Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-03-28 Architectural Design Board Packet
OF EDA' v ti Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARCH 28, 2024, 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid meeting. Attendees may appear in person or on-line via the zoom link provided. Physical Meeting Location: Brackett Room, 3rd Floor Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N. Zoom Link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09 Passcode:591531 1. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Statement: This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as public hearing. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please clearly state your name and city of residence. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. 8449 : Approval of Minutes S. NEW BUSINESS A. 8454 : PLN2023-0015 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. 8. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 8448 : Review of Individual Member Comments on the 2020 Urban Design Element 9. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda March 28, 2024 Page 1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/28/2024 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve minutes from February 22, 2024 meeting. Narrative N/A Attachments: February 22, 2024 draft minutes Packet Pg. 2 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 22, 2024 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Alex Hutchinson Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 25, 2024 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager = Jeff Levy, Senior Planner 0 MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS Chair Bayer highlighted the Edmonds Code of Ethics and the ADB handbook and thanked everyone for their service. A. 2024 ADB Work Plan Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 22,2024 Page 1 of Packet Pg. 3 a Senior Planner Levy and Planning Manager Clugston reviewed the tentative work plan. Board members asked questions regarding clarification about the ADB's design review process from now until things are finalized at the state level. There was also a recommendation to include design review process and regulations on the work plan in addition to design guidelines. Planning Manager Clugston noted that was the intention. Board members asked about the potential for subcommittee work and joint meetings with the Planning Board. Staff indicated that could happen further down the road. B. Review of the Urban Design Element from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Senior Planner Levy presented on the Urban Design Element. Staff is requesting that the Planning Board go through a Word copy of the document and make suggested changes using any method they choose. He also pointed to reference documents in the packet related to BB 1110 (Middle Housing), BB 1337 (ADU), and HB 1293 (Clear and Objective Standards) as important for the Board to review. Board member comments are expected to be compiled and brought back at an upcoming meeting. There was a question about if such a high level of specificity in the Comprehensive Plan is the best method versus having some overarching policies in the Comprehensive Plan and deferring details to the Design Guidelines where they can be addressed in totality. c Planning Manager Clugston reviewed some of the background on how this has been done to date but expressed openness to doing it a new way. There was some discussion about the need to come up with a clear and objective o definition of "charm" and a desire to prioritize people first, buildings next, and vehicles last. a PUBLIC HEARINGS None BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS There was a question about dates for upcoming meetings that are not yet on the calendar. Planning Manager Clugston explained that they had looked into switching days for the ADB meetings but determined that isn't going to work this year. The intent for now is to have meetings on the 0 Thursdays of the month all year. Special meetings may be scheduled around holidays as needed. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 22,2024 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 4 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/28/2024 Site and Building Design Review of the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project (PLN2023-0015) Staff Lead: Amber Brokenshire Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Amber Brokenshire Background/History This is a new application. Staff Recommendation The ADB is asked to review and provide a recommendation on the site and building design elements of the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project at the Port of Edmonds. Staff is proposing that the Board recommend that the Hearing Examiner approve the design of the project, subject to the conditions, because the project is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the design standards in the code and Comprehensive Plan. Because this project is consolidated with another land use permit (a shoreline substantial development permit), the Board's March 28 meeting is a public meeting, not a public hearing - public testimony will not be taken on March 28. Narrative The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk at the Port of Edmonds Marina and repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach due to significant deterioration. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The project address is 300 Admiral Way and is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The site is also located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation. The proposed development is subject to the zoning standards in Chapter 16.55 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and general design standards in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. The Design Review application in PLN2023-0015 is first reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), who reviews site layout, landscaping, and proposed buildings. ADB review occurs at a regularly scheduled meeting but does not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. The ADB will make a recommendation on project design to the Hearing Examiner, who makes the final decision on both the Design Review (PLN2023-0015) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN2023-0016) following a public hearing. An analysis of the proposal's compliance with applicable site and building design elements are included Packet Pg. 5 in the attached staff report. Attachments: 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Design Standards Statement 3. Project Drawings 4. Project Renderings S. Preliminary Civil Drawings 6. Preliminary Stormwater Report 7. Landscape Plan 8. Lighting Plan 9. Zoning & Vicinity Map 10. Project Site Aerial Photo 11. Shoreline Designation Map 12. Critical Areas Report 13. Geotechnical Engineering Report 14. SEPA Documentation 15. Critical Area Determination CRA2021-0155 16. Cultural Resources Report 17. Port of Edmonds Master Plan 18. Public Notice Documentation 19. Building Department Comments 20. Engineering Compliance Memorandum PLN2023-0015,0016 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Attac' l� CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1292242 - North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Bob McChesney Port of Edmonds Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 336 Admiral Way bmcchesney(@_portofedmonds.orq City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 (425) 774-0549 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State License Number Project Location State Zip License Expiration Date UBI # Number Street 336 ADMIRAL WAY City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 27032300401400 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension E-mail Address Floor Number Suite or Room Number Work Location r V Q Property Owner CL Q First Name Last Name or Company Name y EDMONDS PORT OF Number Street Apartment or Suite Number J 300 ADMIRAL WAY r City State Zip _ EDMONDS WA 98020 s Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and Q authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 3/31/2023 Submitted By: Bob McChesney Packet Pg. 7 Page 1 of 2 Attach U CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildinBPermit.com Land Use Application #1292242 - North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project Contact Company Name: CG Engineering Name: Carmel Gregory Email: carmelg@cgengineering.com Address: 250 4th Ave S. Suite 200 Phone #: (425) 778-8500 Edmonds WA 98020 Project Type Activity Type New New Development Activity Scope of Work Design Review Project Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction The project is located at the Port of Edmonds Marina and will include the reconstruction and Description of repair of a deteriorating section of seawall; reconstruction and renovation of a portion of the Work: waterfront boardwalk (North Portwalk); and construction of two new pedestrian plazas including new restrooms. Project Details Development Type Other Packet Pg. 8 Page 2 of 2 Attach.l� MyBuildingPermitxom Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: North Portwatk and Seawall Reconstruction Application 1D: 1292242 Supplemental Name: Land Use Application If this is a new parcel or lot that does not yet have an address or a County tax account number, please describe the property and its location (otherwise, you may skip this question): Please describe the project and/or proposed use(s) you are seeking approval for with this application (you can upload a more detaile file/letter later in the application, as necessary): The project is located at the Port of Edmonds Marina and will include the reconstruction and repair of a deteriorating section of seawall; reconstruction and renovation of a portion of the waterfront boardwalk (North Portwalk); and construction of two new pedestrian plazas including new restrooms. In addition to Design Review, we are also applying for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit concurrently. See Cove Letter for more detail. Check the boxes indicating all of the related approvals you are seeking for this project (including this application). NOTE THAT A SEPARATE APPLICATION I: REQUIRED FOR EACH APPROVAL. Design Review, Shoreline Permit Packet Pg. 9 of tOk Attach U MyBuildingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: North Portwatk and Seawall Reconstruction Application ID: 1292242 Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning The 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. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje property. I do so certify. c 0 M Q a Q a> N D c M J C d E L U Q Packet Pg. 10 Attach LU MAKERS architecture • planning • urban design make — 60 vb 1 to bring into being by shop ng or altering 2 to form in the mind, a judgment or plan 3 to put together by combining parts 4 to build, construct, formulate, devise, create 6 to prepare for use, arrange 6 to cause to happen RE: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Design Revievl City of Edmonds, WA PLANNING DIVISION 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Reviewing Parties, The Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project creates a public space for residents to gather and enjoy while mitigating environmental impacts and improving near shore habitat in the Edmonds Marina. This project strives to meet all relevant regional, state, and national standards regarding environmental, design, and construction policies. The new Portwalk will improve pedestrian access along the waterfront and create a welcoming environment while also strengthening the downtown/waterfront connection. In accordance with Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan's sustainability and community health goals, as well as Title 24 of Edmonds' Community Development Code's design elements, the proposed Portwalk design improves Edmonds' park and walkway network along the waterfront and supports the community's wellbeing through pedestrian access improvements, new gathering space, and art installation opportunities. The Development Code's public access, recreation, and circulation goals are met by the newly designed walkway, which will widen the north section of the Portwalk by 4' increasing the ability of patrons to safely walk along the waterfront while separated from automotive traffic. The design adds a new, permanent 6" curb and an additional 6'-6" of landscaped area between the walkway and parking, greatly increasing the safety of those who use the Portwalk. The renovation of the parking lot will also improve safety for pedestrians and drivers alike by shifting the parking layout from perpendicular to angled stalls and implementing one- way traffic lanes. This will ensure cars no longer back up straight towards the pedestrian area and will be able to focus on oncoming traffic from a single direction. The project fulfills the Downtown/Waterfront goals of the N Comprehensive Plan by developing public access along the waterfront and enhancing the Edmonds Marina. New signage and art opportunities have a) been created along the Portwalk and in the plazas. a 500 Union Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98101 p 206.652.5080 f 206.652.5079 www.makersorch.com 03_Cover Letter.docx-2/16/23 Packet Pg. 11 Attach..U� MEMORANDUM TO: City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 31, 202323 Page 2 The addition of a plaza and benches along the Portwalk meet urban design, view, and community goals by providing seating and gathering opportunities for individuals and groups. The plaza utilizes stepped concrete seating facing out over the water with views towards the Olympic mountain range. The plaza also provides a new restroom facility and a location for public art, with pedestrian scale lighting along the Portwalk and new lighting in the parking lot to create a safe, inviting environment for those who come to the Port of Edmonds. The portwalk is supported by a stepped seawall bulkhead. The existing lower bulkhead consists of a concrete wall supported by steel piles and will remain in place. The existing upper bulkhead is constructed with timber piles and timber lagging. The upper bulkhead is failing and beginning to compromise areas of the parking lot and walking surface adjacent to the portwalk. The upper bulkhead will be replaced with a new steel sheet pile bulkhead with a concrete cap which will be located under the portwalk. The new sheet pile bulkhead will stabilize and protect the parking area. Additional creosote timber piles near the south end of the portwalk will be removed and replaced with galvanized steel piles to better protect the environment. Galvanized steel will be used to support the new portwalk. Environmental, conservation, and shoreline management goals are met through increased pervious surface on the property, more vegetative coverage, and the use of majority native species in the planting palette. The new design improves the site's shoreline quality and value by increasing light penetration on the near shore habitat under the walking surface using glass block paver panels. The additional light under the Portwalk will create an improved environment for fish and other aquatic species, especially juvenile salmon, to avoid large predator species. The project will maintain the character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate (i.e., bulkhead and riprap shoreline) and will also result in in a net gain in aquatic habitat. As a result, the project does not result in a a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. Furthermore, the proposed project's purpose and design are 0 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's SMP for shoreline development. The project's design and construction conform to Q the rules and conditions of Shoreline Substantial Development and a Conditional Use under the City's SMP and will result in no net loss of N shoreline ecological functions. The project will acquire additional permits/approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (in -process). a Packet Pg. 12 RECEIVED PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK & SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION ABBREVIATIONS ARCH ARCHITECT EA EACH FED PEDESTRIAN AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ELEV ELEVATION REQ'D REQUIRED BLW BELOW ENCLOS ENCLOSURE SCHED SCHEDULE BM BEAM ES EACH SIDE SIM SIMILAR BOT BOTTOM FLR FLOOR STF STANDARD BTWN BETWEEN GALV GALVANIZED STL STEEL CIP CAST IN PLACE GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR SYMM SYMMETRICAL CLR CLEAR TBD TO BE DETERMINED CONC CONCRETE GBCP GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PANEL TOC TOP OF CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS L ANGLE TOS TOP OF STEEL COORD COORDINATE MANUF MANUFACTURER TYP TYPICAL DIA DIAMETER MECH MECHANICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DIM DIMENSION NTS NOT TO SCALE DIR DIRECTION OC ON CENTER VERT VERTICAL VFY VERIFY SYMBOL LEGEND 6X12 GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PANEL MODULE © ® -GBCP -GBCP _ ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION FURNITURE ID CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CONCRETE i+ DATUM GLASS BLOCK 1 (� DETAIL MARKER PEDESTRIAN LIGHT ELEVATION MARKER PLANTING AREA ELECTRICAL PANEL TABLE OF CONTENTS LIDO COVER SHEET UDOI GENERAL PORTWALK SITE PLAN UDOI.I DETAILED PORTWALK SITE PLAN UD01.2 PLAZA PLAN & SECTIONS UD01.3 ENLARGED CENTRAL & UPPER PLAZA PLANS UD02 PLANTER SECTION & BENCH DETAILS UD03 PORTWALK GUARDRAIL DETAILS UD04 SECURITY GATES UD04.1 SECURITY GATE DETAILS UD05 SURFACE TREATMENT DETAILS UD06 PED LIGHT & TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS UD07 PLANTING SITE PLAN & SCHEDULE UD07.1 ENLARGED CENTRAL & UPPER PLAZA PLANTING PLANS UD07.2 PLANTING PLAN - CALLOUTS UD07.3 PLANTING DETAILS j0lE-SITE t PROJECTMAP Ilk NTS Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 13 RECEIVED Attachment 3 GENERAL LI NOTE ARE SHOWN BUT NOT MARKED WITHIN PROJECT AREA DOCK"P' DOCK"O" DOCK'R'DOCK"5" ° ° DOCK'T' DOCK"U" DOCK"V" N l f 9 @ EXISTING GENERAL NOTE: TOTALIPROJECT LE G T-VERIFY IN (FIELD J $ - - - DEMO L c� O I,BIGE-0Fi�B1— r^os ene-1 .r ° O Cu O TM�H aKE ^ Y E ^ � P^RK�N� Lor IMPRO�EME�rs PL^H aN- 4 R;7jHR--a—"I Z AD300 AL WAY I m Doi A I O lil c - - - - �rRaSHR—I^CLI- LL 7 J Z N J µ 3 EDMONDS '��I �V•ei Q o >Q \ YACHT CLUB y a > DE 0 0 Q O 0 �M O III OeSNG I O � n 7-1 ...... -. ,.:..:.. w ADMIRAL WAY I L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J L — — — — — — sir-P' — — — W r W Z PLANTING ALONG ADMIRAL WAY 4- ADMIRAL WAY __ o o �' PORTWALK &SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j. j L NO t z GENERAL NOTE: C ,��.,_,,�. HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED 1 11 --- 16�x3�1 I L_TYP-J L_iYP_J-_� I5'-4" 6'-10" I I I I � I I I TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' j ■ 'R j U Tea�. O l e o o e o 00000o Ir �,' � la �� aoe °O TRASH ENCLOSURES' D 11'4" �'.36 P. 000 .W� I I TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' Lo �A r r/r O all A Lu zaa z ajij Lo IM 1= 0 .O L a M c m E t Q�ro,e�t NH. L045 Drawing N. UD01.0 sheet of Packet Pg. 14 RECEIVED AP Attachment 3 _ _ _ — _ — W2 — — — _ — _ _ _ _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ — C DOCK GATE M8N'SEE SHEET SEE SHEET UD05 FOR r 7 DOCK GATE'P' DOCK ' MHHW SU RFACE TREATMENT UD04 9.06 DETAIL$ SEE SHEEP UD04 SEE SHEET `g U Ty,UNO. U - CPNCREiE NLL W Ud P S PE NCLOS RE P, UNO. OW CCNCFEiE WALK UWa § r-----, p PEDESTRIAN LIGHT SEE SHEET UD06 A ZPLANSE OCENTRAL — ,ZE SEE ELECTRICAL PUBLIC / RESTROOM y RE H U 3 Ow v IN EXISTING t z � m .' ! J EDMONDS YACHT CLUB O Q =1 n— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CURB RAMP #5 & 96, SEE CIVIL w W a `� O PROJECT BOUNDARY — (n o03 za O a t a {y 0, EXISTING OIL/WATER SEPARATOR � Y a oLO EXISTING GARBAGE ENCLOSURE 0 Q _H__Lff�� d I ADMIRAL WAY CENTRAL PORTWALK & SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PI AN I . I O z O W FLOATNG POCK o FLOATING GGq( DOCK GATE' SEE SHEET UJ�D$4 X / A `{ F ■ �, c y TYP_ftl� uwa COI W _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �yA` / /O� DOCK GATE'p' _r SEE SHEET UD04Lo DOCKGATE'04 SEE SK GATE'O4 r / Y[ z li — — _CURB RAMP #2 SEE CIVIL � 0 0 M IN P...:. / CURB RAMP#3 PROJECT BOUNDARY O T2I POWDERCOATED CURB RAMP rib ALLUMINUM SEE CIVIL BENCHES -THIS I2I POWDERCOATED ALLUMINUM BENCHES THIS _ REPLACE EXISTING STREET ' L SEE CIVIL AREA _ AREA LIGHT, NEW LOCATION REPIE EXISTING STREET J REPLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION LIGHT, NEW LOCATION III Li - RELOCATEDELECTRIC y I EXISTING ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ] fill EFAAIN IN PLACE UPON LOT REDESIGN [ ?� I CABINET AL UTILITY y^'Lyy T kj `T-U� •3 It I� _ NEW STREET LIGHT NEW STREET LIGHT LOCATION LOCATION EXISTING i0 REMAIN O TO REMAIN I ..yyEXI_ING flo Project No. 204' Drawing No NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j . j UDO 1/16"= 1'V' � Sheet �.% w Q RECEIVED AP Attachment 3 C FLOATING oDOCK DOCK O FLOATING OOq( _ GATE'T DOCK GATE'U' to cl - SEE SHEET UD04- - - - - SEE SHEET UD04 _ — - — UMI- PORf6VA1F MHHW+9.06 GUARDRAIL, SEE:UDI c FACE OF FORTWALK/ -- r- — -- — — C TCON PArytt gym° w LA / 6xC GASS B K J FLOA)ING GGCK T,SEE SHEET SS ,TYP. CURB RAMP#1 SEE CIVIL A I1 A DOCK GATE' SEE SHEET Z O / /� I 'A V' DOCK GATE'jo i- OO Z o RGAiING DGCK SEESHEETU 414 PPER PLAZA %� PLAN, SEE PROSRDPOEE%IEH NOT EUCEXISTING VEHICULAR 300 ADMIRAL WAY P. i � - z � 3 0 - ���✓/-�/�''/�` �I ACCESS TO ADJACENT STRUCTURE .o I DOCK GATE ""`A\ J PFP,.�iHc SEE SHEEP UD04 e F, www 3 CURB RAMP#2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------�-- J — — SEE CIVIL O 0 3 C ' Q� a cl o �• PROJECT t'" BOUNDARY I O Q ;� n CURB RAMP N3 A I INCHES POWDEoyc SEE CIVIL wUMI UMRENNCHE-THIS _ REPLACE EXISTING STREET THIS O Z AREA LIGHT, NEW LOCATION REPLACE EXISTING STREET '^\ LIGHT, NEW LOCATION d .IOC \ I � � I r Z RELOCATED ELEC CABINET AL UTILITY e�3j� W NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j .NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN . / �y C ii Y[ z IL o CM N O N Z J a N Cl C 3 R 0 -- m 0 IL ri Project No. 204' Drawing No E UDOI t Sheet C� w Q RECEIVED Apr Attachment 3 GENERAL NOTES: 1. A 10-YEAR WARRANTY IS REQUIRED FOR C SITE FURNISHINGS. - 2. ALL METHODS, MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2018 BUILDING CODE (IBC) AS F' a �-- °� � le•-s°xa•-�a,• le'-6".a• AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY. a o Is•-4•• e•-la• s 3. ALL REFERENCE TO OTHER CODES, ACI, ASTM, ETC. SHALL BE FOR THE LATEST OR z MOST CURRENT EDITION AVAILABLE. I I I I i o 3 Z� o ------------ LiJ = C o�N Q 3be �Q� 3LiJ w o 3 Z — 0 Q� a Ja o<M � � � O CENTRAL PLAZA SITE PLAN U ug=ra � � W Lu r, o IL F� PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO RELOCATED ELEC SUBSTATION " CD POLE SYSTEM, MANUF7t1 POLE INSERTS: c M a CV 24'-9' I2'-0" 47'-7" L*- v Teleeseae°creel°y FINISH: 0 COUNT: 31 N \ V POLES: FINISH: COUNT: 10 Jw (y,'Y-��)✓ SHADE SAIL: '—u l� FINISH: 1.� EXISTING PLANTER EXISTING PLANTER R PLAZA MENT DETAIL "� -�. COUNT: CUSTOM-CONFIG AS SHOWN I SEE UD07 FOR PLANTING —— PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO EXISTING RESTROOMS D------------ R ' L 0 _ o GL O EXISTING PLANTER I Ey A ai o �.P Project No. 204' UPPER PLAZA SITE PLAN j . j D,°wi°9 N° E UDO t ua°=r-o^ meet C� w Q 116'-9" PORTWALK. SEE UDO.5.0 URB PLANTINGAREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONIC PER PLAN PER PLAN SEE UM .0 FOR PLANTING PLAN FOOTING AND J� BEAM PER STRUCTURAL TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH PLANTER & PORTWALK uz' = ra' PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL SEES EFUD06FOR SECURITY GATE DETAILS SEE SHEET UD03 FOR PORTW UK, SEE UD05.0 PER PLAIN CONIC PER PLAIN PER PLAIN IS FOOTING AND BEA PER------, �1..ING UNDER GATE -SOUD (BEYOND) STRUCTURAL �,w III 3 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH RAMP, GATE AND GANGWAY "=1'. +16'-Y' I'-0" PORTWALK. SEE UD05.0 PLANTING AREA 6„ PER PLAN 4'-0 ±1'-9' T 6" T 6" CUR BENCH AREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONIC PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK \\' GUARD RAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 BRUSHED ALUMINUM MOUNTED BENCH 06 PORTWALK LEVEL STREET LEVEL FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 1 SECTION THROUGH NORTH PARKING LOT BENCHES & PORTWALK L TION T + 0'-10" PORTWALK. SEE UDD5.0 76.. 76.. GBCP GBCP COINCP ER PER PLAN CENTRAL PLAZA SURFACE TED FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 2 SECTION THROUGH CENTRAL PLAZA PORTWALK OVERLOOK vz' = r-a' 6.. 6,.7 CURSUBSTATION AREA PER P AN CIP CONC� 216-9' PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 T-6„ T-6„ GBCP GBCP PER PLAN�PER PLAN (2) BOLLARDS PER PLAN, SEE UDXX.X FOR BOLLARD DETAIL FOOTINGAND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 4 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BOLLARD, SUBSTATION, & PORTWALK 1 iz'_I. PORTWALK I —GUARDRAIL SEE SHEET UD03 m^ .. - 3 V! 3 Z 6' PORTWALK LEVEL O 0 STREET LEVEL (6 ~ U ul PORTWALK O (L , ^ W GUARDRAIL Z N -SEE SHEEP UD03 'o O L F Q W d =_ W Z +6 O O Z W o uveL� 0 .—EL -16-7' PORMALK, SEE UD05.0 .2'4' 7'-6" 7-6" 15'-0"MINCLR UNOBSTRUCTED FIRE ACCESS GBCP AISED ORTEN GBCP PER PLAN PER PLAN PLANTERS, SEE PL ANTING PLAN 56" STREET LEVEL ELEVATION CORTEN PLANTER GRADUAL CHANGE -THIS AREA DETAIL PER MANUF. EDGE OF ENSURE TOP EDGE OF CORTEN FACE REMAINS THE SAME EDGE OF CONIC ,,,EXISTING PLANTER ELEVATION BEYOND CURB BEYOND FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 6 SECTION THROUGH EXISTING ROADWAY & PORTWALK uz' -1'-0" O a LID �r o Lu 03 �� N Yi Z cc v a a~ 3 c.i O O L. IL M ' O E m Q Project No. zoas Drawing N. S, - d Packet Pg. 18 Apri 2 PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 15'-IY'MIN CLR '_6" 7-6 7-6 UNOBSTRUCTED FIRE ACCESS AISED GBCP GBCP OFTEERS, PER PUN PER PLAN PLA SEE P NTING PORTWALK PLAN GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 <_6" STREET LEVEL ELEVATION CORIEN PLANTER EDGE OF GRADUAL CHANGE - iH15 AREA ENSURETOPEDGE OF RTEN DETAIL PER MANUF. EXISTING FACE REMAINS THE SAME EDGE OF CONC PLANTER ELEVATION BEYOND CURB BEYOND 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL --'� SECTION THROUGH CORTEN PLANTERS BETWEEN DOCKS'T' &'U' t16' 9" PREC,.AST TO, SEE UD05.0 C�jtNC IS'-0"MIN CLR 6' 6' TIL W/ +4' 7'-6' 7'-6„ UNOBSTRUCTED SEE PLANTING PLAN R CI GBCP GBCP FIRE ACCESS P LE CO C PFR PLAN PFR PLAN OWN S PRP N 3" H CURB P UARDR K AROUND PLANTING AREA GUARDRAIL - SEESHEET UD03 PROVIDE BRICK TO MATCH EXIST PVMi AREA1 ALIGN 6 sTReeravomwuKiev[T 0 srR-LEVELeEYono -_-__ FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 1 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH UPPER PLAZA PLANTER & PORTWALK SEES EFUD06 FOI SECURITY GATE DETAILS EXISTING PROPOSED PAVEN AVEMENT PER PLAN +6" sTReer a PomwuK iev[T o nRen inE�eeroND SECTION THROUGH EXISTING & PROPOSED PAVEMENT & DOCK "V" GATE T/z' = V-0° 6" CURB FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL +16'-9" PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 6'-6" 7-9" 7.6" RAMP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 ' PORTWALK 06 STREET LEVEL EVEL TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH RAMP & PORTWALK 3 uz=,_0 o Lu N J a Packet Pg. 19 0 Agri 2 • :o NE SET EDGE OF FOOTING, 4" MIN FROM CURB FACE, TYP PROVIDE 3"H CONC 1 '$" 2'-I I" 4'�" FOOTINGS W/ I" CHAMFER AS LOCATED PROVIDE --------1 3'-8" % I S 0" PROVIDE CLEAR INTERIOR FOR Ill 3'-5" 2 DUMPSTERS -SHOWN AS CLEAR INTERIOR FOR CARTS ' DASHED' SHOWN AS DASHED ---------------------------------- --------- 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE'A'-PLAN VIEW L'J uz•=ro" 75'H PANELS W/ POWDER COAT ALUM OR EQUIVALENT (8) 6• SQ., 82•H POWDER COATALUMPOSTS & WELDED BASE W/ PYRAMID CAP (2) 6'-0" X 6'-0" POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTALSTYLE SIDING,SETDOORLEAF4"AFF 6" PORTWALK LEVEL ------ — — — ---------1 --------------� F — 0 STREET LEVEL ENCLOSURE'A' - SOUTH EAST ELEVATION ENSURE FOOTING DOES NOT ENCROACH EDGE OF ADA ACCESS AISLE pp,A ppp,m"m o.------------ ------------ PROVIDE 15'4Y' X I Y 6" CLEAR INTERIOR FOR (2) DUMPSTERS - SHOW N AS DASHED PROVIDE 3•'H CONIC FOOTINGS WA 1" CHAMFER ASLOCATED SET EDGE O FOOTING 'Y'FR M CURB FACE PROVIDE PLATFORM FOR CART STORAGE AREA -ALIGN TO PORTWALK LEVEL PROVIDE PLATFORM FOR CART STORAGE AREA -ALIGN TO PORTWALK LEVEL 6' PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL �1 TRASH ENCLOSURE'A'-SOUTH WEST ELEV/ 1 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL DTRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION 'POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZ STYLE SIDING - SET DOOR LEAF 4•• AFF �----------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - NORTH WEST ELEVATION 15"H PANELS W/ POWDER COAT ALUM OR EQUIVALENT (6) 6" SQ., 8r•H POWDER COAT ALUM POSTS & WELDED BASE w/ PYRAMID CAP (2) 6'-0'• X 4- POW ER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE SE SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF 4"AFF PLAN 10 U STREET LEVEL I2) DUMPSTERS I I I I ---------------- I I I I I OP 0 STREETLEVEL TRASH ENCLOSURE W - NORTH WEST ELEVATION TRASH ENCLOSURE B' -SOUTH WEST ELEVATION n TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - PLAN VIEW j . � j TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN STYLE REFERENECE U uz•=rn" 9 v2"=ro'• ENCLOSURE IMAGE FOR REFERENCE COURTESY OF EADS FENCE COMPANY m ^ '3 V! U N 3 Z c O s O a DJ� �j w w o6 O z Z N Q Q e N p O W = Q O O a c Lu 03 � N Yi z cc v J (L a~ U) tm C 3 m 0 V O L. IL M ' E m Q Project No. zoos Drawing N. Snee a Packet Pg. 20 K Apn 26, 'f ,a 3 77 a � F Lt O O c Fe O U PROVIDE Y X 7•-10•• M (n CLEAR DUMPSTERS-SHO INTERIOR F DASHED R (2) NAS EETLEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL J �+ L � IyUj s .. H EN LOSUREC N RTH EA T ELEVATIN EN LOSUREC N RTH EA T ELEVATINv ^I.L " 1T/R 3 2 2A'='H-0" /1 — Qo CH FFEVOIRDOAEIS3NLHGOSCCWAOT/NE1CD O z SET EDGE OF FOOTING 6" FROM CURB FACE Z � cL Z Q - N Q o d A" C 0< O �� NO ON E 2 .a O W = Q n TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' - PLAN VIEW 4 W IL _PO 75"H PANELS W/ DERCOATALUM OR EQUIVALENT L ` o r �� (2) DUMPSTERS 6" SQ., BT'H 0 m o 0 161 POWDER COAT ALUMLu _____ r _ POSTS & WELDED BASE W/ PYRAMID CAP c'7 3 N N N i of 121 6'-0' X 4'4Y" POWDERCOATALUM 0 N ■■ Q I DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE ■ SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF J 4"AFF w 0 STREET LEVEL v TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION C 3 0 m 0 L. IL c-i " c m E t m P o,e t Q 2045 Drawing N. s, - a Packet Pg. 21 `Apri 2 }k /n1 \ � y 3 5^ RAILING BEYOND - 3 � m N n CENTRAL PLAZA -SO AST ELEVATION Y w 3 zo 's c s O �N a J� z O a O Z �o� Q w Y W ELl E O w D Q rl CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION L,J r CLUB EDMONDS YACHT(NOT Z t BEYOND (NOi i0 SCALED LE) 0 IL ❑ e ❑ o Nmo Lu o3 N aci 3 CENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION d a EDMONDS YACHT CLUB �R � BEYOND INOT TO SCALED v . p a n CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION ++ E m Q Project No. zoas Drawing N. Shee d Packet Pg. 22 RE APn z n PROVIDE JOINT FILLER MATERIAL BETWEEN CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AND GBCP UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT PLAN DETAIL m 3 LJ va°=r-a' d � z C o fC ~ U _ Q N 3 z` �o� o Z a J3 O _ Q <E w n UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL O E z - J �Ne Q v ~ Y 0 < p E0 H Q U W J = o C o �o O � p_ v z o :D O a n UPPER PLAZA PLAN DETAIL Lr) U) o LuN m M Yi o�o 0 42'-0" PLANTERS MIN. N ` o INGROUND POLE MOUNTS PER PLAN SEE PLANTING PLAN PEN ,IF 1 EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ ACCESS Z a i CL OF POLE -MOUNTS --)I a EXSTING GATE BEYOND �RESTROOM I I I I I I I I L ..F 4 CENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION V O L a c m E t m Q P o,e t No. zoas D—ing N. s, - a Packet Pg. 23 Packet Pg. 23 RECEIVED OTYPICALGUARDRAILPLAN �� 2X8 ANNODIZED ALUMINUM TOP HANDRAIL (CONTINUOUS) ANNODIZED ALUMINUM PLATE WELDED TO TOP OF POST 4 ANNODIZED ALUMINUM 2.5'XZ' GUARDRAIL (TOP & BOTTOM AS SHOWN) ANNODIZED ALUMINUM RECTANGULAR BARS ANNODIZEDALUMINUM 4'X4' POST(TYP.) GUARDRAIL POST ANCHOR ATTACHMENT TBD (MATERIAL TO REMAIN ANNODIZED ALUMINUM) AND SHALL NOT OCCLUDE GLASS BLOCK SURFACE SEE STRUCTURAL SET FOR MORE INFORMATION CONCRETE (GRAY)/GLASS BLOCK PANEL (TBD) z m rvU 1. 01 PORTWALK GUARDRAIL SECTION AT POST �f ENSURE ALL GUARDRAIL OPENINGS TO BE <4" TYP. 00 00 0 o I I o 0 TYPICALPORTWALK GUARDRAIL CONNECTION U I I=1'-0" GUARDRAIL � EXISTING GUARDRAIL° = = = = EL A >MMM TYPICAL GUARDRAIL ALIGNMENT- RESPECT TO GANGWAYPL o i.. _ ,._" Attachment 3 GENERAL NOTES: I. SMALL WOODEN MEMBERS SHALL H, PRE -DRILLED HOLES TO PREVENT SPUTA DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL BOLTS. NUTS, WASHERS, ETC. SW HOT DIPPER GALVANIZED AFTER FABRIC IN ACCORDANCE W/ ASTM A153. (a V/ 3 Z O P- 1. j 3 z Zo � �o-o t O w� ` 0 (L . z 0 I i �Qa I �ww 0 Z N .. I 003 I (n Z - Q o EXTEND HANDRAIL 7 PAST COLUMN, TYP. EXISTING GANGWAY GUARDRAIL ENSURE ALL G TO BE <4' TYP. 4 TYPICAL PORPNALK GUARDRAIL ELEVATION AT GANGWAY,TYP. ,..=,VZ. I L -_1 , ---I ° �, GUARDRAIL ALIGNMENT ON DOCK IN M �11. E t QProject No. 2045 Drawing No. U D03.0 Sheet of Packet Pg. 24 RECEIVED IUGN SIGNIGE TO CENTER uooa.i foFRE, G DOOR TRA"NCsxo— .1 ARE PEEn,AxUF. RRD. GALVAxam ALCA" GA" 1-1 'ANRDaDEa D�f NE: E— Af —�E DOO—SLID" SGGUVRELueE C ` > ; aL O aLocR PANEL 000P WcTH R—N ^ SECURITY GATE'P';11 R'; P &'UFROM CAT GNLEmRsro ALVaTins�aET TOP EDGE = aCK L—RING �, GATE SIGNAGE DETAIL Poarwn�o�ToocaxG lEeo GUARDRAILp �PEa PUN�y SECURITY GATE'P.'G'; R',T 8,'U' ELEVA110N 3 FOR all- �, SECURITY GATE'M&N' FROM ELEVATION �AxGwAr SECURITY GATE'P'; 0'; R'; T',&'U' PLAN LAYOUT SECURITY GATE'M8N' PLAN LAYOUT L� FOR ATE EEC - _ _ _ Oxnmsloxs SEYONo GATE ioTNPERPIN" F SECURRY GATE'V' FROM ELEVATION �Poarv,ALx eerox0 D �ATE 'M &N'EASi ELEV �1 SECURITY GATE'M &N'WESi ELEVATION �, SECURITY GATE'S'SOUTH ELEVATIOx ��I/4..=1'_a �'.J 1/4"=1'_U �7 -------- 7MMIX- o • J - j— L — — %1 SECURITY GATES' PLAN LAYOUT �J 1/4..=". SECURITY GATES' NORTH ELEVATION EaIOGE /I PIER ------ GA,E SECURITY GATE 'V' PLAN LAYOUT 1w �J E U 17 Attachment 3 GENERAL NOTES 1. VERIFY IN FIELD GANGWAY LOCATIONS THEN PROVIDE 3' CLEARWAY IN-BETWEEN RAILI INSIDE METAL GATES. 3 Z O H U M 3 ZI u�Oo 0 U � w N z 0 Q E V T Z O 3 W w Z— Q .a Q E 0 0 Q O r E 0 w � o U W a �w 0 ~ �N � 3 O 0 a M �� o3rvN C w" 04 o�ao a N 3 0 L. a 6 "o c - m E t QProject No. 2045 Drawing No. U D04.0 Sheet of Packet Pg. 25 RECEIVED ReeH r�oca GATE SIGNAGE REFERENCE FRONT VIEW 1'{Y' =-0 "ATESIGNAGE'M8N' �\ GATE SIGNAGE'P' GATESIGNAGE•Q• LJ r•=ro•• LJ vz•=r-v' LJ uz•=r-a• RR 0v GATE SIGNAGE'R' &GATESIGNAGE'S' GATE SIGNAGE'P GATESIGNAGE•U• GATESIGNAGE•V' LJ vz•=r-a• LJ Iiz•=r-a• LJ uz°=r-a• CJ uz•=1•-0" \J uz•=r-a• Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 26 RECEIVED 01 RAMP ELEVATION FRONT VIEW, TYP. ®r-1 m 17F]FIF o o0 �_ ®�EOFPa EL ED Ir L,LILLLLLLLJ IRKI- TYPICAL CONCRETE &GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN �TVPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLANCONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN �1 RAMP ELEVA11 ON SECTION VIEW, TVP. C, �v S Aivwur RE1CIVIL oOM[ E l-.�_ �\ TYPICAL SECTION OF GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PAVERS N $ TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN PLAN AT PLANTER TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN AT RAMPS 1M.-1'-U" U ############ Attachment 3 Precut Concrete CObn end hnah DOtons GES: I. ALLENERAL OVERWNOTATER PAVING TO BE SPECIFIED WITH ']1R' STRUCTURAL -GRADE GLASS BLOCK, CONFIGURED WITI MORE THAN OR EQUAL i0 5051UGHi TRANSMISSION. 2. ALL PANELS TO HAVE P'MINIMUM CONCRETE PERIMELEF ALL SIDES OF GLASS BLOCK PAVER PANEL. 3. ALL PANELS TO HAVE CONCRETE WITH NATURAL GREY PI Irr�l��►. (VERIFY) R Z ■ ■_ M O H U Df _ Df U c w CONCRETEFINISH- FOR REFERENCE ONLY N �J NITS ^^O O � �aE O �. Z 0 3 Q ,E O OEM E �H D_ � o w a O 0 Z o a r O 0op tt M _ N O N Z a N L 0 O L a 6 o c - m E t U M QProject No Sheet of Packet Pg. 27 RECEIVED CJ 1` ••• AFFIX SIGN 7DR POST12 PER SIGN SIG DR POST(2VE l PER PARKING 6119112A'K,B WFA HH�INGTON ESTATE ADA PARKIN NGSIN PER I .92.1 RAW UK w POW V GENERAL NOTE: (1) PROVIDE AN "ADA PARKING STALL" SIGN PER PLAN. (2) IN ADDITION TO (1), FOR VAN -ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS, PROVIDE "VAN -ACCESSIBLE" SIGN. PROVIDE V MAX. SPACING BETWEEN SIGNS. (3) SIGN(S) TO BE MOUNTED 90 DEGREE ADA PARKING STALL PLAN DETAIL " MIN. ABOVE FINISHED ELEVATION. a O O ADA PARKING SIGN DETAILED ELEVATIONIT �, 60 DEGREE(ANGLED(ADA PARKINGSTALL PLANDETAIL U 1/2.._ ,p -. Attachment 3 2045 Drawing No. UD06.1 Sheet of Packet Pg. 28 RECEIVED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FRONT VIEW 3T1. �rwc[151 aiao odExa �n-[t]unuvsrncm s[eum & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED SIDE VIEW you �1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED BOTTOM VIEW U 11/2"=1'D' 5 dn. PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BRACKET DETAIL 11/2" = 1'Ha NOTE: 'PEDESTRIAN LIGHT' TO BE LEO AREA LIGHT HE SERIES: POLE: 12FI Wi:4 LB EPA: 1.14 FI2 PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR MATERIAL: POW DERCOAT METAL -'TITANIUM' LEO Area Light OMI�I �wA IA.a•c•, .Orr ...w...r Y•�� r r .rwl •i. �. ram. r t\..rr •u � rr r r..r� YwM/ D.r....r1.M•!•+Y rr...rrlrort wrr rrr ar..w �. r..•••...n r.y. UDAt��y\ law ter r..m ar Irrrw wr. n•. r� 1.. u....rrrv. vs.wr rr _ ••.. 7.. = r ... .... — • _� I_S S n 9- • f� �jIF tl AN ��1�.► ��R 'il� 1A� 16 IV n o w � - � , ,r1;i!"�� �14.!IlN1►�t', Ie�dl1\u��1� Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 29 RECEIVED ° OMETRIC PLAN PHOT U ,-�� Attachment 3 } 'M^ V! 3 Z ~ 1 Y M 3 Z� oCL ws �N o ww Z �. g aE N cQI oQ 3 R 0 m 0 L. a cli c - m E t w GENERAL NOTE: Drawing n�. HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED I UDXX Sheet of Packet Pg. 30 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachment 3 0 CITY OF EDMONDS PL kNNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OPTIONAL ADA COMPUANT DUAL HEIGHT DRINKING FOUNTAIN W/ CANE SKIRT EXTERIOR LED LIGHT FIXTURE OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT (TYP 3 PLCS) (TYP 4 PLCS) 12 :a 3 lC J9 3068 3068 DOOR W/VENT W/VENT • • L \ O N ® ® O I Z � n 42'-10" 3' 6'-10" 6'-10. 3' 2'-10" O 1'-6" 26'-0' V-6" .a 29'-0' W W FRONT ELEVATION FOR O REFERENCE 4" CIA PLUMBING VENT PIPE ONLY (TYP 2 PLCS) CEDAR SHAKE TEXTURE r TYP ALL ROOF PANELS 0 BARNWDDD TEXTURE 9 TYP ALL EXTERIOR WALLS M EXHAUST FANS (V (TYP 2 PLCS) Q 12 N I. S.B. Bldg. #7 Spokane, 0 99216 3 r a J'Iu' ` ;a: rn ecast Products a1 N. Ngn.q n Hill—o, T 7664 ®®®® + 3 MONTROSE 3068 CIT. STANDARD BUILDING DOOR •A- �j xmrc �• L i.O �n a �.v�,• r a L ILI 111 111 a co 4 11'-2" 3' 11'-2" = rLorxo. 26'-0" E WILDING ELEVATIONS xo REAR ELEVATION t� (C M-04 r+ r+ Q Packet Pg. 31 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 DEPARTMENT 2'-4'x10' LEXAN WINDOWS (TYP E RH SIDE ELEVATION OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT (TYP 4 PLCS) I -I I -I mmmmmmi��+�■mmmm nummmmmimmmmi�■mm mime■��; mmmm� nmmmm II■Illrl■III�I■Ills■�n.■Illrl■Illrl■Illrl■Ill�lnmdlllrl■Illml MEMNON SHOW �n 11■11 LH SIDE ELEVATION EXTURE ➢ARNWOO➢ TEXTURE MECHANICAL WALL VENT (TYP 4 PLCS) OPTIONAL ADA COMPUANT DUAL HEIGHT `DRINKING FOUNTAIN W/ CANE SKIRT FOR REFERENCE ONLY Attachment 3 0 3 d U) CU M �3+ L O a O Z N _ O E M W 4- 0 r- O a 1141) O M N Z1. SNlimn Bldg.{y Sp* WA M216 I MOW' acast Products 0) N. H*.y ]] Hill. , TX 76W 3 MONTR CXT STANDARDD BUILDING � was roars m rn u� wmm'an'isrnwm� am.mm�marrirmmwr`0v'a 0 a M ++ o oAic1 0-6 E E BUILDING ELEVATIONS t 0 CIO M—OS Q Packet Pg. 32 Attach d �1jlogo rr���V �I!o1� id - �� PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION PORTWALK LOOKING NORTH 3/31/2023 J Packet Pg. 33 Attach d PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION NORTH PARKING LOT 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 34 Attach d PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION SOUTH PLAZA 3/31/2023 Q Packet Pg. 35 Attach d A. PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION NORTH PLAZA 3/31/2023 A: wz Q Packet Pg. 36 0 IL 40- i * r� a oak t � a smog PIN �-�/ I , I• t, Irk, lil�l/lr� r11� i; W\��111111 1111�`�� w• L a • �+ •j 4744, OAIN— r � � `iv J � y l.a . Yam' � f �J - .�y��-` �-` ,'► - �'� � .•Sr_� ��� ��. V ► - �.�. � 'fir '� �� � °'- � � - �k . •,yam ��sy� � y • �„` ^'- i 14 04 ,A� IT".t. ol HOW Attach ffE= PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION RESTROOM AT NIGHT LOOKING NORTH 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 42 I' � v: ` ;��- +c-• � •- ••.:M- thy. - _ - ." i' rw � � - .rr ^?++sue - t.• -.y. 4 4. ` �. ifs ./! . � ' . ^a A � � .. .. a,.. • > b v" �1 ► •r• ✓ tr f . It I RECEIVED PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK & SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION ABBREVIATIONS ARCH ARCHITECT EA EACH PED PEDESTRIAN AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ELEV ELEVATION REQ'D REQUIRED BLW BELOW ENCLOS ENCLOSURE SCHED SCHEDULE BM BEAM ES EACH SIDE SIM SIMILAR BOT BOTTOM FLR FLOOR STF STANDARD BTWN BETWEEN GALV GALVANIZED STL STEEL CIP CAST IN PLACE GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR SYMM SYMMETRICAL CLR CLEAR TBD TO BE DETERMINED CONC CONCRETE GBCP GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PANEL TOC TOP OF CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS L ANGLE TOS TOP OF STEEL COORD COORDINATE MANUF MANUFACTURER TYP TYPICAL DIA DIAMETER MECH MECHANICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DIM DIMENSION NTS NOT TO SCALE DIR DIRECTION OC ON CENTER VERT VERTICAL VFY VERIFY SYMBOL LEGEND 6X12 GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PANEL MODULE © ® -GBCP -GBCP _ ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION FURNITURE ID CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CONCRETE i+ DATUM GLASS BLOCK 1 (� DETAIL MARKER PEDESTRIAN LIGHT ELEVATION MARKER PLANTING AREA ELECTRICAL PANEL TABLE OF CONTENTS LIDO COVER SHEET UDOI GENERAL PORTWALK SITE PLAN UDOI.I DETAILED PORTWALK SITE PLAN UD01.2 PLAZA PLAN & SECTIONS UD01.3 ENLARGED CENTRAL & UPPER PLAZA PLANS UD02 PLANTER SECTION & BENCH DETAILS UD03 PORTWALK GUARDRAIL DETAILS UD04 SECURITY GATES UD04.1 SECURITY GATE DETAILS UD05 SURFACE TREATMENT DETAILS UD06 PED LIGHT & TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS UD07 PLANTING SITE PLAN & SCHEDULE UD07.1 ENLARGED CENTRAL & UPPER PLAZA PLANTING PLANS UD07.2 PLANTING PLAN - CALLOUTS UD07.3 PLANTING DETAILS j0lE-SITE PROJECTMAP Ilk NTS A—h—t 5 Packet Pg. 44 RECEIVED Attachment 5 DOCK"M" DOCK"N" DOCK 7' DOCK"O" o DOCK 'R' DOCK"5" DOCK'T' DOCK"U" DOCK"V" e e GENERAL NOTE: TOTALIPROJECTLE G T-VERIFYIN (FIELD $ EXISTING LIGHTS ARE SHOWN BUT NOT MARKED WITHIN PROJECT AREA. J --- DEMO a O� I I o 3 ���Lo��MPao�EME�rsP�A� - - - K�O - �� I �a0 x O ADMIRAL WAY wOU m y�� E d • •. • • • • �I J C L: w I I O 0 EDMONDS Q o Q °E YACHT CLUB Y a W o < O O_ osaSNCM I 1:31a oADMIRALWAY.. .... ... ...... w L---------------------------J L-- � -- PANNGALONG 31-9' IRALWAY —— --J O ~ Z ADMIRAL WAYLJ _ a o L PORTWALK & SITE IMPROVEMENTS PAN j ■ j%� z GENERAL NOTE: r HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED 1 O I6 6' 3'� 16,S x3l I _____� I5'-4" 6'-10" I I I I � I I I N TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' j ■ '� j U TAR-,.�. Fl::t. tl l e o o e o 00000o Ir �,' � R. la �� O TRASH ENCLOSURE'B' ° �- ' x 36' b" x P. P. OO I 000 I I . j Tve=ra�RASH ENCLOSURE'C' j ■ '� �J � U R C E a c as E t P-j-t No. v L045 DL.—g N. aSheet °f Packet Pg. 45 RECEIVED Apn Attachment 5 j ll _ _ _ 1 T7P.— _ _ _ _ _ _ Wf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DOCK GATE M8N'SEESHEET SEE SHEET UD05 FOR r 7 DOCK GATE'P' DOCK MHHW UD04 9.06 SURFACE TREATMENT DETAIL$ SEE SHEEP UD04 SEES HEEP / TY,UNO. �Ixb CONCRETE NLL a UI P S P 14 NCLGS RE W I P, LINO. uoW CCNCRETE WAU( uW1 I' ��♦ r-----, a — — — PEDESTRIAN LIGHT SEE SHEET UD06 A :C 3 O �� CENTRAL PL1 % SUBSTATION, TYP. PLAN, SEE z <? ool�l SEE ELECTRICAL 1 ` �-- RESTROD ill P 6 R 1 I .:I lEXISTING O 1 t N ZfN 3 FP L `� ' EDMONDS YACHT CLUB n — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 CURB RAMP #5 8 96, SEE CIVIL � ^0 w W O PROJECT BOUNDARY T 0 3 Wi z o L a O {y EXISTING OIL/WATER SEPARATOR Z 0 �J EXISTING GARBAGE ENCLOSURE O < 0 y � ch NZ�M;yy1. ADMIRAL WAY = H CENTRAL PORTWALK & SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1 . I �z W ( O FLOAPNG OGCK DOCK GATE' ROAiiNG DOCK SEE SHEET U A 4 C U TYP_ � TYP. 5 1 otr1. JK — — — — — — — —\ DOC GATE'p'_r SEE SHEET UD04 DOCKGATE'R'— SrEE SHEEP UD04 r 0 i E -- SEE CIFB 0 N Z F PROJECT J^ ACURB RAMP #3 A BOUNDARY 1.V 12) POWDERCOATED SEE CIVIL 121 POWDERCOATED ALUMI NUM BENCHES I CURB RAMP#4 ALUMINUM SEE CIVIL AREA REPLACE EXISTING STREET � LIGHT, NEW LOCATION IIL BENCHES -THIS -THIS REPUCE EXISTING STREET AREA LIGHT, NEW LOCATION \ \ \ _ RE PLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION (n \\��\\1\ \�\\ \\��\\\\\ RELOCATED C ELECTRICAL UTILITY L EXISTING ELECTRICAL UTILITIES �• `I 6 CABINET G —'R9R�FfAIR IN PLACE UPON LOT REDESIGN P NEW STREET LIGHT C STREET LIGHT U LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION EXISTING TO REMAIN I i0 REMAIN ..yyEXISTING flo a` Project No. - - 204' ui NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PI AN Sheet L L) a RECEIVED AR Attachment 5 o FLOATING DOCK O FLOATING OOq( DOCK GATE'T DOCK GATED' ISEE O SHEET UD04 �— — — — — — SEE SHEET UD04 -- - PORfWAL�2y F MHHW+9.06 GUARDRAIL,UD UD. SEE: %CE OF PORTWALK/ C TCONCRETE PAN OE J FLDA)ING DOCK T ,SEE SH.11 EET UDO , TYP. RAMP #B SEE CIVIL I A 999\\\ 1 A EMK SHEEiAUE z O / I N I C jo DOCK GATE' �+' O z (� O P SEESHEET Ul I RGAiING DOCK JC A14 -- N I y U g W - �y �Q/' /\/ PPER PLAZA %� PLAN, SEE PROOTSREDPUCCE EXSTNG VEHICULAR ACCESS 300 ADMIRAL WAY P, i I z W O �li �I TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES A G �uANN�� PKP�iH _ I C' Q " L DOCK GATE SEE SHEET UD04 a I L W w ^ ii J CURBRAMP #2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------�-- L� o — — SEE CIVIL O W 3 Wi L0 I Q t Z PROJECT � i,.,,♦ BOUNDARY J. < � CURB RAMP #3 A GATED SEE CIVIL 12t POWDERCOATED INCHES BENCHES THIS I O -THIS ARUMMINUM _ REPLACE E%ISIING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION d REPLACE EXISTING STREET NEW LOCATION�UGHI, \ \ \�� �� •� f 0 IN I = o "0 W RELOCATE ELEC UTILITY CABINET o 0 ^ � NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j . ,w p a � Y[ = o M cQ N Z J a c 3 L 0 U c a Project No. 204' L6 Drawing No UD01 Sheet y t L V f13 a RECEIVED Apr Attachment 5 GENERAL NOTES: 1. A 10-YEAR WARRANTY IS REQUIRED FOR e SITE FURNISHINGS. 2. ALL METHODS, MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2018 BUILDING CODE (IBC) AS I` F' a le•-s°xa•-�a,• le'-e".a• �-- °� �° P_��JI ovavovova, I AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY. a r Is•-4•• e•-la• 3. ALL REFERENCE TO OTHER CODES, ACI, z ASTM, ETC. SHALL BE FOR THE LATEST OR MOST CURRENT EDITION AVAILABLE. I I I C) ~ C) v+ W .Oa r I Vt z cl R O�� o<E O wQ aww Ooa Z — Q J Z iLL„ K d 0 y� E zZ W 4— AL PLAZA SITE PLAN j . j 44 }0a W L0 Y[ = o 1 N -, I IN IO PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO RELOCATED ELEC SUBSTATION N B•, POLE SYSTEM, MANUF777 Z 24'-0•• 12'-0" 47'-7" :°°.,. POLE INSERTS: FINISH: " sg8e8e9vBvBeeB<y Dae:eeBA F COUNT: al POLES: IJ/� Li 1 FINISH: COUNT: 10 SHADE SAIL: EXISTING PLANTER EXISTING PLANTER UPPER PLAZA 002 PAVEMENT PLAN DETAIL _ qSEE FINISH: COUNT: CUSTOM-CONFIG AS SHOWN UD07 FOR PLANTING _ — — 1 1 1 PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO EXISTING RESTROOMS L 7 \ _ o O CL EXISTING PLANTER I •E A ' IL. Project No. 204' Ls UPPER PLAZA SITE PLAN j . j D,awip9 No ++ ua°=r-o^ UDO Sheet (D t a PORPWALK. SEE UDO.5.0 URB PLANTINGAREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONG PER PLAN PER PLAN SEE UM .0 FOR PLANTING PLAN FOOTING AND J� BEAM PER STRUCTURAL TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH PLANTER & PORTWALK uz' = ra' PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL SEES EFUD06FOR SECURITY GATE DETAILS SEE SHEET UD03 FOR PORTW UK, SEE UD05.0 PER PLAIN CONIC PER PLAIN PER PLAIN L—m�� MAIL FOOTING AND BEA PER------, �1..IING UNDER GATE -SOUD (BEYOND) STRUCTURAL �,w 3 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH RAMP, GATE AND GANGWAY "=1'. +16'-S" � ,-0„ PORTWALK. SEE UDD5.0 PLANTING AREA 6„ PER PLAN 4'-0 ±1'-9' T 6" T 6" CUR BENCH AREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONIC PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK \\' GUARDRAIL - BRUSHED \ SEE SHEET UD03 ALUMINUM MOUNTED BENCH 6 PORTWALK LEVEL STREET LEVEL 0 FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 1 SECTION THROUGH NORTH PARKING LOT BENCHES & PORTWALK PORTWALK. SEE UDD5.0 76.. 76.. COINCP ER p GBCP PLAN ��PER PLAN CENTRAL PLAZA SURFACE TED FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 2 SECTION THROUGH CENTRAL PLAZA PORTWALK OVERLOOK vz' = r-a' 6.. 6..7 CURSUBSTATION AREA PER P AN CIP CONC� tl6'1 PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 T-6" T-6' GBCP GBCP PER PLAN�PER PLAN (2) BOLLARDS PER PLAN, SEE UDXX.X FOR BOLLARD DETAIL FOOTINGAND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 4 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BOLLARD, SUBSTATION, & PORTWALK 3 PORTWALK V! _ —GUARDRAIL- .a .. SEE SHEET UD03 3 3 Y_ z 6"PORTWALK LEVEL (� U 0 STREET LEVEL ~ U ul Z G O a z i� OU m W 7 � h o J Z V: I J w w N � C r O z- Q N .a L Q p PORTWALK W 0 M Ll- "' U LLl N -SEE SHEEP U D03 O U 2 F Q ��__GUARDRAIL _ LY O =z +6 a O a Lu 0 NxnTT uvn� Q Q M 04 Z",� o3ry Y J PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 .2.4' 7'-6" 7-6" 15'-0"MINCLR UNOBSTRUCTED FIRE ACCESS GBCP ORTEN GBCP PER PLAN CRAISED PER PLAN PLANTERS, SEE PL ANTING PLAN 56" STREET LEVEL ELEVATION CORTEN PIANTER GRADUAL CHANGE -THIS AREA DETAIL PER MANUF. EDGE OF ENSURETOPEDGE OFCORTEN EXISTING FACE REMAINS THE SAME EDGE OF CONIC PLANTER ELEVATION BEYOND CURB BEYOND FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL C1_ _ ---- _____-- ,- :- - 7-,� 6 SECTION THROUGH EXISTING ROADWAY & PORTWALK uz = r-0^ 3 L 0 G> L ' a" ui Project No. 2045 D Wine N. Q s 6P Packet Pg. 49 Apri 2 PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 15'-IY'MIN CLR '_6" 7-6 7-6 UNOBSTRUCTED FIRE ACCESS AISED GBCP GBCP OFTEERS, PER PUN PER PLAN PLA SEE P NTING PLAN GUARDRAIL SHEET UD03 '6' STREET LEVEL ELEVATION CORIEN PLANTER EDGE OF UAL GRADCHANGE - iH15 AREA CH ENSURE TOP EDGE OF CORTEN DETAIL PER MANUF. EXISTING FACER MAINS THE SAME EDGE OF CONC PLANTER ELEVATION BEYOND CURB BEYOND 6" PORTWALK LEVEL D STREET LEVEL FOOTINGAND'� BEAM PER STRUCTURAL SECTION THROUGH CORTEN PLANTERS BETWEEN DOCKS'T' &'U' uz' t16' 9" PREC,.AST PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 C�jtNC 15'-0"MIN CLR 6' 6' TIL W/ tY'7'-6' 7'-6„ UNOBSTRUCTED SEE PLANTING PLAN R GBCP GBCP FIRE ACCESS P LE PFR PLAN PFR PLAN OWN S PRP N3"H CURB GUARD LK AIAROUNDPLANTING AREA GUARDRAIL- SEESHEET UD03 PROVIDEBRICK TO MATCH EXIST PVMT IN ADUAREA 6 STREET avomwuKiev[T 0 sr—UVELBEYonD FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL) -- 1 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH UPPER PLAZA PLANTER & PORTWALK `J 1/2"=1'{Y' SEES EFUD06 FOI SECURITY GATE DETAILS EXISTING PROPOSED PAVEN AVEMENT PER PLAN +6" srBEEr a PomwnLK LEv[T 0 nREEr LEVEL BBYOND SECTION THROUGH EXISTING & PROPOSED PAVEMENT & DOCK "V" GATE uz' = V-0° 6" CURB FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL +16'-9" PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 6'-6" z-B" 7.6" RAMP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 16' PORTWALK LEVEL S BEET LEVEL 0 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH RAMP & PORTWALK 3 ur=rH. V! L a L0 C EP,-t No. 2045 Drawing N. Packet Pg. 50 it " Ap.l 2 :o NE SET EDGE OF FOOTING, 4" MIN FROM CURB FACE, TYPMl PROVIDE aIT CONC 1 '$" 2'-11•• 4•4' FOOTINGS W/ I" CHAMFER AS LOCATED PROVIDE --------1 Riv,, PROVIDE CLEAR INTERIOR FOR Ill DUMPSTERSHOWN AS -S CLEAR INTERIOR FOR CARTS DASHED' SHOWN AS DASHED ---------------------------------- ---------J TRASHENCLOSURE'A'-PLANVIEW R =ro 75-H PANELS W/ POWDER COAT ALUM OR EQUIVALENT (8) 6• SQ., 82•H POWDER COATALUMPOSTS & WELDED BASE W/ PYRAMID CAP (2) 6'-U' X CHU' POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE SIDING,SETDOORLEAF4"AFF 6" PORTWALK LEVEL - - - - - - - - ----------1 --------------� F - 0 STREET LEVEL ENCLOSURE'A' - SOUTH EAST ELEVATION ENSURE FOOTING DOES NOT ENCROACH EDGE OF ADA ACCESS AISLE pp,A ppp,m"m ------------ PROVIDE 15'4Y' X 10'-6" CLEAR INTERIOR FOR (2) DUMPSTERS-SHOWNAS DASHED PROVIDE 7H CONIC FOOTINGS WA 1" CHAMFER ASLOCATED SET EDGE O FOOTING 'Y'FR M CURB FACE PROVIDE PLATFORM FOR CART STORAGE AREA -ALIGN TO PORTWALK LEVEL PROVIDE PLATFORM FOR CART STORAGE AREA -ALIGN TO PORTWALK LEVEL 6' PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL 2 TRASH ENCLOSURE'A'-SOUTH WEST ELEV/ 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL D3 TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION 6'{Y' POW DER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZ STYLE SIDING - SET DOOR LEAF 4" AFF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - NORTH WEST ELEVATION 15"H PANELS W/ POWDER COAT ALUM OR EQUIVALENT (6) 6" SQ., 8r•H POWDER COAT ALUM POSTS & WELDED BASE W/ PYRAMID CAP (2) DUMPSTERS (2) 6'-0- X 4•-0" POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE SEE SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF 4"AFF N U STREET LEVEL I I I I I I 0 STREETLEVEL TRASH ENCLOSURE W - NORTH WEST ELEVATION TRASH ENCLOSURE B' -SOUTH WEST ELEVATION 1/2 n TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - PLAN VIEW j . � j TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN STYLE REFERENECE Uuz•=rn•• 9 v2"=ro'• ENCLOSURE IMAGE FOR REFERENCE COURTESY OF EADS FENCE COMPANY 3 N _ 3 3 Y Z o 3 U ul Q' ^O 1V Z rn o �u O 0�� Z � w w w o6 o 3 Q O zo 0 E Q , W N MID 'o N O Lu LL n p N �O1 C- Z O L I ~ d o o W O O M 04 O ��N Z Yi o3 a SQ L 0 L � R C L ' a" Project N, 2045 M Drawing N. Q s Packet Pg. 51 Apn 26, 3 O i r_-____ , r____ O PROVIDE CLEAR 11'-0" X 7•-10•• INTERIOR F( R 12) C DUMPSTERS-SHO NAS a Z DASHED 0 STREETLEVEL 0 STREEi LEVEL 'n O o, L s L H EN LOSUREC RTH EA T LEVATN H EN LOSUREC RTH EA T LEVATN v 3 C �o LCHPR VIDE3N.HGCONC1 1T/R 3 2 0. Z E FFEOROAISLOSCWA/ED" � o Vl I �j of fn .T L Z SET EDGE OF FOOTING 6" FROM CURB FACE o p z- a J I I'A" E a w N NO Qe W LL!s:n Ow N O �0 TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' -PLAN VIEW j � j H n d o w L0 75"H PANELS W/ o Q POWDER COAT ALUM OR EQUIVALENT E A (2) DUMPSTERS (6)6"SQ.. 8T'H POWDER COAT ALUM N L I I r POSTS & WELDED BASE W/ o< Z PYRAMID CAP J (2) 6-0 X 44Y POWDERCOATALUM DOOR LEAF ^ v ■■ Q ■ HORIZONTAL STYLI SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF vi `Sl 4'AFF 0 STREEi LEVEL 3 TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION 0 R C E Z L ' a" c EP,-t No. 2045 D Wing N. ++ Q snee a Packet Pg. 52 `AR,i z a� Co 5^ RAILING BEYOND z o s CIO a n CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION o' 0 U1 Li z rn o 77x O Z >Qa sae z z O_ C �o O Q O z- � > �O�e Ed W H Q o O o w 0 d r Q 2 CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION a o �w EDMONDS YACHT CLUB z oU BEYOND (NOT TO SCALED r ❑ a ❑ N �t Lu moN N Z o3 Yi d a j,l v W �1 n CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION a 3 LUB YACHT CLUB EYOND }� ca BEYOND (NOT TO SC fN a 0 I o � �l L ' n CENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION a Project N.L zoos Drawing N. ++ Q snee a Packet Pg. 53 I RE EIVED API z 3 a� n UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT PLAN DETAIL 3 Y z !lf o 3 U Q O a z rn o S � IyUj s N LL' 7�h Z o J 3 O Z o<o a ni J W w W n UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT SECTION DETAILo O z J E ~ Y E W LZ ! n Q EF o J Q D_ p zW a o z o� r O O n UPPER PLAZA PLAN DETAIL U I/4.._L-0.. M 04 O ��N o3 Z Yi 42'-0" PLANTERS MIN. INGROUND POLE MOUNTS PER PLAN SEE PLANTING PLAN PEN �� EQ EQ Q DO ACCEIIEQ ,y �'I 2!_1■ a CLOFPOLE-MOUNTS •� EXSTING GATE BEYOND �RESTROOM •> V n CENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION Z L ' a" c EP,-t No. 2045 D Wing N. ++ Q snee a PROVIDE JOINT FILLER MATERIAL BETWEEN CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AND GBCP Packet Pg. 54 Packet Pg. 54 RECEIVED OTYPICALGUARDRAILPLAN �� 2X8 ANNODIZED ALUMINUM TOP HANDRAIL (CONTINUOUS) ANNODIZED ALUMINUM PLATE WELDED TO TOP OF POST 4 ANNODIZED ALUMINUM 2.5'XZ' GUARDRAIL (TOP & BOTTOM AS SHOWN) ANNODIZED ALUMINUM RECTANGULAR BARS ANNODIZEDALUMINUM 4'X4' POST(TYP.) GUARDRAIL POST ANCHOR ATTACHMENT TBD (MATERIAL TO REMAIN ANNODIZED ALUMINUM) AND SHALL NOT OCCLUDE GLASS BLOCK SURFACE SEE STRUCTURAL SET FOR MORE INFORMATION CONCRETE (GRAY)/GLASS BLOCK PANEL (TBD) z �Q m �U 1. �1 PORTWALKGUARDRAILSECTIONATPOST 3"-I'D ENSURE ALL GUARDRAIL OPENINGS TO BE <4" TYP. OO OO OO OO 0 o I I o 0 TYPICALPORTWALK GUARDRAIL CONNECTION �J I I=1'-0" GUARDRAIL EXISTING GUARDRAIL° ° :lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. ====MEL �m mmmmmmmm TYPICAL GUARDRAIL ALIGNMENT- RESPECT TO GANGWAYPL o i.._,._" A—h—t 5 GENERAL NOTES: I. SMALL WOODEN MEMBERS SHALL W PRE -DRILLED HOLES TO PREVENT SPUTTI (� DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL BOLTS. NUTS, WASHERS, ETC. SH/ HOT DIPPER GALVANIZED AFTER FABRIC IN ACCORDANCE W/ ASTM A153. ,^ 3 Z 3 P= O a z zo s (nos t w N z Z O J I �Qa I W � w E r Ln .. O Ooa I Z - Q o EXTEND HANDRAIL 7 PAST COLUMN, TYP. EXISTING GANGWAY GUARDRAIL ENSURE ALL G TO BE <4' TYP. 4 TYPICAL PORPNALK GUARDRAIL ELEVATION AT GANGWAY,TYP. �J I"= I'O' -_1 AV 0 & GUARDRAILALIGNMENTONDOCK'M&N' �j Lu O a O �+ O L d _ O ~I ^ (L 3 O al Lo Z r CD O 1 04 0 J a 3 L a -- Lo c m E ci 2045 Drawing No. QUD03.0 Sheet of Packet Pg. 55 RECEIVED L—I FOR TRAC_ sxowx nAa_ o_RF FERMA ,ze.. cuvnmzeD uuMwuN care ROLTEDu^AFt, sEE Fux. Dei RaANE: cnNOL —1,_Q_ Ncr DOO HIS SOD 1 R 11-110. C Y_ __ `----' — >; & 1 z aL O aLocR eANEL �000PEREII ^ SECURITY GATE 'P';11 R'; P &'UFRONT LAEIR `xLEnERsro VSTEEL Toe®cFI I ll QCA L—Flxc i s. �, GATE SIGNAGE DETAIL Foaswn�o�TDocaxc O ruu e GUARDRNL p FIR Fux SECURITY GATE'P.'G'; R',T &'U' ELEVATION 3 SEE F TO OR SO— SO E PER p OSECURITY GATE' MIN' FRONT ELEVATION "/ = I_-0 SECURITY GATE" P'; O', R'; T',&'U' PLAN LAYOUTO SECURITY GATE'MMI PLAN LAYOUT L� SEE FOR ATE IAIF�4, nocr EEQ� - _ _ _ Oxn[xsloxs DxD DATE FIDTx PxRe W� ECIGE A SECURTY GATE'V' FROM ELEVATION �Foarv+ALx eeroxD D �ATE'M &N'EASi ELEV �1 SECURITY GATE' MIN' WEST ELEVATION SECURITY GATES' SOUTH ELEVATIOx 114 a� L • J K___ _—. L — — %1 SECURITY GATES' PLAN LAYOUT �J 1/4..=I_p. Attachmeni5 GENERAL NOTES 1. VERIFY IN FIELD GANGWAY LOCATIONS THEN PROVIDE 3' CLEARWAY IN-BETWEEN RAILI LO INSIDE METAL GATES. � 3 Z 3 E_ U O a S Z c n O U c � w N z � Z OJT J ?i EE in w LJ w vareawu as¢Es r VJ T cnreacaowx e O 0 p 3° LLU AL cuARDRAR Z o r aW Q O } M �_'ZPUN C CC [Y O D_ w U eSECURITY GATE 'S'NORTH ELEVATION O = zN xalD E /I FEE cAiews—, SECURITY GATE'V'PLAN LAYOUT �j O LA Z r CD O E M Z 03 (L U) , 3 L 0 U c E d o L — a -- c (D E t H�D;ect ND. ci 2045 Drawing No. QUD04.0 Sheet of Packet Pg. 56 RECEIVED RH¢H ffoaa GATE SIGNAGE REFERENCE FRONT VIEW 1'{Y' =-0 "ATESIGNAGE'M8N' �\ GATE SIGNAGE'P' GATESIGNAGE•Q• LJ r•=ro•• LJ vz•=r-v' LJ uz•=r-a• RR 0v GATE SIGNAGE'R' &GATESIGNAGE'S' GATE SIGNAGE'P GATESIGNAGE•U• GATESIGNAGE•V' LJ vz•=r-a• LJ Iiz•=r-a• LJ uz°=r-a• CJ uz•=1•-0" \J uz•=r-a• A—h,- 5 Packet Pg. 57 RECEIVED 01 RAMP ELEVATION FRONT VIEW, TYP. a� C m e7nrIT o 0 O� IL m u ®LLJ� I 10 s= ®�EOFPa EL EL,JuuLuuuL TYPICAL CONCRETE &GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN �TVPICAL CONCRETE S, GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLANCONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK -TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN DRECTABLE (1 RAMP ELEVATION SECTION VIEW, TYP. so -- N1 �\ TYPICAL SECTION OF GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PAVERS NTS TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN PLAN AT PLANTER TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN AT RAMPS im.-1'-U" U ############ Precut Concrete CObn GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL OVERWATER PAVING TO BE SPECIFIED WITH'71R' end hnah DOtons STRUCTURAL -GRADE GLASS BLOCK, CONFIGURED WITI MORETHANOREQUALTO58% UGHi TRANSMISSION. 2. ALL PANELS TO HAVE P'MINIMUM CONCREIE PERIMELEF ALL SIDES OF GLASS BLOCK PAVER PANEL. 3. ALL PANELS TO HAVE CONCRETE WITH NATURAL GREY FI (VERIFY) U ( ■ ■ Q RRI CONCRETE FINISH - FOR REFERENCE ONLY y J NTS U c L - a -- ui c (D E Project I v z Drawing QILL) sneer Packet Pg. 58 A—h—t 5 RECEIVED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FRONT VIEW 3T1. �rwc[151 aiao odExa uvsrnc[o s[e 3 & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED SIDE VIEW you �1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED BOTTOM VIEW U 11/2"=1'D' s dn. 1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BRACKET DETAIL 11/2" = 1'Ha NOTE: 'PEDESTRIAN LIGHT' TO BE LEO AREA LIGHT HE SERIES: POLE: 12FI Wi:4 LB EPA: 1.14 FI2 PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR MATERIAL: POW DERCOAT METAL -'TITANIUM' LEO Area Light F.O,'. t D.t.*-.• 11 L 1 \LI1 O.IEI� aY1M\I• L•.tc•, .Orr ...w...r Y•�� r r .rwl •u � rr r r..r� YwM/ M t...r1.M•!•+Y N...rrlrort wrr rrr ar..w �. r..•••...n r.y. UDAt��y\ �rrr..m ar tr.w.. wr. trt. r� 1.. u....rrrv. t.rw �•• .. r.. 'I rrwr trr _ ••.. IN I_S S n 9- • f� VAN now A—h—t 5 Packet Pg. 59 WE] RECEIVED CJ 1` ••• AFFIX SIGN 7DR POST12 PER SIGN SIG DR POST(2VE f PER PARKING 6119112A'K,B WA HH�INGTON ESTATE ADA PARKIN NOSIN PER I .92.1 RAW sm m POW V GENERAL NOTE: Ill PROVIDE AN "ADA PARKING STALL" SIGN PER PLAN. (2) IN ADDITION TO Ill, FOR VAN -ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS, PROVIDE "VAN -ACCESSIBLE" SIGN. PROVIDE V MAX. SPACING BETWEEN SIGNS. (3) SIGN(S) TO BE MOUNTED 90 DEGREE ADA PARKING STALL PLAN DETAIL " MIN. ABOVE FINISHED ELEVATION. a O O ADA PARKING SIGN DETAILED ELEVATIONIT 60DEGREEIANGLEDIADAPARKINGSTALLPLAND RAIL U 1/2"=1'p' A—h—t 5 I � � 3 co zU 3 H Z O a z� s u�g � ow= 0 of �Q9 -Wa w w t O on3 E Z- a° I Lu O a, I � M 1 O 0 O t (L Y 3 O Z r CD 0 18 0 (A J W � p:: 3 �a L 0 R E •di o L - a —— L6 c (D E Project No. ci 2045 Drawing No. QUD06.1 Sheet of Packet Pg. 60 RECEIVED APH126,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. NORTH PORTWALK & SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION 300-336 ADM I RAL WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020 OWNER CONSULTANTS UTILITIES ARCHITECT aAx DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER SOIL/GEOTECH EN G INEER SURVEYOR WATER/SEWER/STORM GAS ExOv FIRE IDMONK WA MEA20 I, EDMONDSWAWVI GO r, I1HIIx11@10FTOFED.MONOS.ORG OUNTACT.=TEFAM WILDHABER mxrAn. TARED uxDERRRINK, BE c215 A7Z sTEVEH WARIGHT CKUNALT. DDUO.—A. AZs.n10Z S.BBB.ZZs.sn3 azs.ssL.LW— A STRUCTURAL ENGIN EER PLUMBING ELECTRICALDOE.AIR" GA... HARBOR POWER rvEERs cvA4STArt�AHDDCODE' 'IN FFEDERAW'm EIR'ULESA'NDREGuu .NipxDALLOixER APPLICABLE LOCAL OEIIRCI OOr/PPWP SiANDARO SPECIFIC"O`.FORR ` BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION 111 CTIN Tcxr DEPARTMENT P EDO .1 STDRMwArER MANAGEMENT MAM.L FOR THE PUG se(CURRENT xl 4 IEM= =�'E ILANS MOST BE 11 THE ENGINEER 01 RECORD AND TIE LOCAL .ALCCE 'I FAWN I All E�a•o�= WNPARE.FEE.SEESURVEYFOARRENCHMARNINFDRMATIDNTxERDILDIHGBY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVA11FLE UECCNDI ANDS .. LD T.=BE BE =:DEBED ESREVISEDUs.BGZPROTECTDSTALLLOCAnOxNTIsERVCE(rxi-"eC=OT"azassss�nr =irssr aOxouu nioR H ,wxEREAPPDLABLHAHD=xALL STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH TIE FECOWM OF THIS REPORT, ALL EQUIPM STOINVILINGI.DA xD PRDTECTED ATALLnmes FROM mmPACPYE ACTIVITES H c xBAvr 14 MANHOULS CATCH BASINS, UFFUT ES AND PAVEMENIF 514L BEAR ON YBEIRUM DENSE TO VERY =NATIVE GEOTECIMCAL REPORT, INDICAT11 ON THE PINS. OF IS E BY EENG IF 19 ALL F"TING DRA G GUILDINGS, W ROCKERIES, ETC, SIALL CONIA1 TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTSINDICATEDDAOITAHNAN%SE DRAW'NGs. AIFIIAIPERMITS REauIRED Fo"wnALwnoNOFAusITF wK�EOMoowaToEP.�Kow:E~= M-E=ESP""�EOWNERANNUALLY 11.EDU MINIMUM THEIR PRE ONLY UC ON CONDITIO Ix"AaoROTANCEWI HAPPR PRIATF REQ REMENTS ILE GONTNDLPaxsFOR SPEEIFIGGRADINGANNFRO=IONCONTROL REQU EMENTCON ° nRURIDx.=EEERD=IOx POWERi Nry PUD CABLE &TELEPHONE A.P/.FEERMCE AL OF THE REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR To FF U LOCATIONS MAY BE ECALEN".MDFAVY'N. TEDUALPLATME.—ALL BE All—.. WNEIS 31, EEME�xDRAwINGS(WHEREAPPLIABLE,FDRCONTINDATION01SITEUTIDTIE:WDHIxTHE BG EEL GEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR ENTERIOREIECTRICAL WORK, 3=SEE LAND=uRED Ww (WHERE APP—LE) FOR SITE IRRIGA SY EM. INSTALLED IUCT1 sLDuexCE NEES 1. WDOA.E,asla; Tl1,a'HIURRINGWITH CITY ENGINEERING DIIONAT.1—H.-,E..I- ITANBEMAINTAIxEDUNTIL PERMANENTYEGETA NISFITABE=RDDGxGR DIxGDF=6p=TDOD E� Dw 0, CONSTRUCT BUILDING (ANTICIPATED TO BE IN TANDEM WITH ANACENT APARTMENT SITE) SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STARUUWFON AND APPIUNAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. DATUM TO CONVERT CLEVATIMNE HORIZONTAL 1111DINAT USE Y=TEM, NORTx ZDxE HAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION AACW rsrrt VICINITY MAP C � ABBREVIATIONS moo *I CAUTION( CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI 1-800-424-5555 FGBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION AtU,h,,,t 5 Packet Pg. 61 I Is RECEIVED APn126,2D23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. i— ox-slrcAxo lNTNe now _ _ — — — — — — — — — Cz——u............... _..___.....___...__, _ sows wnxw mry orw1RN uows,smEwAu, sTRlRlrve lry NsiwEcx / -zs' ON zoxns DuxoswE / _ _ b t NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE t DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY c g I FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM At-h—t 5 m 4m GINGGPM AVE s�E(�sl one-uis� �( THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. I O TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AND DEMO PLAN .3 IX 1 i Z No P x as Ro© �. «RARwM—AILC-1 ��M�,v�orvs.nBR�oxa<T1Y�,r.n�,nnn�onnm>��. � O ANI N. PI p Z1 n=m 0noxno sHI.aa-xITRR-A—D11111mosRnn0MllIrvo01E111 =aANNawox—.—L V—«-TING —.1.-orwx NND a Y s. A-10NAL nensnulR O Pumrvc mxSTnurnorv. 7. —INR-10NR RE101111R-10NCoN110111101S1110Rna nnwonNCAN-11, ; O a Q M o v! 0:: w G1 0 o O 0 NBwINRE o z d fSBLDXXXX-XXXX d RDRTNERDRTAtow Ru<DRE � h W w Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' (C DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING —SION v �2.1 m Q Packet Pg. 62 RECEIVED APn126,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. Imo N G� 9 wAmTs �l nNxcR sFE rim[ s J'e' W YlY 9 ��iea �,svw.rtn �� wamc orra� (1191 1RYR0.� y9[tTp �1W11[R S'DIAMEIE�YSAE�� rM� ttld 90'd ]o'd tld NOTES'. 1• a1 9p6. euTTlu�w6E]c1cPVR m ��NUVmr1 MI v.Wu¢�m l�lE SIaE aMWrs. I IN NNN wpm R�,la .-mx,e>. eArAYAw«N�iz«wN ff. r Y npm Y w� sr ee CITY OF EDMONDS WATTLE eIN tALLATION ANDAR R�1e PUBLIC WDRKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL ER-903 OO�O�O �xaea I G1C1 WM NOTES: WOI WI ,. ��q� nY6 wd GQ- OF EDMONDS TEMPORARY PuQF WORKS..SEDIMENT TRAP DEPARTMENT FOR CATCH BASINS STANDARD DETAIL s, , ER-902 2 CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL scau:. N. At-hment 5 m Ilm GINGGPM � (Q5))ne-ss 1 �( N a1 J C O 3 F- ca z O O Ln U a in J Rio oF 10 a oo r Y w o a3 QM G1 0 o 0::w 00 Nn NNEND AITDw F DeE wINeE f56-XXXX ) z d o_ LDXXXX h W w z APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' DATE: �C (D BY: //� //� = CITY ENGINEERING DMSION Y�`.` v m �Y }Y Q Packet Pg. 63 0 RECEIVED APH126,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. - i —� I I DEx EXALR, STRr NEW P. wALR . w RavR, nRN xDGRE-RE RE�=IExEx�E FREH.DR ry ----------�---- I E:� wD iff xna N ii NEwP 'M'NRW—N rvEwnawARPAVER,ENT WEM.N—"R—`STORM L RRNGPA�MExT.wATER L EARav-STORmR sox. R xDRroRMR pxs RE-- x� a pxs,rvEwfaEH�axs� o�i I — -- — ——— — — J J ram_______ ___ _____ _ __r _____ __ _ — ro � ,a R - DNGRE xwNNDLE EwGET x s d I I I I LEI �I 111 k I U '� GLDR 8 ------------ _ - - - - Rsa — F — — _ _ ' so— — — — — — — ---- — — — — — ------ 1-'----------------------------------- � ,.. E. a R GD q.DD D 2D.DD -- - - - - - - pEAN�— � — ___ ry RanC , - - — - ON _n_x_aDIIDx--—— — — — — — � �G NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE tl DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM At-h—t 5 m GINGGRW AVE WAj E., SUIT 20C HIN LxE(9802 tsl) 778D8 s� THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. J 1 OVERALL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN —N o L L. GE.—NICALE—RENOF.—D. LANDAu.—R.An:s. 2 ENDEDPERTHE aEnulaEfnErvrs Df axflis.law_..R.WA...ANUALVDLUxtEV.c 11REpuIRED REttuEEry Dav TIE IPowpp GAsoaxoxEsue<AATINE. ETOSArvrvD SEWER, wn vPAxD Slmahi,ArvD A WRI. mofV PAVING LEGEND IIII. x[PA PHALT LEGS $AWCUI O OVERLAY EXISTING —HALT U Q Q (� .. Naw/aEPLAGE. ReERV—su —El NG.—x�G—):2s axrarvow ED uxfs. NEW/REPuCEDROOF:saLSF.a OFRUNOFFwIUFL=TOExISINGCATCHRASIus, ry o ; N J O Z - Ew//11111DmNC111PAVERIENT:aL,aea sf. vAVEmENT aurvofF WILL coxnrvuE TD—Er Q OD Q - New/xEPucED�AAIEnL. PAVEIEW:1,ste SE. PAVEmErn RUNOEE III corvrN—OSHEETELow Y O T_"TNG_G. RASIxx Q i.D s. THRusr—NGPEN—ILAX... a 3 6, uRU PLANSm nrvpeGy,TI EloxsfoR DecoRATivE FEATURES WITHIN cRE HlrvrvewcoxTE P__ D J J L 0 Q axD wlpaE ) Z d' Z x ao a Fow F aE"fSBLDXXXX XXXX It iri W 0 CL g APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: .✓ BY: CITY C3�1 ENGINEERING DIVISION v m Q Packet Pg. 64 RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. - NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FORT m � m DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY PAVING LEGEND FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM .-AsPxACT/000Trs—T THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED oPE 1111s,IrvGM—LT V , CO STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. NEW CON a a •j rvc ,.PEl�cow/soDONo EIVNI: 1.2s , � , --- uzsw,'1.11 , --------- —_--�—�� —.y,.------- _ sum:,7 --_—_—_—_—____ -- --_-_—__���_�\_ —--i°—_—�—__—-- ---iEi�z --- ——__—_---_—_-------_-----__-�_ ��_,_--__— —_—_—� ------ — -- _ _—_—_---_--- — — — — -- _ A — _---_— _— _—_—_-- �Aola°h—t 5 � GINEERNG ONE asslix5. �0 'oro ( I ACU2s7 ne-ssss ws /ro I ------------ --,'CNCgEFE--WALL— -- �_ _ — _ —.�a.- �� 1e — — r _-:-- d —'d. N a _ _ d T ,� Ems' a a <. 'slF-ix'Nc a —•--- CONCRETE WALK O Bass .9 s's .9.sv l° 0 e s �,� br LE- e< u 11 ,. rK«:.ax9 I i ®sx LLJ i" Tpc x>9, sHm � ws o xa9a"x d� 0 z b / 14 9, 9x --w.—wa---w> loo�x3.x1 I,Ixcx3xb roxxa 5awi -- xoao IL f33, ,T-- d s A 'v 1I I Y 132 Io b Yx 0 d 1 snw[uT ux[ 3°9 xs nbwrvP TAF 13: N N: JPU Z ro: zlofio.zo -zo IL 03/31 /23 l/ L 12°bJ \ 1xf £ B0C.13.0 G]i.9 1313 13.95 _' soc ss° J N I I ' M'bss' 9aaa � x[xolM� xz 1l39a°I9�,PPE°I EIJ �vavxixc --_J IT. I°c3 s°M �izsslmnErz RulsrrnslTr°isruL , L IE Rx^ > H Px J V) °oc 2 U — J a F— - ---,�. o °oc. � x3 aP i � a Pc�is N bP °b Do z -- - -- - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - -— - -- _-- _ -- ---- - - �3 ao a c9 Z vi Z Q rlUX.ER PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN Lf)o1 x�E9BLDXXXX XXXX d j Z w W' ' '° , a ° °© APPROVED E.xFOR PCONSTRUCTION w CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: r/ BY: = ✓3.2 CITY ENGINEERING—SION 0 m �I �1 Q Packet Pg. 65 0 RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. �' ■ o NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY z _ _ FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED F u u STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. o o — — _ — — — — _--. _ _ _ wA�xNG LEGEND ALMT11.1—C] — _ _ — — _ _ _ _ —138 — —. — _ — _ _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — , Ovcxuv rxlSnxG Asrxnrr EI,e 13TW/—lFll lQ.,, x: E(l� VFCRwwo�EAF ow=w1A11 a.6 ame pvv"14 s° o �j �aM i[ 1tn»[�s. vvc w,xv[xF�ow x[I:1n5x —RarE—INGA=PxAIJ iRl Is 13 3 w/ovEn� Now EI: io.z TIP IVI F"WW ""E1: x.ax mm xw, L, . -C - - NI sw.00. _so �- �PAx��x6 L ■ ■ 2 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN s s s rD s© At-h—t 5 m C GINGGFM 4TH AVE tSUIT 20 7 ONE —) 78 uiss 3 z � a L J � a J N � L O x � s a a C7 y o rn Z xwlNxE h z p fSatiBLDXXXX-XXXX d o Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION w 0 CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: .✓ DY: � --w3.3 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION v m Q Packet Pg. 66 MED RECEIVED APn126,2623 " A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. mom \ NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 0 0 0 _ �5 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED u F u STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. ■ o o -- o __—��r■ _ — — — \ NNoaaR 88aapcx _ — — _ _ _ — — — _ — _ ■ WAVING LEGEND -- _-- --z_--___--_-__ - �xt NTRm"C' — — — — — — — — — — -, alsrlxe AsP—T --_,e♦--zxs--_� ��� _-- 3.a3-- s-- — — — — �r !�T ff4 3 ��� '�T�f��x�S��., _� S ttS'T'Vv!"S'`'•S_F-�^�rT_�'�'TT•T_T.�_-_ � .:�rT r��-� �: ��v��.ii�i�-�l�:�_��'��i:����.■�r���:��fi.�ii�alTr�I�:�i�. i=�i� mil. /ol��i��■��I����1���AL�6�oII�w r �0 ��1�®��/.—� ifs �roE. zin Ic 13.so� pin7: z3 ca - �r«:zRse 1e le•N�zone zzo 13.03 i roc z3ss roc z3.zx , . - - - -_-___________________________________ 11 r mmv rRexcx Arcx �.E roa ... _.. 13GV1RVM� L s eMrz 15 s o(veL Fu °cones o �\v�RRBxropaxra�x�s'B/M�/ej/vv�� �°\� no �-0 `NEW IT-IN611RARCH Eor P oNpl,z,o p fo�pRa.pRI3rIN��RpxN�r �--ING. nxo—G. 1LFl.TBo pu ry , , ■ � 1zl RR8 , ■ ■ ■ �,NWEPrxxE,r~p ; 1 Q1' 1 w♦w a♦a 2 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN ,R R : to �R© I 3 L U c NxWINpE f3BLDXXXX-XXXX d APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: .✓ E BY: CITY ENGINEERING DMSION V m Q �At-h—t 5 GINGMM um' <asj 'oro IT 85N io .E(. ne-ssss Packet Pg. 67 MED RECEIVED APn126,2D23 PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. I xnxoaAa vvaA x� O o j elaco«EtsD.ro ROT sso oiE>n3aos 1 12is- EIF ' \ « 1�1 FFxE HroxnxT AssEmeLr G. lo , I - - I wla.3u -- __ — �LE �G�.o% mow« MP G ^ �NEw=TaIPING =,7 . �e �, �oa�EaNT iE is^sl x.To 0-111s __--- --- � oN.=PE=IPE,NALw,Yo �NGA=PxALT � ■ -------' "EwTvvE ca unurr sawcur Pa ® MATCH LINE 1/C3.7 v unB�npINNNsseE 1 MATCH LINE 1/C3.5 , 1 A� \ RTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN Lo o s Lo no© O O aka 11 1 O , O — El — — — 'ER El RZUL Toc. E3 GTvcuva AMP;,P ----- T«. CON -E- -w,r NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. PAVING LEGENG - NEw ASPHALTNTIL—CM 0111—ISTINGr 111 ESBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION C m Q AR-h—Ft 5 Packet Pg. 68 MED RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. Ulu --- z�z u,u O O aka � � aurFaul3s^coxcr Gm.-z.m o^m lelE l3scoti<c [i3.ao O/ — "All / ,Y i `>bc 3e9 lTo 3,i �ra�;;;o L„wFPoYPnx / `, "- ou2i�x __ CONCRETEPAVERS c.. Pe €cTa�AL>" J ° I 1-7 w`\ x C i - m � 1'=o o I IG P°G�r: w7axx LE IE 13o^vvo 1�13�x \ � � I IE13A"c....13e _— ,i 1e 16°wc wor:Ia 12 •� 1 F IE 1/C3.7 1� `\ i �. MATCH LINE 1/C3.8 E 1/C3.6 ♦n ) MATCH LI /1/C3.6 / 2 , fiTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN x o x 0© NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. - PAVING LEGEND xF NTIutt — 0"",'ISnxG—Al 0 x At-h—t 5 m Ilm GINGGPM ITH AVE • (asHIN � (Ams7 ne-uiss 3 z � J L � J N � L O Y r f ¢ Q a � y o rn Z A"owlNaE z InfSBLDXXXX-XXXX d o M Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION w CITY OF EDMONDS }' C DATE: .✓ BY: � --OF3.6 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION v m Q Packet Pg. 69 MED RECEIVED APHI 26, 2B23 A PORTION OF �10u-11:11.» srzsmewax, nr I LINES BTIDnsAw�B, ST ®i a�< LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, so -ovEaur Dclsws AsvxnLr MATCH LINE I/C3.7 , MATCH LINE 1/C3.5 ♦c I NEws alPlrvs oEaAar„ Eis a. . p �� ,„ ■ fovEaE�ISDND�PNALT a ■ ■ F ' —t= Paoa °wowEf°9% I o�AF°—E Im ooP/ W aNT�TaB�PaE.aso /// a; / / / / 1 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN ,o o s A no© W.M. NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. - WAVING LEGEND NEPJTILII sAWM Ovcauv r IIITI — NEW fSBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DNISION At-,,- 5 rn c 3 z � J U< J N � L O Y r E a 3 y o rn Z d o0 0 0M C -3.7 m Q Packet Pg. 70 MED RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. 11ls"11, orr�?_;�A ��% �oNOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE a DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY IE1/C3.7 W, ; v. MATCH LINE 1/C3.8 �o FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM mmM�� THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED E 1/C3.5 ♦c MATCH LINE 1/C3.6 STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. � 1 � ---------------------- xew srawwc PE-1 Eavc9NEI: n loll'&wocswp. voao rexlxrws AsvxnLr mE REoir. goosweara, a�¢ ADMIRAL WAy I& n /LGTT92 0 oG�GI O �I cDNc. PARS I„ s IM ---°---°-- — -off -- I '-:� I I .I I II 10 3 G LEGEND NEW -H I � Ov[auv Dn nx As rxnLr I xE 5 G �9 2 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN lx o At-h—t 5 m C GINGGFM rani' <as) ns°-essa°e A%Ect ))8-3535 N C 3 z �a Q L J � a •= J N � L O Y r E 3 a � y o rn Z atixwlNaE h z p fsBLDXXXX-XXXX d o Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION w CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: �✓ DY: t _,3.8 CITY ENGINEERING DNISION v m Q Packet Pg. 71 RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. Ia►T « [�Y.ONOSI I••C N•DIIANT ASSCYRIT H il•1 �• OF EDMONDS TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION �E NDARD PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL 14CITY s, GU-400 euo ARC C C AAA CAPPEG CROSG CROSG T}IE'�E flfW/ P�WG • c SEE s®e so-aENu C � s�eeN� z��z RENG ,- /.6ENo NOTES: r R� Pwm r FX- 1P x,m usE aE MSRuxm .1o1xrs tr mmxua A T. caxvs.,e R,u� xm mm Rnew eov xo Mnn CITY OF EDMONDS CONCRETE THRUST Rwewr ene BLOCKING PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL I.a uaaau. (�a• (� xmc aj ovmr N^,TES- nMa ro oNmori e a � n1.ReoP xmar srAxom secxrwnora sax • u u eE A.M.. 1x L.- Eaua mlaame uns xar a�nelo r� •owMr ,Ix. MRm Rru ff • .Mw no r rve mNa�ae/u+RMaa. u a r mPx. ux IMw.ID � nc Rwlxmt uP o[mx wPlam TYPICAL HMA AND "CITY OF EDMONDS UTILITY rs sr�E PATCH R� PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL �PRo.Eo xY. A Mx•ax GU-410 L „z• x1»J � / ° eMA,eW.M• 6 w. �.. eT�xe xo uss ,xw a 1x xPmP / w`�`wom ,xtwwrco wim 1O Nam— a axEr I, u ro M� xw xe/e• maw. pgxmc CITY OF EDMONDS CONCRETE x¢�aoae EXTRUDED CURB PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENTpETAIL TR-522 At-,,-5 m 4m GINGGPM VI 3 L J N L O 10 a 00 O p Y_ .� i Q 3 Q Q .00 ui ,r) Z N J allo wILLBE L h Z Q fSBLDXXXX-XXXX a 0 $ a � w On APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' DATE: BY: �3.9 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V m �I }I Q Packet Pg. 72 79 RECEIVED APn126,2D23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. �I I I I I -- - --- ------------- - -I ------ _------- � I 1 -- � -- 1 1 1 _--- - - _ro-- -a— - ---------------- --------- ---- o- „-------z - ----- -- � $ I , _,. s l� l l l l l LEI �I 1 II wCLUB / � o =.8 LZA I ----------- --- e — — — — x �x `�x. F- saoo -- ---- is ----is�sa ---- - F ---11-'----------------------------------- 4' I o I o .2— u.,x „ xx L—C ----- x ,_, — — -- — �AtLtchment 6 GINEERN0 I .,c`c.zm ne-uss x° fPw lry =aE s �rv=.aPml=NCE°A_'_ H N: ,��x _ M TAF O v: JPU ,q < sxaawxenaisDlalD" G < ro: 21060420 o3/31/23 NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE J DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM l 11 g THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCKGATES. I < 1 OVERALL SITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN P xa as ao© •� unu x w L coxwam ToixE rvuxuaPx urvlwarx mArNccoxmoPEVICEs�murm�wEaTlPx sxau z x. aErEaExce Deruxiw.x FDa n°IwTaoFNc mx.aosvmeou, slsx s°Acwe,En. Q U a z N W J coo W Z r Y > J Eis Od a 3 a J cri O 00 �� auBwINaE o z Z "�fSBLDXXXX-XXXX d Z � APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION w N O CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: �✓ BY: CITY C4�1 ENGINEERING —SION v m Q Packet Pg. 73 RECEIVED APn126,2623 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. Tam IN VIM —.. ►\ CONCRETE WALK } d T a 100 At-h—t 5 m GINGGRM VTH AVE • (asHSUIT 20C IN L� < sL� �`ANrowL w ��Na , 0 LLI M Jo wQ � Y C fQ Oa- 'a3 a.J d ho �ac:): x ao a E°w F aE"" E BLDXXXX XXXX a c Lu Z PARTIAL SITEIMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN 20© {� Do N O w '° APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS }' C DATE: .✓ BY: � D14.2 CITY ENGINEERING—SION v m Q Packet Pg. 74 RECEIVED APN136,2D23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. �- — of s \ ` u u DOPITRADTOR TO PROVIDE �~ � � PxasEsbaxo, " CONCRETE isuxs�s;iEi) cP , o a x Px.EssaxD ------------------ ---- ----- ----- _ �� ------ ------ ------ ______________ --------------- — — — — --- —�---------------------------------- — — — — — --�--- RA 1.1E. d- c Dxx o E ;a I aax ExKrexcE ❑ O O O — ❑-- PARTIALSITEIMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN .D o s I Ad) NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. rrra rwr�At+�rEhw�Mr��� H sue..—►��.�.� � .+..` ME an itlY ON r/1M�A 0��Mtr�MIAw�� rs� � w ARE,h—t 5 m GINGGRM ITH AVE • (asSUIT 20C j R.'mo NR(°23J 1188 355DO L H •IIbW �1�r���11����E ioli Q W W Z a - >_o �� V ao H Z wC. aD W J Y � � 2 MUTCD STANDARD DETAIL E ¢ 3 d � scaEE Nrs a J O 00 �� xfs tiDwINBE o z BLDXXXX-XXXX d ? o � Z APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION w N O CITY OF EDMONDS }' C DATE: .✓ BY: � D4.3 CITY ENGINEERING DI -ION v m Q Packet Pg. 75 RECEIVED APN136,2D23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. 0 0 0 ---- W r � ¢ a xoC W�rznrNinnvE � ��D�TItR------- �,��— -- --- -- \ _----- --- -------------------- — ;— _- ---- — --- ---— — — — — — — --�------- ��----------------------------------�,-- -- —_--------- — — — — — - ■ -- --y-- ----- ------ ----- — -- -- --- —J- -� 1 0 oEaAR�6.,� �AIN�INKfEx�E� ,YORAMoaosEo� i �3�aFAIN�waaK 1 ■ ■ m ■ wow ■ Q;Q PARTIALSITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. At-h—t 5 m GINGGRM ETH AVE '<as>N � (�sl ne-uiss (q U CI L� C L� •3 a F- �a F— L z Z •' Q U a z N W J 00 W Z r Y rn > J Eis Od a 3 a J Z O tiowlNaE h z F— fsBLDXXXX-XXXX d ? M � Z APPROVEDpFOR CONSTRUCTION w N O CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: .✓ DY: � �4.4 CITY ENGINEERING —SION v m Q Packet Pg. 76 MED RECEIVED APH126,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. I — — — 4— -4-- —mJ -q �0 313r lz uu --- o -D��_ - o'-------------- ----- / - �� //�orvE BE _ — PxA�Es3ANo° o ,� ,' ,' �' j// , /� ------------------ CON / 1-PG P y— — — — wN� w/�assn�, G — — — ' tRARCH, / rx51, 1 1 vxvsez v —111 1 ______________________ I RFAcIry waaK 72� 1, s TAAu mavu 11 MATCH LINE 1/C4.7 �� ■=MM"=MM=MM�-MMM�ll �MM=I M MM�MM�MM�MM�MM=MMATCHLINEi=N=o ff i1/C4.5 , ■ m NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. fSBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DMSION R R d C l0 Y_ R 3 0 a t 0 z rn c 0 W 0 0 IL O O CV) N O N z J IL 3 L L a L6 C E V Q AR-h—t 5 Packet Pg. 77 MED RECEIVED APn126,2623 .-m'9� 31 z�z u�u a, aB—EEN FOR I A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, R/ O O 0 -- — - — — — — - _ T---- ----_ - / ---\--_----------- ---- Y ---- —ALL IAOe-E CONCRETE PAVERS cNAIN IN FEx�EJ r>en�'"a'cA ® a IE 1/C4.7 W \ E 1/C4.5 , i ILL 0 a TM aNlosE aaso � I �A Wc' m 1 1 _0 Z Ic� 1 1 I I 1 II \ \ m m ' MATCH LINE mi - - - N MATCH LINE OO �NGE 3 EAST, W.M. NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. At-h—t 5 m 4m GINGGPM FTH AVE • (asSUIT 200 j S.'mo NR(A23J 7788 35150 (q U CI L� C < 3 F- �a F- L z Z •' Q U a z 0 w 10 �+ J 00 W Z r Y 01 > J Eis Od a 3 a J O 00 �� N°wILLaE o z F- =BLDXXXX-XXXX d ? o F- O Z APPROVEDp1,11FOR CONSTRUCTION w N CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: �✓ BY: � �4.6 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION v m Q Packet Pg. 78 MED RECEIVED Apn126,= a�< A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. sunvn x wonx suMATCH � 1/C47 ,1 MATCH LINE 1/C4.5 ■n I ■I I ' ■ ■ I I ■ ■ "'vz lx woxK owl ,x ■ c ■c I AN / W■z / / / / / 1 PARTIALSITEIMPROVEMENTAND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. fSBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DMSION At-h—t 5 Packet Pg. 79 MED RECEIVED APn126,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. ti - j — \\ III � psF I IE 1/C4.7 W, \\ MATCH LINE 1/C4.8 �O ■ ■ ,i ■ �� ■ E 1/C4.5 ♦c MATCH LINE 1/C4.6 I i al 1 � 1 � no r _I —'--------- ■ I -� ADMIRAL WAY 7 ------- R--- PRTASMPROVEMENTANDTRAFFICCONTROLPLAN II I 'a 30©t II NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. At-h—t 5 m GINGGRM �E(�s7lne-uis� � (q U CI L� c < 3 F- �a F- L z Q U a z N LJ J W Z r Y rn > J f¢ OD- E a 3 a J O 00 �� tiBwINaE o z F- "�fSBLDXXXX-XXXX d ? MEF- O Z APPROVEDpFOR CONSTRUCTION w N CITY OF EDMONDS }' �C DATE: �✓ BY: = ✓4.8 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION v m Q Packet Pg. 80 RECEIVED OMETRIC PLAN 0 t-asa PHOT Attachment 5 � 3 a� c _ 3 Y � z 1 3 o a z� Q a w W w p N Jo3 z E aE g 0 U c L — a —— ui c (D E P-j—t No. r, zo45 GENERAL NOTE: Drawing N:,. HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPC5ED1 UDXX Sheet Packet Pg. 81 RECEIVED Aplil 26, 2023 Attach..0 OFEDMONDS 3& DEVELOPMENT C � 6 ENGINEERING 250 4th Ave S Ste 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: (425) 778-8500 Fax: (425) 778-5536 civil & structural engineering & planning DRAINAGE REPORT North Portwalk Seawall Reconstruction 300-336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 CG Project No.: 21060.20 Packet Pg. 82 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Table of Contents Section I — Project Overview Section II — Off -Site Analysis Section III — Permanent Stormwater Control Plan Section IV —Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Section V — Special Reports and/or Studies Section VI — Other Permits Section VII — Bond Quantities & Operation and Maintenance Manual 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 83 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31Nt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section I, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section I Summary Overview Existing Condition Developed Condition Minimum Requirements Section I — Project Overview Overview This drainage report has been written for the reconstruction of an existing wood -framed, wooden deck boardwalk at the Edmonds Marina from the Arnie's Restaurant building (300 Admiral Way) to the west/southwest to the Port of Edmonds building (336 Admiral Way). Additional improvements include the demolition of the Port of Edmonds building at the south end of the site, reconfiguration of parking areas, and the addition of a restroom building and concrete walkways. The area to be replaced includes 950 lineal feet of boardwalk which was found to have structural deficiencies after a structural inspection was completed. The total new/replaced impervious area for the project is 29,408 sf (0.6 ac) The project must meet minimum requirements 1 through 9 of the 2019 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (herein referred to as the DOE Manual) and comply with those requirements as modified in the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (herein referred to as ECDC 18.30) and the December 2016 Addendum to ECDC 18.30 (herein referred to as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum). Existing Condition The site is part of a 14.22 acre parcel that is owned by the Port of Edmonds with a "744 Marinas" use code per Snohomish County Parcel Data. The boardwalk abuts asphalt parking lots and buildings. The area of work is located in the northern half of the parcel. The site soils primarily consist of very loose to medium dense, moist fill soils extending to about 15'-25' below grade. The top of the groundwater table was located at 9' below grade during the time of the testing in early June. More about site soils can be found in the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Landau Associates in Section V. The site is located in a seismic hazard area and floodplain. The site is bordered by parking lots/Admiral Way east and south and the marina/Puget Sound to the west and north. There are existing fire hydrants located along the boardwalk that must be relocated for the reconstruction (see civil plans). There are several catch basins and conveyance pipes throughout the site and some off -site that are conveyed to four different outfalls into Puget Sound. Developed Condition The project consists of the reconstruction of approximately 950 If of an existing boardwalk that was found to have structural deficiencies after an inspection. The total new plus replaced impervious area (including ROW) is 29,408 sf (0.68 ac). Disturbance will affect 2.70 ac of the project parcel. Site roof runoff will be 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 84 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2(jlr3inage Report Section I, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT routed to an existing storm main In the project parking area. Runoff from other Impervious site areas will be directly conveyed to the storm main via catch basins and conveyance pipes. The proposed impervious areas (including ROW) are as follows: Roof: 501 sf (0.01 ac) Concrete Walkways: 21,388 sf (0.49 ac) Asphalt Driveway/Utility Sawcuts: 7,529 sf (0.17 ad Total: 29,408 sf (0.68 ac) The new and replaced pollution -generating impervious areas are as follows: Asphalt Driveway/Utility Sawcuts: 7,529 sf (0.17 ad Total: 7,529 sf (0.17 ac) Total parcel area: 4.34 ac o Total hard surfaces: 0.68 ac 4� A PGHS/PGIS: 0.17 ac ate Total disturbed area: 2.70 ac W DAY TLW t OG SUBJECT PROPERTY f 'a PROJECT SITE Figure 1-1: Vicinity map (from Edmonds GIS) 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 85 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 31'kt 3� April 26, 2(JJr3inage Report Section I, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6 7 38 ❑ 4 �OQ Z 7 407 7 7-119 20 7-401 7-11 OUTFALL 7-117 ' 7-335 :PF 2Aco ` 7-1 9 7-115 F O G O 7-112 OC 7.114 ` 7- o / 11� 7-4 o � 305 Figure 1-2: Map with storm pipe material, north end of project site (from Edmonds GIS) C �M ENGINEERING 0 a m L w+ 3 E L 0 co i E L a to c a� E s c� Q 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 86 REC E IVFJ;)lportwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 16,t � April 26, 2CNinage Report Section I, Page 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNI Figure 1-3: Map with storm pipe material, south end of project site (from Edmonds GIS) C 11=M 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 87 REC E N ortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 36t t3� April 26, 2CNinage Report Section I, Page 5 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Figure 1-4: Aerial image (from Edmonds GIS) Minimum Requirements .