWTP is a regional provider of wastewater treatment services to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the ECDC would not allow for construction of the proposed project and opportunity to improve the existing WWTP facility operations. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The carbon filter is located outside of the adjacent wetland buffer. B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The approval of the variance for the carbon filter will not grant a special privilege to the property. The carbon filter will provide support in maintaining and improving the efficiency of the existing WWTP. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Zoning Variance — Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 45 Landau Associates 5.1.a C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The approval of the variance is consistent with the "Community Sustainability Element" of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The very nature of this project, "Carbon Recovery," more closely aligns the treatment processes taking place at the WWTP with the City's Climate Change Initiative. The variance will allow the treatment plant to align its operations more closely with the "Utilities Element" of the comprehensive plan. The plan states in part: "This approach [of providing guidance to the City, policy development, decision making, and information for agencies and the public] allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds." The nature of this project is to protect environmental quality. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. The existing WWTP use is consistent with the Public Use (P) zoning designation, and the carbon filter supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed carbon filter will support improvement and protection of the health of the public and the environment by ensuring that the air quality produced by the treatment process meets or exceeds regulations after it is treated by the carbon filter. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The carbon filter is located outside of the adjacent wetland buffer. F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposed variance, once approved, constitutes the minimum necessary to allow the City to upgrade its treatment processes to meet and/or exceed the City's Climate Change Initiative via the "Carbon Recovery Project." The carbon filter has been designed to overlap existing developed area of the WWTP to the extent feasible and provides new encroachment into the setback limited to a 3 ft width extending 25 ft along the WWTP facility. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland Zoning Variance — Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 46 Landau Associates 5.1.a (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Conclusion The City is proposing the WWTP Recovery Project, which will include a carbon filter that will encroach into the setback adjacent to SR 104 and requires variance from the development standards. This portion of the project satisfies variance approval criteria consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.85.010. Use of this Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Qua terman Senior Associate SJQ/JAF/kjg [\\EDMDATA01\PROJECTS\074\209.010\R\VARIANCE\CARBON FILTER\WWTP ZONING VARIANCE - CARBONFILTER TM.DOCX] Attachments Attachment 1. Carbon Filter Plan Sheet Excerpts Zoning Variance — Carbon Filter City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 47 t 0 ma P 0 g GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES: :21. LOCATION AND SIZES OF PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENTARE APPROXIMATE. in CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS i � SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 0 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER N Z REQUIREMENTS AND TOLERANCES. O 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, INTERFACES, AND 0 10 20 CONNECTIONS. 4. SEE DWG G-10 FOR EQUIPMENT LIST. Scale in Feet .0 5. SEE DWG G-10 PIPING SCHEDULE AND PROCESS VALVE LIST. SUPPORT PIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE SCHEDULE ON G-10. LL 6. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS NOT SHOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR 2 CLARIFICATION. CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS TO FIELD VERIFY AND COORDINATE o_I WITH ALL MANUFACTURER COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED. 7. INSTALL GRATING AND RAILINGS PER STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, TYP. x 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT FINAL AIR BALANCING AND AIRFLOW MEASUREMENTS OF a o EXISTING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM ONCE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 9. EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS/HANGERS/BRACING SHOWN ON MECHANICAL DRAWINGS a ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE. CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN THE EQUIPMENT AND PIPING o SUPPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. � I m SEE DWG M-14 I dl a I I JI I — m I I II — ----- NO CITY WATER TO '� I THIS BUILDING FROM THE SOUTH .., cv'i I' I V — ----- •'�' W in O SEE DWGit M-7 °7 a_ a ID FAN MCC / Q a�i I ROOM ... P W A APW ' P NPW NPW t o d E n 3 } �+ 11 Ell PLC /GYM MCC HYP HL RIT ' � OC O E a +� M o I w al STORAGE (. � Q 9.1 I '.'— — —_ �_ No w I 3 o I SOLIDS P a HANDLING 0 < SOLIDS 'a I ROOM PROCESS POLYMER DL------��)1 I I N m I BUILDING FEED I�� I O p / S s FL SS s l I 189 AUNDRRY 01 \ -----J s 5� RM115.05 I.E of of I \----------_ S 3 EL 13.2 SENDS PIPED PIPE n FlLLER CAPS (TYP) \ 1 / I ELBOW SENDS PIPE DOWN, u' o \ AC a( Q NO MSIBLE EXIT FOR WATER m a X I , =-7.ss SHOP AUNDRY n w 9G w a W \ Q LL c I lL DRAIN \ I Q d �I SOLIDS 80 PW PW PW PW P. PW PW PW M • I y r-----r r-----� A A A A O N a I I I Q I DISPOSAL ROOM c c y� f I o xDIM MAI 1 W off i I /J I p I I SPIN Call 48 Hours CD rn I I j \ J Before You Dic N Z 8 0 ri s \ ml I I I I I I I MAINTENANCE/ v y 3 y I 1-800-424-555! a y I I I B--- —------- ----------- �\ OFFICE AC C N GP O �I I UNDERGROUND SERVICE 0 WI MAtB • L------� L-----J STORAGE 1 \ ° 3 d clI I I 1 X=-- ----- ------ ----- ° --- —% \ OTTAC UC4�C� t c sC wF a 11 SD S SD SD SS SO SD M o w � W TE O\ t O ID OVAL '6• E O ^. 0 BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. Scale. EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: M-1 E -1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 3/32" = 1'-0.. 3 bh(.w � Seattle, Washington 98101 AMERESCO SITE MECHANICAL PLAN Sheet: 59 of 114 206.505.3400 Drawn: S. Olsoe One Inch at Full ScaleI"File: P20-10570 M-1 LL206.505.3406 (fax)sultan Green Clean Sustainable AND NOTES - ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRIM RAD CON: U L T ANTS T S w 6.505. consultants.com If Not One Inch t d Checked: R. Dorn, P style AccoNfogl a x No. Revision Date By App'd COPYRIGHT 02021 BHC COIL Packet Pg. 48 1 5.1.a I PLAN SCALE: 318" = V-0" Revision ACF ID FAN ROOM I I I I I DN I .A SECTION SCALE: 3/8" = V-0" - BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. Scale: 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 3/8" = 1'-0" , Seattle, Washington 98101 c AMERESCO 206.505.3400 Drawn: S. Olsoe (40 nc One Ih at FWI Scale 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com Sirle ccordiNeA—diOnen^ngy _Green � - Clean - Sustainable Checked: R. Dorn, P�. - - NOTES: 1. REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES. 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY. REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SIZING, ANCHORING, AND CONNECTION LOCATIONS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: OINSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. OEQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. Call 48 Hours c Before You Dic Z 1-800-424-555E UNDERGROUND SERVICE d C. Preliminary 4�o°Eo s 90% Review Sety Not For Construction 03-2021 FF c+sTe sslONAL �yG EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: M-15 SOLIDS sheet: X of X PLAN AND SECTION File: P20-10570_M-15 COPYRIGHT 020216HC CO Packet Pg. 49 5.1.a Technical Memorandum TO: Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds CC: Michael Derrick, Wastewater Treatment Plant Program Administrator FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: May 7, 2021 RE: Zoning Variance — Loading Dock City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plan Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0074209.010.012 Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally occur within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. The project site' is zoned as Public Use (P), which, in part, requires minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet (ft) from a public street or property line in accordance with the development standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.80.030. The loading dock to be constructed outside the existing WWTP will encroach into the setback adjacent to State Route (SR) 104, and requires variance from the development standards. The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components; the temporary component will occur in SR 104 right-of-way and the permanent component will occur on City property and encroach into the setback within the SR 104 right-of-way. Type III landscaping in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030(C) will be provided in areas of temporary clearing required for construction. The permanent component of the loading dock will be 12 ft by 12 ft, consisting of a structural platform made of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck (Attachment 1). The loading dock will be located up to the SR 104 right-of-way line. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. The loading dock is needed to remove old equipment and install new equipment and will be needed for future maintenance, such as removing/replacing carbon used by the carbon filter. ' The project site is located on Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409100, which also includes the Edmonds Dayton Street Plaza located east of 2nd Avenue South. LANDAU AS5OCmm 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 50 Landau Associates 5.1.a Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) is providing this technical memorandum to provide evaluation of the proposed loading dock location with the criteria for variance provided in ECDC 20.85.010. Variance Criteria The following regulations (in bold) were copied from ECDC Chapter 20.85.010, which identifies criteria required for approval of variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance. Project evaluation in regard to the proposed permanent component of the loading dock is provided following each regulation. A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds, and wildlife habitats. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. The WWTP was constructed prior to enactment of the current setback requirements in the ECDC, and the existing setback in the area of the proposed loading dock is approximately 13 ft, which is below the current zoning standard of 20 ft (see Attachment 1). The loading dock supports implementation of the overall Carbon Recovery Project, which provides improved efficiency to this regional public facility. The WWTP is a regional provider of wastewater treatment services to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Shoreline, and Olympic View Water and Sewer. Strict enforcement of the ECDC would not allow for construction of the proposed project and the opportunity to improve the existing WWTP facility operations. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The loading dock is located within the adjacent wetland buffer, and impacts will be mitigated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1). B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Zoning Variance — Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 51 Landau Associates 5.1.a The approval of the variance for the loading dock will not grant a special privilege to the property. The loading dock will provide support in implementing the Carbon Recovery Project, which will improve the efficiency of the existing WWTP. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The approval of the variance is consistent with the "Community Sustainability Element" of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. The very nature of this project, "Carbon Recovery," more closely aligns the treatment processes taking place at the WWTP with the City's Climate Change Initiative. The variance will allow the treatment plant to align its operations more closely with the "Utilities Element" of the comprehensive plan. The plan states in part: "This approach [of providing guidance to the City, policy development, decision making, and information for agencies and the public] allows the City to maintain its goal of providing high quality service to its customers while protecting environmental quality, primarily the water quality of both Puget Sound and the coastal streams located in Edmonds." The nature of the Carbon Recovery Project is to protect environmental quality, and the proposed loading dock is an integral component for implementing the project. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. The existing WWTP use is consistent with the Public Use (P) zoning designation, and the loading dock supports improved efficiency of this regional public facility. E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. The approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed loading dock will support the Carbon Recovery Project, which provides improvement and protection of the health of the public and the environment. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. The loading dock is located within the adjacent wetland buffer, and impacts will be mitigated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1). F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Zoning Variance — Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 52 Landau Associates 5.1.a The proposed variance, once approved, constitutes the minimum necessary to allow the City to upgrade its treatment processes to meet and/or exceed the City's Climate Change Initiative via the "Carbon Recovery Project." The loading dock has been designed to match the width of a proposed wall opening into the WWTP that will allow for equipment ingress/egress as part of construction and maintenance activities and provides new encroachment into the setback limited to a 12 ft width extending 12 ft along the WWTP facility/SR 104 right-of-way. The only other property with Public Use (P) zoning in the vicinity is a portion of existing wetland (Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300409700) located south of the WWTP, which is undeveloped and is also owned by the City. Conclusion The City is proposing the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project, which will include a loading dock that will encroach into the setback adjacent to SR 104 and requires variance from the development standards. This portion of the project satisfies variance approval criteria consistent with ECDC Chapter 20.85.010. Use of this Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk. LAI warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. LAI makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/JAF/kjg [\\EDMDATA01\PROJECTS\074\209.010\R\VARIANCE\LOADING DOCK\WWTP ZONING VARIANCE - LOADING DOCK TM.DOCX] Attachments Attachment 1. Loading Dock Plan Sheet Excerpts Zoning Variance — Loading Dock City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 2 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 53 t 0 ma P 0 g GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES: :21. LOCATION AND SIZES OF PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENTARE APPROXIMATE. in CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS i � SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 0 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER N Z REQUIREMENTS AND TOLERANCES. O 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS, LOCATIONS, INTERFACES, AND 0 10 20 CONNECTIONS. 4. SEE DWG G-10 FOR EQUIPMENT LIST. Scale in Feet .0 5. SEE DWG G-10 PIPING SCHEDULE AND PROCESS VALVE LIST. SUPPORT PIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE SCHEDULE ON G-10. LL 6. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS NOT SHOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR 2 CLARIFICATION. CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS TO FIELD VERIFY AND COORDINATE o_I WITH ALL MANUFACTURER COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED. 7. INSTALL GRATING AND RAILINGS PER STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, TYP. x 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT FINAL AIR BALANCING AND AIRFLOW MEASUREMENTS OF a o EXISTING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM ONCE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 9. EQUIPMENT AND PIPING SUPPORTS/HANGERS/BRACING SHOWN ON MECHANICAL DRAWINGS a ARE SCHEMATIC IN NATURE. CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN THE EQUIPMENT AND PIPING o SUPPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. � I m SEE DWG M-14 I dl a I I JI I — m I I II — ----- NO CITY WATER TO '� I THIS BUILDING FROM THE SOUTH .., cv'i I' I V — ----- •'�' W in O SEE DWGit M-7 °7 a_ a ID FAN MCC / Q a�i I ROOM ... P W A APW ' P NPW NPW t o d E n 3 } �+ 11 Ell PLC /GYM MCC HYP HL RIT ' � OC O E a +� M o I w al STORAGE (. � Q 9.1 I '.'— — —_ �_ No w I 3 o I SOLIDS P a HANDLING 0 < SOLIDS 'a I ROOM PROCESS POLYMER DL------��)1 I I N m I BUILDING FEED I�� I O p / S s FL SS s l I 189 AUNDRRY 01 \ -----J s 5� RM115.05 I.E of of I \----------_ S 3 EL 13.2 SENDS PIPED PIPE n FlLLER CAPS (TYP) \ 1 / I ELBOW SENDS PIPE DOWN, u' o \ AC a( Q NO MSIBLE EXIT FOR WATER m a X I , =-7.ss SHOP AUNDRY n w 9G w a W \ Q LL c I lL DRAIN \ I Q d �I SOLIDS 80 PW PW PW PW P. PW PW PW M • I y r-----r r-----� A A A A O N a I I I Q I DISPOSAL ROOM c c y� f I o xDIM MAI 1 W off i I /J I p I I SPIN Call 48 Hours CD rn I I j \ J Before You Dic N Z 8 0 ri s \ ml I I I I I I I MAINTENANCE/ v y 3 y I 1-800-424-555! a y I I I B--- —------- ----------- �\ OFFICE AC C N GP O �I I UNDERGROUND SERVICE 0 WI MAtB • L------� L-----J STORAGE 1 \ ° 3 d clI I I 1 X=-- ----- ------ ----- ° --- —% \ OTTAC UC4�C� t c sC wF a 11 SD S SD SD SS SO SD M o w � W TE O\ t O ID OVAL '6• E O ^. 0 BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. Scale. EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: M-1 E -1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 3/32" = 1'-0.. 3 bh(.w � Seattle, Washington 98101 AMERESCO SITE MECHANICAL PLAN Sheet: 59 of 114 206.505.3400 Drawn: S. Olsoe One Inch at Full ScaleI"File: P20-10570 M-1 LL206.505.3406 (fax)sultan Green Clean Sustainable AND NOTES - ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRIM RAD CON: U L T ANTS T S w 6.505. consultants.com If Not One Inch t d Checked: R. Dorn, P style AccoNfogl a x No. Revision Date By App'd COPYRIGHT 02021 BHC COIL Packet Pg. 54 5.1.a 2 0 L. IL L i 0 V C L R U r c R a c aD E r m L L L r Qi E ci r a w 3 L 0 N� Mn W Q O M O O r N O N Z J IL c aD E t r Q Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 55 T U 5.1.a I I 0 I 2 I 0 8 16 _ I Scale in Feet CANTILEVERED SLAB (PROPOSED) TO BE LOCATED WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET OF SR 104 n •O RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE 11 II° 6- II II a CARBON FILTER (PROPOSED) PROPERTY LINE U __ ° — _ — I I —; i — — -- _— -- _--��N_II_ O ri H ti T II II N oL�] EXISTING CONCRETE EXTENT • . '( _ II III O � ASSOCIATED WITH THE WWTP LOCATED � II II •" APPROXIMATELY 7 FT FROM SR 104 ° RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE- •Ipll +, III M FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 53061C129F DESIGNATES THE 100 - t ------ y— C YEAR BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IN THE I - MCC 0/ s NPw w A PROJECT VICINITY AS 12 FT (NAVD88) I. y WETLAND BUFFER (110 FT) - P p P P P ++ (I.E. EDMONDS MARSH LOCATED _ PLC GYM MCC HYSTORAGE RITE 21 / P P P SOUTH OF THE WWTP) STORAGE I- II —— — — — --- I . cs cs NPW P / In I I DS " A L Jf N I a+ ROOM SOLIDS — — M PROCESS POLYMER BUILDING FEED / V 1 LAUNDRY ° \,�— S S 1 \\ S ----- ----- ------ , c: V SHOP UNDRY ' w w I �18 (TEMPORARY) (PERMANENT) SOLIDS DISPOSALROOM P I Pw Pw PPw Pw y3r \ PA PA Aw AW A w APW , L G�G G�\ \ Q. O I Q� I I I I 11 O LOADING DOCK (PROPOSED ,(o PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY I.` W II SECTIONS = 300 SF) PERMANENT SECTION TO BE WITHIN APPROX. 1 FT OF I I I _ MAINTENANCE/ OFFICE 41 /y m PROPERTY LINE p , I I ~ # STORAGE \ . a \ M I \ 5G Call 48 Hours CD c 3c SSc N a D SD SD SIDBefore You Dig Z EXISTING WWTP IS 13.46 FT J 7L FROM PROPERTY LINE. �:.: 1-800-424-5555 a. \ UNDERGROUND SERVICE }•, Y I I No. Revision Date BHC Consultants, LLC bhr. , Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 1Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206:505:3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com Scale: Designed. Drawn: E. Zick One Inch at Full Scale Onne Inch Checked: S. Quarterman IffaNat S le Ac ordingly EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: M-1-111-AI ���� AMERESCO DESIGN REVIEW SITE PLAN - sheet: 1 of 1 ASSOCIATE$ Green •Clean •Sustainable SOUTHWEST VICINITY OF EXISTING WWTP p File: P20-10570_M-1-LAI D COPYRIGHT©2021 BHC CO Attachment 3 5.1.a 0 0 U) U) 0 Q U M CV N 0 N 0 N 0 Q co 0 (Drl- LO 0 0 N 0_ M 0 LL E 0 LO 0 0 N X N E 0 0 0 LL 0 L X LOCATION MAPS EI PROJECT LOCATION OV EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY SNOHOMISH COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY APRIL 2021 VICINITY MAP EDMONDS WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 a�W4 A MAYOR MIKE NELSON CITY COUNCIL DIANE BUCKSHNIS LUKE DISTELHORST ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS KRISTIANA JOHNSON LAURA JOHNSON VIVIAN OLSON SUSAN PAINE PUBLIC WORKS &UTILITIES DIRECTOR PHIL WILLIAMS, P.E. WWTP MANAGER 91-1►Ti I =W_11:7_1 Ll 1.7_" a: PREPARED BY J CONSULTANTS PERMIT SUBMITTAL BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com 04-2021 FSi CONSULTING ENGINEERS - HVAC, PLUMBING AND FIRE PROTECTION KPG - ARCHITECTURE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AME E CO Green •Clean •Sustainable � AMERESCO 222 Williams Ave S #100 Renton, Washington 98057 P 206.522.4270 F 425-687-3173 G-1 1 of 114 Attachment 4 COPY RIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 57 0 O N N 0 Q U E T ory N N 00—L' QU � O 0 o — rn C� of Q f� O Ln � O x o w N � O LO N O cEa o C N 0 X L — N 0)w o �r'_ Lo cn O o > N O X U 0 O °� O U � n Lo .. CD � o N of X Lf ) CDY � U O O N U -0 m C O E OI -0 r-- W LO O O U m � 0 X Q m 0 E C U � W 4-0 X A 105 SPIKE ISSUED FOR PERMIT No. I Revision Q 0 O W W 2 a _z C W I W U_ A 110 PK 04-2021 GRM RAD Date By App'd FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 3 PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 FF=-7.65 108 0 'V09 0 107 SPIKE FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 1 ❑ I-1 n ❑ BLOWER BUILDING AERATION BASINS 0 I PRIMARY PRIMARY HEADWORKS CLARIFIER NO. 2 I CLARIFIER NO. 1 BUILDING EX 10'-10" O HANDRAIL CHEMICAL STORAGE FLOW HANDRAIL �:Y .:::. ' TANK, SEE NOTE 9 SPLITTER BOX NO CITY WATER TO ' THIS BUILDING FROM B-7 ODOR CONTROL STJItM CCESS THE SOUTH .. . NO CITY WRIER TO IJ 103 RAW SLUDGE SCRIBED X '. T _ ..,... THIS BUILDING FROM THE SOUTH PUMPING STATd'*0*2 BELOW 123.56' GRAVEL .r•• 't FF=17.35 FF=21.36 P FF=21.30 J G UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK FILLER CAPS (TYP) DT14 DT1 I 0 W a � W 'u. Z DT12 N . A r' W W 1 SOLIDS PROCESS 101 sss sPK W W ® OPERATIONS B-15 BUILDING BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 Drawn: S.Olsoe 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com Checked: R. Dorn, P.E. SD 77. Scale 1 " = 20'-0" One Inch at Full Scale If Not One Inch Scale Accordingly 14 AC , . CB 1189 : , ' ?IM 15.05 I.E. 13.2 E. 6" STEEL PIPE DRAIN ~' A ELBOW SEN S PIPE DOWN, 10 VISIBLE EXIT FOR WATER 100 ENT NCE SPIKI G c ;I w & � — J �:> PW AC Q z — SD B 11' x 11' CONCRETE PAD, TOS EL 17.33, SEE NOTE 9 ® UNDERGROUND B-2 FUEL STORAGE TANK ALDER ST AME E CO Green •Clean •Sustainable � SURVEY NOTES 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. SOURCES OF BOUNDARY INFORMATION AS SHOWN INCLUDE FIELD -TIED MONUMENTATION, PLATS, COUNTY RECORDS OF SURVEY, AND AUDITOR INDEXING INFORMATION. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY SYSTEMS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE TAKEN FROM UTILITY LOCATE PAINT MARKS OR AS -BUILT PLANS AND ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, AND AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ALL LOCATOR SERVICES SHOULD BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION. CALL 1-800-424-5555. 3. FIELD SURVEY: KPG, APRIL, 2019. LICENSEE MICHAEL R. BOWEN, P.L.S. NO. 29294. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT, ±0.5 FOOT PER NATIONAL MAPPING STANDARDS. CONTOURS DERIVED FROM DIRECT FIELD OBSERVATIONS. 5. STORM AND SEWER CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM CENTER OF LID TO CENTER OF LID. 6. THE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF UNDERGROUND VAULTS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED AND ARE APPROXIMATE. 7. DUCTS ARE NOTED AS INDICATED IN THE FIELD BY UTILITY LOCATORS. MULTIPLE LINES AND/OR UTILITIES MAY SHARE DUCT RUNS; THIS MAY NOT BE SHOWN IN THE DRAWING. 8. GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS DESIGNATED AS B-XX ARE NOT SURVEYED, BUT ARE LOCATED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS BY LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC (1987-1988). LOCATION SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE. 9. EXISTING 10'-10" DIAMETER CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK LOCATED ON CAST IN PLACE 11' x 11' CONCRETE PAD, TOS EL 17.33 SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY AND NOT PART OF SURVEY. HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE, NAD 83/91. VERTICAL DATUM EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY EXISTING SITE PLAN Call 48 Hours Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE gOBER),, OF WA�j j O Cn 10NALv p2� �f Drawing: G-9 Sheet: 9 of 114 File: P20-10570_G-9 Date: April2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 58 LEGEND: Ir U 0 L 0 T C� L I 0 U) a L LL X LU I O LO O r O N X L U) U a 0 a_ 0 I LO 0 0 N X E z a_ of LO 0 0 N X L CU E ^cu LL 0 U O O m U 0 Cn O Lo Cn Cn o Q U X E n3 c0- d N L M Q 0 o m N p CD N dl co O Orl- Q o ai o N ca X O U N Q � O 0I o r-- V o � 0 0 0 N N X c w L N Or-- U) LO 0) 0 -0 o � N X U — 0 0 > o � wl o o ti C) � O (a T U o it N � X oa) f Q L O �CU N L ULL -0 X O w E OI -0 LO W o O U m X0 Q ai -0 E cuM U 0 C/)� L X 0 Z 0 5 10 Scale in Feet PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 RAW SLUDGE PUMPING STATION BELOW YD 1592 RIM 23.56' MATCHLINE - SEE DWG G-13 -d '.A: / / // O N / 103 SCRIBED X •4<1 4 \ b /! G p r //A a - 1 0A 4 4. \ b 4 A. 4N PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 LAI M I — = i I NOTES: 4 p 4I I . r 4 p L U p U 0 4 W -r W 4LU p I E F 8283 n n. I Z BIOAIR JI ECOFILTER II I I p 4 1 RAVEL - � a � II II 01)4 / I / 7- — / / I pll I• I •. // I .II• II • I -� i / 1 EX 36" FA / �Q� W NPW NIPW w A A A A P P / P P P P P P / P • I / G� 4 II _______ _______----____ > CS —T CS CS BHC Consultants LLC Scale: � Designed' Palmatier P E C 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 1/4" = 1'-01, Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 Drawn: S. Olsoe One Inch at Full Scale AME E CO NMI ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAID CONSULTANTS (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com If Not One InchGreen . Clean a Sustainable No. I Revision I Date I By I App'd I I Checked: R. Dorn, P.E. Scale Accordingly CLASS I DIVISION 2 1. CLASSIFIED AREA EXTENDS TO THE CEILING OF SPACE IF ENCLOSED, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. CLASSIFIED AREA EXTENDS TO THE GREATER OF 15-FEET ABOVE EQUIPMENT OR 15-FEET ABOVE WALL IF OPEN TO ENVIRONMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM AREA CLASSIFICATION PLAN Call 48 Hours Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE "r 41 n �GISTEg� �S`SIONAL ��� +i'�-2Ax1 Drawing: G-12 Sheet: 12 of 114 File: P20-10570_G-12 Date: April2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 59 E wry a) O L o OU O — N E 0- . N 2 E M O C Lo E O N O 0 X - m C 0' O �LO �o U O tY X O ' W M x U w d O CD 0 O� o o X O 0 C x O LLI E o� Lu LO O C) U X m Q m E M M U � X � I 0 20 40 Scale in Feet 115-FOOT BUFFER FROM WETLAND DELINEATION I I A 105 SPIKE � I FILTER FABRIC FENCE, TYP, PER DETAIL 1/EC-2 I � � I I 8" >- W �► Q z 106 SPIKE J J FF=-7.65 z° Q I� MP12 W A� p "I 108 p 109 W (?M Pi0" REPLACE REMOVED SHRUBS/TREES IN KIND I 0 107 SPIKE BUILDING HANDRAIL ` EX FLOW HA DRAIL SPLITTER BOX :... NO CITY WATER TO .' .:: THIS BUILDING FROM ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM CCESS THE SOUTH NO CITY WATER TO RAW SLUDGE SCRIBED 103 U X '� �-'' = to—' " THIS BUILDING FROM THE SOUTH PUMPING STATION ;.