- Stormwater requirements were determined per the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, ECDC 18.30, and a the DOE Manual. This report is based on the steps recommended in Chapter 7 of the Edmonds Stormwater m L Addendum and Section 3.1.7 of the DOE Manual. The project is classified as a Category 2 because it will result in more than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced hard surfaces. Following the flow chart in Figure 1-4, 3 E Minimum Requirements #1-9 will apply to all new and replaced hard surfaces. o Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans: The stormwater site plan consists of c this report and the civil drawings and is prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the DOE E Manual and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. a L Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): The SWPPP c shall include a narrative and drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation that addresses d E the 13 elements of Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. See Section IV and the civil drawings. M C 4=M ENGINEERING 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 88 w a REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31Nt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section I, Page 6 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution: All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the City. Mandatory Operational Source Control BMPs must be implemented by forming a pollution prevention team, good housekeeping practices, preventive maintenance, spill prevention and cleanup, employee training, inspections, and record keeping. See Section IV for a source control discussion and Section VII for source control guide sheets from the DOE Manual. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls: Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down -gradient properties. All projects shall submit an off -site qualitative analysis. A qualitative analysis of the upstream and downstream system entering the site is presented in Section II. Minimum Requirement #S: On -Site Stormwater Management: The proposed project is classified as a Category 2 per the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. However, since the site is located in a Puget Sound direct discharge area (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv), the project does not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full dispersion. The project must evaluate an alternative list of BMPs. This is discussed in Section III. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment: This requirement applies to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetated areas that will generate pollutants and be conveyed to the public storm system through stormwater runoff. Runoff treatment required because the project will result in greater than 5,000 sf of pollution -generating hard surfaces in a threshold discharge area. This is discussed in Section III. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control: Projects must provide flow control to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. However, flow control is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (ECDC 18.30.060.D.7 a). The project site will discharge to the Puget Sound, and Flow Control is not required. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection: Not applicable. There are no wetlands located in the immediate downstream vicinity of the site or the outfall into Puget Sound. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance: An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and On -Site Stormwater Management facilities. The party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site and shall be transferred with the property to the owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the appropriate 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 89 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March At 3� April 26, 2CNinage Report Section I, Page 7 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept and be available for inspection. See Section VII for O&M Manual. Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area' OR Ikxs the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square tcet or greater° Yes No Minimum Requirements No. I through 5 apply IF Minimum Requirement No. 2 applies Next Question Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces? OR Convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? No Yes Is this a road related protect" All Minimum Requirements applyto the nevi and replaced Teo hard surfaces and converted �— veectatton areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation arras. Tes Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? No No No No additional requirements. Figure 1-5: Flow chart for determining requirements for development (Figure 3.1 in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum) C 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 90 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section II, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section II — Off -Site Analysis Section II Summa Task 1— Define and map the study area Task 2 — Review all available information of the study area Task 3 — Field inspect the area Task 4 - Describe the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems Task 1— Define and map the study area An initial qualitative analysis shall document potential off -site impacts of stormwater discharges for each upstream drainage system entering a site, and each downstream drainage system leaving a site according to Section 6.2 of the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The downstream analysis shall extend from the project site to the receiving water, or up to one -quarter mile, whichever is less. Runoff from the site will be conveyed to the existing stormwater infrastructure throughout the parking lots abutting the proposed development. There are several catch basins located throughout the existing parking lots that will collect runoff from the proposed boardwalk improvements and convey stormwater through conveyance pipes to their outfalls in Puget Sound. See Figures 1-1 through 1-4 (Section 1) for project site and stormwater pipes information. The site is located in the Puget Sound Piped Watershed. Task 2 — Review all available information on the study area Existing stormwater improvements were determined from the survey, the site visit, and the City GIS map. Runoff from the site will be conveyed to Puget Sound through three different outfalls along the proposed development (see Figures I-2 and 1-3). The existing conveyance pipes are generally made up of 8" to 12" PVC and concrete pipes sloping to their respective outfalls. The longest stretch of conveyance pipes that runoff from the proposed development would flow into is near the south end of the development. From CB-2540 (Edmonds GIS), it is approximately 440 lineal feet of pipe to the outfall that is just north of the Port of Edmonds building (336 Admiral Way). The other flowpaths through the conveyance systems are much shorter, being only about 150 lineal feet or less. Task 3 — Field inspect the study area A site visit was done on the morning of June 3, 2021. The weather was partly cloudy. The existing boardwalk is open -grid decking and, therefore, does not contribute runoff to the existing storm infrastructure in the parking areas that abut the boardwalk. The project proposes to replace the boardwalk with a solid surface boardwalk that will be sloped towards the existing parking lot and contribute runoff to the existing storm infrastructure throughout the site. It was observed that there were low points in the existing parking areas where the proposed boardwalk will be sloped to. In order to prevent pooling water, catch basins and conveyance pipes are proposed at the low points. There was 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 91 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section II, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT conflicting information between the topographic survey and the Edmonds GIS Map, so it was deemed to be necessary to remove some catch basin lids to verify IE's and observe existing pipes Figures II-1 through II-3 show two existing storm structures that have conflicting information between the survey and Edmonds GIS. The survey does not show an outlet from CB 3473, Edmonds GIS shows an outlet to CB 7-120, and there are utility locate paint marks on the ground (Figure II-3) that suggest an outlet from CB 3473 towards MH 7-405. Figure II-1: From the north side of Arnie's, facing N/NE 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 92 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March At 3� April 26, 2(J2�3inage Report Section II, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UTILITY LOCATE PAINT i i i Figure II-2: CB 3473 was full of mud, leaves, and water and it needs to be cleaned. Utility locate paint suggests there is an outlet from the CB. After reaching in CB with tool, there was no outlet found. Figure II-3: From MH 7-405, facing W/SW. No inlet pipe from CB 3473 was observed. C 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 93 REC E N ortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 16t t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section II, Page 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT lot I PLEASE. y%^• '-ll AMP* r , I ", WE 1 C 11=M ENGINEERING Figure II-4: Existing boardwalk, facing SW DOCK "T" EXISTING CATCH BASIN giip is nT n m �R�lyi i Figure II-5: Existing boardwalk, facing south t= 0 CL d as E 0 i'% M IL t6 c a� E 0 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 94 w a REC E IVE-portwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section II, Page 5 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Task 4 — Describe the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems The site is in the Puget Sound Piped Watershed. The existing boardwalk is open -grid, wooden boards, so runoff simply falls through the boardwalk into Puget Sound. The proposed boardwalk will be an impervious surface comprised of glass block and concrete pavers that will be sloped back toward the existing driveways and parking lots. Therefore, a new drainage pattern is proposed and runoff will flow into the existing driveways/parking lots and enter catch basins and be conveyed to the existing discharge locations into Puget Sound shortly thereafter. There are no predicted problems with the drainage system so long as the installation and maintenance of drainage facilities are done properly. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 95 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section III, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section III — Permanent Stormwater Control Plan Section III Summary Narrative Feasibility Review Runoff Treatment WWHM Report (Runoff Treatment) WWHM Report (Outfall #1) WWHM Report (Outfall #2) WWHM Report (Outfall #3) StormShed3G Report (Outfall #1) StormShed3G Report (Outfall #2) StormShed3G Report (Outfall #3) Narrative This project is classified as a Category 2 per the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum because it results in more than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced hard surfaces. However, since the project is in a Puget Sound direct discharge area, per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv, the project does not have to achieve the LID Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full dispersion. Runoff treatment is required for this project since the project proposes greater than 5,000 sf of new and replaced Pollution Generating Hard Surfaces (PGHS). Flow control is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (ECDC 18.30.060.D.7 a). The project site will discharge to Puget Sound, and Flow Control is not required. Feasibility Review The project must implement on -site stormwater management BMPs to the maximum extent feasible per Minimum Requirement #5. The following BMPs were evaluated per ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv.A for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed: Lawn and landscaped areas: 1. Post -construction soil quality and depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW will be used for all disturbed pervious areas. Roofs: 1. Downspout Infiltration in accordance with BMP T5.10A is infeasible because the site does not have outwash or loam soils. 2. Downspout Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.1013 is infeasible as site constraints do not allow for the 25-foot vegetated flowpath required. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 96 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section III, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C are feasible and provided. See C3.1 of the plan sheets. Other Hard Surfaces: 1. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12 is infeasible since there is no room on -site to allow for a vegetated buffer and transition zone to disperse the runoff. 2. Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 is infeasible since there is no room on -site to allow for a vegetated buffer and transition zone to disperse the runoff. 3. Detention Vaults and Pipes are infeasible because the project will discharge directly to the Puget Sound, and controlling flows is not beneficial. The boardwalk is proposed to have a cross -slope towards the existing parking lot areas and stormwater infrastructure. Runoff will sheet flow into the existing catch basins and conveyance pipes and be conveyed to the outfalls into Puget Sound. WWHM and Stormshed 3G were used to model the developed flow rates from the addition of the reconstructed boardwalk and the existing conveyance system to check that it has sufficient capacity to convey the existing and developed flows. The reports are included at the end of this Section. Runoff Treatment The project is required to provide runoff treatment for all site Pollution Generating Hard Surfaces (PGHS) per Minimum Requirement #6 of the SWMMWW. The site is commercial and is therefore required to meet the enhanced treatment standard. A Contech Modular Wetland Vault will be installed in the existing parking lot. 4,176 sf of new PGHS and an equivalent area of 3,038 sf of existing PGHS will be routed to the system to meet the required treatment area. Refer to the WWHM Report below for the water quality design flow calculations. The water quality basin map below shows the different areas which flow to the runoff treatment BMP. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 97 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 15-MINUTE TIME STEPS Project Name: Portwalk Reconstruction Outfall 1 Basin Flows Site Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Site Address: 300-336 Admiral Way City Edmonds Report Date: 5/11/2021 MGS Regoin Puget East (36) Data Start 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 03 Version Date: 2019/09/13 Version : 4.2.17 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 2 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 2: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 3 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 3: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 4 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 4: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 5 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 5: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 6 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 6: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 7 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year Packet Pg. 98 RECEIVED Attachn� April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTHigh Flow Threshold for POC 7: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 8 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year = O r v High Flow Threshold for POC 8: 50 year L j c O C.1 d Low Flow Threshold for POC 9 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year 3 High Flow Threshold for POC 9: 50 year m N c Low Flow Threshold for POC 10 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year Y 3 High Flow Threshold for POC 10: 50 year d t O Low Flow Threshold for POC 11 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year Z N C O High Flow Threshold for POC 11: 50 year E W MITIGATED LAND USE Name . Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 O Impervious Land Use acre C PARKING FLAT 0.48 L d Impervious Total 0.48 3 E Basin Total 0.48 p r Cl) Element Flows To: C Surface Interflow Groundwater E .@ L IL Name Basin 2 cc Bypass: No GroundWater: No d E t Pervious Land Use acre v O w Q Pervious Total 0 Packet Pg. 99 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.17 Impervious Total 0.17 Basin Total 0.17 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 3 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.14 0.14 0.14 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 4 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.03 0.03 0.03 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 5 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Attach..0 r- O CL d L d 3 E L O Cl) M C E .@ L a r C d E t v M Q Packet Pg. 100 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.1 Impervious Total 0.1 Basin Total 0.1 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name . Basin 6 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.12 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name : Basin 7 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.22 Impervious Total 0.22 Basin Total 0.22 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name . Basin 8 Bypass: No Attach..0 r- O CL d L d 3 E L Q Cl) M C E .@ L a. r c d E t v M w Q Packet Pg. 101 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTGroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.07 Impervious Total 0.07 Basin Total 0.07 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 9 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 2.3 Impervious Total 2.3 Basin Total 2.3 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 10 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.09 Impervious Total 0.09 Basin Total 0.09 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Attach..0 Q Packet Pg. 102 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Name . Basin 11 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total acre 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.12 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.48 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.48 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.007991 5 year 0.013131 10 year 0.016028 25 year 0.019037 50 year 0.020852 100 year 0.022357 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.11936 5 year 0.1574 10 year 0.18467 25 year 0.221585 50 year 0.250925 100 year 0.281888 Attach..0 Q Packet Pg. 103 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0.17 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.17 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.00283 5 year 0.004651 10 year 0.005677 25 year 0.006742 50 year 0.007385 100 year 0.007918 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.042273 5 year 0.055746 10 year 0.065404 25 year 0.078478 50 year 0.088869 100 year 0.099835 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:0.14 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.14 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.002331 5 year 0.00383 10 year 0.004675 25 year 0.005553 50 year 0.006082 100 year 0.006521 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) Packet Pg. 104 RECEIVED Attachn0 April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT2 year 0.034813 5 year 0.045908 10 year 0.053862 25 year 0.064629 50 year 0.073186 100 year 0.082217 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:0.03 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.03 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.000499 5 year 0.000821 10 year 0.001002 25 year 0.00119 50 year 0.001303 100 year 0.001397 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.00746 5 year 0.009837 10 year 0.011542 25 year 0.013849 50 year 0.015683 100 year 0.017618 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #5 Total Pervious Area:0.1 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #5 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.1 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #5 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.001665 5 year 0.002736 Packet Pg. 105 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTIO year 0.003339 25 year 0.003966 50 year 0.004344 100 year 0.004658 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #5 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.024867 5 year 0.032792 10 year 0.038473 25 year 0.046164 50 year 0.052276 100 year 0.058727 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #6 Total Pervious Area:0.12 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #6 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.12 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #6 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.001998 5 year 0.003283 10 year 0.004007 25 year 0.004759 50 year 0.005213 100 year 0.005589 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #6 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.02984 5 year 0.03935 10 year 0.046168 25 year 0.055396 50 year 0.062731 100 year 0.070472 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #7 Total Pervious Area:0.22 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #7 Total Pervious Area:O Packet Pg. 106 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTTotal Impervious Area: 0.22 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #7 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.003663 5 year 0.006019 10 year 0.007346 25 year 0.008725 50 year 0.009557 100 year 0.010247 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #7 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.054706 5 year 0.072141 10 year 0.084641 25 year 0.10156 50 year 0.115007 100 year 0.129199 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #8 Total Pervious Area:0.07 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #8 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.07 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #8 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.001165 5 year 0.001915 10 year 0.002337 25 year 0.002776 50 year 0.003041 100 year 0.00326 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #8 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.017407 5 year 0.022954 10 year 0.026931 25 year 0.032315 50 year 0.036593 100 year 0.041109 Stream Protection Duration Packet Pg. 107 RECEIVED Attachn0 April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTPredeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #9 Total Pervious Area:2.3 Total Impervious Area:O _ C O r Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #9 i Total Pervious Area:O j Total Impervious Area:2.3 a U m Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #9 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.038292 5 year 0.062921 10 year 0.076802 25 year 0.091221 50 year 0.099914 100 year 0.107126 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #9 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.571931 5 year 0.754206 10 year 0.884879 25 year 1.061763 50 year 1.202348 100 year 1.350713 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #10 Total Pervious Area:0.09 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #10 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.09 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #10 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.001498 5 year 0.002462 10 year 0.003005 25 year 0.00357 50 year 0.00391 100 year 0.004192 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #10 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.02238 5 year 0.029512 10 year 0.034626 25 year 0.041547 Packet Pg. 108 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT50 year 0.047048 100 year 0.052854 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #11 Total Pervious Area:0.12 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #11 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.12 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #11 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.001998 5 year 0.003283 10 year 0.004007 25 year 0.004759 50 year 0.005213 100 year 0.005589 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #11 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.02984 5 year 0.03935 10 year 0.046168 25 year 0.055396 50 year 0.062731 100 year 0.070472 Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2021; All Rights Reserved. Packet Pg. 109 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 15-MINUTE TIME STEPS Project Name: Portwalk Reconstruction Outfall 2 Basin Flows Site Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Site Address: 300-336 Admiral Way City Edmonds Report Date: 6/1/2021 MGS Regoin Puget East (36) Data Start 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 03 Version Date: 2019/09/13 Version : 4.2.17 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 2 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 2: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 3 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 3: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 4 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 4: 50 year PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.13 Impervious Total 0.13 Attach..0 w Q Packet Pg. 110 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTBasin Total 0.13 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.15 0.15 0.15 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 3 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.2 0.2 0.2 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 4 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT acre 0 acre 0.2 Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Attach..0 w Q Packet Pg. 111 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Impervious Total 0.2 Basin Total 0.2 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow MITIGATED LAND USE Name . Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.13 0.13 0.13 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.15 0.15 0.15 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 3 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Attach..0 r- O CL d L d 3 E L O Cl) M C E .@ L a r C d E t v M Q Packet Pg. 112 RECEIVED Attachn� April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre o PARKING FLAT 0.2 r v Impervious Total 0.2 L j c O Basin Total 0.2 v a� CU Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater m N c Name Basin 4 Y_ Bypass: No to 3 GroundWater: No O a Pervious Land Use acre O Pervious Total 0 Z N Impervious Land Use acre o PARKING FLAT 0.26 E W Impervious Total 0.26 O r- O Basin Total 0.26 a LO T" CD 0 Element Flows To: Cl) Surface Interflow Groundwater o N Z J a ANALYSIS RESULTS �. Stream Protection Duration O O_ d Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.13 E L O Cl) Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.13 E .@ L IL Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 co Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.032206 W 5 year 0.042471 10 year 0.049829 25 year 0.059791 Q 50 year 0.067708 100 year 0.076063 Packet Pg. 113 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.032206 5 year 0.042471 10 year 0.049829 25 year 0.059791 50 year 0.067708 100 year 0.076063 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.15 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.15 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.037161 5 year 0.049005 10 year 0.057495 25 year 0.068989 50 year 0.078124 100 year 0.087765 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.037161 5 year 0.049005 10 year 0.057495 25 year 0.068989 50 year 0.078124 100 year 0.087765 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.2 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.2 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Packet Pg. 114 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTReturn Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.049548 5 year 0.065339 10 year 0.076661 25 year 0.091985 50 year 0.104166 100 year 0.11702 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.049548 5 year 0.065339 10 year 0.076661 25 year 0.091985 50 year 0.104166 100 year 0.11702 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.2 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.26 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.049548 5 year 0.065339 10 year 0.076661 25 year 0.091985 50 year 0.104166 100 year 0.11702 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.064412 5 year 0.084941 10 year 0.099659 25 year 0.119581 50 year 0.135415 100 year 0.152126 Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied Packet Pg. 115 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTwarranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Packet Pg. 116 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 15-MINUTE TIME STEPS Project Name: Portwalk Reconstruction Outfall 3 Site Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Site Address: 300-336 Admiral Way City Edmonds Report Date: 6/1/2021 MGS Regoin Puget East (36) Data Start 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 02 Version Date: 2019/09/13 Version : 4.2.17 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 2 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 2: 50 year PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name . Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use ROOF TOPS FLAT PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.13 0.09 0.22 0.22 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Groundwater Attach..0 Q Packet Pg. 117 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTPerVlous Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.22 PARKING FLAT 0.13 Impervious Total 0.35 Basin Total 0.35 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.13 PARKING FLAT 0.15 Impervious Total 0.28 Basin Total 0.28 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name . Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.22 PARKING FLAT 0.16 Impervious Total 0.38 Basin Total 0.38 Groundwater Groundwater Attach..0 Q Packet Pg. 118 RECEIVED Attachn0 April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTElement Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.22 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.28 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.054706 5 year 0.072141 10 year 0.084641 25 year 0.10156 50 year 0.115007 100 year 0.129199 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.069626 5 year 0.091816 10 year 0.107724 25 year 0.129258 50 year 0.146373 100 year 0.164435 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.35 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.38 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.087033 5 year 0.114771 10 year 0.134656 25 year 0.161573 50 year 0.182966 Packet Pg. 119 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT100 year 0.205543 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.094493 5 year 0.124608 10 year 0.146197 25 year 0.175422 50 year 0.198649 100 year 0.223161 Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2021; All Rights Reserved. Packet Pg. 120 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Packet Pg. 121 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:42:53 PM Layout Report: Portwalk Fixed Flows: Outfall 1 Event Precip (in) other 1.50 2 yr 24 hr 2.00 5 year 2.50 10 year 3.00 25 year 3.50 100 year 4.00 Reach Records Record Id: P1 Attach..U� Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB2 UpNode CB 1 Material unspecified Isize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 124.00 ft Slope 0.08% Up Invert 10.70 ft IDn Invert 1 10.60 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 1 3.00 ft (Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P10 Section Shape: I Circular Uniform Flow Method: I Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 0 a a� L w+ 3 E L 0 co 0 c E L a c a� E s 0 a Packet Pg. 122 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach.. J Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUTFALL UpNode CB 10 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 31.00 ft ISlope 3.87% Up Invert 7.60 ft On Invert 1 6.40 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P2 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB3 UpNode CB2 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 24.50 ft Slope 2.45% Up Invert 10.60 ft IDn Invert 10.00 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft (Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P3 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB4 UpNode C133 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam r- 0 0_ m L d ca 3 E L 0 0 c E L a c d E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 123 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO WENT DEPARTMENT Ent Losses Length Up Invert Groove End w/Headwall 49.00 ft iSlope 9.80 ft II)n Invert Attach.. J 0.41 % 9.60 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Won across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P4 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB7 UpNode CB4 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 118.00 ft Slope 1 1.19% Up Invert 1 9.60 ft Dn Invert 8.20 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft (Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P5 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB7 jUpNode CB5 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 40.00 ft Slope 2.50% Up Invert 9.20 ft Dn Invert 8.20 ft r- 0 0_ m L d ca 3 E L 0 Cn 0 c E L a c d E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 124 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENT Attach Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 0.00 in/hr Record Id: P6 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB7 UpNode C136 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 63.00 ft Slope 0.16% Up Invert 10.90 ft Dn Invert 10.80 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 1 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P7 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB 10 UpNode C137 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 91.00 ft Slope 0.44% Up Invert 8.60 ft Dn Invert 8.20 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft r- 0 0_ a� L d ca 3 E L 0 Cn 0 c E L a c d E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 125 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach.. J CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr Record Id: P8 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode C139 UpNode C138 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 52.00 ft Slope 0.96% Up Invert 8.30 ft Dn Invert 7.80 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Drop across MH 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr. Record Id: P9 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB 10 UpNode CB9 Material I unspecified ISize 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 66.00 ft iSlope 0.76% Up Invert 7.70 ft On Invert 1 7.20 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 1 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Node Records t 0 0_ m L a� ca 3 E L 0 Cn 0 c E .@ L a E a Packet Pg. 126 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Record Id: CB1 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 10.70 ft Max El. 12.62 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Record Id: CB10 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 7.60 ft Max El. 12.80 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization o Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB2 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 10.60 ft Max El. 12.56 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft lBottom Area 3.97 sf H/CB Type Node Record Id: CB3 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 9.80 ft Max El. 13.59 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization o Special Shape Packet Pg. 127 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENTECatch O.00 ft CB Type Node Record Id: CB4 ottom Area 112.5664 sf Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 9.60 ft Max El. 13.36 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft lBottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB5 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 9.20 ft Max El. 13.25 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft lBottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB6 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 10.90 ft Max El. 12.62 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization o Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB7 Attach..U� Packet Pg. 128 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO IMFNT DEPARTMENT Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 8.60 ft Max El. 13.21 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition lExisting Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 10.00 ft Bottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB8 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 8.30 ft Max El. 12.60 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 10.00 ft Bottom Area 112.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB9 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 7.70 ft Max El. 12.48 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization ho Special Shape Catch 10.00 ft Bottom Area 112.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: OUTFALL Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 6.40 ft Max El. 10.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Packet Pg. 129 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dummy Type Node 1V Ode Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:45:36 PM ROUTEHYD [] THRU [Portwalk Fixed Flows] USING [25 year] AND [] NOTZERO RELATIVE Fixed Flow Gravity Analysis using fixed flowrates Reach ID Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Size nVel (ft/s) Wel (ft/s) CFlow P1 0.30 0.4967 0.6039 0.3738 8 in Diam 1.4892 1.4234 0.30 P2 0.36 2.7382 0.1315 0.1632 8 in Diam 5.4357 7.8459 0.06 P3 0.37 1.1179 0.331 0.2626 8 in Diam 2.8975 3.2032 0.01 P4 0.42 1.9058 0.2204 0.2128 8 in Diam 4.3771 5.4609 0.05 P5 0.06 2.7665 0.0217 0.0679 8 in Diam 3.2155 7.9271 0.06 P6 0.10 0.697 0.1435 0.1703 8 in Diam 1.4218 1.9973 0.10 P7 0.61 1.1601 0.5258 0.3435 8 in Diam 3.3643 3.3241 0.03 P8 1.06 5.0598 0.2095 0.3107 12 in Diam 5.0947 6.4424 1.06 P9 1.10 4.4914 0.2449 0.3368 12 in Diam 4.7315 5.7186 0.04 P10 1.77 10.1525 0.1743 0.2821 12 in Diam 9.7296 12.9265 0.06 HGL Analysis From Node To Node HG El (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) Adjusted HG El (ft) Max El (ft) 6.9664 CB10 OUTFALL 8.4177 ------ 0.0121 0.0110 8.4408 12.8000 CB7 CB10 9.1384 ------ 0.0001 0.0060 9.1445 13.2100 CB4 CB7 10.0253 ------ 0.1116 ------ 10.1370 13.3600 No approach losses at node CB2 because inverts and/or crowns are offset. CB3 CB4 1 10.2891 1 0.4588 0.4794 1 ------ 10.3097 13.5900 Packet Pg. 130 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENT CB2 CB3 10.9841 ------ 0.0004 ------ 10.9845 12.5600 CB1 CB2 11.1188 ------ ------ ------ 11.1188 12.6200 CBS CB7 9.3412 ------ ------ ------ 9.3412 13.2500 C136 CB7 11.1079 ------ ------ ------ 11.1079 12.6200 CB9 CB10 8.5073 0.4030 0.0191 ------ 8.1233 12.4800 CB8 CB9 8.9067 ------ ------ ------ 8.9067 12.6000 Conduit Notes Reach HW Depth (ft) HW/D ratio Q (cfs) TW Depth (ft) Dc (ft) Dn (ft) Comment SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P10 0.8177 0.8177 1.77 0.5664 0.5664 0.2821 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P7 0.5384 0.8076 0.61 0.3675 0.3675 0.3435 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P4 0.4253 0.6381 0.42 0.9445 0.3022 0.2128 controls P3 0.4891 0.7337 0.37 0.5370 0.2829 0.2626 Outlet Control M1 Backwater SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P2 0.3841 0.5762 0.36 0.3097 0.2789 0.1632 controls P1 0.4188 0.6283 0.30 0.3845 0.2537 0.3738 Outlet Control M1 Backwater SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P5 0.1412 0.2119 0.06 0.9445 0.1109 0.0679 controls P6 0.2079 0.3120 0.10 0.1703 0.1440 0.1703 Outlet Control M1 Backwater P9 1.3073 1.3073 1.10 1.2408 0.4414 0.3368 Outlet Control SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P8 0.6067 0.6067 1.06 0.4329 0.4329 0.3107 controls Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Packet Pg. 131 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C O r v L N _ O Nd LPL Cu 3 m Cn _ 3 O a O z O E w O r- O a Lo O O Cl) N O N z J a O a m L d 3 E L O N _ E .@ L a r _ a� E w a Packet Pg. 132 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:50:52 PM Layout Report: Portwalk Fixed Flows: Outfall 2 Event Precip (in) other 1.50 2 yr 24 hr 2.00 5 year 2.50 10 year 3.00 25 year 3.50 100 year 4.00 Reach Records Record Id: P1 Attach..U� Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB2 UpNode CB 1 Material unspecified Size 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 87.00 ft iSlope 1.03% Un Invert 11.10 ft IDn Invert 1 10.20 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 1 2.00% 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P2 Section Shape: I Circular Uniform Flow Method: I Manninc's Coefficient: 0.009 0 a a� as r 3 E 0 w co c� c E L a c a� E s c� Q Packet Pg. 133 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach.. J Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB3 UpNode CB2 Material unspecified Size 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 69.00 ft jSlope 1.30% Up Invert 10.10 ft On Invert 1 9.20 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P3 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB4 UpNode CB3 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 75.00 ft Slope 0.53% Up Invert 8.70 ft IDn Invert 8.30 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft (Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P4 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode OUTFALL UpNode C134 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam r- 0 0_ m L d ca 3 E L 0 0 c E L a c d E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 134 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENT Ent LOSSeS p Invert Groove End w/Headwall 50.00 ft iSlope 8.30 ft IDn Invert Attach.. J 3.60% 6.50 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Node Records Record Id: CB1 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 11.10 ft Max El. 13.18 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization ho Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 13.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB2 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 10.10 ft Max El. 13.23 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization INo Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 13.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB3 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 8.70 ft IMax El. 113.20 ft r- 0 0_ a� L d ca 3 E L 0 Cn 0 c E .@ L a a� E 0 a Packet Pg. 135 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO IMFNT DEPARTMENT Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 10.00 ft 113ottom Area 112.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB4 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 8.30 ft Max El. 13.15 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 2-48 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft 113ottom Area 12.5664 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: OUTFALL Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 6.50 ft Max El. 13.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:51:39 PM ROUTEHYD [] THRU [Portwalk Outfall 2] USING [25 year] AND [] NOTZERO RELATIVE Fixed Flow Gravity Analysis using fixed flowrates Reach ID Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Size nVel (ft/s) Wel (ft/s) Mow P1 0.06 1.7796 0.0337 0.0837 8 in Diam 2.3663 5.0993 0.06 Packet Pg. 136 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENT P2 0.13 1.995 0.0652 0.1153 8 in Diam 3.2232 5.7163 0.07 P3 0.22 1.2778 0.1722 0.1868 8 in Diam 2.7477 3.6613 0.09 P4 0.34 3.3199 1 0.1024 0.1438 8 in Diam 6.143 9.5126 0.12 HGL Analysis From Node To Node HG El (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) Adjusted HG El (ft) Max El (ft) 6.7707 C134 OUTFALL 1 8.6676 ------ 0.0465 ------ 8.7140 13.1500 No approach losses at node CB2 because inverts and/or crowns are offset. CB3 CB4 8.9957 ------ 0.1128 ------ 9.1085 13.2000 CB2 CB3 10.3197 ------ 0.0013 ------ 10.3210 13.2300 CB1 CB2 11.2461 ------ ------ ------ 11.2461 13.1800 Conduit Notes Reach HW Depth (ft) HW/D ratio Q (cfs) TW Depth (ft) Dc (ft) Dn (ft) Comment SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P4 0.3676 0.5514 0.34 0.2707 0.2707 0.1438 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P3 0.2957 0.4435 0.22 0.4140 0.2159 0.1868 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P2 0.2197 0.3296 0.13 0.1647 0.1647 0.1153 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P1 0.1461 0.2192 0.06 0.1210 0.1109 0.0837 controls Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Packet Pg. 137 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4En I Packet Pg. 138 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:54:24 PM Layout Report: Outfa113 Event Precip (in) other 1.50 2 yr 24 hr 2.00 5 year 2.50 10 year 3.00 25 year 3.50 100 year 4.00 Reach Records Record Id: P1 Circular Attach..U� Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode C132 UpNode CB 1 Material unspecified Size 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 160.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 10.70 ft On Invert 1 9.90 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 1 2.00% 3.00 ft Won across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P2 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode C133 UpNode CB2 Packet Pg. 139 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach.. J Material unspecified ISize 6 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 38.00 ft Slope 0.50% Up Invert 9.90 ft Dn Invert 9.71 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft IDron across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P3 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode CB4 UpNode CB3 Material unspecified ISize 6 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 73.00 ft iSlope 0.50% IUD Invert 9.70 ft II)n Invert 9.335 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Won across MH 1 0.00 ft IEx/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr I Record Id: P4 Section Shape: Circular Uniform Flow Method: Manning's Coefficient: 0.009 Routing Method: Travel Time Shift Contributing Hyd DnNode Outfall jUpNode CB4 Material unspecified ISize 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 9.50 ft ISlope 12.63% r- 0 CL L d ca 3 E L 0 Cn 0 c E .@ L a t6 c d E t 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 140 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO WENT DEPARTMENT Up Invert 1 9.30 ft Dn Invert 1 8.10 ft Conduit Constraints Min Vel Max Vel Min Slope Max Slope Min Cover 2.00 ft/s 1 15.00 ft/s 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Drop across MH 1 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr Node Records Record Id: CBI Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 10.70 ft Max El. 12.42 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Record Id: CB2 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 11.20 ft Max El. 12.96 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization o Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 13.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB3 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 11.10 ft Max El. 12.72 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization o Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area r97 sf Packet Pg. 141 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT�/-+� DEPARTMENT MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB4 Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 9.30 ft Max El. 12.55 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Condition Existing Structure Type CB -TYPE 1 Channelization No Special Shape Catch 0.00 ft Bottom Area 3.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: Outfall Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 8.10 ft Max El. 12.00 ft Void Ratio 100.00 Dummy Type Node Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Appended on: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:56:52 PM ROUTEHYD [] THRU [Outfall 3] USING [25 year] AND [] NOTZERO RELATIVE Fixed Flow Gravity Analysis using fixed flowrates Reach ID Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Size nVel (ft/s) Nel (ft/s) CFlow P1 0.13 1.2372 0.1051 0.1455 8 in Diam 2.3092 3.5451 0.13 P2 0.31 0.5746 0.5395 0.2617 6 in Diam 2.98 2.9266 0.18 P3 0.31 0.5746 0.5395 0.2617 6 in Diam 2.98 2.9266 0.00 P4 0.31 18.3384 0.0169 0.0905 12 in Diam 8.778 23.3492 0.00 Packet Pg. 142 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HGL Analysis From Node To NodT G EI (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) I Adjusted HG Ell (ft) Max El (ft) 8.3294 CB4 Outfall 9.5482 ------ 0.2317 ------ 9.7799 12.5500 CB3 C134 10.1148 ------ 0.0352 ------ 10.1500 12.7200 CB2 C133 10.3148 ------ 0.0382 ------ 10.3529 12.9600 CB1 C132 10.9224 ------ ------ ------ 10.9224 12.4200 Conduit Notes Reach HW Depth (ft) HW/D ratio Q (cfs) TW Depth (ft) Dc (ft) Dn (ft) Comment SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P4 0.2482 0.2482 0.31 0.2294 0.2294 0.0905 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P3 0.4148 0.8295 0.31 0.4449 0.2818 0.2617 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P2 0.4148 0.8295 0.31 0.4400 0.2818 0.2617 controls SuperCrit flow, Inlet end P1 0.2224 0.3336 0.13 0.4529 0.1647 0.1455 controls Licensed to: Engenious Systems, Inc. Packet Pg. 143 Packet Pc RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Edmonds Portwalk WQ 11.23.22 Site Name: Site Address: City Report Date: 11/23/2022 MGS Regoin Puget East Data Start 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 03 Version Date: 2019/09/13 Version : 4.2.17 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat .32 Pervious Total 0.32 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.32 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Groundwater Attach..0 r- 0 0_ m L m 3 E L 0 Cl) M c E .@ L a. r c d E t v 0 w Q Packet Pg. 145 RECEIVED Attachn� April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat .03 Pervious Total 0.03 = 0 Impervious Land Use acre r L DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.16 N SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.13 = O C.1 d Impervious Total 0.29 Basin Total 0.32 3 c Element Flows To: to 3 Surface Interflow Groundwater 'C O a 0 z 0 ANALYSIS RESULTS E W Stream Protection Duration o t: O (L LO Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 T" CD Total Pervious Area:0.32 Cl) Total Impervious Area:O o N z J a Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.03 0 Total Impervious Area:0.29 C L d Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) E 2 year 0.005328 0 5 year 0.008754 r U) 10 year 0.010685 25 year 0.012692 c 50 year 0.013901 E 100 year 0.014905 y L a. Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 cc Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.07316 5 year 0.096898 E 10 year 0.113973 25 year 0.13715 Q 50 year 0.155614 100 year 0.175137 Packet Pg. 146 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 0.007 0.080 1903 0.002 0.090 1904 0.005 0.104 1905 0.003 0.048 1906 0.001 0.054 1907 0.008 0.074 1908 0.005 0.065 1909 0.006 0.083 1910 0.009 0.076 1911 0.005 0.078 1912 0.019 0.133 1913 0.008 0.047 1914 0.002 0.189 1915 0.003 0.050 1916 0.004 0.079 1917 0.002 0.049 1918 0.005 0.072 1919 0.004 0.043 1920 0.005 0.063 1921 0.005 0.047 1922 0.006 0.064 1923 0.005 0.068 1924 0.003 0.086 1925 0.002 0.047 1926 0.004 0.091 1927 0.006 0.065 1928 0.004 0.060 1929 0.009 0.100 1930 0.005 0.113 1931 0.005 0.051 1932 0.004 0.061 1933 0.004 0.057 1934 0.012 0.091 1935 0.004 0.054 1936 0.007 0.058 1937 0.006 0.082 1938 0.006 0.054 1939 0.000 0.075 1940 0.004 0.102 1941 0.005 0.086 1942 0.007 0.080 1943 0.002 0.091 1944 0.006 0.134 1945 0.005 0.090 1946 0.004 0.063 1947 0.003 0.058 1948 0.011 0.074 1949 0.009 0.117 1950 0.005 0.049 1951 0.006 0.076 1952 0.018 0.129 1953 0.014 0.125 Packet Pg. 147 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 19 5 4 0.004 0.065 1955 0.004 0.056 1956 0.002 0.044 1957 0.006 0.064 1958 0.015 0.081 1959 0.009 0.077 1960 0.003 0.062 1961 0.009 0.179 1962 0.005 0.070 1963 0.002 0.048 1964 0.003 0.130 1965 0.011 0.078 1966 0.002 0.058 1967 0.004 0.066 1968 0.006 0.059 1969 0.004 0.066 1970 0.006 0.078 1971 0.012 0.081 1972 0.007 0.237 1973 0.008 0.128 1974 0.005 0.098 1975 0.012 0.114 1976 0.005 0.097 1977 0.003 0.044 1978 0.010 0.083 1979 0.003 0.075 1980 0.005 0.073 1981 0.005 0.083 1982 0.004 0.060 1983 0.009 0.085 1984 0.002 0.080 1985 0.005 0.078 1986 0.004 0.051 1987 0.009 0.081 1988 0.006 0.054 1989 0.005 0.052 1990 0.006 0.056 1991 0.005 0.091 1992 0.007 0.091 1993 0.006 0.104 1994 0.011 0.069 1995 0.003 0.048 1996 0.012 0.071 1997 0.006 0.059 1998 0.005 0.075 1999 0.000 0.081 2000 0.004 0.083 2001 0.003 0.074 2002 0.009 0.110 2003 0.006 0.057 2004 0.006 0.096 2005 0.008 0.140 2006 0.004 0.061 2007 0.004 0.086 2008 0.005 0.067 2009 0.003 0.064 2010 0.003 0.080 Packet Pg. 148 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2 0 11 0.003 0.054 2012 0.005 0.081 2013 0.004 0.060 2014 0.003 0.064 2015 0.010 0.115 2016 0.001 0.052 2017 0.009 0.118 2018 0.017 0.080 2019 0.017 0.105 2020 0.005 0.088 2021 0.007 0.082 2022 0.002 0.105 2023 0.006 0.114 2024 0.021 0.158 2025 0.005 0.062 2026 0.008 0.070 2027 0.003 0.083 2028 0.002 0.038 2029 0.006 0.062 2030 0.012 0.095 2031 0.003 0.044 2032 0.002 0.052 2033 0.003 0.055 2034 0.003 0.059 2035 0.013 0.078 2036 0.007 0.056 2037 0.001 0.078 2038 0.007 0.076 2039 0.000 0.122 2040 0.002 0.063 2041 0.004 0.072 2042 0.014 0.087 2043 0.006 0.096 2044 0.008 0.066 2045 0.005 0.062 2046 0.006 0.060 2047 0.004 0.081 2048 0.005 0.067 2049 0.005 0.101 2050 0.003 0.062 2051 0.005 0.103 2052 0.003 0.064 2053 0.005 0.067 2054 0.008 0.106 2055 0.002 0.065 2056 0.002 0.085 2057 0.003 0.051 2058 0.004 0.092 Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0211 0.2365 2 0.0191 0.1887 3 0.0177 0.1795 4 0.0170 0.1584 Packet Pg. 149 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0.0165 0.1396 6 0.0150 0.1338 7 0.0140 0.1332 8 0.0137 0.1301 9 0.0131 0.1295 10 0.0125 0.1278 11 0.0123 0.1246 12 0.0121 0.1217 13 0.0119 0.1183 14 0.0115 0.1171 15 0.0110 0.1146 16 0.0109 0.1140 17 0.0108 0.1136 18 0.0104 0.1126 19 0.0097 0.1095 20 0.0093 0.1055 21 0.0091 0.1055 22 0.0090 0.1055 23 0.0090 0.1044 24 0.0090 0.1042 25 0.0088 0.1035 26 0.0088 0.1024 27 0.0087 0.1006 28 0.0086 0.1004 29 0.0084 0.0981 30 0.0083 0.0971 31 0.0082 0.0965 32 0.0082 0.0960 33 0.0082 0.0950 34 0.0080 0.0916 35 0.0080 0.0914 36 0.0075 0.0910 37 0.0074 0.0907 38 0.0073 0.0905 39 0.0073 0.0905 40 0.0071 0.0903 41 0.0070 0.0898 42 0.0069 0.0883 43 0.0067 0.0870 44 0.0064 0.0864 45 0.0064 0.0858 46 0.0063 0.0856 47 0.0062 0.0851 48 0.0061 0.0846 49 0.0061 0.0834 50 0.0061 0.0831 51 0.0060 0.0830 52 0.0059 0.0830 53 0.0058 0.0828 54 0.0058 0.0824 55 0.0058 0.0821 56 0.0058 0.0815 57 0.0057 0.0813 58 0.0057 0.0811 59 0.0057 0.0808 60 0.0057 0.0807 61 0.0057 0.0807 Packet Pg. 150 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 62 0.0056 0.0805 63 0.0055 0.0804 64 0.0055 0.0802 65 0.0055 0.0799 66 0.0054 0.0798 67 0.0053 0.0786 68 0.0053 0.0784 69 0.0053 0.0782 70 0.0053 0.0779 71 0.0053 0.0778 72 0.0052 0.0777 73 0.0052 0.0777 74 0.0052 0.0769 75 0.0051 0.0765 76 0.0051 0.0764 77 0.0051 0.0759 78 0.0050 0.0755 79 0.0050 0.0751 80 0.0050 0.0749 81 0.0050 0.0743 82 0.0050 0.0742 83 0.0049 0.0735 84 0.0049 0.0731 85 0.0049 0.0724 86 0.0049 0.0719 87 0.0048 0.0713 88 0.0047 0.0700 89 0.0046 0.0699 90 0.0046 0.0689 91 0.0046 0.0680 92 0.0046 0.0673 93 0.0046 0.0670 94 0.0045 0.0665 95 0.0044 0.0661 96 0.0044 0.0658 97 0.0044 0.0656 98 0.0042 0.0654 99 0.0042 0.0650 100 0.0041 0.0648 101 0.0041 0.0647 102 0.0041 0.0644 103 0.0041 0.0642 104 0.0040 0.0637 105 0.0040 0.0637 106 0.0039 0.0636 107 0.0039 0.0635 108 0.0038 0.0631 109 0.0038 0.0628 110 0.0037 0.0623 111 0.0036 0.0620 112 0.0036 0.0620 113 0.0035 0.0618 114 0.0035 0.0616 115 0.0035 0.0608 116 0.0035 0.0605 117 0.0034 0.0602 118 0.0034 0.0602 Packet Pg. 151 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 119 0.0033 0.0601 120 0.0033 0.0596 121 0.0033 0.0592 122 0.0032 0.0590 123 0.0032 0.0586 124 0.0032 0.0583 125 0.0031 0.0582 126 0.0031 0.0576 127 0.0030 0.0569 128 0.0029 0.0569 129 0.0028 0.0564 130 0.0027 0.0558 131 0.0027 0.0557 132 0.0026 0.0550 133 0.0026 0.0545 134 0.0026 0.0544 135 0.0026 0.0544 136 0.0026 0.0538 137 0.0025 0.0537 138 0.0024 0.0519 139 0.0024 0.0518 140 0.0024 0.0516 141 0.0024 0.0515 142 0.0023 0.0513 143 0.0022 0.0513 144 0.0022 0.0500 145 0.0021 0.0492 146 0.0021 0.0489 147 0.0020 0.0485 148 0.0020 0.0480 149 0.0019 0.0479 150 0.0019 0.0474 151 0.0017 0.0474 152 0.0015 0.0469 153 0.0011 0.0443 154 0.0011 0.0437 155 0.0004 0.0437 156 0.0003 0.0428 157 0.0001 0.0384 Packet Pg. 152 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.027 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.0365 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0408 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0206 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.023 cfs. LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Packet Pg. 153 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Failed Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2022; All Rights Reserved. Packet Pg. 154 RECEIVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3i April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section IV, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section IV — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Section IV Summary: Narrative Construction SWPPP Elements Source Controls Erosion control details are provided consistent with the City of Edmonds guidelines. Erosion control plan sheets are provided in full-size as a part of the civil drawing set. A Construction SWPPP is not required by the Department of Ecology because the site is under one acre (the land -disturbing activity threshold which requires the completion of their SWPPP document and Construction Stormwater General Permit). Construction SWPPP Elements The elements for construction pollution prevention are discussed as follows: Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land -disturbing activities begin. Clearing limits will be to the extents of necessary land disturbance for the new building and this can be seen on drawing sheet C2.1. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Element 2: Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads. A stabilized construction entrance should not be required since all site areas are paved and there should not be any construction equipment tracking through sediment -laden areas. Element 3: Control Flow Rates The site is mostly flat throughout and runoff is expected to sheet flow unconcentrated into existing stormwater infrastructure. Straw Wattles are proposed on the TESC plan (C2.1) and they are expected to assist with the dispersal of any flows that could become concentrated from any construction activities. Element 4: Install Sediment Controls 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 155 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section IV, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged. Straw Wattles are proposed along the downstream perimeter of the project site. Pollution prevention facilities on the erosion control plan must be constructed prior to or in conjunction with all clearing and grading to ensure that the transport of sediment to surface waters and adjacent properties is minimized. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: Straw Wattles (BMP C235) Element 5: Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization for this project include: Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Mulching (BMP C121) Nets and Blankets (BMP C122) Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Sodding (BMP C124) Topsoiling/Composting (BMP C125) Surface Roughening (BMP C130) Dust Control (BMP C140) Element 6: Protect Slopes There are existing surfaces that will be removed as part of the development. Exposed slopes shall be stabilized with BMPs found in Element 5. Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets Existing catch basins on -site and within 500' downstream of site must be protected from sedimentation. Stormwater shall not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or treated to remove sediment. Inlet protection devices shall be cleaned or removed and replaced when sediment has filled one-third of the available storage (or as specified by the manufacturer). The specific BMPs to be used for protecting drain inlets are: Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets Conveyance channels are not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Element 9: Control Pollutants Design, install, implement and maintain effective pollution prevention measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants. The suggested BMPs are: 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 156 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3i April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section IV, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Concrete Handling (BMP C151) Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention (BMP C152) Material Delivery, Storage and Containment (BMP C153) Element 10: Control Dewatering De -watering is not anticipated to be required. Element 11: Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued performance of their intended function. Element 12: Manage the Project • Phase development projects to the maximum degree practicable and consider seasonal work limits. • Inspection and monitoring— Inspect, maintain, and repair all BMPs as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Conduct site inspections and monitoring in accordance with the Construction Stormwater General Permit or local plan approval authority. • Maintain an Updated Construction SWPPP - This SWPPP shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site. - The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. - The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. Element 13: Protect Low Impact Development BMPs Low -Impact Development BMPs are not proposed for this project. Source Controls This project should incorporate required BMPs from Volume IV of the DOE Manual: S407 — BMPs for Dust Control at Disturbed Land Areas and Unpaved Roadways and Parking Lots; S411— BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management; and S417 — BMPs for Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage and Treatment Systems. The Operation & Maintenance Manual found in Section VII contains guide sheets for the aforementioned BMPs. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 157 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section VI, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section V — Special Reports and/or Studies Section V Summary: Narrative The following reports are included in this section: 1. Critical Areas Report by Landau Associates dated June 17, 2017. 2. Geotechnical Engineering Report by Landau Associates dated, October 15, 2021. GM 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 158 RECEIVED Attachn0 April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Critical Areas Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington February 16, 2023 Prepared for Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 LALSANDAU 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 Seattle, WA 98125 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 159 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Critical Areas Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. 1 Document prepared by: �D 6- + .�,�.�,c teve Quarterman Senior Associate Document reviewed by: : 4 Jeffrey Fellows, PE Vi pr sident, Operations Date: February 16, 2023 Project No.: 0173038.010.017 File path: \\edmdata0l\projects\173\038.010\R\FWHCA CritAreas\LAI_Portwalk Critical Areas Report Final_02.16.2023.docx Project Coordinator: tac LALANDAU Packet Pg. 160 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction ii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 161 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. Reconstruction of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. Landau Associates, Inc. conducted a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a shoreline delineation, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed minimization measures to ensure no net loss of functions. The proposed project will maintain the character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate (i.e., bulkhead and riprap shoreline) and will also result in a net gain in aquatic habitat. The developed uplands adjacent to the shoreline will be modified to include additional landscaping. As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed, because the project does not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 162 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iv February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 163 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Site Description..................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................2-3 2.1 Background Information Review........................................................................................2-3 2.2 Waterway Delineation........................................................................................................2-3 2.3 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................................2-4 2.4 Mitigation Sequencing........................................................................................................2-4 3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS...............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Waterways and Associated Habitat...................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Natural Heritage and State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area....................................................................................................................................3-2 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 6.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS.......................................................................6-1 7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................7-1 8.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................8-2 13 [et" I"ll V Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Study Area Map APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Information Review Figures B Site Plan Excerpts C Staff Qualifications r- 0 0_ m L d 3 E L 0 r 0 c E .@ L a r c d E t 0 w a FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 164 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vi February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 165 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BMP..................................................................................... Best Management Practices City.........................................................................................................City of Edmonds ECDC............................................................... Edmonds Community Development Code Ecology........................................................... Washington State Department of Ecology ft....................................................................................................................... foot/feet FWHCA....................................................... Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area GIS.............................................................................. Geographic Information Software HTL.............................................................................................................. high tide line Landau......................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. MHHW.......................................................................................mean higher high water MLLW........................................................................................... mean lower low water NOAA............................................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHWM.................................................................................... ordinary high water mark PHS..................................................................................... Priority Habitats and Species Port....................................................................................................... Port of Edmonds ROW............................................................................................................. right-of-way sf................................................................................................square foot/square feet SMP........................................................................................Shoreline Master Program SPCC .......................................................Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure TESC...............................................................Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control USACE.................................................................................. US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS.................................................................................. US Fish and Wildlife Service DNR............................................... Washington State Department of Natural Resources WDFW.......................................................... Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WRIA..............................................................................Water Resource Inventory Area FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 166 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction viii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 167 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1.O INTRODUCTION The Port of Edmonds (Port) is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot (ft) section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach (Figure 1). Reconstruction of the approximately 13-ft-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) conducted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a shoreline delineation, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed minimization measures to ensure no net loss of functions. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts associated with in -water work and work on adjacent uplands. However, the character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate will be maintained under the proposed conditions, and the developed uplands will be modified to include additional landscaping. Impacts to federally listed species and critical habitats will be evaluated by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with proposed determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. No additional compensatory mitigation for FWHCA critical areas is proposed. 1.1 Project Description The Port proposes to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-ft-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (i.e., North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and to repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach. Repair and renovation of the approximately 13-ft-wide boardwalk and underlying seawall are necessary due to significant deterioration; the boardwalk was constructed in the 1960s. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas (Upper Plaza and Central Plaza) also will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant, and the Central Plaza will be added in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (to be demolished). The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure, supported by piling, that projects over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The boardwalk extending north of the marina N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 ft apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the marina's FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 168 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT seawall terminate at the timber seawall. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the marina basin along its east side, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the marina basin's east side. Behind the concrete bulkhead is an earthen slope with a rock -armored surface. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and the timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall, whereas the lower (concrete) section of seawall and the filled slope between the sections will remain unchanged along with the existing concrete bulkhead south of N dock. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at grade, and the new sheet pile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be completely removed because they are connected below grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The timber boardwalk will be replaced within the same footprint but elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new aluminum railing and way -finding signage. The marina's existing electrical utility panels and dock cart storage will be relocated from the overwater side of the new walk to the opposite side, over land. Marina gates to the gangways will be replaced in the same locations but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. 1.2 Site Description The approximately 3.9-acre project area is located in Section 23, Township 27N, Range 3E and in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 — Cedar/Sammamish, in Washington State. The project area is developed and includes Port of Edmonds Marina, the existing North Portwalk, Port of Edmonds Administration Building, and Port tenants, including Arnie's Restaurant and the Edmonds Yacht Club (Figure 2). The study area extends 200 ft beyond the project area (Figure 2). Visual observation and public domain resources were used to estimate the extent of FWHCA critical areas in the study area. Review of the study area was limited to observation from a public right-of-way (ROW). FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 169 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT2.0 METHODS Landau reviewed publicly available information, completed both site reconnaissance and impact assessment for the proposed project, and prepared a mitigation plan for project -related impacts to FWHCA critical areas in accordance with the methods described below. 2.1 Background Information Review Landau reviewed the following resources to identify existing conditions and potential FWHCA critical areas within the study area for consistency with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.010.C: • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat and species maps (Appendix A); • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool official water type reference maps, as amended (accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR nearshore and shorezone inventory as documented in the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas (Appendix A; accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR Natural Heritage Program mapping data (DNR 2021); • Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas (DOH; accessed November 10, 2021); • Biological Evaluation for the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project (Landau 2021), which provides summary of anadromous and resident salmonid distribution contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission as identified in ECDC Chapter 23.90.010.C.7; • DNR state natural area preserves maps (DNR; accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR natural resource conservation area maps(DNR; accessed November 10, 2021); and • City of Edmonds (City) critical areas map (City of Edmonds; accessed November 11, 2021) 2.2 Waterway Delineation The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for waterways was completed using guidance developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology; 2016) and the definition provided in ECDC 20.20.038, which identifies the OHWM, in part as, the mark found by examining the bed and banks of a stream, lake, or tidal water and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and long maintained in ordinary years as to mark upon the soil a vegetative character distinct from that of the abutting upland. In any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide (also referred to as mean higher high water [MHHW]). FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-3 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 170 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT2.3 Impact Assessment Project impacts were determined in coordination with the project engineering team based on pre- and post -project conditions documented on the plans. FWHCA functions were assessed with a qualitative evaluation and best professional judgment. 2.4 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 Landau used best professional judgment to compare pre- and post -mitigation functions. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-4 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 171 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS This section summarizes the results of Landau's background information review and site reconnaissance. conducted on July 28, 2021. 3.1 Waterways and Associated Habitat A portion of Puget Sound occurs within the study area inside the Edmonds Marina, which is identified as Type S on DNR water type mapping. This section of Puget Sound is identified in the City Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with environmental designations of Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II. The upland adjacent to Edmonds Marina in the project area is developed with the existing North Portwalk; Port of Edmonds Administration Building, and Port tenants, including Arnie's Restaurant and the Edmonds Yacht Club and associated parking lot. The existing shoreline is armored with riprap and bulkheads with limited riparian vegetation dominated by landscaping in planters along the existing boardwalk. Because of the existing bulkhead and adjacent development, which precludes exposure of soil and establishment of vegetation, an OHWM as defined in ECDC 20.20.038 is not present and the shoreline is defined by the MHHW elevation. Substrate in the project area includes existing riprap between the upper timber bulkhead and lower concrete bulkhead. The substrate adjacent to the lower concrete bulkhead in the marina consists of silt. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web identifies portions of Olympic Beach, outside the project area, as estuarine and marine wetland (see Appendix A). This estuarine and marine wetland is also identified on City critical areas mapping (see Appendix A) and is located outside the Edmonds marina, north of the public fishing pier. DNR shorezone inventory available on the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas identifies the project area with eelgrass (Zostera marina) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana). However, this data is noted as generalized by polygon, and does not indicate that seagrass or kelp was present or absent throughout the whole polygon (see Appendix A). Furthermore, the proposed work will occur outside the range of these species. At its shallowest extent, eelgrass generally establishes 10 ft waterward of the shore, at about -2 ft mean lower low water (MLLW), and kelp beds are found offshore of eelgrass beds, in deeper water, in areas of higher currents and rocky substrates that provide stable platforms for holdfast attachment (City of Edmonds 2007). 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Federally listed species in the project vicinity are presented in the project biological evaluation (Landau 2021) and is incorporated by reference in this critical areas assessment. No additional PHS listed species or shellfish harvest areas are identified in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 172 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT3.3 Natural Heritage and State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area The study area is not listed within a township, range, or section listed as containing Natural Heritage resources within the Washington Natural Heritage Program data and is not mapped as a Natural Area Preserve or Natural Resource Conservation Area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 173 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Piles associated with the existing upper timber bulkhead will be cut below the mudline and the remainder of the piles below the surface will be abandoned in place. Full extraction of these piles is not feasible because anchor tiebacks below the surface will need to remain in place. Approximately 55 piles associated with the timber bulkhead will be removed. Existing vertical and batter steel piles will be repaired in place. Segments of steel sleeves will be welded over damaged areas of these piles. It is anticipated that up to 1 cubic yard of excavation across approximately 9 square feet (sf) may occur below the MHHW at each batter pile (i.e., total 55 cubic yards; 495 sf) to facilitate installation of the sleeve. Following placement of the sleeve, the area of excavation will be restored with riprap excavated from around the pile and/or with clean sand. Eight existing vertical treated timber piles in the vicinity of N dock will be removed. These piles will be fully extracted either by use of a "choker" chain and crane or with a vibratory pile driver. If a pile is too deteriorated to be fully extracted, the pile will be cut below the mudline. The area where the piling was removed will then be capped with clean sand or replaced with a new steel pile. Ten 12-inch steel piles will be installed to support the boardwalk in the vicinity of N dock. These piles will be installed using a vibratory hammer and will be embedded a minimum of 25 ft below the mudline. A sheet pile bulkhead will be installed landward of the existing upper timber bulkhead. The driving of the sheet pile will occur outside of the MHHW; however, excavation and removal of the existing timber bulkhead will occur in/adjacent to the MHHW. The sheet pile wall will have a concrete beam across the top and will be supported by anchor tiebacks through the beam extending landward of the wall. Approximately 180 cubic yards of excavation, associated with replacement of the upper timber bulkhead, will occur below MHHW. The excavated material will include existing riprap across an area of approximately 2,100 sf between the upper and lower bulkheads. Approximately 77 cubic yards of riprap will be installed below MHHW, in the same area between the upper and lower bulkheads. The existing timber boardwalk will be replaced with glass block and concrete panel modules. The boardwalk will be reconfigured to consolidate existing bump -outs into a single location. The proposed overwater section of the boardwalk will maintain the existing footprint of overwater cover. The existing Portwalk includes planter boxes containing ornamental, herbaceous vegetation that will be removed as part of the project. Approximately 14 trees in the adjacent parking lot will be removed to accommodate the relocation of a hydrant and construction of the Central Plaza. Excerpts of plan sheets showing the above are provided in Appendix B. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 174 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT5.0 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 20.80.053 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 project, improvements to a waterfront facility, requires in -water work and work in adjacent habitat. Permanent adverse impacts will be avoided as detailed in the minimization measures below. 5.1.2 Minimization A variety of conservation measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce impacts to the environment during construction. The following conservation measures will be implemented so that potential impacts are mitigated throughout the duration of the project: • Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans will be developed and implemented throughout construction • Work below the high tide line (HTL)/MHHW will occur during regulatory -approved in -water work windows. • A debris boom will be installed around the boardwalk and will be maintained throughout construction. • Wood products shall comply with the standards established by the Western Wood Preserves Institute in "Best Management Practices for Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments." • Barges used in support of construction will be prohibited from grounding. • Piles and other construction debris will be disposed of offsite at an approved upland facility. • Work below MHHW will result in a balance of cut and fill volumes. • Installation of the sheetpile bulkhead will occur landward of the existing timber bulkhead, thereby avoiding in -water construction for this component of the project. The new boardwalk will consolidate the viewing bump -outs to a single location and will maintain the area of overwater cover (i.e., no change in the total area of overwater coverage from existing conditions). In addition, the new boardwalk will increase light transmission by using glass blocks in the boardwalk surface. As a result, the proposed project will reduce from existing conditions the amount of shading associated with overwater cover and reduce potential adverse effects from the overwater structure. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 175 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The project will also remove segments of creosote -treated bulkhead and creosote -treated piles Approximately 75 sf of aquatic habitat, associated with the excavation for the replacement of the upper timber bulkhead, will be gained between N Dock and P Dock. The project includes installation of planter boxes along the Portwalk and landscaping in the new plaza areas. Landscaping will consist of a mix of herbaceous species, shrubs, and trees. The project will increase the total area of vegetation within 200 ft of the shoreline. Evaluation of project impacts to listed species is provided in the project Biological Evaluation, which presents effect determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect, which is subject to consultation by the USACE with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS. The project will be undergoing Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation by the USACE with NOAA Fisheries under the Salish Sea Nearshore Programmatic (SSNP). As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed because the minimization measures do not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 176 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT6.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS The Port is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-ft section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. The project includes unavoidable work in -water and in adjacent upland habitat. The mitigation sequence presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC. The character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate (i.e., bulkhead and riprap shoreline) will be maintained under the proposed conditions, which will also result in a net gain in aquatic habitat, and the developed uplands will be modified to include additional landscaping. As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed because the project does not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 177 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT The findings presented herein are based on Landau Associates' understanding of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 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. Qualifications of staff authoring this report are provided in Appendix C. This report was prepared for the use of the Port 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. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 7-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 178 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTH.O REFERENCES City of Edmonds. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory & Characterization, SMA Grant Agreement No 60600108. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Sea -Run Consulting; TetraTech, Inc.; Reid Middleton, Inc.; and Pentec. November. City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds, GIS. Available online at: https.Ilmaps.edmondswo.govlHtm15Viewerl?viewer=Edmonds SSL.HTML. Accessed November 11, 2021. DOH. Office of Environmental Health and Safety Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Washington State Department of Health. Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer (wa.gov). Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. 2021. Sections That Contain Natural Heritage Features. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. TRS (wa.gov). July 15 DNR. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) (wa.gov). Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. Natural Area Preserves. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Area Preserves I WA - DNR. Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. Natural Resources Conservation Areas. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Resources Conservation Areas I WA - DNR. Accessed November 10, 2021. Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. Landau. 2021. Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation, North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction, Port of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington. Landau Associates. November 1. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 8-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 179 RECEIVED April2 , CITY OF E MONDS PLANNING & D VELOPMENT LA LANDAU Attach Puget Dr L 1524� . Caspers St z a Puget Sound Project Location City eowdoib Way Park \Woodway Pine St i V 1, 104 r 220th St Sw L 3 v , a � r t o < o < 0 0.5 1 Miles Data Source: Esri 2012 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington { I� AM Seattle Spokane Tacoma Ilympia Washington Vicinity Map Figure 1 Packet Pg. 180 RECEIVED April 2(� Attach U CITY OF PLANNING & a 0 N �\ O c-1 / / M ti 0 ao m 0 Legend Project Area v — — — Study Area (200-ft buffer) LA L1A N DAA U Source: Bing Aerial Imagery, 2021 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Q R r T S• '= Arnie's �I Restaurant f ~ Edmonds Yacht Club Port Administration J Building d I 0 Q d IY d 3 E 0 Cl) E 0 250 500 d IL Scale in Feet 4LO Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color t original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Q Project Area Map Figure 2 Packet Pg. 181 1 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures Packet Pg. 182 } < ! � A. / / � ) \_ _ ƒQ :■ � K Q � � 5 22 / i� ,! )! - �■\2\ �� \\} |� !/ k! fk a \ > / . < e z } f ) 0 - % } ! ! vi 4 |} | •f � � f o �o ■ ■ ■ ■ }, D: «: O- Z; «- § / \\I Q g c� W W w M N O N N a Q N G v 7 0 N C Cc V i 13 C D: a: 0 z: a- J J Packet Pc RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachment6 ■ \\edmd.W01\p,.je ,\113\038.010\R\FWHCA Cri[A—\N-3.d— LA LANDAU Priority Habitats and Species on the Web Reps Dole: 1111OM21 PHS Specmal 4abdals Overvew Occvn�r• r•..n. hr.r.r sur.4 stw fut- 4rorM tsr.tnv. PHS Specow"abdats Details FAMW ANr Asr! Nab" ar Mend WA AWWM tt% MAN WOONW srOWN [srrrr. �rq W.r w.lino • MWi cos @A SM sa..w orrr MwMwtrs $era MINT Na 6rwr swwr &" US M OW vex s♦rvto� Fedor W V. MA lltb sou. NM PNsumvsu" sAM PHSLO 00atwwm N 90CN N Owpow Rwo~ M MAPPf D MwnaWwW4�ne.turm, il o.o.wr r"O I POW - ant'.." r..•�.nw.r.u...r..�ww ww..�+pM�rt�Mo/.Y.�NIO�M rrrw.`rw wwWrn�wl...rrrMrr.a.t Pr ��•�wrw..r...-...r.......s..6n�y.wln..r.�.wr�w.M �. �.s.wN...wrwrwrrwt.ror�ow� .+w+...•.r..r r • .r.�r ► r r� re .rrwY rwr�rwwr rw� •� Nq 1r�.oMdV MwMs r rrwalr.�r �wr•. ........,......s.r•....r...•....r�•+�r�ti.rw�.wrr.w.r.rtrwr.t r.r.N„r...wrtrr ..•.. ,..r rr.rw.... ti•w • .........w wts•Nrr. oarww.nw..r •w wrr.w.rw r.rw • North Portwalk and I Figure Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Priority Habitats and Species /A� Edmonds, Washington on the Web A—J2 Packet Pc RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX E Site Plan Excerpts Packet Pg. 186 ' o NVd 311S r % " 4NV 133HS 83A00 O OZ096 VM 'SONOW03 0 M., z MIV81OV 9££-00£ o N0110f1?iSN003d IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVMidOd HIdON Z O t U XX D cr zo ;gym 02 LU 0o 0 _ c<. U aw a o m Q --U Z 3 GM O o Y g jHM E3N o z zo _ CJ omw� o O v as ;if ~ aow3o p3�3 z6LL 3= N 3sa- aRM o UN H Z (0) 7 06823 3 of oQ�_ =mg 1 a e so$na O 3 osw:s m�Rs ~ Q ozz g a co M�g Z W8 z 8 Q w NotV J Z Not Q ai$N$9 s"z9 0 Z OO � o3�mF8 O w 0 aeEF s O a3s CV U — �zo LLJ a "a Packet Pc SRON lVd3N30 T GNV 133HS d3A03 T__: U oz096 Ym 'saN(Dv4a3 FUG 0 $1.8 Avm lVd1r40V 922-002 iv�msnsMIA3H N9lS3U )OV�W NO-INNS-T' NoaondiSNOOM IIVMV3S (INV )IIVMIdOd HldON 'T 2 w Hw- NM ff� O g 11 z o H HA I 3t d 0, p IQ 2 1 D o oz2a' o- IN ! 01 HH. la -o -3 H�l H SmH -W OR 62. P 2 as p u sE 8 Rn H 69 H 6 Hy M, M n6 E 28 E 1olmiq I 0 WH fl as Z- 2 Hll I I - HH p P� 94 9 'o HipHill H PH NR 0 H eg nz im H R Ha N. lo H H H, H H� pg� , 8 5H 2 -to It a 11 H s @~ \\ { ! ` J eo&Noo Nos\aƒ 2Vwodn3l ~ o a m mm3 @§ ■ A; �e� \(maonaNOOM,»I_ a*, i«vs -o ! y; _aHIda, 6 )zo R : )) \ LU \ § ƒ\/ ° _ \ ` } / ¥ I = m / \ j < @�~ R \\ ! ` eo&Noo N\s%aƒ � Vwodn3l § { J o a m mm3 ■ A; ~ a*, 1«vs -o ! \(maonaNOOM,»I_ _aHIda, / 6 _(� 02 / ( �} § . }( / ! < > % m s \ / < d | ]/� Ail ƒ| \/ \ ] f - � § a NV]d r .11nllfl (IN'd JNI4d219 ll'd213A0 RIF) �,� � OZ086 VM `SONOW03 / N�1534 X €g,- $ AVM 1V211WOV 9££-00£ \,J U Wgi IVllIW9f15 M31A3N XhIX/XX a g w o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S (INV )IlVM1210d H1210N © Z � \ O -i tl U - 1 ' - J �/ J Z --_---T-r- _ .. i o v m 02 o a 111 C) Ill ,,Y°' - _ - I �, •` a cs 0 c) CL I; I w v �I 9 a JuuuLJF Y`Jll / Q o ME i �uuuuuuu O LL 0 z 0 Q finF Packet Pc O ^`gym a ` a ° S1lV'13(1 4NV Ndld INat om x )llllln 4Md JNIGVdS OZ086 VM 17:`03 AVM 1V211W922-0 OV 9££-00£ r v $oa IVllIW9f15 M31A3N NN534 XXhIXhO( o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S ONV JIlVM1210d H1210N Z'£J/S 3NIl HXVV4 £'3NIl HJ1tlW!Ml P p iQ . £]/S zo Ilxl i II I° 1. Ilal i s xg m o Ml 0� m I I Y I' M ° o - gym_- I °I al �y„ w Wf"I I� 1 0° o= e o 0 9 0 �. f_ a o m Im � 1 a s=- a 1 I ml $sm ¢ a I I I � WW2 �A� .�a=w o a xo am a� P. IIIIIII I I PB CO w w 1111 I I l 'IIIII I 1 �m M I o. I II 1 1 nl L �: N$ Q ,m allllllf/./RI. ,= a /AN ----- ----------- � IIIIIII 16 -------------- ---- Ilf jll CIl l I' I III lilt IIII o -------- --- z 11� IIIIII 11 1 .� i. Iljllllllllll�IIII II i� w III Ij111111 11 / Illllllllllllllllllllj 8 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �z F ' IIIIIII{IIIIIII � L < 3 3 III I I11111111111 I I I , ".. Illlllllllllll l u, s 0 10 I l 1 L^i I I I I I z IIIIIIIIIIIII I J, I o Illllllllllllll p IIIIIIIIIIIIII Q IIIIII6e,lIIIIIy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I � a � III IIIIIIIILIIIIIIII � _ � o = z � III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ', o¢ G W IIIIIIIIIIIIIlI11 j Y 0 0 1,o IIII IIIII111114111j1 u 3 G— m u IIIIIIIIIIIIIllll111 � I 5 m f z o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII#IIII j a z `—' _ (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u o g u'woIllllllllllllllllll F a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 3 a z F¢ (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 z o 3 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIjI z a a a III�IIII� s u 0 z a =ozu= sW �.P: 0,0 a om _� z I � N o o � � � rnnrraFrF wai K N and zo a Packet Pc FOA 3NIl HJ1tlW b'E]/l 3NIl HJ1tlW M Q II 1 I II ry � I I 1 I 1 II II II �I ml cl n I I ICI I I o I I I I I IIIII = z I I l l h l q 11111�1 I o i—f- i I I I z 1I I I I I � I I � ICI o.I11�I I �_ o I I I 1 1 1 o III rri I I I I �J I ~o I I I o Iml I z O I I 0 Q I I I I II� I I I I I I I .ml I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II IIsI.rI I I I I Ixl o I =1 1y I I Z'£J/13NIl HJ1tlW ■ �m mmm mm�I�� �I N£'E]/NIl HJ1tlW II N o ° = o % NVId Aii-iii l (INV MGM) MM 0Z096 VM `S0N0W03 ` J AVM lvdivi0V 9££-00£ U IVllIW9f15 M31A3N N�1534 XXhIX/XX 0 a w o NO110f1?11SNO0321 IlVMV3S 0NV NlVM1210d H1210N = z O t U U S a m 0 2 LU 0 _ LU <. >O U aw a o a m m ■ M M ■ C z a CV U — t Z— LU a 5a Packet Pc Z nc B;Iem„ a O � � ` a o a n � Nh'ld Alllllfl (INd MGM) l7 € 3 OZ086 VM `SONOW03 AVM Ivd1W0V 9££-00£ V iv1 msns MIA3N N9IS34 )OVIX X $Wn g Wo o N0110f1?11SNO03d IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVMIdOd HIdON z O J� O p� p�zir,ZE GxXx zo 0O1,n �gm zO p UE5Q wg OLU - V U m Y Q 0 i a-Lo LLO x0>^ V1 Q w N KQ pY oo w~ p ¢ y p U a v Z z a S 3 a` 0 d o m ao p CL r~aHa woLLaQ c�� =<_ snpH �0�0=U' wow 0D eo O O Q x o Z pLLH tF n yn 7 Q I b'£7/T 3NII HiN M M M M inL'£7/T 3NII H71tlW CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc S'£3/T IN H31tlW W R£ MNM M. M IT MIN II ry I III Qal S O Ss =ao 1 s3� I aQls I I N o I I z 0 I I ml�i II Y I I n \ � n n I J M N (D N o % NVId Aii-iii l (INV DNI4`:=E) L0 OZ096 VM `SONOW03 z AVM lvdiriOV 9££-00£ V w o NoaonUSN003d IlVMV3S 0NV )IlVMIdOd HidON = -0 t U ;m 02 LU 0 F _ w — t`' 0 U aw a o a .MOON MMMMMM . `...G.. QIQ mws � Eli oi- 1 1 1=1 I I 4£3/T 3NIl H31tlW / 11 I IIII II 0M"'MM,lim-r-I-Irrl� ,S'£3/1 3NIl HXVVY I I 1 I I. III 1, 04 U — ( Z— LLJ a 5a Packet Pc .� or o % Nhld Alllllfl 4Nd MGM)((0 OZ096 VM `SONOW03 CO AVM lvdiri0V 9££-00£ ; U iv1 mans MIAM NNSM XXhO(/XX ' a w o„d,a s3a e Z. o NoaonMiSNOOM llVMV3S 0NV NlVMIdOd HldON z O x Uzo � U 0 � Z m O Q W I lL � O 0 F _ W — OU a a a w �© O RESiROOM BUILDING CJ �� ® \\ \\a\I FFE=13.4 cn 26 o atm a: 0 e� m„ o l I I la IIII a I�7Ia I o Qma3 I I I I I I° IIIJ w"gaos-� P III g II III I� I II q� m $ 3 I , I 3 1 1 sW 3 �IL P li w a si 0/13NII H]ltlw °�g _ _ s ������ Ti�l�l VI mmm' ������ ������ �ITi �����ds N9ii E]/NIl HJ1tlW i I I :°I .--�w< -,o N o�o� I >?I III I° WS I wow N rr N o 0 n V = �zo Lu a "a Packet Pc �0 �o-Z O = Fr, Z O wF 0 2 1, c7 V U m y m ti ? Q p v U w u a" < - z R Q 3 a p l 3 .0 a Oa woaao Z Q y F 0m Z p 2 H ~ n .� or � o % Nh'ld Alllllfl (INd MGM) ry�� OZ096 VM `SONOW03 ` J AVM IV81WOV 9££-00£ U iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 XXhO(/XX a w o„d,a s3a e Z. o NOaonMiSN00M IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVMidOd HIdON = )/I 3NIl HXVVY 1 m m m ■ )/I 3NII H]1tlW E CV U — �zo LU a "a Packet Pc Z nc a O ` a o a n Nhld Alllllfl (INd MGM) Oo 8;mm„ ` J l7 € OZ086 VM `SONOW03 AVM lvdiri0V 9££-00£ U $Wn g 3 Wo o N0110f1?11SNO03d IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVMIdOd HldON = ltl1LIWsns MlI NIDISM )OVIX X z O J0 O p� GxXx zo ZE 0O1,n �gm zO p UE5Q wg OLU - V U m Y m�zJo Q 00li i a-Lo Ii0 x0>^ V1 Q w N KQ pY oo w~ p ¢ y p 0 U a v� Z z a 3o— a` p a Q K 3 -~aHa woLLaQ c�� =<_ snpH �0�0=U' wow 0DO eo O x Z pLLQ H tF o tap 36„ p I — — p I X — '�L_EJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW ■ m 04 I VEJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW O Ijlj�,� N ow�w rr N V = itzo � a "a Packet Pc Sl V13G S„ Alllllfl 4Nd JNI4d219 _? �� OZ096 VM `SONOW03 0 l7 €1=a 3 W AVM 1Vd1W0V 9££-00£ r U $ W n p iv1 mans MIAM NNSM )OVIX XX ' No„ 1-3p e o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 11VMV3S 0NV JI1VM1210d H1210N yM �® I 1Willf I ��, - �°� �000aaee - I I 18000090 �i -- Q Q� 3 h IB � 'hill i la,PS! fill Cl),p�aaae ���a� �f� � a et ! 3 04 N o°= z O x Uzo �U 0 � Z 00 O Q W L O 0 F _ W — >U O a a HY oil.' . � Ly■ � P � '6 ZG g o Y by U CV U — �zo LU a Packet P� U S„ $ W n g a w NVId 10diNOO OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ096 VM `SONOW03 IV81WOV 9££-00£ o N01 ondiSN00M IIVMV3S (INV )IIVMIdOd HIdON r t,J iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 )OVIX XX © Z � O I a -zo gm Z v oo - = _.g� oLU o W F $ U N~ O I aw o m aCL i �uuuuuuu 0���� z 0 Q CD N �a N o° rr N o1zn V = �o � a "a Packet Pc at om O x NVId 10diNOO (v OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddWl HIS Tom. <_ OZ086 VM AVM `SONO0 lvdiriOV 9££-002 U ivllmsNSMIAM N�IS34 V/)M 3 Wo NOondiSN00M llVMV3S ONV )IlVMIdOd HIdON Z'bJ/S 3NIl H71tlW ■������ I .I I / I. � 119O i��a�� o' ° a � ICI ��� / �' �% ��■ Z y '�J a' o zo I III II 11.1 I .II.�' =om zo 02 � a 00 LU o� I IIII 14 P. I' 71 d_ v_ o og�� I IIII I .1 I. e o o m .0 a I - A,- � j l I I I I w IIIIIII I 1 �. `11 II I III I LLJ Q r mIIIII u z �- I I i i -------------------` ; __- 1i111111 N II IIIfIf I IPN I I 'a' a Ilji11111 III InII o„ = 0 II r lull//;r/lull -°I.11!'� s N l l I I I I IIII I --- z o I I I hI I I I I I 1 l d ?� II II II II ---- --------' wIIII IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIII 1 I I o= I � o IIIIIIIIIII-�IIIIIIIII j l IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I Po � o z IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII'"IIIIIII I1111111111111 1 J, LL, I , o IIIIIIIIIIIIIII p 11111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII] Q I I I I I 6e,'I I I I I I y �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z 5 > � a II (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIILIII1111 o =7, z o a G W II (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII lllllllllllllllll o o O 1,o G — Illlllllllllllvlllll IIIIIIII111111111111 Y u 3 I u m � m f z o IIIIIIIIIIIIIII#IIII � j z a Z= g IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u o a N g w a > IIIIIIII 111111 TI 11 3 a z F a 11111111111111111 llllllllllllllllljjl l > o 3 0 11j1111111111111111j1 a S w ,Ililillilllllllll,l o w��aa 0LL(Do 2 Zp< a� sW zmn2H~ rnN(:RFTF WAIK W N o V = �Z- W Q a Packet Pc =mm 8'� a o % S-11V13G aMd N'dld 10NINOO (� v OIAAVd1 (INV 1N31N3AOddW1 HIS € =a OZ096 VM `SONOW03 AVM 1V81WOV 9££-00£ 06l7 $ W n 3 W U iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 )OVIX XX g o NoaondiSN00321 I1VMV3S (INV )IlVMIdOd HIdON z O zo o �, 0 3w o - WM.zmo i ,1 1, ! �i _ ofZ. a z K -- 30 ! j il11l a CL o m a E z0 � ���; ` f ( I Ir i o o ° a o ,�st z z w z0 o2Hv~i (Il1t�; � � ��I•®J�t� ��j% a: � s £b7/T 3NI1 HJltlw I.I.I.I. VtO/S Nil HJltlw I z I I I I I I I I I I I 0 Z I I I I I 2 III I I z c=W=IIIII I I 0 I III I I I I I N I I I I I z II II 0 I I I I I w I o o I I II I I Lj- 0 o�o I I I I I z 0 IIIII I I Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I oa� I m a I I Z'b]/S 3NIl HJltlw I I I / I. ■mmmmmM n H�1vw �I I II 1M1 10 I I I Nev.3/N o ° = cv U, 04 ma C% = (z o W a a 00 mmmmmmmmmmmmm m M M ■ C 2P Packet Pc =m„ S„ a o N'dld 10diNOO OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS l7 €=a 3 OZ096 VM `SONOW03 AVM IV2IIWOV 9££-00£ U iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 )OVIX XX $ W n g W o NoaondiSN00321 IIVMV3S ONV )IIVMIdOd HldON -0 J0 z 0 E p p U G p�Q!-i q :°X �O - ZOp�H o O H Q a,0 �z g z 0 ~NpY m w� OQ du mFZm p _ 0LwL i aZu O x0>^O n v w in z pY oa w F ¢u za 3ppN3 aw 0 CL o m o 332Z a Q Od �~a�Q z0LLLD a0 ~ Z W Y ~ 0 0 Q H . o W Z p 2 H v~ I� 3NII kxm I I I\ I w�`--L-r-I-Irrl� S,to T3NIl HXVA Q = I I I I l l l l I ;I N I I° I I II II II 16 :� I I j I Igo .I a� `- � o = I I IL N o I I I I I 1 1 1 z I I I I I I I e l I F o ° w IIIIIII � 1111111 I. rri I I I I I I I Mla � l° o,w I Qs I I I I. z I o \I II III I T I Ia' I I I Q2. I I I I I s �. .la I I I I I II l i i I I 11. I £'YJ/T 3NII H71tlW -- I -I -I -I- I b'bJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW I N wa Q zo, aj1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 b'£J/T 3NII HiN ----- L'£J/T 3NII HJ1VW - - - CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc O # F a =m„ a o Ndld 10211N0OLID S� nm OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 VM `SONOW03 l7 € 3 W AVM lvdiviOV 9££-00£ U $ W n p iv1 mans MlI N9XX 1SM )OVIX ' o„d, sap e o Noaon iSN00321 IIVMV3S 0NV NIVMIdOd HldON = �0 �o-Z O = Fn' ZOwr 0 2 1, c7 u u m Y m ti ? Q =�^ V u p w N a" < - z R Q 3 a p u� 3 .0 a a Oa ~ Q H Q w0LLao Z Q Y F 0(D QFOQ 0 m 0 = Z I 2 1— tt; S'b7/T 3NIl HJ1tlW ° o G----- ----- --�-I 9'tO/T 3NIl HXVA l -- ------ ------ - I � � I II IL=3 I=,� I��❑ _ � ��� Is I r I I I O I I I � I � — I , \ a I s \ \! \ \ M\ \ \ \ Ply Z No //. // I II 11 IIII 1 II IIII ° el. d b'VD T 3NIl H71tlW ----'. 'SYJ/T 3NIl HXVVY II CV U — itzo � a pa Packet Pc O # F a =m„ a o Ndld 10211N0O (4 S� nm OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ096 VM `SONOW03 l7 € 8 3 W AVM lvdiviOV 9££-00£ U $ W i p iv1 mans MIAM NNSM )OVIX XX ' o„d,a sap e o NoaondiSN00321 IIVMV3S 0NV NIVMIdOd HldON �0 �o- O Z = p - Q I J "i ZOww 021n� c7 V U m Y m ti ? Q =�^ v U p w u a" < - z R Q 3 a p u� 3 .0 a a a 3: � Oa F ~ z H Q w0a '0 Z Q Y 0(D Q 0 Q 0m=� Z O 2 H ~ Z r \ CL \ <a \\\\ \ I O \\ III Z O / / i v O— 0 O o \ 1 z O I I I I I I I ~ 0 CL ° w I 4 Q a_3 I I o <I II I I I 0 I I I I I l l l i I 9'MJ/T 3NII H71tlW limmommo M9i tO/T 3Pz1Il HXVA ° l I I T-.1m I I'' II 1M OI z NI z. I I g�0 \ 05� 5■5 -_- _ CANOPY m r � RES iROOM BUILDING m FFE=13.4 r b; a U U IN IN �F 1 �o r MONISM 11MOMMOOMMOOMMI min m' ME -0 x Uzo � U 0 � Z m O Q w lL � O 0 F _ w — OU a a CV U — �Z- � a pa Packet Pc =m„ a o NVId 10diNOO S„ OIJJVdi (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 VM `SONOW03 0 l7 € 3 Wo AVM IV81WOV 9££-00£ U $ W n p iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 )OVIX XX ' o„d,a sap e o NoaondiSN00321 IIVMV3S 0NV NIVMIdOd HIdON W I`� ■ 3 2 ,3 � ry N , r7 , cv , z O , n Nil HXVVY � ■ Nil H]1tlW E -0 x Uzo � U 0 � Z m O Q w lL � O 0 F _ w — OU a a CV U — itzo � a pa Packet Pc =m„ a o NVId 10diN0000 S� nm OIJJVdi 0NV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS 00 l7 € OZ086 VM `SONOW03 AVM lvdiviOV 9££-00£ U $W n g 3 W o NoaondiSN003d IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVMIdOd HIdON = iv1 msns MIAM N9IS34 XO IXM z O J0 O p� pm-Qi-ice GxX zo 0O1,�Q �gm ZO n p U wg OLU - V U m Y m�zJo Q 00 li i a-Lo Ii0 x0>^Q V1 Q w V1 . pY oa Ill H' p ¢ y p U a v Z z a 3 ?�. aw 0 o m ppuHi c O o Q _ d a o a Oa a woaao Z Q Y F rowum Ha p a z0w� O O x F Z p 2 H n W � I 0�� 1 LLJ Q �� ■ z� F�a PRp s + = a:a 212 ry Z _ BENC BONC N® „---------- O O / ----- CL cn ���_; 81 ;__ U41 i 3 O , I II CL , Q ; I � I Y � � I I _ ------ --'�---�---�-__�__bJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW 1 M N I"■ N ■ -InI I W 8'7J/T 3NII HD1tl \\ N ow CV LU a Packet Pc RIHl'i'll" i U �a I E HE k In 9 .Fg 4 o too-, ol S310N -wdnionais ozo96 Ym 'sallovm AVM IV81NOV 95�2 NoaonUSNOOM IIVMV3S ONV AIVM180d H18ON T— T--: co -`0 2H HE 6,4 lg�s E 2 o In 2 RM Ho aW -S 2 5 alg- yF M kg., g�- i5 H v g 2E HE H 5 H i 111111 i11111 1111111 W1111111 2-o rr C', 7E LLJ a5 -z Packet Pc ^`=m SRON ivviondis lda3N30 N U Z ag "M1°� OZ086 VM `SONOW03 l7c=oa o 3 W AVM 1V211WOV 9££ VJ 13S �S DO d M9 VJ)O(M ryWa o 0 o N0110fUiSN0038 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVMI80d H18ON = m I In s � w osoaw 5 say3 m Qa Sw o "o 8�e °:� �-a�e8�� oFF�Q=;pfiwb ow rd�o '8 _Q6° �io M—HJ e'a"sa9m10 t H z _s>= gw�A°p3 3oWs_ 'off �siiM fll H-19ii ew3 $ SS ��oas�LL wos="`w=s�wo .�s °seam ON.- °zF€Faoow=s1 w a oaa:i �:� � °Mp a i as a a "a S..�° a sib€�o8s= I � z CV U — �zo � a Packet Pc cm N O N N`dld 311S ll'da3A0RI r N aZa86 VM `SaNOWa3 r^ AVM IV81NOV 9££ r $n p 13S 993N90Hd M9 )OVIX ( W' o No-1-3a e o NOIlaf1?11SNOa321 IlVMV3S aNV JIlVM1210d H1210N = �l M CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc Vd N'dld 311d lV'1121dd T OZ086 VM `SONOW030 r^ AVM lvdlv4OV 9££ r = 13S SMIDOW M9 XX kM o o N0110f1?11SN003d llVMV3S (INV )IlVMld0d Hld0N Z'ES/T 3NIl 71tlN I ...����mi'�, I / I ■■■3 Z'ES 3N Il�t41!W RAMP �m Z'£S/Z 3NIT HJ k I III I I I I I I I I W £'ES/T 3NIl H]1tlW I I I I I I I I I 3 �aa II III ( I I I I I 3 I I I I I I I II ��aa I I I 3� �Y I I I III IIII I - -zz4t�� m�WWWwg II g ° I I I I I I I I I � 4 �� �� I Q PA_ �I II II II 11 II In _ I CONC WALK I IIII I IIIII CONCRETE IIIII I Q a I sz �`m ( I I I I �o II r� z i i Q� Y I 3� I11 I sa I I I I I I I I gQ o 1111 H I r T' I 11 II 'I I I '� mz o I III I i31 I I e� I ado IIIIIII � WI�II I I II II 3 � I � w� �m I�III11 //A�EII;; I -F _EcoNREr � a �hI I I I I I s w N It O F Y O ll l= � I11�HIM I ' CC w o I I I I II 3�3 � I II ljlllllllll� I ,T4�I z �a��� / I z 5 IIIIIIIII �I 1�7 / 5 �o�ow I/ j I I ; IIIIIII IIII//" N l l I I I I I I J III I (IIIIIII I ^a _ I I �e a' I II II'?11111111 I�5-3'H71tlI a���i ■■■a �" I ES/Z 3NMI, H�]1MNf N �� CD o$� IIIIIIIIIIIII lllil.7-Ilnii� z I I I I I N U, N ma LLJ a "a Packet Pc /w U8;mm„ 0 No l7 € =a $ W n o � o 13S S DObd M9 XftM 3 ° o W � N'dld 311d lV'1121ddVd OZ086 VM `SONOWO3 AVM IV81NOV 9££ o N0110f1diSNO03d llVMV3S (INV )IlVMIdOd HldON r N co v, l� 1� �EE5�3NI]�ltl . rI III ■ � ■ _0___e___` --_s—_ £-'fS/Z HJl% I 111 I \ 'IN \ z " I IgW I 1 INS 1 IIIII I�Ii 11 I I II I I � zoo I u u �_-�- II I o f i l II II 11 i J¢II II m I � m II I II I I I I I I I � I I II II I I I I I I I I - a Z a I I I I 1I I I I I I I I I I I - I I II I I I I I I i I I ALUMINUM RAMP \ I k Qe o , v I I I I I I I I \ I I I III I I \\\ \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I aF `\■\ \ \ \\ \ I A \ vv vA / II I 1 II o I I° I I I I I I I �v■ vv vv v v V A ' `■ \\ \\\\ \ I I I o� � El ym 3 �� II I I I I' I - F-- ,■ \\ 1 III I I I I I I Ii_1_ � I II III I ■/ 11 11 � = o I I I 3 � // 1 1 I �� I 11 I II I I a� Z'£SZ 3NIl,H71VRAMP .. E'f5/Z3z Il HJ1tlW 1 M 1 ■ I 4. ■■■�■■■ems �'" '£'E5=3NIl �1tlNF��.I I , •� r ���� '" £'wz 3NIl HJ1tlN 1 ■ ~" N f 1 1 1 1 Z� II 11 1 I I I I I q CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc N'dld 311d lV'1121dd OZ086 VM `SONOW03 co VJ l7 € =a 3 W AVM lvdlv4OV 9££ r $ W n p 13S SMDObd M9 XftW ' 0 o d,a°53a e o NoaondiSN00321 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVMIdOd HldON = b'bJ/T 3NIl H111W o f I I I I MI I I - b'b]/Z 3NIl HJ1tlW U V I I I I I o ALUMINUM RAMP o i I I I'll- � • I I I I i JY Z 3 \ \ \ \\ o Q� 0tt 1 \ \ \\ \ I\ \ E'bJ T 3NIl IIJltl "Q d Cl)�a Z 3- HJ1tlV� ,z, N o°= >, \\I / I mZ oi. ° 1 Y I O^'i Qj� II V o,N�1 I ° 1 Z�I I 1 WTI I ALUMINUM RAMP U o ( I I I I I I 119. I I I I b'ES/T 3NIl HJ1tlW *..T- b'ES/Z 3NIl!,m I I I ° " ,���AI U �� IIIII yj CV � a "a Packet Pc NV-ld ONIW`d21d A334 r OZ086 VM `SONOW03 r^ AVM 1V81NOV 9££ r $ n p 13S SMDOb3 M9 V/)MXX W ' o No-1-3a e o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S 0NV JIlVM1210d H1210N = Z'VS/I 3NIl HXVA M E N Z'IS/Z 3NIl HXVA 'I N M N. �o° a Z'VS 3NI1'H711W RAMP mimmmmmo INN U o £'b5/1 3NIl H]1tlW 4 U 2 Y ❑ � Um p o 0 o c �/1 Q 2 O W of � P.A. 21 CONC WALK CONCRETE s 3 U 0 p U 2 U m 3 C O 3 3 21 3Y wJ2oJ D, 3 O � \ WQ ALUMINUM RAMP � � CONCRETE � L Z 5 lz� I Z'b5/T 3NIl H71tlW Z'b5/Z 3NIl H]ltlW p 0 r rr N o1n V = itzo � a Packet Pc NV-ld 9NIW`d21d A334 N OZO86 VM `SONOW(33 l7 € =a 3 W AVM lvdlv4OV 9££ rco $ W n p 13S S DObd %M9 V/)M XX ' o No-1-30 e o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S ONV JIlVM1210d H1210N = ■ E'bS/I 3NIl HJ1tlVCI E'bS/Z 3NIl HJ1V -'_ Um O � U � �n Y 33 O Zm W p m WW m p d � Q m d K O ALUMINUM RAMP j o U 0 0 o o � ■ I I JQQCC � I t cPQQ CV LU a Packet Pc NN `d�d �NIW`d21d NON M OZ086 VM `SONOW03 l7 € =a 3 W AVM IV81NOV 9££ r $ n p 13S SMDObd M9 XftW W ' o No-1-3a e o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S 0NV JIlVM1210d H1210N = b'65/I 3NIl HXVA O E N E E N bi bS/Z 3NIl HXVA U O 0 L) U ti E O \ O11 ALUMINUM RAMP IM' WOE 0 U � W� �n Y 3� W 2 W O 3m W W p d� O d U r V J RAMP ■ E'bS/l 3NIl . E'bS/Z 3NIl HJl M N �a N o° 33 it WQ W O 3m WW mo d O d K U O I O O W ALUMINUM RAMP VISA 3NIl H3iM O b5/1 31II1 HJ1tlW U MENEM c� BRIDGE �CANDPY ■■■ m rr N o 0 n Lu a Packet Pc @�~ �� `�`� ' t� : SN@� !SLO � @§ { ¥ o a m mm, ■ A; ~ a«, lm«s ! �e�13S_ „ \(m�a�M,»I_ _ a�ON :« Q, .f I � � � �T � . �l ■ - � . 9` f �(§ : SN@U0 !SLO � § ( ¥ o a m mm, ■ A; ~ a«, lm«s ! 13S_ „ \(maonaNOOM,»I_ )IIVMldOdHIdON :« Q, :f I � ! : T k±Q« :« §) Q � \ ~ � � � : � / \ \ M \ ,\ . . . , . � / /(( 8=o �o E � 3S mm„ � o � SN011�3S 0 aZa86 VM `SaNOWa3 LO VJ l7 € =a 3 W i3s sAVM IV81NOV 9££ r g W a o saasoaa w,os xxha/xx ' No-1-30 e o NOIlaf1?11SNOa321 IlVMV3S aNV JIlVM1210d H1210N = A AA A d � d k 3 i 4 C GQ5 N3 I I I I I I I I 3^ � J I o I T.. 3 F5� G C, r e N wf N N ma I a a w N Packet Pc N Packet Pc sIVi 3a 313 dalloo � @§ { ¥ o a m ' mm, ■ A; ~ a«, 1m«s ! �2 _ „ 0 \(m�a�M,»I_ _ a�ON f d §/ § H- d 2 \ v � 04 [/i &: s Id oa gk nd !od 2� S § { ¥ o a m mm, ■ A; ~ @ a«, lm«s \(m�a�M,»I_ _aHIda, 7,111 } } ^ (! I! \ .,. , d §/ § I N§§(! �y + ` ~ } 0 + i [ k! :Lr; ,{ P ( ] 2_ !4} E] N Packet Pc m«� o \c : m })O2 :/vow:/� % :a w 0° 0NOAoa aO qoa SHOWN " ~2 / j 2 j 2 j 4e § 6 ► ■ -- \ �§dG\) ®6fG+ L [7(((�\(\§ Uru0z „ ;®® > - omllt.�l�`gg�.:: « , ;®!`zb�� ©b!»X)\§))�e\)!! \o,l������a==��� LU , (((((()()) \5 Z 0 ! 2 ) ; 2 « § 2 ¥ § § )) } 2 - § ! Z 0 u w !_ � =2 °) z )°u0 §� Q n��/ );E ,! y � § \r 2 ! \ ( ( Q 2 \\ \ § § § G � 2 .. » d++ \ 06 V) � )§ < 72y� 2 vloe ew §C, e E§2®�®!> /)y ))�)§ u_G®®QRRt§81m � 0 CL S$ §oo�=o&� e�ua&ewrRR&®�- � � � a . Q . )// §#!� z uo: 02)� )\}3$k/!\e®$0 �®°\ ®$$§Ou<:E 6 02 Z § _ 0 )\,!\¥ � § B} E.K »:� 0 \}\(!r- zz 0 %<<!!2®%SSSS§§m Q ± , f L 0_2 �!!!»§§:l66S<»� \\( 7#<a�=-00000::: _m (O NVId 3115 AIVMl?JOd 1Vd3N3D 6LOS-699 (90Z) :XV3 0909—Z99 (90Z) 131 £Z/L/Z F3HS „9£X.*Z a01 38V NMOHS S31VOS 31ON 31111 ONIMtlaa LO196 VM '311LV3S OOL 31105 '1S NOINO OOS SS3a00tl v vM SUDI Y w o � z 0 _ L 03NO3H0 -Nb6 !NsoM 'spuowP3 !A-M 1-!-PV 9££ NOiion1 1SNOO]d-nVMV3S ONV AlWi1JOd H12JON SCNOWQ3 dO i2]Od �NMvaa a3noaaav Not dlaos3a 31va Q )A/ww a3No1s3a SNolsn3a 0 o I I •� _••ink • I_: .�11■� j - 0 a O 3 _ mml I off. m o�� -I—�IIII� mml mill 4 4� mml mml mml,. mmis° mil: ENMI mil - ■i■mmpl a1 �I�■1V"n�7 • m�fir 13 � a Ai r x.,9-.9 li i x „9-,9 ------------ .II ItlYI Y LarII 4 Iu v 05i co Packet W w (O L d0 L NVId 311S �IVMl?JOd 431IV13O 6LOS-699 (90Z) :Xtl3 6133H5 y „9£XebZ 2103 3ilV NMOHS 531tl05 310N 31111 ONIMV210 0909-Z99 (90Z) �131 101B6 VM '31llb35 :03NO3HO uoj6uiysoM 'spuowp3 .,(oM Iwiwptl 9££ OOL 31105 '1S NOINO o05 :ss3NOOV L NMV80 NOIlmJ1SNO332J-nVMV3S ONV AlWi1 JOd H12JON v�M"'�" ¢� wvih :a3NOIS30 SGNMM] d0 i?]Od N SHOWN uw � Swo A e e R, I U i E O w rc O z 3 L O 0 if t) ❑ N7 Qp U : oy SNOISVN3N 11 W.� Q w (O 6133H5 a03 3atl NMOHS 531V05 310N Z �O Z NVId alS NIVMIMOd (ElIVAG 6LOS-6S9 (90Z) :XV3 090S-ZS9 (90Z) �131 y „9£XebZ 31111 ONIM"O 1O196 VM '31LLV3S OOL 'ans "lS N�OINO 0"0'5�:s"s3a00tl `83)IVV4 -ry zo o z03NM0 CO)O v LQ l6u7"mIspuwp3!A'mNw79££ lVMV3S OV NlM1210d H12ON SGNOWaJO lOIQd1 NtlONOlOfbS00321 O3AOaddtl OlIa0S30 31tl0 JJ./WW :03N0 sNOISn3a OM U- �_'s .g w00alm ONusIx3 I L ggg _ to O�G C o 3 �sI S„ I I � I I o a a` IL I I ° I I �wrc zz 3w_ Uu� S O�U I o�Q I L Q J r I i sw it Ow \ O G; 0U 5 �O mow¢ UUpZ " o rc�� s oGm a O Ul7w \ rcu wU wU pU - - �''Sw < a U'w^ uo U \\ Od ol ON U pm g ° wJ °mow Caa I Q Q g� „o N Z. z w UU yp 1 O a u- wu U� a § M 2 O L zc _ Na0 I wU e o= ova W a "a Packet P� = wVld — c w ; e� a al,�amgyar,_ a CDA911 "'IV,aim /eo�0 G SGNOA m ao oa SHOWN {^ $ ) : _ , m � . SNOI R ()e :3&z.o - + \>r§&o24 o-OF..�< k2G!?«)! to e` E#uomo - eee°+o�a �6:Ez _ - \<&88/6//2 ( ) ) #29\::°�d© }.- 0 §ff2>°Z< u ��a ; \|,,, §>§)43<e)7! a�lbgzi�&� !: _ _ !E - -�- -- � � y 2 7 ! \ 4 \ ) \ ( \ < § ) } z| ( /> \ . §( (( area_,=_ age—c wa — c �,_ _ mor�a\wIS �\o.a�a S�§��� _ .§, *\§ ! \0 , area_,=_ age —c 131 wa — c 311 03A3/ mores N0 G a mm a j . : s2NOAa JO INOa S� §AVM * _, m {~} !SNDISIAAH / 0 � §!®!_ ;)!/ | z. ( ) � Q , ( � n. / �) § 2 Z JO l SNOIIV�AN3y13� 6LO9-z99 (906) :XVd cz/e/z 903HS .,KX„b6 i103 3a�,I V NMOHS S31VOS :310N 7 NVId 3ansolzwq `gWM1'Ntl9' 0805-z99 (90Z) :131 10106 VM '31lltl3S L 03NO3HO uo�6uiysoM 'spuowp3 :FOM 1-1!- / 9Ff OOL 3110S '1S NOINO 009 SS3HOOV N0110fk11SN001 11VMV3S 0NV N1VMi?JOd Hi�JON `° OIS3C SaNOwa3 JO 1NOd S213)lVri 03AOdddV NOUNDS30 31V0 0 Q /J./WW �03N01530 SN01CIA3N .. S�3 owe owe w 3 d62 d<p w0 _Fm w0 Op �Ua 0Ua O n�a _ p 19o3 z0 w� U w4000 0 LL 0 U Q E l) 'o 0 rf 4-1 o 0 N n O Q oa o� owa o 0o a3 ==o 0 w�mUUp 4Oo� aQ Oo°oau n OU '-e 2.SU -.2�R T I U OQ - o 8.51 O O .01 Ox OQ rcO NUQ n� �so ox0 �wf uo ►` o= o V3f o U o o� Q w w O o�u w 00000000�00000 ��� "2 �N 000000000000000 000000^0^0000000 .o I Packet W w 2 Z J Z SNOI1Vn313 6co9-z99 (goz) �xtld cz/e/z S&3HS .,KX„b6 aO 3aV NMOHS S31VOS :310N 7 NVId 3NnosZ 1� 0909—Z99 (goz) :131 N 10196 VM '37lltl3S 03NO3H0LQ �311f5�15 N"O�IN f� "0 "0 "9 'S�5'3 a00V iysoM 'spwp3 :FOM 1o1iwy 9F£ NOIlOfk11SN003a 11VMV3S 0NV NVM1?JOd H1�JONNM"� 03Aoaddtl NOUNDS3a 31VC 03N0153SNowao 1NodJW4NS3idW w SNOICIn3a .. Cl) N O N 1H 150d 1tl101 )13H ONIOIS 1tl101 9�00000000000 0000000000000, s a ao a ro Saw xaoa-'a 3�0. w�a ymo3�boWF� ,^ i3� Ep3�a�o3o-0 y06 �_00a_OOYW W w Packet co 6c09-z99 (90z) :xVd £z/9/z 33Ns s£x.,ez and 3av NMol3s s3wos a1oN SNO1Vn313 VZVld lVNINDO o9os-zs9 (9oz) 131 31111 ONIM"O 10196 VM '311LV3S L 03NO3HO uo�6INIIM 'spuow93 !AIM 1"!w9V 9££ OOL 311f15 '15 NOIN fI OOS S53a00V NOUOnkJiSN0O�J IlVMVIS GNV NIVMidOd Hi�JON NM"3( saNOwa3 JO 1NOd S213) 03TOaddV NOIId IMOS30 31V0 Q Q /J./WW �03NO1530 SNOICIA3a .. I I I L7------ [ I I I dU ~ 62 O �O .q m Em luv1 I UN~ i�O O i i a.t i Packet W w Packet LL (O 6L09-Z99 (90Z) :XV3 lZ/9l/8 a03 3V NMOHS 531VOS 310N SliViaiIVaaaV/eV Vmia a OBOS-ZS9 (904 :16133HS 31 „FX„bZ y 311I1 ONIMVHO lOLR6 VM 7LLV3S O t o :03NO3HO uo�6 uiy soM 'spuowp3 'FOM I.".Pv 9f£ OOL 311HS '1S NOINH 005 :SS3aO0V z L :NMvaa NOIlOfI?J1SN003?J �WMVIS (INV Y17VM1210d H1a0N ry -5 � \\II JJ SONOWa3 do iaoU i 1 03noaddV NOI1dIaOs30 31V0 v Q M/WW :03N OISO SNOISIn3a m0 w� iK iu w ¢ E ? o 3 z 3 o a z °Oo0�o a o a u� x Ill\� y i p 3 E 0 _M_ _ NEI w a ■■■ 1 IR Ii 11 I � �' 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 I0< I3 G _ I a °'o gO o m =��a° �m �'z uiuy E uw �� �O z� z0 aiOV0 rcd -zo �U �O �O �r - l9x e �<lm U 0Go ¢m Q ¢U F E< p �O z ircx`6 0a j ~OQ JU 6 zm < 00 0 < �Q^ y 0 a 0 0 3 U < 0 9 �ry Packet (O 6LOS-ZS9 (90Z) :XVA lZ/6l/8 M1 :310N IV 111I /�^ S31b'J nil❑I I`�3S OBOS-ZS9 (90Z) :131 y HS „KX„*Z a01 3W NMOHS S31VOS 311I1 ONIMVHO lOL96 VM '7i.LV3S 4 0 :03NO3HO uo�6 uiq"m 'spuowp3 .A'm Iouiwpv 9£C OOL 311HS '1S NOINH 009 :SS3a00V V z O L : NOI XO J1SZTI3 J 7VMVIS (INV Y17VMi2JOd Hi?JON .- NM VaO SONOWa3 d0 12i0d � � a3noa33v NOINOISn3a0 va a Q Wm" 03NOIS30 o= 3w� i y�< 0 Uwe OUz I av �9a „�N sgc m UP .Go "0 � < W w 0 3� u� es &o �oF a 3 e 0 0 a C" u b I �m 0 70 a i W - d' < \ o 7 3 O WFO iu O w � i aN 1 u III 1 1 � 6v I 1 1 Packet Packet LL (O 6L09-Z99 (90Z) :XV3 lZ/bZ/S :310N SINE(] iNDNiVDNi 3zb' Nns O2OS-Z99 (90Z) 131 6133 y HS „9F%„bZ a03 3aV NMOHS 531VOS 311I1 ONIMVHO lOIB6 VM '7LLV3S Q o :O3NO3HO uo16 uiy soM 'spuowp3 .A'm Ioaiwpv 9£C 00L 311 HS '1S NOINH 009 :SS3aOav z 0 L �NMvaa NO,i,,,llSN003?J ,,VMV3S (INV Y17VMi2JOd HlaON.- ry I.� \\II JJ SONOWa3 do iaoU i 1 a3noaddV NOI1dIaOs3a 31Va v - Q M/WIN :O3N OIS3O SNOISIn3a u o o=. - 3 3 LLprcw� zaz uu�Ou w3 2m.�Q� g �goz�o �-0 z UGrymU a W�> wU0 Oi a az�p� Y6p�ahIZ iWUrcQIQ - ` OR FQQQ> i 3 m a aJ� O F M z a o N wf s � ooi a N o'er ®oo 000 00 00 00 00 000 000 O== 00 00 _= 00 00 00 o °_• _ o00 00 00 I =oo 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 0� I , � Hu m90� 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 _ o00000 o00000 000000 000000 000000 00000o a 000000 000000 o00000 000000 000000 �®0000 000000 1\ 5 ?Se� ;B6 a m S g@Y3� F ,a3 Packet W w SINE(] 1Nlddli34 6co9-zs9 (90z) :xV3oec M133HS „91H„bZ a0J 3aV NMOHS S3�V3S :31oN 819'8 JNI1HO11 NVINisa aaimvaa to LR6SVM57l V3S 131 O 03NO3Ho "I6 u"'m 'spuowp3 'FOM IoiiwpV 9f£ OOL 311f1S 'ls NOINfI OOS SS3a00V z°O L �NMvaa NOIiXf JISNOOI?J 77VMV3S ONV Y17VMi2JOd Hi?JON vv�Mw SaNOAGA �0 12i0d Sv3^ a3noaaav NOINolsn3aa va v a3Nols3a Y I� o R, s J { E _ C O a 0 a 0 u - � a� a� � n ! i Packet W (O 6LOS—ZS9 (90Z)XVl ZZ/OZ/Ol Sllb'13a 3Jb'N JIS OB09—ZS9 (90Z) 131 6133 a)311I1 HS „KX*Z a01 3W NMOHS S31VOS 31oN ONIMVHO 101B6 VM '7LLV3S ^ '� o L 03N33HO uo�6 u,..m 'spuowp3 'FOM IouiwpV 9£C OOL 311HS '1S NOINH 009 SS3a00V o NMV NOI XO J1SZO]?J 7VMVIS (INV Y17VMi2JOd HlaON SONowa3 Jo iNod S? DIM a3noaddv NOINOIs 31va � Q en/ww �03NOIs3. n3ao o a O z�a E O�w mY i 3OQ zt W 2z. u �zm�° I 0 ¢d uL 'oo oad "P4 $ 2 oyeS PCJ I �P �4 AX 1Q0 h 5, J Z N D -4N 000000000 0000000 *00 ' W Packet W (O 6LOa-699 (90Z) :XV3 31f103H�S 8 NVId 311S JNIINVld paps-Z99 (9OZ) a31 4133HS „9£X.bZ a03 38tl NMOHS 531tl05 310N y 31111 ONIMtlaO VM '3lLLtl35 L43N0N:M3H0 uo�6u!ysoM 'spuowP3 !A-M 1-!-PV 9££ nS i OOL 311NS '1S NOINN OOS SS3a00tl z° n NOIlOf1b1SN031d 7VMV3S ONV >Mmi110d H12JON v�M""'� e )A/ww a3Nos3a SaNOAM] d0 i2]Od S213� Y w a3noaaav Nol dlaos3a CN(]ISIA3a 31va o ^ R, no IN a Ill. wel laq:!- M,I!Al111W v U'llm I € ..4111! N� it oK e ti z p O z 4 O�w Z Q O Q a ¢a p w oy oa�oao UN ¢¢°w°zI^Q ui FD Zpw n�Z w yUZ °r wa ¢=O��OZz OU >� zU¢V'p Ow >,n�3 w�LLU OQLLOONw- z OF Oz W. rii w O °ma °zU pwF0z d3 w�000�;N3OU� Q ,woz Z< z<zQO �p QmQZo_.aaU .?� wy�oz'w-'psi°xd "'"'U 0, 3zW-80nz,,,Ozw w.z w°03: S.S z0 Z_.azOm��wsZ3Zw z O m w J w-- J 3¢ o0!i�,¢x>Q,xnaO�wom�ti 30 Ou'Q>¢m U ¢xzOO¢F LLx r YOU�VUp„uQwQ �rO6� z LL-,¢�OaaO�>� ¢LL3C�ZN�„zQZOQ3U >¢ OU w H OU a o a Q LL Q E 0 z oQ o m0 zi a 3 U w wN - �OQ z O� w 0p w �ywF 3N ooJ owl FdF w�¢Z w 3a o m '°w z-u< wz z0 ° zq o�p 0 �Qzm �0 <wz ra �� O z z , w,npp w0 zG" za w� z w03 NoZO �z �p �oow Zr -Mj ---Do w-z = z w oo wgz°�w �a�wgo a°w 0Nw�a�o z n Um� �O(9mwti J p U�Ow Ogg¢ °p>> z?r�Q�� p ¢ zmw� zQO�¢Y z 030¢3LL wO�z 0�,�w 03z� C-iiO"FufO�w ¢OaQ¢�>Uzm wp w Uy�p zp°Qp� ��'.,ZUwz wamo��ogz>Z�c¢i J ox�¢�ow wwJ °oaw3�o�o Zgz� om�oa� -Oar �m3m0UaF aN� 0wa z�Zw< z ODUOp'-� Q�wrm���¢�m� = rmN O �2 ONE ¢<¢ULLU¢O <,x„WQ�oWQNwmo- pw .o��0 �2°jm0 Oo - o �u zi "' zw ° UOFw Jz d z¢zza� ¢°> =zm03z u'z�y� OZ�UNw z�z Np k"fmao_w� ¢ N w Z F ¢ p Z m p¢ Q w Y w¢ N OU��mz>¢ 0OgQm¢aR<RO�x.' Z���m=3°0' O ¢zi O�>Q�Ju0 t- d,�„WQOO Z p°w wwUOo �O¢�°O <N0>O0<U7 z0¢�OOp�OO�O�� zF Ow(7Zz°dQm(7U�wUpUozv�i m „U,O�"O Q0w0 w Uoz¢d¢guLLgOa��o¢�wUwa�w�sm3 tiU>UwU Oz_ a .P I. RWN- u u u O (n 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 X X . rn rn M p h rn M o N U ° m ° a rnn m E c o °c_ o'^ E mU p° J co mU o m e -a: nm I p o m N N N d m d m N C❑ x ° > d Y °¢ a 3 U °° x°' o z F 3 ti Y 3 - E b n t o rn 3 o 'v ° `n E c� U c ,v ° v Eo t E g o u °oo& m °u° Q o a „ o 0 0 ° i o 'c m ;o o m ° c' ° v m o o S'. o n $ E o UUa U' aUU C9 x-.,EZzo; Packet W w co 4133HS „9£X.bZ a0J 38tl NMOHS 531tl05 310N y SNVId JNI1NVld VZVId M3ddn '8 IWIIN3) 43OMV1N3 311I1 ONIM"O 6LOs-zss (90z) :xm OBOS-ZS9 (90Z) 131 LOL26 VM '311LV3S OOL 31IOs '1S NOINO OOS :Ss3a00V '�'��'�'v�Mw� SUDI Y I� £z/6/z o - � 0 O iQ �_ L :O3NO3HO uo�6u!ysoM 'spuowp3FOM lou!wPtl 9££ NOI10f1b1SN003?J-nVMV3S ONV >MMi2JOd Hi2JON SGNOWa3 d0 i?]Od NMV30 O3AOHddV NOlId IaOS30 31VO Q JJ./WW 03NOIS30 SNOIsn3a i ;e o Vay _ F7 't I I � - zQd C r w O I rc Q �❑ I �I�II IIII Loiizo�- 0 ®a=4 Qww1� np Ur Z I �II II I I I I # 1 6 Q a _ I I I I ' I I I z � I i _§ ' I I I I I I O-- 0 ng II Q J M O N _ I I I I � I I ,I AI i ❑ r------- V ---------, •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I � — I I I - I r I I I I I I I I I I L_`•____• ____J I I allI I I I I I S I +� I I I _ I I Q I I ZO � z I - I I I Q I a I I I I I I z I 5 I I g � I I - L I z g l I I I I I I I oI r I I I � I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I _ I I I I m I I I a I I I I I I �Z I 1 II I E Zf Ur I I I I I I � II I I I I a Z I - __ d a Ll. OZ - H M OH p r coxcac(rc'�wain JI a w II I I I Q Z n U , Q V �o Packet v Viz.. W ¢ a w (O 6LOS-699 (90Z) :XV3 Z d0 l sin011V0 NVId `0NI1NVld 090S—ZS9 (90Z) 131 6133H5 y „9£XebZ a03 3atl NMOHS 531V05 310N 31111 ONIM"O 1O196 VM '3"Ts " 03NO3H0 uo�6u, m 'spuowp3 'Rom 1.,.Pv 9££ OOL 3110s 'ls NOINO 005 :ss3a00tl z z O L N; H12JON NOiion1 j1SN0O321 IlVMV3S ONV N\\ /`��`y."''� "'�" ry IlIVM1121Od SGNOWa3 JO lOQd S2i3�1�W 03AOaddtl N011d Ia0530 31tl0 a Q JJ./WW 03NOIS30 sN01sln3a o lim�© 0 a u x ii o^ 3 o <m U U G U d 3 O z$ f o� I I I d o m x - 0 m O d II ` \\11 R 1 0 Y `o o 0 0 O ¢h 3 110 0<3 y. w �.� ■.a* SGG '1�il �i ■■ rIr_ ■1 IF ��Yii Fd 1`�■ Packet P� v (O 6LOS-699 (90Z) XV3 SlIVACI `JNI1NVld 090S-ZS9 (90Z) 131 6133H5 y „9£XebZ a03 3atl NMOHS 531V05 310N 31111 ONIM"O 1O196 VM '31LLV3S V " 03NO3H0 uoI6uiysoM 'spuowp3 .,(oM IwiwpV 9££ OOL 3110s 'lS NOINO 009 SS3a00tl z z O L o A33HO NOlOf1b1SN00321-nVMVIS ONV N\\IlIWi11Od Hi2ION /`��`y."''�"'�" ry - �I,MV�ja v SGNMWa3 JO lOQd SHOWN 03AOaddtl NOlNOIa0S30 31tl0 a JJ./WW 03NOIS30 sNOIs 3a o 1 dR ary o U e O � 3 O O� 3 rc O i 0 0 m � rc rS 3 0 O O O l JO No 0 Q U U Q a� 13 13 0 m N wf z N of � r U 0 A 1 lr 4 I �F? Lu a "a Packet P� RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C Staff Qualifications Packet Pg. 247 RECEIVED Attachr� April 26, 2023 CITY OF$dIJ1 ygp Quarterman PLANNING &PaVPWAbciate Ecologist DEPA ME T Expertise Since 1999, Steven has provided wetland, permitting, and natural resources management Resource agency services in support of a variety of projects. His experience includes wetland/waterway coordination delineation, assessment of wetland functions and values, wetland/riparian restoration, sensitive species evaluations, and local/state/federal permitting and documentation support Stream habitat and services. Steven has received training in wetland delineations, and specialized training in biological assessment identifying wetland soils and vegetation; and preparing biological assessments. He has Wetland services significant experience in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, including authoring sections on wetlands, threatened and endangered species, Biological Assessments and supporting discipline reports. Permitting City of Shoreline, Echo Lake Park Wetland Areas Investigation; Shoreline, WA. Project manager providing technical lead for wetland delineation, ordinary high water mark Education delineation and a landscape design assessment for the City of Shoreline at the Echo Lake Park property. The investigation provided the City with the likely jurisdiction and permitting Masters of Environmental requirements associated with Echo Lake and associated piped stream to advance the project. Management, Duke University, 1999 Snohomish County, Centennial Trail Culvert Replacement; Arlington, WA. Steven was task manager providing wetland and ordinary high water mark delineation, and permitting B.A., Biology, Albion support for repair of four culverts along the Centennial Trail. One of the culverts conveys a College, 1997 stream that is considered to be a fish habitat stream and the design was being prepared in accordance with WDFW Stream Simulation Guidance documents. A land -disturbing activities permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, and Hydraulic Project Approval Training were acquired for the project. 38 hours of U.S. Army City of Tukwila, Urban Center Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge; Tukwila, WA. Project manager for Corp of Engineers oversight and preparation of NEPA/SEPA documentation as a subconsultant for the City of Wetland Delineation Tukwila's pedestrian/bicycle bridge connection between Tukwila's Urban Center and Transit Training Center and the Tukwila commuter rail/Amtrak station, crossing over Green River. Services Designing Compensatory included delineation of ordinary high water mark, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mitigation and preparation of NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion as documented in a WSDOT Restoration Projects Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) form, Biological Assessment, SEPA checklist, Stream Restoration, Shoreline Substantial Development and Variance applications, cultural/historic resources University of Washington evaluation, Section 4(f) exemption, JARPA preparation, and acquisition of Hydraulic Project Professional and Approval. Continuing Ed., 2012 Wetland/Waterway Delineation Supporting Remedial Investigation; Everett, WA. Project Using the Revised scientist responsible for delineating wetlands and waterways on approximately 49 acres Washington State distributed over three properties. Project involved field delineation of wetlands and Wetland Rating System waterways in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Ecology Wetland for Western Washington Delineation Manual, providing preliminary stream typing in accordance with City Municipal and Eastern Washington, Code, and documenting findings. Efforts are in support of installation of a remedial system to Coastal Training Program extract and treat contaminated groundwater. 2008 and 2009 College Avenue/Rose Street (CARS) Reconstruction Project; College Place, WA. Project Backpack Electrofishing manager providing oversight of preparation of environmental documentation services for and Fish Handling the City of College Place reconstruction of College Avenue and Rose Street, which included Techniques Northwest culvert replacement along Garrison Creek. Project included delineation of wetland Environmental Training boundaries and ordinary high water mark. Environmental documentation included Center, 2008 completion of NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion as documented in a WSDOT ECS form, Biological Assessment, SEPA checklist, critical areas reporting, and DARPA. LA LANDAU Packet Pg. 248 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Jeffrey Fellows, PE Vice President, Operations Expertise Phase I and 11 environmental site assessments Multi -media investigations Site characterization and remediation Source control evaluations Compliance and agency negotiations Environmental risk management Data and technical document review Education MBA, Marketing and Finance, SUNY at Buffalo, 1994 BS, Geomechanical Engineering, University of Role: Senior Technical Review Jeff has more than 22 years of experience in the planning, management, and implementation of investigation, remediation, and compliance programs throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. His work has included multi -media environmental investigation and remediation services, client -agency negotiations, source control evaluations, permitting and compliance support, Phase I and II environmental site assessments (ESAs), and insurance cost recovery. Several recent projects have involved investigation and remedial alternative development for properties identified for repurposing or redevelopment. These projects have required management of multiple involved parties/agencies, under extremely tight schedules that are necessary to achieve key milestones linked to grant- and insurance -related funding and permitting constraints. Confidential Industrial Client, Port of Longview/Port of Vancouver Development Sites; Vancouver and Longview, WA. Jeff was the project manager and environmental professional overseeing planning, coordination, implementation, and reporting for Phase I and II ESA programs at two potential development sites on Port properties. The client, a confidential industrial developer, was looking for waterfront property to develop a trans -load facility to support international management and shipping of a US domestic product. At each prospective Port property, Phase I ESAs were conducted (each covering 40+ acres) requiring evaluation of numerous, independent parcels with varying levels of industrial and environmental cleanup history. Each Phase I ESA program led to multiple focused Phase 11 ESAs to further evaluate existing soil, groundwater, and sediment conditions, as to how these conditions could directly affect potential leasehold/purchase and eventual development and operations at the sites. As the sites were within Port facilities, coordination of Phase 11 ESA efforts during active Port and railway management was a primary logistical challenge. Confidential Data Center Client, Former Quarry Site; Boardman, OR. Jeff was the project manager, senior engineer, and environmental professional who planned and implemented a combined Phase I and II ESA program at a remote development site in northeastern Oregon. In an effort to continue to expand a protective buffer around existing industrial operations, a confidential industrial client proposed purchase and redevelopment of a former quarry site. The Phase I ESA revealed multiple recognized environmental conditions, including diesel- and PCB - contaminated surface and subsurface soil above human health screening criteria. The Phase II ESA resulted in the discovery of an expansive subsurface soil plume that required a large-scale excavation, site pre-treatment, and disposal program to address. The client chose to pursue cleanup to residential standards to ensure that the restored property had the greatest potential for future redevelopment and use. Rochester, 1991 Former Boise Cascade Mill Site, Phase I and II ESA Program; Yakima, WA. Jeff was Registration the senior engineering and technical reviewer during planning and implementation of a Phase I ESA and a two -stage Phase II ESA program at the former Boise Cascade Professional Engineer Mill Site in Yakima, Washington. A Phase I ESA was completed for the entire 250+ (Civil): 2003/ WA (No. acre former Mill comprising 23 parcels, owned and operated by numerous entities. 39848); 2007/AK (No. Upon completion of the Phase I ESA, Jeff designed and oversaw implementation of a 12555); 2017/OR (No. two -stage Phase II investigation. The results of the investigation were used by the 92418PE) City of Yakima during land acquisition and environmental liability discussions with existing property owners and insurance carriers. LALANDAU A 5$ 0 c I A t f Packet Pg. 249 RECEIVED Attachn0 April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Edmonds, Washington October 15, 2021 Prepared for Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 Seattle, WA 98125 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 250 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach r�f� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the undersigned, whose seal is affixed below. Name: Steven R. Wright, PE Washington/No. 32250 Date: October 15, 2021 Document prepared by: Document reviewed by: Project Manager Quality Reviewer Date: October 15, 2021 Project No.: 0173038.010.011 File path: \\edmdataol\Projects\173\038.010\R\Geotech\Signature Page.docx Project Coordinator: MCS Steven R. Wright, PE Sean Gertz, PE LANDAU ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 251 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 c 0 1.2 Scope of Services ................................................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................2-1 3 2.1 Geologic Setting..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Subsurface Conditions........................................................................................................2-1 c f° 2.3.1 Soil Conditions 2-2 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions 2-2 0 3.0 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................3-1 a- 3.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 24.40.020)...............................................................3-1 Z 3.2 General Shoreline Modification Regulations (ECDC 24.50.010[B])....................................3-2 3.3 Shoreline Stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020)...........................................................................3-2 0 -0 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................4-1 w 4.1 Seismic Design Considerations 4-1 0 4.1.1 Liquefaction Potential ...................................................................................... 4-3 0 4.2 Bulkhead Design.................................................................................................................4-4 0- ,n 4.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures 4-4 T" CD 4.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design.....................................................................................4-5 c 4.3 Pile Foundations.................................................................................................................4-6 04 z Z 4.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles............................................................................4-6 J a 4.3.2 Downdrag Loads..............................................................................................4-6 0 4.3.3 GroupInteraction Effect 4-6 Q' 4.3.4 Lateral Pile Capacity........................................................................................4-6 L m 4.3.5 Constructability Considerations 4-6 5.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS.................................................5-1 E L 0 6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................6-1 Cl) 7.0 REFERENCES 7-1 c E L a r c a� E w a Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iii October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 252 RECEIVED April 26, 2COWT CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Figure Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table 1 2 3 4 Appendix A B C Attach..U� Landau Associates FIGURES Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Lateral Earth Pressure, Static and Seismic Conditions, Sections 1 through 5 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 1 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 2 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 3 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 5 TABLES Title Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) APPENDICES Title Field Explorations Laboratory Soil Testing Summary Logs of Previous Explorations Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iv October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 253 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASCE ASTM...................................... bgs.......................................... City......................................... CLE......................................... ECDC....................................... ft ......... American Society of Civil Engineers ..................................ASTM International .............................. below ground surface .......................................City of Edmonds ..................contingency -level earthquake Edmonds Community Development Code .................................................. foot/feet ..................... International Building Code ............................ Landau Associates, Inc. ........... maximum considered earthquake ...................................... Port of Edmonds .............................Shoreline Master Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 254 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vi October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 255 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. 0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of geotechnical engineering services provided by Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI) in support of the Port of Edmonds (Port; project owner) North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project in Edmonds, Washington (site; Figure 1). This report has been prepared with information provided by the Port and CG Engineering, Inc. (project civil and structural engineer) and with data collected during LAI's geotechnical field exploration and laboratory testing program. 1.1 Project Description The Port proposes to reconstruct an approximately 900-foot (ft)-long segment of boardwalk (i.e., the North Portwalk) at the Edmonds marina and to repair the underlying seawall between its administration office and Olympic Beach. Portions of the boardwalk and seawall have deteriorated significantly since their original construction in the 1960s, and the proposed renovations will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline. Additionally, two plazas (Upper and Central Plazas) will be constructed adjacent to the boardwalk to provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be constructed in a portion of the existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant. The Central Plaza will be constructed in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port's administration office, which will be demolished. The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure, supported by piling, that projects over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The portion of boardwalk that extends north of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 ft apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the seawall terminate at the timber piles. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the eastern boundary of the marina basin, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the basin's east side. An earthen slope with a rock -armored surface is located behind the concrete bulkhead. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheetpile wall. The lower (concrete) section of seawall, the filled slope between the upper and lower Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 256 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT sections, and the concrete bulkhead south of N dock will remain unchanged. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at -grade, and the new sheetpile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be removed completely, because they are connected below -grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The timber boardwalk will be replaced along the same alignment, but will be elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and to improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new steel railings with integrated lighting and way -finding signage. Existing electrical utility panels and dock -cart storage at the marina will be relocated from the over -water side of the new walkway to the opposite side, over land. Marina gates to gangways will be replaced in the same locations, but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. 1.2 Scope of Services LAI provided the following geotechnical services in accordance with the scope outlined in the Professional Services Agreement, Contract No. 2021-365, dated January 28, 2021: • Reviewed readily available geologic maps and geotechnical reports for the site and the surrounding area. • Coordinated the clearance of underground utilities. • Advanced two hollow -stem auger borings to characterize soil and groundwater conditions along the project alignment. • Monitored the explorations, maintained detailed logs of the subsurface conditions observed, and collected representative soil samples. • Prepared this report, summarizing the results of the field investigation and providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations to support design of the proposed improvements. This report also includes: — a site plan that shows the approximate locations of LAI's borings and the locations of explorations included in LAI's geologic data review (Figure 2). — summary boring logs and geotechnical laboratory test results. — a discussion of near -surface soil and groundwater conditions observed at the site. — an evaluation of the project's consistency with regulations for geologically hazardous areas, general shoreline modification, and shoreline stabilization for projects in jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds' (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-2 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 257 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — seismic design considerations and parameters, including a review of seismic hazards along the project alignment. — geotechnical design recommendations for a new bulkhead, including lateral earth pressures under static, dynamic, and liquefied conditions. — geotechnical recommendations for tieback anchor capacity. — axial pile capacities in liquefied and non -liquefied conditions, including an estimate of seismically induced downdrag loads on the replacement piles. — recommendations for testing and monitoring during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-3 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 258 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT2.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections describe the geologic setting of the site and the surface and subsurface conditions observed during LAI's field investigation. Interpretations of site conditions are based on LAI's review of available geologic and geotechnical information and on the results of the site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and geotechnical laboratory testing. 2.1 Geologic Setting Edmonds is part of the central Puget Lowland region, an area repeatedly covered by ice sheets during the Pleistocene geologic epoch. Near -surface deposits in the vicinity of the site consist primarily of fill (Minard 1983). Development along the waterfront has further modified the original shoreline. Sediments, locally referred to as the Whidbey Formation, likely underlie the near -surface fill deposits. The Whidbey Formation consists of dense, bedded, medium- to coarse -grained sand, with layers up to 160 ft thick reported in the vicinity of the site (Minard 1983). This unit crops out in areas along the lower bluffs of Puget Sound. 2.2 Surface Conditions The site is located along Puget Sound in Edmonds, Washington, directly south of Olympic Beach and immediately east of the Edmonds marina. Public restrooms and a commercial building are located at the north end of the project alignment, the Port administration office at the south end, and the Edmonds Yacht Club in between. Paved parking lots are located along the upland side of the existing portwalk. Site topography along the project alignment is generally flat. 2.3 Subsurface Conditions Site subsurface conditions were explored on March 8, 2021 by advancing and sampling two hollow - stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2). The borings were advanced approximately 41.5 ft below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. LAI personnel monitored the explorations, maintained detailed logs of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed, and collected representative soil samples. Soil samples were transported to LAI's geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Summary boring logs and a detailed description of the field exploration program are provided in Appendix A. Test results and a description of LAI's geotechnical laboratory testing program are provided in Appendix B. Supplemental subsurface data were obtained from the following geotechnical studies, performed at or near the site: • Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 2008. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report: Proposed New Yacht Club Building. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 259 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1990. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Project. • Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1989. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds Building Repair. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2003. Geotechnical Engineering Services: Proposed North Seawall Replacement. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations: Port of Edmonds Administration Building. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2002. Port of Edmonds Administration Building. The subsurface conditions reported in these studies generally conform with the conditions observed in LAI's March 2021 explorations. Summary logs of previous site explorations are included in Appendix C. 2.3.1 Soil Conditions Soil conditions in boring B-1 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 25 ft of loose to medium dense fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. The deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). LAI interpreted the deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. Soil conditions in boring B-2 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 15 ft of very loose to loose fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. The deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). LAI interpreted the deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions During LAI's March 8, 2021 field investigation, groundwater was observed at approximately 7.5 ft bgs in borings B-1 and B-2. The groundwater conditions reported herein are for the specific locations and date indicated and may not be representative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, weather conditions, tidal fluctuations, and other factors. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally, with maximum levels occurring during late winter and early spring. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-2 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 260 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT3.0 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS In -water and upland areas within 200 ft of the Edmonds marina (Puget Sound) are within the jurisdiction of the City's SMP (Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDC], Chapter 24). The site has SMP environmental designations of Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II. The seawall and adjacent upland are located in the Urban Mixed Use II environment, and the overwater portion of the boardwalk is in the Aquatic II shoreline environment. The proposed project includes reconstruction of an existing, water -dependent recreational development. Bolded regulations for geologically hazardous areas (ECDC 24.40.020), general shoreline modification (24.50.010[B]), and shoreline stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020) were reproduced from the City's SMP. The responses that follow are intended to address the project's consistency with the regulations. 3.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 24.40.020) Responses [to bolded regulations] are intended to address the project's consistency with regulations for geologically hazardous areas. 1) New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development. The project design is supported by geotechnical engineering evaluation a nd recommendations intended to minimize risk from existing geological conditions. 2) New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available, and no net loss of ecological functions will result. The stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization. The proposed bulkhead reconstruction is considered a new development; however, reconstruction of the existing boardwalk must also be maintained and supported. The proposed project will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. No alternative locations are available, because the project is a component of the Port's Public Access Plan, which also includes planned improvements to the Central and South Portwalks that extend from the North Portwalk and collectively run the length of the Edmonds marina. An evaluation of the regulations in ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline Stabilization, is provided below. 3) Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result. Not applicable. The proposed project does not involve existing primary residential structures. E t w Q Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 261 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT3.2 General Shoreline Modification Regulations (ECDC 24.50.010[B]) Responses [to bolded regulations] are intended to address the project's consistency with general shoreline modification regulations. 1) Shoreline modification activities that do not support a permitted shoreline use are considered "speculative" and are prohibited by this master program, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the shoreline administrator that such activities are in the public interest and necessary and for the maintenance of shoreline environmental resource values. Not applicable. The proposed project is a permitted shoreline use. 2) Structural shoreline modification measures shall be permitted only if nonstructural measures are unable to achieve the same purpose. Nonstructural measures considered shall include alternative site designs, increased setbacks, relocation, and bioengineering. No alternative locations are available, because the project includes reconstruction/renovation of an existing portwalk. Additionally, the project is a component of the Port's Public Access Plan, which also includes planned improvements to the Central and South Portwalks that extend from the North Portwalk and collectively run the length of the Edmonds marina. Because the adjacent shoreline is developed with recreational/commercial structures, bioengineering design is not feasible. 3) Shoreline modification activities, with the exception of restoration or enhancement efforts, are prohibited in wetlands, and undeveloped spits, hooks, bars, barrier beaches, or similar accretion terminals or accretion shore forms. Not applicable. No wetlands and no undeveloped spits, hooks, bars, barrier beaches, or similar accretion terminals or accretion shore forms occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. 4) Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable federal and state permits and shall meet all permit requirements. The Port will acquire permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 5) Best Available Science. All reports prepared in support of a shoreline modification shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of shoreline environment and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. This geotechnical report was prepared by a qualified critical area consultant, applying best available science and guidance. 3.3 Shoreline Stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020) Responses [to bolded regulations] are intended to address the project's consistency with shoreline stabilization regulations. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-2 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 262 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1) For the purposes of this section, standards on shoreline stabilization, "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Addition to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. The sheetpile bulkhead to be installed behind the existing upper timber bulkhead is considered "replacement" in accordance with the above condition. 2) Structural stabilization methods shall be permitted when necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes. — Not applicable. The proposed project includes the use of a sheetpile bulkhead to replace a CU section of deteriorating timber bulkhead. N 3) New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant CU negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. 3 The proposed project includes reconstruction/renovation of an existing portwalk and 0 a associated bulkhead. Renovations to the bulkhead rely on the underlying seawall for support; however, negative impacts to shoreline areas are avoided. z 4) New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that = shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the normal, useful life of the E structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. w Not applicable. No steep slopes or bluffs occur on site or in the surrounding area. 4- 0 V 5) New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is 0 0- demonstrated in the following manner: c 0 Criteria (a) through (d) are omitted, because the proposed shoreline stabilization includes N replacement of a deteriorating timber bulkhead as opposed to "new structural stabilization." N 6) Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential z _J a damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the 0 specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized CL m except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard 3 armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the E opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the L o geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but Cl) the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still be used to justify more cc immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures. E Not applicable. The proposed shoreline stabilization includes replacement of a segment of @ deteriorating timber bulkhead that supports an existing boardwalk (overwater and upland). aIL The need for bulkhead repair was determined via a Structural Assessment and Feasibility r Study (CG Engineering 2020). c d E t 0 w Q Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-3 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 263 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Shoreline Stabilization Siting and Design Regulations 1) When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, pursuant to above provisions. a. Limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses. The proposed sheetpile bulkhead will be located landward of the existing upper timber bulkhead and will not result in loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches to shoreline stabilization are not feasible, given the extent of recreational/commercial development adjacent to the bulkhead and the need to support the boardwalk. b. Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements into the project. Not applicable. The proposed project will improve/enhance public access to the shoreline. c. Mitigate new erosion control measures, including replacement structures, on feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment -producing areas to avoid and, if that is not possible, to minimize adverse impacts to sediment conveyance systems. Not applicable. The project includes replacement of a bulkhead that limits sediment conveyance from the shoreline. The completed project will maintain the current conditions of the sediment -conveyance system. 2) Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be constructed within a marsh, bog, or swamp or between a marsh, bog or swamp and the primary body of water (Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger). Not applicable. No marsh, bog, or swamp occurs on site or in the surrounding area. 3) Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures may not be placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark, unless: Not applicable. Criteria (a) and (b) are omitted, as the proposed sheetpile bulkhead will be installed landward of the existing timber bulkhead. 4) Bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and generally parallel to the natural shoreline unless geotechnical evaluation demonstrates the necessity for alternative design. In addition: a. Where no other bulkheads are adjacent, the construction of a bulkhead shall be as d close to the eroding bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than six feet E from the toe of the bank. w Not applicable. Q Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-4 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 264 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT b. A bulkhead for a permitted landfill shall be located at the toe of the fill. Not applicable. c. Where permitted, a bulkhead must tie in flush with existing bulkheads on adjoining properties, except where the adjoining bulkheads extend waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Not applicable. 5) An existing bulkhead or other shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves. The need for bulkhead replacement was determined via a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study (CG Engineering 2020). a. The replacement structure should be designed, located, sized, and constructed to assure no net loss of ecological functions. The proposed project will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. b. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high water mark or existing structure unless the residential structure to which it is appurtenant was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure may abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. Not applicable. c. Where a net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitats would occur by leaving the existing structure, remove it as part of the replacement measure. Not applicable. The project will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and a section of the existing upper timber bulkhead will be removed. d. Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Not applicable. No soft shoreline stabilization measures are proposed. e. For purposes of this section standards on shoreline stabilization measures, "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. The sheetpile bulkhead to be installed behind the existing upper timber bulkhead is considered "replacement" in accordance with the above condition. 6) Materials used in bulkhead construction shall meet the following standards: a. Bulkheads shall utilize stable, nonerodible materials such as concrete, wood, and rock that are consistent with the preservation and protection of the ecological habitat. a Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-5 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 265 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach..0 Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT As part of the project, a deteriorating section of timber bulkhead will be replaced with a steel sheetpile bulkhead. Existing ecological habitat conditions relative to the bulkhead will be maintained as part of the completed project. Additional project components (i.e., glass blocks in boardwalk decking) will provide ecological improvements adjacent to the bulkhead. b. Shore materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads, except clean dredge spoil from a permitted off -site dredge and fill operation. Not applicable. c. The extent and nature of any backfill proposed landward of a bulkhead or other shoreline protective structure shall comply with adopted city standards. Not applicable. 7) If hard stabilization methods are employed the following design criteria shall be met: a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited to the minimum necessary to withstand the estimated energy intensity of the hydraulic system; As part of the project, a deteriorating section of timber bulkhead will be replaced with a steel sheetpile bulkhead. The existing structure has deteriorated with age, and the replacement is designed to provide similar or better shoreline protection. b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help prevent settling; Not applicable. c. The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to prevent a collapse of the system wave action; and Not applicable. The existing shoreline consists of an upper timber bulkhead and a lower concrete bulkhead. The lower concrete bulkhead (toe protection) will not be impacted by the project. d. Fish habitat components shall be considered in the design subject to hydraulic project approval by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Conditions of the Hydraulic Permit Approval to be issued by WDFW will be incorporated into the project design as needed. 8) When hard stabilization measures are required at a public access site, provision for safe pedestrian access to the water shall be incorporated into bulkhead design. The proposed sheetpile bulkhead will support reconstruction/renovation of the overlying boardwalk, which will improve public access to the shoreline. 9) Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a hard stabilization structure but shall not extend waterward of it. The renovated boardwalk will be located on top of the steel sheetpile bulkhead and will extend over the water surface. E. Geotechnical Reports. Geotechnical reports required pursuant to this section shall address the need for shoreline stabilization and shall include the following: Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-6 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 266 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1) A scaled site plan showing: a. The location of existing and proposed shore stabilization, structures, fill, and vegetation, with dimensions indicating distances to the ordinary high water mark. b. Existing site topography with two -foot contours. Refer to Figure 2 for a site plan that addresses requirements (a) and (b) above. 2) A description of the processes affecting the site, and surrounding areas that influence or could be influenced by the site, including areas in which lake or marine geomorphic processes affect the site, including, but not limited to: a. Soil erosion, deposition, or accretion; The marine geomorphic processes of the site are impacted by the existing marina and bulkhead. Soil erosion and accretion do not occur along the shoreline of the site, which is protected by an existing bulkhead. Similarly, no significant sediment deposition occurs in the marina. b. Evidence of past or potential erosion due to tidal action and/or waves; Not applicable. Erosion from tidal action and/or waves is interrupted by the surrounding marina. c. Littoral drift; and The SMP Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007) identifies the site and surrounding area as areas of No Appreciable Net Shore Drift. Furthermore, longshore currents at the site and in the surrounding area are interrupted by the surrounding marina. d. An estimate of shoreline erosion rates. Not applicable. Shoreline erosion at the site and in the surrounding area is not significant due to the existing bulkhead and surrounding marina. 3) A description and analysis of the urgency and risk associated with the specific site characteristics. The need for bulkhead replacement was determined via a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study, with recommendation for replacement in a 5- to 10-year timeframe (CG Engineering 2020). Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-7 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 267 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of LAI's geotechnical field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, the proposed bulkhead will be susceptible to large loads caused by liquefaction -induced lateral spreading. Ground improvement techniques, including compaction grouting, stone columns, and/or jet grouting, may be used to reduce liquefaction potential or decrease loads exerted on the bulkhead as a result of lateral spreading. LAI notes that ground improvement could impose stresses on underground utilities or damage existing tie rods; such damage could compromise the integrity of the existing bulkhead. 4.1 Seismic Design Considerations The site is located in the seismically active Pacific Northwest and could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed improvements should be designed to resist earthquake loading. The proposed structures should be designed in accordance with 2018 International Building Code (IBC) standards. According to CG Engineering,' designing the replacement bulkhead for an IBC earthquake (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period) is not feasible, given the relatively large seismic demand, particularly as it relates to lateral spreading loads. Alternatively, the replacement bulkhead could be designed for an earthquake with a 224-year return period, as described in the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves, ASCE 61-14. With this approach, the proposed structures would need to be designed to respond to lateral spreading in a controlled, ductile manner and to experience limited, inelastic deformations at locations where repair is possible within several months of a seismic event. LAI recommends that the Port verifies the acceptability of this design approach with the City Building Official. The ASCE 61-14 design approach applies to structures with a "Moderate" design classification. Per ASCE 61-14, "Structures shall be assigned a design classification of 'Moderate' if they are of secondary importance to the regional economy and not essential to post event recovery but they require a level of seismic performance beyond life safety protection." In LAI's opinion, the "Moderate" design classification is appropriate for the proposed portwalk improvements. According to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16, the presence of potentially liquefiable soils qualifies the site as a Site Class F. Structures built on Site Class F soils require a site response analysis; however, the ASCE provides an exception for structures with a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second. For structures that qualify for this exception, site class can be determined using field investigation data. The replacement portwalk likely will have a fundamental period of vibration of less 1 Personal communications between author and Dennis Titus of CG Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 268 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT than 0.5 second. If this is the case, the site classifies as Site Class D (based on the standard penetration test blow counts recorded or estimated for the upper 100 ft of soil). The 2018 IBC indicates that a maximum considered earthquake (MCER) has a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a return period of 2,475 years). The parameters in Table 1 can be used to compute seismic base shear forces for the MCER. Table 1. Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Spectral response acceleration at short periods (Ss) = 1.285g Spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second (Si) = 0.452g Site class = D Site coefficient (Fa) = 1.2 Site coefficient (F,) = 2.3(a) (a) The coefficient F should be used only to calculate the transition period (T,) Fa, F = short -period (0.2 second) and long -period (1.0 second) site coefficients, respectively g = force of gravity S,, Sl = 0.2-second and 1.0-second period spectral accelerations, respectively Based on the seismic design seismic parameters in Table 1, LAI selected the parameters in Table 2 to complete seismic liquefaction evaluations for the MCER. Table 2. Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) Peak Ground Acceleration, Site Class D (PGAM) = 0.655g Earthquake Magnitude (M) = 7.35 g = force of gravity; PGAM = maximum considered peak ground acceleration For structures with a "Moderate" design classification, ASCE 61-14 defines a contingency -level earthquake (CLE) as one having a 20 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a return period of 224 years). The parameters in Table 3 can be used for structural analyses related to the CLE. Table 3. Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Spectral response acceleration at short periods (Ss) = 0.659g Spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second (Si) = 0.335g Site class = D Site coefficient (Fa) = 1.5 Site coefficient (F) = 2.7iai (a) The coefficient F should be used only to calculate the transition period (T,) Fa, Fv = short -period (0.2 second) and long -period (1.0 second) site coefficients, respectively g = force of gravity S,, S1 = 0.2-second and 1.0-second period spectral accelerations, respectively Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-2 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 269 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Based on the CLE seismic design parameters in Table 3, LAI selected the parameters in Table 4 to complete seismic liquefaction evaluations for the CLE. Table 4. Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) Peak Ground Acceleration, Site Class D = 0.466g Earthquake Magnitude (M) = 6.79 g = force of gravity 4.1.1 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is defined as a significant rise in pore water pressure within a soil mass caused by earthquake -induced cyclic shaking. The shear strength of liquefiable soil is reduced during large and/or long -duration earthquakes as the soil consistency approaches that of a semi -solid slurry. Soil liquefaction can result in significant and widespread structural damage if not properly mitigated. Deposits of loose to medium dense, granular soil below the water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, although non -plastic and low -plasticity cohesive soils may also be susceptible to liquefaction. Per Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7-16, liquefaction and lateral spreading susceptibility were evaluated for a maximum considered earthquake (MCER) peak ground acceleration of 0.655g. LAI used a design earthquake magnitude of 7.35, based on U.S. Geological Survey interactive deaggregations (accessed October 12, 2021). Liquefaction and lateral spreading susceptibility were also evaluated for the 224- year CLE with a site -adjusted peak ground acceleration of 0.466g. A design earthquake magnitude of 6.79 was used to evaluate the CLE. LAI evaluated the liquefaction potential of site soils using the "modified simplified procedure" presented by Youd et al. (2001). Where appropriate, LAI incorporated recommendations for liquefaction susceptibility evaluation (ldriss and Boulanger 2008). Because subsurface conditions vary along the project alignment, the project was divided into five sections, as shown on Figure 2. The results of LAI's liquefaction analyses are summarized below: Section 1: The results of LAI's analyses indicate that soils between 6 and 18 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 2: The results of LAI's analyses indicate that soils between 6 and 15 ft bgs and between 24 and 30 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 3: The results of LAI's analyses indicate that soils between 9 and 15 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 4: The results of LAI's analyses indicate that the soils in Section 4 will not liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-3 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 270 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section 5: The results of LAI's analyses indicate that soils between 7 and 18 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Flow liquefaction failures could occur at the replacement bulkhead location; see Section 4.2.1. Non -liquefied soil above the liquefied soil will impose significant lateral pressures on the bulkhead 4.2 Bulkhead Design The following sections include geotechnical recommendations for static and seismic design of the replacement bulkhead. 4.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures The replacement bulkhead should be designed to resist active lateral earth pressures. The use of active lateral earth pressures is based on the assumption that soil behind the bulkhead could deform and develop an active condition. Theoretical and observed lateral deflections at the top of bulkheads designed for active pressures are typically on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the wall Lateral deformation is likely to be accompanied by minor vertical ground settlement behind the bulkhead. Where a bulkhead acts as a cantilevered wall or as a wall with a single row of anchors, the applied active lateral earth pressure can be represented by a triangular pressure distribution. Figure 3 presents recommended design parameters for active lateral earth pressures for the non -liquefied condition. This earth pressure diagram can be used for all five sections of the wall. Estimated design earthquake loads on the bulkhead were based on an interpretation of the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo -static method of analysis. LAI has assumed that the new sheetpile bulkhead will yield to approximate an active condition, but will not have sufficient horizontal translation to justify use of a reduced seismic coefficient, consistent with translating walls. The resulting seismic lateral pressure was approximated by a rectangular pressure distribution acting over the bulkhead, as shown on Figure 3. If the replacement bulkhead will be subject to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the bulkhead, it should be designed to sustain the additional horizontal pressure. It is standard practice to account for traffic and typical construction equipment loading with a vertical surcharge pressure of 250 pounds per square foot (psf). Larger surcharge loads, such as those imposed by heavy cranes or other concentrated loading, should be addressed with use of a higher surcharge pressure. For walls free to rotate during loading, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure, as shown on Figures 3 through 7, should be added to the earth pressure to account for the anticipated surcharge loading. Passive earth pressure criteria for resistance of lateral loads are presented on Figures 3 through 7. The Q passive earth pressures include a factor of safety of about 1.5. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-4 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 271 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The project design should account for differential head conditions created by tides and groundwater fluctuations behind the replacement bulkhead. Based on the site groundwater levels observed at the time of drilling, tidal fluctuations, and sheetpile permeability, LAI recommends that the bulkhead is designed for a head difference of 7 ft. The design lateral pressures presented on Figures 3 through 7 include this unbalanced hydrostatic force on the bulkhead. Figures 4 through 7 present recommended design earth pressures for the liquefied condition for the CLE. These figures do not include Section 4 of the bulkhead, because soils along Section 4 are not anticipated to liquefy during a CLE. LAI recommends analyzing the bulkhead for two seismic loading configurations: Non -liquefied configuration (static and seismic earth pressures shown on Figure 3). This loading configuration, which includes seismic inertial forces, is based on the assumption that seismic inertial forces do not occur at the same as soil liquefaction. 2. Liquefied configuration (earth pressures shown on Figures 4 through 7). This loading configuration is based on the assumption that some soils liquify (resulting in an increased load on the bulkhead), but liquefaction does not occur at the same time as seismic inertial forces. 4.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design Tieback anchors can be used to reduce sheetpile deflections and bending moments. A tieback anchor is a structural element that consists of a steel pre -stressing bar or steel strands installed in grout -filled drill holes (in either soil or rock) to transmit an applied tensile load into the ground. Depending on soil conditions, holes for tiebacks are drilled open hole, or a temporary casing is used to maintain hole stability. Tiebacks include an upper unbonded zone and a lower bonded zone. A no-load zone should extend at least 5 ft beyond the back of the wall and upward at an angle of 62 degrees above horizontal. The bonded length of the tieback anchor, typically 10 to 40 ft long, should be located beyond the no-load zone. The Federal Highway Administration (1999) has indicated that anchor bond lengths greater than 40 ft are not fully effective. To ensure adequate overburden pressure to mobilize full friction between the soil and grout, LAI recommends a minimum depth of 15 ft from ground surface to the midpoint of the bonded tieback length. The unbonded tieback length should be at least 15 ft. To develop preliminary estimates of required tieback lengths, a bond length on the order of 40 ft could be added to the length of tieback that will be needed to satisfy the no-load zone requirement (at least 15 ft). The entire bond length should be located below the lowest layer of liquefiable soil. Section 4.1.1. includes the anticipated depths of liquefiable soil layers along each section of the bulkhead. Tieback resistance will be developed from the medium dense to dense Whidbey Formation. Assuming small -diameter, straight shaft gravity -grouted ground anchors, a presumptive ultimate transfer load of 6 kips per foot is recommended for preliminary design. The preliminary maximum allowable anchor Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-5 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 272 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT design load in soil can be determined by multiplying the bond length by the ultimate transfer load and dividing by a factor of safety of 2.0. The actual ultimate transfer load will depend on the contractor's means and methods and should be verified during construction via anchor load capacity testing. 