- :� '. ;•.; .':' 1{�� BELOW RIM 23.56' _ Ile FF=17.35 FF=21.36 FF=21.30 J P I I I I W AC ` 102 SPIKE . i 4 I �•' i ► ' DT14 IV �'•'�' DT1 O LU LU :.� .. 0 ' z �. DT12 N II ►— 11FA UNDERGROUND 1' FILLER • SOLIDS PROCESS 101 PK 1_ PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. REPLACE REMOVED SHRUBS/TREES IN KIND W —11 OPERATIONS SD HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE, TYP, PER DETAIL 4/EC-2 INLET PROTECTION, TYP PER DETAIL 2/EC-2 TRENCH DRAIN SILT FILTER, PER DETAIL 3/EC-2 CB 1189 RIM 15.05 I.E. 13.2 E. 6" STEEL PIPE W SE N S PIPE DOWN, NO \4 EXIT FOR WATER EX ENTRANCE ALDER STREET I I I I WETLAND DELINEATION BY •• KPG MARCH 2O21 Call 48 Hours • I I Before You Dig Ca- 1-800-424-5555 I•• • • • • • • . •• UNDERGROUND SERVICE . • .. vp�E Ay0 W W • .• 45243 �O 1 S T 'p,Rti �SSIONAL 1p- S BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: R. Ochiltree, P.E. Scale: EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: EC-1 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 1" = 20'-0" Seattle, Washington 98101 Sheet: 16 of 114 A0 206.505.3400 Drawn: P. Simon One Inch at Full Scale AME E C 0 TESC PLAN File: P20-10570_EC-1 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAID CONSULTANTS (fax) � CONSULTANTS www•bhcconsultants.com Checked: G. MockosPEScale If Not One OneInch AccordinglyGreen * Clean e Sustainable No. Revision Date By . , .. App'd Date: April 2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 60 NOTES: C 0 E Q L a� 0 Q U E L(') - Lp .2 CM M M E M o � o ry N N O } L m O is 7 co 0 0 — n T co o — OI 0 o o — N m d OI E M LO O m ii o N N X E a� o I 0 LO O U O X 0- 0 U X wl O LO CDl o o X o N } U) X Lu 0 E OI Lu LO w o 00 U W X m Q M U 0 U) X 0 20 40 Scale in Feet 0 105 SPIKE 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAGE, SEQUENCE, AND PERFORM DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES TO ALLOW FOR THE UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND ACCESS OF THE WWTP PROCESSES BY WWTP OPERATORS AND STAFF. 4. PIPE REMOVAL SHALL BE TO THE NEAREST FITTING. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CUT PIPE WHEN REMOVING PIPING. BLIND FLANGE PIPING DEAD -ENDS. 5. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF EXISTING PIPING, UTILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PIPING AND EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO EXISTING FEATURES, PIPING, UTILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR THE STAGING OF REMOVED PIPING AND EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO OFFSITE DISPOSAL. 8. WHERE PIPING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS SUPPORTED ON WALLS OR HUNG FROM CEILING, REMOVE PIPING SUPPORTS AND CUT ANCHOR BOLTS FLUSH WITH WALL. 9. DEMOLISH PIPE/EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS PER DETAIL 1 /D-6. 10. PROTECT FLOOR DRAINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. PREVENT DEBRIS FROM ENTERING DRAINS. SHOULD DEBRIS ENTER DRAINS, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ANY OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE DRAINS AND FLUSH ALL DRAINS WITH NON -POTABLE WATER. FF=21.36 14 FF=�_ . _ UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK FILLER CAPS (TYP) SOLIDS 101 PROCESS PK BUILDING FF=19.80 �.:1� 08 ... X 9'' :........................ . SEE DWG'S D-2, D-3 AND D-4 FOR SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING DEMOLITION PLANS 11. WHERE POWERED EQUIPMENT IS REMOVED, REMOVE EQUIPMENT CONTROL PANEL, REMOVE ELECTRICAL WIRING BACK TO SOURCE, AND REMOVE CONDUIT IN ITS ENTIRETY. REMOVE UTILITY, CONNECTIONS, IF ANY, TO NEAREST SHUT-OFF, FIELD LOCATE EXTENTS. 12. OWNER WILL TAG EQUIPMENT FOR SALVAGE BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SALVAGE EQUIPMENT STORAGE LOCATION WITH OWNER. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DETAILED PLAN FOR STAGING AND ACCESS INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND GRADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATED AREA. STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 14. ALL UNUSED WALL AND FLOOR PENETRATIONS BETWEEN CLASS II DIVISION 2 AND NON -CLASSIFIED AREAS (AS DEFINED ON GENERAL DRAWINGS) SHALL BE FILLED WITH NON -SHRINK GROUT, OR APPROVED EQUAL. DEMOLISH PIPE/ WALL PENETRATIONS PER DETAIL 3/D-6. DEMOLISH PIPE/ FLOOR PENETRATIONS PER DETAIL 4/D-6. J SC L ' SD n SD 15. DEMOLISH EXISTING CONCRETE PADS AND/ OR CURBS PER DETAIL 2/D-6. CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1O UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK SLAB. PROTECT DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. OPERATION OF FUEL STORAGE TANK AND FUEL SUPPLY TO WWTP EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATOR SHALL BE UNINTERRUPTED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. WHILE INCINERATOR IS IN OPERATION, FUEL STORAGE TANK AND FUEL SUPPLY TO INCINERATOR SHALL BE UNINTERRUPTED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 2O REMOVE EXISTING SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP AND ASSOCIATED PIPING AND ELECTRICAL AND CONTROLS. REMOVE EXISTING WOOD STRUCTURE ENCLOSING THE SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMP AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL. RELOCATE CAUSTIC CHEMICAL PUMP AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AND PIPING PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. SEE DWG D-5 FOR HEADWORKS BUILDING DEMOLITION PLAN AND SECTIONS CB 1189 RIM 15.05 I.E. 13.2 E. 6" STEEL PIPE ELBOW SEN S PIPE DOWN, NO VISIBLE EXIT FOR WATER EX ENTRANCE PROPERTY LINE OSAWCUT EXISTING SIDEWALK. OREMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK IN ITS ENTIRETY. O5 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALL AND FOOTING IN ITS ENTIRETY. O6 PROTECT EXISTING 24" INFLUENT PIPES (TYP OF 2) DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. INFLUENT PIPES SHALL REMAIN IN UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. O7 WHEN EXCAVATING NEAR INFLUENT PIPES, DO NOT DISTURB PIPE BEDDING AND/OR PROVIDE TEMPORARY PIPE SUPPORTS TO PREVENT PIPE MOVEMENT AND/OR DEFLECTION TO LESS THAN 1 INCH OVER ENTIRE LENGTH OF PIPE. TEMPORARY PIPE SUPPORTS MAY NOT BE SACRIFICIAL AND MUST BE REMOVED UPON CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. O8 PROTECT 24" FA DUCT. O9 PROTECT EXISTING SCUM PIT LID AND ACCESS HATCH. 10 CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE DETAILED PLAN FOR STAGING AND ACCESS INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND GRADING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATED AREA. STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 11 PROTECT EXISTING BURIED FA DUCT, DUCT APPURTENANCES, DUCT FITTINGS, AND DUCT SUPPORTS. 12 PROTECT EXISTING 4" SCREENINGS PIPE IN PLACE. 13 ABANDON EXISTING 2" CS LINE IN PLACE WHERE IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. WHERE IT CONFLICTS WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, REMOVE 2" CS LINE. 14 REMOVE EXISTING MANWAY ACCESS RISER TO BURIED TEE. INSTALL GASKETED BLIND FLANGE AT BURIED TEE ONCE RISER IS REMOVED. 15 REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING FA DUCT TO INSTALL NEW TEE PER MECHANICAL. 16 EXISTING 10'-10" DIAMETER HEAT TRACED AND INSULATED CAUSTIC CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK ON CASTIN PLACE SLAB (11' x 11'), TOS ELEVATION 17.33. PROTECT TANK AND SLAB DURING DEMOLITION. COORDINATE RELOCATION OF PIPING AND ELECTRICAL PER CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2. 17 SAWCUT AND REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING CAST -IN -PLACE WALL PER DWGS M-2 AND M-3. Call 48 Hours Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE *, ROBERl �0 WA � I �I' -i' BHC Consultants, LLC Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. Scale: EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY Drawing: D-1 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 1" = 20'-0" Seattle(jo, Washington 98101AME E CO SITE DEMOLITION Sheet: 18 of 114 206.505.3400 Drawn: S. Olsoe One Inch at Full Scale i File: P20-10570 D-1 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAID CONSULTANTS (fax) f f Not One Inch , PLAN - No. Revision Date By App'd C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com Green • Clean • Sustainable p Checked: R. Dorn, P.E. Scale Accordingly1 4;0 Date: April 2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 61 5.1.a ADD ALTERNATE #2 0 0 U) L U) r) U E M LO M LO LO 0 N O N 0 Q co 0 L �I � o o — o m N W � N U MO LL o N — (D o m N U �U) 0- 0 0 a- � of U ti W LO o T o N IX O — ti U LO p O _�e U O 0 N -0 m C 0 E of ti W LC) o O r U cn o a� X E — a) U m U ;' X EX EL 24.81± CONNECT TO' EX 6" WAT-610 SUCTION SECTION LA� SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" M-12 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 04-2021 GRM RAID No. Revision Date By App'd ADD ALTERNATE #13 bh(AW CONSULTANTS WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" M-14 NOTES: 1. REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT SIZING, ANCHORING, AND CONNECTION LOCATIONS. BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com Designed: G. Mockos, P.E. Drawn: S.Olsoe Checked: R. Dorn, P.E. Scale: 3/8" = 1'-01, One Inch at Full Scale If Not One Inch Scale Accordingly CONSTRUCTION NOTES: OSUPPORT PIPE PER DWG G-10. O2 INSTALL HACH SOLITAC SC SENSOR TSS METER. INSTALL SENSOR PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. INSTALL METER PER VERTICAL MOUNTING DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER. O3 INSTALL SC200 CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. 4O INSTALL BADGER MODMAG M2000 MAGNETIC FLOW METER PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS AND DETAIL 1/M-19. 5 ) INSTALL CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. 6 ) AFC EQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. O7 INSTALL AND SUPPORT ACF DUCT PER DUCT MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. DUCT SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED TO BUILDING EXTERIOR. O8 INSTALL CONDENSATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 1/M-16. O9 INSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. 10 MINIMUM SLOPE 2% TOWARD CONDENSATE DRAIN. AME E CO Green . Clean . Sustainable TOP OF EX PARAPET LL 31.31 ADD ALTERNATE #13 ADD ALTERNATE #2 EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY SOLIDS PROCESSING BUILDING DEWATERING ROOM SECTIONS Call 48 Hours Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE Drawing: M-15 Sheet: 73 of 114 File: P20-10570_M-15 Date: April2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 62 ry L U O U O U O ca 0 �a /Ln v E ^L LL O I r` Ln 0 0 N X i O M E M m O' ti Ln O O N X U U) 0- 0 a_ 0' rl- LO 0 0 N X Q 0 U) C: a H 0- 0 I O rl- LO 0 0 N X o a 0 0 L cn Q i Cn O U of E r- M LO 0 0 6i o L N X O U 0 0 N Q � O O 0- 0- Q O o ca , � o O N X w U) 0' U m L w o a 0 0 N � (D i E o ca 0 0 N ii X N 0 Cf) U) 0 0 n O U O X 0 0 -0 W X U w of CD 0 I 0LO 0 o X o0- N 0 Cf) 1-- -0 X 0 w E o' w 0 0 U Cn o 0 X Q m 0 E c� c� c U 0 cn i••-L X I 0 0 20 40 Scale in Feet I a, FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 3 AERATION BASINS SEE DWG E-6 0 N0.2 j N0.1 HEADWORKS I BUILDING EX MOTOR CONTROL I I ICENTER MCC-601 B I 3"PRMC, ACTIVE CARBON PRIMARY j ODOR I 3-250KCMIL FILTER, SEE MECH I CLARIFIER SEE DWGS E-9, E-10, I CONTROL & 1#4G HH NO. 3 E-11, E-12 AND E-13 I SEE DWG E-5 PANEL 1" PRMC, +8 -0" PLC-601 I I ODOR I 12 #14 & ABOVE I CONTROL 1" PRMC, EX MOTOR TUNNEL I EX PLANT I FAN I 1 -CAT6 CONTROL CENTER I CONTROL PANEL MCC-601A ..: H 103 �� ..FQ�-011 RAW SLUDGE SCRIBED X _ —_ __ �: Q) O ABOVE PUMPING STATION592 I TUNNEL BELOW GASSIFICATION I CONTROL PANEL TAP BLOCK (SOLID 1� (GASIFIER ROOM) HANDLING ROOM) FF=21.36 EX 3 - 4 RMC 3 SETS FF=21.30 Lt� 3- 600 KCMIL & 1- 2/0 AWG G Z 1 P8" UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK J I� I FILLER CAPS (TYP) EX BUILDING FEEDER —J 106 101#�x Q SPIKE L I I SOLIDS PROCESS P.'. BUILDING � �I HYDRAULIC POWER FF=19. W I C �` G F- M P12' UNIT HPU-623, GASIFIER ROOM II I e II SEE DWG E-14 II W M 8 ALL W IE 1P.41 SC / M ^ , Sc IE 14.81 .:.....................:....:.................................................... SCREEN FF=17.35 =���=11 I IWASHER/COMPACTOR EX UNDERGROUND CONTROL PANEL FUEL STORAGE TANK IOPERATIONS A 110 A 107 BUILDING SPIPK I t I ISSUED FOR PERMIT No. I Revision BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 04-2021 GRM RAID 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com Date I By I App'd Designed: N. Palmatier, P.E. Drawn: S.Olsoe Checked: G. Mockos, P.E. Scale 1 " = 20'-0" One Inch at Full Scale If Not One Inch Scale Accordingly I B SIDE I — EX SWBD 301 A SIDE `2 r O 1 Cn W a 0 Z N AC 102 SPIKE EX POWER PULL HOLE EX MCC-101A W )T1 EX MCC-101 EX MCC-102 PLC-101 1 EX HEADWORKS CONTROL PANEL ' 3: 1 a CB 118E RIM 15.1 I.E. 13..' ELBOW NO VISIT 100 SPIKE il G AC AMERESC4 Green •Clean •Sustainable � CONSTRUCTION NOTES: OPROVIDE 6ST-OM4 FIBER AND 2-CAT6 CABLES. TERMINATE FIBER IN FIBER PATCH PANEL. EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN Call 48 Hours Before You Dig 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE n ` m S �I-�-aezi Drawing: E-3 Sheet: 102 of 114 File: P20-10570_E-3 Date: April2021 Attachment 4 COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Packet Pg. 63 5.1.a P. 001 Total Plant Quantities 3 INCENSE CEDAR 4 SHORE PINE 5 COAST SILK TASSEL TREE 8 SITKA ASH 4 OCEAN SPRAY 4 CALIFORNIA LILAC 6 ESCALONIA 8 RED FLOWERING CURRENT 15 SNOWBERRY 30 CREEPING OREGON GRAPE 14 SAGE LEAF ROCK ROSE Landscape Supplies 3" TOP DRESS OF QUALITY COMPOST. 180 YARDS 3" WOOD CHIPS: 180 YARDS N ntP QUANTITIES OF BOTH PLANT MATERIAL AND LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES WOULD BE REDUCED IF THE PROPOSED PLANTING OVERLAY IS NOT APPROVED. EDMONDSRVIM t-pwdscape desigw b� Jesse curraw awd pebra pill RECREATION R ClILfSERVECES Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 64 5.1.a p. 002 Deciduous tree _ Plant Description Sitka Ash Sorbus sitchensis Planting Notes: Native, white flowers, red berries We recommend either a fall or winter planting. This will ensure a good plant establishment period during the cool and rainy season. Since there is no irrigation, the ability to water during the first growing season will be crucial for landscape success. Something as simple as a timer connected to a series of soaker hoses will go along way to contribute to the success of this landscape. In addition, we would prefer the plant material to be container grown and be no larger than 1.5" in caliper. Construction Process. 1. Project approval/critical area permits 2. Remove all existing landscaping, dig out roots, and regrade 3. Top dress with 3 inches of compost 4. Purchase plant material for landscaping 5. Landscape installation 6. Top dress with 3 inches of wood chips i EDMRECREAnoONDS RAKES Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 65 5.1.a p. 003 Edmonds WWTP Enhancement Plantings LANDSCAPE OBJECTIVE: THE DESIGN APPROACH WAS TO CHOOSE PLANTS THAT ARE EITHER NATIVE OR HIGHLY ADAPTABLE AND NATURALLY FOUND IN DRY OPEN WOODS, ROCKY SLOPES AND DISTURBED SITES. WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT IN THE FUTURE, OUR SUMMERS WILL BE HOTTER AND OUR DRY SEASON WILL BE EXTENDED. Coniferous Trees Plant Description :a Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Shore Pine Pinus contorta NW native, 25-40' Leaves: scales Light green berries, brown cones, sun, dry NW native, 20' highly adaptable, 2 needle, sun Evergreen Shrubs Plant Description California Lilac. NW native, glossy dark green foliage, sun, Ceanothus dark star prolific spring bloomer, attracts pollinators, 10' Silk tassel bush. Native, showing cascading flowers late winter Garrya elliptica 6-15', sun RE EDMONDS.�� Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 66 5.1.a p. 004 Pink princess Escallonia. Escallonia x exoniennsis 'Fradesii'. Nearly year round pink flowers, compact shrub, full sun, heat loving, sun Deciduous Shrubs Plant Description Red Flowering Current Early spring boomer, tolerates hot and dry Ribes sanquineum native, 8' sun/shade Common Snowberry Bell shaped flowers in spring, white berries, Symphoricarpos albus very tough, sun Ocean Spray Cascading cream colored flowers in the Holodiscus discolor summer 8'- 15' tall, native, sun/shade ergreen Ground Cover Plant Descriotion Sage Leaf Rockrose Prolific blooming, spreading evergreen Cistus salvifolius'Prostratus' ground cover. T tall....super tough, sun Low Oregon Grape Low growing spreading evergreen ground Mahonia nervosa cover, like dry shade EDMRECREATIOONDSPARK Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 67 5.1.a P. 005 �\K / Ix C+) Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 68 p. 006 5.1.a —WWTP Building .4 — SR104 --� Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 69 p. 007 5.1.a + ��— Existing Landscape Proposed Additional Project Area (See overlay for planting plan) Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Wetland Buffer Planting Plan Debra Dill and Jesse Curran 6/21/2021 �N Scale: 1/8th"= 1' L_egen+l- c �^'+.f (� Colocedrus decurrens (incense cedar) M d +^vim M E =' Pinus contorta (shore pine) R H y r Garryo elliptica (coast silktassel) M + ,I Holodiscus discolor (ocean spray) + i Sorbus sitchensis (Sitka mountain ash) y m E Ceanothus'Ee'estial 8 tie (California lilac] M Escallonia rubra (Escallonia) M 3 t= t Ribes sanguineum (red flowering current) 0 M IX t } Symphoricarpos albus (common snowber a � m i 4- Mahonia nervosa (dull/low Oregon grape Q M O �F Y Cis- 5salv4chus'Prostratus' o v (sageleaf rockrose) o N Z Notes J a In the proposed additional planting area: Keep the existing plants on the east side of the projE E between the proposed area and the paved pathway This would include the existing ornamental cherries well as the sword fern along the upper gravel pathw Q Remove all other existing plant material. Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 70 p. 008 - Property Line Clearing Limits i (Temporary Impacts) Carbon Filter�� - (Proposed) i Temporary Construction Access Platform Top of Platform to Match Bottom of Temporary Wall Opening Which will be ' Closed up with Removable Panels after' ID FAN MCC IFF Construction. Overall Platform Dimensions ROOM During Construction 12'W x 25'D. After, Pr_c+crM MCC ffYPacN ,, Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'❑ srvR � Portion to be Permanently Installed. SOLIDS HANDLING Ra ROOM PROC� POLYMi ' • F� f BwLOW —� FEED Loading Dock (Permanent and r NDRYI I _ Temporary Section = 300 sf) = SHOP===---_ =TA 'I I f DISPOSAL RPQM Temporary Buffer°` Impact = 1095 sf I MAINTENANCE/. OFFICE j 12'W x 12'D Loading Dock sroRar� (Proposed) (Permanently Installed) Wall Opening (Proposed) O Wall Opening IV Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building, cc but but no clearing on south side of building V) J Legend F Clearing Limits QPermanent Buffer Impact - m a Temporary Buffer Impact 01 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1 I 1 I' r P-2 A-3 A-7 k10 0 Wetland Point Wetland Line Wetland Buffer (110 ft) Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King Co Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington A-�A'--� � A-1 A 40 . wetland A P - 1 �► r�_ Wetland continues to the south and east Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Wetland Buffer (55 ft) original may reduce its effectiveness and (50% of Standard Buffer) lead to incorrect interpretation. Wetland Buffer (27.5 ft) 0 30 60 (25% of Standard Buffer) Scale in Feet ntv Imaizery Wetland Buffer. Impact Map Figure 4 to r C d E t V R r a 0 a NN� 1.6 Cn m a 0 M 0 0 N 0 N z J 0_ c E a Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 71 �L1M/TS pF OAYTLZA/ SAWCUT TO /NA7CH (7Y,P) STREET O✓E ¢c AY EX/STC Edmonds WWTP Phase 6r2l, �S/�•Carbon Recovery Project TA EX/sTS47 EL Z/• 59 New Activated Carbon Filter 841 Height Calculations 5� EX/5T GUTTER EL 20.03 Pt. A = +20.00' 0 Pt. B = + 17.50' Pt. C = + 15.50' Pt. D = + 15.00' ;723 Total = +6874 = +17.00' Avg. Grade = +17.001 Height Restriction = 25' Maximum Height = 42.00' Actual Height = 34.18' ` I Q, E 50&1. 75 (5 pp � 'FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 2 p(BELOW) -t2 ♦ 00 1,141 ! a.SLOPE � CTYP) �• ! W ,LACE OF . W Cu/ea, ♦Y �I N TYP Z 0 VXi L�ER.ACE Q EX/ST/,VG � /4.36 ,EbC.KNA yLAA/05CAPit/G 13,90 C)14,50 CO/t/C D,Q1VEh/AY APP,20ACH CTR 0/L/ EX/ST//VG r!TYP) PAVEMENTo PATCH lTYF�) 0 /O' M/A/ 1 % 5G OPE (TYP) fTYP), % n. OF CURB NE Corner E Pt. A +20' 777�FACE OF CURB Z i> SLOPE (TYP) -FINAL CLARIFIER KO..1 RAS PUMPING STATION (BELOWI EFFLUENT PUMPING STATION FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 3 05/Ghlt._,/,s -- -- . ... Mow 37i'iP - 1/EW /2'/ STO PM MATCH ' / /Z ° 9. no TO E'XI5 7 C 5 TOPqrCOP E 4Y58.00 EX/5T AQiVE-I4 .; EL /3.32�''/3 WAY AGPROACH N1737, so -� A/ / 96, 69 f AMP E4945.Oo E4938.95 NW Corner E 4Y¢o.90 3 I �r °° -+- -- -- Pt. D + 15' 0VE,2LA✓ DAYTond x x MATCH EX/ST//VG GREET, SEE I'll QEPLACE EKCST VEE'T/CAL C 4 �'OETA/L S/'/ B/9 I CU,+ZB, 04r7TTER NEW 48"TYPE II CB , ?/^A EL /2.70 AG,K /L/E"W 10'57812M TO EX 1ST Cfe L/M175 OF 17f+YT0A/ 572EE7'OVE.2LAY Z. N /279. 32 E 4H63.97 TOP OF NEW O✓E12LA)" 154. /3. 82 '---,MAhl1TA/.--__,V C-X/5,T MOrUUME1JT )TYP) ,-,DAYTDAI 57-,PEET O✓E,PLAY CO.I/TAl/VE , SEE 5A4 4 g OETA/L SH 8 / 9 7 OWER AERATION BASINS BUILDING (BELOW) -REi�V1l)E SA40072LV 7RAh/5/T,10,V ZIVROUGH ✓EA'T/CAL AA7GGE FO//V7-!✓AP)e7"YP) �EX157' C6 MATCH EX/5T L✓ALK C7Ya) N/000. oa N Bso ap E SZ40.00 E SZ40. �a /6.60 ;p_2 ,PLACE EX/ST C3 - oCp_ � VA EL /9. 50 NEW 7YpE.77 ,,P/M EL / ,4/- O O NEW 7"YFE SI O /9 Z N O l7C8, ei a EL Q / �• */ /s 80 • OOUBLE C/-/EG,/C NB85:.�, ✓AL✓E VAULT>� 12, E VA ELIBBO NEZ✓FH Es7eSo !� /9. 5 A 1 DO Z/• 5O I `'o PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1 I Y� (EXISTING) I 23 I I L z4_ II1lPPORT- I I I PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 l RAW (EXISTING) I SLUDGE PUMPING STATION (BELOW) I PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 H 4C,OE,12 STPEET PAV/A1C / SEE ON 9 842 5.1. a W W L //N/T OF 3ECOVD A✓E cc 46CONST,PUCT/ON Cn EX15T - (J) �/ MA/NT.41, EX/5T cc 17 GURB E,'' GU77E1 ��� W ./ �� \ n MATCH E,�C/STEL 16.27 Q✓Pi MA/N7;41A/ EX/.,5 M / 0 82z 5 h SE Corner t • I • Pt. B + 17.5' C mends, ,Inc. 857. CU Edmonds, WA VAP EL / .SO -bTT0A-7 11 A 7- Z / @6Z/6.509 ZZ cu�a 1'1/AtL QoNG PLANTE2 E /9.50 zo/ 3oTroM oFFTG OPERATIONS P EL- /7, SO �- Fuel °/I- TAN, BUILDING ZO 51N1 lBELow) 21- 70 22. 20 22.50 22 �'El N %OB. 00 E 5073. 30 22.50 22.3 22.37 22.50 N'ZY G7 F >�YL SO SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING e 49¢ • :� PPOT T ANo%,C PE1�L.9CE Ex/ST CAT7-A/ PLANTS ACO,CIC 9/7 ACF (Activated rk STATE ROUTE 104 Carbon Filter) Proposed Location SITE LAYOUT 8( GRADING PLAN SGAL-f-;! I"= Zo'-O" .PE ✓i5E T/E BAC e TO CZ F,4,G lV41 l Ai I f C01,/C, r-ATH I SW Corner Pt. C + 15.5' NOTES: 1, HORIZONTAL CONTROL IS DEFINED BY CONTROL POINTS (CP-1, CP-2 & CP-3) TO BE SET BY ENGINEER. COORDINATES ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED GRID SYSTEM DEFINED BY THE EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIERS WITH NORTH FACE @ N1000 AND N.W. CORNER @ E5000. 2. CONTROL POINT ELEVATIONS (CP-1, CP-2 & CP-3) WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY ENGINEER. VERTICAL DATUM BASED ON MLLW-0. VERTICAL CONTROL BASED ON CP-2; 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMED GRID SYSTEM BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOC., INC. COMPLETED IN MAY, 1987 AND SUPPLEMENTED IN APRIL, 1988. SEE ALSO EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN, SHEET 7. ! 4. REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY TRAFFIC CONTROL WIRES DURING PAVING OR OVERLAY CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE LANE BUTTONS, STRIPING AND REFLECTORS TO MATCH EXISTING. 5. PROVIDE PARKING LANE STRIPPING IN PARKING AREA. SUBMIT PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY ENGINEER. N O d EDMONDS � WASTEWATER > TREATMENT U PLANT c E U SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING a PLAN c R i N R Designed N HHB, PT, A/-/K Drewn Checked rINK m Approved (� Date </UNE, /9B8 � Q THIS LINE IS I INCH WHEN •3 DRAWING IS FULL SIZE. IF NOT 1 INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY. O o � 1 N nl o qQ� 2 Q Qe� m ?� Z i . N ��.e�.�'�227¢ g•�� ',iue�mm�EoaYa Sheet Number Packet Pg. 72 sew' /'11. LG V 1 11 1 1 IU 1 1 L V Maxiumum Ht. +42' I 5.1.a I E �i Q U E v 0 4 N N 0 0 a �I 17 o — $ E a a E at d d LL L N O 3 d a � N G o a O.I U a o .I X an o N o Oo m G ~I E p w o 'o E X 3 U N 66 LL t d a x Actual Ht. +34.18' EX EL 24.81t Average Grade + 17' WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/8"=V-0" M-14 NOTES: 4" DS 1 1. REFER TO DWG M-1 FOR GENERAL MECHANICAL NOTES. DI 2'-8" IE 15.67 2. ECOREMEDY EQUIPMENT SHOWN AS EX PER CLARITY. REFER TO ECOREMEDY DESIGN FOR LAYOUT OF n 3 DI S 2 7-3 CONNECTEQUIPME(IONEQUIPENT OCATIIONSSIZING, ANCHORING, AND 4 5 FM-604 EX WAS 4" x T TANK CONCENTRI 2 3 DM-603 �� R DUCER CONNECT TO WAT-610 EX 6" DS EX 6" WAT-610 SUCTION EX EL5.31 �EX6"DS( 6" TEE Al 4" x 2" COMPANION 6" x 4" ECCENTRIC FLANGE WITH 2" 316 REDUCER SST BALL VALVE ISSUED FOR PERMIT SECTION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" M-12 ADD ALTERNATE #13 � �, BHC Consultants, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suitee 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505 .3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsuitants.com TOP OF EX PARAPET EL 37.31 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: OSUPPORT PIPE PER DWG G-10. O2 INSTALL HACH SOLITAC SC SENSOR TSS METER. INSTALL SENSOR PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS. INSTALL METER PER VERTICAL MOUNTING DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER. O3 INSTALL SC200 CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. 4O INSTALL BADGER MODMAG M2000 MAGNETIC FLOW METER PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS AND DETAIL 1/M-19. ADD ALTERNATE #13 5 INSTALL CONTROLLER ON ADJACENT WALL AT ELEVATION 8.50. 