4.3 Pile Foundations The following sections include recommendations for pile design and installation. 4.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles At the time of this writing, recommendations for the axial capacity of single piles were still being developed. This information will be provided to the design team once available. 4.3.2 Downdrag Loads At the time of this writing, downdrag load recommendations were still being developed. This information will be provided to the design team once available. 4.3.3 Group Interaction Effect At the time of this writing, recommendations for pile group interaction effects were still being developed. This information will be provided to the design team once available. 4.3.4 Lateral Pile Capacity At the time of this writing, lateral pile capacity recommendations were still being developed. This information will be provided to the design team once available. 4.3.5 Constructability Considerations Pile foundations for marine facilities have been constructed in similar conditions. Marine deep foundation contractors typically are equipped to address the soil conditions present at the site. The pile foundation axial and lateral capacity may be influenced by equipment and construction procedures, and the quality of construction will be greatly influenced by the experience of the foundation contractor. Installation of sheetpiles and steel pipe piles with a vibratory hammer will produce ground vibrations in the vicinity of the pile installation. Though unlikely, ground vibrations associated with installation of sheetpiling and steel pipe piles could damage nearby structures. Vibrations occurring in loose sand, such as may be present in fill zones along the bulkhead alignment, could result in soil densification and ground surface settlement. Ground vibrations producing densification and settlement are dependent on a combination of factors, including energy and amplitude of the vibratory hammer, number of repetitions, soil properties, pile length, location of the water table, type of pile installation, and distance from the pile. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-6 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 273 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ground surface settlement is typically greatest in the immediate vicinity of the pile and decreases with distance from the pile. Pile -driving vibrations have been found to be perceptible to occupants of nearby structures; these vibrations occur at lower levels than those that result in building damage. Prior to installation of the replacement piles and bulkhead, the Port should complete a visual reconnaissance of existing site structures and photograph existing cracks or building distress. LAI also recommends that vibration and settlement monitoring are completed during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-7 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 274 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT5.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS LAI should be asked to review geotechnical portions of the project plans and specifications for consistency with the recommendations in this report. LAI recommends that geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation are provided during construction to confirm that site conditions are consistent with those observed in its explorations, to provide recommendations should conditions differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether geotechnical construction activities comply with project plans/specifications and the recommendations in this report. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 275 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT Landau Associates has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Port of Edmonds and its design consultants for specific application to the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project in Edmonds, Washington. 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. Reuse of the 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. Landau Associates warrants that, within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, its services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions as this project. Landau Associates makes no other warranty, either express or implied. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 276 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT7.0 REFERENCES ASCE/COPRI. 2014. Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves, ASCE/COPR161-14. American Society of Civil Engineers. Coasts, Oceans, Ports & Rivers Institute. ASCE/SEI. 2017. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. American Society of Civil Engineers. Structural Engineering Institute. ASTM. 2003. D420-D5876: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. In: Soil and Rock(I). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. CIS Engineering. 2020. Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study: Port of Edmonds Waterfront Boardwalk. May 19. FHWA. 1999. Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 2008. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report: Proposed New Yacht Club Building. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1990. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Project. August 30. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1989. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds Building Repair December 26. ICC. 2017. 2018International Building Code. International Code Council. September. Idriss, I.M., and R.W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. LAI. 2003. Geotechnical Engineering Services: Proposed North Seawall Replacement. Landau Associates, Inc. LAI. 2003. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations: Port of Edmonds Administration Building. Landau Associates, Inc. LAI. 2002. Port of Edmonds Administration Building. Landau Associates, Inc. Minard, J.P. 1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington. US Geological Survey. Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., and Pentec. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. November. USGS. 2008 Interactive Deaggregations. U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed October 12, 2021. Available online at: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 7-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 277 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Youd, T.L., I.M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, et al. 2001. "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 127(10):817-833. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 7-2 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 278 RECEIVED Attachl,0 April 2 , 2023 CITY OF E MONDS RAFT PLANNINGDEaPAR D VELOPIENT i � 3 0 CL £ O > w o v Puget Dr T24 CaSpers St Z Z v Q > r - Puget Sound Main St I Project Location ity. > eOk aOjn wa Dark r Y W way O1 iL 220th--St w MUM A N 0 0.5 1 Miles I Data Source: Esri 2012 North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington A- " J &-�- 14 232nd St SW Q d m a � � o ■M 3 L r E O co Ott Location ii t6 Seattle O Tacoma C Olympia d Washington s t� Q Vicinity Map Figure 1 Packet Pg. 279 L U a r- 0 CL 0 3 0 U) m E a` cc W a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�������� : / a W � W V LLI \ m )( (CY) ) � k�k} -■LM k4■2 �f v 0 k � � F -fl 7 \ < .� � � � � � � � � � � |5f ; k \� E:E:l ,$ §(U }/ _■ i� \\ k % r- CL J � 2 E 2 CO i>-% cu c E k a a 2 � E / 7 Q 3 VlI - I Wd bS:ZT v m �/' L+ ao�� f0m,•° aw o <<av �mvo o w? w 3 N O. O O O vyL,z omv Nv•-y3 G7 J 3 N = l6 C L O W O 0 N Y L w Q o u v? t > Yoo w o w o f6 V .S � yLi J (0 L � � 3 In C W � V 1° o 3 a r 0 L O z r O CL N� LPL 3 E L O rt+ U) m E a` cc a) E t V m a (Lo a W � W (L) LLI � \�} kk k� % � ! 0 W � W U LU LM q � £ �2 C 2� �§ 0 k t 0 a 2 2 w c 0 E w 0 r- 0 a LO k k 0 04 2 -i a r- § � a 2 E 0 Cl) � q E k a Lrt :9 < RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX A Field Explorations Packet Pg. 286 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..�� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions along the project alignment were explored on March 8, 2021. The exploration program consisted of advancing two hollow -stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2) approximately 41.5 feet below ground surface. The borings were advanced by Holocene Drilling, Inc., subcontracted by Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI), at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were identified using existing infrastructure as a field reference. The ground surface elevation was not determined at either exploration location. LAI personnel coordinated and monitored the explorations, obtained representative soil samples, maintained a detailed record of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed, and described the soil by visual and textural examination. Each representative soil type was described using the soil classification system shown on Figure A-1, in general accordance with ASTM International standard D2488, Standard Practice for Description of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures) The summary boring logs on Figures A-2 and A-3 represent LAI's interpretation of site subsurface conditions. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are for the specific locations and date reported and may not be representative of other locations and/or times. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at select intervals using a 1.5-inch-inside-diameter split -spoon sampler. A 140-pound automatic hammer, falling approximately 30 inches, was used to drive the sampler 18 inches (or a portion thereof) into the undisturbed soil. The number of blows required to drive the sampler for the final 12 inches of soil penetration (or a portion thereof) is noted on the boring logs, adjacent to the appropriate sample notation. Samples were transported to LAI's geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Test results and a discussion of testing procedures are presented in Appendix B. Upon completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were decommissioned in general accordance with the requirements in Washington Administrative Code 173-160. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction A-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 287 RECEIVED Attach April 2 CITY OF PLANNING & DEPAI Soil Classification System DMONDS EVELOPMENT LISCS MENT MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL"' DESCRIPTIONS 12)13) GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVEL uuu 0 o 0 ° 0 GW Well -graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines J N N O m'N GRAVELLY SOIL Little or no fines ( ) Poorly graded ravel; ravel/sand mixtures little or no fines y9 9 9 mixture(s); o o o 0 o GP GRAVEL WITH FINES GM p @ (More than 50% of Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) W E 'v, coarse fraction retained (Appreciable amount of Qo 0 N on No. 4 sieve) fines) o GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) e (� C z0 SAND AND CLEAN SAND SW Well -graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines w m I W @ E s SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SP SAND WITH FINES SM Q o 00 0 (More than 50% of fraction Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) @ coarse passed (Appreciable amount of SC — through No. 4 sieve) fines) Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine sand or clayey silt with slight p o N SILT AND CLAY plasticity Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy CL ('y 0 m > (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay Z E y OL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity L -- MO g MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand m m N SILT AND CLAY CH Dj o.@ 0 Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay Z E LL (Liquid limit greater than 50) Organic clay of medium to high plasticity, organic silt OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD io�' WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS O ODB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. USCS letter symbols correspond to symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM classification methods. Dual letter symbols (e.g., SP-SM for sand or gravel) indicate soil with an estimated 5-15% fines. Multiple letter symbols (e.g., ML/CL) indicate borderline or multiple soil classifications. 2. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and < 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 15% and < 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and < 15% - "with gravel," "with sand," "with silt," etc. < 5% - "with trace gravel," "with trace sand," "with trace silt," etc., or not noted. 4. Soil density or consistency descriptions are based on judgement using a combination of sampler penetration blow counts, drilling or excavating conditions, field tests, and laboratory tests, as appropriate. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL Code Description Code Description a 3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon Sample Identification Number TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf c Shelby Tube PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, ppm d Grab Sample Recovery Depth Interval W = 10 Moisture Content, % e Single -Tube Core Barrel D = 120 Dry Density, pcf 1 F Sample Depth Interval f Double -Tube Core Barrel -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, % g 2.50-inch O.D., 2.00-inch I.D. WSDOT Portion of Sample Retained GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data h 3.00-inch O.D., 2.375-inch I.D. Mod. California for Archive or Analysis AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data i Other - See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop CA Chemical Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop Groundwater 3 Pushed 4 Vibrocore (Rotosonic/Geoprobe) Approximate water level at time of drilling (ATD) 5 Other - See text if applicable ♦ Approximate water level at time after drilling/excavation/well North Portwalk and Seawall Figure LANDAU Reconstruction Soil Classification System and Key /� �I A_ I ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington T_ O O C; N O N Z J a O O_ d lY 1 O C a Packet Pg. 288 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF PLANNING &JDMONDS EVELOPMENT SAMP E o z m n > E o w in S-1 5 S-2 S-3 10 S-4 15 S-5 20 S-6 25 S-7 30 S-8 B-1 Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 DATA SOIL PROFILE Content (%)L"quid _E PlastiMoisture Limit Limit 20 40 60 80 o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger a> � o - SPT N-Value - T ° T E Ground Elevation (� ft : Not Determined? o N°n Slanda d N Value o _ @ M to > 3 20 40 60 80 �' n t° �, M o `—' a Holocene Drilling Inc. Drilled By: 9 a j o X Fines Content (/o) X c E o @ U BCS 03/08/21 Logged By: Date: o 06 to m t7 0 20 40 60 80 AC Asphalt SP (ASPHALT) - Tan, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel _ b2 16 (medium dense, moist) (FILL) _ - b2 13 Gs3 0 F L7 SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel (medium dense, wet) - b2 12 W = 18 -loose _ .................. b2 7 GS -- -with trace silt b2 22 - W - 14 \ -with silt b2 32 GS X • Gray, fine to coarse SAND (dense, wet) _ b2 33 (WHIDBEY FORMATION) WGS6 — SP- -------------------- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt b2 29 SM (medium dense, wet) _X • J Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. c 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key' figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Figure A-2 (1 of 2) Packet Pg. 289 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF B-1 PLANNING &IDMONDS EVELOPMENT L a 0 35 40 45 50 x IL 0 x t- 3 0 0 55 cD z X 0 0 Cl) '1--60 11-- 65 N 70 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger E a� 0--0 o T 0 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined Z C a 0 °' 0- 4: 0 cz (0 o -`-' a � U) Holocene Drilling Inc. Drilled By: 9 w in — m ( V) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 rn SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt S-9 b2 28 SM (medium dense, wet) S-10 , b2 I 30 I wGS 7 Boring Completed 03/08/21 Total Depth of Boring = 41.5 ft, Gray, fine to coarse, silty SAND with trace organics (medium dense, wet) Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit I�� Limd 20 40 60 80 - SPT N-Value - , Klb Standard N-Value L +L�.. 3 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X 0 20 40 60 80 A Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key' figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. M n North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington X* Figure A-2 (2 of 2) Packet Pg. 290 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF PLANNING &JDMONDS EVELOPMENT SAMP E o z m n > E o w in S-1 5 S-2 S-3 10 S-4 15 S-5 20 S-6 25 S-7 30 S-8 B-2 Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 DATA SOIL PROFILE Content (%)L"quid _E PlastiMoisture Limit Limit 20 40 60 80 a> o � o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger - SPT N-Value - T T E Ground Elevation (� ft : Not Determined? o N°n Slanda d N Value 2,° _ @ M M to > 3 20 40 60 80 o X Fines Content (/o) X �' n t° �, o `—' a Holocene Drilling Inc. Drilled By: 9 a j c E o @ U BCS 03/08/21 Logged By: Date: o 06 to m 0 20 40 60 80 AC Asphalt SP (ASPHALT) - Tan, fine to medium SAND with trace b2 5 gravel (loose, moist) (FILL) _ b2 2 W = 7 GS -very loose o .:.......:.... Q SP Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (ve - b2 4 loose, wet) b2 3 W = 16 GS -with gravel - • Gray, fine to coarse SAND with tra SP b2 16 gravel (medium dense, wet) _ (WHIDBEY FORMATIPN) - W = 13 — SM -------------------- Gray, fine to medium, silty SAND with b2 29 GS gravel (medium dense, wet) X • A WGS1 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with gravel b2 14 and trace silt (medium dense, wet) _XI! — SP- --G—ray,—fine—to---mediumS--AD witN----si— — — — — — lt b2 34 SM (medium dense, wet) _ A Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. c 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key' figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Figure A-3 (1 of 2) Packet Pg. 291 RECEIVED April 23 Attach CITY OF PLANNING & 0 n > 0 W 5 B-2 LAI Project No: 0173038.010 'LE DATA SOIL PROFILE PlastiMoisture Content (%Liquid Limit Limit 20 40 60 80 ? o 75 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger - SPT N-Value - n �^ 9 ° E >• E Ground Elevation ft : Not Determined? (� o Non Slanda d N Value o i W n N m o to E > U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. 3 c 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X 6 E ° `0 Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 P ) xs cn m (9 Z) 0 20 40 60 80 w - 19 Gray,to medium SAND with silt : 3 b2 34 GS SM dense, wet)ne (medium � � X* - -dense b2 43 - A Boring Completed 03, Total Depth of Boring = 4 0 70 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. c 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key' figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Figure A-3 (2 of 2) Packet Pg. 292 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX E Laboratory Soil Testing Packet Pg. 293 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..�� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX B LABORATORY SOIL TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were taken to Landau Associates, Inc.'s geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) standard test procedures noted below. Natural Moisture Content Natural moisture content determinations were performed on select soil samples in general accordance with ASTM standard test method D2216, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. The results of the moisture content determinations are shown as "W = xx" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. Grain Size Analysis Grain size analyses were completed in general accordance with ASTM standard test method D422, Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils. Samples selected for grain size analysis are designated with a "GS" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. The test results are presented on Figures B-1 and B-2. U.S. Standard No. 200 Wash Sieve To provide an indication of the fines content of site soils, select samples were washed over a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve in general accordance with ASTM standard test method C117, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. Samples selected for U.S. Standard No. 200 washes are designated with a "-200 = xx" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction B-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 294 M W 7 C7 W N U) z W N O N w(0 N J .L W Q z z W �z a o oW ❑ LL>u W p o .- O CD m OOD � COO CD V) � co CD N CD lgbiaM Aq aaui j juawad 0 Q O V, Y u u um) um) Z)U O .Q U (D C @ N @ N Q I N C. zz N a) U N pN U pN U j O p� O O i N — (D N N 0 LL > > LL LL 0 N — 2? 7 O cr) O V CO n (0 MI) Z O O O O Q N cM C7 V CL N 6lh66 It CD co to, 0 0 3 z Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln E 8 M LJ C O C "6 o f C U U (a 7 La Y o O -C o U C N dE E L -p w O Z h �: w O Q y g Packet Pg. 295 E U (0 M W C7 LL W N U) Z W N O N w(0 N J .L W Q H z W �z a o oW ❑ LL>u W p o .- O CD m OOD � COO CD V) � co CD N CD lgbiaM Aq aaui j juawad 0 -o . cn a cn cn cn 'E Z)U O .Q U (D p _ U) y y L L N .3 p Z m m p Z m m w y N N N N N 8 8 8 T T C_ C_ C_ /i V LL /ice V LL LL 0 N 7 O � CO co n O (0 I) Z O O O Q N N rM CL N lh It lh CD lh n lh O lh to Z 0 0 2 N N N N N 3 Q Z LT1 LT1 LT1 LT1 LT1 ul$ E 8 c O �L N_ (n c cz L M LJ a) O �c L) O c U U co 7 M 1 Co o N O U-O o c N dE E L -p O w Z h �: W O Q y g Packet Pg. 296 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..0 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations Packet Pg. 297 RECEIVED April 26, 20MAFT Attach..U� Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C SUMMARY LOGS OF PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS To supplement its field investigation, Landau Associates, Inc. reviewed previous geotechnical studies of the site (Gary A. Flowers 2008; Hong West & Associates 1989, 1990; LAI 2002, 2003). Summary logs of previous site explorations, along with a site plan showing the approximate locations of the explorations, are provided in Appendix C. Not all of the studies included subsurface explorations, and summary logs are provided for background only. Site conditions may have changed since the time of exploration. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction C-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 298 7 El 2 ONV Z SV3JV ONIMVd N33M132 AVM3AIJO JNIISIX3 30 3NFI2IAIN3O Hl Q oA3 A9 o3ionN1SN0O NIVM3oIS M3N V321V 3dVnSaNVI M3N 3mWmm m U H 2 U Q� >- W 0 � wo< p Z w �Ov> 0 W awe a• _S o � N < Y J w W• w o w zd U _ N Zx Q J m a D U l� z N X w o `h co 0 W CD In co Q o N � o ALLx LLI 1 0 z aQ CL a uvi ~ W 0 w a zz J am z 0 H °UZz �U2U) O}off aU)z x000 w 1�w° zo 0 W W w F— N c V J 0 a a 0 O x1( z w J m o U 1.�. ii c o > m 0 W o LU ❑ m 0 O o S w o a J LL U ex J Q a- � Q j Q • m M1 W Z W w Q w Lt. w �R V cr 0 a 3 E L 0 co ca C E •L a c d t %i yam+ Q Packet Pg. 299 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach EXPLORATION BORING LOU f J CITY OFEDMONDSNuimber EB-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 PLANNING & DEPA DEVELOPMENT RTMENT r- Cr_ DAMES & MOORE a_j ? RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION C Biows/Foot o Q to cD 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, damp, gray, fine to medium SAND T 6 20 with gravel; 2" seam of dark brown sand (fill) 1 9 11 — 5 -- loose, saturated, gray -brown medium SAND with T 2 8 some silt and trace fine gravel (fill?) 1 3 5 • — 10 Z - ATD medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly coarse SAND 2 •22 5 - 1 17 — 15 no sample recovery 5 b 24 2' heave - washed 1s 20 — i - dense, saturated, gray gravelly, medium SAND T B 49• with some silt l 31 1' heave - washed — 25 - dense, saturated, gray, silty medium SAND with T 2 38 • scattered fine gravel 1 26 1' heave - washed — 30 dense, saturated, gray, medium to coarse SAND with T 11 15 45 fine gravel, trace silt in a few zones _ 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hale, modlfted by geologic Interfuetetlons, englneertng analysis, end Judgment. They ere not necessergy representative of other times and locations. We wIll not accept reaponsibllHy for the use or Interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 1= 0 0_ m L d 3 E 0 Cn 0 c E a t6 C d E t V w a Packet Pg. 300 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 EXPLORATION AtLOU f CITY OF EDMONDsNumber PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EB-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a Q a ? w g 00 C CO DAMES & MOORE RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 very dense, saturated, gray fine SAND with trace gravel 3' heave - washed — 15 24 5ae 5018" BOH @ 39' — 40 — 45 ---- i 50 — I - 55 60 --- 65 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thla ecploratory hole, modtfied by gedogic IntarpmIlmdons, anpoedng analyais, and Judgment They ere not neoessargy representative of other dines and locations. We will not accept responsiblllty for the use or Interpretation by dhere of Information presented on this log. EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO.07-056 r- 0 0_ m L ca 3 E L 0 N L C E L a cc C d E t V w a Packet Pg. 301 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OFEDMONDSNumber EB-2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attach f EXPLORATION BORING LO SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION w o asphalt surfacing medium dense, moist, gray and brown SAND with scattered gravel, dark streaks at 2-1/2' to 3' (fill) loose, moist, gray, medium SAND with gravel (fill?) — 5 loose, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (fill?) medium dense, saturated, gray -brown, gravelly, 10 medium to coarse SAND with silt dense, saturated, fine to medium SAND very dense, saturated, gray, coarse sandy GRAVEL dense, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium SAND _ dense, saturated, gravelly, coarse SAND 15 Uj OW CL Q Qgzt (n O 6 i0 — 10 4 I4 8♦ 4 T 2 7 3 4 ATD 4 7 10 9 18 26 14 123 38 20 7 11 27 very dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, poorly sorted SAND with silt 1' heave - washed BOH @ 29' 30 14 31 48 UhhMGJ Oc IViVVRC RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 20 17♦ Subsurface oorrdltlom depldsd represent our observatlona at the time and location of this a)lastory hole, moci fled by geologic Intarpretstfons, engineering snalysls, and Judgment They are not neosssarUy representative of other times and loatlons. We will not accept responsibillty for the use or InterpretAm by others of Informabon presented an this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC ♦44 61 1= O O_ d 4' L d E O M c E .@ L a r6 r C d E t v O w EDMONDS YACHT CLUB a EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 302 38♦ ' 79 IVED 26, 2023 ITY OF E S a NNING & D EL EIS DEPART ENT JJ **JJ ADMIRAL WAY Attach rff f _ = O v �I =I O� O ' 3 Co ca 3 0 a 0 z _ 0 E w 0 a 0 c M (V 0 N z J a 0 a� SCALE (IN FEET) L Cu 3 0 100 E X-A_A9aK X P.RIJ df—,L SITE PLAN MAP BUILDING REHABILITATION PROJECT PORT OF EDMONDS, EDMONDS, WA 0 r ROB L a m HONG WEST 0 & ASSOCIATES a FIGURE 2 TIVED DEVELOPMENT ,2023 DMONDS HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/NOISTunE X n MOISTURE f d SPT (blows/foot) w d 0 10 20 30 40 50 so 10 eo can SYMBOLS 10/ 'ni �1 A WO �l 11 DESCRIPTION ' SP Loose to med. dense, gray brown, gravelly fine to med. SAND: trace to some silt, trace of organics at 2.5 to 4 feet. moist to wet (Fill) - sample is wet ' SP Med. dense to dense, gray, gravelly well - graded SAND: moist, trace silt — (Marine Sand) • GP Dense. gray. sandy GRAVEL :.' (Marine Gravels) - 5 inches heave washed put prior to samplin •; SW Dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND: trace silt (Marine Sand) ' SP Dense. brownish gray, fine SAND: trace silt (Marine Sand) BOTTOM OF HOLE NOTES: 11 Positive head maintained in drill stem below 27.5 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds Building Repair LOCATION: 336 Admiral Kay, Edmonds PROJECT NU14BER: 8991 Attach f ------- cc w I~ w Co lV w a I BORING BH-1 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION: 15 f t . TOTAL DEPTH: " f t . Packet Pg. 304 CANCNITINY IVE D itG 26,V20 23 O DMONDS & EEL 0 10 20 Uj w U_ H 30 x d UJ 0 Attach..U� HONG WEST F ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE Y o MOISTURE x d SPT (blows/foot) � .J 0- Y O SO 20 3D 40 50 6D 70 BO cr,aSYMBOLS 1 1 40 R 60 DESCRIPTION SP Very loose to loose, brown to gray, gravel- ly fine to med. SAND: trace silt, organic in surface i foot, moist .- (Fill) L 7 �f :. ..:....................:... ,.. : SP Ned- dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium = SAND: grades less gravelly with depth Q® (Marine Sand) ® - becoming gravelly, fine to coarse -SAND �3 S W :.. SP 5M Medium dense, gray_ silty, fine SAND. some ' L gravel, till -like becoming dense, gray, silty. fine to t� medium SAND: some gravel '= = NOTE: Gravel £last blocks sampler opening. GP Dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL: well rounded to ® SP subangular -•-, -'� (Marine Gravel) ® Q SM Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND: .. .....•• : some silt; trace gravel :L (Marine Sand) b _ . ..... . BOTTOM OF BORING NOTES: 1) Positive head maintained below 10 feet. 2) Initial groundwater, measurement (9.0 (eet) obtained during drilling. 3) Final groundwater measurement (5,5 feet) obtained after 1/2 hour. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds Building Repair LOCATION: 336 Admiral Kay, Edmonds PROJECT NUMBER: B991 Cc w LU M 0 iV W 1 - 0. 0 w L w c 0 V d a, Cl) c 3 0 IL t 0 z c 0 E w 0 r_ 0 a LO 0 0 Cl) N 0 N z J a 0 0. a, L a, CU 3 E 0 Cn c L a. cfl r c m a BORING BH-2 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION: 16 ft. TOTAL DEPTR 43.5 f t packet Pg. 305 RECEIVED Attach f April 2 2 23 j e and Exploration elan CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT r� DEPARTMENT » 3 Approx. Original~9B-4 Proposed Breakwater ~�~ B—' 5 s Existing Breakwater � l Proposed Breakwater J Extension 1 Existing Bulkhead -`Proposed Sheet Pile Breakwater Existing Bulkhead Admiral Way 0 100 200 Boring Location and Number Scale in Feet J-1327-01 Aeril 1984 to c a� E s ca 21 HART-CROWSER & associates inc. Figure 11 Packet Pg. 306 RECEIVED . ' Attach AprVA,rins Log B -1 ' SOIL ��aq STANDARD LABORATORY PLA NII#P&1i��C=LbpM�rS�N PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS DEPARTMENT l IaD,Pountl -epnr_ 30 .qh Drool Depth ; ASIDws per Fool , Aooroelmale Ground Surlate Elevation rn Feel 11 Feel Samols 0 Loose, wet, dark gray, fine to medium SAI10 with scattered slit and organics. _ S-1 Median dense, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND, S STD 5-2 i10 Grades to fine to medium SAND. S-3 13 Grades to fine gravelly SAt10. 5-4 I zo Dense, saturated, gray, very sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND. 2 5 5-5 Dense saturated, gray, slightly silty, slightly S-6 Bottom of Boringg at 29.0 Feet Completed 2/24/84 a0 3S 40 aS 70 r • Nalurel Water Content (%) L a Ground Wafer Level Sampling Laborato Tests Notes ^_ 7. O.O SoI•I SDODn GS Grain Slrr wnell ell TUU Tne..el Un CC..rohdalod l Son d•av .'opt 1-9miss Drrpr■ and avnTD-jo Spot Somalr CH _ Conwhdalion Teti Undro,nro arlYal C>ta'.pn mar Do DnoVel E 3' 00. Shrlee rub• It a,+mrrD.hlr Tell ICU lly•Ie, Goneolldalrd Undr e.ned ] Weld Leaf d lnd.c ebd, in for the do to . V n Isarnol IDrnr.rd e•-d wT very with she lime DI (a ^ COII•aD Ser..o'e OS D.rCI Shear TCD TD,�.nI CDneDhdaled Yrer ed Q waeor lr•el ibaul CU vhtonLeeo CO-IsFoewon 3. Wrler Cd+rr-1 not delelm:nvd on yet A10 Al lime Or Dr.11.n D ' no S•r*Dla Recev rlr Wain; Conte nl [>t.) ■melt rompers nor On sample• with P Sar.R rler Pulhod lV Tofra M, III PID114 Llou.tl aIDnINCani Feral conlanL ODN, rel.on Well Tr0 Or Slollae SrC hoe HToroutitelir, OP Poc1H Prnflydmalo" Ise Lima He' IW aI• Llm.1 17sb1 Conlawf NOl Dnren J-1327-01 March 1984 HART-CROWSER 8 associates, inc. Figure Packet Pg. 307 REC E IVEDportwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section VI, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section VI Summary: Narrative Section VI — Other Permits Other permits are not anticipated to be required for this project besides those from the City of Edmonds. GM 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 308 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31'kt t3� April 26, 2(JJr3inage Report Section VI I, Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Section VII — Bond Quantities, Declaration of Covenant, & Operation and Maintenance Manual Section VII Summary: Narrative The Bond Quantity Worksheet is a standalone document that can also be submitted to the City of Edmonds separately from this document. A Declaration of Covenant is not required since there are no on -site BMPs proposed. The Operation and Maintenance Manual is contained in this section and it must be given to the owner and/or maintenance crew following the construction of the project. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 309 REC E IV ortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 16,t � April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section VI I, Page 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 300-336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Date: March 2023 C 111=M 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 310 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CIS #21060.20 March 31Nt t3� April 26, 2(JJr3inage Report Section VI I, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Operation and Maintenance Manual This Operation and Maintenance Manual has been created for the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project, a 29,408 sf reconstruction project on the Edmonds waterfront. The existing stormwater system will remain, with a water quality BMP being installed for site PGHS. Included in this Operation and Maintenance Manual is an 11" x 17" Grading and Drainage Plan sheet showing the proposed site and existing stormwater infrastructure. Please note that this map is generated during the design phase and may not reflect all changes made in permitting and construction. CG Engineering may be contacted for an updated copy of this map once the as -built drawings are completed for the site. The contractor will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all stormwater structures and BMPs requiring maintenance during construction and, after construction, responsibility will pass to the owner and/or maintenance crew. A map of the project area can be seen on the following page in Figure VII-1. Included in this manual are source control guide sheets as well as maintenance sheets taken from the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for the following facilities/activities: Catch Basins: Concrete structures with steel grates that collect stormwater runoff from the site and act as junctions for storm conveyance pipes. Vegetation Management: Landscaping can include grading, soil transfer, vegetation removal, pesticide and fertilizer applications, and watering. Stormwater contaminants include toxic organic compounds, heavy metals, oils, total suspended solids, coliform bacteria, fertilizers, and pesticides. Facilities shall be inspected for defects listed in the following facility sheets. Most maintenance tasks are generally reactionary to a defect being found, rather than a matter of constant upkeep. It is generally expected that few to none of these defects will be present upon the yearly inspection of each facility. The facility sheets list the potential conditions warranting maintenance and the expected result following any maintenance. Several engineer's notes for specific tasks are provided within the facility sheets. Unless otherwise noted on the facility sheets the maintenance tasks should be performed on an "as needed" basis: (a) when the described defect is visible to whomever performs the yearly inspection, or (b) should any defect become apparent between inspections. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 311 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 36t 3� April 26, 2CNinage Report Section VI I, Page 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT i I � r'. OK,` % PRJD1ECT SITEh� r Figure VII-1: Map of project area (from Edmonds GIS) C �M ENGINEERING t= 0 0- m L d 3 E L 0 Cl) M r- E .@ L a t6 r c a� E 0 w a 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 312 0■S& § eq# »^ ( ) \( : Nqd �gln(INyg$q�e 2A3n o E m m«, a«,ImV9 eE! No a 2 m� a« � @ a T- 0 > : f \ } « } \-. — — — — \\ 11I LJLJL < FTII z - y— \ )� � \ L ." T s 0 0 z 0 \ / < \ \ IN inn / § zo - )/ \ § \ r| o -; 0 § [ w( § 0 W 11 II II II � I I I% Q IIIIF I I mm 3=11 I I I� II I I I I I I I I II III"I I I jilll� I II nP'�1 I 111111 1 1 11 0l I I111 I t IIII" i'III WIIIIIr/ /�Ik � sllllll /APl I. li � (IIIIIII IIf141 ° f IIIIIII ITH =s II ( I I I ,I CI I lulll4..l01H Of IIIIII��IIIIIIIIII III. gl Illllllljilll II 1 IIIIIIIII111 II /J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111I � I W11111IIIIIIIII?(IIIIIII I I II111111111111 l I I IIIIII�"�IIIIIII I I 11111111111111 I � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIII.;-IIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� IIIIIIIII IIIIIII 11111111111111111I I111111111111111j1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III11111111111�.IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I11111111111111^1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIjII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11j� Iilliililllllllllll ' o SIIVAO (INV NVId (v ),iniin 4N`d DNI(]VdD CIO OZ096 VM `SONOW03 ' ` ol lVM WHIWOV 922-002 V 1tl1NWEns M31A3NN9IS3O EZ/TE/EO - a w ' NOIlOnUSN003M 11VMV3S (INV A1VM1d0d H18ON N I°°l dam: 3 r i��*�� .� ����������� ��■ z O_ ZO �Z o ao m z 0 02 21 1. 0-0 v d as LL c G� W F P.v 9 c > U r� a= a all �m HOMO 49 — 41 I xa P. 4� @Y g :x o ve " o� " e �f r— O O. d m 3 0 cn is C E •L IL C d L t� R Q LU Lf Cr)NCRF7F WAIK U go W T., Z=?7 17:g �e`y � Q w NbId llnllfl 4Nb 9NIad219tl OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 I.VM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NOI10n8ISN0038 IIVMV3S ONV NIVM180d H18ON /y� ` J U N lV1NWEfs M31A3H N9153O No, d,a s3a EZ/TE/EO da �5 moo- 0 = Z w W ~ Q r, � O 0 Q 0 N O J 6l lJ m H Z 0 o aZ>�� Y p F Q a< nZza 30oG3 �owo ad OJa F�aHQ wOLL<O C7 Z Q Y r ���0(D .. Q F 0 Q 0 :) Z 02 Hv~ U) U) w II "-) E'£7/T 3NIl H71tlW LLJ 6'E7/T 3NIl H71tlW I z Q I I I I I I I I O I 11 I !1 I -0 X U Wxxxx � t/7 zo w a X XXX0 3 i U) o J Z 0 3 co _ a_ O w I O LL z os LL O °W w co p U LJ N W N w 0 o - 0 = Z Fw W ~ ¢ IJ � 0 ¢ OJ OH O J 6] U m H z 0 Y p F Q 3 0 �owo w� °aaoa ��¢�a WoLL¢O wz c� O C Q u m 0 2 Lii Q F � U 0:30 z0�Hv~ z I I II I I I I � , I IIIII O c� O I s31 I I -I I\ z "311 O == I I I OLd III cn IIIII 0 ul�lljl z °: II11j o a I I I 0 N Lu Q ' NVId 1. nun 4NV ONIad210 o o M OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 Q w I.VM WHIWOV 9££-00£ U ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 tlN9153O sz3i�£aso o NOIlOnUSNO038 11VMV3S ONV NlVM180d H18ON N Z X U Wxxxx w a X XXX� Z) z to 3i 3 m �z o 20 O W os p IL z LL 0 a3 °W p } W F_ co 0 U mmmmmmmmm I 1 I b'£J/I 3NI1 Hay. ---- ■ IIj 7 L'£7/I314I1 H.I. I r- O Q d d 3 0 cn E IL c d t t� r Q tP T. W0 " Z =?7 17:g �W6 (r �8 Q o w NVId 1. nun 4NV ONIOV80Lo OZO96 VM `SONOW03 I.VM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NouonuSN0038 IIVMV3S ONV NIVM180d H18ON M ` J U N ltlllIW805 MI153O N011-0 sz3iEaso �0 o - 0 = Z FwF W ~ Q (1 � zi 0 O Q OJ H 1 O J 61 U m H Z 00 Y p F Q 3apv~i 2i �owo °aoa ��a�a WoLLao c� ZQ�cr O r u m Q F U O:30 Z 0�Hv~ U) U) Q W 5'£J/T 3NI1 H�1tlW M M M M M 9i E7/T 3N11 HJ1tlW Z Q S 0 1 O 0 Z N p J 2 Z 0 O N (M N O N N 0 wo Z AU i � zo t/7 X 3 J 3 co U) o Z D _ `- O LL W I os O LL z LL O a3 °W p } W F_ co p U eW � saLL oa aa= di ■ m W N w tP W T �W6 o NVId 1. nun 4NV 9NIOV80tl VM `SONOW03 ),VM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NOI1 n8ISNO03M IIVMV3S ONV NIVM180d H18ON (4 ` J coOZO96 U N ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 tlN9153O sz3i�£aso 2 O - 0 = Z Fw W ~ Q IJ � zi 0 O Q OJ H 1, O J 6] U m H Z 00 Y p F Q 3 a — �owo °aoa ��a�a WoLLao c� ZQ�cr O r u m Q F U 0 :30=ac Z��Hv~i U) Q W r7 W 0 Q S 0 i Z X U Wxxxxzo XXX� 3i �J 3 m 2Z o ZD _ `- O LL W I os O LL z LL O a3 gW p } W F co p U e W tr saLL oa aa= di \ I I O N / 0 1 Y W \ v — o I / J O o Im IiI I o � I x I I I I � 7.I�a El- o I' I I I I I��II{ I I I Q I I I I I 1I{I�a I I I I I I IIIIJ. II I .q I I II I�Ij� I sl I i I � I�IgI °IIIIIP � I I: I I I I I�LIPI S£J/L 3pil H71tlW oI I I I le � £MIZIHIIIM N o�=I.II- ml wow I � el "I Ijl Ila N gym? ,,0 m■e u,J r —CANOPY , r- RESTROOM BUILDING �f FFE=13. 4 - a i� •------•°----°� �_ ,,eon 0,110 =s��$ Q66 m m m m w■w W N w �0 O -Z 0 = FFy W ~ ¢ (1 � n 0 ¢ OJ 0H�L] J 6J U m H Z 00 Y p F Q 3 a �owo a0-30a WoLL¢cD O wz O C 2 Q u m Lii Q F � U O:30 Z 0�Hv~ Q a N ' o w n mmn NVId 1. nun 4NV ONIOV80 o OZO96 VM `SONOW03 I.VM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ ��y► ` J U ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 9153O sz3T tlN �Easo o NOI n8ISNO03M IIVMV3S ONV AIVM180d H18ON N Z X U Wxxxx XXX� z 3i 3 m �Z o ZO `- O LL W I os O LL z LL O a3 gW p } W F co p U U) Cn Q z z 0 Z p , 0 0 , Ld 3 > I I � o I 0 _ 3 ems, ----------- 14'EJ/T 3NIl H71tlW 3NIl 1011W x r- 0 Q Nd LL 3 0 r cn E IL c a� E s �a r Q LW Lf 0 go 17:g �W6 Q w 01 NVId 1. nun 4NV ONIOV80 OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 I.VM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NOIlOn8ISN0038 IIVMV3S 0NV NIVAkIdOd H18ON M0 V N IW ltlll805 MNI�A3 tlN9153O sz3itlaso �0 o -Z 0 = FwF W ~ Q (1 � zi 0 O Q OJ H 1, O J 6] U m w Ed 0 0 an — Q Q Z Y p F Q 3apv~i 2i �owo °aoa WoLLao c� ZQ�cr O r u m Q F U O:3O=ac Z0�Hv~ Z X U WxxxxD aX XXX� I zo 0 3i J 3 co �Z o Z D _ a O W a os O LL z LL O a3 °W p } W F_ co p U eW � saLL oa aa= di U) W (a 1 Fgr W 0-- co El 1011, Z , I O_ Lb Ld � I ~ I O H31VW I m ■ HJ1tlW RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach, C1 PLANNI S407 BMPs for Dust Control at Disturbed Land Areas and Unpaved Roadways and Parking Lots Description of Pollutant Sources: Dust can cause air and water pollution problems particularly at demolition sites and in and areas where reduced rainfall exposes soil particles to transport by air. Pollutant Control Approach: Minimize dust generation and apply environmentally friendly and government approved dust suppressant chemicals, if necessary. Applicable Operational BMPs: • Sprinkle or wet down soil or dust with water as long as it does not result in a wastewater discharge. • Use only local and/or state government approved dust suppressant chemicals such as those listed in Ecology Publication #96-433, Techniques for Dust Prevention and Suppression. • Avoid excessive and repeated applications of dust suppressant chemicals. Time the application of dust suppressants to avoid or minimize their wash -off by rainfall or human activity such as irrigation. • Apply stormwater containment to prevent the conveyance of sediment into storm drains or receiving waters. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-1 S Packet Pg. 321 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . Ecology prohibits the use of motor oil for dust control. Take care when using lignin derivatives and other high BOD chemicals in areas susceptible to contaminating surface water or ground water. • Consult with Ecology and the local permitting authority on discharge permit requirements if the dust suppression process results in a wastewater discharge to the ground, ground water, storm drain, or surface water. Recommended Additional Operational BMPs for Roadways and Other Trafficked Areas: • Consider limiting use of off -road recreational vehicles on dust generating land. • Consider graveling or paving unpaved permanent roads and other trafficked areas at municipal, commercial, and industrial areas. • Consider paving or stabilizing shoulders of paved roads with gravel, vegetation, or local government approved chemicals. • Encourage use of alternate paved routes, if available. • Vacuum sweep fine dirt and skid control materials from paved roads soon after winter weather ends or when needed. • Consider using pre -washed traction sand to reduce dust emissions. Additional Recommended Operational BMPs for Dust Generating Areas: • Prepare a dust control plan. Helpful references include: Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-88-088), and Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures (EPA-450/2-92-004). • Limit exposure of soil (dust source) as much as feasible. • Stabilize dust -generating soil by growing and maintaining vegetation, mulching, topsoiling, and/or applying stone, sand, or gravel. • Apply windbreaks in the soil such as trees, board fences, tarp curtains, bales of hay, etc. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-16 Packet Pg. 322 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach, CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT p' a e p at' n P. • . a u e it d as w er is ar es s se er r n w er or r cc a r. • C nv p e is a es o sa 'ta s e if o e y le o w a o 'ty or o e p ov d ea e. • O ai a ro is s to d oc p s f i s is a e co n d d' i a a 'o c er 'al d in st 'al c' 'tie , c d t su e of a w er is a e n cf n o s dr n n to r cc a r f o o u a el s e of ui i s, rt' ul ly l r b it , a i s is re t o to to ai f m ui i s d v s f es o er t se ' i e u is o • rg n- o w to o it' n 'ns ec a s dr 'n r n- s a r c r s. ec d e c o o 11 o st at di ge . I a a p e is a es • f se 11 re re p e ch re . S w n e a h oc io o to w s, an ar se er , a p to a p to di ge . is p o b us c ec rd s ch s 'pi s e at s i t' o s' e w c cti s a s w e e t p. o id a 'n e y, o ch i t n ys' i s d ec co ne io s b tw en co e n s to s e. .11 ce s to a st at sir 1 , co d sp ti s i s dr 'ns n e rd e oo g o id of e. o a t o se e o ti s n ct' ns i t i o a' n o f p d ev' e e a ac r' of su e c n ti s th a i o ist t it ie s • I of n cti ns o o s s t su ac w er n to h ac ' n sp if d o a s is 1 s S411 BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/ Vegetation Management Description of Pollutant Sources: Landscaping can include grading, soil transfer, vegetation removal, pesticide and fertilizer applications, and watering. Stormwater contaminants include toxic organic compounds, heavy metals, oils, total suspended solids, coliform bacteria, fertilizers, and pesticides. Lawn and vegetation management can include control of objectionable weeds, insects, mold, bacteria, and other pests with pesticides. Examples include weed control on golf course lawns, access roads, and utility corridors and during landscaping; sap stain and insect control on lumber and logs; rooftop moss removal; killing nuisance rodents; fungicide application to patio decks, and residential lawn/plant care. It is possible to Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-21 Packet Pg. 323 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT release toxic pesticides such as pentachlorophenol, carbamates, and organometallics to the environment by leaching and dripping from treated parts, container leaks, product misuse, and outside storage of pesticide contaminated materials and equipment. Poor management of the vegetation and poor application of pesticides or fertilizers can cause appreciable stormwater contamination. Pollutant Control Approach: Control of fertilizer and pesticide applications, soil erosion, and site debris to prevent contamination of stormwater. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) and use pesticides only as a last resort. Carefully apply pesticides/ herbicides, in accordance with label instructions. Maintain appropriate vegetation, with proper fertilizer application where practicable, to control erosion and the discharge of stormwater pollutants. Where practicable grow plant species appropriate for the site, or adjust the soil properties of the subject site to grow desired plant species. Applicable Operational BMPs for Landscaping: • Install engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of stormwater in landscaped areas. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm sewer systems. Recommended Additional Operational BMPs for Landscaping: • Conduct mulch -mowing whenever practicable • Dispose of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation, by composting, if feasible. • Use mulch or other erosion control measures on soils exposed for more than one week during the dry season or two days during the rainy season. • Store and maintain appropriate oil and chemical spill cleanup materials in readily accessible locations when using oil or other chemicals. Ensure that employees are familiar with proper spill cleanup procedures. • Till fertilizers into the soil rather than dumping or broadcasting onto the surface. Determine the proper fertilizer application rate for the types of soil and vegetation encountered. • Till a topsoil mix or composted organic material into the soil to create a well -mixed transition layer that encourages deeper root systems and drought -resistant plants. • Use manual and/or mechanical methods of vegetation removal rather than applying herbicides, where practical. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-22 Packet Pg. 324 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach.. J CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Applicable Operational BMPs for the Use of Pesticides: • Develop and implement an IPM (See section on IPM in Applicable Operational BMPs for Vegetation Management) and use pesticides only as a last resort. • Implement a pesticide -use plan and include at a minimum: a list of selected pesticides and their specific uses; brands, formulations, application methods and quantities to be used; equipment use and maintenance procedures; safety, storage, and disposal methods; and monitoring, record keeping, and public notice procedures. All procedures shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 17.21 RCW and Chapter 16-228 WAC (Appendix IV-D R.7). • Choose the least toxic pesticide available that is capable of reducing the infestation to acceptable levels. The pesticide should readily degrade in the environment and/or have properties that strongly bind it to the soil. Conduct any pest control activity at the life stage when the pest is most vulnerable. For example, if it is necessary to use a Bacillus thurin ig ens application to control tent caterpillars, apply it to the material before the caterpillars cocoon or it will be ineffective. Any method used should be site -specific and not used wholesale over a wide area. • Apply the pesticide according to label directions. Do not apply pesticides in quantities that exceed manufacturer's instructions. • Mix the pesticides and clean the application equipment in an area where accidental spills will not enter surface or ground waters, and will not contaminate the soil. Store pesticides in enclosed areas or in covered impervious containment. Do not discharge pesticide contaminated stormwater or spills/leaks of pesticides to storm sewers. Do not hose down the paved areas to a storm sewer or conveyance ditch. Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all near the storage area. • Clean up any spilled pesticides. Keep pesticide contaminated waste materials in designated covered and contained areas. • The pesticide application equipment must be capable of immediate shutoff in the event of an emergency. • Spraying pesticides within 100 feet of open waters including wetlands, ponds, and rivers, streams, creeks, sloughs and any drainage ditch or channel that leads to open water may have additional regulatory requirements beyond just following the pesticide product label. Additional requirements may include: Obtaining a discharge permit from Ecology. Obtaining a permit from the local jurisdiction. Using an aquatic labeled pesticide. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-23 Packet Pg. 325 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • Flag all sensitive areas including wells, creeks, and wetlands prior to spraying. • Post notices and delineate the spray area prior to the application, as required by the local jurisdiction or by Ecology. • Conduct spray applications during weather conditions as specified in the label direction and applicable local and state regulations. Do not apply during rain or immediately before expected rain. Recommended Additional Operational BMPs for the use of pesticides: • Consider alternatives to the use of pesticides such as covering or harvesting weeds, substitute vegetative growth, and manual weed control/moss removal. • Consider the use of soil amendments, such as compost, that are known to control some common diseases in plants, such as Pythium root rot, ashy stem blight, and parasitic nematodes. The following are three possible mechanisms for disease control by compost addition (USEPA Publication 530-F-9-044): 1. Successful competition for nutrients by antibiotic production; 2. Successful predation against pathogens by beneficial microorganism; and 3. Activation of disease -resistant genes in plants by composts. Installing an amended soil/landscape system can preserve both the plant system and the soil system more effectively. This type of approach provides a soil/landscape system with adequate depth, permeability, and organic matter to sustain itself and continue working as an effective stormwater infiltration system and a sustainable nutrient cycle. Once a pesticide is applied, evaluate its effectiveness for possible improvement. Records should be kept showing the effectiveness of the pesticides considered. Develop an annual evaluation procedure including a review of the effectiveness of pesticide applications, impact on buffers and sensitive areas (including potable wells), public concerns, and recent toxicological information on pesticides used/proposed for use. If individual or public potable wells are located in the proximity of commercial pesticide applications, contact the regional Ecology hydrogeologist to determine if additional pesticide application control measures are necessary. • Rinseate from equipment cleaning and/or triple -rinsing of pesticide containers should be used as product or recycled into product. For more information, contact the Washington State University (WSU) Extension Home -Assist Program, (253) 445-4556, or Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA. 94707, or EPA to Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-24 Packet Pg. 326 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT obtain a publication entitled "Suspended, Canceled, and Restricted Pesticides " which lists all restricted pesticides and the specific uses that are allowed. Applicable Operational BMPs for Vegetation Management: Use at least an eight -inch "topsoil" layer with at least 8 percent organic matter to provide a sufficient vegetation -growing medium. Amending existing landscapes and turf systems by increasing the percent organic matter and depth of topsoil can substantially improve the permeability of the soil, the disease and drought resistance of the vegetation, and reduce fertilizer demand. This reduces the demand for fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Organic matter is the least water-soluble form of nutrients that can be added to the soil. Composted organic matter generally releases only between 2 and 10 percent of its total nitrogen annually, and this release corresponds closely to the plant growth cycle. Return natural plant debris and mulch to the soil, to continue recycling nutrients indefinitely. Select the appropriate turfgrass mixture for the climate and soil type. Certain tall fescues and rye grasses resist insect attack because the symbiotic endophytic fungi found naturally in their tissues repel or kill common leaf and stem -eating lawn insects. However, they do not, repel root -feeding lawn pests such as Crane Fly larvae, and are toxic to ruminants such as cattle and sheep. The fungus causes no known adverse effects to the host plant or to humans. Endophytic grasses are commercially available; use them in areas such as parks or golf courses where grazing does not occur. Local agricultural or gardening resources such as Washington State University Extension office can offer advice on which types of grass are best suited to the area and soil type. • Use the following seeding and planting BMPs, or equivalent BMPs to obtain information on grass mixtures, temporary and permanent seeding procedures, maintenance of a recently planted area, and fertilizer application rates: Temporary and Permanent Seeding, Mulching, Plastic Covering, and Sodding as described in Volume II. Adjusting the soil properties of the subject site can assist in selection of desired plant species. For example, design a constructed wetland to resist the invasion of reed canary grass by layering specific strata of organic matters (e.g., composted forest product residuals) and creating a mildly acidic pH and carbon -rich soil medium. Consult a soil restoration specialist for site -specific conditions. • Aerate lawns regularly in areas of heavy use where the soil tends to become compacted. Conduct aeration while the grasses in the lawn are growing most vigorously. Remove layers of thatch greater than 3/4-inch deep. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-25 Packet Pg. 327 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mowing is a stress -creating activity for turfgrass. Grass decreases its productivity when mown too short and there is less growth of roots and rhizomes. The turf becomes less tolerant of environmental stresses, more disease prone and more reliant on outside means such as pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation to remain healthy. Set the mowing height at the highest acceptable level and mow at times and intervals designed to minimize stress on the turf. Generally mowing only 1/3 of the grass blade height will prevent stressing the turf. Irrigation: The depth from which a plant normally extracts water depends on the rooting depth of the plant. Appropriately irrigated lawn grasses normally root in the top 6 to 12 inches of soil; lawns irrigated on a daily basis often root only in the top 1 inch of soil. Improper irrigation can encourage pest problems, leach nutrients, and make a lawn completely dependent on artificial watering. The amount of water applied depends on the normal rooting depth of the turfgrass species used, the available water holding capacity of the soil, and the efficiency of the irrigation system. Consult with the local water utility, Conservation District, or Cooperative Extension office to help determine optimum irrigation practices. Fertilizer Management: Turfgrass is most responsive to nitrogen fertilization, followed by potassium and phosphorus. Fertilization needs vary by site depending on plant, soil, and climatic conditions. Evaluation of soil nutrient levels through regular testing ensures the best possible efficiency and economy of fertilization. For details on soils testing, contact the local Conservation District, a soils testing professional, or a Washington State University Extension office. Apply fertilizers in amounts appropriate for the target vegetation and at the time of year that minimizes losses to surface and ground waters. Do not fertilize when the soil is dry. Alternatively, do not apply fertilizers within three days prior to predicted rainfall. The longer the period between fertilizer application and either rainfall or irrigation, the less fertilizer runoff occurs. Use slow release fertilizers such as methylene urea, IDBU, or resin coated fertilizers when appropriate, generally in the spring. Use of slow release fertilizers is especially important in areas with sandy or gravelly soils. • Time the fertilizer application to periods of maximum plant uptake. Ecology generally recommends application in the fall and spring, although Washington State University turf specialists recommend four fertilizer applications per year. Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-26 Packet Pg. 328 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Properly trained persons should apply all fertilizers. Apply no fertilizer at commercial and industrial facilities, to grass swales, filter strips, or buffer areas that drain to sensitive water bodies unless approved by the local jurisdiction. Integrated Pest Management An IPM program might consist of the following steps: Step 1: Correctly identify problem pests and understand their life cycle Step 2: Establish tolerance thresholds for pests. Step 3: Monitor to detect and prevent pest problems. Step 4: Modify the maintenance program to promote healthy plants and discourage pests. Step 5: Use cultural, physical, mechanical or biological controls first if pests exceed the tolerance thresholds. Step 6: Evaluate and record the effectiveness of the control and modify maintenance practices to support lawn or landscape recovery and prevent recurrence. For an elaboration of these steps, refer to Appendix IV-F. 2 s 0r 0 di gZ / 0 i a f r d r :) ' t i s ip 'o f of to a es, ra rs p al c d t to di / o f o f d d of to ' is t' d ri a co in ci f ili 'es s p in n e iv' g, ut 'de to g , f i re , e at is tr s rr c i 1 e o ct , ra to 'al e e ' at r u s, as to ' al fu s, cr to , e a a s ' is f el , o' w er or n' s, ea t is ac' s, k is et . d in r sf y u st a c t i ti i1 fr y au 'c 1' e e s e co in ob t a' g oc s. O t t o ro A r c v a c t' t I d' g/ to di e re ec s t p e - o st at a o of c nt i to st at c e p a 'o t a n 0 in A a s' n' ca a o t d ri ca ac 1 a ou id , u o re ad' g/ 1 d' g ea . S ee t e r cc r u tl o e 1 se a ri t c l co a n e s r. w p e e po ri c e d to e ov o h co ai er , o o er a ri c er' g e o d. l e ip a, o of r p pr' to or y on co e d is , at c o w er e s s' is o ur uc a o c n ti s se ee a f er o e. A a e p an w n a n Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-2 7 Packet Pg. 329 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT S417 BMPs for Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage and Treatment Systems Description of Pollutant Sources: Facilities include roadside catch basins on arterials and within residential areas, conveyance systems, detention facilities such as ponds and vaults, oil/water separators, biofilters, settling basins, infiltration systems, and all other types of stormwater treatment systems presented in Volume V. Oil and grease, hydrocarbons, debris, heavy metals, sediments and contaminated water are found in catch basins, oil and water separators, settling basins, etc. Pollutant Control Approach: Provide maintenance and cleaning of debris, sediments, and oil from stormwater collection, conveyance, and treatment systems to obtain proper operation. Applicable Operational BMPs: Maintain stormwater treatment facilities per the operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures presented in Section 4.6 of Volume V in addition to the following BMPs: • Inspect and clean treatment BMPs, conveyance systems, and catch basins as needed, and determine necessary O&M improvements. • Promptly repair any deterioration threatening the structural integrity of stormwater facilities. These include replacement of clean -out gates, catch basin lids, and rock in emergency spillways. • Ensure adequacy of storm sewer capacities and prevent heavy sediment discharges to the sewer system. • Regularly remove debris and sludge from BMPs used for peak -rate control, treatment, etc. and discharge to a sanitary sewer if approved by the sewer authority, or truck to an appropriate local or state government approved disposal site. • Clean catch basins when the depth of deposits reaches 60 percent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. However, in no case should there be less than six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Some catch basins (for example, WSDOT Type 1 L basins) may have as little as 12 inches sediment storage below the invert. These catch basins need frequent inspection and cleaning to prevent scouring. Where these catch basins are part of a stormwater collection and treatment system, the system Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-37 Packet Pg. 330 RECEIVED Attach April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT owner/operator may choose to concentrate maintenance efforts on downstream control devices as part of a systems approach. • Clean woody debris in a catch basin as frequently as needed to ensure proper operation of the catchbasin. • Post warning signs; "Dump No Waste - Drains to Ground Water," "Streams," "Lakes," or emboss on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets where possible. • Disposal of sediments and liquids from the catch basins must comply with "Recommendations for Management of Street Wastes" described in Appendix IV-G of this volume. Additional Applicable BMPs: Select additional applicable BMPs from this chapter depending on the pollutant sources and activities conducted at the facility. Those BMPs include: • S425 BMPs for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control at Industrial Sites • S427 BMPs for Storage of Liquid, Food Waste, or Dangerous Waste Containers • S406 BMPs for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances • S410 BMPs for Illicit Connections to Storm Drains • S430 BMPs for Urban Streets 1 P f f n A i'i - u i cr' ti u n o c a fa r' g of a s rc c de u d r es ar s to e is 'o , a a re a a r' g ti ' y as k c n e s n si if an ex s p u nt a ri r P 1 io C t o o r d o 1 ut d f t n a p v t s r n- n d o m' at' n h e as' le p' a e e t' n • e p e ar s r, a ne e, t r e c to in io of st at . • er e cf it y i n n or i n o a n 'o f st at • A 1' a u u e o ro l e t e iv' y se r 6) f s' l, e o f n c ri a iv' a i in . o r e ti ' y o e fl r ai t a m ry e r, p ve b h o a o 'ty e s p e o a d t pr e d in e l n to u Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-38 Packet Pg. 331 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT No. 5 — Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash & Trash or debris which is located immediately No Trash or debris located Debris in front of the catch basin opening or is immediately in front of blocking inletting capacity of the basin by catch basin or on grate more than 10%. opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the percent of the sump depth as measured from catch basin. the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes free blocking more than 1/3 of its height. of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause complaints vegetation present within or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No sediment in the catch percent of the sump depth as measured from basin the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is free of holes Damage to inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. Frame and/or Top Slab (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings or top slab from the top slab. Frame not securely and firmly attached. attached Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin replaced or repaired Cracks in unsound. to design standards. Basin Walls/ Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider Pipe is regrouted and than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the secure at basin wall. joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, Basin replaced or repaired Misalignment function, or design problem. to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking than 10% of the basin opening. opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No vegetation or root that is more than six inches tall and less than growth present. six inches apart. Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution present. and Pollution Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs — December 2014 4-38 Packet Pg. 332 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach r CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT No. 5 — Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin cover is Cover Place Any open catch basin requires maintenance. closed Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts proper tools. Not Working into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be removed by to Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. one maintenance person. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, standards and allows misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets (If Applicable) Unsafe design standards. Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of trash and Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity. debris. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the Grate is in place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. F21 0 VAN 0 Ar- -9, OrPRO l - E -- , 1 r- , - , AN r tz t 'J .9, 1 1. PAP FORWI-14.1 - Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs —December 2014 4-39 Packet Pg. 333 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach..U� CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT No. 18 — Catchbasin Inserts Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance is Performed General Sediment When sediment forms a cap over the No sediment cap on the insert Accumulation insert media of the insert and/or unit. media and its unit. Trash and Trash and debris accumulates on insert Trash and debris removed Debris unit creating a blockage/restriction. from insert unit. Runoff freely Accumulation flows into catch basin. Media Insert Not Effluent water from media insert has a Effluent water from media Removing Oil visible sheen. insert is free of oils and has no visible sheen. Media Insert Catch basin insert is saturated with water Remove and replace media Water Saturated and no longer has the capacity to insert absorb. Media Insert -Oil Media oil saturated due to petroleum spill Remove and replace media Saturated that drains into catch basin. insert. Media Insert Use Media has been used beyond the typical Remove and replace media at Beyond Normal average life of media insert product. regular intervals, depending on Product Life insert product. Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs —December 2014 4-51 Packet Pg. 334 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March 36t 3� April 26, 2(J2�3inage Report Section VI I, Page 5 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SAMPLE ACTIVITY LOG DATE FACILITY MAINTENANCE PERFORMED RESULTS / NOTES C 4m ENGINEERING 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 335 Attachm0 I L 101 101 1.1 I F I F w DOCK "N" DOCK "PI,DOCK "Q" ° DOCK "R'l ° L DOCK "S" ° I DOCK "T" I DOCK "U" DOCK "V" L-1 _ cn ° I I a o °to J X O OilO ° a O O O i O N ° ° i ° FLOAIINGDOCK ° UPPER PORTWALK PLANTING PLAN UD07.1 ? A o w o ow wl ° ° °° °--------------------------------- -- ----� 1 z z Q I XXXz ° ° ° o O U o ? — T—T -- T— P (� o ° J °° O FLOATING DOCK c ,8 ` I O w Q c i c i T I FLOM7INGDOCK UPPER PLAZA - PLANTING SITE PLAN 1 UD07.1 0FLOAIINGDOCK v o o FLOATING DOCK CENTRAL PLAZA PLANTING SITE 2 PLAN uDo7.� '� I I o — --------------------------- --------------- --------- —� r----- ------------------- — --------------- V RESTROOM o. FACILITY Z z \p (� 0 ° I WALL FO ---FO 0 — — — --T ---T----T -- T — —LU T -- T -- T -- — T } -- I — I ---T --- --- T --- --- T --- -- T v — 300 ADMIRAL WAY I O W (n O Co I I I �o =� I o cn - 0�E 0 LLJ _ ,., .: I I I r, .t .c .1C .t o ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 � Palovooa aoo;oa;; =a000000. aoo.0000 � o esaee.e o. I I W W w / n U cn 06 >e �2or X I I ° EDMONDS YACHT CLUB I I p 1�6 1 i 10 '' Z Q STREET TREES MUST BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S STREET TREE PLAN i I i s o I i' ,n 1 , I �' Q U-i i "o o �oT �° i I CDI (n � ® I I I oo I I fl I I 1 I� ��� I 1 I 1 NN L� V I —LJ `�.✓ O p ❑ OL _`__ O /OLnL I I I I �P L O O JCL '. • • I -�� ' L I I I p S/ 1 I O Z J � Z I 1 I I L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I I L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I O- I �l — I op I Z Q ADMIRAL WAY — T C lF'RS I I ti O Q � 1 GENERAL PLANTING SITE PLAN I 1 "= 32'-0" 16 32 64' � 0 O O I- NOTES: TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES: � w W o Scientific Name Common Name Size Quantity 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE TO MEET ON SITE WITH THE PROJECT REP TO 1 VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. � U' O Cornus nuttallii `Gracilis' Pacific Dogwood 3 cal 8 2 DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL W _ 2 ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 8 03 "IRRIGATION li 00 w c °� cc W Chamaecypans obtusa Slender Hinoki Cypress 3" cal NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE SYSTEMS". tP Q Prunus serrulata 'Amanogawa' Amanogawa Flowering Cherry 3" cal 15 APPROVED. ALL SAFETY FENCING AND TESC MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED 3 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. DAMAGE TO THE CDC Ln Lq �% z LL] go�o�o Ginkgo biloba Princeton Sentry Princeton Sentry Ginkgo 2 2 PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ALL PLANTS TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED WITHIN PLANTING AREAS WILL BE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SOLE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER AT NO COST. � � Q o Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweetgum 3 Q o 0 FLAGGED BY ENGINEER. NOTIFY ENGINEER FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO START OF CLEARING ACTIVITY. 4 CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SCALED IRRIGATION PLAN AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WHICH GRAPHICALLY C° LL] x Pinus contorta var. Chief Joseph Chief Joseph Pine 10 gal 6 3 MITIGATION PLANTING PLANS REPRESENT A CONCEPTUAL PLANT LAYOUT. IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION, SIZES, AND TYPES OF IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT Ceanothus sanguineus Red Stem Ceanothus 5 gal 7 FINAL PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY PROJECT REP PRIOR TO PROPOSED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY OWNER'S REP. CONTRACTOR Q Cornus sericea Red Osier Dogwood 5 gal 9 PLANTING, COORDINATE DATA WILL BE PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY FOR SHALL ALSO FIELD VERIFY STATIC PRESSURE PRIOR TO DESIGN PREPARTION. Gaultheria shallon Salal 3 al g 41 LOCATION OF PLANTING AREA BOUNDARIES. 5 ALL WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODES. aa�o Hosta Guacamole Hosta 13 4 ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR, PLANT 6 LOCATE ALL VALVES WITHIN ONE (1) FOOT OF THE MAINLINE. MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPLIED BY COMMERCIAL NURSERIES. PLANT 7 FIELD VERIFY ALL SPRINKLER HEAD LOCATIONS (FLAGGING) FOR REVIEW AND Lupinus litooralis Broadleaf Lupine 3 gal 18 SUBSTITUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY PROJECT REP. APPROVAL BY OWNER'S REP BEFORE TRENCHING. Mahonia (Berberis) aquifolium Tall Oregon grape 5 gal 20 5 MITIGATION PLANTING SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING THE DORMANT SEASON Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 5 gal 20 (OCTOBER 1ST TO MARCH 1ST). PLANTING MAY BE ALLOWED AT OTHER TIMES Ribes sanguineum Flowering Currant 5 gal 8 AFTER REVIEW AND WRITTEN APPROVAL BY PROJECT REP. N Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose 5 gal 18 6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF ALL DEBRIS AND o ° Pinus mugo 'Tannenbaum' EXCESS SOIL OCCASIONED BY THIS PROJECT. 0 7 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO or Jakobsen Mugo Pine 5 gal 3 EXCAVATION. Q Polystichum munitum Sword fern 3 gal 17 8 ALL DIMENSIONS FOR LISTED HEIGHT, LEGNTH, AND CONTAINER SIZE ARE Sarcococca hookeriana var. humilis Sweet Box 31 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 9 EXISTING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND NOT SHOWN o Armeria maritime Thrif/Sea Pink 230 SF TO BE RE -VEGETATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED AND SEEDED. z 10 DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE U� D-1 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnik 12"x12" 480 SF BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT REP PRIOR TO PROCEEDING W X Daphne odora 'Aureo-marginate' Winter Daphne 250 SF WITH EFFECTED WORK. C° LLI Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass 12"x12" 150 SF 11 SEE SP SHEETS FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 12 CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING PLANTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION OF PLANTING FOR THE PROJECT. COUNTY WILL MAKE PROVISIONS FOR WATERING AS NEEDED FOR THE LLI Q REMAINDER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST YEAR. Project No. 12 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TREE STAKES AT THE END OF ONE (1) YEAR. 2 PLANTING SCHEDULE 2045 Drawing No. U D07.0 Sheet of 0 U O V d d c O 3 O a O z 0 E w 4- 0 r_ O a LO 0 0 A (V O N z J a c a U N J ti C w a Packet Pg. 336 Attachm0 CONCRETE WALK uc> 1*1 CONCRETE WALL 0 8' 16' 32' 1 UPPER PLAZA -PLANTING SITE PLAN 1 = 16 -0 )I FLOATING DOCK 0 I 01 FLOATING DOCK I� LPLANTING AREA #8 $ 9 uDo7s uDo7.2 PLANTING AREA #9 I � I I � 1 II O O O L—J I r -1 I I I I I I I I W I W I II.I W W o PLANTING AREA #10 L--------- J UD07.3 [PLANTING REA #4 u o .2 Ltj 000000 ^0000 L—__J L---J L--J --------------oW Q � g PLANTING AREA #1 uDo7.2 -- — — — — —— � o +_______J — — W I -- I I PLANTING AREA #2 W W L------------ I PLANTING AREA #3 3 UD07.2 F-----------------------� I I W I I O I I L----------------------------J — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — F�\W I 31. WWW WWOW —j L----------------------- PLANTING AREA # 1 1 UD07.3 PLANTING AREA # 15 ----------------------------------------— I WWWWWWWWW W IW W W W W W o I WWWWW WWW�,; 1 s� I W WW �WW L-------------------------------------------------------------------------------� 00 .GATING DOCK 10 00 PLANTING AREA #6 uDo72 co i PLANTING AREA #7 UD07.2 EXISTING GARBAGE BIN AREA EXISTING OIL/WATER SEPARATOR C97 r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — P O O O L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �PLANTING AREA #13 4 UD07.3 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN 00 EDMONDS YACHT CLUB FLOATING DOCK 300 ADMIRAL WAY EXISTING PLANTERS TO REMAIN I CENT�AL PLAZA PLANTING SITE PLAN 8' 16 32 NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 0 8' 16' 32' 2 1 „= 16'-03 1 / 16„ = 1'-0" 5 UD07.3 I EXIST RSTRM Sl J � I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I cn w w cn \ x N w O w 0 w z z .. � � Lw � w Q cn LLw Q z z C:) u o V) cn O w � Q o cn cn Lw u O zc: O - Q I I I c c g J O� EL LLu O � � W Q LJJ 77 ::D w C45 L T J O Q O F— V) zz O< (-0 CL Lu C� OLLJz �Q z J zz J �W in 0 0 H r c H Lw $ �o c — 0 6 16. O) 0 0 m u� LnI Lu c Q z � O N N c Ln Ln zw Qo 'C Qo 0 0 Q o 0 Si Ln un N d r t (n .. x v w Q 0 0 Q N N w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U D07.1 Sheet t Packet Pg. 337 Attachm0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o°o°00000° X x x x I I °000°o ° ° I I I I I, °00000° o00000000° X x x x , n KINNIKINNIK FLOWERING CURRANT TUFTED HAIRGRASS 60SF 3 24SF PACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 PLANTING AREA # 1 4 8' 16' 1 1 /8'' = 1 '-0" TALL OREGON GRAPE 5 SWORD FERN 6 NOOTKA ROSE El El ,,.. Lil L., X-12 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n ❑-------------------------� I I I I I I I I I I I p,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PLANTING AREA #4 4' $' 16 4 1 /8" = 1'-0" I OODOo000000�00�00 NOOTKA ROSE SALAL 12 7 AMANOGAWA FLOWERING CHERRY 3 0 O 2 0000 000 ° o ° 000 oo° KINNIKINNIK 80 SF 000 00 °o 00 00°�0 0000 00 0 000 0 0 AMANOGAWA FLOWERING CHERRY 3 o°oo I oo0 0 00 0OoO000"0 0000000 o°Ooo oo00 °0 40 u 0 PLANTING AREA #2 4 8 :2:: 1 /8, = 1.0\\ PRINCETON SENTRY GINKGO 2 O �O O • O 0 �O NOOTKA ROSE 6 HOSTA 6 TALL OREGON GRAPE SALAL 9 1 10 SWEETGUM 3 \xnili,, ..i .n ,/,,,,�h�n\��ilu�4,./, 6iilu�4„G,N\od���L�✓,,./,,, \.\�iil„i4..i Wk, 0 o��Da Q�Ooa� O D In D O D 16 PLANTING AREA #3 0 4' 8' 16' 3 1 /8" = 1 \_0' WINTER DAPHNE 90SF �/8 �N�NG AREA #50 4' $' 5 1 = 1 -0 SWORD FERN 6 16' BROADLEAF LUPINE 10 O 4 CHIEF JOSEPH PINE 2 PACIFIC DOGWOOD 1 WINTER DAPHNE 35SF PLANTING AREA #7 4' 8' 16' PLANTING AREA #8 4 8 16' 7 1 /8" = 1'-0'' 8 1 /8" = 1'-0" no -- INIMUM opill HIM NOOTKA ROSE 5 �1/ �N��AEA #6 �4' $� 3 KINNIKINNIK 68 SF SLENDER HINOKI CYPRESS 2 HEAVENLY BAMBOO — — — — 6 16' SWEET BOX 6 �� o Q�Do oQ�Do Q�Do p�OD —4Wv �a�D r ��OD op000D ° + + + ++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++++ ++ +++++ +++ + o SALAL 10 NOOTKA ROSE RED OSIER DOGWOOD FLOWERING CURRANT 2 2 3 PACIFIC DOGWOOD 2 SEA PINK TUFTED HAIRGRASS WINTER DAPHNE 70 SF 40 SF 80 SF ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0 °o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o , ❑ ❑ 0000c)o000000000 , I 0000000000000°0° -J 0000000000000000 000000000000000° 000000000000000° 0000000000000000 -, 0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0° PLANTING AREA #9 4' s' 16' 9 1 /8„ = 1,_0„ w w x N w O w o .. w z ILLz z � n" CD 3: U Q cr) Q w z w 0 0 o O i) O cn w I/ Q u � O z� r n O � O lJ l ' O�� o Wow 0 � J LI O U z— Z E Q Q O<,_0 Z O w � 2- -J Z � Q = O cL J O Q z o r = •y w V � O O C 00 O O-) 6) O O L LU Q z 3: O N N Ln Ln z Ld c0 OO Q O Ln cn N m .� Cn x v w -- Li- rr Q z cn O z � O El- Cn cc > o w cn w w 0 w Q Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U DO7.2 Sheet of Packet Pg. 338 Attachm0 w w GROUNDCOVER PLANTING (_0 (SEE PLANT SCHEDULE FOR SPACING) X CONTAINERIZED OR B&B SHRUB, TYP. BARK MULCH N B&B OR CONTAINERIZED SHURB, SET TOP OF ROOT CROWN 1" ABOVE UNCOMPACTED TOP SOIL TYPE A MIN 18" DEPTH (SEE SPEC) (TYP.) FINISHED GRADE. w MIN 3 " OF MULCH, KEEP 1" AWAY FROM STEM. LIGHTLY COMPACTED w LLJ MIN 3 " OF MULCH, LESS THAN 1" ON TOPSOIL TYPE A (SEE SPECS) TOP OF ROOTBALL 18" UNCOMPACTED FOR B&B PLANTS, REMOVE BURLAP, WIRE SECTION VIEW C�U Q TOP SOIL TYPE A MIN. AND STRINGS. FOR CONTAINER PLANTS Q LLJ z PLANTING PIT PREPARATION = 6' ON ALL SIDES. SCORE ROOTBALL 3 TIMES TO 1" DEPTH. L�-L Ir = BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOILE AMENDED WITH TOP SOIL TYPE A DO NOT OVER COMPACT C:� O U COMPOST. DO NOT OVERCOMPACT AND POUR AND POUR WATER OVER SOIL AFTER PLANTING ROOTBA L DEPTH WATER OVER SOIL AFTER PLANTING TO HELP SETTLE I TO HELP SETTLE SOIL. Z SOIL. ROOTBALL DEPTH PLACE ROOTBALL DIRECTLY ON UNDISTURBED (n SOIL SOIL (TO PROVIDE FIRM BASE SO ROOTBALL EQ' 0 w DEPTH WILL NOT SETTLE.) FOR PLANTS IN SHALLOW CONTAINERS, TOPSOIL TYPE A MAY BE LIGHTLY GROUNDCOVER PLANTS TO BE J Q ROOTBALL COMPACTED BELOW ROOTBALL, TO PROVIDE TRIANGULARLY SPACED O U PLUS ROOTBALL A FIRM BASE FOR PLANTS. MULCH' 0'-6" ON PLACE ROOTBALL DIRECTLY ON UNDISTURBED SOIL PROVIDE FIRM PLUS LIGHTLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL TYPE A PAVEMENT 6" min. L L ALL (TO 0'-6" (SEE SPEC) CD SIDES BASE SO ROOTBALL WILL NOT SETTLE.) ON PAN VIEW ALL z SIDES r n 0 0 J u-, LNL O � N TREE PLANTING SHRUB PLANTING GROUNDCOVER PLANTING � 2 3 Q V) NTS NTS NTS F ��w 0 u� J J Q O�� U z- Q ° z Q Q J O<(_0 in z rK 0 w li--- in�z �Q = O J � � z O Q z o O O = w •y � O C 00 O O� 6) O O Lc-)� Ln Q z � N N O c Ln Ln z Lv CD (-o D Qo O Q O O N Ln cn m Q v w 0 Q N N w O Q z cn O z � O Cn cc > u w cn w w 0 w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U D07.3 Sheet of rr Q Packet Pg. 339 Attachm0 o o I I o°o I I 00o I I 0 o 0000000000000000 ❑ ❑ 00-00000-0°°°° KINNIKINNIK 195 SF °---� °o°o°o°000°0°0°o I 0000000000000000 000000000000000 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I I 0°° 0°0 0°0000000000 I I o°o° 000 I 0000 L---J 00o ❑ ❑ °O°0°0 O°O° o°o o°o° 000 O°O°O°O o°o° 0000000 o°o o°0°0°0° 000 000000°0° ° ° 0000000000 000000O°O°O 0 0 0 0 0 00 000000000000° 0 0 / 1 0 3 WINTER DAPHNE SWEET BOX 20 SF 6 Q � �QODo Q�Do Q�Do 0�0 LVVVV OQ� OQ D OQ�D 0 �D OQ o��D ��Do ��ODo Q�Oo pQ�D ° o ° o ° o + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ SALAL 10 NOOTKA ROSE RED OSIER DOGWOOD FLOWERING CURRANT 2 2 2 SEA PINK PACIFIC DOGWOOD 70 SF 2 TUFTED HAIRGRASS 40 SF P0LANTING AREA # 10 0 41 sl 16� PLANT��G�AREA # 1 1 0 41 $� �6�1j811'-o"- -- — CHIEF JOSEPH PINE SWEETGUM 4 4 >000 KINNIKINNIK °o°o°o° °°°° °O°O°O°O° ° °°°° 24 SF P ° °10 °° MUGO PINE 0 0 0 ° 3 I ° AMANOGAWA FLOWERING CHERRY ° 3 MUGO PINE BROADLEAF LUPINE WINTER DAPHNE 4 8 30 SF HOSTA I ° 7 I I I ® SWORD FERN I -- 4 I I ® I I CEANOTHUS I 3 I I I I PLANTING AREA It 13 0 4 8 16' PLANTING AREA # 14 0 4 8 16 4 1 /8„ = V-0„ 5 l /8ii = 1 i-0„ KINNIKINNIK 75 SF MUGO PINE 3 TALL OREGON GRAPE 6 HEAVENLY BAMBOO 14 PLANTING AREA # 12 0 4' 81 3 1 /8ii = 11-0" w w X N w O LL L+w z w z z \5:� n" CD 3: W Q c) Q z w Lc = 3: O cn w w � Q O u � o z� U) O 0 O cn 0 O�� ui E W LIJ __C) w LL O�� V) z� J Q� Q -0 F— Q w O<(_0 Q Z O Lw � _j Z � Q = O J z CL O Q z o r = 21 •y Lw � O O C 00 O O-) 0T) CD L Ln� Ln LUp1 Q z � O N N Ln Ln z1zc_0 (_D CL • ^ c0 CDQ O O Ln cn N m .� Cn X LLJ Q v w 0 Q rr Q z cn O z � o h cn cc > o w cn w w 0 w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U DO7.4 Sheet cf Packet Pg. 340 RECEIVED �, PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FRONT VIEW 3T1. �rwc[151 aiao odExa �n-[t]unuvsrnc[o s[e 3 & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED SIDE VIEW �1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED BOTTOM VIEW U 11/2"=1'D' 5 dn. �,1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT BRACKET DETAIL NOTE: 'PEDESTRIAN LIGHT' TO BE LEO AREA LIGHT HE SERIES: POLE: 12FI Wi:4 LB EPA: 1.14 FI2 PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR MATERIAL: POW DERCOAT METAL -'TITANIUM' LEO Area Light =`4 F.O,'.t D.1.*-.l I1L1 \LIL e..a e...wN w..., YwM/ r. r.... �.r+r•• r.�rr r rr.w .rr_...prl UDA1��y\ ® op" iiYl _ _ • �.r.. r. r = .__ lwnrw y. r .o • _� I_S S n 9- • f� ��1�.► ��R 'il� 1A� 3 N 3 0 a t 0 Z N 0 E m W 0 t 0 a Ln r CD O M N O N Z J a C m IL cm t a� co c m E t v Q Packet Pg. 341 r- O OM .0 r 'a o cc m pl N S � .� O n o m o D w 0 a o 001 o D T °: z � N ° S ? rt m a w v o r o � � N n -Cl) Cn 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 3 m c 3 w D � 3 w -i s w = (D N 3 co i A � O w CCCD - a 0 N V G Ln 0 0 �o 2 N Q 3 3 w y I N � N r m :a m KOOT O0�p O 'O 'a 3 c' 7 c0. .0 0.m 0)w ° Q (° o D w = 0 m 3 z 3 A p 3 ° cn o (D w n c° o 0 m o_ w 3 m o °gym aw-art a s o w � : o m SN 3 � N O O 7 N Q 3 0 0 3 o �r w c a a =^� 0 N N c w F w CD o 1 0 N? O N -O C, N =o CDCD a QM O Q = N Q 3 m m 0 0 m N 7 r r� 0 Q C 0 v d d cn CD r m W W 0 90 r m w Ul 0 CD r r* fi 0 1 3 Ln r� a Packet Pg. 342 M G. fA CD o_ U) CD '5 CD a m A N O N 0 -n N W O W W A CJ1 Co O O m 0 Sr co w D m w N 3 N 0 0 A Co O A Co W v n (D 3 E 3 3 w (D g C 6 v. o V 7 SD Z 0 3 co o- m 3 'rt rn a C =CD A m w , a0 CD 1 Q 9 OCD 3 OQ N NO (D c 0 fl O 0 CD a cn m O w rn C Cl- � 7 N m O- 3 N o 0 O 3 CD C a 0 co � m 7 N � 0 LD. 0 ? CO w � 3 CD O CD w N 7 N < O. 7 O N N N N N � Ut Co 0 O w 3 o CD o m 0 L. s O N (D 0 Ui O D S m O ' O Q 0 w n Q m N O_ OQ N CD w m Cl a w o a w CD 0 3 c o Cc: 0 w _� � c 3 3 m c0 a s C CD 0 0 3 0 w 0 < O N SR a 3 O O CDC 0 3 NN Na rn CD o 0 Q C 0 v d d cn 3 (D CD r m W W O 90 r m CA) Ul O CD r r* fi O 3 L a Packet Pg. 343 T CG1 CD <. CD O O_ U) (D a (D Cr (D A N O N 0 TI N O O W w A CJ1 V Co O O m n _S N 7 D (D W N 3 N O O A Co O A W r r r r r r r r r r r r m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w N O N O N O N O N O N O W O W O W O W O W O W O p A A W W N N A A W W N N C A W W A A W W A A N W A W J N N W J N N W J N N N - T T T T T T T T T T T T O 0 O O 0 O O O 0! N N N N N N N N �r N N 0 m A W A W A W W N W N w N Ci m O Am O O Am O O A O V N N O V N N O V (n N O C O 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m< 0 D D D D D D D D D D D D 7 J N J 01 OD W A N A N A N N J W N N J W N J N W N W N W N p`j O m O W O V O W A O (O O O V N N N f1 01 G) C C C C C C C C C C C C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y m O Q C n rt v d 'd'^ V/ CD rt r m W W O 90 r m w Ul C) r r* fi O 3 Ln C a a� C w+ s T J C6 y.d d E s c.i a Packet Pg. 344 A G. CD m Q U) (D a (D a m A N O N 0 C7 oC r EX. U) rm 0 v r 3 cD CD m -1 n CD o _ _ o, Co ° 0 3 a ry 0 N c� D a a 0 CD Q N _ fD Q O X' CD 0 p M O CL C 5.0 CA 13 (D O N m 0 0 m N 0 m co (A 5O 0 0 -a m o m _ O 3 3' o ,c' c N c co 0 = F Q = Q O a �J 0 Q c O+ 0 0 o v 3 (ODD O O a CD m =3 N = 7 � CD N 3 = o a0 C CD N 3 O fD N 0- ID T. N C=3 O �D = (D O a 3 N :3 0 C O n O .. fD o p c 0 0 0 N vCD CLCLCD Q _0 (D0 fD -n 3 O (D Co CD 0 a N (D O N O m � �. 0 (D N v o N 3 � O (D � M O Q C 0 O CL rH n 0 O 7 N a -7 N S. _ o v y a =r m CL X 0 T. (D 6 m _ Q A m a CD T7 O 3 0 Q 9 0 O 3 = p� N� 7 N f/ = T. O fD 3 C CD N_ `G = 3 9 (D O 5 =r N a a �=3 Q� N N fD (D O O a c' w 6 3 CD Q m w a 0 O Q CD D rn C CL- a w 9 w a fD 2: N o- m Q o <_. m m m QCCL w m O CL m ao N O N (n O N m 00 _ o N 0' O O Q F 0 0 _ 0 M S 'O+ O O O 3 U) CD 3 N O Z 0 0 w m O Q a 0 v d d cn 3 fD O r m W W 0 90 r m w Ul O CD r r* fi 0 3 L a Packet Pg. 345 7 o O Q * O o D N — n X m C. L. 3 N o m w o Cr SofD E — n 3 in m -0 o Q 0 w w (psn 7 6 o w Of S rF o a m m _ O O N T O y 7 w p 7 3 � M d C - (D O o w N O m CD m m m w o -0 X p (O O 3 w O -O �. m m 0_ °i � 9 0 `° a w w w 3 O a N OR w < w c Q y w 3 a 3 V z 3 (D Co 0 x x w CD W w O X, W O m U) m m 0 N w C 3 K m c O Q CD n O d D Q CD D C n m w O m O C (D CD 7 W (D U) W O O � C O_ � n 3 p� (D N `G TI w 3 U CD, 0 07 m bm O Q CD n O a) D Q 9 CD O Cn N x� h 0 D O CA T 7 rt mCD p N C) i =� /0 O Chi I O 3 O I N C C 3 O a r _ . cQ O Z N C O fi 0 1 3 Ln C a a� C w+ s T J C6 C d E s to r a Packet Pg. 346 RECEIVED I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II �II I I I I I I I °II I° ,I II II II I I I I I I I I I °I I II I I PHOTOMETRIC PLAN j . a�I Aft U ,-�� 3 ZV O_ 8 = ~ � � Z 1 H (n (� Z O O J3 a >Qa 'wQE ww O o3 z QE a U 1 � Q I I Q � w O O \ I W o 2 3 0 ® I �..... O O ..�/ \ ' I (L N �l •�� '__•, 2 r N N C� R IL as Lm J _ o - t v R r+ Q P-j-t No. 2Ca5 GENERAL NOTE: Drawing I.'::. HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED I UDXX Sheet of Packet Pg. 347 V'CityofEdmonds Zoning Map C W ■ C+.? 