6 AFC EQUIPMENT PAD PER STRUCTURAL. O7 INSTALL AND SUPPORT ACE DUCT PER DUCT MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. DUCT SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED TO BUILDING EXTERIOR. O8 INSTALL CONDENSATE DRAIN PER DETAIL 1/M-16. O9 INSTALL ACF PER ACF MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS. 10 MINIMUM SLOPE 2% TOWARD CONDENSATE DRAIN. ADD ALTERNATE #2 Scale: Designed: G. Mookos, P.E. AMERESCO4 3/8" = 1'-0" Drawn: S. S. OISOe One Inch at Full Scale Checkw IR�i,P.E. _ �_ SgeoF• If eInch l _ rWn . Clean . Sustainable ADD ALTERNATE #2 EDMONDS WWTP CARBON RECOVERY SOLIDS PROCESSING BUILDING DEWATERING ROOM SECTIONS COPYRIGHT@2021 BHC Q 3 O N fC V) m Q O M O O 1 N Call 48 Hours N Before You Dic J a 1-800-424-555: UNDERGROUND SERVICE C d OB w o w' r pS` �a i PO TE4� ti��� ZONAL 4' Drawing: M-15 Sheet: 73 of 114 File: P20-10570_M-15 Packet Pg. 73 5.1.a Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington May 7, 2021 Prepared for City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 74 Landau Associates 5.1.a Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by: Steve Quarterman enior Associate Document reviewed by: C41�4�i` l r'" Jeffrey Fellows, PE Principal Date: May 7, 2021 Project No.: 0074209.010.011 File path: \\edmdata0l\projects\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\EDM WWTP Critical Areas Report.docx Project Coordinator: KJG LANDAU ASSOCIATES Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 75 5.1.a Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project iii Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 76 5.1.a Landau Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The proposed replacement technology is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Wetlands, surface waters, and/or their buffers fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington State Department of Ecology under the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act, and the City under the critical areas regulations (Chapter 23.40) in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Landau Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland and waterway critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland delineation; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation. The proposed upgrades will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffers. Temporarily impacted wetland buffers will be enhanced following construction. Permanently impacted buffer areas will be mitigated through enhancement of remaining buffer in excess of a three -to -one (3:1) enhancement -to -impact ratio. Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project iv Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 77 Landau Associates 5.1.a MITIGATION FACT SHEET Site Information Location Wetland Impact and Mitigation Sites (same) Site Name(s) City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant County Snohomish City Edmonds Section, Township, Range Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E Latitude, Longitude (GIS-verified) 47 48' 231"N, 122 22' 58"W Watershed Cedar-Sammamish WRIA 8 Is the mitigation site(s) off of the project development site? No Construction schedule (development site and compensation site[s]): Construction is anticipated to begin in 2021. Summary of project, including proposed type and location of work, discussion of avoidance and minimization measures, goals and objectives, wetland functions, impacted and mitigated (note assessment method used), and the general design concept (include where it has been done before). The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South. The proposed replacement technology is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Construction will occur in wetland buffer areas, which will be restored/enhanced; however, no net loss of functions will occur. Wetlands/Waterways Delineated in Project Vicinity Feature Name Approximate Feature Size within Project Area Cowardin Classification Stream Type HGM Class Ecology Rating Water Quality/ Hydrologic/Habitat Function Scores LLandscape Buffer Position Width Wetland A 0 PEM N/A Depressional 1 8,8,7 Terrace 110 feet Critical Area Impacts and Mitigation Wetland Type Feature Area Impacted (sf)-+ Restoration (sf) Ju- (Cowardin, HGM classification, Ecology Rating) Name PEM/Depressional, Category I Wetland A N/A N/A Describe other impacts and/or other mitigation activities. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffer associated with facility modifications and access improvements. Exterior improvements to the WWTP in wetland buffer will occur on the west side of the building associated with a new loading dock and access improvements. The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components, where the temporary component will occur in SR 104 right-of-way and the permanent component will occur on City property. The permanent component of the loading dock will be 12 feet (ft) by 12 ft (144 square feet [sf]) consisting of structural platform consisting of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft (156 sf) and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. To compensate for impacts to wetland/waterway buffer functions that have occurred, a planting plan has been designed that will enhance the wetland buffer complex on site post construction. The planting plan covers 1,255 sf, which provides mitigation at a ratio of 4.2:1, which is in excess of the 3:1 ratio. Trees to be removed as part of construction will be placed in the wetland buffer to serve as downed large wood. Describe the buffers being provided for the mitigation site, including minimum and maximum width, total buffer area, and description of surrounding land uses. Existing buffer area outside of permanent impacts are maintained and will be restored/enhanced adjacent to the project. Describe the water regime at the mitigation site(s), including source of water, expected water depth, average outflow (winter, spring, summer), and ownership of water rights. N/A. Provide a list of performance standards and the estimated time to reach each. Refer to Section 5.4 for performance standards related to plant survival, species diversity, invasive species, and structural diversity. Monitoring will occur over a 5-year period following construction and plant installation. Abbreviations and Acronyms: N/A = not applicable PEM = Palustrine emergent WRIA = Water Resource Inventory Area Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 78 5.1.a Landau Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................iii MitigationFact Sheet...............................................................................................................................iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Description..................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Regulatory Background......................................................................................................1-1 2.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Wetland Investigation........................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Background Information Review......................................................................2-1 2.1.2 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................2-1 2.2 Wetland Classification and Buffer Width Determination ...................................................2-2 2.3 Waterway Delineation........................................................................................................2-3 2.4 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................................2-3 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing........................................................................................................2-3 3.0 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS.................................................................3-1 3.1 Background Information Review........................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Waterways.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Wetlands.........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.3 Soils.................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.4 Floodplain........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.5 Land Use..........................................................................................................3-2 3.1.6 Precipitation....................................................................................................3-2 3.2 Field Investigation..............................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Wetland A........................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.2 Soil............................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.3 Hydrology..................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination.............................................................................3-3 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization............................................................................3-3 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 MITIGATION...................................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing........................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Avoidance........................................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Minimization...................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Unavoidable Impacts..........................................................................................................5-1 5.2.1 Mitigation Requirements.................................................................................5-1 5.1 Planting Plan.......................................................................................................................5-2 5.1.1 Vegetation and Spacing...................................................................................5-2 Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project vi May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 79 5.1.a Landau Associates 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 8.0 9.0 Figure 1 2 3 4 5 Table 1 5.1.2 Other Habitat Improvements...........................................................................5-3 5.1.3 Project Phasing and Specifications...................................................................5-3 5.1.4 Proposed Enhanced Functions.........................................................................5-3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards...............................................5-4 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION................................................................6-1 Monitoring Quality Control Oversight................................................................................6-1 Monitoring/Site Maintenance Program.............................................................................6-1 SiteProtection....................................................................................................................6-1 ContingencyPlan................................................................................................................6-2 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS.......................................................................7-1 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................8-1 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 9-1 FIGURES Title Vicinity Map Study Area Map Wetland Location Map Wetland Buffer Impact Map Enhancement Plan Title Methods for Wetland Delineation APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Information Review Figures B Soil Profile Reports C Precipitation Data D Wetland Determination Data Forms E Selected Site Photographs F Wetland Rating Forms and Figures G ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f) - Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands H Mitigation Planting Specifications Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project vii May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 80 5.1.a Landau Associates LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AgACIS .................................................Agricultural Applied Climate Information System bgs................................................................................................. below ground surface City.........................................................................................................City of Edmonds ECDC............................................................... Edmonds Community Development Code Ecology........................................................... Washington State Department of Ecology FAC.................................................................................................................. facultative FACU................................................................................................... facultative upland FACW................................................................................................ facultative wetland FEMA............................................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency ft....................................................................................................................... foot/feet GIS.............................................................................. Geographic Information Software HGM.................................................................................................... hydrogeomorphic HPA....................................................................................... Hydraulic Project Approval LAI............................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. N/A............................................................................................................ not applicable NAVD88.............................................................North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NRCS..................................................................Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI.................................................................................... National Wetlands Inventory NWIFC............................................................... Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission OBL......................................................................................................................obligate OHWM.................................................................................... ordinary high water mark PEM................................................................................................. Palustrine emergent PSSC............................................................ palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded RCW................................................................................... Revised Code of Washington ROW............................................................................................................. right-of-way sf................................................................................................square foot/square feet SMP........................................................................................Shoreline Master Program SR.................................................................................................................. State Route SWIFD.............................................. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution USACE................................................................................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA.............................................................................. U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS................................................................................ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC............................................................................ Washington Administrative Code WDFW.......................................................... Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WRIA..............................................................................Water Resource Inventory Area WWTP................................................................................Wastewater Treatment Plant Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project viii May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 81 5.1.a Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project ix Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 82 5.1.a Landau Associates 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Carbon Recovery Project (project), which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South (Figure 1). The proposed replacement technology is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units and associated ancillary equipment. Project improvements will generally be within the footprint of the existing facility, with minor expansion/modifications on the west side of the facility. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) conducted a wetland and waterway critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a wetland delineation; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffers. Temporarily impacted wetland buffers will be enhanced following construction, and permanent impacts will be mitigated through enhancement of existing buffer area and will not result in a net loss of buffer functions. 1.1 Site Description The approximately 2,600 square -foot (sf) project area is located in Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E and in Water Resource Inventory Area 8 — Cedar/Sammamish, in Washington State. The project area is developed with the existing WWTP facility (Figure 2). Topography in the vicinity of the project area is relatively flat. The study area extends 200 feet (ft) beyond the project area (Figure 2). Visual observation and public domain resources were used to estimate the extent of wetland/waterway habitat in the study area. Review of the study area was limited to observation from public rights -of -way (ROW). 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States." Title 23.50 and 23.90 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contain requirements for establishing wetland and stream buffer widths and building setbacks as well as requirements for alterations made within or adjacent to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including filling of wetlands, streams, and their buffers. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington [RCW]). Ecology oversees the administration of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which holds that a water quality certification Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 1-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 83 5.1.a Landau Associates must be issued for any activities that may result in a discharge into USACE jurisdictional "waters of the United States." Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters, including streams and rivers, must be authorized by a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit, issued by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). The WDFW HPA is administered under Chapter 77.55 RCW and Chapter 220-660 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Wetlands and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local government agencies, and compliance with the permitting requirements of one agency does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of the other agencies. The delineated wetlands and/or waterways described in this report are subject to verification by the USACE. The USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on its connection, or adjacency, to other "waters of the United States." Only the USACE can determine if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. Isolated wetlands do not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE but may be subject to regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). If delineated wetlands are determined to be adjacent rather than isolated, filling or dredging of onsite wetlands would require compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 1-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 84 5.1.a Landau Associates 2.0 METHODS LAI reviewed publicly available information, completed a wetland and waterway delineation and impact assessment for the proposed project, and prepared a mitigation plan for project -related impacts to critical areas in accordance with the methods described below. 2.1 Wetland Investigation LAI conducted the wetland delineation in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2010). Waterways were delineated using Ecology's Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (2016). The USACE and Ecology recommend preliminary data -gathering and synthesis of available background information followed by a field investigation. 2.1.1 Background Information Review LAI reviewed the following public domain resources to identify existing conditions, potential wetlands and other "waters of the United States," and other critical areas within the study area: • US Geological Survey topographic map (Appendix A, Figure A-1) • Aerial imagery (Google Earth, accessed April 12, 2021)1 • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2) • Soil survey geographic database and soil survey report (US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS], accessed February 28, 2020; Appendix A, Figure A-3) • National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS 2021; accessed April 12, 2021) • City of Edmonds critical areas map (City of Edmonds; accessed April 12, 2021) • City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (SMP) • Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution dataset (WDFW Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission [NWIFC], accessed April 12, 2021) • Flood data (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2020; Appendix A, Figure A-4) • Precipitation data (Agricultural Applied Climate Information System [AgACIS], accessed April 12, 2021). 2.1.2 Wetland Delineation An LAI biologist completed the wetland delineation using the routine onsite method, where data are collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands. An area is determined to be a wetland if the following three criteria are met using this method (attached Table 1): 1 Website: https://www.google.com/earth/. Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-1 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 85 5.1.a Landau Associates • The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic • Soils are hydric • Wetland hydrology is present. 2.2 Wetland Classification and Buffer Width Determination Wetlands identified within the project area were classified in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE's hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated in accordance with the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby 2014), a practice accepted by the City. This system is used to categorize wetlands based on their existing functions, including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as well as their rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. Wetland categories range from 1 to 4 (highest to lowest categories) and are defined in Chapter 23.50.010 of the ECDC as follows: Category I wetlands are: (a) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (b) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR); (c) bogs; (d) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than one acre; (e) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (f) interdunal wetlands that score eight or nine habitat points and are larger than one acre; and (g) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (a) represent unique or rare wetland types; (b) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (c) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (d) provide a high level of functions. • Category II wetlands are: (a) estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (b) interdunal wetlands larger than one acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (c) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). Category III wetlands are: (a) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (b) can often be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (c) interdunal wetlands between one -tenth and one acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that should be capable of being replaced, or in some cases being improved. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions and should be protected to some degree. Wetland buffers were determined in accordance with Chapter 23.50.040 of the ECDC. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 86 5.1.a Landau Associates 2.3 Waterway Delineation The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for waterways was completed using guidance developed by Ecology (2016). The delineation of the OHWM is based on site observations. The methodology includes an examination of existing hydrologic data and field indicators for hydrology, sediment, scour marks, changes in vegetation, etc. 2.4 Impact Assessment Project improvement limits were overlaid on the waterway and buffer boundaries using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Areas of impact (both temporary and permanent) were calculated using GIS. Existing buffer functions were assessed with a narrative evaluation and best professional judgment 2.5 Mitigation Sequencing Mitigation sequencing for wetlands and associated buffers was evaluated in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.40.120. The evaluation included avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of adverse impacts. Mitigation methods must be prioritized as follows: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineering or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary LAI used best professional judgment to compare pre- and post -mitigation functions. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 2-3 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 87 5.1.a Landau Associates 3.0 WETLAND AND WATERWAY INVESTIGATION RESULTS This section summarizes the results of LAI's background information review and field investigation. 3.1 Background Information Review Background information was derived from topographic, City, NWI, soil survey reports, and other sources documenting conditions in, and adjacent to, the project area. 3.1.1 Waterways The USGS topographic map (USGS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-1), NWI map (USFWS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2), and City critical areas map do not identify any waterways in the study area. 3.1.2 Wetlands The USGS topographic map (USGS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-1) identifies an area south of the WWTP in the study area as marsh; City critical areas mapping identifies a similar extent as wetland, which is also identified as an associated wetland under the City's SMP. The NWI map (USFWS, accessed April 12, 2021; Appendix A, Figure A-2) identifies a portion of the mapped wetland as palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC) wetland. 3.1.3 Soils The Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021) identifies the following three soil series within the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-3; Appendix B): The Alderwood (5) series consists of moderately well -drained, gravelly, sandy loam to very gravelly, sandy loam. Parent material is glacial drift and/or glacial outwash overlying dense glaciomarine deposits. This soil series map unit has a hydric rating where components of the McKenna, Norma, or Terric Medisprists series are present in depressions (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). • The Mukilteo (34) series consists of very poorly drained muck. Parent material is organic deposits and depth to seasonal water table may range at the surface to a depth of 30 centimeters. This soil series has a hydric rating (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). • Urban Land (5, 78) consists of nearly level to gently sloping areas covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, and other structures that obscure or alter the soils (USDA NRCS 1983) This soil series is not rated as hydric (USDA NRCS, accessed April 12, 2021). 3.1.4 Floodplain FEMA mapping (2020; Appendix A, Figure A-4) identifies a 100-year floodplain associated with the Puget Sound coast within the study area, with associated base flood elevation of 12 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 88 5.1.a Landau Associates 3.1.5 Land Use A review of Google Earth aerial imagery (accessed March 6, 2020) indicates that the study area is developed with roadways and public utilities and includes undeveloped area to the south of the WWTP (Figure 2). 3.1.6 Precipitation During the 3 months preceding the field investigation, precipitation levels in the project area were wetter than normal (AgACIS, accessed March 6, 2020; Appendix C). 3.2 Field Investigation LAI Senior Associate Steven Quarterman conducted a field investigation of the study area on February 27, 2021. Temperatures ranged from 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit with clear weather conditions. Two sampling points (SP-1 and SP-2) were established in the study area to characterize hydrology, vegetation, and soil in wetland area and adjacent upland. The wetland determination data forms used to record field observations are included in Appendix D. Selected site photographs are provided in Appendix E, and wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix F. 3.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A (Figure 3) is located south of the WWTP and extends beyond the study area. Wetland A is identified on USGS topographic mapping and City critical areas and SMP maps. Sample point SP-1 was established to characterize Wetland A. 3.2.1.1 Vegetation Wetland A is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Red alder (Alnus rubra, facultative [FAC]), Himalyan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), and water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa, obligate [OBL]) were the dominant plant species in sample point SP-1, and additional species observed in the wetland include broad leaf cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL). 3.2.1.2 Soil Soil at sample point SP-1 satisfied the hydric soils criteria as a loamy gleyed matrix (F2). The soil profile consisted of an organic layer from 0 to 1 inch below ground surface (bgs), underlain by a dark bluish grey (5 PB 4/1) loamy sand from at least 1 to 12 inches bgs. 3.2.1.3 Hydrology In Wetland A, Surface Water (Al), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), and Water Marks (131) were the primary indicators of wetland hydrology. Wetland A hydrology is predominantly supplied by precipitation and groundwater, and a segment of Shellabarger Creek flows through the wetland Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-2 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 89 5.1.a Landau Associates outside of the study area. Wetland A drains toward the east and north. Discharges to the east are conveyed via a culvert under State Route (SR) 104 to Edmonds Marsh and to the north via a culvert adjacent to SR 104 that conveys drainage in the City's stormwater system to the Puget Sound. 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination Wetland A satisfies the three wetland criteria in Section 2.1.2, and LAI has classified the wetland as a Palustrine emergent (Cowardin et al. 1979)/depressional (HGM) wetland. LAI provided Wetland A with a Category I wetland rating, with a total score of 23. Wetland A water quality and hydrologic functions both received a score of 8, and habitat functions received a score of 7. In accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040.F, Category I wetlands associated with a habitat score of 7 are prescribed a buffer of 110 ft.z 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization Data gathered at sampling point SP-2 (Figure 3) were used to characterize the upland area near Wetland A. None of the three mandatory wetland parameters were satisfied and the area was classified as upland. The dominant vegetation at sampling point SP-2 included red alder (FAC) and indian plum (Oemleria cerosiformis, facultative upland [FACU]). Other vegetation in the vicinity of sampling point SP-2 included maintained landscaping in vicinity of the WWTP and SR 104. At sampling point SP-2, brown (10YR 4/3), loam was observed from 0 to 12 inches bgs, and gravel was encountered at 12 inches bgs that prevented further access to the soil profile. z Buffer width prescribed in accordance with ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(a), in which the option for a 100-ft vegetated corridor is not available due to adjacent developments to the wetland and measures provided in (F)(1)(f), are applied as summarized in Appendix G. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 3-3 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 90 5.1.a Landau Associates 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and buffers are described below. Impacted Critical Area Regulatory Agency Impacts (sf) Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Wetland A USACE/City 0 0 Wetland A Buffer City 300 sf 1,095 sf Total Wetland Buffer Impacts 300 sf 1,095 sf Abbreviations and Acronyms: City = City of Edmonds sf = square feet USACE = US Army Corps of Engineers The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffer associated with facility modifications and access improvements. Exterior improvements to the WWTP in wetland buffer will occur on the west side of the building associated with a new loading dock and access improvements (i.e., wall openings; see Appendix H). The loading dock will include temporary and permanent components, where the temporary component will occur in SR 104 ROW and the permanent component will occur on City property. The permanent component of the loading dock will be a 12-ft by 12-ft (144 sf) structural platform consisting of either fiberglass, wood, or steel with a wood or composite deck. The temporary component of the loading dock is 12 ft by 13 ft (156 sf) and may be reinstalled as needed in support of project maintenance activities following construction. The temporary segment of the loading dock is considered part of permanent impacts since it may be reinstalled during project maintenance. The area of permanent impact contains non-native and invasive species, consisting of: • St. Johns wort (Hypericum calycinum), • Portugal laurel (Prunus lusitanica), and • landscape variety of maple tree (Acer sp). Two of the maples in the buffer will be removed as a result of construction. The area of the proposed loading dock contains one maple and sparse ground cover (see Appendix E, Photograph 3). A second wall opening will occur on the southwest corner of the building, facing south. Modification of vegetation in the buffer, limited to trimming of shrub landscaping within approximately 5 ft of the existing building, is expected to provide access to the wall opening. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 4-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 91 5.1.a Landau Associates 5.0 MITIGATION This section outlines a mitigation sequence and mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and associated buffers. 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing ECDC Chapter 23.40.120 includes requirements for mitigation of impacts to critical areas. The mitigation sequence methods for avoidance and minimization are described below. 5.1.1 Avoidance The proposed upgrades have been designed to avoid temporary and permanent impacts to Wetland A. 5.1.2 Minimization To minimize impacts, best management practices will be employed during construction to limit erosion and accidental spills (e.g., temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan). In addition, the permanent segment of the loading dock will be located in an area that does not currently have native vegetation and is largely lacking ground cover. In addition, the loading dock structure will be a platform that will retain the underlying soils allowing for surface runoff to flow beneath the structure for potential infiltration. The temporary portion of the loading dock will only be in place when needed during project maintenance, and surface runoff can continue to infiltrate in the area. 5.2 Unavoidable Impacts Given the extent and location of Wetland A buffer relative to the WWTP, impacts to functional buffers cannot be avoided. Unavoidable project impacts are limited to clearing of vegetation to provide access during construction and installation of 12-ft by 12-ft portion of the loading dock and maintenance of the area of the 12-ft by 13-ft section of the temporary segment of the loading dock. The temporary segment of the loading dock is considered part of permanent impacts since it may be reinstalled during project maintenance. 5.2.1 Mitigation Requirements Proposed mitigation of wetland buffer impacts will include enhancement, in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.40.120: "Compensating for the impact ... by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments." ECDC 23.50.040(I)(1) allows for additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers provided that an enhancement plan is prepared. Such additions are subject to the following sequence (project evaluation is provided following criteria): Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 92 5.1.a Landau Associates a) Outside of the standard wetland buffer; The proposed addition cannot be located outside of the buffer due to location of equipment within the WWTP. b) Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(3) of this section; Wetland buffer averaging is not feasible due to the extent of existing developments in the project vicinity. c) Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section; Not applicable. Subsection (G)(4) is not applicable to Category I wetlands. d) Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact); The proposed project occurs outside of the inner 50 percent standard buffer width of Wetland A (see Figure 4). The proposed mitigation plan provides buffer enhancement in excess of 3:1, refer to Planting Plan in the following section. e) Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 500 square feet of new footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to - impact), and that stormwater low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the wetland/buffer enhancement plan. Not applicable; refer to criteria (d) above. 5.1 Planting Plan To compensate for impacts to wetland/waterway buffer functions that have occurred, a planting plan has been designed that will restore and enhance the wetland buffer complex on site post construction The planting plan covers 1,255 sf, providing mitigation at a ratio of 4.2:1 (including area of temporary loading dock), which is in excess of the 3:1 ratio referenced in ECDC Chapter 23.50.040(I)(1)(d). The planting plan, as well as project phasing, is presented in this section. 5.1.1 Vegetation and Spacing The planting plan is designed to restore wetland buffer habitat and water quality functions and provide enough shade to control the spread of invasive species. The planting plan is based on an average density of one tree or shrub per 6 ft on center, plus groundcover. Vegetation planting is limited to the designated buffer enhancement area (Figure 5). One native tree species, four native shrub species, and native groundcover have been selected to supplement the existing native species near the project site. These species have been chosen not only for their ability to tolerate site -specific soil and moisture conditions, but also for their ability to provide wildlife forage, habitat, and erosion control functions. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 93 5.1.a Landau Associates The layout of the plant communities was designed to maximize interspersion of species. The layout of plants will include informal and irregular groupings to resemble naturally occurring plant assemblages. Because of the complexity of site topography, existing soils, and work within wetland buffer areas, as well as the importance of retaining existing desirable vegetation, the actual layout of plants will be determined by a biologist (qualified City staff or hired consultant)representing the City. Species selected for the planting plan include: • Shore pine (Pinus contorta) • Flowing currant (Ribes sanguineum) • Vine maple (Acer circinatum) • Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum) • Salal (Gaulthoria shallon) • Native grass seed mix. 5.1.2 Other Habitat Improvements In addition to the planting plan, trees to be removed during construction will be placed in the wetland buffer to serve as habitat features (i.e., downed large wood). The placement of the downed trees will be coordinated with the City, with preference for placement in the buffer area south of the public trail adjacent to the WWTP. 5.1.3 Project Phasing and Specifications Detailed specifications suggested for implementing the buffer enhancement are included in Appendix H A summary of the construction sequencing for the mitigation project is as follows: 1. Mark planting area in field 2. Mobilize construction equipment and materials to the project site, as needed 3. Clear all invasive species and other material and obstructions identified on plans/specifications 4. Place downed trees in buffer outside of project area 5. Complete facility construction activities 6. Complete planting area site preparation and layout for approval by biologist 7. Complete plant installation 8. Complete cleanup and as -built survey/markup. 5.1.4 Proposed Enhanced Functions Pre -impact function levels at the project site were estimated by comparing the site with surrounding buffer areas. This evaluation was informed by the document Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005) and best professional judgment given specific indicators. Functions typically associated with wetland buffers include water quality (removing Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-3 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 94 5.1.a Landau Associates sediment, nutrients, toxins and pathogens, and maintaining microclimate) and habitat (species richness, structural diversity/cover classes, visual screening from adjacent human development, and habitat connectivity). The mitigation plan includes enhancing the impacted functions of the wetland buffer, specifically the water quality and habitat functions, through removal of invasive species; planting of native ground covers, shrubs, and trees; and placement of large, downed wood in the buffer. The planting plan includes a diverse assemblage of native vegetation that will provide species and structural diversity. 5.2 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Goals are broad statements that generally define the intent or purpose of the proposed mitigation. Objectives specify the direct actions necessary to achieve the stated goals. Performance standards are the measurable values of specific variables that ensure objectives have been met. They provide the basis for determining if mitigation is a regulatory success. One main goal has been outlined for this effort: • Goal #1: Compensate for impacts to wetland buffer functions incurred by temporary and permanent clearing in the Wetland A buffer. — Objective A: Increase native species diversity in the impacted buffer area. ■ Performance Standard 1A: Plant Survival - at the end of Year 1, there will be 100 percent survival of installed vegetation. There will be 80 percent survival of installed woody species in subsequent monitoring years. Appropriate volunteer species will be counted for each dead or missing plant. ■ Performance Standard 2A: Species Diversity - at the end of each monitoring year, at least four desirable native or introduced species will represent 10 percent or more cover. Performance Standard 3A: Invasive Species — total cover of invasive species will be 10 percent or less in each year of monitoring. — Objective B: Increase structural diversity of the buffer area. ■ Performance Standard 1B: Vegetation Stratum in the enhancement area — in the final year of monitoring, species cover of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species will represent at least 80 percent cover, with each stratum providing a minimum of 10 percent cover. Performance Standard 2B: Downed large wood — as -built plan (i.e., Year 0) will document that at least two trees removed as a result of construction have been placed in the wetland buffer. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 5-4 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 95 Landau Associates 5.1.a 6.0 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND SITE PROTECTION Monitoring and maintenance are important elements for the success of the restoration project. The proposed restoration will be monitored during and after completion of the initial construction work, as described below. 6.1 Monitoring Quality Control Oversight During earthwork and plant installation, a qualified biologist/City representative will verify that grade and soil conditions are correct per specifications, plant materials are healthy and consist of the correct species and sizes as designated on the planting plan, and that they are placed in the correct growing environments. When plant installation is complete, the biologist/City representative will conduct an inspection and provide detailed notes on any changes to the final mitigation plan. This "as -built" plan will serve as the baseline for monitoring, and the monitoring period will commence when the City's biologist approves the "as -built" plan. The final checklist will be used to document that specifications have been met. 6.2 Monitoring/Site Maintenance Program The City will monitor the success of the plantings, in years 1, 3, and 5 throughout a 5-year period, as required by ECDC Chapter 23.40.130(D). Landscape maintenance by the City will occur as needed for successful establishment of the plantings. While plant species chosen for this mitigation proposal are adapted to conditions in western Washington, supplemental irrigation is recommended during the first three growing seasons following installation to promote long-term survival of the planted communities.3 The primary maintenance activities that may be required within the mitigation area are irrigation and/or removal of nuisance species. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list (NWCB 2018) and occurring within the easement should be hand -weeded from the planted areas for the duration of the monitoring period. Plants installed for mitigation will be replaced, as needed. 6.3 Site Protection In accordance with the ECDC, as a condition of any permit or authorization, the Planning Director may require the applicant to install permanent or temporary signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. The placement of such signs may be limited because only a portion of Wetland A and associated buffer is located on City property, and the site is not an active use area (i.e., undeveloped property and not promoted for public recreational use). These limitations would reduce the effectiveness of permanent signs, and no permanent signs are proposed for this project. a The proposed planting area is contiguous with landscaping located outside of the critical area buffer. An irrigation plan is not included in this critical areas documentation, and it is assumed the City (or its Contractor) will include irrigation design with the overall project plan, and will include the proposed buffer enhancement area. Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 6-1 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment 7 5.1.a Landau Associates 6.4 Contingency Plan A contingency plan may be necessary if monitoring determines that the mitigation is not successfully meeting performance standards. In this case, the monitoring report will include a discussion of potential cause for failure to meet performance standards and will recommend appropriate actions to address the problem. The proposed contingency actions will depend on the problem being addressed. For example, if all plants of a single species die, a more appropriate replacement species will be determined for the site conditions. If invasive species out -compete the native vegetation, additional control efforts may be warranted. Under certain conditions, irrigation may be necessary. If implementation of a contingency plan is deemed necessary, all proposed actions will be planned and submitted to the City for approval before they are implemented. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 6-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 97 5.1.a Landau Associates 7.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS The City is proposing the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project, which will replace the sanitary sewer sludge incinerator and associated equipment at the existing facility, resulting in unavoidable wetland buffer impacts. The mitigation plan presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC. The plans and performance standards presented in this report will mitigate for impacts to wetland buffer areas by the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project will restore and enhance buffer function so that the site will have incurred no net loss of wetland buffer functions. The mitigation plan includes monitoring and maintenance duties and schedules to promote its success Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 7-1 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 98 Landau Associates 5.1.a 8.0 USE OF THIS REPORT The findings presented herein are based on Landau Associates' understanding of the Edmonds Community Development Code and wetland/waterway delineation methodology developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology. Findings are also based on Landau Associates' interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrologic conditions observed during the February 15, 2021 site visit. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, findings accord with generally accepted sensitive area -investigation principles and practices in this locality, at the time the report was prepared. Landau Associates makes no other warranty, either express or implied. This report was prepared for the use of the City of Edmonds and applicable regulatory agencies. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. Wetland/waterways delineations are considered preliminary until approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or local jurisdictional agencies. Because wetlands and waterways are dynamic communities, their boundaries may change over time. Regulatory agencies typically honor delineations for 5 years after an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition, changes in government code, regulations, and/or laws could affect wetland boundaries and/or the ways in which delineations or ratings are conducted. Wetland Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 8-1 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment 7 5.1.a Landau Associates 9.0 REFERENCES AgACIS. Precipitation Data. Agriculture Applied Climate Information System. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds, GIS. Available online at: https.Ilmaps.edmondswo.govlHtm15Viewerl?viewer=Edmonds SSL.HTML. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publication No. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior. December. Ecology. 2005. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: A Synthesis of Science. Publication No. 05-06-006. Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. FEMA. Flood Map Service Center. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Gretag-Macbeth Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New York, NY. Hru by, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication No. 14-06-029). Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron. 41:1-42. April 2. NWCB. 2018. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. Available online at: http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/default.asp. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. January. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Publication No. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Version 2.0 Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May. Available online at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/west_mt_finalsupp2 pdf. USDA NRCS. 1983. Soil Survey Report of Snohomish County Area, Washington. US Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service. July. USDA NRCS. National Hydric Soils List. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed March 6, 2020. Available online at: https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nreseprdl316620.html. USDA NRCS. Soil Survey Geographic Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/soil-survey- geographics-database-ssurgo. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 9-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 100 5.1.a Landau Associates USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. USFWS. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. (Maps for 1981 to 2020). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. USGS. Topographic Map. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/. WDFW NWIFC. Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution Web Map. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Available online at: https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/. Wetland Critical Areas Report City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project 9-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 101 Puget Sound Project Location J� �Mill_ city"' 91MOF Park a moodway N 0 0.5 1 0 0 o' Miles 0 N a 0 0 Data Source: Esri 2012 Edmonds WWTP 14 LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 to 011EMI11 I Esperance Seattle Spokane Tacoma 1lympia Washington Vicinity Map Figure 1 Packet Pg. 102 0 N . N Legend o Q Project Area g Q Study Area 01 LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES O 79 Dayton Avenue O . T N j ®. v , N 0 n � ZA s. h, _, fry Nr•.. � M rase' 5 • `+v p cm N Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 Z Note —J a 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and N lead to incorrect interpretation. E 0 100 200 U r Q Scale in Feet Figure tudy Area Map 2 Packet Pg. 103 N r� o r 4 A- 2 -11 Legend Q Project Area Q Study Area • Sample Point LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES SP-2 • A-7 A-3 • • A-6 9 _q A-1 A-13 A-8 • • A-2+ • • A-5 •SP-1 •A-10 9 Wetland A Wetland continues to the south and east Wetland Wetland Buffer (110 ft) 0 60 120 Scale in Feet Data Source: King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington a �l rs Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Figure Wetland Location Map 3 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 104 5.1.a Clearing Limits (Temporary Impacts) Temporary Construction Access Platform Top of Platform to Match Bottom of Temporary Wall Opening Which will be Closed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform Dimensions During Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'D Portion to be Permanently Installed. Temporary Buffer Impact = 1095 sf 12'W x 12'D Loading Dock (Proposed) (Permanently Installed) --------------------------- Property Line �— Carbon Filter (Proposed) 1 j10 FAN h}CC ROOM PLC J GYM MCC 7 � _ SCLfBS HANOLfNO ROplr soups \ -_= PROCESS r� BBILOWB i ' Loading Dock (Permanent and 7— Temporary Section = 300 sf) I � n Wall Opening (Proposed) Wall Opening Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building, (Proposed) but no clearing on south side of building A-12 A-11 • • lBfEWRNCEf OFFICE M. I O I o I : P-2 I Q. N 4F C I A-3 tC x -7 ` U) a N I A-4 I 1 A-6 A-5 A-1 A j0 a Q w' I A-13 A-8 Wetland A SP-1 • 0 p 1 A-9 0 - A-10 Wetland continues to the south and east N N a Legend Note Z —J o Clearing Limits • Wetland Point 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Wetland Buffer (55 ft) IL original may reduce its effectiveness and CD Permanent Buffer Impact Wetland Line (50% of Standard Buffer) lead to incorrect interpretation. E N Temporary Buffer Impact Wetland Buffer (110 ft) Wetland Buffer (27.5 ft) 0 30 60 v (25% of Standard Buffer) o Q 2 Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Scale in Feet 0 d Edmonds WWTP Figure LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project Washington Wetland Buffer Impact Map /� 4 ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 105 ;I. L Clearing Limits (Temporary Impacts) \ N Temporary Construction Access Platform Top of Platform to Match Bottom of Temporary Wall Opening Which will be Closed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform Dimensions During Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'D Portion to be Permanently Installed. Loading Dock (Temporary Section) Property Line fi F:? Carbon Filter (Proposed) 1 I rD FAN Mcc ROOM 1. SOLIDS HANDLING �I ROOM jI Loading Dock (Permanent Section) i PLCIGYM lI it MCC = STORAGE SOLIDS .co..,wnn:mra PROCESS POLYMER 04JILONG FEED -- DRY I If 50LIDS O,SPOSAL ROOM p r� lea STORAGE w' Wall Opening d (Proposed) 171 Wall Opening Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building, of (Proposed) but no clearing on south side of building Ln Downed trees from clearing limits to be Zplaced in this vicinity as downed large wood �� I ■ Ak Legend Clearing Limits Grass Seed Mix Enhancement Area (460 sf) — Wetland Line Tree / Shrub / Ground Cover Enhancement Area (795 sf) — — Wetland Buffer (110 ft) %I 0 30 60 LANDAU Scale in Feet ASSOCIATES Wetland A Wetland continues to the south and east ToPOF RODTSALLTO8E FLUSH WFrH ORSLIGHFLY ABOVE FTNISM ED GRADE — SET SHRUB VTRAN3H7 AND PLAC£ ROOTSALL O N SOL ID GRO LIM O R ON CON PACTED R4CKF ILL SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSCRUCT1ONS ON PLANTINSFALL4TION. EXTRA GOIL SHALL BE LOCATED PER THE mRECTION OF THE SIOLOO87OR ENGINEER. F IN ISHEO G RAD E r SCARIFYSIDESOF rA.1`OYaALL PLACES'OF BARK MULOH IN SAUCER rO VATHIN:r W THE - TRLINK. ALL CONTAINER PLANre E j` RECEIVE A 24' OIA RFOR R j =� 1-` I - �`EXTSTING NATIVE SDIL OR RESTORATION PLANTING ONLY I .... - I NEtAiY C4Dh1 PAGTE9 TO PSDIL PLA WING P rr - 3 TIMES RODTSALL DIAMETER f'l-' :CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL W-7 l SCALE: NTS TYPICAL ON -CENTER PLANTING GR1D— ❑ F FSET PLANTS TO AVOID STRAIGHT RC P DOM PLANTING DETAIL SCALE' NTS CL (IMP AND SCATTER PLANTS SO THATAVERAGE PLANTING OETISRY IS EQ UIVA LE NT To GRI D SPACING MLY MDC PLANT S PECIES Enhancement Plantings TOTAL AREA = 1,255 sq ft) Scientific Name ICommon Name I#of Plants IStock Size (Spacing (C.C.) Trees Pinuscontorta Shore pine 1 4 6ftmin height 14ft Shrubs Acercircinatum Vine maple 4 8ftmin height 6ft Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron 4 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Ribes sanguineum Flowering currant 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Gaulthoria shallon Salal 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Groundcovers Refer to Grass Seed Mix Table Grass Seed Mix isee Grass Seed Mix N/A 460 sq ft Notes: Grass seed mix is limited to area within 6 ft of the SR 104 sidewalk and area of temporary loading dock; no trees orshurbs shall be placed within 6ft from the edge of pavement. Grass Seed Mix Scientific Name Festuca rubra ICommon Name Red fescue I Percent by weight 30 I Application 1201bs/acre Elym us glaucus Blue wildrye 30 Bromus corinatus California brome 30 Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 10 Downed Tree Placement Notes Note 1. Retain segments of tree trunks from 4 to 6 feet in length or longer from trees to be removed. 1. Black and white reproduction of this color 2. Branches may be trimmed and placed on downed trees as habitat piles. original may reduce its effectiveness and 3. Habitat piles shall be layered with larger material at/near base. lead to incorrect interpretation. 4. Avoid damage to adjacent vegetation when placing downed trees. Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King C unty Imager Edmonds WWTP Figure Carbon Recovery Project Enhancement Plan Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 106 5.1.a Page 1 of 1 Table 1 Methods for Wetland Determination WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington Parameter Definition Field Indicators Field Assessment 1. Dominance: The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status are evaluated quantitatively within data plots and visually throughout the study area. If the test for Wetland vegetation is adapted to saturated soil conditions. The US Army Corps of Engineers dominance fails, and indicators of wetland soils and hydrology are present, the (USAGE) has assigned a wetland indicator to each plant species that denotes its frequency of Prevalence Index is calculated. occurrence within wetlands (Lichvar et al. 2014). These are: More than 50 percent of the dominant plants totaled from all vegetation • Obligate (OBL) wetland plants almost always (more than 99 percent of the time) occur strata are hydrophytic (i.e., species with indicators of OBL, FACW, or FAC in wetlands under natural conditions. [regardless of modifier]). 2. Prevalence Index: A weighted average of the percent cover of each indicator status is calculated. (See data sheets in Appendix D.) An index of 3 or less satisfies the • Facultative wetland (FACW) plants usually (67 to 99 percent of the time) occur in hydrophytic vegetation criteria. If the Prevalence Index is not met, then consideration is wetlands but are occasionally found in non -wetlands. or given to morphological adaptations and/or non -vascular plants. Wetland Vegetation • Facultative (FAC) plants are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non -wetlands (34 to A plant community has a visually estimated cover percentage of OBL and a 66 percent of the time). FACW species that exceeds the coverage of FACU and UPL species. If 3. Morphological Adaptations/Non-Vascular Plants: Some plants develop recognizable • Facultative upland (FACU) plants usually occur in non -wetlands but are occasionally dominance is not met, the Prevalence Index is calculated, or consideration is morphological adaptations when they occur in wetland areas. These features must be found in wetlands (1 to 33 percent of the time). given to morphological adaptations and/or non -vascular plants observed. observed on >50 percent of the individuals of an FACU species living in an area where • Obligate upland (UPL) plants almost always (more than 99 percent of the time) occur in indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present. Wetland non -vascular uplands. plants can include bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hormworts). The cover of wetland bryophytes must be >50 percent of the total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal Washington, forested wetlands. A shovel is used to dig holes at least 20 inches below ground surface (bgs) at multiple Hydric soils have an identifiable color pattern, which occurs if the soil is locations in the study area. Direct observation of the soil is made at multiple locations in Soils are classified as hydric, or they possess characteristics that are associated with saturated, flooded, or ponded for a long period of time. Faint or washed-out wetlands and uplands, as applicable. Soil organic content is determined visually and Wetland SoilSIaI reducing soil conditions. A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or colors typically form in the soil, and mottles of bright color, such as rust texturally, and soil color is determined using the Munsell soil color chart (Gretag-Macbeth ponding, and during the growing season, anaerobic conditions develop in the upper part of (known as redoxymorphic features), form. Accumulations of organic matter 1994). Depth to water saturation and/or inundation is also observed. The characteristics the soil. at the surface, a sulfurous odor, and organic matter stains also may be observed are compared to the hydric soil indicators for "all soils," "sandy soils," and present. "loamy clayey soils," as described in the USACE Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths less than or Primary indicators of wetland hydrology include surface inundation (standing During investigation of soils, soil pits are allowed to stand for up to 20 minutes to allow equal to 6.6 feet. water), saturated soils, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and groundwater to percolate into the pit to determine groundwater level in the soil profile. Wetland Hydrologylbj or drainage patterns. Secondary indicators include water -stained leaves, During the dry season, the pit may be extended to 24 inches bgs to investigate oxidized root channels, or local soil survey data for identified soils. In the groundwater levels. In addition, the extent of soil saturation and the presence/absence of The soil is inundated or saturated to the surface for at least 14 consecutive days during the absence of primary indicators, at least two secondary indicators are required oxidation are determined in the soils removed. Other indicators of wetland hydrology are growing season.(`) to meet the wetland hydrology criteria. observed at ground surface. Notes: (a) USACE 1987, 2010. USDA NRCS 2012. (b) USACE 1987, 2010. (0 The growing season is the time during which two or more non -evergreen, vascular plant species growing in a wetland or surrounding area exhibit biological activity, such as new growth. The growing season also can be determined by soil temperature. The growing season identified on the WETS table for the project area is February 28 to November 22 (see Appendix C). 5/6/21 \\edmdata01\projects\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Table 1_complete.docx Attachment 7 Landau Associates Packet Pg. 107 5.1.a APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 108 5.1.a 4b i ## r s r■ a` � as 0 d 0 0 M t� IEL c 0 a � a0i E M m L L d M L d a N M • (n I G ■ t 7 � V 3 0 AD emu* > 0 N V/ O CO QL � I E + y A M E O a � O # O N Z Note -� Legend 1. Black and white reproduction of this color a original may reduce its effectiveness and o Q Project Area a� lead to incorrect interpretation. E o Q Study Area N 0 300 600 0 0 vl Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; USGS; King County Imagery Scale in Feet 0 ' Edmonds WWTP LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project USGS Topographic Map ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 Figure A-1 Packet Pg. 109 5.1.a *Pam MIK—W 4. i. z Le end Note a 1. Black and white reproduction of this color Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Q Project Area original may reduce its effectiveness and 0 0 Estuarine and Marine Wetland Q Study Area lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 o Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0 300 600 �I Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 0 v Riverine Scale in Feet 21 d Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project NWI Map ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 Figure A-2 Packet Pg. 110 �I. Legend LL Soil Series of Q Project Area o Q Study Area N v N Note J 1. Black and white reproduction of this color d original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. N E 0 300 600 U r Scale in Feet Q Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Figure LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project Soil Series Map /� ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington A- 3 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 111 Soil Series 5 Alderwood-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 8 percents I opes 17 Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Loam, O to 8 percent slopes 27 Kitsap Silt Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 34 Mukilteo Muck 78 Urban Land 5.1.a 0 Q w Legend a 0 FEMA 100-Year Flood (Zone AE) , Q Project Area Q Study Area r K. �. 41 bat DayjoQ Avenue ^_ _ V►r i JOW r i� pw** 1 rOL f z, r.• V , a T - i Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 300 600 Scale in Feet I Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King County Imagery Edmonds WWTP Figure LANDAU Carbon Recovery Project FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map /� ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington A—`-r/� Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 112 5.1.a APPENDIX E Soil Profile Reports u a) 0 L d i 0 V 0 M U r c ca a c m E r R m L L r L r a 3 0 a� 0 m 0 Q 0 M O O N O N Z J a a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 113 4a== o> ago -�AiDERWOOD ear QiT�' �_� I �I III ► 1:1 ■ is ill.]Id. ■�■: i 111111111111111�4 '_� ■ i1;3i1;17i1�liT�C1 `l i1!iF■ ., a'�11■'G� i III.4 all 1101■ i I11,'14"113 ■��Ti Iilii3i�TIBial1!13 Fi�'�TFs'I �Ci�liili'7 Fs'i'iil'7 ■�Tliliii'i7lii�l �!13Fi[�F111ii�i 1i Biiiiiil!:1'ICI Billli?I Tlilil ill!i13a7 yrilZal:!ua fBii7 il7iti31i;lii■ �sTi'ii3liSiP1 ��Ti[:liliil!!!!i3Fs['�7'FJiiililiiill��Ti'ifil 7ifii3 a9i1 BiRi317ir7'il3a 3Fi'['��i'[ilP1 ��Ti'iliifa it71Bi731i1i?I ►�� alTlil ��TiliiifiFli71Ti3'�7'iilfF;i'i[ilil�!Fi1ZBiil■IIIIIIII] P1 P1 III! �:� 1 ►1 �. 1SIli• 1 I _� aail■1.7T'1i �11!I!RariiFsJlliR?tilirill■P1 al31ti1'G1 ifii[il i �3i1C!i7:Zalii3'7I?1 III 1I [MILA go 61 i1 liiNl'3illiliCsl [Cfli1 iR7iiilait:llil V !ill] fil AN U'1i 11110:11=111 3i1'17il l IillTiii ■Biii7�+ i1 HUN V 7lailiiil!7IiRa�7 CF��T'i',i 31fi1RI?la i1 111"r1 .] 'upwlili 61I?fi111 1i Biit71i'ilfa IF io 31;ifiin111■3i1iilRrTliifiiil■3111,1111111,13i1�.T'fi11i37Ti��l iiil lilr:I■9111:3iflii�i 3i11'illisl �.T'ifCl llil'13iiil1:11 i1Fi13i11'i;lili 1;11113 1111- 1i7iiial■ ri3!� iliira fiiiti3'3iIF1FLZBiQiil3■i■1] Z7fi317Cf■3iiilRaiiiiS Biit7liilf:li�l T13GC1 ii]: 71:I1if1'BiGllii■3i5 Bi71i1 ZBiifCliF3i!9 01,759 IN fil 717 9il iRali?�l 31�iTi'Ralii�l 3iTlilii�l [ifTii iRall'1, RM77.�119FRIEW,, 0511 it 7iiiifii 31i1Bi'.Ti'i13i1F;il■Bi[italll 3i1iil17fifii3■C7i1llCilii�l illfiili=l7i?7 iiiFs'117r:;1ii1fi13iR'illi�l sTiifil117a ?i77f?iiiP1 11TIi1I 7'9'ril ii7:I 71 I11f3ilri FFl■ rI i771i1 l 97FIFFINUTii!I■ 1 _! 1PA15il7 fil ri7 7ii IRi�i?�7 31�iTi'Ralii�l 3illilii=l P1T'1i iililra Biii7�+ it 11[171.1 .] 71111iiii17■7iiS:1 i1 IIfIL•1 ., 11111i1ui BiI?fii■i+ a'117 1i VIRTIfli gln'el..Ti'il3i III I111 111'1] i i11;I7 IrWil 9711, 1i Bill 11173 ii77i511 i3'I+ Ri31i?�l iliifa fi17ilFii'iZ71Zi3131■:'ill iTaiitli3'iii3lTsiRai■P1 Biir7'llilf:li�7 7'7'ril iil:l 71:Illia[FT'll.�+ 3'�i�l 77ifiliFTilil7 om 7V it;?lil 3iiii'�l 1liliill•1 7f�.Iliii!31riF3i!i 3iiiiR;?lil Biii7�+ it 11'�IiiL•1 af�ililPl Bii?iiiiiil , .11 Zia■'3lilllillii�l i1��Ti'filiilTi�7 iiil�il7r:liif7il3i11'ilisl Tilil i17C17Fi!l13i11'i;lifii� iliira �i77I?iii�T71i 1i Bii1 iliira ii1Bii1F1il■��Ti'ifii lift:ill!filfl'lii'IiZBii:il3ii�i3liriil?lil =lall'iS:� illfill•1 .] 7I91iii1?71■3i1i!i7i13 7�i7�+ i1 11Ifi11.1 .] 7lillli Bilaillili 1RIT33Bi■Bi'iPi;:rT'il ii!i7i1 .Tfi7ffilil ii7al7 iiFil�ali Till?ill:l7 Bii3fi3�ii■ 31fii'Railili 7Cr7iillf:lili T'7'Pi ii7: 7[I]1ii1171fliliii:'+, 3i�I T1] Ids illl2!Ii!� fil IIII!� rT'1i iR71i?7 3iii'Rali17 ailliliCsl [il'.Tii1 ■�I'Elii-71Ti7�+ 7R?li11 391'9 WHIR 7(I►lliii?7■iFTi!i 3959191i1 7iiV+ it Ii�iiill•1 .1,013il BiR?fillip, 3!llilfaia'iii!i3'i1 nil l ilTlii!iliia'!iii!i3'1i aiil iliiiiii iBiBii13i1[iiill Tlilil ifBiilBiFiil7iR'i;li i3'�+ iliira ii77i?iliii3',�+ iliira fi17ilFii'Il 79577i331111iRTi'it4 Ral[ill= fail Biii7�+ i1 11111L•1 ., :1!!IIlP1 Bi0111115111:7a CIA 211,111111 fail ii3lil IOWA N !11017Tifil 3i1ili7i13 7iiS.�+ it 11Iii11.1 .� 7Ii11P1 Bii?fiilili73Sii '.Ti'i13'.Ti'ifa''3a 1i 31313i 73ifil P1 MI13i3ii317Bii7:irli RIzil Will, fil Wiliir'a531i:I1] Zafi33ii■31�1RaiiiPl Biitaliilf:li�l 7�ri1 ii7: 7[I]11flBill,Sii■'fiiiti3'3iIFii1■ZBiifC1iFIT1S!�7 2■ fil IfM1 dh 3Fi[HF;IfiIIIllililg■7ii3'1k7fil R41 3:iiRal;17 ilwril'.T'ii M11.1 U4iii!CI iiii'i]31LISilllilail'c#�ISia[ci717911) 3GI^.11i9l7(IISDEDdUMALDERWOOD Attachment • m312= • F, -LA ■s, :;. W• N , a [1i11RI41i1 LiiiS. it l2lliY TiILI iliiii7F;Il3iilij 41ll ZeIcent1 a[1i1'Raiiiii ZLii3lilll:li'!i '3U fi7: 7I111 I I i 1PI 1111 / ATI/ ► ■i:li oTor Chfififid■di 1110fit3i i5� � llMUTH:i !iiiOtt ■ii■I■=ii�i 3i5iflil TIiILI Mild ► 111:, i7 i Illd: 111' ffidILI!il a 'il!iiFoiil■.3 ilLl-I iii i di '9iiiiilalilil■/. I:1■ R �71ili3iiF1■aifhl�ll iiil'LiF1ii'L13P:31■Fsrir'IilLibl■l11/11L!:ilIlIl]■ii5i13fiitiio■IIIii11113iilldi i a:i!! llithhfflliifib ila7 z3iirlii wliali i'ii!iSPi PI■yy illhi'lllil - _ u W'��;MI wiSLifFai�3i�nllir'Pi '�ilille.a��!!iu� Iia Ili it l �i '� i�■■ JbI1iilliii iii:firi3ftil ■MIiINIII71,79iHfRENFill 4" iil r it 917114i29MI M M'.97 %ilifil:,10:61 ILIA Or, Li R'■�M111 fiil'iia do: MTHI M i[a11.71rhiriSLi R9I!!lNIU 1 1111"M'il ii1/:�LiILI lil Qil'ilii'iiil i7Pi]Li[il 'TiliilQ917:: i1L1 aL1Qi7ii 7 ii■li SillEIl !3!!!!!17 ILI li7 w11 ii1:A''i�lil'LI7 ii7a i1!!!ii/1111 lil 7ii.1 �sTi'[iiililllll!i1i:iNa aisi�li!i7■3i��1�'llilil ii= �'Ii7iilirlil Ti'Ri31ii1�a�111 ■� iaL■ a'���I.r�l■�■ [il I17 ii�'ei�'���lii■ �;� �a■ ii@i1'��■� �Iiil:iiill7 Iia ■� Z��liia�'�■ 91 [FANIN IN vgoLT.577 iilliil 1�IillilIllil Iil 7■ir[1,7ISM11 �I�fl■ ■ LTMir,i 111904 ■lily 9Is7i'"RA I:31:TiITR9 Ii1'.firl ■ii[iliilTlFi I1ii � liliril'aP� 'ifl;!!!!!Ili■ I9 :ii7 iT:lil'i3'if■ f iii'Ra■Tliifl':ili1R!!!Ili7 Iil 77 L�'a�%iI'I�■■ :fill III III :1 171TliilifIVIIil Iil I&I IM'i'illUNE :ili5Ll7 rTliifl:;liil!!!fU] I9 7 ZNl!I al Illiiiir!iill!3!!!II!'�fU Iil /iil r�Fi IliiliiJiiifil'iiPi -�i'iii4!!!!Iliil Iil :iil iTaliillir'ii■ It icil'Ra■RIiliilErliil!!!lif7 ii1 :i7 Z�i'i:'3ii■ AM R III alili�ir;rli�I�!!fl] Iil iiil ��'ei3'�lii■ blffiy By ar Will M:rlilII.MI A IiI > Z9ilirWII■ II( liitil!iil�l�!I!!!ii7 lia �n a.. ■i it iIZ"ri;if�iil Ir �!!!Illm�•i :� ■■lir1N d 0 L. IL 0 d c 0 L �m♦ V IL E m d L d L d c� E i U Q t 3 0 a� :a m m 0 a 0 M 0 0 r N 0 N Z J a c a� E t U a 9®ma LDER OOD. rtn�tachment 7 Packet Pg. 115 [1,111.i7S111a111 1Iii7■IIM1 ril MUM [*I 1170FI1 F11911 ril ifili iR?fiEiii7:iwill ;�iiilifFal:TE—r. n1—g O a'_1we] -1 1mmolox:TETimiq 5.1.a ■'fi77 4111,0111 10'14iiliR!!i!3i71iF9 [il'.T'i1 iiliifa Tififii�l [iliT'i1 i�'I�TIi!!ia Tififiis] [il'.T'i1 ii7■IriTT'1i s]'T!71" Iii7F;1iii3il!a1i �'ifF?!!!!Ilii7 ril 1i7 iTFliirli3'i7■ f iil'Ra■TIFi,7r131iiR!!!Ili7 ril :17 i7�rii'I�1■ i ili7i7r11 1711FE-117112111 ril 11" 197UNT9li71 :iri5ifa F17iir131ii1!!!fl] ril it iTFiirlfll■ �G 1 P1,767FRIT11 r13'' ilii'.Til it �i1 liiiil R?13i1P1 Fii'ii IliF�i l3i3ii■ 1 1 u 6IDI1 110 a N1 IV I D N di iirili7�l]!!ri�iil�!i /ii7 ril I!II] �Fi13ia'IF'ifiii�i7 iFil'�7 rilll'il�+ iilii7 iii7 31if1i 1i FI■�3i7F?fiil'i3l�l■r1i;3f� Iit'TIi1 Ii7 i7-aT'iirl�lii■a�i�1!ria iflil!a1i �'FF?I iil Ii77 311"rili7'I�T'a ififili;rlFi1 - - e 1 e API : 11! yl 1111 1N e ■ 1!Ir1i�]i�iiisils!u�� ril ■iil] �1 PLVA-C mIm n1lifilillIl] P1 P1 ►�� �ITlil Ti'iiifiFil■Ti'iiirl3'ni iTaliiiiifii�l!!i'!'] ril I111 i iiil3iiiiti�la Z�il.'itil�!II1:{Il [il ■:ill eyle ►��I: c1i��ii��►�*N191!:�I1i1::111i:1■ il:lu'iiiiillliitiIT; F'i 51F;1lll4r'Ia7 7 ir91i131ri1 F;iIRWIrlliil7 iTI-Ir iil rTiiTiii1THi17:7,flliliil iil] Ri'i1 1Ti■1iia 3i,111171111it11191■i■i1 'i11FIRM1313Firia'Fi'I1 iiFiii3 0Irl i■ iiVri3FJrii�tiiili9Fiiii T7 ►�� a1� ifil�illl:rilrFiilil ril iri31i131r1 a1is� IUII] iTlifil IIII] r�'1i iitiTP1 lifa 3i111131iiiiifi7 ►�� r71�F'iiilill!!tiTil iTiiF;r'�I�iF■ii111FIItiliT�ll iTlifil ii3F;�1F�J�iiirliiiiil'7Fs'iiii �7 DRAINAGE AND SAT1 AI I y 1: HYDRAULIU 1 1 ►1 1: 1 1111! 11111'1 ■ ii1i: iil'ii7�l3a �aF;Fl�i�!!!rili Zir�'i�iilr11i�1 :+; allliiFlii7Fi1 ril i7&iili7�'�il 4i�13�i1Fli:� ��TirE3'iiF;117rEil!!iiil] ril'!II] i'i5 �Tiliii'ii a17fi1 is �'1'��'il i7�'■lii�i5R3i1'G1 Sillll #Mr M1ii73!lriys a iiiilrlrlil iiRiiiii'i1i[il F'Iififii iRiiii!ifii�7 lid �ilTail]!!!!lilie9il'�iTiliiliiTit;3i1 iisliifiiTi'i1i[il iliiTii iR�iii'!iiii�7 1ZiiRa IFia ir�'il'31ti1 �I■iiForl�l■liil Irii.�+ �illiii�iFlrlrlil i=liiiii'iii[il F'17ifi3iriiii!ifii�7 fil lira irF'i731ri1 P1 ��Tir13'iF;J■ [Ij:t11 !� ► 1: ►i ii1i,'3i�1!!fiii'ii Za' ii■ Q 1i71i7 rRiil'isilir�lifSi7 iii�iiiir�lir'i5i1i�: 11'ilitii!il illiifil;illli:� ��Tir:3'R!IiT�il lid WI[ T0171NoM iITO11193,79lFilIRT111010, 167i13F;1,11111111"1 43ir:3'i11 17Fii riTal7s;,7, 3 ir1F1111 OT'irR1MM1111I.Til 1[iruii:. flit 1711 if■irFli!3irilG�9 ii■ 1:1F;I"ITORTUM111 i7iiralw9eiiri3'iili:+ �13ir13'iil 3!= ifiiiir:3ii1■U T'IF'iFFAI iirifirifirFlifiiiiisilsi:fil iiiralINIDIFliti�!iiilRa'i3iiir�il ifiraarll��i��ifi1 is�iililiza ifisi7���lfra�rll 1: 11-311 Ell 11- 1 I I U. \ 11 \ 1: 0:11111 WON 11;, :1 GI■liifa 3i3'il!137 t?I �'ir131131iiia :1111y1;,,�DIAOR] 11101101 9K11 alai III l F.4.3;,1,llbI Dy1W1.1y1:�i�■I,ifliu;iifili■:ii3�ifi1 ,*i D1 154 1 D11*11 D illlL" 1.1 91 IN so I D1 1:■C317■17iiii i?111 ■i77F1iifW1■di 119i1[ilarilil II!1:i7 1 UI '_� ►� 7■li F;il3ifi73if[il Fiiil6;[Fi7■ STi'�iiil i;�loTiiifi;il■ ii�i7aiila�il iF1 list?13i11i11 JVUliiiiilr131!!ar1 e, o171ri1 guii7giriiil is■' Tlti ii[il ififllD:r'17�!!ifiitiTii I] ril :iI i'■ M 11051 Mil ril :i!] 91i ii1i: FiilFl ril ir�i7'31ti1 iSiiF;r�!!!1�i?] Fri ii1i:IFiilFl ril ifli77ri13[il aria'SEi!] Wi'i1 Soma LDERWOO #�tachment 7 Packet Pg. 116 (I A"WE-1Ud • iiliERI— R3 -7ACDERYOOD S01fcl� M&i[iitifii liii7iitil i[E'7t:i'fti5i77Wfail aiilZiSii 7 ■iU S■I[iil3!!:I'sZ'liita iitiTii 77 d'li til :i■ ii7 IIUR"11,611M 171,113R'il fitiSPl 1'T�i31Rti8iT7 �171111 aFi113i31iii1!iF'Tiil'ifil 7■I[i7T'il R�iil a[alFilllilai711'illili 131ti1■►� fii3tliii[il ! 3iii611■ ■li'il:fiii'i13 FillZi�l7ifti817?�7 ilTlil [isl■iifI:1313'il,':F7 Ti7f1 iiliT�l■ i3Tl7al7if'i7i7tiF'111111 FIXTRi'IRN?ii13iR1131ilZ91l117IT12i1117FilgiIIITa ll iT131i3ifi'a ii■ T'i[�iifFTt:l ii[I�.TiTlfl'1':t17 ii■=l■[iF'Tliitil 7Fil i■ [il 31ifZi�ii�iiliT7 fi'i3tlifii[i1:317'sTSWI fi7■Il013 ■ 0, F_ 17 �liifl [il T�i1Td►Ri��ilifit_3 [il MINI b"KH 11 1FRIali7fM 0 ITNUi7■Tlifil I iffirri MINVll!:Fq I RI aT3'it!illTHIT 1111M IFrizil I III ifil "IIIIIII 1 111 [I. 9 vi in 1: v 111V ■IUTlUT;IIIFIRIFiI aljlldi �G� II71[IIIyaiTlifil ylI!�di 'G� 1l3iill!!17 Tii'ifi7Ti■'ZiiZTl�iifilii�ta:iii111:iff17?2�'I1 Ti T'IF II7[�IiitiS�liiiifWTIIN1la191faTli 7 FiTyI/IIIdi 'G11i:fiillllG■/IIIdi �G� IIi7.�lIlli7■ 9®ma LDER OOD. rtn�tachment 7 Packet Pg. 117 4a== oD 4-IMUK MBO9 LOCAHON MUK«I= WA /1RE111FIFI TRil M ifii■ :, 3',�]I■:, Ilim'l [II :� ■I1111/lli Ifll,'1P'[Illim ■�TIi1iR3iiTli7il�!R3Fir'�'isliiii7FiiitiR7■3Fir'�'Fi1■iiiliiiiii7Fii'iif7liTiil ili�ra'ii3111'E11�7 ' ■�Tliliiiisii�i �!ri�raar;TI3i31rififl■��Ti'i;31'7 y riTIMMrla ril a a1ra'a'i1■ llill!!!ri7ii��rilril ir-UiZi73iFl ►TI ZITlO RlilifiFilZi7ii■Il11111U Pi Pi ►TAI ZITlil .TililifiFliri['ii "ITURiliifr;llIMo7i7f1■II[I] it 3r;T'' ''7 ■ 0 4,1111 aF;CIT IllMill i[- 0 fiififil'N ariRl�i111517wi!li ZZiflii 11 iiiiTHMil .lifufa �R�[ii3r;1 r;Tliif ,a:!Fifliiffril aifillr:rl a RaliiliIM 7;T3ii1 a:!ii7 ,a31ri1 aifufa ifR�iri3r;131i1i7aF3[3E3![lri�5i7ri1 IIV 0 .I ►�Ilf• a'V N'741i 3lFill : iTi1[il al� 1:00111 II A 6 li V / 0151 is .e► i►vAi 1111.111 1: / 311:lull ril 3 Wil i i Fray 9i11'Zillil Tlrii'IillilnnriFTi!i W11111 , [:III 1977ilp, it /lmi♦i IN :rca,11r� filFril[llull �aeir'�liliiiifai!il■in �arira;�■ ill 1i7R'iInFill FIRM ifira ill i7ri7iiriTi7ialiRaill FFINI TRIM MUM film' Illil Fill a I�lil Zi7ifi1iFT1i�9 I791'4 117I7iiril r, '.Tiri[irillanriFTN!i r;airiii:lil 'MiTU it IM N aial1Pi iif:rlil[l Mlraa'iI 7arizgli■ iiil'a iT'if3[IFrIsIIIOfaN3iilliliila Mri!M13111 i 90111 fill :11;'1 iil : allil■ / 3111110 ril M161 a'i, or, rralzg TO ii 1rElilli11111riFTlO!7 riT'iri[i:lil 1977iS" 11 111MA :4 Rillallii i7R!ril[l:il] iia'ri[ITii■illif3i!Ilial] ' Z:riTIT'i■i117Z�iii:+ 117 1111431i1i7Ti1311Fi1■7riTa1!isl3iriill3i[3r;11■iiil�rli7[:1iTl3if if iiil 111174 3iRIM13111 i1T'ril film' 1119 Fill - - : unalrar:FTi;3�l i�iflil i7ifiiitil��Tii��7 / 4'11910 ril itliFi alai iPi ifa !iw1 974ITilrigri Fill Pi Ir:;rFi11]IlriFiT'Vil r;V811911 971M 11 IM V :1,111arl iifail[lii7 il�riTlTliillitii!iliall iTariTl3if■i117i1�iiiPi 1 31i�iaiiiiFo:17R1ii;iIn, iliifa Mri!;T[13111 i79ril film' :1[Gfiil : 97171TINFTil7 / 1112911111 rl ril 79qTl■liTu1ii TO Pi '.Tiri3iiilll]llriFTi!i riT'iriliJil 19771617 11 CIA :4 'elitl1iPi i7R4fii1[iill Z�riTIT3iillif�i!lia!1 iT�riT'cif■i117Z�iiiif I ?31i�r31■iriFill[E1iR�i��7 3irr;7i13117 TT'lil film' all fill mom l alll • ♦ 1 � 1 I r w r A • A w r A I I i 1 61 D i / i _A I 111110 oll11ii[f�![irifil i i7iiifi�iil■di Tl9lllil3i'ifil■7 Wi iti7ril�1!�'Tl3iiii■i: WrI i7ii11■l17i7iiili 111 �, 7i7ri111 IIT;til illb Willi P alilii■iii7TURNIP, oval I■lii ► 111:4■a N ■di IIFTI i ail':1►TAI Ni11;Fill ■TR'ZIF71■di 3''9iliif3rilillg t.10 f UMIT[iFl Fiif'i13[:1'■F;11fi[fira :1/t[I173.S3:i it 3r;T liili7r11Hill rifi13i1[fira I FRlUT di i:1 :5:1 rii'iZi7riiiiili1ri11■�I�iri'ii ��Tir:['il iiri7Pi a■yy ir�IFii'lll?III r -=` ► RHO 1-0 1 _W RIE ►�I a'T1i1 Tliiiiill■3iifulrii'I � �alriliifr;r�:!Ilia ril I/a ira3r;T'a'� i :4 a'T'RINTil film' iil n[Illi ►�� i i 1.11!I!u Rl3ii IifTlil �liil eDED,,. MUK TE30.,,Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 118 5.1.a aL7 i 571111 11117 ►RIFFIR1l9i1 ril 67111 0131111 ■ if%iifli TI!!III ril :! PI �TiR!fii ■: IZiiTlilril ■' T'ii�iiil ■ iiiirE3'ifr!!fi7 ril �i11 i1a'rirl�lil■ ■1i1�1■�TiirE3ifR�!!ri�l1 ril :{I1 i�-aT'[i[I�liiliifiililli7i��'CI■I[7 ril i111 i�-a�[i[iiiltiillili7i��'CI ■ 7ii iiiirTil Illilri1717RTIM1111ii11 ril I■■11 it 1 [4181671161 D11111 I1.1 a M DI IVI I X. Til7rirTil!!IPITil IfilliiifTlli?�7 ri3'li Z�Ilfiliifra iii�ii ir.7i3ri'.711 ■ Tlilil 1 itTil If11C�i ri3'li Z�Ilfiliifra iiil�a irarii'a7 ■ �Ilri��Tirisil!!ua ra :ill7 a ►TAI a'Tla TliiiiiFTi ir"i TiisflrflRrisil!!I[i�n ril Ilrt:ia �1 ►TAIITIi1 TliiiiiFT■T'iiirifl i Z�I[ifiif[E�I!!1!7 ril I111 irGT'iili�IG�I� ■ ■[i�3i■i[i�'a,�liliitC!!!IIi711 ril ■711 iF��Til�7 � 91 ►�I r7:� �liiifi�l■Ti1Cl ► iiliii TI!!rii fifullfil■Tnilll!IIiiT�'�'ifll.iiil ir�'ii[il!flrifil7 Ti1ii�if'ii1T3.i'(+ T'�7 ■ if iliiiir!!!Ilii'ii iiri13i311[PI Ti'ir;rlili rlli[ilT'ill:isi1 IM iil I][1111 ►TAB TRH I:Illiiari' rir111iiTi1 !IiiliIT�'i'iflT!i1 iiil 31iii 11';i ZiT31f1'1011111 a9ITll1111101 1Thi fC1 0[I111 ►� ■TRH' 1►.Ilii■,3[i�Tilri31111ifTlil ai fiZrTl�lril7iiil 111111111 i'iiTiT31i1'1'ifi17 w In a'ii3111IMFir'a!7 iTlirrrliiifl'I'ifil7:a flClfil YI1 i3'il iZT�IriIT!1 ail iiiT9lrifiTa iluli:l Ti1C1 irl!CI3.717 MITIOrTsm D!