223.83 447.7 Feet 333.3 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 4,��� P B P pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accure iS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise relial City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI( .0 Y,S Legend ReZones PRD RoW Zoning ■ RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 RS-20 ❑ RS-MP RM-3 ■ RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW r 13131 BD2 \ 3133 \ BD4 \ 13135 +\ OR WMU BP ■ BN . FVMU BC 1Z r 06 C O N y.i C G1 Notes s Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Q (PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016) Pack 1 ' r 1 (Q 1_ o � (D N - � n , C oo D Q c m L H II 0 0 0 Q � � N ea �a as C,J cn or 0 w 0 0 m CL 3 O O Q N N �_ rn `D a,m n0 o Q 2 3 o m 0 T Z 0 O 0 N M 0-CD Q _ D N 0 Q Q Q 3 0 p7 in N N D 0- R v �d�lr i Oda 06 qLP tM C 0 N i CD C 0 E t R a J Edmonds Way c Packet Pg. 349 0 Attach m 1 r. -r .. City of Edmonds Project Site Aerial Legend ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINE <all other values> 1 2 i 5; 4 9; 71; 7;8 • State Highways Ve — <all other values> i« 0 _ 2 r_ s Sections Boundary 4 • ' Sections i • Edmonds Boundary i ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIN( .l.• • ' , ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINE �, • — <all other values> • Interstate �V Principal Arterial Minor Arterial; Collector Local Street; On Ramp State Highways .i <all other values> - - 1 j 0 1 2 - 1: 3,031 Notes 0 252.60 505.2 Feet Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and 4,514 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for P� g P PP g Seawall Reconstruction reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, (PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016) WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION M U) C f� fC O a t O Z N C O LU O V- O (L 0 O M N O N Z J a O O S a f� a d U) V d O a 0 r c m E s V Q Packet Pg. 350 Attachm k City of Edmonds PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 atic 11 UrUan iV//: 1: 3,031 O 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and i 4,514 P B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accui WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise relic © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT 0 Legend o a Rezones t i PRD O Z Shoreline Environment y Aquatic I C ■ Aquatic 11 ■ Conservancy W ■ Natural 4- 0 ' Shoreline Residential I O ■ Shoreline Residential II (L W) ■ Shoreline Residential III CD Urban Mixed Use 1 M ■ Urban Mixed Use II N O N ■ Urban Mixed Use III Z J z Urban Mixed Use IV d ■ Urban Railroad Q M RoW =O ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN <all other values> �+ M 8i 2 [v 5; 4 _ 9;71;7;8 — L State Highways 0 ,all other values> (n 0 1 wi Notes Shoreline Jurisdictions Port of Edmonds Portwalk Project Packet Pg. 351 Attachment 12 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Critical Areas Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington February 16, 2023 Prepared for Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 LALSANDAU 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 Seattle, WA 98125 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 352 Attachment 12 Landau Associates Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Critical Areas Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the technical professionals noted below. Document prepared by:�. .<;��-��_ �,. �.___ _ -Steve Quarterman nior` Associate Document reviewed by: Jeffrey Fellows, PE e,ViC�_ Pr6 ident, Operations Date: February 16, 2023 Project No.: 0173038.010.017 File path: \\edmdata0l\projects\173\038.010\R\FWHCA CritAreas\LAI_Portwalk Critical Areas Report Final_02.16.2023.docx Project Coordinator: tac LALANDAU Packet Pg. 353 Attachment 12 Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction ii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 354 Attachment 12 Landau Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. Reconstruction of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. Landau Associates, Inc. conducted a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a shoreline delineation, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed minimization measures to ensure no net loss of functions. The proposed project will maintain the character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate (i.e., bulkhead and riprap shoreline) and will also result in a net gain in aquatic habitat. The developed uplands adjacent to the shoreline will be modified to include additional landscaping. As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed, because the project does not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 355 Attachment 12 Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iv February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 356 Attachment 12 Landau Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Site Description..................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................................2-3 2.1 Background Information Review........................................................................................2-3 2.2 Waterway Delineation........................................................................................................2-3 2.3 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................................2-4 2.4 Mitigation Sequencing........................................................................................................2-4 3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS...............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Waterways and Associated Habitat...................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fish and Wildlife.................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Natural Heritage and State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area....................................................................................................................................3-2 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 6.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS.......................................................................6-1 7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................7-1 8.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................8-2 FIGURES Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Study Area Map APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Information Review Figures B Site Plan Excerpts C Staff Qualifications FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 357 Attachment 12 Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vi February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 358 Attachment 12 Landau Associates LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BMP........................................................... City............................................................ ECDC.......................................................... Ecology.......... ft................... FWHCA....................................... GI S.............................................. HTL............................................. ........................ Best Management Practices ...........................................City of Edmonds ... Edmonds Community Development Code ... Washington State Department of Ecology ...................................................... foot/feet Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area ............... Geographic Information Software ................................................ high tide line Landau......................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. MHHW.......................................................................................mean higher high water MLLW........................................................................................... mean lower low water NOAA............................................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OHWM.................................................................................... ordinary high water mark PHS..................................................................................... Priority Habitats and Species Port....................................................................................................... Port of Edmonds ROW............................................................................................................. right-of-way sf................................................................................................square foot/square feet SMP........................................................................................Shoreline Master Program SPCC .......................................................Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure TESC...............................................................Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control USACE.................................................................................. US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS.................................................................................. US Fish and Wildlife Service DNR............................................... Washington State Department of Natural Resources WDFW.......................................................... Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WRIA..............................................................................Water Resource Inventory Area FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 359 Attachment 12 Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction viii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 360 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Port of Edmonds (Port) is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot (ft) section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach (Figure 1). Reconstruction of the approximately 13-ft-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) conducted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) critical areas study in support of the proposed project. This report summarizes the results of the critical areas study, including a shoreline delineation, fish and wildlife inventory, and priority habitat inventory; an evaluation of mitigation sequencing; an assessment of unavoidable, project -related impacts; and a description of the proposed minimization measures to ensure no net loss of functions. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent impacts associated with in -water work and work on adjacent uplands. However, the character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate will be maintained under the proposed conditions, and the developed uplands will be modified to include additional landscaping. Impacts to federally listed species and critical habitats will be evaluated by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with proposed determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. No additional compensatory mitigation for FWHCA critical areas is proposed. 1.1 Project Description The Port proposes to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-ft-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (i.e., North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and to repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach. Repair and renovation of the approximately 13-ft-wide boardwalk and underlying seawall are necessary due to significant deterioration; the boardwalk was constructed in the 1960s. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas (Upper Plaza and Central Plaza) also will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant, and the Central Plaza will be added in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (to be demolished). The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure, supported by piling, that projects over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The boardwalk extending north of the marina N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 ft apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the marina's FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment 12 Landau Associates seawall terminate at the timber seawall. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the marina basin along its east side, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the marina basin's east side. Behind the concrete bulkhead is an earthen slope with a rock -armored surface. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and the timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall, whereas the lower (concrete) section of seawall and the filled slope between the sections will remain unchanged along with the existing concrete bulkhead south of N dock. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at grade, and the new sheet pile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be completely removed because they are connected below grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The timber boardwalk will be replaced within the same footprint but elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new aluminum railing and way -finding signage. The marina's existing electrical utility panels and dock cart storage will be relocated from the overwater side of the new walk to the opposite side, over land. Marina gates to the gangways will be replaced in the same locations but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. 1.2 Site Description The approximately 3.9-acre project area is located in Section 23, Township 27N, Range 3E and in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 — Cedar/Sammamish, in Washington State. The project area is developed and includes Port of Edmonds Marina, the existing North Portwalk, Port of Edmonds Administration Building, and Port tenants, including Arnie's Restaurant and the Edmonds Yacht Club (Figure 2). The study area extends 200 ft beyond the project area (Figure 2). Visual observation and public domain resources were used to estimate the extent of FWHCA critical areas in the study area. Review of the study area was limited to observation from a public right-of-way (ROW). FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 362 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 2.0 METHODS Landau reviewed publicly available information, completed both site reconnaissance and impact assessment for the proposed project, and prepared a mitigation plan for project -related impacts to FWHCA critical areas in accordance with the methods described below. 2.1 Background Information Review Landau reviewed the following resources to identify existing conditions and potential FWHCA critical areas within the study area for consistency with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.010.C: • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat and species maps (Appendix A); • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool official water type reference maps, as amended (accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR nearshore and shorezone inventory as documented in the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas (Appendix A; accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR Natural Heritage Program mapping data (DNR 2021); • Washington State Department of Health annual inventory of shellfish harvest areas (DOH; accessed November 10, 2021); • Biological Evaluation for the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project (Landau 2021), which provides summary of anadromous and resident salmonid distribution contained in the habitat limiting factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission as identified in ECDC Chapter 23.90.010.C.7; • DNR state natural area preserves maps (DNR; accessed November 10, 2021); • DNR natural resource conservation area maps(DNR; accessed November 10, 2021); and • City of Edmonds (City) critical areas map (City of Edmonds; accessed November 11, 2021) 2.2 Waterway Delineation The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for waterways was completed using guidance developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology; 2016) and the definition provided in ECDC 20.20.038, which identifies the OHWM, in part as, the mark found by examining the bed and banks of a stream, lake, or tidal water and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and long maintained in ordinary years as to mark upon the soil a vegetative character distinct from that of the abutting upland. In any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide (also referred to as mean higher high water [MHHW]). FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-3 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 363 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 2.3 Impact Assessment Project impacts were determined in coordination with the project engineering team based on pre- and post -project conditions documented on the plans. FWHCA functions were assessed with a qualitative evaluation and best professional judgment. 2.4 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 Landau used best professional judgment to compare pre- and post -mitigation functions. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-4 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 364 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 3.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS This section summarizes the results of Landau's background information review and site reconnaissance. conducted on July 28, 2021. 3.1 Waterways and Associated Habitat A portion of Puget Sound occurs within the study area inside the Edmonds Marina, which is identified as Type S on DNR water type mapping. This section of Puget Sound is identified in the City Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with environmental designations of Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II. The upland adjacent to Edmonds Marina in the project area is developed with the existing North Portwalk; Port of Edmonds Administration Building, and Port tenants, including Arnie's Restaurant and the Edmonds Yacht Club and associated parking lot. The existing shoreline is armored with riprap and bulkheads with limited riparian vegetation dominated by landscaping in planters along the existing boardwalk. Because of the existing bulkhead and adjacent development, which precludes exposure of soil and establishment of vegetation, an OHWM as defined in ECDC 20.20.038 is not present and the shoreline is defined by the MHHW elevation. Substrate in the project area includes existing riprap between the upper timber bulkhead and lower concrete bulkhead. The substrate adjacent to the lower concrete bulkhead in the marina consists of silt. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web identifies portions of Olympic Beach, outside the project area, as estuarine and marine wetland (see Appendix A). This estuarine and marine wetland is also identified on City critical areas mapping (see Appendix A) and is located outside the Edmonds marina, north of the public fishing pier. DNR shorezone inventory available on the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas identifies the project area with eelgrass (Zostera marina) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana). However, this data is noted as generalized by polygon, and does not indicate that seagrass or kelp was present or absent throughout the whole polygon (see Appendix A). Furthermore, the proposed work will occur outside the range of these species. At its shallowest extent, eelgrass generally establishes 10 ft waterward of the shore, at about -2 ft mean lower low water (MLLW), and kelp beds are found offshore of eelgrass beds, in deeper water, in areas of higher currents and rocky substrates that provide stable platforms for holdfast attachment (City of Edmonds 2007). 3.2 Fish and Wildlife Federally listed species in the project vicinity are presented in the project biological evaluation (Landau 2021) and is incorporated by reference in this critical areas assessment. No additional PHS listed species or shellfish harvest areas are identified in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 365 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 3.3 Natural Heritage and State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area The study area is not listed within a township, range, or section listed as containing Natural Heritage resources within the Washington Natural Heritage Program data and is not mapped as a Natural Area Preserve or Natural Resource Conservation Area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 366 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Piles associated with the existing upper timber bulkhead will be cut below the mudline and the remainder of the piles below the surface will be abandoned in place. Full extraction of these piles is not feasible because anchor tiebacks below the surface will need to remain in place. Approximately 55 piles associated with the timber bulkhead will be removed. Existing vertical and batter steel piles will be repaired in place. Segments of steel sleeves will be welded over damaged areas of these piles. It is anticipated that up to 1 cubic yard of excavation across approximately 9 square feet (sf) may occur below the MHHW at each batter pile (i.e., total 55 cubic yards; 495 sf) to facilitate installation of the sleeve. Following placement of the sleeve, the area of excavation will be restored with riprap excavated from around the pile and/or with clean sand. Eight existing vertical treated timber piles in the vicinity of N dock will be removed. These piles will be fully extracted either by use of a "choker" chain and crane or with a vibratory pile driver. If a pile is too deteriorated to be fully extracted, the pile will be cut below the mudline. The area where the piling was removed will then be capped with clean sand or replaced with a new steel pile. Ten 12-inch steel piles will be installed to support the boardwalk in the vicinity of N dock. These piles will be installed using a vibratory hammer and will be embedded a minimum of 25 ft below the mudline. A sheet pile bulkhead will be installed landward of the existing upper timber bulkhead. The driving of the sheet pile will occur outside of the MHHW; however, excavation and removal of the existing timber bulkhead will occur in/adjacent to the MHHW. The sheet pile wall will have a concrete beam across the top and will be supported by anchor tiebacks through the beam extending landward of the wall. Approximately 180 cubic yards of excavation, associated with replacement of the upper timber bulkhead, will occur below MHHW. The excavated material will include existing riprap across an area of approximately 2,100 sf between the upper and lower bulkheads. Approximately 77 cubic yards of riprap will be installed below MHHW, in the same area between the upper and lower bulkheads. The existing timber boardwalk will be replaced with glass block and concrete panel modules. The boardwalk will be reconfigured to consolidate existing bump -outs into a single location. The proposed overwater section of the boardwalk will maintain the existing footprint of overwater cover. The existing Portwalk includes planter boxes containing ornamental, herbaceous vegetation that will be removed as part of the project. Approximately 14 trees in the adjacent parking lot will be removed to accommodate the relocation of a hydrant and construction of the Central Plaza. Excerpts of plan sheets showing the above are provided in Appendix B. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 367 Attachment 12 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 20.80.053 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 project, improvements to a waterfront facility, requires in -water work and work in adjacent habitat. Permanent adverse impacts will be avoided as detailed in the minimization measures below. 5.1.2 Minimization A variety of conservation measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce impacts to the environment during construction. The following conservation measures will be implemented so that potential impacts are mitigated throughout the duration of the project: • Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans will be developed and implemented throughout construction. • Work below the high tide line (HTL)/MHHW will occur during regulatory -approved in -water work windows. • A debris boom will be installed around the boardwalk and will be maintained throughout construction. • Wood products shall comply with the standards established by the Western Wood Preserves Institute in "Best Management Practices for Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments." • Barges used in support of construction will be prohibited from grounding. • Piles and other construction debris will be disposed of offsite at an approved upland facility. • Work below MHHW will result in a balance of cut and fill volumes. • Installation of the sheetpile bulkhead will occur landward of the existing timber bulkhead, thereby avoiding in -water construction for this component of the project. The new boardwalk will consolidate the viewing bump -outs to a single location and will maintain the area of overwater cover (i.e., no change in the total area of overwater coverage from existing conditions). In addition, the new boardwalk will increase light transmission by using glass blocks in the boardwalk surface. As a result, the proposed project will reduce from existing conditions the amount of shading associated with overwater cover and reduce potential adverse effects from the overwater structure. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 368 Attachment 12 Landau Associates The project will also remove segments of creosote -treated bulkhead and creosote -treated piles Approximately 75 sf of aquatic habitat, associated with the excavation for the replacement of the upper timber bulkhead, will be gained between N Dock and P Dock. The project includes installation of planter boxes along the Portwalk and landscaping in the new plaza areas. Landscaping will consist of a mix of herbaceous species, shrubs, and trees. The project will increase the total area of vegetation within 200 ft of the shoreline. Evaluation of project impacts to listed species is provided in the project Biological Evaluation, which presents effect determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect, which is subject to consultation by the USACE with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS. The project will be undergoing Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation by the USACE with NOAA Fisheries under the Salish Sea Nearshore Programmatic (SSNP). As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed because the minimization measures do not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 369 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 6.0 CONCLUSION AND ASSESSMENT OF NO NET LOSS The Port is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-ft section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. The project includes unavoidable work in -water and in adjacent upland habitat. The mitigation sequence presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the ECDC. The character of the shoreline and adjacent substrate (i.e., bulkhead and riprap shoreline) will be maintained under the proposed conditions, which will also result in a net gain in aquatic habitat, and the developed uplands will be modified to include additional landscaping. As a result, no compensatory mitigation is proposed because the project does not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 370 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT The findings presented herein are based on Landau Associates' understanding of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 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. Qualifications of staff authoring this report are provided in Appendix C. This report was prepared for the use of the Port 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. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 7-1 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 371 Attachment 12 Landau Associates 8.0 REFERENCES City of Edmonds. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory & Characterization, SMA Grant Agreement No 60600108. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Sea -Run Consulting; TetraTech, Inc.; Reid Middleton, Inc.; and Pentec. November. City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds, GIS. Available online at: https://maps.edmondswo.govlHtml5Viewerl?viewer=Edmonds SSL.HTML. Accessed November 11, 2021. DOH. Office of Environmental Health and Safety Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Washington State Department of Health. Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer (wa.gov). Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. 2021. Sections That Contain Natural Heritage Features. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. TRS (wa.gov). July 15. DNR. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) (wa.gov). Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. Natural Area Preserves. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Area Preserves I WA - DNR. Accessed November 10, 2021. DNR. Natural Resources Conservation Areas. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Resources Conservation Areas I WA - DNR. Accessed November 10, 2021. Ecology. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. October. Landau. 2021. Biological Evaluation and Essential Fish Habitat Evaluation, North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction, Port of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington. Landau Associates. November 1. FWHCA Critical Areas Report 0178038.010 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 8-2 February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 372 Puget Dr 524 spers St Z M P,F t Puget Sound Main St Project Location city"' a' eowdo� ark " Woodway Pine St 104 220th St SW a a Pee.,_: --F-- Creek o I y pr a Q oject E s Everett Location 0 0.5 1 Seattle Spokane Tacoma Olympia Miles Washington J� Data Source: Esri 2012 0 North Portwalk and Figure Seawall Reconstruction LAL A N DAU Port of Edmonds Vicinity Map 1 A 5 5 0 C i A T E 5 Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 373 Attachment 12 v o / T ,�,• i / �2__ �� c RR Arnie's / t Restaurant'`//� + / j� t �• y s N u M, .�. - Edmonds Yacht Club c = �In u Port Administration c 0 �• ,� Building C T, TT a,, • mot, • N A o , 0 �'11 Legend v I Project Area 0 Study Area (200-ft buffer) a 0 Source: Bing Aerial Imagery, 2021 19 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds L/` L A N DA U A S S O C A T E 5 Edmonds, Washington ^O^ d N C4 d �4 U N 0 250 500 c Scale in Feet d E Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and Q lead to incorrect interpretation. Figure Project Area Map 2 Packet Pg. 374 Attachment 12 APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures Packet Pg. 375 r �r -D Z .0 �D :C G M W M d O 7 D m Packet Pg. 376 1 r �r -D z .0 �D :C O� O0j 00 004 P o �qiL & a l r Q O 3 N 0Z/ 0U N 0 M W M d O D m IDI D x z O z D z rn C rn rn -r D O z n n Packet Pg. 377 1 Attachment 12 13/3/3031 \\e.d.t.01\proj«,\173\038.010\R\FWHC CritAreas\A-3.d— ••rr Priority Habitats and Species on the Web V Revonoat•: 11nOf2021 PHS SpocxmfHabdats Overview Ealt�ete b10 Neer Y1Md 10" NA Ib PHS SPCOM'HabUts Detaft. P"A'" Aws Aeoft "~ gib Mm" WA "A AMMW 1NIee 8aao On" Source Name vow• 4 $fa— fnuw" end Mrrr WMrN NWI Cove VAR tr;'N rrA' vaennl Not G- Source Entity US Fish and VNldide Service Federal Status WA State Status WA PHS Usting Status PHS Listed Oocww w SensRlve N SGCN N Dlepey Room" AS MM4'EO Oewblly r"O 11b19ab pwctAARe rr tiw..•r..wr• Nis. terriww• bre••►1I I.w N M� MO►111 w�qw w • rwe .F�+r.r. r w w� �.�ww � �.w. w. ...,.w.ew .r.� w. w. ire ar � rrrrlrer ww •�y.w t,...r.... •+v rw.. w...r.n ae. r wr wws.. r s. rr wv �vF.e� ■ •.� •�►� r+wry wr • • �M • V NIM wr wrM w/� V A� w rr. Y •n•A Ywn � MVr• MrAw r � w� Y •o www• V�p.� y •t! �•M 1Y 1/rer MM w r,•ewr w� A M Y►• /�/�� A n/� MY'r 1•�wr d r� w W�.wv• w YM Y .tirw W N YAw• Nw w �•�� M �� tttir� tYt/• MW[M w r+•wd �w M\ ww •rP w �A w North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction FIgUf2 Port of Edmonds Priority Habitats and Species /A` 2 LAL A N DAU Edmonds, Washington on the Web •,ect..r• Packet Pg. 378 Attachment 12 APPENDIX E Site Plan Excerpts c 0 r L N i 0 Cu Cn 3 0 a 0 z 0 E w 4- 0 V 0 a LO O O Cl) N Co N z J a 0 0_ m 0 a� L Q M �L U N r�+ C d t V r� w Q Packet Pg. 379 JL—L_ D n OG >5 < o og o - m v 0o ' f Z boa Zcn � C: 09: � z �.. x NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f n 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY ` ! EDMONDS, WA 98020 COVER SHEET AND SITE PLAN .ova; a o8n zg 7Sn Q sw— g = oIN a m �zzac $Wu i ax 80 8o O '"8zp °G3nC 3 &Vo &mN lug > f Mp igg£-.� 0 ro m ;c `04 eBe I e .1 a OD °a z� u m i Q 'rr C N 0 rr Q In W Packet Pg. 380 1 P. P. gn ff i � g H.- 122. H115 IS8 as P"..' H 05 - n. Nu RIPH"OH 13i 1A 1-II-PH i .5 H �i H M-1 ! . H 9 '1 p H �j g�l M ;g' I'M -2112p q is', -.R p-mija i Hg-fik gg 'g; M2 5u Iff - I i -1 -.- , i oRz�'�HHM U1. P -5 so i 2 M sR - P HI jH'N'--_H m n H lo 0 H o A p IS Be WHIM= I "N -2 6 H.— ''MO E 2 2 H H u. H H. Plfl H F zs xxP '.8E2 -.- �9 H UH W g--;H AN H N H 2 'w H --- 5 , 1 2 �! U -, '- � 5 �-' H 1 P, Y.-121 og mp F -R i 551 M Egg; isin H s 3 9 H. g35 o 2 in W; oz 3 Se Gt; W -M v -o 0 eH H;o o z 58 0 Z NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION I " A ' 11 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY 0 EDMONDS, WA 98020 COVER SHEET AND L GENERAL NOTES g �x "oc I- - z I R 0 .1 0 Z u) CC—) 0 z I Packet Pg. 381 1 ; ) ] ` § |- ! \ 0 - m� _ 00 |! ) 0 3 §4 0_ �� ! 0 §, z / !NORTH POR _aaos«&RECoNSTRUC:m; -336 ADMIRAL m¥ EMONo « _a TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AND DEMO RUN . ({(�&_m >§i > § � - \ JL JL - E � � 7 7 7 F1 � \ e _ _ _ _\ ( ( ( ( j � u u u u r\ � }�10 I Packet Pg. 382 1 ) \k{ !NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION -336 ADMIRAL m¥ EmNo « _a TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL N AND DEMO DETAILS {(>§i ._ > 0 3 0 z 0 11 \ \ j / \ / \ % z 0 j \ 0 m a \ v 5 � I Packet Pg. 383 1 ) ] ; ` § |- 4" ! \j \ e. _ -- < - m� 2 G |! , ) ° 3 � § 4 ] 2/ !NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION -336 ADMIRAL m¥ mMONo « _a r OVERALL GRADING AND mbr 6 PLAN , xoc } > § � - \ -L-L-L _ E 1-1 F-1 F-1 7 n ! 1 \ / _ _ _ _ _ _% j ( ( ( j -1 F-I F-I F-I \ C�j : � � I Pack !P$ 38 I N IVM j1J&j1vuJ - O Z DOD O ^Dzm � r Z Illlllllll�lii�i�li �`^ r m m -�.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > o g " o I" I I (IIIIIIII v o 0 � n a n III I II 1111.1111111111111111 z° j z = mo I I IIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a < o K _ — Z D o z F m � "' IIII.?IIIIIII11111111 (IIIIIIIIIIIIII a�� � W I j I II IIIII;IIIIIIIIIjI�II c�o��� p o z IIIIIIIIIIIIII ZO = o 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 0 0 0 o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII K j " D � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIII (IIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII'111111I (IIIIIIIIIIIII 0 --i o T IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII �, IIIII]�t I IIIIIIIIIIIIII o � 1111111111L�.IIIIII IIIIIIIIIII11111 ;= ro �_�� � �, I I IIIIIIII11111111 GI>II ='m W IIIIIII1111 �/ III IIIIIIIIIIII �2° I I II III��11111111 I. .II IIIIIIIIIIIII Is: I I I I I 1111 I kl 111 � m � 0 �!i ]III 11 I (IIIII'- / 1 I IIII Illllll%lj 11 o A' °I / cn IIIJI Illll�.ljll �: � )� II Hdl Illllil N 91 IIIII $ L: bV/. IIIPII z o = P I D Ills °° IIII z I I I m i ` I h1111i c,� 1°. I I IIII I I I I11I r� � 1. I I9,L I IIIII.. W 6 I w I I I I I $s a xg ^I I I II I D 1$ < o o pKo co mm 00 °z� o9f U)��m��- MATCH LINE 1/C3.3 MATCHLINEI/C3.2 NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f \ / 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY /r , EDMONDS, WA 98020 W GRADING AND UTILITY N PLAN AND DETAILS oca; Packet Pg. 385 1 now ------®®®®®r---ad } r I L � n OG 5 mo < Fs Om O A - m of ' K Z mo' Zcn cnC 0x9: am z �Xxx Z X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY W EDMONDS, WA 98020 W GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN .oca; i ICI I I II MATCH LINE 1/C3.3 MATCH LINE 1/C3.2 I I a I�I I I Ie1=11 I II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I m I I I I I wl I II I�IIJ� � D IIbI 0 zz u Y I—I� 1 6 1 O I Ie I I I w I I I I I m JIgl I I I I I 0 O VI I I IIIIII I l l l j l l o II I I I III Im �111jI z O � I I I� II II II = I 1 D z MATCH LINE I/C3.4 m -=�'- I II I II -- MATCH LINE I/C3.3 LJ I D DUN �5 2 0 �=ovz D 0D0 o �0��� Dzm 0 6 r OD7"!RZ D O'00z F,Po DAz=m� z Z. m n O �Ox fan-zF nm�am cm �m_nn c v ^moo D1�0 mm0Zm �v N m v m oO O Kim e W Packet Pg. 386 1 1 I MATCH LINE 1/C3.7 JIIJII ■� �� � MATCH LINE 1/C3.4 m m m m m■ � =a n O0 >5 < 00 og Om 0 A - m 00 ' f o K 0 mo' Zcn � C 0x9: am z �Xxx 0 X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY W EDMONDS, WA 98020 GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN .oca; 9 I I I I I I I I MATCH LINE 1/0.4 �..1.. �� I 1 MATCH LINE 1/C3.3 I I I III o I WIW I I I I a I� I bl II I I I I I o 1�IIII D III 1 1 m I III l i g O I II II II 1 o zz 0 I I I F-- II O I -I C I I w Ij m I io 0 C� gs O W Icy � o N ICI I II�a I w IIIII u O I I I I I I I z I 11` I I I I m y l l l l l 0 I v I I IJJI 1 I 'I z I A y1111 I 1 I llll 1 I I I � ;III 1 z IL I MATCH -r1m 0 I\ I I I MATCH LINE I/Cl. w D C/) DUN �5 e� e Packet Pg. 387 1 MAICHLINE1/C3.5'/ 1 1 1 II I MATCH LINE 1/ I I I I Igl � 1 I 6 DUN �5 2 0 W n 0 s9 j 00 FS T n 0 A - m ' 000 f K Z mo' Za) 0x9: 0C �Xxxam z Z X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION ; f 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY coEDMONDS, WA 98020 CJ� GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN .oca; w z O Z7 > z MATCH LINE 1/C3 . 6 m m 0 0 0 111 MATCH LINE I/C3.5 LJ L D �=ooz Do0D0 c0��� � r" Zm � r O D Z v r m m tnOv� D z2v�D {Z 0I =oic I Fom Km 0 D n Z A W 0 P�cm G) c��0 DA0N mmOZm �o N 00 m 0 0 3{m e W Packet Pg. 388 1 a m ■ m ! � � � � >1 Ij IIl ipt I ° 1= � I I MATCH LINE 1/C3 .6 mmmmm� i��� I I�I��� m000mi m A O MATCH LINE 1/C3.5 Lull 1 N 41 Z s ' z !rli i d. -a I - I I I o � I Igllil lil IPI �A$oy.,1j1, D 5� ICI °I II g l A > 1II o O r O o 44 0 trl=3d \ \ ONI07l/l8 lNOON1S3N \� N �. J f z _ ,(doNvj O D m © D � =a n O0 >5 < og 0 pn - m 00 ' f o K 0 mo' Z � C 0x9: am z �Xxx 0 X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY W EDMONDS, WA 98020 GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN .oca; DUN �5 e� e I� W Packet Pg. 389 1 \ \ \ a MATCH LINE 1/1 MATCH LINE 1/4 DUN �5 2 0 D N �I NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020.15 GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN f ` ® o R g e=?. m �m m Packet Pg. 390 xx/XX/XX DE SIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL ; � =a n O0 >5 < 00 og T n 0 A - m ' 00 0 f K 0 Z cn p 9: �C �Xxx am z 0 X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f xwxxxx DESIGN REVIEW SUBMI AL 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY W EDMONDS, WA 98020 bo GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN .oca; 4=opz Do0D0 c0� Zm r O D � !R Z p n r m m Do�pz m ;0 m F1-0* D m Z m D -Z=Oic m v, nv 0 0= p D n 0Z A W 1cm G) c�p��o DA0ON mmOZm �o N 00 m A 0 3{m e I� W Packet Pg. 391 1 zn oN' R s 5AR� ' iMSyyyO tg IT D Q q 3 � mo c A xo A� L �I /� NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f 1 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY /' ` EDMONDS, WA 98020 w GRADING AND UTILITY DETAILS oC g all d 3 sip 0 om a a ' p Ikfl lit 1 a= 12 21T! j ;� j 0090008� DAAAAOG ��I� 'Il�� � ■II�I,�I . ACCADOA � . _ CCAAA00 , CA©CC00 _ 0990AOA 99000AA �� � = ''■III .+8 ..R D In W Packet Pg. 392 1 D n OG >"a mo Fs < 0 O A - m ' v n0 f Z moo' ZC/) 09: C' C: 0 �x . z x E NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f n 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY ` / EDMONDS, WA 98020 SITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN .oca; D O 1 nnn_O nnnnnnn(A m c� n nrl O —n n U U O Z 2 nnnnn -D III lilu e Packet Pg. 393 1 N IVM 21-idiNUJ I 'off Fcm ---- I © I o 0 nR xG „ 0 AF, 0 0 Gf 0Z �o> 0: C0 �xx - 0 X -------------r' z XXX /1 NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f ` ' 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY ,0 EDMONDS, WA 98020 SITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC N CONTROL PLAN .oC I�Illlllll�li���l�� I-�.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII r 1111.1111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m � IIII'4'Illllllllllllll I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ', IIIII'i'Illlllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' ' IIII II IIIIIII III III '' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII w '� I I IIII I'�111111I j � IIIIIIIIIIIIII T I IIIIIIIIIIIIII � I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII �, I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII / 1111111111111 - 1 I 1 11111111111111111� 1 j IIIIII��11111111 ,'I. .II IIIIIIII111j1 ]',; I IIIIIIIIIIIIII '''I'. l.11� lllllilll/ / Fso ' IIIJI IIII��.III � QI Ndl I I II I I I I 111 I1 I I °I . Lb V/ )IIIIIII f /jjll •" �. f l l l l � .�. IIII i �1.° IIIIIII ? s I 1111 Ili \a. I I IIII I 1 � I I 1 111 ��\ I I I11111�I m � I I 1111I.. I °I. I I I III I I II I II ¢I I, }I 'I M d I I MATCH LINE 1/C4.3 00000 ° _ R / I II I MATCH LINE I/C4.2 D 0 0 z 0 0 w v7 m O 0 z N w 0 z N J z O z z C) m w D g` -2mjo G:< Packet Pg. 394 1 °I �L �c zD - �I A RF I z D - oili i ` op m - m00 # Z CA o 0Z �0 Om: I 11 7 i �Cc: Z NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY ; f xwxx xx DESIGNREVIE SSUBMITI 0 EDMONDS, WA 98020 SITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC W CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS oca; IIIII I{ {� MATCH LINE I/C4.3 < I 1 I I I MATCH LINE I/C4.2 III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m e - II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l i l D I {I o o z �83 0 1 o I I I I w I Ilo � o I I m I I 0 I I I I I o .II II IIIII I I I I I I I I I a 0 I z I I Mai I I III I Iv III II I I I 0 I I I I I I I = I I I I I D I 1 1 z MATCH LINE I/-.4 m I I I I I I MATCH LINE I/C4.3 LJ I I I D (n I=aoz Do0DO 61 o � x D Z m 0 D n Z > -gmm Dodo° o� D Z=-1 { ZOrT. A N m f"1 N ONCzo G) p — O m m o z m D o C 7 D m A a10 Z 0Km e I� W Packet Pg. 395 1 I MATCH LINE 1/C3.7 JIIJII ■M (- MATCH LINE 1/C3.4 1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 1 m m m m m � =a n O0 5 < 0 Fs Om 0 A - m 000 ' f K 0 0 Z mo' Z � 0x9: z Z55 X NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION f 300-336 ADMIRAL WAY w �l EDMONDS, WA 98020 SITE IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN .oca; MATCH LINE 1/C4.4 MATCH LINE I/C4.3 1 1 I I j � s4m p fsa 0 I � smn Z I O I II r o �I w II � n itLo � 1 0 I z I I I w 111 I o II z I I = II III II II II o J O I II II I A I S D I I I I I I I Z III I / 1 / � C LINE 1( )i m MATCH LINE IC(C4.9. w D Cn �fl S m0 O Z C Q 00��� D Z m 0�r QDn�z cN�mm w ao ,0 -!E'O n"zm� j Z=O�c 0 ,<0m 0 m < O 2 �>6�z c�z� n wzm c m xm_nn c o --I DA�ON mmOZm �o N p O m p O 0zm e I� W Packet Pg. 396 1 C c 0 r v L N i O U d cu d N c m O a 0 z N C 0 W O V O a LO 0 0 Cl) N Co N z J a 0 0_ m cn 0 a� L Q m �L U N r�+ C d t V O r� w Q Packet Pg. 397 Attachm� Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Edmonds, Washington November 30, 2023 Prepared for Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 LALANDAU A S S O C I A T E S 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 Seattle, WA 98125 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 398 Attachm� Landau Associates Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Edmonds, Washington This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the undersigned, whose seal is affixed below. Name Dz Sean M. Gertz, PE Ken Reid, LEG Washington/No. 1444 oAl �'9eid G e°� [Kenneth James Reid Document prepared by: �'� J Sean M. Gertz, PE Project Manager 1 I Document reviewed by: S:4_ W _ Steven R. Wright, PE Quality Reviewer �;/7 _ , Document reviewed by. Ken Reid LEG Quality Reviewer Date: November 30, 2023 Project No.: 0173041.010.011 File path: \\edmdata0l\Projects\173\041\R\ Signature Page.docx Project Coordinator: tmh LALSANDAU Packet Pg. 399 Attachml Landau Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS F 0 Page L 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 y.+ c 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 0 1.2 Scope of Services................................................................................................................1-2 = 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................2-1 ca 3 2.1 Geologic Setting..................................................................................................................2-1 �a in 2.2 Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Subsurface Conditions........................................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Soil Conditions.................................................................................................2-2 �a 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions..................................................................................2-2 a 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................3-1 s 0 3.1 Seismic Design Considerations 3-1 Z 3.1.1 Liquefaction Potential......................................................................................3-3 = 3.1.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80.050 and ECDC 23.80.060) ..............3-4 E 3.2 Bulkhead Design.................................................................................................................3-5 M w 3.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................3-6 w 0 0 3.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design.....................................................................................3-7 (L 3.2.3 Batter Pile Tension Capacity............................................................................3-8 LO T.- 3.3 Pile Foundations 3-8 CD C M 3.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles............................................................................3-8 N N 3.3.2 Lateral Pile Capacity........................................................................................3-9 a 3.3.3 Constructability Considerations.....................................................................3-10 4.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS.................................................4-1 0 a 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................5-1 a� 6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................6-1 a� = �L d _ FIGURES = w Figure Title s 1 Vicinity Map r 2 Site and Exploration Plan a°) 3 Lateral Earth Pressure, Static and Seismic Conditions, Sections 1 through 5 0 4 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 1 "' 5 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 2 = 6 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 3 E 7 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 5 8 Axial Pile Capacity — 12-inch Diameter Pipe Pile Q Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iii November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 400 Attachml Landau Associates TABLES Table Title 1 Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters 2 Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) 3 Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters 4 Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) 5 LPILE Soil Parameters for Non -Liquified Conditions at Sections 1 through 5 6 LPILE Soil Parameters for Liquefied Condition at Section 2 APPENDICES Appendix Title A Field Explorations B Laboratory Soil Testing C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iv November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 401 Attachml Landau Associates LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASCE ASTM..................................................... bgs......................................................... City........................................................ CLE........................................................ ECDC...................................................... ft ......... American Society of Civil Engineers ..................................ASTM International .............................. below ground surface .......................................City of Edmonds ..................contingency -level earthquake Edmonds Community Development Code .................................................. foot/feet GIS................................................................................. Geographic Information System IBC........................................................................................ International Building Code Landau......................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. MCER.......................................................................... maximum considered earthquake Port....................................................................................................... Port of Edmonds SMP........................................................................................Shoreline Master Program WDFW....................................................... Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WEAP............................................................................ Wave Equation Analysis of Piles Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 402 Attachml Landau Associates This page intentionally left blank. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vi November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 403 Attachml Landau Associates 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of geotechnical engineering services provided by Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) in support of the Port of Edmonds (Port; project owner) North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project in Edmonds, Washington (site; Figure 1). This report has been prepared with information provided by the Port and CG Engineering, Inc. (project civil and structural engineer), along with data collected during Landau's geotechnical field exploration and laboratory testing program. Discussion regarding the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.80.050 and 23.80.060 are presented in Section 3.1.2 of this report. Discussion regarding the requirements of ECDC 24.40.010, 24.40.020, 24.40.040, 24.40.090, 24.50.010[B], 24.50.020, 24.60.060, and 24.80.040 are presented in a technical memorandum by Landau, dated April 25, 2023. 1.1 Project Description The Port proposes to reconstruct an approximately 900-foot (ft)-long segment of boardwalk (i.e., the North Portwalk) at the Edmonds marina and to repair the underlying seawall between its administration office and Olympic Beach. Portions of the boardwalk and seawall have deteriorated significantly since their original construction in the 1960s, and the proposed renovations will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline. Additionally, two plazas (Upper and Central Plazas) will be constructed adjacent to the boardwalk to provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be constructed in a portion of the existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant. The Central Plaza will be constructed in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port's administration office, which will be demolished. The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure supported by piling that extends over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The portion of boardwalk that extends north of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 ft apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the seawall terminate at the timber piles. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the eastern boundary of the marina basin, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the basin's east side. An earthen slope with a rock -armored surface is located behind the concrete bulkhead. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 404 Attachml Landau Associates The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves. The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheetpile wall. The lower (concrete) section of seawall, the filled slope between the upper and lower sections, and the concrete bulkhead south of N dock will remain unchanged. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at -grade, and the new sheetpile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be removed completely because they are connected below -grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The new sheetpile bulkhead will utilize either drilled tieback anchors or inboard batter piles for resisting lateral loads. The timber boardwalk will be replaced along the same alignment but will be elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and to improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new steel railings with integrated lighting and way -finding signage. Existing electrical utility panels and dock -cart storage at the marina will be relocated from the over -water side of the new walkway to the opposite side, over land. Marina gates to gangways will be replaced in the same locations but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. 1.2 Scope of Services Landau provided the following geotechnical services in accordance with the scope outlined in the Professional Services Agreements, Contract No. 2021-365 and 2023-457, dated January 28, 2021 and September 5, 2023: • Reviewed readily available geologic maps and geotechnical reports for the site and the surrounding area. • Coordinated the clearance of underground utilities. • Advanced two hollow -stem auger borings to characterize soil and groundwater conditions along the project alignment. • Monitored the explorations, maintained detailed logs of the subsurface conditions observed, and collected representative soil samples. • Prepared this report, summarizing the results of the field investigation and providing geotechnical conclusions and recommendations to support design of the proposed improvements. This report also includes: — A site plan that shows the approximate locations of Landau's borings and the locations of explorations included in Landau's geologic data review (Figure 2). Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-2 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 405 Attachml Landau Associates — Summary boring logs and geotechnical laboratory test results. — A discussion of near -surface soil and groundwater conditions observed at the site — An evaluation of the project's consistency with regulations for geologically hazardous areas, general shoreline modification, and shoreline stabilization for projects in jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds' (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP). — Seismic design considerations and parameters, including a review of seismic hazards along the project alignment. — Geotechnical design recommendations for a new bulkhead, including lateral earth pressures under static, dynamic, and liquefied conditions. — Geotechnical recommendations for tieback anchor capacity. — Axial pile capacities in liquefied and non -liquefied conditions, including an estimate of seismically induced downdrag loads on the replacement piles. — Recommendations for testing and monitoring during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 1-3 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 406 Attachml Landau Associates 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections describe the geologic setting of the site and the surface and subsurface conditions observed during Landau's field investigation. Interpretations of site conditions are based on Landau's review of available geologic and geotechnical information and on the results of the site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and geotechnical laboratory testing. 2.1 Geologic Setting Edmonds is part of the central Puget Lowland region, an area repeatedly covered by ice sheets during the Pleistocene geologic epoch. Near -surface deposits in the vicinity of the site consist primarily of fill (Minard 1983). Development along the waterfront has further modified the original shoreline. Sediments, locally referred to as the Whidbey Formation, likely underlie the near -surface fill deposits. The Whidbey Formation consists of dense, bedded, medium- to coarse -grained sand, with layers up to 160 ft thick reported in the vicinity of the site (Minard 1983). This unit crops out in areas along the lower bluffs of Puget Sound. 2.2 Surface Conditions The site is located along Puget Sound in Edmonds, Washington, directly south of Olympic Beach and immediately east of the Edmonds marina. Public restrooms and a commercial building are located at the north end of the project alignment, the Port administration office at the south end, and the Edmonds Yacht Club in between. Paved parking lots are located along the upland side of the existing portwalk. Site topography along the project alignment is generally flat. 2.3 Subsurface Conditions Site subsurface conditions were explored on March 8, 2021 by advancing and sampling two hollow - stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2). These borings were advanced approximately 41.5 ft below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Landau personnel monitored the explorations, maintained detailed logs of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed, and collected representative soil samples. Soil samples were transported to Landau's geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Summary boring logs and a detailed description of the field exploration program are provided in Appendix A. Test results and a description of Landau's geotechnical laboratory testing program are provided in Appendix B. Supplemental subsurface data were obtained from the following geotechnical studies, performed at or near the site: Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 2008. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report: Proposed New Yacht Club Building. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 407 Attachml Landau Associates • Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1990. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Project. • Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1989. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds Building Repair. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2003. Geotechnical Engineering Services: Proposed North Seawall Replacement. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2003. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations: Port of Edmonds Administration Building. • Landau Associates, Inc. 2002. Port of Edmonds Administration Building. The subsurface conditions reported in these studies generally conform with the conditions observed in Landau's March 2021 explorations. Summary logs of previous site explorations are included in Appendix C. These summary logs are presented for informational purposes only, as subsurface conditions may have changed since these explorations were advanced. 2.3.1 Soil Conditions Soil conditions in boring B-1 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 25 ft of loose to medium dense fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. These deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). Landau interpreted these deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. Soil conditions in boring B-2 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 15 ft of very loose to loose fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. These deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). Landau interpreted these deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions During Landau's March 8, 2021 field investigation, groundwater was observed at approximately 7.5 ft bgs in borings B-1 and B-2. The groundwater conditions reported herein are for the specific locations and date indicated and may not be representative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, weather conditions, tidal fluctuations, and other factors. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally, with maximum levels occurring during late winter and early spring. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2-2 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 408 Attachml Landau Associates 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of Landau's geotechnical field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, the proposed bulkhead will be susceptible to large loads caused by liquefaction -induced lateral spreading. Ground improvement techniques, including compaction grouting, stone columns, and/or jet grouting, may be used to reduce liquefaction potential or decrease loads exerted on the bulkhead as a result of lateral spreading. Landau notes that ground improvement could impose stresses on existing underground utilities or damage existing cable ties; such damage could compromise the integrity of the existing bulkhead. Due to the complexity of surface and subsurface conditions at the site, it is Landau's opinion that ground improvement methods are not a feasible approach to reduce lateral spreading loads on the proposed improvements. 3.1 Seismic Design Considerations The site is located in the seismically active Pacific Northwest and could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed improvements should be designed to resist earthquake loading. The proposed structures should be designed in accordance with 2018 International Building Code (IBC) standards. According to CG Engineering,' designing the replacement bulkhead for an IBC earthquake (i.e., an earthquake with a 2,475-year return period) is not feasible given the relatively large seismic demand, particularly as it relates to lateral spreading loads. Alternatively, the replacement bulkhead could be designed for an earthquake with a 224-year return period, as described in the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves, ASCE 61-14. With this approach, the proposed structures would need to be designed to respond to lateral spreading in a controlled, ductile manner and to experience limited, inelastic deformations at locations where repair is possible within several months of a seismic event. Landau recommends that the Port verifies the acceptability of this design approach with the City Building Official. The ASCE 61-14 design approach applies to structures with a "Moderate" design classification. Per ASCE 61-14, "Structures shall be assigned a design classification of 'Moderate' if they are of secondary importance to the regional economy and not essential to post event recovery but they require a level of seismic performance beyond life safety protection." In Landau's opinion, the "Moderate" design classification is appropriate for the proposed portwalk improvements. According to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16, the presence of potentially liquefiable soils qualifies the site as a Site Class F. Structures built on Site Class F soils require a site response analysis; however, the ASCE provides an exception for structures with a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second. For structures that qualify for this exception, site class can be determined using field i Personal communications between author and Dennis Titus of CG Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 409 Attachml Landau Associates investigation data. Based on conversations with CG Engineering, the replacement portwalk is anticipated to have a fundamental period of vibration of less than 0.5 second. Therefore, the site classifies as Site Class D (based on the standard penetration test blow counts recorded or estimated for the upper 100 ft of soil). The 2018 IBC indicates that a risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) has a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a return period of 2,475 years). The parameters in Table 1 can be used to compute seismic base shear forces for the MCER. Table 1. Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Spectral response acceleration at short periods (Ss) = 1.285g Spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second (Si) = 0.452g Site class = D Site coefficient (Fa) = 1.2 Site coefficient (Fj = 2.3(a) (a) The coefficient F. should be used only to calculate the transition period (T) Fa, F = short -period (0.2 second) and long -period (1.0 second) site coefficients, respectively g = force of gravity S,, Sl = 0.2-second and 1.0-second period spectral accelerations, respectively Based on the seismic design seismic parameters in Table 1, Landau selected the parameters in Table 2 to complete seismic liquefaction evaluations for the MCER. Table 2. Maximum Considered Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) Peak Ground Acceleration, Site Class D (PGAM) = 0.655g Earthquake Magnitude (M) = 7.35 g = force of gravity; PGAM = maximum considered peak ground acceleration For structures with a "Moderate" design classification, ASCE 61-14 defines a contingency -level earthquake (CLE) as one having a 20 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a return period of 224 years). The parameters in Table 3 can be used for structural analyses related to the CLE. Table 3. Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters Spectral response acceleration at short periods (SS) = 0.659g Spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second (Si) = 0.335g Site class = D Site coefficient (Fa) = 1.5 Site coefficient (Fv) = 2.7(a) (a) The coefficient Fv should be used only to calculate the transition period (T,) Q Fa, Fv = short -period (0.2 second) and long -period (1.0 second) site coefficients, respectively Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-2 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 410 Attachml Landau Associates g = force of gravity S,, Sl = 0.2-second and 1.0-second period spectral accelerations, respectively Based on the CLE seismic design parameters in Table 3, Landau selected the parameters in Table 4 to complete seismic liquefaction evaluations for the CLE. Table 4. Contingency -Level Earthquake Seismic Design Parameters (Liquefaction) Peak Ground Acceleration, Site Class D = 0.466g Earthquake Magnitude (M) = 6.79 g = force of gravity 3.1.1 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is defined as a significant rise in pore water pressure within a soil mass caused by earthquake -induced cyclic shaking. The shear strength of liquefiable soil is reduced during large and/or long -duration earthquakes as the soil consistency approaches that of a semi -solid slurry. Soil liquefaction can result in significant and widespread structural damage if not properly mitigated. Deposits of loose to medium dense, granular soil below the water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, although non -plastic and low -plasticity cohesive soils may also be susceptible to liquefaction. Per Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7-16, liquefaction and lateral spreading susceptibility were evaluated for a MCER peak ground acceleration of 0.655g. Landau used a design earthquake magnitude of 7.35, based on the U.S. Geological Survey Unified Hazard Tool (accessed October 12, 2021). Liquefaction and lateral spreading susceptibility were also evaluated for the CLE with a site -adjusted peak ground acceleration of 0.466g. A design earthquake magnitude of 6.79 was used to evaluate the CLE. Landau evaluated the liquefaction potential of site soils using the "modified simplified procedure" presented by Youd et al. (2001). Where appropriate, Landau incorporated recommendations for liquefaction susceptibility evaluation (ldriss and Boulanger 2008). Because subsurface conditions vary along the project alignment, the project was divided into five sections, as shown on Figure 2. The results of Landau's liquefaction analyses are summarized below: Section 1: The results of Landau's analyses indicate that soils between 6 and 18 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 2: The results of Landau's analyses indicate that soils between 6 and 15 ft bgs and between 24 and 30 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 3: The results of Landau's analyses indicate that soils between 9 and 15 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Section 4: The results of Landau's analyses indicate that the soils in Section 4 will not liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-3 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 411 Attachml Landau Associates Section 5: The results of Landau's analyses indicate that soils between 7 and 18 ft bgs will liquefy during the 224-year CLE. Flow liquefaction failures could occur at the replacement bulkhead location; see Section 4.2.1. Non -liquefied soil above the liquefied soil will impose significant lateral pressures on the bulkhead during a liquefaction event. 3.1.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80.050 and ECDC 23.80.060) Responses to bolded regulations are intended to address the project's consistency with regulations for geologically hazardous areas. Items 1 through 4 are intended to address the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 and Item 5 is intended to address the requirements of ECDC 23.80.060. 1) Include a discussion of all geologically hazardous areas on the site and any geologically hazardous areas off site potentially impacted by the proposed project. If the affected area extends beyond the subject property, the geology hazard assessment may utilize existing data sources pertaining to that area. As described in Section 4.1.1 of this report, the site contains potentially liquefiable soils and therefore is considered a seismic hazard area. Based on review of the City of Edmonds GIS map, the seismic hazard area appears to include areas within 900 to 2,500 ft of the site. No other geologic hazards have been identified at the site. 2) Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project. As described in Section 2.0 of this report, geologic conditions and interpretations at the project site were assessed from field investigations and a review of previous boring log data. Based on Landau's review of subsurface conditions, the proposed improvements will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the project design. 3) The hazards analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity on the site (for example, forces generated and fault displacement). Seismic design considerations are discussed in Section 4.1 of this report. Some of the site soils are considered liquefiable and will be subject to lateral spreading during or shortly after a design -level seismic event. The lateral spreading will result in additional loading on retaining structures and liquefaction settlement will result in downdrag loading on piles. Recommendations for systems that could be used to accommodate this additional loading are presented in this report. An inferred fault trace of the South Whidbey Island fault zone is mapped as traversing the site. Assessing the risk of ground rupture at the site due to surface faulting is beyond the scope of this study. Compared to a site that is not located over a fault trace, the risk of ground rupture Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-4 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 412 Attachml Landau Associates at the site would be greater because surface ruptures can occur along pre-existing faults. However, it is Landau's opinion that it would be cost prohibitive to design the proposed improvements to resist the effects of surface faulting. Furthermore, it is Landau's opinion that the proposed improvements will not result in an increased threat due to surface faulting to persons or property on or off site. 4) A geotechnical engineering report shall evaluate the physical properties of the subsurface soils, especially the thickness of unconsolidated deposits and their liquefaction potential. If it is determined that the site is subject to liquefaction, mitigation measures appropriate to the scale of the development shall be recommended and implemented. As described in Section 2.3 of this report, subsurface conditions were evaluated by advancing a two exploratory borings at the site. Historic borings by Landau and others in the vicinity of the site were also reviewed. As described in Section 4.1.1, the site is subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to be used by the project team to design the proposed improvements to resist the anticipated seismic forces. 5) Per Chapter 23.80.060 of the ECDC, alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: a) Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions. Provided the project is constructed as recommended herein, it is Landau's opinion that the project will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions. b) Will not adversely impact other critical areas. In Landau's opinion, the proposed improvements will not adversely affect other critical areas at the site. c) Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions. Provided the project is designed and constructed per Landau's recommendations, it is Landau's opinion that the geological hazard to the project would be eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions. d) Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. This report was prepared and reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer licensed in the state of Washington. In addition, this report is stamped by a licensed engineer and a licensed engineering geologist. 3.2 Bulkhead Design The following sections include geotechnical recommendations for static and seismic design of the replacement bulkhead. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-5 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 413 Attachml Landau Associates 3.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures Landau understands that the replacement bulkhead will consist of a steel sheet pile with a single row of tieback anchors for Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5. In Section 2, the replacement bulkhead will consist of a soldier pile and sheet pile combination wall with batter pile bracing in an inboard configuration. The replacement bulkhead should be designed to resist active lateral earth pressures. The use of active lateral earth pressures is based on the assumption that soil behind the bulkhead could deform and develop an active condition. Theoretical and observed lateral deflections at the top of bulkheads designed for active pressures are typically on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the wall. Lateral deformation is likely to be accompanied by minor vertical ground settlement behind the bulkhead. Where a bulkhead acts as a cantilevered wall or as a wall with a single row of anchors, the applied active lateral earth pressure can be represented by a triangular pressure distribution. Figure 3 presents recommended design parameters for active lateral earth pressures for the non -liquified condition. This earth pressure diagram can be used for all five sections of the bulkhead. Estimated design earthquake loads on the bulkhead were based on an interpretation of the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo -static method of analysis. Landau has assumed that the new sheetpile bulkhead will yield to approximate an active condition but will not have sufficient horizontal translation to justify use of a reduced seismic coefficient, consistent with translating walls. The resulting seismic lateral pressure was approximated by a rectangular pressure distribution acting over the bulkhead, as shown on Figure 3. If the replacement bulkhead will be subject to the influence of surcharge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the bulkhead, it should be designed to sustain the additional horizontal pressure. It is standard practice to account for traffic and typical construction equipment loading with a vertical surcharge pressure of 250 pounds per square foot. Larger surcharge loads, such as those imposed by heavy cranes or other concentrated loading, should be addressed with the use of a higher surcharge pressure. For walls free to rotate during loading, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure, as shown on Figures 3 through 7, should be added to the earth pressure to account for the anticipated surcharge loading. Passive earth pressure criteria for resistance of lateral loads are presented on Figures 3 through 7. The passive earth pressures include a factor of safety of about 1.5. The project design should account for differential water conditions created by tides and groundwater fluctuations behind the replacement bulkhead. Based on the site groundwater levels observed at the time of drilling, tidal fluctuations, and sheetpile permeability, Landau recommends that the bulkhead is designed for a water level difference of 7 ft. The hydrostatic pressure associated with this unbalanced water level is presented on Figures 3 through 7. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-6 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 414 Attachml Landau Associates Figures 4 through 7 present recommended design earth pressures for the liquefied condition for the CLE. These figures do not include Section 4 of the bulkhead, because soils along Section 4 are not anticipated to liquefy during a CLE. Landau recommends analyzing the bulkhead for two seismic loading configurations: 1) Non -liquefied configuration (static and seismic earth pressures shown on Figure 3). This loading configuration, which includes seismic inertial forces, is based on the assumption that seismic inertial forces do not occur at the same as soil liquefaction. 2) Liquefied configuration (earth pressures shown on Figures 4 through 7). This loading configuration is based on the assumption that some soils liquify (resulting in an increased load on the bulkhead), but liquefaction does not occur at the same time as seismic inertial forces. 3.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design Tieback anchors can be used to reduce sheetpile deflections and bending moments. A tieback anchor is a structural element that consists of a steel pre -stressing bar or steel strands installed in grout -filled drill holes (in either soil or rock) to transmit an applied tensile load into the ground. Depending on soil conditions, holes for tiebacks are drilled open hole, or a temporary casing is used to maintain hole stability. Tiebacks include an upper unbonded zone and a lower bonded zone. A no-load zone should extend at least 5 ft beyond the back of the wall and upward at an angle of 62 degrees above horizontal. The bonded length of the tieback anchor, typically 10 to 40 ft long, should be located beyond the no-load zone. The Federal Highway Administration (1999) has indicated that anchor bond lengths greater than 40 ft are not fully effective. To ensure adequate overburden pressure to mobilize full friction between the soil and grout, Landau recommends a minimum depth of 15 ft from ground surface to the midpoint of the bonded tieback length. The unbonded tieback length should be at least 15 ft. To develop preliminary estimates of required tieback lengths, a bond length on the order of 40 ft could be added to the length of tieback that will be needed to satisfy the no-load zone requirement (at least 15 ft). The entire bond length should be located below the lowest layer of liquefiable soil. Section 4.1.1. includes the anticipated depths of liquefiable soil layers along each section of the bulkhead. Tieback resistance will be developed from the medium dense to dense Whidbey Formation. Assuming small -diameter, straight shaft gravity -grouted ground anchors, an ultimate transfer load of 6 kips per foot is recommended. The maximum allowable anchor design load in soil can be determined by multiplying the bond length by the ultimate transfer load and dividing by a factor of safety of 2.0. A factor of safety of 1.1 may be used for seismic loading conditions. The actual ultimate transfer load will depend on the contractor's means and methods and should be verified during construction via anchor load capacity testing. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-7 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 415 Attachml Landau Associates 3.2.3 Batter Pile Tension Capacity As an alternative to tieback anchors, batter pile bracing in an inboard configuration may be used to resist lateral loads against the bulkhead. Landau recommends 18-inch diameter steel pipe piles be installed on a batter angle of 1 horizontal to 4 vertical. Piles installed to a depth of 85 ft below the top of the bulkhead are anticipated to have an ultimate tension capacity of 725 kips for non -liquefied soil conditions and 710 kips for liquefied soil conditions. This capacity is based on the assumption that the center -to -center spacing is a minimum of 2.5 pile diameters. If piles will be installed with a center -to - center spacing less than 2.5 pile diameters, Landau should be contacted for updated recommendations. Factors of safety of 2.5 and 1.1 are recommended for static and seismic loading, respectively. During installation, batter piles should be driven to a total ultimate static resistance of 1,070 kips. Pile capacity during driving should be verified through the use of pile driving analyzer testing. Piles may experience downdrag as liquefiable soils reconsolidate and settle. Downdrag loading is not likely to occur until after lateral spreading has concluded and excess pore water pressure has dissipated. Batter piles should be designed to accommodate an estimated 15 kips of downdrag loading. It should be noted that the recommended pile tip depth is beyond the maximum depth explored by Landau and others (67.5 ft bgs). Glacially derived soil was encountered at this depth and obstructions such as boulders may be encountered at depths beyond those explored. The lack of subsurface information extending to the proposed batter pile tip elevation presents a risk to the project. This risk could be mitigated by advancing additional geotechnical borings in the vicinity of Section 2. Alternatively, if additional borings are not completed and an obstruction is encountered during pile driving, additional batter piles may be added during construction to compensating for the reduced pile capacity. 3.3 Pile Foundations The following sections include recommendations for pile design and installation. 3.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles Landau understands that 12-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles will be used to support the proposed portwalk. In Landau's opinion, the piles will provide adequate foundation support if they are designed and installed as recommended herein. The axial capacity of 12 inch -diameter open-ended steel pipe piles was estimated using the semi - empirical Nordlund method. The allowable axial capacity of 12-inch diameter open-ended pipe piles under static and seismic conditions is presented on Figure 8. These allowable capacities include a factor of safety of 2.5 for static conditions and 1.5 for seismic conditions. If it is necessary for the piles Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-8 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 416 Attachml Landau Associates to resist uplift forces, the allowable uplift capacity may be taken as equal to approximately 80 percent of the allowable skin friction capacity for static conditions presented on Figure 8. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 of this report, liquefiable soils are present at the site and extend up to 30 ft below existing upland grades. Design of all axially loaded piles should include an allowance for approximately 7 kips of downdrag loading due to soil liquefaction. Additionally, for piles installed in Section 2, side friction and end bearing capacity should be ignored for soils extending to 30 ft below the top of the bulkhead for seismic conditions. The allowable axial capacities presented in Figure 8 assume a center -to -center spacing between piles of at least 2.56, where B is the diameter of the pile. If the center -to -center spacing between piles is less than 2.513, Landau should be contacted to provide recommendations related to group effects. 3.3.2 Lateral Pile Capacity Software such as Ensoft's LPILE program, can be used to calculate the lateral capacity of the foundations that will be used to support the new boardwalk. LPILE uses lateral soil reaction (p) and lateral deflection (y) curves, generalized from field load tests and soil input properties, to approximate lateral pile deflections and moments. Recommended LPILE parameters for soil conditions at the site are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 presents recommended design parameters for the non - liquified condition. These parameters may be used for all five sections of the wall. The parameters presented in Table 6 should be used for evaluating lateral response of piles installed in Section 2 under liquefied soil conditions associated with the CLE. Liquefiable soils are not anticipated to be present below the mudline elevation at the locations of in -water piles installed in Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5. Therefore, piles installed at these locations are not anticipated to experience the effects of soil liquefaction and need not be designed for liquefied soil conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-9 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 417 Attachml Landau Associates Table 5. LPILE Soil Parameters for Non -Liquified Conditions at Sections 1 through 5 Effective Unit Friction Angle, Cohesion Soil Unit Model Type Depth Weight (pcf) K, (pci) 1) (deg) (psf) Eso Whidbey Sand (Reese) Below 67.6 60 38 — — Formation mudline Table 6. LPILE Soil Parameters for Liquefied Condition at Section 2 Effective Unit Friction Angle, Cohesion Soil Unit Model Type Depth Weight (pcf) KS (pci) 4) (deg) (psf) Eso Whidbey Liquefied From Formation Sand (Rollins) mudline to 67.6 — — (Liquefied) Elev -17 ft Whidbey Sand (Reese) Below Elev 67.6 60 38 — I — Formation -17 ft deg = degrees ft = feet pcf = pounds per cubic foot pci = pounds per cubic inch psf = pounds per square foot The LPILE parameters presented in Tables 5 and 6 are for level ground conditions. LPILE can account for the effects of sloping ground by inputting a slope angle. Where appropriate, slope angles should be input by the designer. The LPILE parameters presented in Tables 5 and 6 are applicable if the center -to -center pile spacing is 513 or greater. If the center -to -center pile spacing is less than 513, Landau should be contacted to provide reduction factors for group effects. Liquefiable soil is anticipated to be present below the mudline in Section 2, and this material is c anticipated to move laterally during the CLE. The impact of this moving soil should be evaluated by a applying a triangular distributed load to the upland side of the pile, extending to approximately -17 ft = in elevation. For evaluation of this lateral loading, Landau recommends an equivalent fluid density equal to 39 pcf. w 3.3.3 Constructability Considerations Pile foundations for marine facilities have been constructed in similar conditions. Marine deep ._ foundation contractors typically are equipped to address the soil conditions present at the site. The m o pile foundation axial and lateral capacity may be influenced by equipment and construction d procedures, and the quality of construction will be greatly influenced by the experience of the M foundation contractor. The contractor should be required to complete a Wave Equation Analysis of r = a� Piles (WEAP) to evaluate driving conditions. Landau is available to provide WEAP input parameters s upon request. r Q Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-10 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 418 Attachml Landau Associates Installation of sheetpiles and steel pipe piles with a vibratory hammer will produce ground vibrations in the vicinity of the pile installation. Though unlikely, ground vibrations associated with installation of sheetpiling and steel pipe piles could damage nearby structures. Vibrations occurring in loose sand, such as may be present in fill zones along the bulkhead alignment, could result in soil densification and ground surface settlement. Ground vibrations producing densification and settlement are dependent on a combination of factors, including energy and amplitude of the vibratory hammer, number of repetitions, soil properties, pile length, location of the water table, type of pile installation, and distance from the pile. Ground surface settlement is typically greatest in the immediate vicinity of the pile and decreases with distance from the pile. Pile -driving vibrations have been found to be perceptible to occupants of nearby structures; these vibrations occur at lower levels than those that result in building damage. Prior to installation of the replacement piles and bulkhead, the Port should complete a visual reconnaissance of existing site structures, including photographs and measurements of existing cracks and other evidence of building distress. Landau also recommends that vibration and settlement monitoring are completed during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-11 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 419 Attachml Landau Associates 4.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS Landau should be asked to review geotechnical portions of the project plans and specifications for consistency with the recommendations in this report. Landau should also be retained to provide geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation services provided during construction to confirm that site conditions are consistent with those observed in its explorations, to provide recommendations should conditions differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether geotechnical construction activities comply with project plans/specifications and the recommendations in this report. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 420 Attachml Landau Associates 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT Landau Associates has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Port of Edmonds and its design consultants for specific application to the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction project in Edmonds, Washington. 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. Reuse of the 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. Landau Associates warrants that, within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, its services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions as this project. Landau Associates makes no other warranty, either express or implied. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 421 Attachml Landau Associates 6.0 REFERENCES ASCE/COPRI. 2014. Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves, ASCE/COPRI 61-14. American Society of Civil Engineers. Coasts, Oceans, Ports & Rivers Institute. ASCE/SEI. 2017. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. American Society of Civil Engineers. Structural Engineering Institute. ASTM. 2003. D420-D5876: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. In: Soil and Rock(1). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. CG Engineering. 2020. Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study: Port of Edmonds Waterfront Boardwalk. May 19. FHWA. 1999. Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 2008. Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report: Proposed New Yacht Club Building. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1990. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Project. August 30. Hong West & Associates, Inc. 1989. Geotechnical Soils Investigation, Port of Edmonds Building Repair. December 26. ICC. 2017. 2018 International Building Code. International Code Council. September. Idriss, I.M., and R.W. Boulanger. 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Landau. 2003. Geotechnical Engineering Services: Proposed North Seawall Replacement. Landau Associates, Inc. Landau. 2003. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations: Port of Edmonds Administration Building. Landau Associates, Inc. Landau. 2002. Port of Edmonds Administration Building. Landau Associates, Inc. Minard, J.P. 1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington. US Geological Survey. Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., and Pentec. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. November. USGS. 2008 Interactive Deaggregations. U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed October 12, 2021. Available online at: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 422 Attachml Landau Associates Youd, T.L., I.M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, et al. 2001. "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 127(10):817-833. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6-2 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 423 Attachml Puget Sound Project Location N 0 0.5 1 Miles Data Source: Esri. North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds LALSANDAU Edmonds, Washington �� '...10—k— it 0 Puget Dr 24 Seattle Spokane Tacoma Hympia Washington Vicinity Map t*- Figure 1 Packet Pg. 424 Attachml �I0 n Legend Approximate Boring Location and Designation C J Alignment Sections LALSANDAU Data Source: CG Engineering 0 70 140 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Scale in Feet Replacement Edmonds, Washington Figure Site and Exploration Map 2 Packet Pg. 425 Attachml 202(D-2) Earth Pressure Earth Pressure Notes • The earth pressures presented herein assume non -liquefied soil conditions and should be analyzed in a separate loading scenario than the earth pressures presented in Figures 4 through 7. • Active earth pressure diagrams assume a sheet pile wall with a single level of bracing/tiebacks and a level backslope. • Solve for D by summation of moments about bottom of wall. �LALANDAU� A S S O C I A T E S D+H-20 Hydrostatic Earth Pressure • Seismic earth pressures presented herein represent loading resulting from a seismic event with a 224-year (20 percent in 50 years) return interval. • The passive pressure presented is an allowable value and includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. • All earth pressures presented are in terms of pounds per square foot, with all dimensions in feet. • It is assumed that hydrostatic pressures will act on the wall. Surcharge Earth Pressure Seismic (20% in 50-yr) Earth Pressure • Active earth pressures assume ground improvement has not been completed behind the bulkhead to reduce lateral spreading loads. Port of Edmonds Lateral Earth Pressure North Portwalk and Seawall Static and Seismic Conditions, Replacement Edmonds, Washington Sections 1 through 5 Figure 3 Packet Pg. 426 Attachml 202(D-2) v 0 Q �LALANDAU� A S S O C I A T E S ra331VC Earth Pressure hV IIVC Earth Pressure Hydrostatic Earth Pressure 18 ft w qs Surcharge Earth Pressure Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement Edmonds, Washington w 0.31gs 0.25gs Notes • The earth pressures presented herein represent liquefied soil conditions and should be analyzed in a separate loading scenario than the earth pressures presented in Figure 3. • Active earth pressure diagrams assume a sheet pile wall with a single level of bracing/tiebacks and a level backslope. • Solve for D by summation of moments about bottom of wall. • The passive pressure presented is an allowable value and includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. • All earth pressures presented are in terms of pounds per square foot, with all dimensions in feet. • It is assumed that hydrostatic pressures will act on the wall. • Active earth pressures assume ground improvement has not been completed behind the bulkhead to reduce lateral spreading loads. Lateral Earth Pressure Figure Liquified Condition, Section 1 4 Packet Pg. 427 Attachml Passive Active Hydrostatic Earth Earth Earth Pressure Pressure Pressure v 0 Q �LALANDAU� A S S O C I A T E S w 15 ft 10 ft 5 ft qs Surcharge Earth Pressure Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement Edmonds, Washington M9 0.31gs 0.27gs 0.25gs 0.24gs Notes • The earth pressures presented herein represent liquefied soil conditions and should be analyzed in a separate loading scenario than the earth pressures presented in Figure 3. • Active earth pressures assume a combination sheet pile and soldier pile wall with a single level of bracing/ tiebacks and a level backslope. • Solve for D by summation of moments about bottom of wall. • The passive pressure presented is an allowable value and includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. • All earth pressures presented are in terms of pounds per square foot, with all dimensions in feet. • It is assumed that hydrostatic pressures will act on the wall. • Active earth pressures assume ground improvement has not been completed behind the bulkhead to reduce lateral spreading loads. • The active pressure can be assumed to act over the height of the sheet pile and over the soldier pile width below the sheet pile. • Apply passive pressure over 3 times the width of the soldier pile drilled shaft. • Due to liquefiable soil conditions, a minimum sheet pile length of 35 ft is recommended. Lateral Earth Pressure Figure Liquified Condition, Section 2 5 Packet Pg. 428 Attachml tarin Pressure v 0 Q �LALANDAU� A S S O C I A T E S tarin Pressure Hydrostatic Earth Pressure M9 Surcharge • Earth Pressure Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement Edmonds, Washington earth pressures presented herein resent liquefied soil conditions and Iuld be analyzed in a separate loading nario than the earth pressures sented in Figure 3. ive earth pressure diagrams assume feet pile wall with a single level of cing/tiebacks and a level backslope. ve for D by summation of moments >ut bottom of wall. passive pressure presented is an )wable value and includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. All earth pressures presented are in terms of pounds per square foot, with all dimensions in feet. It is assumed that hydrostatic pressures will act on the wall. Active earth pressures assume ground improvement has not been completed behind the bulkhead to reduce lateral spreading loads. Lateral Earth Pressure Figure Liquified Condition, Section 3 6 Packet Pg. 429 Attachml rsiar-iv v 0 Q �LALANDAU� A S S O C I A T E S tarin Pressure tarin Pressure Hydrostatic Earth Pressure Surcharge Earth Pressure Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement Edmonds, Washington M9 earth pressures presented herein resent liquefied soil conditions and Iuld be analyzed in a separate loading nario than the earth pressures sented in Figure 3. ive earth pressure diagrams assume feet pile wall with a single level of cing/tiebacks and a level backslope. ve for D by summation of moments >ut bottom of wall. passive pressure presented is an )wable value and includes a factor of ety of about 1.5. All earth pressures presented are in terms of pounds per square foot, with all dimensions in feet. It is assumed that hydrostatic pressures will act on the wall. Active earth pressures assume ground improvement has not been completed behind the bulkhead to reduce lateral spreading loads. Lateral Earth Pressure Figure Liquified Condition, Section 5 7 Packet Pg. 430 Attachml ALLOWABLE SIDE -FRICTION RESISTANCE (KIPS) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 H LL W Z 20 J c� G 25 0 J W m 2 30 F- LL w E � 35 40 u 0 0 0 Q 45 0 0 0 0 0 z 50 -Seismic Conditions Static Conditions ALLOWABLE END -BEARING RESISTANCE (KIPS) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 5 10 15 i- LL LU z 20 J c� G 25 O J W CO = 30 H LL w 0 35 40 45 50 -Seismic Conditions Static Conditions Notes: 1 Allowable pile capacities presented herein include factors of safety of 2.5 for static conditions and 1.5 for seismic conditions under axial compression loading. Allowable uplift capaity may be taken as 80 percent of the allowable skin friction capacity under static conditions. 2 Allowable pile capacities presented herein are based on limited subsurface exploration data extending 29 to 67.5 ft below existing upland grades. Variation in subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Glacially derived soils were observed at the terminus of the borings completed by Landau at the site, and obstructions such as boulders may be encountered at depths beyond those explored. 3 The allowable capacities plotted above are for a single, isolated pile with center -to -center spacing at least 2.5 times the pile diameter. If pile spacing is less than 2.5D, group effects should be considered in accordance with AASHTO 10.7.3.9. 4 The allowable capacities plotted above do not account for the weight of the pile foundation. 5 Liquefiable soils are present at the site. Design of piles installed in Section 2 should ignore side friction and end bearing capacity extending to 30 ft below the the top of the bulkhead for seismic conditions. 6 Design of all axially loaded piles should include an allowance for approximately 7 kips of downdrag load under seismic conditions. LALANDAU I Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement A s s o c i A T e s Edmonds, WA ty O Q 4) d' c �L m m c C W t� t t� O d C9 M r c Q E s t� �a Figure Q Axial Pile Capacity - 12 inch Diameter Pipe Pile 8 Packet Pg. 431 Attachm� APPENDIX A Field Explorations c 0 U 7 L 0 V NW I.L cu 0) cu 3 0 a 0 z N C O E m W 4- 0 r- 0 a LO 0 0 co N O N z J a 0 a a� a� c •L m m c c w a� 0 d c� ri c d E r a Packet Pg. 432 Attachml Landau Associates APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions along the project alignment were explored on March 8, 2021. The exploration program consisted of advancing two hollow -stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2) approximately 41.5 feet below ground surface. The borings were advanced by Holocene Drilling, Inc., subcontracted by Landau, at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were identified using existing infrastructure as a field reference. The ground surface elevation was not determined at either exploration location. Landau personnel coordinated and monitored the explorations, obtained representative soil samples, maintained a detailed record of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions observed, and described the soil by visual and textural examination. Each representative soil type was described using the soil classification system shown on Figure A-1, in general accordance with ASTM International standard D2488, Standard Practice for Description of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures). The summary boring logs on Figures A-2 and A-3 represent Landau's interpretation of site subsurface conditions at the locations explored. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are for the specific locations and date reported and may not be representative of other locations and/or times. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at select intervals using a 1.5-inch-inside-diameter split -spoon sampler. A 140-pound automatic hammer, falling approximately 30 inches, was used to drive the sampler 18 inches (or a portion thereof) into the undisturbed soil. The number of blows required to drive the sampler for the final 12 inches of soil penetration (or a portion thereof) is noted on the boring logs, adjacent to the appropriate sample notation. Samples were transported to Landau's geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Test results and a discussion of testing procedures are presented in Appendix B. Upon completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were decommissioned in general accordance with the requirements in Washington Administrative Code 173-160. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction A-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 433 Attachm� MAJOR DIVISIONS Soil Classification System Uscs GRAPHIC LETTER SYMBOL SYMBOL"' TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS I21(3) GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVEL p ° O ° o' GW Well -graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines J N GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded ravel; ravel/sand mixtures little or no fines o U o.GlP GRAVEL WITH FINES GM ❑ @ (More than 50% of Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) w E 'v, coarse fraction retained (Appreciable amount of Qo 0 N on No. 4 sieve) fines) ° GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) Of o (D N z° SAND AND CLEAN SAND SW Well -graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines w m I s @ SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SP SAND WITH FINES SM Q o 6 00 (More than 50% of fraction Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) g @ coarse passed (Appreciable amount of SC — through No. 4 sieve) fines) Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine p o t N SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy CL Q U) 0 m > (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay Z r E y OL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity -- .D oo MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand m m N SILT AND CLAY CH uj o.m Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay z° Z E LL (Liquid limit greater than 50) Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL M, M PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD io�' WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS O ODB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. USCS letter symbols correspond to symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM classification methods. Dual letter symbols (e.g., SP-SM for sand or gravel) indicate soil with an estimated 5-15% fines. Multiple letter symbols (e.g., MUCL) indicate borderline or multiple soil classifications. 2. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and < 50% - 'very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 15% and < 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and < 15% - "with gravel," "with sand," "with silt," etc. < 5% - "with trace gravel," "with trace sand," "with trace silt," etc., or not noted. 4. Soil density or consistency descriptions are based on judgement using a combination of sampler penetration blow counts, drilling or excavating conditions, field tests, and laboratory tests, as appropriate. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL Code Description a 3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon c Shelby Tube d Grab Sample e Single -Tube Core Barrel f Double -Tube Core Barrel g 2.50-inch O.D., 2.00-inch I.D. WSDOT h 3.00-inch O.D., 2.375-inch I.D. Mod. California i Other - See text if applicable 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop 3 Pushed 4 Vibrocore (Rotosonic/Geoprobe) 5 Other - See text if applicable Code Description PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf Sample Identification Number TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, pp m Recovery Depth Interval W = 10 Moisture Content, % 4 Sample Depth Interval 1� 1 D = 120 Dry Density, pcf J -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, o /o Portion of Sample Retained GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data for Archive or Analysis AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data GT Other Geotechnical Testing CA Chemical Analysis Groundwater SZ Approximate water level at time of drilling (ATD) Approximate water level at time after drilling/excavation/well North Portwalk and Seawall Figure LANDAU Reconstruction Soil Classification System and Key /� �I ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington A_ I Packet Pg. 434 Attachml F-10 i B-1 LAI Project No: 0173038.010 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit �� Limit 20 40 60 80 s DrillingMethod: Hollow -Stem Auger SPT N-Value o E T E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined m ONon-Standard N-Value i � z o m v> > 3 20 40 60 80 Q o 01 o E U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. X Fines Content (%) X = 2 m a ° a CL m U) Logged B BCS Date: 03/08/21 gg y' ° c w Cl) 06 of m 1 (9 D (9 20 40 60 80 AC Asphalt 0 SIP (ASPHALT) Tan, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel ' 0.1 (medium dense, moist) ^� 16 (FILL) A Or S c 0.4 W; GS , 13 0 a SIP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel 1.0 (medium dense, wet) 12 A J e W; GS -loose ................................... ` 1.5 7 i 15 �7�7 �� Illllulllll'' 1.0 22 20 1.5 32 L� 1.5 33 0 z 0 m 0 30 u 5� 1.5 29 -with trace silt SW- Gray, well -graded SAND with gravel and silt WIGS SM I (dense, wet) SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND (dense, wet) (WHIDBEY FORMATION) W; GS SP_ SM Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt (medium dense, wet) ..................................... a 0 a a� a� �L _ . W d C7 a z � N Q 35 E Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. t 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. m w+ n ti North Portwalk and Seawall Figure JALANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 A-2 Edmonds, Washington 11 of2) A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 435 Attachml SAMPLE DATA iv c Z m O N � 2!1 N o O LL L z SZ N > E c >> U N 3 0 m w in 06 of o m 5 1.0 28 ; 5.o RII 11.51 30 Boring Completed 03/08/21 Total Depth of Boring = 41.5 ft. B-1 SOIL PROFILE Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 0 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined m @ o cn E U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc.CL 3 a _�5 m v BCS 03/08/21 Logged By: Date: ° U (D SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt (medium SM dense, wet) w; GS SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel and SM silt (dense, wet) LAI Project No: 0173038.010 Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit �� Limit 20 40 60 80 s A SPT N-Value A 0 Non -Standard N-Value A 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X = c 20 40 60 80 0 A _ X0 A O Q 0 d' 8� C 60 L G> d � C C z iW a � � V o •_ n i 0 65 � u w+ 0 d O m C7 a z � m N rl W� N Q 70 E Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. t 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. m n ti w+ North Portwalk and Seawall Figure L A N DA U Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 A-2 Edmonds, Washington (2of2) A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 436 Attachml F-10 B-2 i LAI Project No: 0173038.010 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit �� Limit 20 40 60 80 s DrillingMethod: Hollow -Stem Auger SPT N-Value o E T E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined m ONon-Standard N-Value i � z o m v> > 3 20 40 60 80 Q o 01 o E U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. X Fines Content (%) X = 2 m a ° a CL m U) Logged B BCS Date: 03/08/21 gg y' ° c w cn 06 of m 1 (9 D (9 20 40 60 80 AC Ashpalt 0 SP- (ASPHALT) SM Tan, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt ' (loose, moist) 1.0 5 (FILL)Or Z S c 1.0 W; GS very loose ..... :....... :....... :....... :...... , � 2 ❑ , IIIIIIII Q SP Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (very � 1.5 4 loose, wet) J e W; GS -with gravel ............................... 1.5 3 f 15 �'-,lyl' 1.0 16 SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel (medium dense, wet) (WHIDBEY FORMATION) zu W; GS — SP- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt ... ................ .. d 5� 1.5 29 SM (medium dense, wet) X• : A O Q d' 8� C 25 �7�7 lYl' 1.0 W; GS -grades to with gravel ..... :....... :....... :....... :...... L d 14 Xr C o IIIIIIII' 8� C z W a � � V o •_ n i 30 . d �q �(J 1.5 34 A O d o (� a z M N Q 35 E Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. t 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 m 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. n ti w+ North Portwalk and Seawall Figure LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 A-3 Edmonds, Washington (1 of 2) A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 437 Attachml SAMPLE DATA iv O Z N � U r @ Q N >O LL N D > E c U 3o N 0 w in 06 of m 5 �p H�J1.5 34 5^O RII 11.51 43 Boring Completed 03/08/21 Total Depth of Boring = 41.5 ft. B-2 SOIL PROFILE 0 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 0 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined ca cn a U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. 3 a U) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 SP- Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt SM (medium dense, wet) -becomes dense LAI Project No: 0173038.010 Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit �� Limit 20 40 60 80 1 A SPT N-Value A y 0 Non -Standard N-Value A I 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X 20 40 60 80 ! C X4i A R O Q 0 CL' 8� C �L 60 G> d � C C z W a � � V o •_ n i 0 65 � w+ u 0 d O C7 m z � m N W� rl N Q 70 E Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. t 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 0 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. m w+ n ti North Portwalk and Seawall Figure L A N DA U Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 A-3 Edmonds, Washington (2of2) A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 438 Attachm� APPENDIX E Laboratory Soil Testing c 0 U 7 L 0 V NW I.L cu 0) cu 3 0 a 0 z N C O E m W 4- 0 r- 0 a LO 0 0 co N O N z J a 0 a a� a� c •L m m c c w a� 0 d c� ri c d E r a Packet Pg. 439 Attachml Landau Associates APPENDIX B LABORATORY SOIL TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were taken to Landau's geotechnical laboratory for further examination and testing. Testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) standard test procedures noted below. Natural Moisture Content Natural moisture content determinations were performed on select soil samples in general accordance with ASTM standard test method D2216, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. The results of the moisture content determinations are shown as "W = xx" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. Grain Size Analysis Grain size analyses were completed in general accordance with ASTM standard test method D422, Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils. Samples selected for grain size analysis are designated with a "GS" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. The test results are presented on Figures B-1 and B-2. U.S. Standard No. 200 Wash Sieve To provide an indication of the fines content of site soils, select samples were washed over a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve in general accordance with ASTM standard test method C117, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. Samples selected for U.S. Standard No. 200 washes are designated with a "-200 = xx" in the "Test Data" column on Figures A-2 and A-3. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction B-1 November 30, 2023 Packet Pg. 440 Attachml 173038.01 11/21/23 N:\PROJECTS\0173038.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE 100 90 ®i ►Zi', L m 60 a c 50 LL c 40 m a ce 20 10 0 U.S. Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Cobbles Gravel I Sand Silt or Clay CoarseI Fin ICoarse Medium I Fine Symbol Exploration Number Sample Number Depth (ft) Natural 0 Moisture (/o) Soil Description Unified Soil Classification • B-1 S-2 5.0 3 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND SP m B-1 S-4 10.0 18 Fine to coarse SAND with gravel SP B-1 S-6 20.0 14 Well graded SAND with gravel and silt SW-SM * B-1 S-8 30.0 16 Fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM O B-1 S-10 1 40.0 17 Fine to coarse SAND with gravel and silt SP-SM North Portwalk and Seawall Figure y= Reconstruction Grain Size Distribution R 1 Q LALANDAU Edmonds, Washington 1 A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 441 Attachml 173038.01 11/21/23 N:\PROJECTS\0173038.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE 100 90 80 70 L m 60 a c 50 LL c 40 m a 30 20 10 0 U.S. Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters Cobbles Gravel I Sand Silt or Clay CoarseI Fin ICoarse Medium I Fine Symbol Exploration Number Sample Number Depth (ft) Natural 0 Moisture (/o) Soil Description Unified Soil Classification • B-2 S-2 5.0 7 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM m B-2 S-4 10.0 16 Fine to coarse SAND with gravel SP B-2 S-6 20.0 13 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM * B-2 S-7 25.0 17 Fine to coarse SAND with gravel and silt SP-SM O B-2 S-9 35.0 19 Fine to coarse SAND with silt SP-SM LALANDAU A S S O C I A T E S North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Grain Size Distribution Edmonds, Washington Figure B-2 Packet Pg. 442 Attachm� APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations c 0 U 7 L 0 V NW I.L cu 0) cu 3 0 a 0 z N C O E M W 4- 0 r- 0 a LO 0 0 co N O N z J a 0 a a� a� c •L m m c c w a� 0 d c� ri c d E r a Packet Pg. 443 Attachml Landau Associates APPENDIX C SUMMARY LOGS OF PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS To supplement its field investigation, Landau reviewed previous geotechnical studies of the site (Flowers 2008; Hong West & Associates 1989, 1990; LAI 2002, 2003). Summary logs of previous site explorations, along with a site plan showing the approximate locations of the explorations, are provided in Appendix C. Not all of the studies included subsurface explorations, and summary logs are provided for background only. Site conditions may have changed since the time of exploration. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173041.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction C-1 November 30, 20231 Packet Pg. 444 Attachm� APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations c 0 U 7 L 0 V NW I.L cu 0) cu 3 0 a 0 z N C O E M W 4- 0 r- 0 a LO 0 0 co N O N z J a 0 a a� a� c •L m m c c w a� 0 d c� ri c d E r a Packet Pg. 445 DRAFT Attachml Landau Associates APPENDIX C SUMMARY LOGS OF PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS To supplement its field investigation, Landau Associates, Inc. reviewed previous geotechnical studies of the site (Gary A. Flowers 2008; Hong West & Associates 1989, 1990; LAI 2002, 2003). Summary logs of previous site explorations, along with a site plan showing the approximate locations of the explorations, are provided in Appendix C. Not all of the studies included subsurface explorations, and summary logs are provided for background only. Site conditions may have changed since the time of exploration. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction C-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 446 Attachm� EXISTING BOARDWALK EB-1 O' 3 0 w z PROPOSED r EDMONDS YACHT CLUB LEASE AREA o Z< w I-� x w w� z o z LL O a o O� U ✓Ui NZ Z 0 J z < �cr� LU w w $ V> Z y— EB-2 z w w • z U as I10' 4 EXISTING CURB EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING SIDEWALK in ADMIRAL WAY LEGEND EB-1 0 Approximate location of exploration boring REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY CLIENT. �z 0 30 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 1 GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB DATE 3/08 EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.07-056 Packet Pg. 447 Attachm m EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 DAMES & MOORE aa Z w RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Q 0 Bfow�oot o 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, damp, gray, fine to medium SAND T e 20 with gravel; 2° seam of dark brown sand (fill) 1 9 ii ? — 5 loose, saturated, gray -brown medium SAND with T 2 g some silt and trace fine gravel (fill?) 1 5 5 • 10 Z — ATD medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly coarse SAND I 5 • 22 — 15 1 17 - no sample recovery 5 e 4 = 2' heave - washed 1s 20 - dense, saturated, gray gravelly, medium SAND T 8 49• with some silt l 31 1' heave - washed — 25 - — dense, saturated, gray, silty medium SAND with T 12 38 • scattered fine gravel 1 26 1' heave - washed — 30 dense, saturated, gray, medium to coarse SAND with 11 15 45 fine gravel, trace silt in a few zones 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this ecploratory hole, modffled by geologic Intmpratetlons, engtneertng analysis, end Judgment. They ere not necesaer{ly representative of other times and locations. We will not accept respons<bllfty for the use or Interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 1= 0 a a� a> c •L m m c CD c w 7V _ s m 0 d 0 vi C d E s 0 ca w a Packet Pg. 448 Attachm m EXPLORATION BORING L Number EB-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 DAMES & MOORE a d ? w RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION LLjQ g 00 Blows/root C C� 10 20 30 40 very dense, saturated, gray fine SAND with trace gravel T heave - washed BOH @ 39' T15 50/11 24 501a. 40 50 55 r-- ij Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this Wloratory We, modtfied by gedogic r Interpretations, engfneedng anetysls, and Judgment They are not nec essargy representative of other times and locations. We will not eccept responsibility for the use or Intarpretation by dhera of Informatlon presented on this log. 0 E t t.� EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA a GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 449 Attachm rn EXPLORATION BORING LO Number EB-2 DAMES & MOORE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a-.i ? W Q o ;E RESISTANCE Blows/Foot o 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, moist, gray and brown SAND with T 6 20 scattered gravel, dark streaks at 2-1/2' to 3' (fill) 10 - 10 loose, moist, gray, medium SAND with gravel (fill?) — 5 4 I 4 4 8♦ loose, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (fill?) T 2 7 - 3 � 4 10 ATD - 4 -T-- medium dense, saturated, gray -brown, gravelly, 17♦7 medium to coarse SAND with silt 10 dense, saturated, fine to medium SAND 18 ♦44 26 15 very dense, saturated, gray, coarse sandy GRAVEL i 23 61 1 38 20 dense, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium SAND _ 7 38 dense, saturated, gravelly, coarse SAND 11 t 27 very dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, poorly sorted SAND with silt T 14 31 79 I'heave - washed 48 BOH @ 29' 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the lime and location of tins ar#on" hale, modified by geologlc Interpretetlona, englneering analysts, and Judgment They are not necessarily represenlat#ve of other times and locations. We wol not accept responsibility for the use or Inierpretetlon by others of Inform artlon presented an this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 450 H - I" Attachm m NORTH IPI ADMIRAL WAY SCALE (IN FEET) ENUR YAJW .0 I DO +TmT ]ROLE SITE PLAN MAP BUILDING REHABILITATION PROJECT PORT OF EDMONDS, EDMONDS, WA H ONG WEST & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 C' Oi v� 3 =I OI v N w 3 a� Co _ Ta 3 O a s O z 0 _ O E W 4- 0 O a Lo r O O M N O N z J a O a a� a� m _ w m 0 a� M r r E s w Q Packet Pg. 451 h HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE x o MOISTURE f d SPT (blow9/foot) w J d ME 0 10 20 30 4Q 50 50 10 00 L0 D_t_ t t t t 1_!—(� 1�4 5 i4 1 :4i BORING LOG SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION Attachm m ' SP Loose to med. dense, gray brown, gravelly fine to med. SAND: trace to some silt, trace of organics at 2.5 to 4 feet. moist to wet (Fill) - sample is wet ' SP Med. dense to dense, gray, gravelly well - graded SAND: moist, trace silt — (Marine Sand) • GP Dense. gray, sandy GRAVEL :.' (Marine Gravels) S - 6 inches heave washed put prior to samplin •: SW Dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND: trace silt (marine Sand) 1-%*4 SP I Dense. brownish gray, fine SAND: trace silt (Marine Sand) BOTTOM OF HOLE NOTES: 1) Positive head maintained in drill stem below 27.5 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds Building Repair LOCATION: 336 Admiral Kay, Edmonds PROJECT NUMBER: 8991 cc W u, X 0 N w a 3 BORING BH-1 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATIOII: 15 f t . TOTAL DEPTH: 39 f t . packet Pg. 452 Attachml HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG VT RESISTANCENOISTWE i a 110ISFURE X a SPT (blows/foot) w .J d Y 0 10 20 3a as 50 60 70 eo U5 SYMBOLS OESCRIPTiON . . . . . . . . . 11 Very loose to loose, brown to gray, gravel- ly fine to med. SAND: trace silt, organic in surface i foot, moist (Fill) lied_ dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND: grades less gravelly with depth (Marine Sand) - becoming gravelly, fine to coarse -SAND Medium dense, gray. silty, fine SAND: some gravel, till -like - becoming dense, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND: some gravel NOTE: Gravel clast blocks sampler opening. Dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL: well rounded to subangular (Marine Gravel) Dense, gray, fine to medium SANG: some silt; trace gravel (Marine Sand) BOTTOM OF BORING NOTES: 1) Positive head maintained below 10 feet. 2) Initial groundwater measurement (9.0 (eet) obtained during drilling. 3) Final groundwater measurement (5.5 feet) obtained after 1/2 hour. PROJECT NAME: Port of .Edmonds Building Repair LOCATION: 336 Admiral Kay, Edmonds PROJECT NUMBER: 8991 cc w w x 0 fV W 0- 0 Q BORING BH-2 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION: 16 ft. TOTAL DEPTH' 43.5 f t packet Pg. 453 Attachm m Site and Explorat-ion Plan Approx. Original ~9B_4 Proposed Breakwater ~~ B--5 Fxistin 9 Brea kwatef � Proposed Breakwater J Extension i t 1 Existing Bulkhead res� P rPropQSed Sheet Pile Breakwater Existing Bulkhead 1 Admiral Way rya ate 0 100 200 Q B- 7 Boring Location and Number Scale in Feet J-1327-01 April 1984 HART-CRQWSER & assQCIt,;IitP.4z in Figure 11 Packet Pg. 454 Boring Log B -1 SOIL INTERPRETATION STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE r 1la D,oaund r...ahl_ 70 -ch a, pal Attachml LABORATORY TESTS l OePth A9lorrs per Fool ; ADuroa.male (1`fPY/ld Sur1a[r EFeval.on rn FteF � i Feel Sample D Loose, wet, dark gray, fine to median SAIM with scattered slit and organics. S-1 Piedium dense, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND. S ATD 5-2 10 Grades to fine to medium SAND. 5-3 13 Grades to fine gravelly SAND. 5-4 . zo Dense. saturated, gray, very sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND. 2 y 5-5 Dense saturated, gray, slightly silty, slightly 5-6 Bottom of Boringg at 29.0 Feet a0 Completed 2/24/84 3S aD • aS 50 • Natural Wafer Content (%) O N Ground Wafer Level sampling Laborat❑ Tests Notes ^_ ch T_ 2' 0.0 Sow Spoon US Grain S.re wnalr ut TLN Tnaf.11 Vncbnro6d and 1 Son dram .'r+t I'llInlaro•n..f ■nd +� e.nlomle Soml Simal■ CH Conlandalion Too undra.nep r[IYaI C>ta'.drl mar be endYfl ]- OO. Shefbr rub• % Prrmarb.la} }eel ICU Tpe•reI Gonfohdal.d Vndr ] Wrle. Le.rl d.nd.cafad• I. For the Oala E c $ample a.nttl ibrc.F.00 r•-d -AT •.rr r.lh the I. -me or i ^ Cvlh.+p S.�o'e CS DR cI Shur TCo TDt.'^I Conlohdal.d y..r wafer l..IN ibuel OV UoNConi-ed Comprerpon ■ d ]. Wrlrr Ca•y7-1 Aol dele,nnned on •er r y.r + n.„ o Saof+ Water Conlant 1%) - Q Alp AN l.ma of Drdl.ha pr[a...} amtll umarra nor an umplaa wlih Sampl.r PVahad 7V Tof.ane• ttl Plaa..c 1— t t llduro 1Haa alpnlr+Canl C•r+el donfenL Oba ■r ral.on wpI iro or Stalled S.U•on 1+7131aulicollr, PP Pocket PenUrdmeler- Nei L.m•1 air L... l 1Ta1.. Cgnl. n, Nei Dr rn J-1327-Q 1 March 1984 HART-CROWSER 8 associates inc Figure Packet Pg. 455 Attach m� ��oRE}�LF LoCAT10 �i S fop N0at + HPAp-Ir1 A Gv0-- H l-= AD 9EPLAC-E.HD. r BH-3 SITE PLAN MAP HONG WEST NORTH BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT PROJECT & ASSOCIATES PORT OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FIGURE 2 D,U a Packet Pg. 456 Attach m� LEGEND OF SYMBOLS APPEARING ON THE SOIL LOGS GRAPHICAL SYMBOLS FOR SOIL TYPES NON -COHESIVE SOILS (<50% passing the 200 sieve) well graded gravel and gravel/sand mix poorly graded gravel, gravel/sand mix silty gravels, gravel/sand/silt mix clayey gravels, gravel/sand/clay mix well graded sands, gravelly sands poorly graded sands, few fines silty sands, sand/silt mix clayey sands, sand/clay mix COHESIVE SOILS (>50% passing 200 sieve) inorganic silts and very fine sands inorganic, low plastic clay mixes organic, low plastic clays, silt/clay mix inorganic, micaceous silts, silt/sand mix inorganic, high plastic clays organic. medium to high plastic clays peat and other highly organic soil Note: The graphical symbols used for the v� based on the symbols recommendated it Classification system. Graphical logs jective field indentification of soi: data where available. Letter designai the basis of laboratory data and calr SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS BOREHOLE SAMPLES ® 2.0' 00 Split Spoon (SPT) IShelby Tube a3.0' OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings aGrab Samples (cuttings) mCore Run TEST PIT SAMPLES Bag (bulk sample) 0 Grab (small volumn) IShelby Tube HAND BORING SAMPLES Non-standard penetration (40 lb. hammer, with 12 inch drop) OGrab Sample (post hole) IShelby Tube ROTARY BOREHOLE SAMPLES Continuous Core Samples irious soil types are the Unified Soil are based on sub- s, and laboratory .ions are assigned on ulations. GROUNDWATER INSTALLATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS entonite Seal out Backfiil oo. -----Cuttings Backfill or Caved Hole iezometer Casing 41 EZ Groundwater Level (noted during drilling) = 2 Groundwater Level (measured in piezometer after water, level stabilized) Slotted Piezometer Tip nd Backfili ATTERBERG LIMITS PL LL O - Natural Moisture PL - Plastic Limit LL - Liquid Limit Q HONG WEST 9 ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 457 Attach m� LEGEND OF TERMS USED ON EXPLORATION SOIL LOGS The classification of soils in these logs is based on visual field and laboratory observations, based on ASTM D 2488. Soil descriptions con- sist of the following: Density/consistency, color, modifier, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, minor constituents, wetness, soil structures, additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in test borings is usually based on the SPT, the standard penetration test or resistance, ASTM D1586. The test result is the sum of the of the blow counts for the last 12 inches of sampler drive. Non -Cohesive Soil Standard Cohesive Soil Standard Approximate Shear Density Penetration Consistancy Penetration Strength in TSF Resistance Resistance (Blows/foot) (Blows/foot) Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-2 <0.125 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2-4 0.125 - 0.25 Medium Dense 10 - 30 Medium Stiff 4-8 0.25 - 0.5 Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15 0.5 - 1.0 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30 1.0 - 2.0 Hard > 30 > 2.0 Wetness Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Dry Little perceptible moisture Trace 0-5 Damp Some perceptible moisture probably below optimum Some 5 - 12 Moist probably near optimum moisture content Modifier (sandy, silty, etc.) 12 - 30 Wet Much perceptible moisture probably above optimum very plus modifier (sandy, etc.) 30 - 50 Terms Describing Soil Structures laminated composed of thin (less than 1 cm.) layers of varying color and texture. bedded composed of laminations greater than 1 cm in thickness of varying color and texture. interbedded composed of alternating beds of different soil types. well graded having a wide range of grain sizes, with substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes. poorly graded predominantly one grain size, or having a range of sizes with some intermediate sizes missing. fissured containing shrinkage cracks, frequently filled with fine sand or silt, usually more or less vertical. slickensided having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance. calcareous containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate. HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 458 Attachmc::E] LU Uj U- n LU 0 51 2 3 A HONG WEST 9 ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) Cn LU —j CL M: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 � SYMBOLS 0 E DESCRIPTION 2" Asphalt over 1/2' of 5/8" Crushed Rock Very loose, dark red brown, fine to medium • SAND: trace silt & some fine gravel; scattered wood fragments 9 other organic debris; damp. (Fill) :..Sp Loose to medium dense, gray, gravelly, fine TW to medium SAND: damp to wet. (Marine Sand Bed) red brown sand layer (13.7 to 13.9) with .... gray silt "ash" layer above (13.5 to 13.7) Medium dense to dense, gray, fine SAND: trace to some silt and gravel: massive; wet: occasional shell fragments. (marine Sand Bed) fine to medium sand bed. some silt. SM Dense to very dense, gray, silty, fine SAND: occasional gravel: massive; numerous shell fragments at top: wet. (Marine Sand Bed) PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration BORING B-3 LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina DATE DRILLED: 8/06/90 PROJECT NUMBER: 90066 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. PAGE: I OF 2 TOTAL DEPTH: 49.0 ft. I Packet Pg. 459 1 Attach m� 4C 50 w w + 60 n w 0 70 HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION rol U Bottom of boring & 49.0 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90086 PAGE: 2 OF 2 s w w O N w a r- 0 Q. a� or CD _ •L m m _ CD _ w s m 0 d vi a� E w r BORING B-3 a DATE DRILLED: B/06/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 49.0 ft. Packet Pg. 460 Attach m� HONG WEST F ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % c MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION I 1 i I I I I 4: I: 10 ;............................. is I• t ' 1 ....:.�... ........:........:......... W W �. v_ p r..:.... H 20 ...:...:........:... a- FV1 W -O I 1 I 30- ..... ........... .. 'I . I r 40 SP 2" Asphalt over 1/2" 5/8' Crushed Rock Medium dense, brown to gray, fine SAND: some gravel; dry to damp. (Fill) SW Medium dense, brown to gray: fine to "f Sp coarse SAND: some gravel; moist to wet; t� bedded with interbedded fine and coarse t r: sand. (Marine Sand Beds) ,ti:t•. gray gravelly sand r•r SP Dense, gray, fine SAND: trace to some silt. (Marine Sand Beds) SW Medium dense to dense, gray; fine to coarse Sp SAND: some gravel: moist to wet. (Marine Sand Beds) '•r �:v r: t :•r;'r dense, gray, fine to medium sand, trace +it1 gravel. :r; r '•r;:v SM Dense to very dense, gray, silty fine SAND: Sp trace medium to coarse sand 6 fine gravel; saturated; massive. (Marine Sand Bed) PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90066 PAGE: i OF 2 s w w 0 N W H a W a•d la�� � a� E w BORING BH-2 a DATE DRILLED: 6/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 54.0 ft. Packet Pg. 461 Attach m� 4 W I- W W L.L IF I— n w 0 7 W HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J a 0 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 e0 cdn SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION O SM Dense to very dense, gray, silty fine SAND: Sp as above. (Marine Sand Bed) 06: R Rio u Bottom of boring @ 54.0 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90066 PAGE: 2 OF 2 s w t � c w c o < N 0 w a r- 0 Q. a� CD _ •L m m _ CD _ w s m 0 d ri a� E w BORING BH-2 a DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 54.0 ft. Packet Pg. 462 Attach m� w W U- f— n LU CD ELP 10 20 30 40 HONG WEST @ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % c MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 e0 SYMBOLS ... ........:...:...:......... ..;....:....:......;............I u� I. . .... i :b DESCRIPTION SP 2" Asphalt over 1/2" of 5/8' Crushed Rock Loose, brown gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND: most gravel fine; dry to 4 feet, damp below. (Fill) SW Loose to medium dense, gray, gravelly, fine '"•f •+::v Sp to coarse SAND: beds of silty fine sand; ti% damp to wet (below 11.5 ft.) . :- (Marine Beach Sand) •f � v SP Medium dense, gray, fine SAND: trace to some silt; saturated; massive. (Marine Sand Bed) SW Medium dense to dense, gray, fine to coarse, Sp SAND: trace gravel to gravelly in places; t a few silty sand interbeds; gravel well ' rounded; saturated. •.- (Marine Sand Bed) +::v :' — massive, fine to medium sand interbed. ir•tit yy_ — predominately fine to medium sand. SP Dense to very dense, dark gray, fine SAND: SM some silt to silty; trace fine gravel; massive; wet. (Marine Sand Bed) PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90086 PAGE: 1 OF 2 CIC w w O N W 0- N r- O Q a� _ d _ _ w .v _ s L) am 0 d 0 M a� E U w BORING BH-1 a DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 67.5 ft. Packet Pg. 463 Attach m� 5 i— LU Lu L- � 6 7 [■1 HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) Ii J d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SYMBOLS _ = 0 DESCRIPTION - becoming finer, silty at depth. - sand is olive gray below. - fine sand with abundant shell fragments Very dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND: some silt; till -like. (Glacial Drift?) Large gravel & cobbles; harder drilling. 10 ft. of slough 6 heave; no sample attempted g 67.5. Bottom of boring & 67.5 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90086 PAGE: 2 OF 2 BORING BH-1 cc w w O IV W a DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 67.5 ft. Packet Pg. 46, c 0 r L c 0 a� 3 R m Co c 0 3 0 a t 0 z c 0 E w 4- 0 0 IL Ln r O O M N O N z J a 0 a a) w am c �L d C tm C W R ci a L d y.+ 0 ,0 V M r it i E c.i Q _4 Packet Pg. 465 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: 90086 Depth: 27.5 feet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 Sample Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: Gravel: 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Sand: 84 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Silt: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: --------------------------------------------- 100 90 80 w 70 J J a 60 �- 50 z Y 40 w 30 20 10 0 Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Crse Fine I Crse SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 2 s 2 s 2 s 2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By:-------5115---------- s _ 2 s 10 k__ O CL 0) w 1M c m c B c w 1i as O a� c7 cri ;j c a� E t a Packet Pg. 466 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: 90086 Depth: 2-2.5 ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- - feet --------------- -------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 Sample Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: Gravel: 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Sand: 93 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Silt: 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: --------------------------------------------- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Crse Fine I Crse SIEVE SIZES 100 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3 8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 i J J Q 60 - ----- i-- 5 0 z w U 40 w a_ 30 20 --- 10 ---------- 0 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By:-----Sl-f k-- a Packet Pg. 467 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-1 -------------------------------------North-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: --- 90086-------------------------------------------------------- Depth: ------------------ 22.5 feet - - ------------------------ Date Tested: 8-8-90 Sample Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: Gravel: 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Sand: 65 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Silt: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: ............................................. 100 90 80 w 70 J J 60 0 �- 50 z W Y 40 W 30 20 10 0 Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Cr.. Fine I Crse SIEVE SIZES 200 1U0 60 40 6U ZU 1b 1U 4 A/Yi .5 4 1 ,/Z 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ; 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By:--____�_________ 5 2 5 10 k-- O CL m M aM c N m c c w m 0 a� c7 cri C a� E t Q Packet Pg. 468 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-2 ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: 90086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Depth: 37.5 feet --------------------------------------------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sample Description: Remarks: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gravel: 0 ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sand: 83 ------------------------------------------- Silt: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: --------------------------------------------- SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 100 90 80 70 J J a V) z w 40 w 20 ' 10 ; 0 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By:------51_�___--___- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Crse Fine Crse a Packet Pg. 469 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds ----------------------------------- Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-3 North---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: 90086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Depth: 42.5 feet -------------------- ------------------------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sample Description: Remarks: AtterberLimits: --- non —plastic Gravel: 0 - ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sand: 82 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silt: 18 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: --------------------------------------------- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Crse Fine a Packet Pg. 470 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North Bulkhead Replacement Test Hole Number: BH-1 ------------------------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington Sample Number: S-13 ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- Project Number: --- 90 086 -------------------------------------------------------- - Depth: ------------------ 5 3.0 feet - - --------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sample Description: Remarks: Atterberq Limits: - - - non --plastic - -- Gravel: 1 ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sand: 84 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silt: 15 ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay: --------------------------------------------- SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 1 00 90 80 70 ?; - J J Q z w U o' w a_ 30 ; 20 - 10 0 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By: ---- S---___-_- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine Medium Crse Fine Crsa a Packet Pg. 471 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement ----- ----- --- ---- -- - ---- - -- -------------- ---- -- ------------ 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Number: 90086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: Atterberg_ Limits_ non —plastic ------------------ ------ Test Hole Number: BH-1 ------------------------- Sample Number: 5-14 ----------- ----------------- Depth: 57.5 feet ---------------------------------------------- Sample Description: Gravel: 39 Sand: 52 Silt: 9 ------------------------------------------ Clay:........................................ Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Crse Fine Crse SIEVE SIZES 100 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 90 ; 80 ; r r r J J r r r Q- --- - ----- M 60 V) �- 50 z w -- - o-c) 40 w o_ 30 r r . 20 -- --- r � r r . r 10 , 0 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 0.001 0.01 0.1 > 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By:------5; 111E--------- k__ a Packet Pg. 472 Attachm� PORT OF AIR.T211l;i111110 336 Admiral Way - Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 - (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425)774-7837 - www.portofedmonds.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. Reconstruction of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. Proponent: Port of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: Located at 330-336 Admiral Way on Port of Edmonds property. Tax Parcel Number: #27032300401400 Lead agency: Port 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 43.21 C 030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 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 November 8, 2021. Project Planner: Brittany Williams, Manager of Properties and Economic Development Responsible Official: Robert McChesney, Executive Director Contact Information: Port of Edmonds 1 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA 98020 1 425-774-0549 ALAADate: 1I 4 "b� �1� f Signature: _XX_ You may appeal this determination to Robert McChesney, Executive Director, at 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal no later than November 15, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Robert McChesney to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX_ Posted October 25, 2021, on the Port of Edmonds website and in the Port of Edmonds Administration office. Published in the Everett Herald. Submitted to the Department of Ecology Lead Agency Online Portal. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX_ Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available for viewing at the Port of Edmonds Administration office — located on the second floor 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020. Packet Pg. 473 Attach m� Notice Mailed to the following XX Town of Wooay _ XX Environmental Review Section Clerk-Treasurer Department of Ecology 23920 113th Place West P.O. Box 47703 Woodway, WA 98020 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunit(cDecy.wa.gov XX BNSF Railway XX Department of Fish & Wildlife General Manager 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard 2454 Occidental Avenue South Mill Creek, WA 98012 Suite 1A Seattle, WA 98134-1451 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 XX Puget Sound Energy Olympia, WA 98504-7015 Attn: David Matulich SEPACENTER(a)DNR.WA.GOV PO Box97034, M/S BOT-1G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 XX Tulalip Tribal Council david.matulichQpse.com 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD XX Snohomish County Planning & PO Box 1107 Development Services Everett, WA 98206-1107 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Donna J. Bunten Department of Ecology XX Snohomish County Public Works Shorelands & Environ, Assist. Program 3000 Rockefeller M/S 607 PO Box 47600 Everett, WA 98201 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 XX Snohomish County Fire District No 1 XX City of Edmonds Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn: Kernen Lien Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South 121 5'h Ave North Everett, WA 98208-5764 Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 474 Attachm� SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 apply 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 (part 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 FHELP1 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2. Name of applicant: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 22 Packet Pg. 475 Attachm� Port of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Brittany Williams, Manager of Properties and Economic Development 425.774.1511 bwilliams@portofedmonds.org 4. Date checklist prepared: October 12, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: Port of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Project construction is planned for April 2023 through March 2024. 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 project is a component of the Port of Edmonds' Public Access Plan for the waterfront boardwalk, which also includes planned improvements to the Central Portwalk and South Portwalk. The Portwalks extend from the North Portwalk and run the length of the Port of Edmonds Marina. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Geotechnical report • Biological Assessment • Cultural Resources Assessment • Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) • High Tide Line Verification • Hazardous Building Material Survey 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 known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 22 Packet Pg. 476 Attachm� • Hydraulic Project Approval (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]) • Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act/Section 404 Clean Water Act authorization (US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]). • Section 401 Water Quality Certification (individual review by Washington State Department of Ecology, if determined necessary by USACE) • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decision (Port of Edmonds) • Shoreline Master Program Conditional Use Permit (City of Edmonds) • Building Permit (City of Edmonds) • Clearing/Grading Permit (City of Edmonds) 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 Port of Edmonds proposes to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (i.e., North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and to repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach. Repair and renovation of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk and underlying seawall are necessary due to significant deterioration; the boardwalk was constructed in the 1960s. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas, Upper Plaza and Central Plaza, also will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnies Restaurant, and the Central Plaza, including new restrooms, will be added in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (to be demolished). The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure, supported by piling, that projects over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The boardwalk extending north of the marina N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 feet apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 feet apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the marina's seawall terminate at the timber seawall. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the marina basin along its east side, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the marina basin's east side. Behind the concrete bulkhead is an earthen slope with a rock -armored surface. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and the timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves. The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 22 Packet Pg. 477 Attachm� bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall, whereas the lower (concrete) section of seawall and the filled slope between the sections will remain unchanged along with the existing concrete bulkhead south of N dock. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at grade, and the new sheet pile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be completely removed, because they are connected below grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The timber boardwalk will be replaced within the same footprint, but elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and to improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new steel railings with integrated lighting and way - finding signage. The marina's existing electrical utility panels and dock cart storage will be relocated from the over -water side of the new walk to the opposite side, over -land. Marina gates to the gangways will be replaced in the same locations but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. 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 proposed project is an approximately 900-foot section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (336 Admiral Way) and extends north along the edge of the Port of Edmonds Marina to Olympic Beach (refer to the project plans). The project is located in Section 23, Township 27N, Range 3E. B. Environmental Elements HELP Earth hf U a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainou other at and vertical bulkheads The site includes in -water areas below an existing flat boardwalk, a sloped area between an existing vertical upper timber bulkhead and a lower concrete bulkhead, and adjacent uplands that are flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 22 Packet Pg. 478 Attachm� The existing upper timber bulkhead and concrete bulkhead are near -vertical surfaces (i.e., approximately 100 percent slope). The area of riprap under the boardwalk subject to tidal flows between the upper timber bulkhead and concrete bulkhead is approximately 30 percent. 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 Web Soil Survey (USDA NCRS; accessed July 20, 2021) identifies the project area as Urban Land, which includes disturbed natural soil layers to which several feet of fill have been added to accommodate development. Based on geotechnical evaluation of the project area, the soils beneath asphalt in the vicinity of the proposed project include loose to medium dense fill, consisting of sand with little to no silt content, which is underlain by medium dense to dense deposits of sand with variable silt content. No agricultural soils are present. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. City of Edmonds critical areas mapping identifies the existing Portwalk in a landslide and erosion hazard area. 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. Total areas of proposed filling, excavation, and grading are summarized below. Fill excavated on site will be re -used on site. Any additional fill (if necessary) would be imported from a licensed supplier. Activity Type Total Area Total Volume Material (footprint) Removal of 678 sy 113 cy Asphalt, concrete existing pavement Addition of new 311 sy 52 cy Concrete pavement Addition of new 367 sy 61 cy Asphalt pavement Grading 461 sy 410 cy Fill soils Excavation of 461 sy 410 cy Fill soila, upland fill primarily sand behind seawall Excavation of in- 231 sy 180 cy Fill soils, water fill primarily sand (between armored with bulkheads, large rock SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 22 Packet Pg. 479 Attachm� Activity Type Total Area Total Volume Material (footprint) including armorin Upland Fill 461 sy 410 cy Fill soils, behind seawallprimarily sand In -water Fill 231 sy 180 cy Fill soils, (between primarily sand bulkheads, armored with including large rock armorin Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some minor short-term erosion could occur during excavation above the upper timber bulkhead; however, erosion control best management practices (BMPs) will be included in the construction plans. No long-term erosion is anticipated as a result of the proposed project, because all areas disturbed by excavation will be replaced with impervious surfaces. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Existing impervious surfaces will be maintained or replaced with new impervious surfaces, and pervious areas of vegetation (14,169 square feet) will be maintained or replaced with equal or greater areas of vegetation located closer to the shoreline. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control BMPs will be identified in an approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan. BMPs employed during construction will include straw wattles on slopes to control erosion, fabric fencing to prevent stormwater-transported sediment from entering marine waters, and fabric liners to prevent sediment from entering catch basins. Proposed bulkhead replacement will preserve existing uplands adjacent to the marina. 2. Air hf M 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. Construction equipment and activities will generate minor amounts of localized carbon monoxide and particulate emissions. These emissions are temporary and may slightly degrade local air quality, but these effects are anticipated to be temporary, minor, and largely contained to areas short distances from the proposed project site. Furthermore, the resultant pollutant concentrations would likely not be significant relative to emissions from marina traffic in and around the project area. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 22 Packet Pg. 480 Attach m No emissions would be generated by project operation or maintenance. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No offsite sources of emissions or odor that would affect the project have been identified. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: To reduce carbon monoxide and particulate emissions from gasoline and diesel engines, construction equipment will have the best emission -control devices generally available to the contractor. Because the construction work will be temporary, no significant air quality impacts are expected; therefore, other than means required by local and state regulations to control construction -related emissions, no additional operational measures to control emissions are necessary or proposed. 3. Water hf e a. Surface Water: hf elpl 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 and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site is located in the Port of Edmonds Marina in Puget Sound. A segment of Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh are located approximately 300 feet southeast of the site. The outlet of Willow Creek to Puget Sound is approximately 1,700 feet south of the site outside of the Marina. 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. Yes, work will occur over and within Puget Sound. 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. Approximately 180 cubic yards of excavation, associated with replacement of the upper timber bulkhead, will occur below mean higher -high water (MHHW) . The excavated material includes existing riprap between the upper and lower bulkheads. Approximately 77 cubic yards of riprap will be installed below MHHW, between the upper and lower bulkheads. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be required during project construction. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 22 Packet Pg. 481 Attach m 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Federal Emergency Management Act mapping identifies the 100-year floodplain (base flood elevation 13 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988; 15.05 feet mean lower -low water [MLLW]) in the in -water area and up to the existing boardwalk elevation. 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 discharges of waste materials are anticipated. The project will include implementation of an approved TESC plan to control discharges into surface waters. Contractors will employ a debris boom to contain demolition debris that may accidentally enter the water during removal of the boardwalk and timber bulkhead. b. Ground Water: hf elpl 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. Groundwater may be encountered during upland excavation associated with the replacement of the timber bulkhead. Dewatering may be required and would be conducted in accordance with permit conditions for collection, storage, treatment (if required), and discharge to the sanitary sewer system. 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. No waste materials associated with domestic sewage or other activities will be discharged into the ground. 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. Runoff from the site is limited to stormwater. Precipitation intercepted by the existing boardwalk surface drains directly to the marina through spaces between the walking surface. Runoff from the Portwalk uplands is conveyed to catch basins and discharged through the storm drain system. The SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 22 Packet Pg. 482 Attach m existing stormwater-collection and discharge infrastructure will be maintained for the proposed project. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Though unlikely, release of waste material from construction activities could occur as a result of accidental fuel leaks or spills. During construction, standard BMPs for spill prevention and erosion and sediment control will be implemented via an approved TESC plan. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The project will include the installation of new catch basins that will connect to the existing drainage system. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained as part of the completed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: During construction, standard BMPs for erosion and sediment control will be implemented through approved TESC plans. No impacts to drainage patterns are expected as a result of the proposed project. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained as part of the completed project 4. Plants hf eM a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs g rass pasture crop or grain 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 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The existing Portwalk includes planter boxes containing ornamental, herbaceous vegetation that will be removed as part of the project. Approximately 14 trees in the adjacent parking lot will be removed to accommodate the relocation of a hydrant and construction of the Central Plaza. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 22 Packet Pg. 483 Attach m Washington Natural Heritage Program data, available online, do not identify any threatened or endangered plant species within the township, range, or section of the project site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The project includes installation of planter boxes along the Portwalk and landscaping in the new plaza areas. Landscaping will consist of a mix of herbaceous species, shrubs, and trees. The project will maintain or increase the total area of vegetation within 200 feet of the shoreline. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. 5. Animals hf eM 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, agle gbir s�eiver gulls mammals: beaver, otter, harbor seal fish: bass, almon trout, rring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Species lists obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries' websites indicate that the following listed threatened or endangered species may occur in the project vicinity: • Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyacha) • Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) • Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) • Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) • Bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes paucispinis) • Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) • Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) • Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) • Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 22 Packet Pg. 484 Attach m A Biological Evaluation to be prepared for the proposed project will provide an evaluation of habitat suitability and potential presence of these species in the project vicinity. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Puget Sound shorelines are part of a migratory route for juvenile salmonids and migratory birds. WDFW Priority Habitat and Species data do not identify any designated wildlife migration routes within the project area. The project vicinity is in the Pacific flyway bird migration corridor. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: BMPs will be employed during construction to maintain surface water quality and preserve aquatic wildlife. In addition, in -water work will occur during the approved work window. The proposed overwater section of the boardwalk will preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat with the following measures: (1) maintain the existing footprint of over -water cover; (2) convert solid, opaque, over - water decking to decking with 60 percent transparency; (3) elevate the deck by 6 inches, resulting in increased natural light under the new deck; (4) remove segment of creosote -treated bulkhead and creosote -treated piling; and (5) add terrestrial vegetation adjacent to the shoreline. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known. 6. Energy and Natural Resources hf eM 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. Electricity will continue to be used to light project site. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: During construction, construction vehicle idling will be minimized to reduce fuel consumption. Site illumination will include energy -efficient light fixtures. LED lighting will be used for site illumination because of its energy -saving properties. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 22 Packet Pg. 485 Attachm� 7. Environmental Health hf e 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. No anticipated environmental health hazards are associated with the completed project. No toxic or hazardous chemicals will be stored on site as part of the completed project, and the project site will be limited to pedestrian use (i.e., non -motorized vehicles). Creosote piles have been identified supporting the upland side of the boardwalk. Timbers used to construct the retaining wall behind the boardwalk may also have been treated with creosote or a similar wood preservative to lengthen the lifespan of the wood. Existing creosote -treated piles will be removed as part of pile/bulkhead replacement and will be handled and disposed of at a permitted facility. Similar handling and disposal protocols may be required if other treated lumber, soils, and/or sediments in direct contact with treated piles and lumber are encountered. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Creosote piles have been identified supporting the upland side of the boardwalk. Timbers used to construct the retaining wall behind the boardwalk may also have been treated with creosote or a similar wood preservative to lengthen the lifespan of the wood. Existing creosote treated piles will be removed as part of pile/bulkhead replacement and will be handled and disposed of at a permitted facility. Similar handling and disposal protocols may be required if other treated lumber, soils, and/or sediments in direct contact with treated piles and lumber are encountered. Review of the Washington State Department of Ecology's "What's in my Neighborhood" map revealed five sites within an approximately'/4-mile radius of the project site where releases and/or cleanup of petroleum products and hazardous materials have been documented. One of these sites, the Port of Edmonds Breeders Building, is mapped adjacent to the project site. However, a review of file records discussing characterization of this site determined that its location to be incorrectly mapped on the "What's in my Neighborhood" map, and that it is actually located approximately 240-feet southwest of the project area. A release of petroleum products at this site, including diesel, gasoline, and benzene, has been confirmed. Soil impacts reportedly have been remediated at this site; however, contamination may remain in groundwater. A similar release of petroleum products to soil and groundwater was also reported at the Edmonds Dry Storage Port of Edmonds site, mapped within approximately 200 feet of the project alignment; similar to the Breeders Building, review of characterization reports available SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 22 Packet Pg. 486 Attachm� for this site determined that the location of the Dry Storage site to be incorrectly mapped on the "What's in my Neighborhood" map, with its actual location over 900-feet southwest of the project area Given the physical distance of these two release sites from the project area, and the fact that the sites are hydrologically cross- or down -gradient of the project area, these sites do not appear to present a risk of impact to the project area. Releases of various chemical of concern, including petroleum products, metals, dioxins/furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and organotins have been documented at three other sites mapped within a %4 mile of the project site. Given the physical distance of the release sites from the project area, and the fact that the sites are hydrologically cross- or down -gradient of the project area, those sites do not appear to present a risk of impact to the project area. Additionally, while one of those sites (Harbor Square) includes sediment impacts, those impacts were identified in Edmonds Marsh south of Admiral Way. Based on figures that detail stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of hat site and the project area, water from the Marsh discharges to Puget Sound, at an area outside of the marina jetty; as such, it is unlikely that sediment and potentially related surface water impacts from the Harbor Square site would impact the project area. 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. No existing hazardous chemical or conditions are known that would affect project development or design. The existing boardwalk and pavement would be replaced with a similar walkway and areas of pavement. No underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines are located within the project area. Utilities will be located by the construction contractor before excavation starts. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Chemicals associated with construction equipment, such as hydraulic fluid and diesel, may be stored or used on site during construction. No toxic or hazardous chemicals will be used, produced, or stored on site as part of the project. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special or additional emergency services, beyond those currently provided by the City of Edmonds, will be required for construction or operation of the project. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 22 Packet Pg. 487 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: A Hazardous Building Material Survey will be completed for the Port Administration Building to identify hazardous building materials, including asbestos -containing materials, that may need to be abated and managed in conjunction with building demolition. The contractor will develop a work plan to manage and properly dispose of hazardous materials, including subsurface contamination and hazardous building materials that may be encountered during demolition and construction activities. BMPs will be used during construction to prevent spills. Prior to construction, utilities within the project area will be identified by a professional utility -locating service. A health and safety plan will be prepared to document specific procedures to be followed if environmental health hazards are encountered. All refueling will be conducted away from surface waters. During construction, any spill of materials, such as diesel fuel and lubricating oil, will be cleaned up immediately. A debris- and sediment -containment boom will be deployed during boardwalk, seawall, and pile removal. Existing creosote -treated piles and timbers that are removed as part of the pile/bulkhead replacement will be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. FACT @ - 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing noise in the vicinity of the project site includes vehicular traffic from roadways (i.e., Admiral Way) and Port facilities, railroad traffic (within 300 feet of the project site), boatyard and boat launch/retrieval operations, marina boat operation, and Puget Sound vessel traffic, including the Washington State Ferries. No existing noise would affect the proposed project. 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. Construction will generate temporary, short-term increases in noise levels in areas adjacent to the project site. Construction will be completed in accordance with the City of Edmonds noise ordinance. Construction activities are expected to occur during daytime hours. If circumstances arise that require night work, the contractor will be required to adhere to all applicable City of Edmonds noise regulations, including obtaining a variance, if needed. Noise associated with the completed project would be limited to pedestrian use of the Portwalk. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 22 Packet Pg. 488 Attachm� Construction -industry BMPs will be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications, which may include fitting construction equipment engines with adequate mufflers, intake silencers, or engine enclosures and turning off construction equipment when not in use. Construction activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to occur during nighttime hours. 8. Land and Shoreline Use hf eM a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The project site is part of an existing marina operated by the Port of Edmonds. Onsite uses include the marina, Port Administration Building, Edmonds Yacht Club, Amies Restaurant, water -related businesses (e.g., whale watching, boat rental, upland boat and recreational vehicle storage, et al.), public access trail/walkway along the waterfront and between City of Edmonds parks, and associated parking. The Port Administration Building will be demolished to accommodate construction of the Central Plaza. Adjacent properties include Port commercial parcels, City of Edmonds parks (Olympic Beach Park, Marina Beach Park, and Edmonds Marsh), Admiral Way, BNSF Railway, a private commercial office building, and the Port's Harbor Square commercial development. The project parcel is used for marina -related commercial business (composed of water - dependent and water -related Port and private businesses) and public access to and enjoyment of Puget Sound. The proposed project will include demolition of the Port Administration Building, but will otherwise maintain onsite land use. The proposed project is compatible with land uses on the site and nearby parcels. A goal of the project is to improve public access and enjoyment of the waterfront, which may result in an increased patronage of Port, onsite, and nearby commercial businesses. The proposed project would not conflict with adjacent properties used for transportation (i.e., Admiral Way and BNSF Railway), because pedestrian and vehicle access are controlled by fencing and automated crossings. 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 been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The site is developed. It is located within the City of Edmonds urban growth area and is not known to have been used as working farm or forest land. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 22 Packet Pg. 489 normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Not applicable. There is no surrounding working farm or forest land. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures on the project site include the existing Port Administration Building, boardwalk and seawall, and a garbage/recycling bin enclosure. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The existing Port Administration Building and upper timber bulkhead and boardwalk structure, including timber piles, will be demolished and removed. The garbage/recycling bin enclosure will be demolished or moved to a different onsite location. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan map (revision date: August 9, 2018) identifies the site as a Master Plan Development within the Downtown Activity Center. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline Environment Designations are Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II. The City of Edmonds has indicated that the seawall is located on the boundary of the Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II shoreline environments, and the boardwalk extends over the ordinary high water mark into the Aquatic II environment. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The City of Edmonds identifies the site in Geologically Hazardous Areas (Seismic Hazard Areas), Frequently Flooded Areas (100-year floodplain), and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Puget Sound). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None, the project will not create residences or employment. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 22 Packet Pg. 490 Attachm� j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, the project will not result in displacements. The Port of Edmonds will have relocated to a new administration building prior to demolition of the existing building. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. The project will not result in displacements. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed project includes reconstruction of part of an existing Portwalk and is consistent with existing and projected land uses, including public access to and enjoyment of the water. The project is a component of the Port of Edmonds' Public Access Plan, which has been incorporated into the Port's Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None needed, as no agricultural or forest lands of long-term commercial significance occur in the project vicinity. 9. Housing hf eM a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The project will not provide housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The project will not eliminate housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics hf eM a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Proposed dock security gates will be 12 feet, 11.75 inches. The gates will be located at dock entrances and will consist of slatted aluminum. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 22 Packet Pg. 491 Attach m b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views would be obstructed by the proposed project. The project would enhance views of Puget Sound by consolidating the boardwalk's existing small bump -outs into one location overlooking the marina entrance between the breakwaters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project includes upgrades to public access and amenities that will also provide aesthetic improvements, including addition of plazas and upgrades to restrooms, landscaping, lighting, dock gates, and the boardwalk surface and railings. Other aesthetic improvements include the relocation of boardwalk utilities (e.g., electrical panels and dock cart storage) away from the shoreline to upland paved areas. 11. Light and Glare hf eM a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Pedestrian lighting for use at night will be provided on the landward side of the boardwalk and in the Central and Upper Plazas. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Pedestrian lighting will be directed down toward the Portwalk surface to limit spillover onto the water. The lighting will be on 12-foot masts and will be approved by the International Dark -Sky Association. Lighting is provided to increase safety to Portwalk users, and no light or glare from the project is anticipated to create a safety hazard or interfere with views. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no offsite sources of light or glare that would affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Pedestrian lighting will be directed down toward the Portwalk surface to limit spillover onto the water and will be approved by the International Dark -Sky Association. 12. Recreation hf eM a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The existing boardwalk provides the public with passive waterfront enjoyment (including walking and gathering) and recreational opportunities (access to the marina, boat launch/retrieval and maintenance, boat rental, and water -based tours, such as whale watching). The Portwalk provides access to the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 22 Packet Pg. 492 Attach m Edmonds Marine Walkway between Edmonds Marina Beach and Olympic Beach and to a public fishing pier to the north. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Temporary detours for Portwalk and marina users will be implemented during construction. No permanent displacement of recreational uses would occur as a result of the project. Temporary floating docks will be used during construction to maintain access to the Portwalk from the marina docks. The upgrades provided by the project are expected to enhance the recreational experience. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No long-term displacement of recreational uses would occur as a result of the project. Temporary detours for Portwalk and marina users will be used during construction. Temporary floating docks will be used during construction to maintain access to the Portwalk from the marina docks. The upgrades provided by the project will enhance the recreational experience. 