�►g-Igi11I'lr_�I1DI'sill: r_I'l91F;(I!3i!!1►►5;���� ii0�4ii1C1 M �TiiiTTir:3'ii■31�1�3i7ifli.� Tri3iiFsl'7F31!!Fif1■iira'FIFO Firl�a M �1 irzliilClBill, 1 I T■ifii 93 MUFF I1i7'17iFM ril I Rwar,l Z�'■ aarMIfHIRI i1671713 iiliTifiifif32!iiriri�'�ifir�liiiiliiCliifif7 iiilrifil7 ril R�[!7 rifiT7 iriTfif'irifCl TI■li'ii 41 U11M IMiTITTii!9 Ril KUM zaa ii1:fTli1f[Illr:rlil iiRiiiif'ilil'il �'SilCiir�lii�ifii�7 11� �iTi11!!!!ri i ZCr�lQilra 1CfQi5 iR3iliiif■ ,iiiliMIS Ti1CTCTa 41 'TI3i7if1�iil�liil :� TIri3111F 15 fC13iTli a iT�'iriiil7ui T'� iTa lfrifiriTi 'BU T'liiiiiiil.'ii'Fo"I1 Ci ii'iiiT3al■ ►■ ■ 3ial!!Ii1��Ti�1 i[iliilTr�li!'ifil■iiiir�l3iri1a17 aITT'��'iii7iTlilil ,� 11'ililiiia i�liifFdf■ Tiiiii'a rifil W:905Tali.FI+ Ilfii.7+■R+ iiifOR933iiiii'i ITi3!liii iiilil�'iii�7liirirlil arir�'iiliiii!Iliir�'Rll:riafil7■ F;r'iC,slili3liili�ITi1';f'Ilili3l�'ii3�''71iri!T�iT7''91iTi1il 9 tiiilrZi''�IC1CifTi3a I:Ulnhl:?In(1► AND DXnD►na Illiii:141�1i1!E317 i:17■ui iTCrTlrilril a'�riflil■iil lifa �ii3�l■:1.i5iii1C1 C? T31ri1 7■i:ld3ir:3'iil di T'9iiiiilarisil■ 111 Ra1Ili 111 5"1311 DIM IS Kol U \ i 1-1418101 fol D 11!I a 11 *,,I Dili W 1. \ 21 1 '.11115111WiiNITTilil■■ [ifi3iiil y pil Ell I DR1111 D yilIlV li: 111:1_: 1 Dil 1: ■f:ii1■i1iiP1 I:lil ■ iiiiiii�71■di T19iiiiimrifil■ILm i F;RiiiliT3ill'il i1ii:16;r'ii17 T'i1C1 iiRir ill r:�TiRif[i�17 fil lifi:lTit' 1� RZI Ii1GTIsii1'ilrEl'311:ra �Tiiiiiil■�3;�'�Rl'isil!!ili] ril Iliil] ■il iiilii r9r�'a il':3'[!197 By FM 111 Il ril I H iSii'i73dImiIT [ail'c#�ISia[c]'01791mu3GI^.11i9l9(II D �! i1�17f� IiG ■ .� IIIII u Packet Pg. 119 ���s� �■�� .i■uINIT11249 �. F;�ra ■ e®m,,.tdK,,TEO.ht.,Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 120 5.1.a APPENDIX C Precipitation Data Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 121 WETS Table 5.1.a WETS Station: EVERETT, WA Requested years: 1971 - 2000 Month Avg Max Avg Min Avg Avg 30% 30% chance Avg number Avg Temp Temp Mean Precip chance precip more days precip 0. Snowfall Temp precip less than 10 or more than Jan 45.8 33.5 39.7 4.35 3.06 5.17 11 1.2 Feb 49.3 34.8 42.1 3.40 2.38 4.04 10 0.5 Mar 53.3 37.4 45.3 3.84 2.93 4.46 11 0.0 Apr 58.3 41.1 49.7 2.96 2.36 3.39 9 0.0 May 63.9 46.3 55.1 2.57 1.93 3.01 7 0.0 Jun 68.4 51.1 59.8 2.25 1.47 2.70 6 0.0 Jul 73.1 54.2 63.7 1.30 0.62 1.58 3 0.0 Aug 74.0 54.0 64.0 1.35 0.58 1.64 3 0.0 Sep 68.8 48.8 58.8 2.09 1.16 2.55 5 0.0 Oct 59.7 42.5 51.1 3.34 1.86 4.07 9 0.0 Nov 50.6 37.7 44.2 5.15 3.70 6.08 12 0.2 Dec 45.2 34.0 39.6 4.96 3.70 5.81 12 0.4 Annual: 34.71 40.36 Average 59.2 42.9 51.1 - - - - - Total - - - 37.56 99 2.3 GROWING SEASON DATES Years with missing data: 24 deg = 28 deg = 32 deg = 6 3 2 Years with no occurrence: 24 deg = 28 deg = 32 deg = 0 0 0 Data years used: 24 deg = 28 deg = 32 deg = 24 27 28 Probability 24 F or 28 For 32 F or higher higher higher 50 percent * 2/2 to 12/ 2/28 to 4/7 to 17: 318 11 /22: 10/25: days 267 days 201 days 70 percent * 1 /25 to 2/21 to 4/1 to 12/25: 11/30: 11/1:214 334 days 282 days days * Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning and Ending dates. STATS TABLE - total precipitation (inches) Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1894 1895 4.48 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 Attachment 7 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl 3. 4. 5.45 4.05 17. 65 02 17 4.48 Packet Pg. 122 5.1.a 2013 6.22 M2.40 3.67 3.94 M2.31 2.02 M0.04 M1.77 M3. 1. M3. M2. 33. 78 43 46 31 35 2014 M4.08 M5.04 7.29 3.77 3.06 1.81 M1.18 M1.59 M3. 6. 5.54 6.08 49. 52 29 25 2015 7.15 5.40 3.37 2.43 0.52 0.62 0.32 2.11 2. 3. 6.60 8.82 43. 49 63 46 2016 M6.89 M3.26 6.11 M2.23 M1.31 1.87 M0.55 M0.09 2. 7. 8.33 M3. 44. 80 36 23 03 2017 M2.29 5.76 7.01 4.02 4.19 M0.93 0.00 0.13 M1. M3. 8.20 M3. 40. 11 43 89 96 2018 M6.45 5.12 M4.97 M5.56 0.61 M2.61 M0.02 0.41 3. 3. 4.94 4.54 42. 61 37 21 2019 2.24 3.05 M1.98 M4.03 2.00 M1.23 M0.90 M0.71 M3. 3. M2. M5. 31. 97 29 59 18 17 2020 5.82 7.12 M2.16 M1.89 4.16 4.53 0.72 1.09 2. 3. 5.42 5.64 44. 73 55 83 2021 M5.53 5.09 2.78 M1.09 14. 49 Notes: Data missing in any month have an "M' flag. A "T' indicates a trace of precipitation. Data missing for all days in a month or year is blank. Creation date: 2016-07-22 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 123 Chapter 19 Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination Figure 19-7 Rainfall documentation worksheet Date: Weather station: County: Soil name: Photo date: 1st prior month* 2nd prior month* 3rd prior month* Conclusions: Rainfall Documentation (use with photographs) Landowner: State: Growing season: Long-term rainfall records Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook Tract no.: Month 3yrs. in 10less than Normal 3yrs. in 10 more than Rain fall Condition dry, wet, normal Condition value Month weight value Product of previous two columns 3 2 1 Sum * Compared to photo date Note: If sum is Condition value: 6-9 then prior period has been Dry =1 drier than normal Normal =2 10 -14 then prior period has been Wet =3 normal 15 -18 then prior period has been wetter than normal 19-26 (21Afficil•II'111C1it 7 Packet Pg. 124 5.1.a APPENDIX C Wetland Determination Data Forms Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 125 5.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Edmonds WWTP City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 2/27/21 Applicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: SP-1 Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A — Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Mukilteo Muck NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: Conditions are wetter than normal. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 80 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant 2 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 50 Y FAC Total %Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. 5. FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Oenanthe sarmentosa 1 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0' 7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. 0 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation Present? Yes X No = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Attachment 7 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Co Packet Pg. 126 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-1 5.1.a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 O laver 1-12+ 5PB 4/1 Loamy sand 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) X Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Too wet to dig beyond 12". HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) X Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) X Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 3 Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Attachment 7 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Co Packet Pg. 127 5.1.a WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Edmonds WWTP City/County: Edmonds/Snohomish Sampling Date: 2/27/21 Applicant/Owner: City of Edmonds State: WA Sampling Point: SP-2 Investigator(s): SJQ Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A — Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Y Soil N or Hydrology N significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation N Soil N or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: Conditions are wetter than normal. Vegetation in the area is maintained adjacent to public pathway. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 80 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant 2 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FACU Total %Cover of: Multiply by: 2. 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = FAC species 80 x 3 = 240 5. = Total Cover FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) UPL species x 5 = 1. 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 320 (B) 2 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0' 7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) g g 10. 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. 0 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation Present? Yes No X = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Attachment 7 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Co Packet Pg. 128 SOIL Sampling Point: SP-2 5.1.a Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/3 Loam 12+ Refusal Gravel 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (64) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Attachment 7 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Co Packet Pg. 129 5.1.a APPENDIX E Selected Site Photographs u a) 0 L d i 0 V 0 M U r c ca a c m E r R m L L r L r a 3 0 a� 0 m 0 Q 0 M O O N O N Z J a a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 130 5.1.a S/b/L1 t-1.000X 1. Wetland A facing north from SR 104 LANDAU A55DCIATES 2. Sample point SP-2 facing east Edmonds WWTP Figure Carbon Recovery Project Selected Site Photographs Edmonds, Washington E_1 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 131 5.1.a APPENDIX F Wetland Rating Forms and Figures Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 133 Wetland name or number Vet I and A 5.1.a RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #) Rated by Si Q Date of site visit: 2/ 27/ 21 Trained by Ecology? X Yes No Date of training 3/ 2008 HGM Class used for rating Depr essi oval Wetland has multiple HGM classes? X Y N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRI Mr I d I Trager y Vet I and A OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions_ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS X Category I —Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 Category III — Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H (D L H M L Landscape Potential H MO L H M L H M OL Value (ED M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 8 8 7 23 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above X Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 134 5.1.a Wetland name or number A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 F- 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 F- 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 F- 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 ' Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 - 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 F- 4 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 - Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 - Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 135 5.1.a Wetland name or number A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO - go to D YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ater leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 136 5.1.a Wetland name or number A NO - go toD YES - The wetland class is Riverine e Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressiional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-goto8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. (VOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 137 5.1.a Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 2 points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff laver) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 2 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 13 Rating of Site Potential If score is: X12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H X 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 5 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 138 5.1.a Wetland name or number A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: A2-4 = H _1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 0 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 139 5.1.a Wetland name or number A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of '4 ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 X Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 X Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 X Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 2 XSaturated only 1 type present: points = 0 X Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. C) O O 2 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams 0 4 +* in this row t are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 140 5.1.a Wetland name or number A H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. X Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 2 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) X At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above $ Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H X7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat 0 + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2) 12 0 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 0 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. 1 Calculate: % undisturbed habitat Q [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2) 12 = % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 0 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) -2 5 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above - 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M X < 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 — It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources X It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: ^ 2 = H _1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 141 Wetland name or number A 5.1.a WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE. This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). — Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and (orbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). XRiparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). X Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 142 5.1.a A Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes -Go to SC 1.1 Go= of an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) Cat. —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or Cat. II contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 Cat. SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, eit�hey or mucks, that compose 16 in or >eas more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? o to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peaks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, A t least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No -.,Po to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitu at criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Cat. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover e Che canopy? Yes = Is a Category I bog No = s not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 143 5.1.a Wetland name or number A SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Yes = Category I (R)of a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) Cat. Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). Cat. 11 —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than Vio ac (4350 ftz) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Cat — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 (Dot of an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M Cat. 11 for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 Cat. III SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? Yes = Category III No = Category IV Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics w A If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 144 5.1.a Legend 0 Forested Remainder of wetland is herbaceous Data Source: Bing Maps Carbon Recovery Project LANDAU Wastewater Treatment Plant ASSOCIATES I Edmonds, Washington Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 150 300 Scale in Feet Cowardin Plant Classes Figure F-1 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 145 5.1.a Legend o Culvert (outlet) 0 Seasonally flooded/inundated (remainder of wetland is saturated) Data Source: Bing Maps Carbon Recovery Project LANDAU Wastewater Treatment Plant AssOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Ip Shellabarger Creek 150 ft setback Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 150 300 Scale in Feet Hydroperiods Figure F-2 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 146 4/13/2021 StreamStats Figure F-3. Contributing Basin 5.1.a StreamStats Report Region ID: WA Workspace ID: WA20210413171431562000 Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 47.80645,-122.38083 Time: 2021-04-13 10:14:52 -0700 }_ _ter- �••i .I— ;, Walnut St Cedar Sr rrion tMlarsh — , - - �5pruceSt - Edmonds " Hwrrdcc• �'. T = F — ;Gty Park ¢_ 214th PI SW S •a111 nCD �.1 Q `] tl LO �=Mb ��P I IL .k. r— _. -� 11\ I Basin Characteristics 7V]L Pa r k r� 21 sf 21 �1CHIPISW- -- 21 Tkh St S Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 0.27 square miles General Disclaimers The delineation point is in an exclusion area. URBAN AREA: STREAMFLOW ESTIMATES MAY NOT BE 146 VALID https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 147 4/13/2021 StreamStats USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied ismade regarding the display or utility oft he data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shalIt he act of distribution constitute any such warranty. USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS north U.S. Governments ha I I be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is ford escriptive purposes only and does not implyendorsement by the U.S. Government. Application Version: 4.5.1 StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22 NSS Services Version: 2.1.1 https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 148 5.1.a "N I Legend i Low and moderate intensity land use I� Undisturbed habitat Remainder of 1 km radius is in high intensity land use Carbon Recovery Project 14 LANDAU Wastewater Treatment Plant ASsocIATES Edmonds, Washington yr - _Y a 1 km radius r a ar a DigitalGTlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, ,irbu DS, USDA, USGS,.AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User nit, ,• ' . Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 500 1,000 Scale in Feet Figure 1 Kilometer Radius F-4 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 149 Figure F-5. 303d Listings April13, �r / Cow (renter Playfiel'I Fapro Sprague St 9 z vtts f � f �5 C ivic Center > r.rlwtts �y = Playfreld t Landui:l Scud, z a"l E nde. f `R� ston e L ��� Ferry 2JT A rrrlra N. ^ El: 11 Edrnor(ds J Sounder- Garry EdmQllCf` f Edmonds r9S.4r�n North Station S r 104 Epuio Ombu ,_ - d W Dayton SI Dayton St v� r Q y V � Vl w L kfwik; ��1 n � Alder St < Wetland Vicinity Alder l 4 Beck Ln .n S! Pancake Sitiel eberger Creak Faus ffally f.'i Ednxnds Marsh IGA Howell YVay Ho me land' g r Edmonds Hemlock Way City Park c Assessed Water/Sedimei L Water U Category 5 - 303d Category 4C a Category 413 C Category 4A d E Category 2 L Category 1 ~ Sediment f° ® Category 5 - 303d [M Category 4C rM Category 413 M] Category 4A N �f Category 2 c ® Category 1 t Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 150 Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and 4/13/2021 Figure F-6. TMDL Listing Snohomish County I Washington State Department of Ecology 5.1.a None listed in project vicinity DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Snohomish County State of Washington Ecology homepage > Water & Shorelines > Water improvement > Total Maximum Daily Load process > Directory of projects > Snohomish County Water quality improvement projects Select the waterbody or pollutant name to find more information about the specific project. Waterbody Name(s) Pollutant(s) Status Project Lead(s) Tricia Shoblom Ballinger Lake Total Phosphorus EPA approved 425-649-7288 Bear -Evans Creek Fecal Coliform EPA approved Ralph Svricek Basin 425-649-7165 Dissolved Bear -Evans Creek Oxygen EPA approved Ralph Svricek Basin 425-649-7165 Temperature Dissolved French and Pilchuck Oxygen Under development Heather Khan Creeks 425-649-7003 Temperature Under development as Tricia Shoblom Lake Ketchum Total Phosphorus a straight to 425 649 7288 implementation project Under development as Tricia Shoblom Lake Loma Total Phosphorus a straight to 425 649 7288 implementation project Ralph Svricek Little Bear Creek Fecal Coliform EPA approved 425-649-7165 EPAapproved and Ralph Svricek North Creek Fecal Coliform Has an implementation 425-649-7165 plan Old Stillaguamish Dissolved Ralph Svrjcek On hold Channel Oxygen 425-649-7165 RaIOL- vricek Snohomish River Dioxin EPA approved 425-649-7165 Snohomish River: Dissolved Ralph Svricek EPAapproved tu Esary Oxygen 425-649-7165 Snohomish River: Fecal Coliform EPA approved and Ralph Svricek Packet Pg. 151 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/WaterQualitylmprovement/ i ML%' oAomishtiounty.ttm 4/13/2021 Snohomish County I Washington State Department of Ecology 5.1.a Tributaries Has an implementation 425-649-7165 plan Ammonia-N Fecal Coliform Ralph Svrlcek Snoqualmie River pH EPA approved Dissolved 425 649 7165 Oxygen EPAapproved and Ralph Svrlcek Snoqualmie River Temperature Has an implementation plan 425-649-7165 Arsenic Dissolved Qxygen EPAapproved and Ralph Svrlcek Stillaguamish River Fecal Coliform Has an implementation Mercury plan 425-649-7165 pH Temperature EPA approved and Ralph Svrlcek Swamp Creek Fecal Coliform Has an implementation plan 425-649-7165 To request ADA accommodation, call Ecology at 360-407-7668, 711 (relay service), or 877- 833-6341 (TTY). More about our accessibility services. Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/WaterQuaIitylmprovemenf/T1Vf6LiSCn'o�geounyhtm Packet Pg. 152 5.1.a APPENDIX G ECDC 23.5O.O40(F)(1)(f) -Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 153 Appendix G 5.1.a ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1)(f). Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Impacts Recovery Project Evaluation Lights Direct lights away from wetland Not applicable, the project does not include any new exterior lighting. Noise Locate activity that generates noise The proposed project does not include away from wetland installation of noise generating • If warranted, enhance existing buffer equipment in the wetland buffer. with native vegetation planting Noise in the buffer will be temporary adjacent to noise source during construction. • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10- foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Toxic runoff . Route all new, untreated runoff away No new pollution generating from wetland while ensuring wetland impervious surface is included as part is not dewatered of the proposed project. • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Storm water runoff • Retrofit storm water detention and No new pollution generating treatment for roads and existing impervious surface is included as part adjacent development of the proposed project. • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use low -intensity development techniques (for more information see storm water ordinance and manual) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and Runoff from the proposed loading disperse into buffer new runoff from dock will follow existing topography. impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human • Use privacy fencing or plant dense Not applicable, the proposed project disturbance vegetation to delineate buffer edge will not provide new access for and to discourage disturbance using pets/human disturbances. vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices Appropriate BMPs will be employed (BMPs) to control dust during construction. Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Report 0074209.010.011 Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project G-1 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 154 5.1.a APPENDIX H Mitigation Planting Specifications 2 0 L. a L i 0 V 0 U r c R a c aD E r 0 m L L L r Qi E ci r a w 3 L 0 NN� I.L Mn W Q O M O O r N O N Z J a c aD E t r Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 155 5.1.a Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington May 7, 2021 Prepared for City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 156 5.1.a Landau Associates Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by: r Steve Quarterman Seni r Associate Document reviewed by: C��4�z�"" `� Jeffrey Fellows, PE Principal Date: May 7, 2021 Project No.: 0074209.010.011 File path: P\074\209.010\R\CritAreas\Appendix H Specifications\ Critical Areas Mitigation_Specifications_rpt 05052021.docx Project Coordinator: KJG LANDAU ASSOCIATES Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 157 5.1.a Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-iii Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 158 5.1.a Landau Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 GENERAL........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Scope of Work....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Quality Assurance...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Qualifications of Installer...................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Work Schedule....................................................................................................................1-2 1.5 Project Records and Review...............................................................................................1-2 1.6 Documentation...................................................................................................................1-2 1.7 Underground Utilities and Existing Conditions..................................................................1-2 1.8 Checklist and Project Closeout...........................................................................................1-2 2.0 MATERIALS.....................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Plant Materials...................................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Container Plants (Trees, Shrubs)......................................................................2-1 2.1.2 Seed Mix..........................................................................................................2-1 2.1.3 Temporary Storage..........................................................................................2-2 2.1.4 Substitutions...................................................................................................2-2 2.2 Mulch..................................................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Fertilizer Tablets.................................................................................................................2-2 3.0 EXECUTION .....................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Site and Project Preparation..............................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Order Materials...............................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Mark Limits of Clearing....................................................................................3-1 3.1.3 Minimization of Impacts..................................................................................3-1 3.1.4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions..........................................................3-1 3.1.5 Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions......................................................3-1 3.1.6 Clearing and Grubbing.....................................................................................3-1 3.2 Planting and Protection......................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Layout Plants...................................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Approve Planting Locations and Spacing..........................................................3-2 3.2.3 Plant Installation..............................................................................................3-2 3.2.3.1 Container Trees and Shrubs.......................................................................3-2 3.2.3.2 Seeding......................................................................................................3-3 3.2.4 Mulch..............................................................................................................3-3 3.3 Rectification of Accidental Plant Injury..............................................................................3-3 3.4 Cleanup...............................................................................................................................3-4 3.5 Checklist and Closeout.......................................................................................................3-4 4.0 MAINTENANCE...............................................................................................................................4-1 Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-iv May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 159 5.1.a Landau Associates 13le111 N *1 Figure Title Enhancement Plan Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-v Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 160 5.1.a Landau Associates LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS City.........................................................................................................City of Edmonds Specifications..............................................................Mitigation Planting Specifications Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-vi Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 161 5.1.a Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H-vii Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 162 5.1.a Landau Associates 1.0 GENERAL These Mitigation Planting Specifications (Specifications) shall be reviewed by the City of Edmonds (City) prior to mitigation planting work so that the staff involved understand the intent and the specific details related to the construction documents, specifications, and site constraints. The following plans sheets (Drawings/Plans) correspond with this document: • Figure 5 Enhancement Plan The plantings shall be installed using the materials as shown on the Drawings and/or as specified in these Specifications. The mitigation plantings shall be installed to grades and conform to areas and locations as shown on the Drawings. The term "OWNER" as used in this Specification section shall refer to the City. The term "BIOLOGIST" as used in this Specification section shall refer to the City's biologist for the project (qualified City staff or hired consultant). 1.1 Scope of Work OWNER shall furnish all materials, equipment, labor, and related items necessary to complete the work shown on the Drawings and/or as described in these Specifications, to include addition of soil amendments and tilling of soil; installation of plants; fertilizing and mulching; protection; and other work, as necessary. The work included in these Specifications (whether mentioned or not) shall consist of all labor, tools, materials, permits, and other related items necessary for the installation of all plant -related materials and will be performed in accordance with these Specifications. 1.2 Quality Assurance Standard Specifications: American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1-2004. American Nursery and Landscape Association, 1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005. Hortus Third. The Staff of the L. H. Bailey Hortorium. 1976. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, New York. 1.3 Qualifications of Installer Oversight of mitigation planting preparation and installation shall be provided by OWNER staff with a minimum of 3 years of experience with landscape implementation, and who have completed landscaping work similar in material, design, and extent to that indicated for this project and with a record of successful landscape establishment. OWNER staff or representative must be familiar and comply with American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H1-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 163 5.1.a Landau Associates 1.4 Work Schedule In general, restoration plantings shall be installed no earlier than October 1 and no later than March 31. 1.5 Project Records and Review A copy of the approved plans, specifications, permits, and agency approvals must be on site whenever construction is in progress and shall remain on site until project completion. The OWNER shall be on site, as necessary, to monitor and/or approve any minor revisions to the plan. 1.6 Documentation The OWNER shall keep a complete set of plans at the job site during construction for the purpose of "red -lining" changes or modifications to the approved plans and shall update this information daily. Upon completion of the installation of the planting aspects of the mitigation project, the OWNER will create a set of clearly marked plans designating the actual locations and quantities of plantings within the mitigation area. These plans shall meet the requirement of an as -built survey. 1.7 Underground Utilities and Existing Conditions The OWNER shall be responsible for the protection of utilities. It is the sole responsibility of the OWNER to: (1) independently verify the accuracy of utility locations and (2) discover and avoid any utilities within the work area that may be affected by implementation of this plan. Such areas are to be clearly marked in the field. 1.8 Checklist and Project Closeout The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the Specifications listed in this document. Any items that do not meet Specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive management strategies necessary to meet Specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion. Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H1-2 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1 Packet Pg. 164 5.1.a Landau Associates 2.0 MATERIALS The BIOLOGIST shall examine plant and soils materials prior to unloading at the site. Any material not meeting the required Specifications shall be immediately removed from the site and replaced with like material that meets the required standards. 2.1 Plant Materials Plant material shall be provided by OWNER and shall meet the requirements of the current edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, and state and federal laws with respect to plant disease and infestations. Plant materials shall be locally grown (western Washington, western Oregon, or western British Columbia), healthy, bushy, in vigorous growing condition, and be guaranteed true to size, name, and variety. Furthermore, plants shall be free from disease, injury, insects, insect eggs, root and other types of weevils, larva, weed roots, and defects such as knots, sun scald, injuries, abrasions, disfigurements, and irregular growth arising from frost damage. Unacceptable materials shall be replaced and shall be immediately removed from the project site. The BIOLOGIST shall inspect plant material at the job site for compliance with required standards for plant size and quality prior to planting. This includes, but is not limited to, size and condition of root systems, presence of insects, latent injuries, and defects as listed below: 2.1.1 Container Plants (Trees, Shrubs) • Trees shall have uniform branching; single, straight trunks (unless specified as multi - stemmed); and the central leader intact and undamaged. • Unless necessary for larger trees, do not stake plants for support. • Do not prune or top plants before delivery, except as approved by BIOLOGIST. • Protect bark, branches, and root systems from sun scald, drying, sweating, whipping, and other handling and tying damage. • Do not bend or bind -tie plants in such a manner as to destroy the natural shape. Provide protective covering during delivery. Do not drop plants during delivery. • Container stock shall be fully rooted but not root bound. • The original central leader on tree stock must be healthy and undamaged. • Plants shall be the size indicated on the Drawings/Plans. 2.1.2 Seed Mix Seed mix shall be commercially prepared and supplied in sealed containers. The labels shall show: (1) Common and botanical names of seed, (2) Lot number, (3) Net weight, (4) Pounds of Pure live seed (PLS) in the mix, and (5) Origin of seed. All seed vendors must have a business license issued by supplier's state or provincial Department of Licensing with a "seed dealer" endorsement. Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H2-1 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1 Packet Pg. 165 5.1.a Landau Associates 2.1.3 Temporary Storage Plants/seed mix must be stored in the manner necessary to accommodate their horticultural requirements. Protect plant/seed material stored on site from weather damage, construction activity, and the public. Protect bare roots by covering with moist soil, mulch, or sawdust. Water as required to keep roots moist. Keep plants moist and shaded until the actual time of installation. Do not allow any plants or stakes to be exposed to freezing temperatures prior to planting. 2.1.4 Substitutions Substitutions of plant species or sizes may be permitted based on plant availability, but only with prior approval by the BIOLOGIST. 2.2 Mulch Mulch shall consist of bark pieces or wood chips with maximum axis of any single piece not exceeding approximately 2 inches. 2.3 Fertilizer Tablets Trees and shrubs shall be fertilized using one of the following products or similar: 1. Formula 4-2-2 "Transplanter" as manufactured by Pacific Agro Co., with Hercules nitroform and W.R. Grace's "Magamp" and trace elements. Apply at a rate of: a. Trees: 8 ounces b. Shrubs: 2 ounces. 2. Agriform Tablets: Planting tablets, 21-gram size, as manufactured by Agriform International Chemicals, Inc., 20-10-5 analysis. Apply at a rate of: a. Trees: 4 tablets for every foot of rootball diameter b. Shrubs: 3 tablets. Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H2-2 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 166 5.1.a Landau Associates 3.0 EXECUTION These Specifications apply to all aspects of the mitigation project installation and are generally listed in the order that they will be implemented. 3.1 Site and Project Preparation 3.1.1 Order Materials Items to be ordered upfront include mulch and jute netting. These items, which may need substantial lead time to acquire and alterations from the plan (due to availability), must be verified by the BIOLOGIST prior to ordering. 3.1.2 Mark Limits of Clearing Prior to any construction, OWNER shall stake and/or flag limits of clearing on site, as shown on the Drawings. 3.1.3 Minimization of Impacts Clearing will be conducted using the lightest machinery that is still capable of performing the work. Compaction of planting areas shall be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.1.4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions Materials encountered within the planting area that creates conditions unsuitable for plant establishment as determined by the BIOLOGIST shall be removed by the OWNER from the site. Such materials may include trash and debris (e.g., tires, concrete rubble, scrap metal, etc.). 3.1.5 Verification of Suitable Surface Conditions Following clearing, the BIOLOGIST will verify that soil conditions are suitable within the work areas, including soil composition and degree of compaction. Any unsatisfactory conditions (such as compaction or lack of organic matter) shall be corrected by the OWNER prior to the start of work. De -compact soil to a depth of 18 inches where construction activities have taken place or where native soils are compacted. 3.1.6 Clearing and Grubbing In the planting area, the OWNER shall remove weedy or exotic invasive species identified by BIOLOGIST prior to plant installation; lists of weedy and/or exotic invasive species likely to be encountered are included below. A complete list of non-native species can be found at the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/). Species identified within the buffer mitigation area and their proposed management include, but are not limited to: Mitigation Planting Specifications 0074209.010.011 City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-1 May 7, 2021 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 167 5.1.a Landau Associates • English ivy should be controlled and removed by cutting climbing vines and prying vines from trees, and hand pulling plant from the ground. Plant parts should be placed immediately into a plastic garbage bag and removed from the site. English laurel and Portugal laurel should be controlled by cutting and stump removal with removing as much root as possible. Stems can be chipped and used as mulch or taken to a landfill. Leaving stems on moist ground might result in some stem -rooting. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.2 Planting and Protection 3.2.1 Layout Plants Plants shall be placed in a random, natural pattern as shown on the plans. Planting locations shown on planting plans are approximate and based on anticipated site conditions. Actual planting locations may vary from those shown due to final site conditions and locations of existing vegetation. Any substantial variations from the planting plan will require prior approval by the BIOLOGIST. 3.2.2 Approve Planting Locations and Spacing BIOLOGIST shall approve proposed plant locations and layout prior to installation by the OWNER. 3.2.3 Plant Installation Detailed directions for planting are described below. Also refer to the Drawings. Revegetation will occur as soon as possible following clearing. 3.2.3.1 Container Trees and Shrubs Plant, tree, and shrub spacing is to be random (natural) and not in a regular grid pattern. The following directions, adapted from the International Society of Arboriculture, must be followed for container plantings (see Details on Drawings/Plans): Dig a shallow, broad planting hole. Make the hole wide, as much as three times the diameter of the root ball but only as deep as the root ball. It is important to make the hole wide because the roots on the newly establishing tree must push through surrounding soil in order to establish. On most planting sites in new developments, the existing soils have been compacted and are unsuitable for healthy root growth. Breaking up the soil in a large area around the tree provides the newly emerging roots room to expand into loose soil to hasten establishment. Identify the trunk flare on tree/shrub. The trunk flare is where the roots spread at the base of the tree. This point should be partially visible after the tree has been planted. If the trunk flare is not partially visible, some soil from the top of the root ball may need to be removed. Locating the trunk flare is important for determining how deep the hole needs to be for proper planting. Place the tree/shrub at the proper height. Before placing in the hole, check to see that the hole has been dug to the proper depth and no deeper. The majority of the roots on the Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-2 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 168 5.1.a Landau Associates newly planted tree/shrub will develop in the top 12 inches of soil. If the tree is planted too deeply, new roots will have difficulty developing because of a lack of oxygen. It is better to plant the tree a little high, 2 to 3 inches above the base of the trunk flare, than to plant it at or below the original growing level. To avoid damage when setting the tree in the hole, always lift the tree by the root ball and never by the trunk. 4. Straighten the tree in the hole. Before backfilling, view the tree from several directions to confirm that the tree is straight, as it is difficult to reposition the tree. 5. Fill the hole gently but firmly. Fill the hole about one-third full and gently but firmly pack the soil around the base of the root ball. 6. Apply fertilizer tablet into hole at 6 inches depth, or per manufacturer instructions as needed. 7. Fill the remainder of the hole, taking care to firmly pack soil to eliminate air pockets that may cause roots to dry out. To avoid this problem, add the soil a few inches at a time and settle with water. Continue this process until the hole is filled and the tree is firmly planted 8. Do not stake trees, unless necessary. 9. Immediately (on the day of installation) water all plants thoroughly unless soils are already saturated. 10. Mulch the base of the planting. When placing mulch, be sure that the actual trunk of the tree/shrub is not covered. Doing so may cause decay of the living bark at the base of the tree/shrub. A mulch -free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base of the tree, is sufficient to avoid moist bark conditions and prevent decay. 3.2.3.2 Seeding When seeding by hand, the seed shall be incorporated into the top % inch of soil by hand raking or other method that is allowed by the BIOLOGIST. 3.2.4 Mulch Mulch shall be applied around all plants throughout the planting to provide weed suppression, insulation, a source of organic matter, and prevent erosion. At least a 3-inch layer of wood chip mulch (coarse mulch or hog fuel) shall be placed around the base of all new plantings to a radius of at least 24 inches. 3.3 Rectification of Accidental Plant Injury Any living woody plant that is damaged during construction shall be treated within 24 hours of occurrence, including wound -shaping treatment, which includes, but is not limited to, evenly cutting broken branches, exposed roots, and damaged tree bark immediately after damage occurs. Injured plants shall be thoroughly watered, and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid in plant survival. Any plants that are visibly harmed such that future growth is jeopardized (such as broken leaders, uprooting, etc.) shall be replaced. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-3 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 169 5.1.a Landau Associates 3.4 Cleanup The OWNER shall be responsible for removing construction materials and debris from the site following installation of plant materials. 3.5 Checklist and Closeout The BIOLOGIST shall verify that all items meet the Specifications listed in this document. Any items that do not meet Specifications will be marked on a checklist for rectification prior to the next phase of work and/or project closeout. If items are to be corrected, a contingency checklist of adaptive management strategies necessary to meet Specifications shall be prepared by the BIOLOGIST and submitted to the OWNER. After punch list items have been completed by the OWNER, the BIOLOGIST shall review and revise the checklist to reflect satisfactory completion. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H3-4 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 170 5.1.a Landau Associates 4.0 MAINTENANCE This section includes recommended maintenance for installed plantings, including, but not limited to: • Correction of Foraging and Browsing: The OWNER may implement measures to prevent damage of plant material by browsing animals (e.g., deer, beaver, rabbits, mice, voles). • Weeding and Maintenance of Trees and Shrubs: Routine maintenance of trees and shrubs shall be performed. Tall grasses shall be weeded at the base of the plantings. Weed control shall be performed by hand removal or installation of weed barrier cloth. No mechanical weed trimmers shall be used after initial site preparation activities • Pruning of Woody Plants: Woody plants may be pruned to allow for safe use of park facilities • Resetting plants to proper grade and upright position, controlling grass and invasive species, and correcting drainage problems, as required. • Irrigation to ensure plant survival. Replacements made by the OWNER shall be completed during the periods set out as planting periods and shall be subject to the same conditions and shall be made in the same manner as specified for the original planting area. OWNER shall be responsible for consistent and adequate water application throughout the growing season. Mitigation Planting Specifications City of Edmonds WWTP Carbon Recovery Project H4-1 Attachment 7 0074209.010.011 May 7, 2021 Packet Pg. 171 ;I. L Clearing Limits (Temporary Impacts) \ N Temporary Construction Access Platform Top of Platform to Match Bottom of Temporary Wall Opening Which will be Closed up with Removable Panels after Construction. Overall Platform Dimensions During Construction 12'W x 25'D. After Construction Leave in Place a 12'W x 12'D Portion to be Permanently Installed. Loading Dock (Temporary Section) Property Line fi F:? Carbon Filter (Proposed) 1 I rD FAN Mcc ROOM 1. SOLIDS HANDLING �I ROOM jI Loading Dock (Permanent Section) i PLCIGYM lI it MCC = STORAGE SOLIDS .co..,wnn:mra PROCESS POLYMER 04JILONG FEED -- DRY I If 50LIDS O,SPOSAL ROOM p r� lea STORAGE w' Wall Opening d (Proposed) 171 Wall Opening Shrub Trimming within 5ft of building, of (Proposed) but no clearing on south side of building Ln Downed trees from clearing limits to be Zplaced in this vicinity as downed large wood �� I ■ Ak Legend Clearing Limits Grass Seed Mix Enhancement Area (460 sf) — Wetland Line Tree / Shrub / Ground Cover Enhancement Area (795 sf) — — Wetland Buffer (110 ft) %I 0 30 60 LANDAU Scale in Feet ASSOCIATES Wetland A Wetland continues to the south and east ToPOF RODTSALLTO8E FLUSH WFrH ORSLIGHFLY ABOVE FTNISM ED GRADE — SET SHRUB VTRAN3H7 AND PLAC£ ROOTSALL O N SOL ID GRO LIM O R ON CON PACTED R4CKF ILL SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSCRUCT1ONS ON PLANTINSFALL4TION. EXTRA GOIL SHALL BE LOCATED PER THE mRECTION OF THE SIOLOO87OR ENGINEER. F IN ISHEO G RAD E r SCARIFYSIDESOF rA.1`OYaALL PLACES'OF BARK MULOH IN SAUCER rO VATHIN:r W THE - TRLINK. ALL CONTAINER PLANre E j` RECEIVE A 24' OIA RFOR R j =� 1-` I - �`EXTSTING NATIVE SDIL OR RESTORATION PLANTING ONLY I .... - I NEtAiY C4Dh1 PAGTE9 TO PSDIL PLA WING P rr - 3 TIMES RODTSALL DIAMETER f'l-' :CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL W-7 l SCALE: NTS TYPICAL ON -CENTER PLANTING GR1D— ❑ F FSET PLANTS TO AVOID STRAIGHT RC P DOM PLANTING DETAIL SCALE' NTS CL (IMP AND SCATTER PLANTS SO THATAVERAGE PLANTING OETISRY IS EQ UIVA LE NT To GRI D SPACING MLY MDC PLANT S PECIES Enhancement Plantings TOTAL AREA = 1,255 sq ft) Scientific Name ICommon Name I#of Plants IStock Size (Spacing (C.C.) Trees Pinuscontorta Shore pine 1 4 6ftmin height 14ft Shrubs Acercircinatum Vine maple 4 8ftmin height 6ft Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron 4 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Ribes sanguineum Flowering currant 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Gaulthoria shallon Salal 5 1.5 ft min height 6 ft Groundcovers Refer to Grass Seed Mix Table Grass Seed Mix isee Grass Seed Mix N/A 460 sq ft Notes: Grass seed mix is limited to area within 6 ft of the SR 104 sidewalk and area of temporary loading dock; no trees orshurbs shall be placed within 6ft from the edge of pavement. Grass Seed Mix Scientific Name Festuca rubra ICommon Name Red fescue I Percent by weight 30 I Application 1201bs/acre Elym us glaucus Blue wildrye 30 Bromus corinatus California brome 30 Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 10 Downed Tree Placement Notes Note 1. Retain segments of tree trunks from 4 to 6 feet in length or longer from trees to be removed. 1. Black and white reproduction of this color 2. Branches may be trimmed and placed on downed trees as habitat piles. original may reduce its effectiveness and 3. Habitat piles shall be layered with larger material at/near base. lead to incorrect interpretation. 4. Avoid damage to adjacent vegetation when placing downed trees. Sources: BHC Consultants, 2020; King C unty Imager Edmonds WWTP Figure Carbon Recovery Project Enhancement Plan Edmonds, Washington Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 172 of k.pM O v �G N CITY OF EDMONDS PSI. 1 aqu 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Notice ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption of (check appropriate box) ® DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other Description of current proposal: The WWTP Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and associated eauipment. The replacement technoloav being proposed is a pas -fired rotary drum dryer and a gasifier: associated ancillary equipment including live bottom biosolids hoppers, conveyors, piston pump: gasifier odor control system, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, and WWTP odor control system. The new dryer and gasification equipment would be housed within the existing incinerator room in the WWTP Solids Processing Building. The new odor control system will be installed on slab on grade to the immediate west of the WWTP Headworks Building. All construction will be within the current WWTP footprint. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: 200 2"d Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020: Tax parcel number 27032300409100 Title of document being adopted: WWTP Carbon Recovery Project Determination of Nonsignificance Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Edmonds Date adopted document was prepared: March 1, 2019 Description of document (or portion) being adopted: A DNS issued for the WWTP Carbon Recovery Protect. The project has been modified where no new building is required as was proposed earlier in the project. The previous SEPA review is still relevant for the modified project. If the documet being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: N/A The document is available to be read at (place/time): The adopted document may be viewed at 121 5ch Avenue N, between 8 am and 4:30 pm by appointment or online at: https://weblink.edmondswa.gov/WebLink/O/fol/1444065/Rowl.aspx We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document: City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 5.1.a WAC (4/15/98) /� tta �j (� fffflgyftmi�g1111SEPA\WWTP Adoption\SEPA Adoption Notice form. /`+� Qv Packet Pg. 173 5.1.a Responsible official: Rob Chave Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 Address: 121 51h Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: December 30, 2020 Signature: `���---- a w 41 d E s �a w r a s r �3 0 a m �a w m 0 a 0 M O O N O N Z J a c 0 E s a WAC (4/15/98) Attad'ftff ryp�pfyt"82020\SEPA\WWTP Adoption\SEPA Adoption Notice fo..do fir"` Packet Pg. 174 5.1.a Off. k:UAfp1P CITY OF EDMONDS -I 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The Waste Water Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator and associated equipment. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units; associated ancillary equipment including a live bottom dewatered sludge hopper, twin-screw feeder and piston pump, a water heater, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, various conveyors and order control system modifications. The pyrolysis equipment would be housed in a new building constructed with the current WWTP footprint. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: 200 — 2"d Avenue S, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300409100 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WA 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by March 15, 2019 Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: March 1, 2019 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than March 22, 2019 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on March 1, 2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunitQecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and proposed amendments are available at https'//permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number STF20190003. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION Attachment 8 2i27i19 SEPA Packet Pg. 175 5.1.a Notice Mailed to the following XX Washington State Dept. of Commerce XX Town of Woodway 906 Columbia Street SW Attn.: Clerk -Treasurer P.O. Box 48300 23920 113th Place West Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Woodway, WA 98020 XX Tulalip Tribal Council XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District 6700 Totem Beach Road 8128 228th St. SW Marysville, WA 98270 Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers XX Department of Archaeology & Historic P.O—Box 37-55 Preservation - - Seattle, WA 98124-3755 PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn.: Director of Fire Services Attn: David Matulich 12310 Meridian Avenue South PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Everett, WA 98208-5764 Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich(@pse.com XX City of Mountlake Terrace SEPA 'Responsible Official XX M. L. Wicklund 6100 219th St. SW, Suite 200 Snohomish Co. PUD Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX City of Shoreline Attn.: Permit Services Manager XX Snohomish County Health District 17500 Midvale Avenue North 3020 Rocker Ave Shoreline, WA 98133-4905 Everett, WA 98201-3900 XX Washington State Department of Health Division of Drinking Water P.O. Box 47822 Olympia, WA 98504-7822 XX Snohomish County Health District 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98201-3900 Attachments pc. File No. SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION Attachment 8 2/27/19.SEPA Packet Pg. 176 5.1.a SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST R F_1_ iM NA"R-`ft, Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not amply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Pagel of 28 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 177 5.1.a art D . Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: INVV-I P Carbon Recovery Project 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Pamela Randolph 200 Second Ave Edmonds, INA 98020 4. Date checklist prepared: December 18, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2019 - 2021 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The proposed system being installed is being sized to accommodate the 20-year projected flows and loads. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An environmental impact assessment was performed during the treatment plant construction when the design engineers chose to use incineration for solids disposal, rather than land application of biosolids. A SEPA checklist was performed for the 1998 Biosolids application. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 28 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 178 5.1.a 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None exist. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Department of Ecology review and approval of Engineering Report and Design Drawings and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) issuance of Notice of Construction (NOC). 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The WWTP Carbon Recovery Project will replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and associated equipment. The replacement technology being proposed is a gas -fired belt dryer and three pyrolysis units; associated ancillary equipment including a live bottom dewatered sludge hopper, twin-screw feeder and piston pump; a water heater, heat exchanger and pumps, heat recovery system, various conveyors and odor control system modifications. The pyrolysis equipment would be housed in a new roughly 50' x 30' building constructed within the current WWTP footprint. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location is 200 Second Ave S. in Edmonds WA. The existing WWTP site is located in downtown Edmonds, nestled between Edmonds Way and 2nd Ave S south of Dayton Street. Due to site constrains, the only available area for the construction of new facilities is the parking lot area on the north side of the Operations Building. The construction area is contained within the 600 building onsite and in the parking lot of the facility. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 3 of 28 Packet Pg. 179 5.1.a Construction staging may take place on City owned property across the street. (see area and site maps below.) 1 MW >aw1 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 180 5.1.a 0) \k '7Z �S 7!tw -.w ,.. cw�. --ram ► «Y rti ♦f 1 * f � Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 181 5.1.a SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July Attachment 8 Page 6 of 28 Packet Pg. 182 5.1.a B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1-2% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The building site is contained within an existing improved site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. M e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No filling is required. Some excavation is required in the footprint of the new structure for access to existing buried pipe on -site and for footings for the new structure. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. f R•n g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No increase of impervious surfaces planned for the project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable to this project. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 28 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 183 5.1.a 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions to the air are expected to occur in the exhausts from the P-Five pyrolysis, units, the water heater, and the sludge tiger and associated sludge management facilities. P-Five pyrolysis units The P-Five pyrolysis units are potential sources of air pollutants associated with pyrolysis of sewage sludge and the combustion of the pyrolysis -derived syngas. NG-combustion during start-up is also a source of emissions. Combustion of syngas (and NG) in the combustion chamber outside the pyrolysis reactor will produce combustion by-products, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM, sulfur dioxide (SO,), volatile organic compounds (VOC). and combustion -related hazardous and toxic air pollutants (HAPs) and JAPs). To reduce pollutant emissions, the exhaust air from the syngas combustion chamber will be treated in a packed bed scrubber for removal of acid gases and other water-soluble cumI,ound.s. followed by an activates! carbon absorption unit for removal of argan.ics tither sorptive constituents (such as mercury). Flue gas recirculation is also provided to reduce NOx formation during syngas combustion. Water Heater The water heater is a 25 MMBtuh NG-fired boiler. Emissions from the water heater will be products of natural gas combustion, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (N0.0, PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and combustion related hazardotiy and toxic air pollutants (HAPs) and (TAPS). To reduce pollutant emissions, the water heater will be equipped with low-NOx burners. Sludge Dryer and Sludge Handling equipment. The sludge dryer will be indirect -heated; the drying air will be heated using process hot water across a heat exchanger. The dryer will be a source of foul air and odors associated with the Sludge Feed. Based on experience invoking appheations of sludge dryers to products with similar moisture content, the dryer is also a likely source of particulate matter' (PM) emissions. Sludge handling equipment includes hoppers and conveyors. Ventilation air from this equipment will be a source of foul air odors. Particulates could also be generated due to material abrasion; given the moisture content of the sludge, particulate formation is expected to be negligible. 1 In the document, unless otherwise specified "particulate matter" or "PM" refers particulate matter in all (both filterable and condensable). SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 184 5.1.a To reduce pollutant emissions, the foul air from the sludge dryer and sludge handling facilities will routed through a packed bed chemical scrubber to remove odorous compounds. The packed bed scrubber will also reduce particulate concentrations. Expected project emissions are summarized below: Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary P-Plve Water Heater Sludge Dryer Project Total Pollutant Ib/hr ton/yr Ib/hr ton/yr Ib/hr ton/yr Ib/hr ton/yr PM2.5 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.27 PM10 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.27 NOx 0.20 0.88 0.03 0.11 - - 0.23 0.99 S02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 CO 0.02 0.07 0.17 0.75 0.19 0.81 VOC 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.13 Pb 2.08E-06 9.12E-06 1.23E-06 5.38E-06 - 3.31E-06 1.45E-05 Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions Sludge Pyrolysis Water Heater Toxic Air Pollutant Ib/hr Ib/yr Ib/hr Ib/yr 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.94E-06 2.58E-02 3-Methylcholanthrene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene 3.92E-08 3.44E-04 Arsenic & Inorganic Arsenic Compounds 1.93E-05 1.69E-01 4.90E-07 4.29E-03 Benz[a]anthracene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 Benzene 5.15E-06 4.51E-02 Benzo[a]pyrene 2.94E-09 2.58E-05 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 Beryllium & Compounds (NOS) 2.94E-08 2.58E-04 Cadmium & Compounds 5.21E-08 4.57E-04 2.70E-06 2.36E-02 Chromium(VI) 6.93E-07 6.07E-03 Chrysene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 Cobalt 2.06E-07 1.80E-03 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 185 Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions Sludge Pyrolysis Water Heater Toxic Air 'Pollutant ib/hr Ib/yr Ib/hr Ib/yr Copper & Compounds 2.08E-06 1.83E-02 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 2.94E-09 2.58E-05 Formaldehyde 1.84E-04 1.61E+00 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 4.41E-09 3.86E-05 Lead and compounds (NOS) 2.08E-06 1.82E-02 Manganese & Compounds 1.46E-06 1.28E-02 9.31E-07 8.16E-03 Mercury, Elemental 3.01E-06 2.64E-02 6.37E-07 5.58E-03 Naphthalene 1.50E-06 1.31E-02 n-Hexane 4.41E-03 3.86E+01 Nitrogen dioxide 1.01E-01 8.84E+02 1.26E-02 1.11E+02 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, NOS 3.01E-10 2.64E-06 Selenium & Selenium Compounds (other than Hydrogen Selenide) 5.88E-08 5.15E-04 Toluene 8.33E-06 7.30E-02 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- <1.7E-11 <1.5E-07 dioxin & Related Compounds, NOS Vanadium 4.22E-07 3.70E-03 5.64E-06 4.94E-02 Hydrogen chloride 2.11E-04 1.85E+00 Hydrogen Fluoride 2.41E-04 2.11E+00 Sulfur dioxide 2.41E-03 2.11E+01 1.47E-03 1.29E+01 In addition to these project emissions, there will be reductions in emissions resulting from retirement of the existing incinerator, Reductions in potential criteria pollutant enlissionc summarized below: Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Reductions from Retiring Existing Sludge Incinerator Air Pollutant Lb/hr Ton/yr Carbon Monoxide -0.373 -1.63 Nitrogen Oxides -0.603 -2.64 Particulate Matter (PM, PM1O, PM2.5) -0.076 -0.33 Sulfur Dioxide -0.133 -0.58 Volatile Organic Compounds -0.15 -0.66 5.1.a SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 186 5.1.a The existing incinerator emits many of the same air toxics as the proposed pyrolysis units. Emission reductions for arsenic and chromium, two toxic air pollutants of particular significance for this project, are summarized below: Arsenic and Chromium Emissions Reductions from Retiring Existing Sludge Incinerator Air Pollutant Lb/hr Lb/yr Arsenic-0.0000245-0.2146 Chromium-0,0000146-0.1279 Hexavalent Chromium-0.0000015-0.0128 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The existing odor control system will be retrofit to accommodate the additional required odor control capacity. Any temporary handling of sludge onsite will be performed with connections to the existing odor control system. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type an provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. To the south of the plant is an existing wetland. The project will not affect the wetland. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The project will require work within the existing treatment plant site and within existing treatment plant building footprint. Both the site and the existing buildings are within 100 ft of the wetland to the south. See figure below. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 11 of 28 Packet Pg. 187 1 5.1.a rs ;f Art Works Edmc N 7 3 -n _3 m (V 4 stewater D Al ties St D iZ N A t Northern -most boundary of car the Edmonds Marsh 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected - Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable to this project. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 12 of 28 Packet Pg. 188 5.1.a See below figure for the 100-year floodplain extents (purple) and the relative location of the site (existing WW'FP). 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 28 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 189 5.1.a 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable to this project. c. Water runoff (including stormwater). 1) Describe the source -of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. All stormwater flow onsite during and after construction will be contained onsite and directed to the in -plant pump station and treated with the treatment plant flows. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 20 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. M d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Surface, ground, and runoff water will be captured within the existing VVVVf P site and treated onsite. The project will not affect drainage patterns. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 190 5.1.a Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _X_other types of vegetation — general landscape vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None expected as this is an existing improved site. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammal: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: ass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Crows and other various types of birds, squirrels, hummingbirds, rabbits, rats and anything native to a wetland. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unknown. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 28 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 191 5.1.a None. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Unknow & Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. This is a significant energy reduction project however the finished project will use electrical energy and natural gas to power and heat the proposed system. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If -so, generally describe. No b. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Reduction of electrical usage, reduction of diesel fuel, reduction of truck traffic and reduction of material disposed of in the landfill. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. As there would be site construction with heavy machinery and equipment, there would be some level of risk associated with damaged machinery causing spills of oil, coolant or other fluids. That would also involve some small risk of fire or explosion due to the use of combustible fuels. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 192 5.1.a There is an existing underground diesel fuel storage tank in the parking lot There is a buried natural gas service line to the site. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be sto(ed, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None known. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known S} Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None expected. [�iRam- 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Automobile traffic and ferry terminal traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short. -term or a long-term basis (for example. traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical construction noise from heavy equipment including potentially excavators bulldozers, backhoe-loaders or cranes. Dump trucks will haul material. Including rock riprap and excess soil materials, to and from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. All construction will occur in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? VVill the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The current use of the site is a waste water treatment plant and this will not change. No, the proposal will not affect nearby properties- b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 17 of 28 Packet Pg. 193 1 1 1 5.1.a been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non -forest use? 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No c. Describe any structures on the site. A new structure will be built and placed between two current buildings and a primary clarifier (see figures provided.). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? A concrete wall will be removed and minimal modifications to existing structures will be made for the relocation of doors and access. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The WWTP is zoned as Public Use. r c a) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? E WWTP (wastewater treatment plant). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 3 Unknown. �� �v . �- • ��-~L v-�'t�, ti� �� 1 h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, a Cn specify. m Q Unknown. M O O i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N 0 tV 16. J a. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? as E Kif%ne, 2 r k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: a Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 18 of 28 Packet Pg. 194 5.1.a L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Not applicable. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: v, a E Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what 3 o is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 'J The tallest height is 26.67 feet, which is 6.67 feet taller than the existing tallest height. f �W 11 :, "Cn Building design is not yet finalized but it is assumed the building would be steel structure with steel siding. d' rr M o b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 'y N Views will not be altered. CD / N a C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: CD New building will match current architecture. U r 11. Light and Glare a SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 19 of 28 Packet Pg. 195 5.1.a a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Shopping, diving, tours, boating and parks. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. No. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 196 5.1.a c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Not applicable 14, Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Vicinity and site maps of the proposed project are provided. Access to the site would be primarily from SR-104 traveling north and west from either SR-99 or Interstate 5, then from SR-104 onto Dayton eastbound and 2nd avenue S. going southbound. �1 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 21 of 28 Packet Pg. 197 5.1.a 8Z 10 ZZ abed 9loZ AInf (096-6VLU DVM) ISIIM304Z) Ie;uawuoJinu3 Vd3S 'agposep A!!eJaua6 'os 11 6uo!le:podsueal J!e ao '!!eJ 'a91eM ( O �4!u!o!n ale!pawwi eqj ui in000 jo) asn !esodoad ao }oafoid ayj !!!M "a ON '(a}en!ad jo o!!gnd j9gj9gM ajeo!pu!) equosep Alleiaua6 'OS 11 6SAeM9n!ap 6u!pn!ou! jou 'sa!l!!!oel uo!je}iodsueal alels jo a!oAo!q 'ue!ajsapad 's}aaJIs 'spec 6u!Is!x9 01 sjuauaanoJdwi ao Mau Aue aa!nbaa !esodoad ayj IIlM -p -oi!gnd 9y1 of uado jou we saoeds bu!�aed esayl A( jedoad d1NV%A. uo saoeds bu!Naed opgnd-uou g a}eu!ua!!a of sesodoid }oefoid ayl 69jeuiwile !esodoad ao loafoid ay} p!noM Auew MOH 69neq !esodoad loafoid-uou ao joefoid pala!dwoo aql p!noM saoeds 6uiNied !euog!ppe Auew MOH -o -AeMe �oo!q � si snq lsaaeau ay} — sa,k idols l!sueal lsajeau eql o} aouels!p alewixoadde aql s! leyM ';ou l! -aq!aosap Ajjeaaua6 'os j! 61!sueal oggnd Aq panaas Alluaaano eaae oiydea6o96 pa;oa}}e ao aj!s ayj s! -q a�8 1� si+Jowa3 �J p ` • f a•. E — ,abjegaIta4S s " �h•a ,5 I-N, ebb rY V Q L • ar islPUOUII'Ji , fa;PanaiseM spuOuiP3 c' ■h 3 c w�we �s 0 a LS ".,oer, t V. r" rr i VIV 7 41000'10i. ha,a ,a�dDu ,� �OtxBui� 5punwp�� AA ©spuawpa AWN 4i'rr�'FPtiw) iWON SurP,l s liapOa��; Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 198 5.1.a No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non -passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Regarding temporary biosolids disposal during project construction which will affect truck traffic in the vicinity. For approximately 6-months the plant will not have the ability to process biosolids. A study and analysis were performed by BHC Consultants entitled "TEMPORARY BIOSOLIDS DISPOSAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM" dated 10/12/2018. Following are excerpts from that study used to quantify those traffic impacts: The purpose of the technical memorandum is to evaluate temporary biosolids disposal options to be implemented at the WWTP during construction of the Carbon Recovery Project. The evaluation herein is intended to outline which temporary biosolids disposal options are available to the City and then assess their feasibility and preliminary costs. During construction, a temporary biosolids disposal strategy will be required to maintain WWTP operation and compliance with its permits. The WWTP is capable of storing biosolids within the system for short periods (typically a matter of hours). However, it is anticipated that temporary biosolids processing will be required for several months, possibly up to a year, due to the expected construction schedule for the WWTP Carbon Recovery Project. The estimated WWTP biosolids production as determined in the Basis of Design Technical Memorandum (BOD Tech Memo), June 2018 is presented in Table 1. The study determined the most practical option is landfilling dewatered sludge. Landfilling is limited to the disposal of dewatered sludge from the WWTP's screw presses in a landfill. The initial step in considering landfilling dewatered sludge includes attaining approval from the landfill site's local Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Ecology (Ecology). Two landfills were identified as potential disposal sites: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill in King County (operated by King County) and Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County (operated by Republic Services, Inc.[RSI]). Disposal at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill was deemed infeasible as it is generally only practiced as an emergency procedure by King County, and approval is only given after all other options are exhausted by the entity requesting disposal. Additionally, King County gives preference to entities seeking disposal that are within King County. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 23 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 199 5.1.a Furthermore, disposal at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill will require that the site be specially prepared for acceptance of the biosolids, which will require a financial commitment from the City that cannot be estimated at this time. For these reasons landfilling costs at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill were not developed, as the option was deemed infeasible. Landfilling biosolids is more commonly practiced at the Roosevelt Landfill. When contracted to accept biosolids landfilling, RSI coordinates approval from Klickitat County Department of Health with typical approval within the same week. In order to dispose of biosolids at the Roosevelt Landfill, the City will need to provide an Ecology approval letter from the Solid Waste Management Program. The City will also need to provide biosolids testing results for full volatiles, full semi volatiles, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 Metals and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) testing prior to disposal. This process usually can be completed within a couple of days. RSI can provide 27-ton capacity containers for disposal. An estimate of landfilling costs at the Roosevelt Landfill is summarized in Table 3. Landfilling dewatered sludge will result in approximately one truck per day leaving the WWTP (containers can accommodate 27 tons and WWTP is expected to produce up to 21.4 tons of wet sludge per day). g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. See narrative in item F above. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None expected. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. Utilities SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 24 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 200 5.1.a a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: _ r; septic system, other d. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The existing natural gas service meter by Puget Sound Energy would likely be modified to provide a higher volume of natural gas as the primary fuel is being converted from fuel oil to natural gas. C. Signature The above answers are-tr:7,cqrf'fhem d complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is reit make its decision. Signature: _ Name of signee Position and Agency/Organization Date Submitted: D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions HELP (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) r Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11.960) July 2016 Page 25 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 201 5.1.a 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It would reduce the discharge of material to the landfill because the resultant end product will be biochar instead of the current ash produced by incineration. Biochar can — - —be lank a pl(`ed. - — - Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? None expected. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It would reduce the use of energy for the WWTP and reduce the need for landfill space. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 26 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 202 5.1.a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? None expected. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? None expected. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? None expected Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 8 Page 27 of 28 Packet Pg. 203 5.1.a 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposal does not knowingly conflict with any laws or requirement for the protection of the environment. It is solely intended to improve environment by reducing energy requirements and creating a useful byproduct. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 28 of 28 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 204 5.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM July 9, 2021 Kernen Lien, Planning Jennifer Lambert, Engineering PLN2021-0028, 0029, 0030 — Setback Variance & Design Review WWTP — 200 2"d Ave S Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with any future building permit application, if any, for development on the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 205