13. Historic and cultural preservation hf eM 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. The project parcel includes the Port Administration Building, constructed in 1969 (52 years old), and Anthony's Homeport, constructed in 1965 (56 years old); however, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database does not identify any historical registered properties on or adjacent to the project site. 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. The DAHP WISAARD does not list any recorded cemeteries, publicly available Traditional Cultural Properties, or precontact archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project site. There are two recorded historic -era archaeological sites to the east of the project site. Site 45SN574 is located approximately 490 feet from the project site and consists of a historic debris concentration and structural remains. Site 45SN723 is located approximately 670 feet from the project site and consists of the remains of a shingle mill dry kiln. A cultural resources overview currently is being conducted to determine the precontact and historical land use of the project site and the cultural resources that may be encountered. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 22 Packet Pg. 493 Attach m 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. A cultural resources overview currently is being conducted to determine the precontact and historic land use of the project site and the cultural resources that may be encountered. Components of the overview will include communication with local tribes and review of DAHP WISAARD information, pertinent cultural and environmental datasets, and historical records. The Port of Edmonds Administration Building will be inventoried for potential listing on state and/or national registers. 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. Based on the results of the cultural resources overview, recommendations will be made to address cultural resources at the project site, if identified. If evidence is found that field investigations or archaeological monitoring are necessary to aid in the identification of cultural resources, a recommendation will be made for these efforts. If required by an agency with jurisdiction, an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) will be prepared and provided to the construction contractor. The IDP would outline procedures in case of an unanticipated discovery, notification protocol (including notifying the State Historical Preservation Officer [SHPO] and affected tribes if any archaeological, historic, or culturally significant items are discovered and the Snohomish County Medical Examiner, if any human remains are found), entities with the authority to temporarily stop construction, and procedures to evaluate and recover intact materials. 14. Transportation hf eM 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. The site is accessible from Admiral Way. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The project site is not served directly by public transit. Edmonds Station, serving Community Transit and Sound Transit, is located approximately 600 feet east of the north end of the project site. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 22 Packet Pg. 494 Attach m A net gain of five parking stalls will be provided as part of the completed project. A total of 30 parking stalls will be provided with 25 parking stalls removed. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposed project includes reconstruction of and upgrades to an existing public Portwalk. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Edmonds Station, which serves Sound Transit Sounder Rail (although temporarily suspended due to COVID-19), is located approximately 600 feet east of the north end of the project site. The Washington State Edmonds Ferry Terminal is located approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the project site. The project will not require use of these facilities. 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 nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The project is not anticipated to generate increased vehicular trips. 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. No, the project will not interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable, as no transportation impacts will occur. 15. Public Services hf eM a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project will not result in an increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None needed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 21 of 22 Packet Pg. 495 Attach m� 16. Utilities hf elpl a. Cir a utilities currently available at the site: QLectnci natural ga&* at 1rils eivv-i lep on�itar` ew>, septic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No new utilities will be provided as partofthe proposed project. Electricity is provided by the Snohomish County Public Utility District; water is provided by the City of Edmonds; and telephone services are provided by Comcast. C. Signature HELP The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: [�� A, Name of signee t n,\✓1 ��T 1%I/1-�ii+�PGw 4 u Position and Agency/Organization . �,�}ljaJe �j,J,.�71„/ ��`( �Ca�t•+eu S� Date Submitted: /6-R9- Ao SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 22 of 22 Packet Pg. 496 Attachm� PORT OF E D M 0 N D S 336 Admiral Way • Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 • (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425)774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org Port of Edmonds NOTICE OF SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Port of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate the approximately 900-foot section of waterfront boardwalk that starts near the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and extends north along the edge of the waterfront to Olympic Beach. Reconstruction of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk is necessary due to significant deterioration and to provide upgraded public access and amenities to the waterfront. PROJECT PROPONENT: Port of Edmonds DATE DNS ISSUED: October 25, 2021 PROJECT LOCATION: Located at 300-336 Admiral Way on Port of Edmonds property. Parcel #27032300401400. SEPA COMMENTS: SEPA comments are due by November 8, 2021. APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal no later than November 15, 2021 by 4:00 PM. SEPA MATERIALS: The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available for viewing at the Port of Edmonds Administration Office, located on the second floor, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA 98020. PORT CONTACT: Robert McChesney, Executive Director info@portofedmonds.org 425-774-0549 Packet Pg. 497 Attachm� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 9/3/2021 41k [*I10"01av a worl 300 ADMIRAL WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020-7230 Subject: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2021-0155) Site Address: 300 ADMIRAL WAY Dear Applicant/Owner, Please find the enclosed critical area determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted to the City of Edmonds Planning Division. The critical area determination for your property is "STUDY REQUIRED." Note that this determination is a site -specific determination and not a project -specific determination. If the critical area determination is "STUDY REQUIRED," additional critical areas information or critical areas specific studies may be required for development or alteration of your property depending on the location of the activity. "WAIVER" means no further critical area review is required for development or alteration of your property. If you have any questions regarding this critical area determination, please contact the planner on duty at 425.771.0220. Regards, KERNEN LIEN Planning Division Development Services Department Enc: Critical Area Determination Packet Pg. 498 Attach m CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Critical Area Determination (CRA2021-0155) Based on a review and inspection of the subject site, staff has determined that one or more critical areas are located on or near the site. Critical areas are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are protected in order to maintain their functions and values. Site Location 300 ADMIRAL WAY Tax Account Number 27032300401400 Property Owner EDMONDS PORT OF Applicant BOB MCCHESNEY Critical Area(s) Present ❑ Wetlands (ECDC 23.50): ❑X Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70): ❑X Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas: ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas: ❑X Seismic Hazard Areas: ❑X Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) ❑X Mapped Fish & Wildlife Habitat: ❑ Streams: Site Description The subject property is located on the west side of Admiral Way and the parcel boundaries extend out beyond the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound into the Port of Edmonds marina. The Puget Sound is a water of the state and is classified as a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area pursuant to Chapter 23.90 ECDC. The area is designated as having a "high" and "moderate to high" risk of liquefaction as mapped on the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and thus is considered a potential liquefaction hazard area pursuant to Chapter 23.80 ECDC. The subject property is also located within the 100 year flood plain according to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. What does this mean? The critical area regulations are only triggered when an alteration is proposed to a critical area or its buffer. However, once an alteration in or near critical area is proposed, critical area studies and City review and approval may be required. Packet Pg. 499 Attach m What is an 'Alteration'? According to Section 23.40.005 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing conditions of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading, filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. KERNEN LIEN Name, Title 9/3/2021 Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found at http.-Ilwww.codepublishing.com/W`A/Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions (ECDC 23.40) Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70) Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) Building permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ECDC 19.10) City of Edmonds GIS map tool with approximate location of critical areas: http://Mops.edmondswa.gov Page 12 Packet Pg. 500 Attach m� Legend ® Seismic Hazard Areas Flood Hazard Area Flood Hazard Area I1,- w.A I'. 'V�/j/' �/ 1zo/0011, OF rJ %/ •' I " 4.11 01. r10 VA 3. do �i 51 "•/' Critical Area Map CRA2021-0155 300 Admiral Way C E Scale w a 1 inch = 350 feet Packet Pg. 501 Attachm� 'tIF CITY OF EDMONDS M BuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1002927 - North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Bob McChesney Port of Edmonds Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 336 Admiral Way bmcchesney(@_portofedmonds.orq City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 425 774-0549 Contractor Company Name Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Phone Number Extension State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address Project Location Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number City Zip Code County Parcel Number Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location 27032300401400 Property Owner First Name Last Name or Company Name Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Certification Statement - The applicant states: certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 8/9/2021 Submitted By: Bob McChesney Packet Pg. 502 Page 1 of 2 Attachm� ,qIF CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1002927 - North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project Contact Company Name: Landau Associates Name: Steven Quarterman Email: squarterman@landauinc.com Address: 155 NE 100th Street 302 Phone #: 4253290321 Project Type New Seattle WA 98125 Activity Type Critical Areas Project North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Name: Scope of Work Critical Areas Review The north portwalk is approximately 900 ft long and extends from Arnies to the Port Administration building. It is currently wood framed with wood decking. The outboard side is supported by steel piles and the inboard side is supported by timber piles. An upper and lower Description seawall are supported by the piles. The portwalk, framing and decking will be replaced. The steel of Work: piles on the outboard side will be strengthened and the inboard timber piles will be removed. The lower seawall will remain in place and the upper seawall will be replaced with a sheet pile wall which will support the new portwalk. The completed project will include a new portwalk and handrails. The security gates for the floating docks will also be replaced. The electrical and plumbing systems under the portwalk will be replaced as part of the project. Project Details Critical Area Information Unknown Packet Pg. 503 Page 2 of 2 Attachm� Critical Areas File #: ❑ Initial Determination - $110 ❑ Subsequent Determination - $55 Date Received: Date Mailed to Applicant: The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Property Owner's Authorization #P20 City of Edmonds Y w Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov ` , gco A property owner, or an authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit, and make a determination of whether there are critical areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a "Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report addressing the applicable critical area requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required depending on the scope of the proposed activity. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge 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 attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, 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. SIGNATURE OF OWNER Owner: Port of Edmonds (Bob McChesney, Executive _ Name Director) 336 Admiral Way Street Address Edmonds WA Applican 4iio Steven Quarterman; Landau Associates Name 155 NE 100th Street, Suite 302 Street Address 98020 Seattle WA 98125 City State Zip Telephone: 425-774-0549 Email address: bmcchesney@portofedmonds.org City State Zip Telephone: 425-329-0321 Email Address: squarterman@landauinc.com Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 504 Attach m CA File No: #P20 Critical Areas Checklist Site Information 1. Site Address/Location: 300 Admiral Way 2. Property Tax Account Number: 27032300401400 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 14.22 ac 4. Is this site currently developed? K] Yes ❑ No If yes, how is the site developed? _Parking lots, boardwalk, marina, buildings (Port administration 5. Describe the general site topograp:'1y. Check all that apply. office, Amies, Yact Club IN Flat to Rolling: No slope on/ to the site or slopes generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). ❑ Moderate: Slopes present on/ to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet). ❑ Steep: Slopes of greater than 40% present on/ to site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 25-feet). 6. Have there been landslides on or near the site in the past? ❑ Yes No If yes, please describe: 7. Site contains areas of year-round standing water? XYes (approx. depth: _ Marina is in Puget Sound, water levels vary with tide. 8. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? ❑ Yes (approx. depth: ) X No If yes, what season(s) of the year? 9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? ❑ Floodway X Foodplain 10. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ❑ Yes X No If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? ❑ Year-round ❑ Seasonal (time of year: ) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site? ❑ Yes X No 1. 3. 13. 14. For City Staff Use Only Zoning: SCS mapped soil type(s): Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site: Site within designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)? Reviewed by: DETERMINATION CRITICAL AREAS PRESENT Date: WAIVER Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 505 Attachment 16 DAHP Project Number: 2021-11-08044 Author: Sonja Kleinschmidt and Jessica Gardner Title of Report: Cultural Resources Overview for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Date of Report: December 10, 2021 County(ies): Snohomish Section: 23 Township: 27 North Range: 03 East Quad: Edmonds West, WA Acres: approximately 1 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) 15� Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? M Yes I I No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes FI No TCP(s) found? n Yes FI No Replace a draft? n Yes FI No Satisfv a DAHP Archaeoloaical Excavation Permit reauirement? I-1 Yes # 17 No a r_ Were Human Remains Found? n Yes DAHP Case # No a DAHP Archaeological Site #: L • Submission of PDFs is required. r • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, L) graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. E r • Please check that the PDF displays a correctly when opened. Packet Pg. 506 Attachment 16 Cultural Resources Overview for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................1 1.0 Administrative Data...........................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Information....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Design........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Description....................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background Research........................................................................................................1 2.1 Overview...................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Environmental Context................................................................................................. 1 2.3 Paleoclimate and Vegetation........................................................................................ 3 2.4 Archaeological Context................................................................................................ 4 2.5 Native Peoples.............................................................................................................. 5 2.6 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century History.................................................................. 5 2.7 Historical Records Search............................................................................................ 7 2.8 Cultural Resources Database Review......................................................................... 12 3.0 Archaeological Expectations...........................................................................................15 3.1 Archaeological Predictive Models.............................................................................. 15 3.2 Archaeological Expectations...................................................................................... 16 4.0 Field Investigations..........................................................................................................17 5.0 Results and Recommendations.......................................................................................17 5.1 Cultural Resources Identified..................................................................................... 17 5.2 Historic Property Inventory and Evaluation............................................................... 17 5.2.1 Physical Descriptions.............................................................................................. 17 5.2.2 Evaluation of Significance...................................................................................... 21 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................... 23 6.0 Limitations of this Assessment........................................................................................ 23 7.0 References......................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A. Correspondence with Tribes............................................................................... 32 Appendix B. Historic Property Inventory Forms.................................................................... 37 Appendix C. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.......................................................................... 52 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page i Packet Pg. 507 Attachment 16 Executive Summary This report contains a cultural resources overview for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. On behalf of the Port of Edmonds, Landau Associates requested that a cultural resources assessment be completed ahead of proposed construction to replace approximately 1,000 linear feet (In. ft.) of seawall and walkway, and associated stormwater and other utilities in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Background and site photo -documentation identified two historic properties within the project location. These were identified as the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (DAHP Property # 726371) and North Portwalk (DAHP Property # 726372), which were built ca. 1969 as part of the construction of the northern marina at the Edmonds Boat Harbor, now known as the Port of Edmonds Marina. The Administration Building appears to be intact and is recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, as representative of the Port of Edmonds efforts to build a marina and develop the Edmonds shoreline, and B, for its use as the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and base of operations. It is also recommended eligible for listing on the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) at the local level for its high level of integrity and association with the development of Edmonds and its local government. The North Portwalk has been altered over the years and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP or WHR. We recommend consultation with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for concurrence on these recommendations and for advice concerning appropriate mitigation efforts to affected resources, if applicable. As currently defined, ground disturbing activities within the project location with the potential to expose buried sediments are expected to take place within the fill deposits and are not likely to exposed buried relict surfaces or deposits. 1.0 Administrative Data 1.1 Project Information Report Title: Cultural Resources Overview for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Author: Sonja Kleinschmidt and Jessica Gardner Report Date: December 10, 2021 Location: The proposed project is located at 300 - 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Legal Description: The proposed project is located in the SW'/4 of Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 03 East, W.M. USGS 7.5' Topog_raphic Maw Edmonds West, WA Total Area Involved: The project encompasses approximately 1 acre. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 1 Packet Pg. 508 Attachment 16 Regulatory Nexus: Section 106 of the NHPA and SEPA. 1.2 Research Design This cultural resources assessment was completed as a component of environmental review for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project. It sought to prevent adverse impacts to cultural resources during ground disturbing activities by evaluating whether archaeological sites or historic structures exist within the boundaries of the project. CRC's work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the identification and protection of cultural resources. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from DAHP; the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves; and the Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves Act (RCW 68.60) calls for the protection and preservation of historic era cemeteries and graves. This assessment was also completed in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and SEPA. Under Section 106, agencies involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the undertaking' s potential effects to historic properties within the defined area of potential effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.16(1)(1)). Historic properties are typically defined as those 50 years or older This process involves identifying and inventorying historic properties within the APE and evaluating those properties to determine if they are eligible for listing on the NRHP. If NRHP eligible historic properties are identified within the APE then potential adverse effects to the historic properties must be assessed, and a resolution of adverse effects recommended. SEPA provides a way to identify possible environmental impacts that may result from governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies or plans. Information provided during the SEPA review process helps agency decision -makers, applicants, and the public understand how a proposal will affect the environment. This information can be used to change a proposal to reduce likely impacts, or to condition or deny a proposal when adverse environmental impacts are identified. CRC's investigation consisted of (1) review of project information and correspondence provided by the project proponent; (2) examination of local archival, environmental, and archaeological datasets; and (3) field investigation to identify unrecorded archaeological sites and historic structures at the project location. On July 16, 2021, CRC contacted cultural resources staff at the Stillaguamish Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes on a technical staff to technical staff basis to inquire about project -related information or concerns (Appendix A). On July 16, 2021, a representative from the Stillaguamish Tribe responded that they did not have any additional information regarding the project. On July 20, 2021, a representative from the Suquamish responded that the project area is within the adjudicated Usual & Accustomed fishing grounds and stations (U&A) of the Suquamish Tribe. Suquamish People camped on the sand spit fronting the Edmonds Marsh to fish, hunt, harvest shellfish, and collect plant resources in the marsh, such as cattails for fabricating mats. Oral histories document Suquamish seasonal use from the pre - contact period through the early 1900s. Tribal correspondence was not intended to be or replace formal government -to -government consultation. Any responses subsequent to the submission of this report will be included in a revision of this report. This assessment considered the results of previous cultural resources studies completed in the Edmonds area, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 2 Packet Pg. 509 Attachment 16 nature and location of historic properties at the project location, as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4 (b)(1)) (DAHP 2020). 1.3 Project Description The Port of Edmonds proposes to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (i.e., North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and to repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach. Repair and renovation of the approximately 13- foot-wide boardwalk and underlying seawall are necessary due to significant deterioration; the boardwalk was constructed in the 1960s. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas, Upper Plaza and Central Plaza, also will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. The Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnies Restaurant, and the Central Plaza, including new restrooms, will be added in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (to be demolished). The existing boardwalk is a treated -wood structure, supported by piling, that projects over the water from an asphalt walkway along the shoreline. The deck consists of continuous, parallel, treated -wood planks. The boardwalk extending north of the marina N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 feet (ft) apart, and along the west (waterward) side by pairs of steel piles, one vertical and one battered, spaced 16 ft apart. Tiebacks embedded behind the marina's seawall terminate at the timber seawall. The boardwalk south of N dock is supported along the east (upland) side by a concrete bulkhead and along the west (waterward) side by timber piles. North of N dock, a two -tiered seawall forms the marina basin along its east side, where the boardwalk abuts the upland pavement. The lower tier is a (subtidal) concrete bulkhead that forms the toe of the marina basin's east side. Behind the concrete bulkhead is an earthen slope with a rock -armored surface. The upper tier is a vertical timber bulkhead. The bulkhead and the timber piles along the landward edge of the boardwalk retain the shoreline above the armored slope. The steel piles that support the west side of the boardwalk will be repaired in -place with pipe sleeves. The timber piles that support the east side of the boardwalk (north and south of N dock) and the timber bulkhead will be replaced. The upper (timber) section of seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall, whereas the lower (concrete) section of seawall and the filled slope between the sections will remain unchanged along with the existing concrete bulkhead south of N dock. The bulkhead timber piles will be cut at grade, and the new sheet pile wall will be installed landward. The existing piles cannot be completely removed, because they are connected below grade to an original lower timber bulkhead that is buried behind the current concrete bulkhead. The timber boardwalk will be replaced within the same footprint but elevated 6 inches to create better pedestrian separation from the adjacent drive/fire lane and to improve pedestrian and boater accessibility. The new walkway will have steel framing and a deck of concrete panels inset with clear glass blocks. The replacement structure will have new aluminum railings and way -finding signage. The marina's existing electrical utility panels and dock cart storage will be relocated from the over -water side of the new walk to the opposite side, over -land. Marina gates CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 3 Packet Pg. 510 Attachment 16 to the gangways will be replaced in the same locations but aligned with the new walkway railings. The five existing boardwalk "viewing" bump -outs will be consolidated in a single area to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. The asphalt pavement abutting the boardwalk will be replaced with concrete on the same level as the elevated walkway, and the adjacent parking lot will be resurfaced. For the purposes of this report, the APE for cultural resources (hereafter, "the project location") is understood to be the area described above and depicted in Figures 1 — 3. P.....n S.-d Sir "wo, CIt" Figure 1. Topographic map of the project location. Hi GCF We (anlY Oa - - - S[ANONIfN 1 i� ti CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 4 k" O CL O N O V L O U) d L r.+ r C d E t V R a� a+ Q Packet Pg. 511 Attachment 16 Figure 2. Satellite imagery annotated with the project location in red. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 5 Packet Pg. 512 Attachment 16 Figure 3. Portwalk & Site Improvements Site Plan, provided by Landau Associates. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 1 Q Packet Pg. 513 Attachment 16 2.0 Background Research 2.1 Overview Background research was conducted in October and November 2021. Recorded Cultural Resources Present: Yes [ ] No [x] According to the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD), no archaeological sites or historic structures (i.e. more than 50 years old) have been recorded within or adjacent to the project location (DAHP 2021). Site 45SN574, a historic debris scatter, has been recorded within 500 feet of the project location. Context Overview: The following context overview summarizes environmental, historical, and archaeological information contained in local cultural resource reports; archaeological and historical data from DAHP and WISAARD; ethnographic resources; geological and soils surveys; historical maps and documents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) United States Surveyor General Land Status & Cadastral Survey Records database; HistoryLink; Historic Map Works; HistoricAerials; University of Washington's Digital Collection; Washington State University's Early Washington Maps Collection; and CRC's library. This report's discussion of geology, archaeology, and history incorporates context information from CRC's previous work in Edmonds (e.g., Berger 2014; Kassa 2018). In this and subsequent sections, radiocarbon dates and age ranges based on those dates are presented in calibrated calendrical years ago (cal BP). This notation indicates that the radiocarbon date has been corrected using current methodologies. Other age estimates are given as years BP (before present). 2.2 Environmental Context Overview: The project is located on the eastern shoreline of Puget Sound within the City of Edmonds, directly south of Olympic Beach, and immediately east of the Port of Edmonds marina. Public restrooms and a commercial building are located at the north end of the project and connected to the Port administration office at the south end of the project by the portwalk. Paved parking lots are located along the upland side of the existing portwalk. In the project vicinity, creeks drain from the uplands into Puget Sound. Those in proximity to the project include Shell Creek (northeast) and Shelleberger Creek (southwest), located between approximately 0.99 and 0.18 mile from the project, respectively. The project is within the Edmonds Bowl, historically a marshland prior to historic -era filling, which has left only a segment of the marsh undeveloped. Project topography is generally level. Elevation ranges from 12 to 13 ft above sea level. Geomorphology The landscape of northwest Washington is a product of crustal deformation initiated by the Cascadia subduction zone; successive glacial scouring and deposition most recently during the Pleistocene; and landslides, erosion and deposition, and human activity during the Holocene (Troost and Booth 2008). The project is within the Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock) vegetation zone in the Willamette -Puget Lowland physiographic province characterized by the wide "trough" between the Coast and Cascade Ranges formed during the advance and retreat of Pleistocene epoch glaciers (Franklin and Dyrness 1973; McKee 1972). During the Late Pleistocene or last glacial period (I 10,000 to 12,000 years BP), the Cordilleran CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 1 Packet Pg. 514 Attachment 16 ice sheet covered much of the American northwest and scoured the landscape during advance and retreat episodes initiated by localized climate fluctuations. The most recent glaciation was the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation during which the Puget Lobe entered northwest Washington around 17,000 years BP (Thorson 1980). This final episode scoured the landscape producing moraine features and topographic lows prior to its recession. The Puget Lobe reached the vicinity of present-day Seattle by about 14,500 years BP achieving its maximum extent, approximately 10 to 15 miles south of Olympia, by 14,000 years BP (Booth et al. 2003; Franklin and Dyrness 1973). The onset of climatic warming caused the ice sheets to retreat to the north and began the transition into the Holocene. The Puget Lobe retreated past Seattle by 13,600 years BP (Booth et al. 2003). As the glacier receded during this more temperate period, meltwater became impounded behind the ice forming a series of proglacial lakes that eventually merged into Lake Russell, which extended roughly from the southern margin of present day Whidbey Island to Olympia impounding low lying sections of the Puget Sound and adjacent river valleys (Bretz 1913; Waitt and Thorson 1983). Streams and valleys in the area are relict recessional channels that, at the end of the Pleistocene, were spillways that allowed meltwaters to drain southwest from glacial Lake Puyallup into glacial Lake Russell, the main proglacial lake along the axis of the Puget Lowland (Thorson 1980). While sedimentation during glacial periods was widespread and voluminous, active deposition during the mid -to late Holocene was more restricted, occurring in bottoms of river valleys and at the base of steep slopes (Booth et al. 2003). Geomorphic processes such as isostatic rebound, global sea level rise, tidal movements, and a large earthquake 1,100 years ago originating from the Seattle fault zone (located south of the project) causing localized subsidence north of the fault (Bucknam et al. 1992) are also factors that have affected the geography of the Puget Sound region to varying degrees during the Holocene (Booth et al. 2003; Thorson 1989). Naturally occurring deposition within the project during the Holocene has likely been related to estuary/lagoon development. The historical location of the project along the shoreline indicates that coastal processes have also shaped the project vicinity. Coastal evolution is dynamic and may not afford a stable environment in which archaeology is preserved. The dynamic processes acting on coastal beach environments can include a range of erosional (e.g., cliff slumping) and depositional forces (e.g., stream delta development) that rework the shoreline over time. Historically, the landscape of the project and surrounding area was much different than the contemporary landscape. Coastal landforms that are now buried in the project vicinity include creeks, a lagoon, sand spits, and a wetland and associated tidal channels, considered a small estuary complex, that encompass all or portions of the project location on historic maps (USCGS 1872; USGS 1860). Human land use over the past 150 years has altered the project location to varying degrees through land clearing, cut and fill episodes, and residential and commercial development and demolition. Mapped Surface Geologic Units: The project is within the mapped surface geologic unit of Modified land (ml) (Smith 1975). This unit is described as having the original topography disturbed through the removal of the Pleistocene deposits and subsequently graded and artificially filled with unknown material. According to Landau Associates (2021:2-1), "Sediments, locally referred to as the Whidbey Formation, likely underlie the near -surface fill deposits. The Whidbey Formation consists of dense, bedded, medium- to coarse -grained sand, with layers up to 160 ft thick reported in the vicinity of the site (Minard 1983). This unit crops CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 2 Packet Pg. 515 Attachment 16 out in areas along the lower bluffs of Puget Sound." Whidbey Formation deposits represent interglacial sediments which pre -date the Frasier Glaciation (Minard 1983). Mapped Soil Units: Soils mapped in the project location consist of Urban Land (USDA NRCS 2021). Geotechnical Investigations: A draft geotechnical report was completed for the project in October 2021 by Landau Associates. Investigations consisted of two hollow -stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2) advanced approximately 41.5 ft below ground surface (bgs). Results were summarized as follows, Soil conditions in boring B-1 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 25 ft of loose to medium dense fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. The deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). LAI interpreted the deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. Soil conditions in boring B-2 consisted of asphalt pavement underlain by approximately 15 ft of very loose to loose fill. The fill consisted of sand with little silt content. Medium dense to dense sand deposits with variable silt content were observed beneath the fill. The deposits extended to the maximum depth explored (41.5 ft bgs). LAI interpreted the deposits to be part of the Whidbey Formation. (Landau Associates 2021:2- 2) 2.3 Paleoclimate and Vegetation The paleoclimate of the Pacific Northwest during the late Pleistocene and Holocene is defined by four periods, which exhibit general trends based on variations in temperature and moisture (Kopperl et al. 2016:37-38). • 17,000 to 13,000 cal BP: the region was much cooler and drier compared to the present. • 13,000 to 7000 cal BP: the retreat of glacial ice and increased solar radiation led to higher temperatures, less precipitation, colder winters, and more severe summer droughts compared to the present. • 7000 to 5000 cal BP: cooler, moister conditions returned to the region, with temperature ranges similar to the present. The current maritime climate regime of the Puget Sound region was fully established by the end of this period. • 5000 cal BP to present: climatic conditions have undergone short-term fluctuations such as the Little Ice Age (500 to 100 cal BP) and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1100 to 700 cal BP). Regional fluctuations in temperature and moisture have supported different plant communities through time. Following glacial recession and meltwater subsidence, landforms stabilized, and vegetation began to return. Newly exposed soils were first colonized by lodgepole pine, Sitka spruce, and western hemlock. As temperatures rose between 12,000 and 10,000 cal BP, trees advanced to higher elevations while lowland forests became dominated by Douglas fir, red alder, and bracken fern. These patterns continued into the early and middle Holocene. Present-day vegetation communities emerged after 6000 cal BP. Western red cedar and western hemlock became important components of mid -low elevation forests while Alaska cedar, mountain hemlock, and silver fir emerged at cooler, moister higher elevations. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 3 Packet Pg. 516 Attachment 16 Today, the project location is situated within the Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) vegetation zone, which stretches along the Washington and Oregon coasts. The zone's wet, mild climate supports diverse plant taxa and is responsible for some of the richest soils in the region. Vegetation communities consist of Sitka spruce, western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata), with shore pine also present along the shorelines. In forest understories, dense growths of sword fern, redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregana), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), and Siberian miner's -lettuce (Claytonia sibirica) are common. Salal, Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), and evergreen huckleberry dominate sand dunes and steep, ocean -facing slopes (Franklin and Dymess 1973:59-60). 2.4 Archaeological Context Overview: Thousands of years of human occupation of the Puget Sound have been summarized in a number of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical investigations over the past several decades that provide a regional context for evaluating the project (e.g., Greengo 1983; Kopperl 2016; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Morgan 1999; Nelson 1990). Archaeological evidence suggests the presence of nomadic hunter -gatherers not long after glaciers retreated and catastrophic meltwaters subsided after which landforms stabilized during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene. The archaeological record provides evidence supporting human presence on the landscape in Western Washington by approximately 14,000 cal BP (Ames and Maschner 1999; Burtchard 1998; Schalk 1988). Evidence of early human occupation in once glaciated areas is found atop intact glacial sediments, which provide a stratigraphic lower limit for human occupation in these areas. Following deglaciation, subsequent changes to landforms, climate, and vegetation influenced the available resources and, consequently, the spatial distribution of human activities. Similar to elsewhere, human land use was generally structured around the value of natural resources available in local environments including fresh water, terrestrial and marine food resources, forests, and suitable terrain. Archaeological Chronolo i�quence: Kopperl et al. (2016) reviewed cultural historical sequences (Blukis Onat 1987; Burtchard 1998; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Thompson 1978; Schalk 1988) produced for the Western Washington region. Review of this data identified consistencies in dates that demarcated likely changes in human land use. This information was coupled with geological and paleobotanical data and resulted in the distinction of five periods where hunter -gatherer land use appears to have changed and as an extension, manifestations in the archaeological record. These periods are compiled from Kopperl et al. (2016:95). 14,000 cal BP to 12,000 cal BP was characterized by relative postglacial environmental stability in Western Washington and colonization of Western Washington by hunter- gatherers after the retreat of the Pleistocene continental glaciers. 12,000 cal BP to 8000 cal BP represents a period of postglacial environmental change in Western Washington. This period is characterized by land use strategies adapted to local environments as well as localized shifts in regional climate and vegetation patterns. 8000 cal BP to 5000 cal BP was characterized by a change from a warm, dry climate to a cool, moist climate. Archaeologists have proposed important reorganization of hunter -gatherer subsistence and technology within this analytic time period. 5000 cal BP to 2500 cal BP was characterized by the development of old growth Douglas- fir and western hemlock forests in the Puget Lowland. Shell middens first appear in the archaeological record of Puget CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 4 Packet Pg. 517 Attachment 16 Sound. Archaeologists have generally inferred shifts in hunter -gatherer economic and technological organization during this period. 2500 cal BP and 200 years ago was characterized by developments in hunter -gatherer economic and social patterns culminating in Euro-American contact. The archaeological record for this portion of the Puget Sound shows an increase in the number of shell midden sites after 2500 cal BP, adaptations to localized environmental changes caused by the 1100 cal BP earthquake on the Seattle Fault, and changes in economic and social organization as a result of Euro-American contact. 2.5 Native Peoples Traditional Territory: As previously discussed by Kelly (2013:4), the project is located within lands traditionally used by the Suquamish tribe, a Southern Lushootseed-speaking southern Coast Salish group whose territory centered on Kitsap Peninsula, Bainbridge Island, and Whidbey Island, with fishing, gathering, and other traditional use areas also including marine waters and coastal areas of Puget Sound (Lane 1975a, 1975b; Ruby and Brown 1992:226; Smith 1940; Spier 1936:34; Suttles and Lane 1990:Figure 1). Precontact settlements were often located on major waterways, heads of bays, or inlets, and people practiced a seasonal subsistence economy that included hunting, fishing, and plant food horticulture. In the winter, people lived at large permanent village settlements and they spent the summer hunting, fishing, and gathering at specialized, temporary camps located near food resources. There was an abundance of plant and animal resources available in estuarine and marine environments in the region. A combination of fish, shellfish, marine mammals, waterfowl, game, roots, and berries served as a rich, diverse, and relatively reliable resource base (Suttles and Lane 1990:489). Place Names: Late nineteenth and early twentieth century ethnographers worked with local informants to document the names and locations of villages, resource areas, bodies of water, and other cultural or geographic knowledge. These features contribute to the broader archaeological context of the project and the nature of deposits that may be encountered during this assessment. They also speak to the importance of places on this landscape to Native American peoples, historical and contemporary. Named places and village sites tended to be located along major waterways, river confluences, and/or the mouths of streams and creeks. One ethnographically recorded place name is associated with Point Edwards, Stuubus, translated as "like a man; face of a man" (Waterman 2001:55). A small creek just north of Edmonds was called S3baL, "a person undergoing the ministrations of a shaman; a patient" (Waterman 2001:55). Toponyms were also recorded for landforms on the shoreline north and south of Edmonds (Waterman 2001:Map 5.1). 2.6 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century History Spanish explorers first visited the Northwest Coast in 1774 followed by British Royal Navy Captain George Vancouver and Lieutenant Peter Puget, who first explored the Puget Sound area, in 1792 (Marino 1990) followed by the Wilkes Expedition in the early 1840s who named Point Edmunds southwest of the project. By 1833, the Hudson's Bay Company established a presence in the Puget Sound region and stimulated development and economic intrigue in the region. After the United States government gained full control of the Puget Sound region in 1846, many settlers claimed land under the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 which promoted homestead settlement in the Oregon Territory allowing individuals to claim 320 acres of land and married couples to claim 640 acres with the provision that they would cultivate the land for four consecutive years. This in addition to the enactment of the Homestead Act of 1862, which CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 5 Packet Pg. 518 Attachment 16 afforded United States citizens the opportunity to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land, helped hasten the settlement of the American west and the Puget Sound region. The Washington Territory was organized in 1853 with Isaac I. Stevens appointed as the governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs (Marino 1990). By the mid- 1850s, Euro-American settlement in the region had drastically affected Native American people and their traditions. The United States government and local Tribal groups entered into a series of treaties, including the Point Elliot Treaty signed at Mukilteo on January 22, 1855. These treaties stated that signatory Tribes would cede their traditional lands to the United States government and settle within designated reservations. Signatory Tribes would retain rights of resource gathering in their usual and accustomed territory. The Suquamish, the Tulalip, and many other neighboring tribes were forced to abandon most of their Northern Puget Sound villages and relocate to reservations. The relocation of Native American peoples to reservations opened wide swaths of land for Euro- American settlement throughout the region. As previously discussed by Berger (2014), the logging industry was attracted to the area by the great timber potential offered by coastal forests of cedar (Whitfield 1926). Euro-American settlement in the Edmonds area began in the 1860s but remained sparse until the 1880s. In 1870, George Brackett (b.1842—d.1927) is said to have landed his boat during a storm on the sandy beach currently known as Brackett's Landing Park (LeWarne 2008; Warner 1969). Brackett was in the logging industry and in search of timber. The location was favorable to him and in 1876, Brackett and his wife Etta purchased 140 acres of land, stretching 0.5 mile along the beach, in what would become Edmonds, from Pleasant Ewell who had received the original serial patent for the land (LeWarne 2008). Over the years Brackett acquired additional land and in 1884, the Bracketts platted the town of Edmonds (LeWarne 2008). The township plat reserved water rights, and land for a public park and for a sawmill (Warner 1969). Brackett later donated land for a public school. Brackett named Edmonds in the same year when he applied for a post office for the town (Warner 1969). Early commercial and industrial developments were located on the waterfront, and included a store, a sawmill, and a wharf (LeWarne 2008). In 1889, Brackett built a sawmill initiating the local manufacture of lumber and shingles. Though a fire subsequently destroyed Brackett's mill, he continued to cultivate the community of Edmonds. In 1890, he was elected as the first mayor and supported the development of the community's infrastructure, publicly and privately, pushing for both a railroad and later a car ferry service. Allen M. Yost and his sons arrived in Edmonds in 1890 and saw opportunity in the growing town expanding their vocation from carpentry and milling to commercial infrastructure, a water system, a telephone company, a bus system, and automobile sales (LeWarne 2008). In 1891, the Great Northern Railroad laid railroad tracks to Edmonds providing a connection to other Puget Sound communities (Cameron 2005:106-108). While other economic ventures came and went in Edmonds, the string of mills along its shoreline remained the economic backbone of the community until the 1950s when local timber was exhausted (LeWarne 2008). Since the 1950s, Edmonds has followed the trajectory of many other small towns in proximity to larger cities, such as Seattle and Everett, ultimately serving as a bedroom community to those employed outside of its city limits while working to preserve the small town feel of the city center. The history of port development in Edmonds has been compiled by the Port of Edmonds (2009, 2021) and is summarized here. The early 201 century waterfront development was guided by CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 6 Packet Pg. 519 Attachment 16 lumber and shingle mills until 1951 when the last mill closed. As the mills closed, the waterfront attracted new interests, such as marine suppliers, animal feed distributors, and concrete and soap manufacturers who opened buildings along the shoreline. In 1945, the Edmonds Harbor and Breakwater Improvement Club formed with the intention to lobby for a breakwater on the shoreline, going as far as testifying to Congress over storm damages, requesting a survey of the shoreline, and creating petitions for the creation of moorage in the harbor. They were joined in this by the Edmonds Port Association, formed by a group of business representatives in 1947 to lobby for improved roads and a breakwater. It was decided the next, most effective step would be the formation of a governing port authority, and the concept was put to a vote. The Port of Edmonds district was approved in 1948, allowing the Port to acquire lands from private and public entities. The Port built a park on the shoreline shortly after forming, followed by a new ferry dock in 1951, to be used by the state on a sixteen -year lease. Following the lengthy process of acquiring the land, the planned breakwater and marina of the Edmonds Boat Harbor was begun in 1961, north of Edward's Point. This marina constitutes the south marina of what is now known as the Port of Edmonds Marina. The marina expanded to the north in 1969, and a new administrative building was built on the shared landscape. Since forming, the Port district has expanded its services and properties, building business complexes, storage facilities, and public parks and facilities. 2.7 Historical Records Search Review of historical maps and aerial imagery provided an understanding of the historic and modern land use, and ownership of the project. The General Land Office (GLO) conducted early cadastral surveys to define or re-establish the boundaries and subdivisions of Federal Lands of the United States so that land patents could be issued transferring the title of the land from the Federal government to individuals. These maps and land serial patent records provide information on land ownership in the 1800s. The GLO produced a map of Township 27 North, Range 03 East, including the project location, in 1860 (Figure 4; USSG 1860). This map depicted the project as overlapping with the mouth of Shelleberger Creek which historically flowed from the uplands before entering a long estuary and emptying north of its present-day outlet. No cultural features or annotations are noted on the map in the project vicinity. In 1872, a coast and geodetic map depicted this estuary as the shoreline of a marshland or estuary, bound to the southwest by a spit (Figure 5; USCGS 1872). The project location was depicted as within and just waterward of these marsh or estuary lands. Point Edmund, later recorded as Edwards Point, is located to the southwest (USGS 1897). The project is identified as within Tract 3 (52.50 acres) of Section 23 (USSG 1860). According to records on file at the Bureau of Land Management (2021), Tract 3 was patented to William H. Hamlin on January 20, 1882 (Authority: April 24, 1820: Sale -Cash Entry (3 Stat. 566); Document Nr: 5766; BLM Serial Nr: WAOAA 076461). By 1897, Edmonds had been platted to the northeast of the project location and was under development (Figure 6; USGS 1897). The town was connected to the Great Northern Railroad which ran along the coastline and just east of the project. A narrow bay was located to the south of the project, and several buildings were noted in the vicinity. The following year, a land classification sheet of western Washington depicted the project location as along the shoreline of an "area from which timber has been cut" (USGS 1898). Historic records such as historic topographic maps, county atlases, fire insurance maps, and aerials help provide a continuous representation of land use and ownership during the 1900s and 2000s (Historic Mapworks 2021; ProQuest 2021; NETR 2021; NGMDB 2021). Ownership and operation data was provided in the 1909 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and 1910 Snohomish CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 7 Packet Pg. 520 Attachment 16 County Atlas (Anderson 1910; Sanborn 1909). At the time, the A. M. Yost & Son's sawmill was located within the northern vicinity of the project location, with the southern vicinity of the project occupied by the Washington Excelsior & Manufacturing Company. The two were reached by a wagon road or street running southwest from the Dayton St crossing over the Great Northern Railroad tracks and were supplied water by a 6-inch wooden pipe running along the wagon road. The A. M. Yost & Son's sawmill was described as a saw mill complex near the shore with a steam dry kiln, several outbuildings, and lumber storage areas connected by planked walkways and work areas. The Washington Excelsior and Manufacturing Company operated a complex at the head of the narrow bay east of the saltwater marsh, with a drag saw, box factory using veneer, an excelsior factory, and storage sheds. The drag saw and box factory were located over the water and fed with logs taken from the harbor. Both facilities were powered by steam created from city water and burned refuse. By 1926, A. M. Yost & Sons had transitioned to a lumber yard with two large lumber warehouses located at the west corner of the established Yost Admiral Way and Dayton Rd intersection (Sanborn 1926). The buildings were noted as supported by wood posts which had been reinforced with concrete. No further changes were noted on the A. M. Yost & Son's property in 1932 (Sanborn 1926-1932). Development to the southwest of the project was noted as a domestic residence owned by J. F. Lavarne by 1926, with a vacant and dilapidated building on pilings extending from the shoreline (Sanborn 1926). The map indicated that several large buildings on the property were also vacant and remained vacant through 1932 (Sanborn 1926- 1932). Noted changes in 1932 included the addition or movement of two domestic structures and the conversion of the vacant building on pilings into an active boat house and wharf. The project location itself was depicted along the undulating shoreline boundary, extending into the tidelands in line with the Yost complex to the north. By 1936, the project vicinity had been further divided (Metsker 1936). The north end of the project was still operated under A. M. Yost; however, the remaining two thirds of the project were held in two lots by owners whose names were illegible in the available atlas. Topographic maps produced in 1942 and 1953 depicted the project vicinity as extensively developed with a mix of clustered small structures and large independent buildings (Figure 7; USGS 1942, 1953a). The shoreline also appeared to have extended to the northwest, possibly through Ell activities. Historic aerial imagery from this period suggests the small structures were residential buildings with beach front access and individual driveways. The large structures were likely industrial buildings, warehouses, or boat houses and typically maintained their own wharfs. As noted in the Historic Context, the Edmonds Boat Harbor was started in the 1960s and the southern portion appeared by 1968 when aerial images were used to revise topographic maps (Figure 8; USGS 1953b). By this time, many of the larger buildings had been removed from the project vicinity, with only a cluster of residential structures still present (USGS 1953b; NETR 2021). The project location was characterized by many of its modern features by 1980, with the northern marina and administrative building completed between the 1969 and 1980 historic aerial imagery (NETR 2021). The central marina and northern commercial building were added by 1990. While maintenance and improvements were completed on the marina, few changes were notable in the project location, with the exception of the view decks which were first notable in imagery produced in 2005 (Google 2021; NETR 2021). CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 8 Packet Pg. 521 Attachment 16 Figure 4. Portion of USSG 1860 cadastral survey of Township 27 North, Range 03 East, annotated with the project location in red. t-0 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 9 Packet Pg. 522 Attachment 16 +� �.. ' ,•� r.;i`�,� 5 : is W +GY' PU ter / .. Aas t r•. lti..iA•. ---- -- �'� -- sR• c' ,'•v, --T Figure 5. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey annotated with the project location in red (USC t • 4 r a Its �J 1 T ` Figure 6. Portion of USGS 1897 Snohomish Quadrangle, WA topographic map, annotated with proj location in red. 2). k" O CL N O V L O U) d L 0 w� W E s V M Q CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 10 Packet Pg. 523 Attachment 16 to OW ~ . 8 M 1 5 T�4 ¢ 23� Figure 7. Portion of USGS 1942 Edmonds West Quadrangle, WA topographic map, annotated with project location in red. k" Figure 8. Portion of USGS 1969 edition of the 1953 Edmonds West Quadrangle, WA topographic map, annotated with project location in red. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 11 Packet Pg. 524 Attachment 16 2.8 Cultural Resources Database Review WISAARD: A review of the WISAARD database identified cultural resource studies, precontact and postcontact archaeological sites, and historic properties in the vicinity of the project. This information provides details about the nature and likelihood of cultural resources at the project location (DAHP 2021). Nine cultural resource investigations have been completed within an approximately one -mile radius of the proposed project location (Table 1). Assessment methods have included pedestrian surveys, documentation of historic structures, subsurface testing, and monitoring of construction excavations. None of these investigations have identified any cultural resources that would be affected by the current project. Table 1. Prior cultural resource surveys within approximately one mile from the project location. Author Date Title Results Cox and Bard 1996 Draft The Unocal Edmonds Bulk Conducted background research and field documentation to Fuel Terminal A Determination evaluate the former fuel terminal for NRHP eligibility. The of National Register Eligibility site was considered representative of historical trends but was recommended not eligible because it did not play a significant role, nor did it retain integrity adequate to convey any historical significance. Boyle 2004 A Historic Survey of Downtown Presented an historical overview of the City of Edmonds Edmonds and inventoried 83 historic buildings in the City of Edmonds. No historic sites were inventoried in the current project. The nearest inventoried property was the Railroad Station at 201 Railroad Avenue. Juell 2006 Archaeological Site Assessment Survey identified many areas of thick fill deposits, ballast, of Sound Transit's Sounder: and steep side slopes; no further work recommended in Everett -to -Seattle Commuter these areas. Subsurface testing and/or monitoring of trench Rail System, King and excavation were recommended in select locations where Snohomish Counties, construction would reach native soils. Washington Bush and 2010 Archaeological Investigation Background research and subsurface testing were conducted Rowland Report: City of Edmonds Pump within the project location. No as -yet unrecorded cultural Station NO. 2 Replacement, resources were identified. An inadvertent discovery protocol Snohomish County, Washington was provided, and it was recommended the project proceed as planned. Rinck 2010 Archaeological Investigations at Background research and subsurface testing were conducted the Edmonds Commuter Rail to determine whether archaeological deposits would be Station affected by improvements to the rail station. Fill was present to a mean depth of 5.4 ft. Historic -era (ca. 1900-1957) archaeological material was found in a discrete layer in three test pits and later recorded as site 45SN574. Further testing was recommended to evaluate this deposit for potential NRHP eligibility. Shantry et al. 2011 Archaeological Monitoring and Background research and archaeological sampling were Testing at the Edmonds conducted to evaluate site 45SN574 for NRHP eligibility. Commuter Rail Station, Sediment samples were collected from a trench excavated to Snohomish County, Washington accommodate new stormwater facilities. The density of artifacts in the vicinity of the foreman's house was considered to have potential for providing significant information about its occupants' work and domestic lives. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 12 Packet Pg. 525 Attachment 16 Author Date Title Berger 2014 Cultural Resources Assessment, Willow Creek Daylighting Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA Kassa- 2018a Cultural Resources Assessment Kleinschmidt for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Kassa- 2018b Addendum for the Cultural Kleinschmidt Resources Assessment for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Berger 2019a Archaeological Monitoring of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA Durkin 2020 Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Project, City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA Results Background research and archaeological monitoring were conducted for the proposed creek daylighting. All recorded sites were located outside of the proposed project. No further work was recommended for the Stormwater Outfalls and Berm Survey, Marsh Channel Survey, or Daylight Channel Survey areas. Archaeological monitoring of ground -disturbing work that may intersect native sediments was recommended in the portion of the Park Survey area situated on a former spit. Background research was performed to identify any potential impacts of the proposed or alternative project to offer a railroad crossing between the waterfront and downtown Edmonds. The project was located within register -listed Brackett's Landing and included four unrecorded historic structures. While no adverse effects were anticipated, additional investigations, evaluations, and monitoring activities were recommended once project designs were chosen. This report covered archaeological monitoring associated with geotechnical investigations for the above project. Testing locations were placed along the shoreline with a focus on proposed project activities near Brackett's Landing North. Archaeological monitoring did not result in the identification of locations with an increased probability for archaeological deposits and no further investigations were recommended. Archaeological monitoring resulted in the identification of one historic -era archaeological site (45SN723), which was recorded and evaluated for historic register eligibility. It was recommended not eligible for listing on historic registers. All ground disturbance for which monitoring was requested was complete and no further work was recommended. Archaeologists were present for ground -disturbing activities associated with the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Project in February through May 2020. Archaeological monitoring did not result in the identification of precontact or historic -period archaeological materials. All work requiring monitoring was completed. Four archaeological sites have been recorded within a distance of one mile from the project (Table 2). The site nearest to the project is 45SN574 and identified as a fill layer containing historic -era artifacts associated with the Great Northern Railroad's section foreman's house, water tower, and cabin. This site was discovered in test pits excavated by backhoe during an archaeological survey for proposed storm drain improvements at the Edmonds Rail Station (Shantry et al. 2011:1). Archaeological monitoring and testing were conducted to collect samples of archaeological material and document site stratigraphy. Based upon the results of these investigations, site 45SN574 was recommended eligible for the NRHP because it was considered to have the potential to provide significant information about the past, namely details about working class life on the Edmonds waterfront in the early twentieth century (Shantry et al. 2011:39). CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 13 Packet Pg. 526 Attachment 16 Table 2. Recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the nroiect. Site Number Site Type Distance from Project Historic Register Status Potential Impacts 45SN574 Historic debris 500 ft E Recommended eligible for None. scatter/concentration, NRHP. historic structure unknown 45SN723 Historic debris 640 ft NE Determined not eligible. None. scatter/concentration historic structures not specified 45SN310 Precontact shell midden 0.40 mile SE No formal determination. None. 45SN743 Historic debris 0.72 mile NE Determined not eligible. None. scatter/concentration Site 45SN723 was identified as the remains of the Shingle Mill Dry Kiln associated with the Quality Shingle Mill Company (Berger 2019b). This site consists of a historic debris scatter/concentration described as "include[s] a concrete foundation overlain by a demolition debris/fill deposit containing many bricks and brick fragments, a few pieces of container glass, and a few metal items including chain links, rollers, and straps" (Berger 2019b:2) identified during archaeological monitoring. The site was recommended and determined not eligible for historic register listing as it lacked temporal information and appeared typical of historical redevelopment of formerly industrial waterfront properties. Site 45SN310, located near the Deer Creek Hatchery access road, was identified as finely crushed mussel, barnacle and cockle shell that is visible in patches at the ground surface (Bard and McClintock 1996:6). Subsurface testing has not been conducted at this site and its significance has not been evaluated. Site 45SN743 is a historic debris scatter/concentration consisting of historic -period and temporally non -diagnostic glass and metal artifacts dating to between 1900 and 1945 (Adams 2020). These artifacts were identified during a shovel probe survey. This site was recommended and determined not eligible for historic register listing. Eight historic register listed properties have been recorded within a one -mile radius of the project location (Table 3). The nearest to the project is Brackett's Landing, listed on the NRHP in 1970 and located on the waterfront at the foot of Main Street, is presently a city park located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the project location. Brackett's Landing is named for George Brackett who pulled his canoe on shore on this sandy beach in 1870 during a storm (Warner 1969). This site is considered historically significant as the development of Edmonds ultimately opened the portion of the Washington Territory between Everett and Seattle. This site is outside of the project location and will not be impacted, physically or visually. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 14 Packet Pg. 527 Attachment 16 Table 3. Historic register properties recorded within approximately one mile from the project. Register Name Address Historic Use Date Historic Register Status Potential Effect Brackett's Landing Waterfront at foot Historic Marker 1870 Listed on WHR in 1970. None. of Main Street Listed on the ERHP in 2009. IOOF (Oddfellows) 542 Main Street Community 1894 Listed on WHR in 1972; None. Hall Building listed on ERHP in 2008. Edmonds Carnegie 118 Fifth Avenue Community 1910 Listed on WHR and None. Library North Building NRHP in 1973; listed on ERHP in 2004. Olympic View Hotel Second Avenue Commercial 1894 Listed on WHR in 1972; None. & Bell Street Building listed on ERHP in 2009. Site of First School 233 Third Ave N School 1884 Listed on WHR in 1972; None. in District No. 15 listed on ERHP in 2008. Edmonds High 410 4th Avenue School 1909- Listed on WHR inl986. None. School North 1939 Wells House 120 Edmonds Single-family 1891 Listed on WHR in 1975. None. Street residence Ganahl-Hanley Log 120 5th Avenue Single-family 1930 Listed on WHR in 1999; None. Cabin North residence listed on ERHP in 2009. There are two structures of historic age that have been inventoried within 0.25 mile of the project location (Table 4). These are both located to the northeast of the project. The nearest is the Edmonds Senior Center Building constructed in 1935 and determined not eligible for listing on historic registers. The building was replaced ca. 2019 (Berger 2019a). The second is the Amtrak Station built in 1955 which was recommended as not historically significant but has yet to have a formal determination by DAHP. Table 4. Surveved historic structures within .25 mile of the nroiect. Name, Address Address Date of Historic Potential (Property ID) Construction Register Status Impacts Amtrak Station (39544) 211 Railroad 1935 No formal determination. None. Ave Edmonds Senior Center Building 220 Railroad 1955 Determined not eligible. None. (671258) Ave No cemeteries or Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) have been recorded on WISAARD within the project vicinity. Edmonds Register of Historic Places: There are 18 properties currently designated as historic resources and listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (ERHP) (ERHP 2018). Of these, Brackett's Landing North Site, listed in 2009, is the closest to the project location. 3.0 Archaeological Expectations 3.1 Archaeological Predictive Models State Model: The DAHP statewide predictive model uses environmental data associated with documented archaeological sites to identify areas at which undocumented sites may be found (Kauhi and Markert 2009). Environmental categories included in the model are elevation, slope, aspect, distance to water, geology, soils, and landforms. The model contains five probability CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 15 Packet Pg. 528 Attachment 16 ranks: (1) low risk, (2) moderately low risk, (3) moderate risk, (4) high risk, and (5) very high risk. The model ranks the project as very high risk. 3.2 Archaeological Expectations This assessment considers the implications of the predictive model coupled with an understanding of geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post -depositional processes to characterize the potential for archaeological deposits to be encountered. Mapped surface geology and soils in the project location are derived from modified landscapes. Historic maps depicted the project as within the tidal flats and a marsh, which were slowly altered and developed. This is supported by geotechnical investigations for the project which recorded 15 to 25 ft of fill below the current asphalt surface, overlying interglacial sediment deposits of the Whidbey Formation. At the time of this research, no recorded precontact archaeological sites or ethnographically named places were identified in the immediate vicinity of the project. The project was a favorable location to precontact people as it appears to encompass the transitional zone between the marsh, the drier, more stable uplands, and the coastal beach. Historically, the natural estuary environment of the project location would have provided a rich array of plant and animal resources available for people living and moving through the local area. However, the inundated nature of the lagoon and estuarine depositional environments from which the Holocene -aged sediment originated indicates that this portion of the project would not have been favorable for occupation. Precontact archaeology identified along the shoreline environments demonstrates that peoples occupied dry environments adjacent to tidal flats, such as sand marshes, as well as level upland areas just above the beach (see Larson and Lewarch 1995). According to recorded data, types of precontact and ethnohistoric cultural resources that could be present may include evidence of resource procurement activities such as gathering of terrestrial and marine plant and animal resources, resource processing activities, shell middens, fish weirs, stone and bone tools or implements, hearth features/fire-modified rock, temporary camps, and/or shoreline travel, which could represent a range of domestic, subsistence, and ceremonial activities. Historic era development included construction on pilings, planked walkways, wagon roads, and residential and commercial buildings; and fill activities. Historic aerial images from the mid- 1900s indicates the construction of the northern marina of the Edmonds Boat Harbor, administrative building, and parking lot required the removal of a significant amount of historic - era construction and alteration of shoreline landscapes. These activities likely turbated, removed, or buried the majority of near surface sediments within the project location, leaving little if any intact near surface sediments. As a result, near surface native soils are expected to have been removed or filled over within portions of the project. Recent geotechnical investigations suggest any intact Holocene beach or intertidal deposits present may be limited or buried below 15 ft or more of fill materials and therefore there is a limited potential for significant (i.e. intact) archaeological deposits within the vertical extent of project excavations. Archaeological deposits most likely to be present in the project location are generally anticipated to date to the historic period. Based on available historic data, deposits would likely be related to historic sawmill and box manufacturing operations dating as early as the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, given past landform alteration, development, and demolition, it is less likely that significant (i.e. intact) historic deposits will be present within the project location. As discussed by previous researchers working in similar environments, the historic -era resources CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 16 Packet Pg. 529 Attachment 16 most likely to be found in the project location are types that have been previously determined not to meet eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP (Miss et al. 2010:75). These kinds of resources included: • pilings, decking, trestle, ballast, and railroad track and ties, unless of clearly unusual construction; remains of infrastructure including abandoned utilities, portions of seawall, and brick or planked roadways, unless of clearly unusual construction; • mass deposits of wood, lumber, coal, or cinders; • loose bricks, mortar, or other architectural materials; • and historic -period materials within unstratified dredge spoils or regraded fill that is not associated with a feature or stable surface. Resources that could be considered to be significant would be those identified within intact strata and may consist of foundations and/or quantities of artifacts that could be linked with historic companies or individuals. 4.0 Field Investigations Total Area Examined: The entire project (-1 acre). Areas not examined: None. Date(s) of Survey October 25 and November 12, 2021. Fieldwork conducted by: Margaret Berger and David R. Carlson. Notes are on file with CRC. Field Methodology: Field investigations consisted of pedestrian survey and photo -documentation of the historic structures within the project location. 5.0 Results and Recommendations 5.1 Cultural Resources Identified During background research and field investigation, no archaeological sites were identified at the project location. Two historic structures, the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and North Portwalk (DAHP Properties # 726371 and 726372), were identified, recorded, and evaluated for listing on historic registers. 5.2 Historic Property Inventory and Evaluation 5.2.1 Physical Descriptions Two historic properties, the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (DAHP Property # 726371) and North Portwalk (DAHP Property # 726372) were observed within the project location (Figure 9; Attachment B). CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 17 Packet Pg. 530 Attachment 16 Figure 9. Satellite image of project location annotated with inventoried historic properties. DAHP Property # 726371: The property is a two-story commercial/administrative building constructed at 300 Admiral Way ca. 1969 (Figure 10; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). It sits centrally on a 14.22-acre lot of mixed terrestrial and shoreline landscapes. The building faces to the northwest. It has a rectangular -with -wing footprint that can be described as a 40 ft wide (northeast to southwest) by 80 ft long (northwest to southeast) block with a 32 ft by 20 ft wing projecting to the northwest, flush with the southwest face. A set of covered and partially enclosed stairs are located on the external northeast face of the wing. A shallow, cantilevered bay expands the second -floor footprint on the northwest face of the wing. A 9 ft by 9 ft elevator wing extends to the northeast of the main body of the building, flush with its northwest face. The building sits on a slab foundation and is composed of concrete block masonry. A rectangular, low -pitch, hip roof covers the main body, wing, and stairwell, while secondary roofs cover the bay window and elevator wing. The roofs generally terminate in narrow to minimal eaves above a wide, metal cornice board. The roof over the bay window has a wide eave to the northwest to provide a visor for the sea -ward facing windows. A partial slatted -board screen descends from eaves to further protect the window. The screen is supported by cantilevered braces protruding from the base of the bay wing, with a slatted -board decking to provide coverage for a public meeting place below. A first -floor hip -roofed visor extends over the eastern corner of the building to provide a covered area for a public announcement board. The building is generally clad as exposed concrete block masonry, except for the vertical -plank clad elevator wing. The building is painted gray with blue trim on the cornices and has a blue band between the first and second floors. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 18 Packet Pg. 531 Attachment 16 r= 7 T !S � r Figure 10. Overview of north elevation of Port of Edmonds Administration Building (DAHP Property # 726371) at 300 Admiral Way, view to the south. The building is accessed by standard -width steel doors on the southwest face and at the stairwells, with separate doors for the public restrooms. Two sets of segmented, roll -up garage doors are located centrally on the northeast face of the building. Recessed blue wood panels with sets of three -sash, ribbon windows are set above the doors to create the impression of a two -floor garage door, with only the decorative blue band to define the separation. Windows on the building are aluminum -framed and set in moderate -width plain trim surrounds. Windows are typically set as singular or paired, fixed -frame and horizontal sliding windows of medium dimensions, and are restricted to second -floor locations. The bay and stairwell windows form the exception with the bay formed almost entirely of floor -to -ceiling fixed -frame window sashes, with small apertures at the base of side -windows. The stairwell window, located on the northwest face, is composed of four, fixed -frame sashes, set as two vertical sashes bound by upper and bottom horizontal sashes, and dominating three-quarters of the face of the stairwell, the lower quarter being covered in wood panels. A Port of Edmonds emblem and sign is located on the northeast face of the elevator wing. DAHP Property # 726372: The property is a portion of a boardwalk at 300-336 Admiral Way built ca. 1969 (Figure 11; NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). It can be described as an approximately 900 ft long section of the pressure -treated lumber walkway that stretches along the exterior of the marina seawall from the northern breakwater to the central marina ramp. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 19 Packet Pg. 532 Attachment 16 The boardwalk is connected by 6 access ramps to the northern marina docks and one access ramp to the central marina dock. A small temporary dock extends from the north end of the boardwalk and five small view decks are located along the seaward side of the boardwalk. Access to the underside of the boardwalk was limited and is here supplemented by images taken during a feasibility study of the boardwalk (C G Engineering 2021). Figure 11. Overview of Port of Edmonds North Portwalk (DAHP Property # 726372) at 300-336 Admiral Way, view to the northeast. Image taken near southwest corner of Port of Edmonds Administration Building (DAHP Property # 726371) and partially visible at far right of image. The boardwalk is composed of pressure -treated lumber framing and decking, and rests on creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart and placed adjacent to the seawall, and paired vertical -and -battered steel piles, spaced 16 ft apart and along the seaward edge of the boardwalk. The view decks are supported by cantilevered, sistered lumber joists. The boardwalk is bound on the seaward edge by lumber framed fencing. North of the southern -most docks of the North Marina, this is generally composed of large timbers mounted vertically on steel base -brackets set on top of the decking and connected at corners by 45-degree brackets. The top bar is composed of continuous, angle -mounted timber planks and metal railing panels form the internal, protective barriers. The wood does not appear to have any additional protective treatments, such as varnish or paint. Fencing south of the North Marina docks is composed of timber framed fencing mounted laterally to the underdeck framing and protrudes vertically through the boardwalk CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 20 r_ a Packet Pg. 533 Attachment 16 decking. The fence rails are wood planks mounted directly to the posts, and the whole ensemble is painted white with blue accents. Additional elements include piping and hoses associated with marina utilities and are mounted to the outside and underside of the boardwalk through steel brackets. Benches and picnic tables built of pressure -treated timbers are mounted to the boardwalk decking by steel fasteners. The boardwalk shows some alteration, through the addition of the view decks, variation in fencing styles, and through the routine maintenance made evident by several replaced decking planks. 5.2.2 Evaluation of Significance Eli ig'bility Criteria: These structures were evaluated for their significance based on criteria for listing on the NRHP and the Washington Heritage Register (WHR). According to NRHP assessment criteria developed by the National Park Service (NPS), historical significance is conveyed by properties: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history [NPS 2002:2]. According to the NRHP guidelines, the "essential physical features" of a property must be intact for it to convey its significance, and the resource must retain its integrity, or "the ability of a property to convey its significance" (NPS 2002:44). The seven aspects of integrity are: • Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred); • Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property); • Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); • Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property); • Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); • Feeling (a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time); and • Association (the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property) [NPS 2002:44]. Criteria used for assessment of potential eligibility for the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) are similar to NRHP criteria. Criteria to qualify include: • A building, site, structure or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. • The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity, i.e. it should retain important character defining features from its historic period of construction. • The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state or federal level. [DAHP 2020:1 ] DAHP Property #726371: The Administrative Building was constructed ca. 1969 (NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). The Port of Edmonds was created in 1948, beginning the CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 21 Packet Pg. 534 Attachment 16 process of altering shoreline properties for public and economic development. Construction of the Edmonds Boat Harbor's south marina began in 1961 after the Port acquired the necessary properties (Port of Edmonds 2009, 2021). Construction of the northern marina and the administrative building began in 1969 and represents the culmination of efforts to build the Edmonds Boat Harbor, now known as the Port of Edmonds Marina. This construction represents a culmination of the effort and influence of the Port on the development of the Edmonds waterfront for public use. The building appears to be inspired by New Traditional and New Formalist architectural styles with a low -pitch, hip roof with wide trim cornices evoking classical themes and the use of screens and vertical expanses providing a monumentalism to the more utilitarian construction and fagade (Houser 2016; McAlester 2013). A geotechnical review of the structure's ground stability was completed in 2002 (Landau 2002). The report indicated some foundational repairs had been completed in 1980-1981 through the cement filling of sub - foundational gaps and cavities. Cracks in the mortar of the building were also observed, suggesting the building was settling unevenly. While these cracks and repairs speak to a limited structural integrity, the building itself still retains the design and materials which give it historical integrity. Background research indicates the building is associated with the construction and expansion of the Edmonds Boat Harbor and development of Port of Edmonds services. It is recommended eligible under Criteria A, as representative of the Port of Edmonds efforts to build a marina and develop the Edmonds shoreline for public use, and B, for its use as the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and base of operations. The building is inspired by architectural styles of the 1960s but does not appear to be representative of a particular style, construction technique, or work of a master. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion C. It is not associated with an archaeological site, nor is it likely to yield as -of -yet unknown information important to history or prehistory. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion D. The building appears to have been minimally altered and maintains integrity of association, design, feeling, location, materials, setting, and workmanship. The building is recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A and B for its association with the Port of Edmonds and its development of the marina in the 1960s. It is recommended eligible for listing on the WHR at the local level for its association with the Port of Edmonds and for its high level of integrity. DAHP Property #726372: The North Portwalk was constructed ca. 1969 (NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). The Port of Edmonds was created in 1948, beginning the process of developing shoreline properties for public and economic development (Port of Edmonds 2009, 2021). Construction of the Edmonds Boat Harbor's South Marina began in 1961 after the Port acquired the necessary properties. Construction of the North Marina and the Portwalk began in 1969 and represent the culmination of efforts to build the Edmonds Boat Harbor. The Portwalk is of utilitarian design. Additionally, the portwalk was altered ca. 2004 through the addition of the viewing decks, as seen in the cantilevered, sistered joists and historic aerial imagery (C G Engineering 2021; Google 2021; NETR 2021). Variations in fencing styles also suggest at least part of the boardwalk and fencing have been re -designed since initial construction. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 22 Packet Pg. 535 Attachment 16 Background research indicates the Portwalk is associated with the construction and expansion of the Edmonds Boat Harbor and development of Port of Edmonds services. However, the Portwalk has been altered and is no longer representative of this phase of development. It is recommended not eligible under Criteria A or B. The Portwalk is of utilitarian design and has been altered through repairs and additions. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion C. The Portwalk is not associated with an archaeological site and is not likely to yield as -of -yet unknown information important to history or prehistory. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion D. For these same reasons, it is recommended not eligible as an historically significant structure at the local, state, or national levels. Alterations to the Portwalk have diminished the integrity of association, design, feeling, materials, and workmanship. The Portwalk maintains integrity of location and setting along the marina seawall and parking lot. The Portwalk does not meet the necessary criteria or levels of integrity and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP or WHR. 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations This assessment was conducted to determine potential effects of this project on cultural resources. Background research and site photo -documentation identified two historic properties within the project location. These were identified as the Port of Edmonds Administration Building (DAHP Property # 726371) and North Portwalk (DAHP Property # 726372), which were built ca. 1969 as part of the construction of the northern marina at the Edmonds Boat Harbor, now known as the Port of Edmonds Marina. The Administration Building is recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A, as representative of the Port of Edmonds efforts to build a marina and develop the Edmonds shoreline, and under Criterion B, for its use as the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and base of operations. It is also recommended eligible for listing on the WHR at the local level for its high level of integrity and association with the development of Edmonds and its local government. The North Portwalk has been altered over the years and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP or WHR. CRC recommends consultation with DAHP for concurrence on these recommendations and for advice concerning appropriate mitigation efforts to affected resources, if applicable. As currently defined, ground disturbing activities within the project location with the potential to expose buried sediments are expected to take place within the fill deposits and are not likely to exposed buried relict surfaces or deposits. No additional cultural resources investigation is recommended at this time. If project activities result in the discovery of archaeological materials, project staff should halt work in the immediate area and contact the technical staff at DAHP and representatives of identified area Tribes, as outlined in the inadvertent discovery protocol described below (Attachment B). Work should be stopped until further investigation and appropriate consultation have concluded. In the event that human remains are inadvertently revealed, project staff should immediately stop work, cover, and secure the remains against further disturbance, and contact law enforcement personnel, consistent with the provisions set forth in RCW 27.44.055 and RCW 68.60.055. 6.0 Limitations of this Assessment No cultural resources study can assess with complete certainty whether archaeological sites, historic properties, or traditional cultural properties exist at a project location. The information CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 23 Packet Pg. 536 Attachment 16 presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from CRC's analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information identified in this report and on field investigation and observations. The conclusions and recommendations presented apply to current and reasonably foreseeable project conditions. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. They do not apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. 7.0 References Adams, R. 2020 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN743. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Ames, K. M. and H. D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast, Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, New York. Anderson Map Company (Anderson) 1910 Township 27 N., Range 3 E. W.M., In Snohomish County Township Atlas. Anderson Map Company, Seattle. Bard and McClintock 1996 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN310. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Berger, M. 2014 Cultural Resources Assessment, Willow Creek Daylighting Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Submitted to Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2019aArchaeological Monitoring of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA. Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC. Submitted to Edmonds Senior Center. 2019b State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN723. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Blukis Onat, A. R. 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit. Prepared for Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Booth, D. B., R. A. Haugerud, and K. G. Troost 2003 The Geology of Puget Lowland Rivers. In Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, edited by D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D.B. Booth, chapter 2. University of Washington Press, Seattle. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 24 Packet Pg. 537 Attachment 16 Boyle, S. 2004 A Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds. Prepared for the City of Edmonds & the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. BOLA Architecture + Planning, Seattle. Bretz, H. 1913 Glaciation of the Puget Sound Region. Bulletin No. 8. Washington Geological Survey, Olympia, Washington. Bucknam, R. C., E. Hemphill -Haley, and E. B. Leopold 1992 Abrupt Uplift Within the Past 1700 Years at Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Science 258:1611-1614. Bush, K., and J. Rowland 2010 Archaeological Investigation Report: City of Edmonds Pump Station NO. 2 Replacement, Snohomish County, Washington. Equinox Research and Consulting International Inc. Submitted to Landau Associates, Inc. and the City of Edmonds. Burtchard, G. C. 1998 Environment, Land Use, and Archaeology of Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Columbia Cascades System Support Office, Seattle. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. C G Engineering 2021 Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study: Port of Edmonds Waterfront Boardwalk. C G Engineering, Edmonds. Submitted to Port of Edmonds. Cameron, D. A. (editor) 2005 Snohomish County: An Illustrated History. Kelcema Books, LLC, Index, Washington Carlson, R. 1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 60-69. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Cox, J. B., and J. C. Bard 1996 The Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal a Determination of National Register Eligibility. CH2MHill, Inc. Submitted to WSDOT and Community Transit. Durkin, B. 2020 Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Project, City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Inc. Submitted to City of Edmonds. Edmonds Register of Historic Places (ERHP) 2021 Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Electronic document, Edmonds Register of Historic Places, accessed November 23, 2021. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 25 Packet Pg. 538 Attachment 16 Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-8. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Google, Inc. 2021 Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.7.2606). [Software] Available from https://www.google.com/work/earthmaps/earthpro.html, accessed November 23, 2021. Greengo, R. E. (editor) 1983 Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle. Historic Map Works 2021 Historic Map Works: Residential Genealogy. Electronic Resource, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Browse/United_States/Washington/Page/4/, accessed November 23, 2021. Houser, M. 2016 Mid -Century Modern Architecture in Washington State. Electronic resource, http://www. dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/MidCenturyWorkshop%20reduced.pdf, accessed January 7, 2021. Juell, K. E. 2006 Archaeological Site Assessment of Sound Transit's Sounder: Everett -to -Seattle Commuter Rail System, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Prepared for Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, and Sound Transit, Seattle. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle. Kauhi, T. C., and J. Markert 2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers. Report submitted to DAHP, Olympia. Kassa-Kleinschmidt, S. 2018a Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants, Seattle. Submitted to Parametrix, Inc. 2018b Addendum to Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants, Seattle. Submitted to Parametrix, Inc. Kelly, K. M. 2013 Cultural Resources Assessment for the 76th Avenue Wand 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project, Edmonds, WA. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Submitted to David Evans and Associates, Inc. Kidd, R. S. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 26 Packet Pg. 539 Attachment 16 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Kopperl, R. (editor) 2016 Results of Data Recovery at the Bear Creek Site 45KI839, Redmond, King County, Washington. SWCA, Seattle. Submitted to City of Redmond and David Evans and Associates, Inc. Kopperl, R., C. Hodges, C. Miss, J. Shea, and A. Spooner 2016 Archaeology of King County, Washington: A Context Statement for Native American Archaeological Resources. SWCA Environmental Consultants. Report submitted to the King County Historic Preservation Program. Landau Associates 2021 Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstructions, Edmonds, Washington. Stephen R. Wright, Project Manager. Landau Associates, Seattle. Submitted to Port of Edmonds. Lane, B. 1975a Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Tulalip Tribe of Indians. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians. 1975bldentity and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Duwamish Tribe of Indians. Larson, L. L, and D. E. Lewarch (editors) 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4, 000 Years of Hunter -Fisher - Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, Washington. LeWarne, C. 2008 Edmonds — Thumbnail History. Electronic document, http://www.historylink.org/File/8542, accessed February 20, 2018. Marino, C. 1990 History of Western Washington since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 169-179. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. McAlester, V. S. 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. McKee, B. 1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. Metsker Maps (Metsker) CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 27 Packet Pg. 540 Attachment 16 1936 Township 27 N., Range 3 E. W.M. In Metsker's Map of Snohomish County, Washington. Metsker Maps, Seattle. Minard, J. P. 1983 Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington. Miscellaneous Field Studies map MF-1541, 1:24,000. USGS, Washington, D.C. Miss, C. J., L. Hudson, S. A. Boswell, and R. M. Weaver 2010 SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Moving Forward Projects Archaeological Treatment Plan: South Holgate Street to South King Street. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., and Environmental History Company, Seattle, WA. Morgan, V. (editor) 1999 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late -Holocene Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-108. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. National Parks Service (NPS) 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) 2021 Historic Aerials. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript, accessed October 26, 2021. National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB) 2021 TopoView. Electronic resource, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed November 23, 2021. Nelson, C. M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Port of Edmonds 2009 A Brief History of the Port of Edmonds: How it began... What it is today. Electronic document, https://portofedmonds.org/wp-content/uploads/about-history.pdf, accessed November 4, 2021. 2021 Port of Edmonds: Yesterday and Today. Electronic Powerpoint, https://www.portofedmonds. org/wp-content/uploads/Port_Yesterday_and_Today.pdf, accessed November 4, 2021. ProQuest CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 28 Packet Pg. 541 Attachment 16 2021 Digital Sanborn Maps, 1867-1970. Electronic resource, http://sanbom.umi.com.ezproxy.spl.org/about.html, accessed November 23, 2021. Rinck, B. 2010 Archaeological Investigations at the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. NWAA, Inc. Submitted to Sound Transit. Ruby, R. H., and J. A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Sanborn Map Company 1909 Insurance Maps of Edmonds, Washington. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1926 Insurance Maps of Edmonds, Washington. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1932 Insurance Maps of Edmonds, Washington. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Schalk, R. 1988 The Evolution and Diversification of Native Land Use Systems on the Olympic Peninsula. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Contract No. CX900-4-E075. Submitted to the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Shantry, K., B. Rinck, A. Valentino, and R. Smith 2011 Archaeological Monitoring and Testing At the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, Snohomish County, Washington. NWAA. Submitted to ESA Adolfson and Sound Transit. Smith, M. 1975 Preliminary Surficial Geological Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Sciences. Smith, M. W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 32. Columbia University Press, New York. Snohomish County Assessor 2021 Snohomish County Online Property Information. Database, https:Hsnohomishcountywa.gov/5414/Interactive-Map-SCOPI, accessed November 23, 2021. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3. George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Wisconsin. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 29 Packet Pg. 542 Attachment 16 Suttles, W., and B. Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Thompson, G. 1978 Prehistoric Settlement Changes in the Southern Northwest Coast: A Functional Approach. Reports in Archaeology 5. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Thorson, R.M. 1980 Ice -sheet glaciation of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade (Late Pleistocene). Quaternary Research (13:303-321). 1989 Glacio-isostatic response of the Puget Sound area, Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin (101:1163-1174). Troost, K. G., and D. E. Booth 2008 Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area, Washington. Electronic resource, http://reg.gsapubs.org/content/20/1.abstract, accessed June 22, 2017. United States Coast Survey (USCS) 1872 Topographic Sheet 1389b, Admiralty Inlet, Possession Sound to Pt. Edmund, Wash. Ter 1:10,000 scale. J. S. Lawson, surveyor. U.S. Coast Survey, Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) 2021 Web Soil Survey, Washington. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/appAVebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed October 20, 2021. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2021 General Land Office Records. Electronic document, https:Hglorecords.blm.gov/search, accessed October 26, 2021. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1897 Snohomish Quadrangle, Washington 1:125,000 30-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1898 Map of western Washington, showing classification of lands. Electronic resource, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/51, accessed October 26, 2021. 1942 Edmonds Quadrangle, Washington 1:62,500 15-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1953aEdmonds West Quadrangle, Washington 1:24,000 7.5-Minute Series, 1955 edition. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1953bEdmonds West Quadrangle, Washington 1:24,000 7.5-Minute Series, 1969 edition. USGS, Washington, D.C. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 30 Packet Pg. 543 Attachment 16 United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1860 General Land Office Map, Township 27 N., Range 03 E, Willamette Meridian. Electronic resource, https://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView 1 _2.php?path=PWA&name=t270 n030e_00I jpg, accessed October 26, 2021. Waitt, R. B., Jr., and Thorson, R. M. 1983 The Cordilleran ice sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In Late Quaternary environments of the United States, edited by Porter, S.C., and Wright, H.E., Jr., v. 1, pp. 53-70. University of Minnesota Press. Warner, J. 1969 National Register of historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, Brackett's Landing. On file at DAHP. Olympia. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2020 Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting 2020. On file at DAHP, Olympia. 2021 Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database. Electronic document, https:Hsecureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, accessed October 26, 2021. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) 2021 Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Division of Geology and Earth Resources — Washington's Geological Survey. Electronic document, https:Hfortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology/, accessed October 26, 2021. Waterman, T. T. Ca. 1920 Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. 2001 sda?da? gwel dibel lesucid ?acaciltalbixw Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Whitfield, W. 1926 History of Snohomish County, Washington. Vol. 1. Pioneer Historical Publishing Company, Seattle. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 31 Packet Pg. 544 Attachment 16 Appendix A. Correspondence with Tribes. Cultural Resource Consultants Stillaguamish Tribe Kerry Lyste, Cultural Resources 3322 236th Street NE, Arlington, WA 98223 July 16, 2021 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Dear Kerry: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources. This letter is on a technical staff -to -technical staff basis to inquire about project -related cultural information or concerns. It is not intended as formal government -to -government consultation to be initiated by the appropriate regulatory agency. The project is located in Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 05 East Willamette Meridian at 300 - 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Port of Edmonds proposes to replace approximately 1,000 linear feet of seawall and walkway, and associated stormwater and other utilities. CRC will provide information regarding known cultural resources needed for the SEPA checklist, and a cultural resources overview report for Section 106 compliance. We are in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me at sonja@crcwa.com or 360-395-8879 should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, a�'_ Sonja Kleinschmidt, Projects Manager CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC. PO Box 4159, SEATTLE, WA 98194 PHONE206.855.9020 - sonja@crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 32 Packet Pg. 545 Attachment 16 Cultural Resource Consultants Tulalip Tribes Richard Young 6410 23- Ave NE, Tulalip, WA 98271 July 16, 2021 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Dear Richard: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources. This letter is on a technical staff -to -technical staff basis to inquire about project -related cultural information or concerns. It is not intended as formal government -to -government consultation to be initiated by the appropriate regulatory agency. The project is located in Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 05 East Willamette Meridian at 300 - 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Port of Edmonds proposes to replace approximately 1,000 linear feet of seawall and walkway, and associated stormwater and other utilities. CRC will provide information regarding known cultural resources needed for the SEPA checklist, and a cultural resources overview report for Section 106 compliance. We are in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me at sonja@crcwa.com or 360-395-8879 should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, a�_ Sonja Kleinschmidt, Projects Manager CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC. PO BOX 4159, SEATTLE, WA 98194 PHONE206.855.9020 - sonja@crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 33 Packet Pg. 546 Attachment 16 Cultural Resource Consultants Suquamish Tribe Stephanie Trudel PO Box 498, Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 July 16, 2021 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Dear Stephanie: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources. This letter is on a technical staff -to -technical staff basis to inquire about project -related cultural information or concerns. It is not intended as formal government -to -government consultation to be initiated by the appropriate regulatory agency. The project is located in Section 23, Township 27 North, Range 05 East Willamette Meridian at 300 - 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Port of Edmonds proposes to replace approximately 1,000 linear feet of seawall and walkway, and associated stormwater and other utilities. CRC will provide information regarding known cultural resources needed for the SEPA checklist, and a cultural resources overview report for Section 106 compliance. We are in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me at sonja@crcwa.com or 360-395-8879 should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ar- Sonja Kleinschmidt, Projects Manager CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC. PO BOX 4159, SEATTLE, WA 98194 PHONE206.855.9020 - sonja@crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 34 Packet Pg. 547 Attachment 16 Tribal Archaeologist Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department Treaty Protection and Natural Resources Division THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE Post Office Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 Phone (360) 394-8533 Fax (360) 598-4666 July 20, 2021 Sonja Kleinschmidt Cultural Resource Consultants P.O. Box 4159 Seattle, WA 98194 RE: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Request for Traditional Cultural Property Information Suquamish Tribe Reference: 21-7-20-4 Dear Sonja: Thank you for consulting with the Suquamish Tribe regarding CRC's cultural resources assessment for the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project in Edmonds, Washington. The project area is within the adjudicated Usual & Accustomed fishing grounds and stations (U&A) of the Suquamish Tribe. Suquamish People camped on the sand spit fronting the Edmonds Marsh to fish, hunt, harvest shellfish, and collect plant resources in the marsh, such as cattails for fabricating mats. Oral histories document Suquamish seasonal use from the pre -contact period through the early 1900s. Please contact me at 360-394-8533 or via e-mail at strudel@suquamish.nsn.us as additional project information becomes available. Sincerely, StPPhan / e- �7 7rvde/ Stephanie E. Trudel Archaeologist CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 35 Packet Pg. 548 Attachment 16 7/22/2021 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Mail - 2107K Letter to Stillaguamish Tribe MG m a i I Sonja Kleinschmidt <sonja@crcwa.com> 2107K Letter to Stillaguamish Tribe Kerry Lyste <klyste@stillaguamish.com> Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 5:41 PM To: Sonja Kleinschmidt <sonja@crcwa.com> Cc: THPO Stillaguamish <THPO@stillaguamish.com> Hi Sonja, Thank you for your letter about the Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall reconstruction. We have no information to provide to you at this time, but would appreciate your continued communication on this project. Best, KL Kerry Lyste THPO/GIS Database Administrator; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 3322 236th Street NE, Arlington, WA 98223 Mailing Address: PO Box 277, Arlington, WA 98223 Ph:360-572-3072 Fax:360-659-3113 ha?f sgwadgwadad ?a ti stulagwabs: kwadiid ti zacusadad ?a ti yelabcat The good words of the Stillaguamish: To honor and care for cultural teachings. [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Sonja [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/l?ik=62e4l25605&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A I70549048746470373 I &simpl=msg-f%3A 1705490487464703731 1/2 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 36 Ly O CL d w O v L 3 O In d w R 3 _r 7 U ca; r C 0 E t 0 R Q Packet Pg. 549 Attachment 16 Appendix B. Historic Property Inventory Forms dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 OEPT OF ARCHM1EOIOG" HISTORIC PRESER-10 Location Address: 300 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington, 98020 Tax No/Parcel No: 27032300401400 Plat/Block/Lot: In SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03 Geographic Areas: T271103E23, EDMONDS WEST Quadrangle, Snohomish County Certified Local Government, Edmonds Certified Local Government Information Number of stories: Construction Dates: Construction Type Built Date Historic Use: Category Government Government Historic Context: Category Architect/Engineer: Category 2.00 Year 1969 Subcategory Government - Administrative Facility Government - Administrative Facility Name or Company Friday, December 3, 2021 Circa F Page 1 of 7 Im Ly CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 37 Packet Pg. 550 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 Chi OF �RCNAFOLOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Thematics: Local Registers and Districts Name Date Listed Notes Project History Project Number, Organization, Resource Inventory SHPO Determination SHPO Determined By, Project Name Determined Date 2021-11-08044, , Port of Edmonds 11/22/2021 Survey/Inventory North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction. Ly Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 2 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 38 Packet Pg. 551 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 _ir,,TRCNAEhOGY MI ."C PREffRYAiION Photos r E _ Administration Building north elevation Port of Edmonds Sketch Map Aft . Administration Building southeast face Administration Building southwest face Administration Building northeast face Administration Building east elevation Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 3 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 39 Packet Pg. 552 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 Chi OF �RCNAFOLOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Inventory Details - 11/22/2021 Common name: Date recorded: 11/22/2021 Field Recorder: Jessica Gardner, Margaret Berger Field Site number: SHPO Determination Detail Information Characteristics: Category Item Foundation Concrete - Poured Form Type Commercial - One -Part Vertical Block Roof Type Hip Roof Material Metal Cladding Concrete - Block (cmu) Structural System Masonry - Concrete Block Plan Rectangle Surveyor Opinion Property appears to meet criteria forthe National Register of Historic Places: Yes Ly Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 4 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 40 Packet Pg. 553 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 OFPi OF ARCHF.[CIOG� MISiORIC PRESfRVAIION Significance narrative: The Administrative Building was constructed ca. 1969 (NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). The Port of Edmonds was created in 1948, beginning the process of altering shoreline properties for public and economic development. Construction of the Edmonds Boat Harbor's South Marina began in 1961 after the Port acquired the necessary properties (Port of Edmonds 2009, 2021). Construction of the North Marina and the administrative building began in 1969 and represents the culmination of efforts to build the Edmonds Boat Harbor. The building appears to be inspired by New Traditional and New Formalist architectural styles with a low -pitch, hip roof with wide trim cornices evoking classical themes and the use of screens and vertical expanses providing a monumentalism to the more utilitarian construction and facade (Houser 2016; McAlester 2013). Background research indicates the building is associated with the construction and expansion of the Edmonds Boat Harbor and development of Port of Edmonds services. It is recommended eligible under Criterion A as representative of development of the marina in the 1960s and under Criterion B both as a representation of improvement undertaken by the Port of Edmonds and as their administrative facility. The building is inspired by architectural styles of the 1960s but does not appear to be representative of a particular style, construction technique, or work of a master. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion C. It is not associated with an archaeological site, nor is it likely to yield as -of -yet unknown information important to history or prehistory. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion D. The building appears to have been minimally altered and maintains integrity of association, design, feeling, location, materials, setting, and workmanship. The building is recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A and B for its association with the Port of Edmonds and its development of the marina in the 1960s. It is recommended eligible for listing on the WHR at the local level for its association with the Port of Edmonds and for its high level of integrity. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 5 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 41 Packet Pg. 554 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 _i,,,,c,AE , MIS." PRESfRYA 4 Physical description: The property is a two-story commercial/administrative building constructed at 300 Admiral Way ca. 1969 (Snohomish County Assessor 2021). It sits centrally on a 14.22-acre lot of mixed terrestrial and shoreline landscapes. The building faces to the northwest. It has a rectangular -with -wing footprint that can be described as a 40 ft wide (northeast to southwest) by 80 ft long (northwest to southeast) block with a 32 ft by 20 ft wing projecting to the northwest, flush with the southwest face. A set of covered and partially enclosed stairs are located on the external northeast face of the wing. A shallow, cantilevered bay expands the second -floor footprint on the northwest face of the wing. A 9 ft by 9 ft elevator wing extends to the northeast of the main body of the building, flush with its northwest face. The building sits on a slab foundation and is composed of concrete block masonry. A rectangular, low -pitch, hip roof covers the main body, wing, and stairwell, while secondary roofs cover the bay window and elevator wing. The roofs generally terminate in narrow to minimal eaves above a wide, metal cornice board. The roof over the bay window has a wide eave to the northwest to provide a visor for the sea -ward facing windows. A partial slatted -board screen descends from eaves to further protect the window. The screen is supported by cantilevered braces protruding from the base of the bay wing, with a slatted -board decking to provide coverage for a public meeting place below. A first -floor hip -roofed visor extends over the eastern corner of the building to provide a covered area for a public announcement board. The building is generally clad as exposed concrete block masonry, except for the vertical -plank clad elevator wing. The building is painted gray with blue trim on the cornices and has a blue band between the first and second floors. The building is accessed by standard -width steel doors on the southwest face and at the stairwells, with separate doors for the public restrooms. Two sets of segmented, roll -up garage doors are located centrally on the northeast face of the building. Recessed blue wood panels with sets of three -sash, ribbon windows are set above the doors to create the impression of a two -floor garage door, with only the decorative blue band to define the separation. Windows on the building are aluminum -framed and set in moderate - width plain trim surrounds. Windows are typically set as singular or paired, fixed -frame and horizontal sliding windows of medium dimensions, and are restricted to second -floor locations. The bay and stairwell windows form the exception with the bay formed almost entirely of floor -to -ceiling fixed -frame window sashes, with small apertures at the base of side -windows. The stairwell window, located on the northwest face, is composed of four, fixed -frame sashes, set as two vertical sashes bound by upper and bottom horizontal sashes, and dominating three-quarters of the face of the stairwell, the lower quarter being covered in wood panels. A Port of Edmonds emblem and sign is located on the northeast face of the elevator wing. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 6 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 42 Packet Pg. 555 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds Administration Building Property ID: 726371 Chi OF �RCNAFOLOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Bibliography: Houser, M. 2016 Mid -Century Modern Architecture in Washington State. Electronic resource, http://www.da hp.wa.gov/sites/defau It/files/MidCenturyWorkshop %20red uced.pdf, accessed January 7, 2021.; McAlester, V. S. 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.; Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) 2021 Historic Aerials. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript, accessed October 26, 2021.; Port of Edmonds 2009 A Brief History of the Port of Edmonds: How it began... What it is today. Electronic document, https://portofedmonds.org/wp-content/uploads/about-history.pdf, accessed November 4, 2021. 2021 Port of Edmonds: Yesterday and Today. Electronic Powerpoint, https://www.portofedmonds.org/wp-content/uploads/Port Yesterday_a n d_Tod ay. pdf, accessed November 4, 2021.; Snohomish County Assessor 2021 Snohomish County Online Property Information. Database, https:Hsnohomishcountywa.gov/5414/Interactive-Map-SCOPI, accessed November 23, 2021. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 7 of 7 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 43 Packet Pg. 556 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk DFPi OF TRCNAEOIOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Lcation Property ID: 726372 Address: 300 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington, 98020 Tax No/Parcel No: 27032300401400 Plat/Block/Lot: In Sec 23 TWP 27 RGE 3 Geographic Areas: T27R03E23, Snohomish County, EDMONDS WEST Quadrangle, Edmonds Certified Local Government Information Number of stories: N/A Construction Dates: Construction Type Year Circa Built Date 1969 rv- Historic Use: Category Subcategory Recreation and Culture Recreation and Culture - Outdoor Recreation Recreation and Culture Recreation and Culture - Outdoor Recreation Historic Context: Category Architect/Engineer: Category Name or Company Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 1 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 44 Ly O Q d to N V L 3 O N d R L 3 _r 7 U ca; C Q E t 0 ca Q Packet Pg. 557 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 Chi OF �RCNAFOLOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Thematics: Local Registers and Districts Name Date Listed Notes Project History Project Number, Organization, Resource Inventory SHPO Determination SHPO Determined By, Project Name Determined Date 2021-11-08044, , Port of Edmonds 11/22/2021 Survey/Inventory North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction. Ly Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 2 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 45 Packet Pg. 558 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 _ir,,TRCNAEhOGY MIS." PREffRYAiION Photos J f r I North Portwalk, northeast end North Portwalk, south-central corner r - North Portwalk, southwest end Detail North Portwalk - marina ramp fencing Detail North Portwalk - view decking exterior Detail North Portwalk - corner construction Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 3 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 46 Packet Pg. 559 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 C ioF PoRCNF.COIOGY. HISTORIC PRfSRRVITION Detail North Portwalk - view decking overview Detail North Portwalk- Pressure -treated lumber fencing 1�r1; T� North Portwalk, southwest end overview Friday, December 3, 2021 Rr.. Detail North Portwalk - bench construction l Detail North Portwalk-jpintof wood and mixed lumber/metal fencings Detail North Portwalk - painted fencing construction Page 4 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 47 Packet Pg. 560 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Jill � OOM Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 O TOF PoROHF.ROI - MISiORIC PRESfRV�r11ON 1 f yy r t*y North Portwalk- southern termination and central Port of Edmonds Sketch Map marina ramp Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 5 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 48 Packet Pg. 561 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 M�ORIC PRfS-TION Inventory Details - 11/22/2021 Common name: Edmonds Marina North Boardwalk Date recorded: 11/22/2021 Field Recorder: Jessica Gardner, David R. Carlson Field Site number: SHPO Determination Detail Information Characteristics: Category Item Foundation Post & Pier Surveyor Opinion Significance narrative: The North Portwalk was constructed ca. 1969 (NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). The Port of Edmonds was created in 1948, beginning the process of developing shoreline properties for public and economic development (Port of Edmonds 2009, 2021). Construction of the Edmonds Boat Harbor's South Marina began in 1961 after the Port acquired the necessary properties. Construction ofthe North Marina and the Portwalk began in 1969 and represent the culmination of efforts to build the Edmonds Boat Harbor. The Portwalk is of utilitarian design. Additionally, the portwalk was altered ca. 2004 through the addition of the viewing decks, as seen in the cantilevered, sistered joists and historic aerial imagery (C G Engineering 2021; Google 2021; NETR 2021). Variations in fencing styles also suggest at least part of the boardwalk and fencing have been re -designed since initial construction. Background research indicates the Portwalk is associated with the construction and expansion of the Edmonds Boat Harbor and development of Port of Edmonds services. However, the Portwalk has been altered and is no longer representative of this phase of development. It is recommended not eligible under Criteria A or B. The Portwalk is of utilitarian design and has been altered through repairs and additions. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion C. The Portwalk is not associated with an archaeological site and is not likely to yield as -of -yet unknown information important to history or prehistory. It is recommended not eligible under Criterion D. For these same reasons, it is recommended not eligible as an historically significant structure at the local, state, or national levels. Alterations to the Portwalk have diminished the integrity of association, design, feeling, materials, and workmanship. The Portwalk maintains integrity of location and setting along the marina seawall and parking lot. The Portwalk does not meet the necessary criteria or levels of integrity and is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP or WHR. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 6 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 49 Packet Pg. 562 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 H15TORIC PRB--ION Physical description: The property is a portion of a boardwalk at 300-336 Admiral Way built ca. 1969 (NETR 2021; Snohomish County Assessor 2021). It can be described as an approximately 900 ft long section of the pressure -treated lumber walkway that stretches along the exterior of the marina seawall from the northern breakwater to the central marina ramp. The boardwalk is connected by 6 access ramps to the northern marina docks and one access ramp to the central marina dock. A small temporary dock extends from the north end of the boardwalk and five small view decks are located along the seaward side of the boardwalk. Access to the underside of the boardwalk was limited and is here supplemented by images taken during a feasibility study of the boardwalk (C G Engineering 2021). The boardwalk is composed of pressure -treated lumber framing and decking, and rests on creosote -treated timber piles, spaced 8 ft apart and placed adjacent to the seawall, and paired vertical -and -battered steel piles, spaced 16 ft apart and along the seaward edge of the boardwalk. The view decks are supported by cantilevered, sistered lumber joists. The boardwalk is bound on the seaward edge by lumber framed fencing. North of the southern -most docks of the North Marina, this is generally composed of large timbers mounted vertically on steel base -brackets set on top of the decking and connected at corners by 45-degree brackets. The top bar is composed of continuous, angle -mounted timber planks and metal railing panels form the internal, protective barriers. The wood does not appear to have any additional protective treatments, such as varnish or paint. Fencing south of the North Marina docks is composed of timber framed fencing mounted laterally to the underdeck framing and protrudes vertically through the boardwalk decking. The fence rails are wood planks mounted directly to the posts, and the whole ensemble is painted white with blue accents. Additional elements include piping and hoses associated with marina utilities and are mounted to the outside and underside of the boardwalk through steel brackets. Benches and picnic tables built of pressure -treated timbers are mounted to the boardwalk decking by steel fasteners. The boardwalk shows some alteration, through the addition of the view decks, variation in fencing styles, and through the routine maintenance made evident by several replaced decking planks. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 7 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 50 Packet Pg. 563 Attachment 16 dahp Historic Property Report Resource Name: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk Property ID: 726372 Chi OF �RCNAFOLOGY MISiORIC PRESfRYAiION Bibliography: C G Engineering 2021 Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study: Port of Edmonds Waterfront Boardwalk. C G Engineering, Edmonds. Submitted to Port of Edmonds.; Google, Inc. 2021 Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.7.2606). [Software] Available from https://www.google.com/work/earthmaps/earth pro. html, accessed November 23, 2021.; Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) 2021 Historic Aerials. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript, accessed October 26, 2021.; Port of Edmonds 2009 A Brief History of the Port of Edmonds: How it began... What it is today. Electronic document, https://portofedmonds.org/wp-content/uploads/about-history.pdf, accessed November 4, 2021. 2021 Port of Edmonds: Yesterday and Today. Electronic Powerpoint, https://www.portofedmonds.org/wp-content/uploads/Port Yesterclay_a n d_Tod ay. pdf, accessed November 4, 2021.; Snohomish County Assessor 2021 Snohomish County Online Property Information. Database, https:Hsnohomishcountywa.gov/5414/Interactive-Map-SCOPI, accessed November 23, 2021. Friday, December 3, 2021 Page 8 of 8 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 51 Packet Pg. 564 Attachment 16 Appendix C. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, the following steps will be taken in the event that archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered: Procedures for Discovery of Potential or Actual Cultural Resources Upon discovery of a potential or actual archaeological site or cultural resources as defined by RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources, City of Sammamish, its employees, contractors, and sub -contractors shall: (a) Immediately cease or halt ground disturbing, construction, or other activities around the area of the discovery and secure the area with a perimeter of not less than 30 feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume. If such a perimeter would materially impact agency functions mandated by law, related to health, safety, or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall be of a size and extent practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the circumstances. Project activities that are not ground disturbing may continue outside the secured perimeter around the findings. No one shall excavate any findings and all findings will be left in place, undisturbed and without analysis, until consultation with DAHP and identified area Tribes regarding a final disposition of the findings has been completed. In accordance with RCW 27.53.060, no one shall knowingly remove or collect any archaeological objects without obtaining a permit. (b) Notify the State Archaeologist at DAHP, identified area Tribes, and USACE of the discovery as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours of the discovery. If human remains are found, the project proponent shall follow notification procedures specified below. (c) Arrange for the parties to conduct a joint viewing of the discovery within 48 hours of the notification or at the earliest possible time thereafter. After the joint viewing, taking into account any recommendations made by the Tribes, USACE, and DAHP, the parties shall discuss the potential significance, if any, of the discovery. (d) Consult with the identified area Tribes, USACE, and DAHP on the transfer and final disposition of artifacts. Until the Tribe has a repository that meets the standards of curation established 36 CFR Part 79, artifacts shall be curated using an institution or organization that meets curation standards, selected through consultation with the Tribes. Procedures for Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains Upon discovery of human skeletal remains on non-federal and non -Tribal land and in accordance with RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055, Port of Edmonds, its employees, contractors, and sub -contractors shall take the following steps: (a) If ground -disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 52 Packet Pg. 565 Attachment 16 In addition, the finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office and Snohomish County Sheriff's Office in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. (b) The Snohomish County Medical Examiner's Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination as to whether the remains are forensic or non -forensic. If the county medical examiner determines the remains are non -forensic, they will report that finding to DAHP who will then take jurisdiction over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected Tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination as to whether the remains are Indian or Non - Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected Tribes. (c) DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains if no federal agency is involved. Confidentiality of Information The project proponent and their authorized representative recognizes that archaeological sites are sensitive cultural resources that can become targets of vandalism and illegal removal activities. The project proponent or their authorized representative shall keep and maintain as confidential all information regarding any discovered cultural resources, particularly the location of known or suspected archaeological property, and exempt all such information from public disclosure consistent with RCW 42.17.300. Contact Information The lead representatives and primary contacts of each party under this plan are as identified below. The parties may identify other individuals as primary contacts before the commencement of any particular project element. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 3310 Smokey Point Drive PO Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223-0277 Primary Contact: Kerry Lyste, THPO, Cultural Resources, 360-652-7362 ext. 226, klyste@stillaguamish.com Suquamish Tribe PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 Primary Contact: Dennis Lewarch, THPO, 360-394-8529, dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us Tulalip Tribes 6410 23rd Ave NE Tulalip, WA 98271 Primary Contact: Richard Young, Cultural Resources, 360-716-2652, ryoung@tulaliptribes-nsn.gov CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 53 Packet Pg. 566 Attachment 16 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Primary Contact: Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, 360-890-2615, Rob.Whitlam@dahp.wa.gov Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-790-1633, Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Primary Contact: Lance Lundquist, Cultural Resource Program Manager, 206-764-6909, or Stephanie Neil, Archaeologist, 206-764-6941 Snohomish County Medical Examiner's 9509 291 Ave W Everett, WA 98204 Lead Representative: I Matthew Lacy, MD, Chief Medical Examiner Primary Contact: 425-438-6200 Snohomish County Sheriffs Office 3000 Rockefeller Ave MS 606 Everett, WA 98201 Lead Representative: Adam Fortney, Sheriff Primary Contact: Non -Emergency Line, 425-407-3999 CRC Technical Memorandum #2107K-2 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project, Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington Page 54 Packet Pg. 567 Attach m� q jL-URT OF EDMONDS PORT OF EDMONDS Master Plan: West Side Commission Approved June 27, 2005 Commission Approved March 10, 2014 INTRODUCTION This Master Plan provides a 20-year development blueprint for the use of the Port's property. It builds on existing investments the Port has made and offers new ideas for use of the underutilized upland portions of the site. The Master Plan also includes the physical development to adjacent properties and their plans. This Plan complements the Port's Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan includes the Port of Edmonds Mission Statement and describes in broad terms how that mission will be accomplished. It also specifies the Port's two year implementation plan, incorporating programmatic and physical actions that the Port will pursue. The Master Plan is a document that references the Port's long- term strategies and its vision for the future and shows how they will be physically implemented. Specific elements of the Master Plan relate to current and long- term development, public access and safety. Both the Master Plan and Strategic Plan are reviewed and updated each year. The elements as they are outlined and implemented in this Master Plan will keep the Port of Edmonds one of the best marinas in the region and maintain public access to the water. MASTER PLAN AREA a ti r i. Port of Edmonds Vicinity E The Port complex incorporates approximately 64 acres including the Port shore CU based operations, marina, leased property and property held jointly by the Port a and the City of Edmonds. See Vicinity Map, Exhibit A. Packet Pg. 568 Attach m� q The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) tracks run north and south on the east side of Admiral Way and the Port proper. The Port has a lease agreement with BNSF for a stretch of property to accommodate part of the Dry Storage Program in the southeast portion of Port property. The Harbor Square Business complex which is located east of the railroad tracks along Dayton Street and SR104 is also situated on Port property, but is administered by a private property manager. The Harbor Square Athletic Club is also on Port property and is managed separately. The former UNOCAL property, located east of the railroad tracks is south and southeast of Port property. The upper portion of the UNOCAL site was purchased by TRIAD Development for condominium development. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Edmonds have recently purchased the lower site for the future Edmonds Crossing Project and Marina Beach Park from UNOCAL for the City's Parks and Recreation Programs. The Port also owns a small parcel of land south of Marina Beach Park/Dog Park which was purchased from U. S. West in February of 1996. The old Safeway site, situated to the northeast of Port property, is recognized as under -developed. The Port has an interest in working with the property manager on a possible private/public development, or as a broker in future development of the property. The parking area adjacent to the old Richards Building immediately north of the Port property is jointly owned by the Port and the City of Edmonds. This area provides public parking for visitors to Olympic Beach Park and the public Fishing Pier. "Removed discussion of East Side land, including the marsh, interpretive center, etc. The harbor area encompasses 25 acres which are utilized for the Port's marina. The Port has a management agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for use of the waterway on the inside of the marina for the purpose of providing marina moorage and other marine related programs. The Master Plan recognizes the importance of planning for Port owned property, 4- such as the Harbor Square area. The Port also recognizes the potential of a 0 0 master development plan that might include the "old Safeway" property and a° Harbor Square. The Port is committed to working with the appropriate parties in ,: realizing this potential. r 2. Port Property - Site Opportunities w The core of the Port property is located on a narrow strip of land between Puget a Sound and the BNSF tracks. Uses of the site are limited as a result of this Packet Pg. 569 Attach m� q situation. Much of the available property is space that is covered with impervious surfac e Any development on Port property will take into consideration: public access to the waterfront, provision for a greenbelt and other landscaped areas, and view corridors from walkways and Admiral Way. MASTER PLAN VISION The Master Plan vision, when fully implemented, will realize the following: i. Public Access The Port will provide physical and programmatic amenities to encourage the public to visit the Port and access the water. Landscaping, signage and the walking promenade will be a year-round attraction permitting the public to visit and enjoy the seasonal flowers, the marina, Puget Sound and the beauty of the Olympic Mountains. The waterfront is defined as the area between Brackett's Landing Park to the north and from Marina Beach Park on the south, west of Admiral Way. The public promenade extends from Brackett's Landing at the Ferry Terminal, south through Olympic Beach Park and connects via Port property to Marina Beach Park. Harbor Square Business Park and the Edmonds Marsh are situated east of the railroad tracks. A partial trail system encompasses the business park and the marsh. It is part of the Port's vision to include a Cultural and Interpretive Center highlighting the marsh and marine environment in partnership with the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Community College, and others. The Port will work with the City of Edmonds to encourage public access from the uplands Point Edwards, across the railroad tracks, to the waterfront. 2. Marina Programs The Port's in -water marina is in high demand. There could be opportunities for marina expansion in concert with the Edmonds Crossing Project or through partnerships with the Town of Woodway and the owner of the Point Wells property. The Dry Storage facility is at full capacity during much of the year and emphasis is being placed on maximizing capacity year-round. Due to the decline in fishing over the past ten to fifteen years, activity at the a public launch facility has decreased significantly. The cost center has not been r profitable for the last decade. The public launch was financed partially by a grant from the State of Washington Inter Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation E (IAC); now since has become the Recreation Conservation Organization (RCO) . The grant covenant stipulates the Port will continue to operate and maintain the a public launch in perpetuity to the full extent of its economically useful life, or until such time as it becomes obsolete for its intended purpose. The Commission Packet Pg. 570 Attach m� q considers the public launch to be a public amenity and will continue to fully support the program. The Port's travelift/boat yard is an important marine related program. There may be opportunities for expansion, depending upon utilization and enhancement to the environmental programs, especially as state and federal regulations are updated and implemented. Parking is not a major concern with current programs; however, with program expansion, parking could be more of a concern and parking structures may be a consideration. This will depend upon development in certain areas of Port property. Restrooms and facilities for guest moorage patrons are currently located in the Marina Operations complex. Restrooms are also available at the City owned Beach Ranger facility at the north end of the marina and there are also restrooms beneath the Port Administration offices. Restrooms at the Administration building are open 24 hours a day. Facilities for tenant use are located at the south end of the marina. A new restroom and public amenities complex may be constructed near the public launch and guest moorage area. The Port will pursue grant opportunities to build this complex. 3. Business Facilities Building structures currently include the Landing Building which houses Arnies Restaurant, a Deli, and Charter Operations; the Port's Administration Building; the Edmonds Yacht Sales building; Edmonds Yacht Club; and Anthony's Home Port Restaurant/Beach Cafe building, which also houses the Marina Operations offices. The Port has ground leases with; the Landing Partnership, the Edmonds Yacht Club, and Jacobsen's Marine. The Anthony's Home Port building is owned by the Port, and the Port has a building lease with Mad Anthony's Incorporated. 'Removed discussion of Harbor Square and East Side building facilities. GUIDING PRINCIPLES These guiding principles are not listed in any order of priority, but are intended r to provide guidance for site development. d E • Conserve and protect the shoreline and environmental quality. • Maintain a quality marina and marina related services. a • Support Port tenants. Packet Pg. 571 Attach m� q • Provide for public safety. • Increase or enhance public access. • Encourage new waterfront related uses, for example: new marine related retail, new vendors, cultural arts programs and new opportunities for small craft such as kayaks. • Incorporate new public space that can be used for celebrations, public events, passive and active recreation (viewing, sitting, walking, and jogging). • Decrease impervious surfaces and spaces throughout the site, increase green areas, and provide for liberal landscaping. • Provide an overall design theme for the Port that will be evident in architecture and landscaping. The overall design should relate to the Port's history, location, and maritime role and should incorporate cultural and fine arts elements. • Infrastructure should be an integral part of the waterfront experience; i.e., signage should be coordinated and focused; utilities must be underground; roof tops that are part of the City of Edmond's view should be aesthetically attractive; refuse containers, benches, fences, railings, and pedestrian crossing paving should be integrated in an overall master design. When possible, these latter facilities should be thematically consistent and esthetically pleasing; they should encourage the incorporation of art and sculpture. • View corridors from Admiral Way and from buildings on the east side of Admiral Way shall be incorporated into the planning process when considering new buildings, landscape, and public amenities. • Circulation on the site should be improved, including traffic flow, with important consideration especially for public safety vehicles and pedestrian connections. • To the extent practical, parking should be located between Admiral Way and the BNSF tracks, freeing the area near the waterfront for increased public amenities, public use and green areas. DESCRIPTION OF FEATURES AND PROGRAMS i. Programs The Port's largest program provides marine related service to the public and the boating community. The Port will strive to maintain high standards in existing services, as well as to seek new programs that complement the existing operations of the Port. These programs may include the following: • Wet moorage and dry storage programs • Public access to the shoreline including the promenade with access to Marina Beach and Olympic Beach Parks • Accommodations for fishing and other types of charters out of the Port • Landscape and flower programs Packet Pg. 572 Attach m� q • Well maintained roads and sidewalks 2. Facilities To accommodate the programs of the Port the following facilities will be provided: • Boating access launch apparatus for the public launch and dry storage programs • Boatyard accessible by the public, that meets environmental standards • Travelift in support of the Port's boatyard • Pressure wash and wastewater treatment facility • Marine fuel dock, guest moorage, bait shop • Fishing Pier managed by the City of Edmonds • Load and unload areas, and public parking areas • Restrooms and related programs for the public, tenants, launch users, and guest moorage patrons • Commercial, light industrial, marine oriented businesses • Retail establishments including shops and restaurants • Boat sales, repair, and services • Mix of office facilities • Private yacht club facility • Accommodations for the Sea Scout Program Facilities for recycling and disposal of refuse 3. Access and Safety The two points of vehicle entry to the waterfront and the marina are via Main a Street and Dayton Street, both of which cross the BNSF tracks. Due to these limited access points, the Port and the City of Edmonds have concerns about a emergency access when a long train is stopped and blocking access on Dayton Street and Main Street. Currently, the Port has an agreement with the City to provide personnel and a vehicle to help transport equipment and supplies across the tracks, if such a situation were to occur. Pedestrian access across the rail tracks is planned to be provided as part of a multimodal station. The Edmonds E Crossing project team will also examine, during the final design and permitting w phase of the project, whether an emergency only crossing could be incorporated o into the Edmonds Crossing Project, to increase safety and convenience for o pedestrian, equipment, and vehicle crossing. a ti A primary mission of the Port is to provide quality services and facilities for the public, tenants, and the boating community. In keeping with this mission, the E Port maintains a high level of maintenance of the facilities and amenities for both the enjoyment of the visitors to the Port and for their safety. The Port's in-house a Safety Committee is constantly reviewing the grounds and facilities for ways to make improvements to ensure the safety of its staff and for visitors who walk the Packet Pg. 573 Attach m� q grounds, the boardwalk, and through the facilities. Many improvements to the facilities have been completed over the last several years. NEW OR EXPANDED ELEMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN The following elements are the physical plans for the Port property over the next twenty years. Some of the elements are in the planning phase and may be implemented in the short term. Other elements are longer range. See: Port Site Map, Exhibit B. Public Plaza The Port constructed a public plaza located on the west side of the Anthony's Homeport Restaurant Building. The plaza area is a combination of landscape and hard surface area designed for the public. A weather station is near this area to provide educational and meteorological information to visitors and boaters of the region. The Port may pursue grant funding to re -design, rebuild and/or maintain this weather center and surrounding public amenities. Parking Parking is essential to meet the needs of the Port programs and the businesses located on Port property. Parking will be provided on both the east and west side of Admiral Way. It shall be the policy of the Port to locate parking to the east side of Admiral Way as opportunities present themselves, but still maintain enough parking on the west side to accommodate the programs and businesses. The Port will review the need for an increase in parking or parking structures as development occurs on Port property or as adjacent development occurs such as the Antique Mall site, Harbor Square or the Edmonds Crossing project. Boardwalk Improvements Improvements have been made to the boardwalk including view cutouts, inclusion of benches and tables, and landscape planters. Additional improvements may include a landscape strip, shelters to contain the recycle and refuse containers, and interpretive signage. Mixed Use Area - Waterfront ti This area was identified in previous master plans as a mixed use area with r potential for development. This site is now developed and functions under a land lease between the Port of Edmonds and the Edmonds Yacht Club (EYC). E The building is used as a clubhouse and event space and also contains office space on the second floor. Possible uses for the remainder might include parking, a Packet Pg. 574 Attach m� q Port office and/or maintenance complex, and a building for community facility use. Mixed Use Area — East of Admiral Way A land lease between the Port of Edmonds and Jacobsen's Marine has been signed and approved by the Port of Edmonds Commission. Plans for developing a io,000 square foot building for boat sales and repair are proceeding through permit processes. Approximately 36,000 square feet of this mixed use area will be dedicated to this marine retail space. Possible uses for the remainder might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex, and a building for community facility use. Mixed Use Area — South of Boatyard This area is currently an informal parking area and storage/recycling area for the Port and Anthony's Home Port Restaurant and dry storage boats. Possible uses might include parking, storage, marine retail and services complex, expanded boatyard operations, support facilities for public access and launch operations and a building for community facility use. Dry Storage Expansion Expansion may occur to the north of the existing dry storage facility if program needs demand such an expansion. The area impacted by such an expansion is currently used for parking. Elimination of parking in this area would require additional parking be provided in another area. Marina Expansion If an opportunity presents itself, the Port may want to study the feasibility of expanding the south marina in light of the Edmonds Crossing project. Public Access Support Facilities The Port may consider expansion of guest moorage areas to; accommodate overflow visitor moorage or increase capacity. Existing guest moorage areas may a° be reviewed for necessary improvements and enhancements. r �i The Port will pursue opportunities to upgrade and extend the life of the public sling launch with the goal of; increasing capacity for providing access to more boats and maintaining existence of this public access. A grant has been awarded w through Washington State Recreational Conservation Organization (RCO) to a upgrade the existing south sling launch and the Port is in the process of Packet Pg. 575 Attach m� q proceeding with these improvements. The Port may consider improvements to the north launch in the future. Combination vehicle and trailer parking, fueling facilities, restrooms, garbage and recycling, security, and information distribution are all necessary support functions for accommodating guest moorage and public launch access. The Port will maintain adequate support facilities in the vicinity of these access points. The Port may review the need for renewed support facilities such as; restrooms, laundry, showers, parking, waste handling, fuel dock infrastructure and systems, information distribution and other support amenities and pursue grant funding where appropriate. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map - Exhibit A 2. Site Map - Exhibit B 3. Recreation Conservation Organization Grant Eligibility — Addendum 1 Packet Pg. 576 �3 • �CL oc W O J tiN U cc o � tr 20 z L ,5 O ui = w dr :! • �, U) s I. � z W �' •� LO O CD SIX jr CZ TIM I; z = �. O 'Ar j Bg� W K _ _� ,• I M. 1r� L O.� C 1701 1E R Q ( 5,• � w W a. ZHE `aE V��• n�c� r`Y » C S. c fi 16 '� - Packet Pg. 577 i 0 � C off_ W � W �a 00 - 0 cc 0 Z a Q 0 J N a o LLI I— Q Q Z a' O co0 W Z LL N = o Z 3 Q o a W � LLI o CD LL N O N li Z a _ c6 a. d N O N O E LU 0 V 0 a ti _ E t 0 O a Packet Pg. 578 Attach m q Recreation Conservation Organization Eligibility —Addendum 1 MEMORANDUM Date: February 6, 2014 To: Bob McChesney, Executive Director From: Marla Kempf, Deputy Director Subject: Strategic Plan and Master Plan as it relates to eligibility for Washington State Recreation Conservation Organization (RCO) future Grant Eligibility. As we move forward with finalizing the updates to our Strategic Plan and Master Plan, it may be useful for future Grant eligibility purposes to outline the planning process that has brought us to the conclusions in this plan. As noted in the Commission cover memo, significant changes have occurred since the Commission previously approved the Master Plan in 2005. There is no need for me to reiterate those, but for the purpose of understanding and verifying that we have accomplished all the necessary components required for Recreational Conservation Organization (RCO) grant eligibility, I have outlined some of the key planning processes that have taken place in the past few years that have assisted with supporting the direction outlined in the Port of Edmonds Strategic and Master Plans as it relates to the Westside Master Plan and Operations and Services at the Marina. • On August 29, 2011 a Commission Public Workshop discussion established future direction c related to the Sling Launch at the Port of Edmonds. At that time, maintenance costs were N increasing due to the aging mechanisms and an inspection revealed that substantial z improvements were needed if the launch was going to continue operations. Necessary a improvements were made based upon the proven need and demand for this public amenity. • Aril 2012 — Port conducts a survey Results were a combination of online responses collected p Y— p a by surveymonkey.com and handwritten hard copies which were mailed. The total tally of respondents was 169. This survey revealed wider feedback about the Port's facilities and services and provided a compass of sorts to assist with establishing goals and objectives and future direction related to Marina facilities and services. In May 2012 at a Commission and o Staff Retreat — Special Public Meeting the results of the survey were reviewed and key E components were incorporated into our daily routines as well as future directional plans. w • May 2012 — Engineering Study reveals inadequacies of existing public launch. ° • June 2012 — A Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to make formal application for �° Grant Funding Assistance through the Boating Facilities Program for the Port of Edmonds Public Launcher was approved by the Port Commission. • July 2012 — A letter is received from Compass Courses supporting continued operation of the boat launch services which contribute to over 1000 students learning proficiency in survival craft and small boat handling each year. a Packet Pg. 579 Attach m q • August 2012 — A letter is received from Puget Sound Anglers expressing the need for the Port of Edmonds public launch access point and its critical importance to recreational fishing and proximity to some of the best fishing grounds in Puget Sound and on the West Coast. • September 2012 — Port staff gives presentation to RCO Board requesting Grant funding assistance to renovate one of the two sling launches and extend its useful life by 15 to 20 years. Port records reveal the demand with 53,337 boat handlings since 2003. • June 2012 — National Marina Day Port organizes participation and community outreach. Port has a table to inform attendees of our services and receive feedback regarding our facilities and operations. • January 2013 — Port Commission begins discussions in public session to review and update the Port of Edmonds Mission Statement. • April 2013 — Port Commission agrees in public session to a change to the Mission Statement which reads "Operate and develop marina facilities with the goal that it be fully self -funded." Staff incorporates changes and Port Commission reviews Mission Statement and confirms goals and objectives as outline in the approved Mission Statement in the Strategic and Master Plans. • July 2013 — Port of Edmonds project is rated 3 out of 21 grant requests. RCO approves funding of 75% and the Port moves forward with inclusion of this asset and service in future plans. • September 2013 —the updated Mission Statement is reviewed in public session. • October 2013 — Public Commission Meeting was held and the 2014 proposed Marketing Plan was reviewed and discussed. The marketing plan includes a purpose statement, and an overview of primary facilities and services of the Port's west side properties. It establishes a promotions strategy that is in line with Port budgets, and Port Strategy and Master Plan. • November 2013 — Port budgets are adopted after three public hearings and a Five year Capital Improvement Program is approved for 2014 with anticipated capital improvements over the next five years. • February 2014— Public Launch Upgrades (advertised on website, at Seattle International Boat Show, and throughout the marina facilities) will be made with RCO Awarded Grant Assistance All of the above have been part of a public process that has led to some of the updates in the Strategic Plan and Master Plan that will be reviewed at the Commission Meeting on February 10, 2014. Port staff pursues grant funding for projects as appropriate and when in line with the Port's Mission, Strategy and Master Plan. In order for any of our projects to be eligible for participation in these grants processes during the current and future years, we will need to submit an updated and approved Strategic and Master Plan for approval to RCO by March 1, 2014. According to RCO's Self Certification Form, any project that is seeking funding must show evidence of its inclusion in the organizations Strategy and Master Plan as well as the capital improvement plan. There must also be ample opportunity for the public to be involved in plan development which I believe the above dates and events show that there has. The changes that I have made to the Master Plan were included with these criteria in mind. They are mostly updates to existing facilities and broad statements of intent related to Public Access and Support facilities. a Q �a U) 0 E M w 0 0 a ti r �i _ d E L V f4 Q Packet Pg. 580 Attachm U PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Port of Edmonds is proposing the following improvements to the Port of Edmonds Marina: • reconstruct and repair a segment of seawall; • reconstruct and renovate the North Portwalk; • construct two new pedestrian plazas that include new restrooms; and • renovate the adjacent parking lot. Existing creosote -treated timbers, timber piles, and timber lagging that support the east side of the Portwalk will be replaced with galvanized steel piles. The upper (timber) section of the seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall. The new Portwalk will improve pedestrian access along the waterfront by widening the northern portion by four feet and creating separation from the adjacent parking lot with the addition of a six-inch curb and a widened landscaped area between the walkway and parking lot. The parking lot will be reconfigured for vehicular and pedestrian safety. PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel 27032300401400, located at 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington. Construction will take place on the northern portion of the property. NAME OF APPLICANTS: The Port of Edmonds FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) DATE OF APPLICATION: April 26, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 24, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 7, 2023 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: The Port of Edmonds, acting as lead agency, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal on October 25, 2021 (SEPA # 202105751). The proposal may require conditions and mitigation measures under the applicable codes outside of the SEPA review process. A copy of the threshold determination may be obtained upon request. REQUESTED PERMITS: Design Review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on both Type III -A permits, with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) making a recommendation on the design review application. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED City of Edmonds Building Permit. Permits from other agencies may include Rivers and PERMITS Harbors Act Section 10 permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination (Washington State Department of Ecology), Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Construction Stormwater General Permit (Ecology), Hydraulic Permit Approval (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), Cultural Resources Assessment (Recreation Conservation Office, State of Washington). Packet Pg. 581 Attachm U EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA DNS, Critical Area Report/Biologist Report, Cultural Resources Assessment DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.040, the application will be reviewed for consistency with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds Community Development Code, Shoreline Master Program and applicable State and Federal regulations. COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 7, 2023. Per ECDC 20.03.005, the comment period for shoreline permits is 30 days. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Appeals of final decisions on shoreline substantial development permits are heard by the Shoreline Hearings Board, per ECDC 24.80.110. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https://www.edmondswa.eov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices. All of the information on all permits have been consolidated and attached under permit PLN2023-0016. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Planner amber.brokenshire@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 00 r y.i C d E t V f4 Q Packet Pg. 582 Attachm U 260 BEACH PLACE LLC 260 BEACH PL EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS PORT OF 336 ADMIRAL WAY EDMONDS WA 98020-7214 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT 401 SOUTH JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104 THE LANDING 300 ADMIRAL WAY SUITE 204 EDMONDS WA 98020 STEED JOHN A & ROBERTA L 258 BEACH PL EDMONDS WA 98020-4129 CATSPAW - LANDING 2829 RUCKER AVE STE 100 EVERETT WA 98201 CHEVRON SERVICES COMPANY PO BOX 285 HOUSTON TX 77001 CHEVRON CORPORATION PO BOX 1392 BAKERSFIELD CA 93302-1392 EDMONDS BAY LLC PO BOX 572 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034-0006 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 EDMONDS BAY LLC 9 MONROE PARKWAY STE 205 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97305 Packet Pg. 583 x Z Z Z `oa U W W t W Z m 3 m W O W I 0 Of A W w OC ~ U f0 M 0. LU W U U i a 0, a c p m 3 O -p O p[ m- �n m O O O o 3 c -o 0 OC CL H > N ¢ > y c C a w a K a E a `o o — m N N_ L_ m m a Q U 3 L_ Lba 3 N N N W `o J `o a Q `o ° `� u `o m ° m l7 U' U' o o in �n 0 0 a v __ = CL c o J = v O N M a 0 a �_ I-) D U D ci E 7 D C..) > iJ Q d c N -0 V V £ V u N 7 U V u N N W Q Q I ., N I I U CL Q Q Q be d QbE l - o IBM it* ! Ci -� Z AVM SONOVY03 1 I 1 I I�NRNISAI Fj �a C Q ■ I Packe 00 N O t Pi r _ 0 cu d 7 V O G N O z B co a. �4) �E X v a 0 m �y � V �. 584 Attachm U Brokenshire, Amber From: Martin, Michelle Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1:08 PM To: Rothfus, Debbie Cc: Brokenshire, Amber Subject: FW: click2mail.com: New Order # 14019860756 (Amber's PLN2023-0015/0016) Hi Debbie, This is for Amber's Project: PLN2023-0015/0016. Thanks! ClickgMail* Order No.14019860756 Order Total: $10.70 Order DateJun 6, 2023, 8:05:10 PM Accountmmartin Payment Method Credit Card Credit Card Credit Card Type Visa Credit Card Number XXXX-4929 Number of Jobs 1 Billing Address Ms Michelle Martin City of Edmonds - Attn./A. Brokenshire PLN2023-0015/0016 121 5th Ave N Edmonds Washington 98020-3163 United States Job and Product Information ob ID: 20174112 - Separate Address Page in a #10 Envelope - 5 sheet max. �tSKU: LT41-P Job Source: PMUI Product Type: Letter 8.5 X 11, Paper Type: White 24#, Print Color: Black And White, Print Options: Printing One Side, Mail Class: First Class, Production Time: Next Day, Com: NO, Base Document Name: PLN2023_0016_Vicinity_Map_3 Job Address List Name: Addressing_1 0 6, a 23 7 a 00 r 1 Packet Pg. 585 Attachm U Production Cost for 11 Pieces:$4.40 First Class Automation Letter Postage for 11 Pieces: $5.84 Invoice Subtotal: Tax: Total Invoice: From: Click2Mail Customer Support <support@click2mail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1:05 PM To: Martin, Michelle <michelle.martin@edmondswa.gov> Subject: click2mail.com: New Order # 14019860756 Ms Michelle Martin, Thank you for your order from click2mail.com. Below is a copy of your invoice. You can check the status of your order at any time or by logginginto nto your account. Thank you again for your business. Ms Michelle Martin City of Edmonds - Attn./A. Brokenshire PLN2023-0015/0016 121 5th Ave N Edmonds Washington 98020-3163 United States Credit Card Credit Card Credit Card Visa Type Credit Card XXXX- Number 4929 7 IA1 Completeln progressAttention 01 Packet Pg. 586 Attachm U Letter - Separate Address Page in a #10 Envelope - 5 sheet max. SKU: LT41-P Job id. 20174112 Document Name: PLN2023_0016_Vicinity_Map_3 Mailinglist Name: Addressing_1 product type Letter 8.5 x 11 paper type White 24# print color Black and White envelope # 10 Double Window print options Printing One side mail class First Class production_ time Next Day personalizing Yes isCom NO Thanks again! C1ick2Mail Customer Support 2023-06-07 1 Subtotal $10.24 Tax $0.46 Grand Total $10.70 $10.24 processing If you have any questions about your account or any other matter, please feel free to contact us at support@click2mail.com or by phone at (866) 665-2787. C1ick2Mai1 Customer Support is available Monday - Friday from 9am 8pm EST. View our terms and conditions For more details write to us at support@click2mail.com 3 Packet Pg. 587 Attachm U FILE NO.: PLN2023-0015, PLN2023-0016 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On June 7, 2023, the attached Notice of Public Application and Request for Public Comment was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library, and the Public Safety buildings. I, Amber M. Brokenshire, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this Th day of June, 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 588 lD. N Z At'5hrri= Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH978366 PORT OF EDMONDS as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 06/07/2023 and ending on 06/07/2023 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount o L fee for su i publication is 5141.04. Subscribed and sworn Ifore me on this day of 3 Notary Public in and for the State o Washington. Cny of LJmon N D—lopmcm Scn,— I S6031703 MICIILLLL NIAR'I IN Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 8/2912025 Commission Number 4417 Packet Pg. 589 Attachm JL r 3 w Act ,vK_ ( Ill- Classified Proof pLN2C) -� + CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Port of Edmonds is proposing the Q 1—i-n a following Improvements to the Port of Edmonds Marina: • reconstruct andr:pairasegment ofseawall, • reconstruct and renovate the North Portwalk; l C r Q • construct two new pedestrian plazas that include new, restrooms; and V renovate the adjacent parking lot. Existing creosote -treated Umbers, limber piles, and timber lagging L Thal support the east side of the Podwaik will be replaced with ++ galvanized steel piles. The upper (timber) section of the seawall N will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall. The new Portwalk will i Improve pedestrian access along the waterfront by widening the Q northern portion by four feet and creating separation from the V adjacent parking lot with the addition of a six -Inch curb and a d widened landscaped area between the walkway and parking lot The parking lot will be reconfigured for vehicular and pedestrian safety. — PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel 27032300401400, located at 336 fC Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington. Construction will lake place 3 on the northern portion of the property. NAME OF APPLICANTS: The Portof Edmonds FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) U) ATE OF APPLICATION: April 26, 2023 -0 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 24, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 7, 2023 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: The Port of Edmonds, acting es lead agency, Issued a Determination of Nonsiggruficance (DNS) for the proposal on October 25, 2021 (SEPA k 202105751), The proposal may require conditions and mitigation measures under the applicable codes outside of the SEPA review process. A copy of the threshold determination may be obtained upon request •�+ REQUESTED PERMITS: Design Review and Shoreline Q Subsla ntial Development Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a d public hearing on both Type III -A permits, with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) making a recommendation on the design review application. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: City of Edmonds Building Permit. O Permits from other agencies may Include Rivers and Harbors Act Z Section 10 permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination (Washingqton Slate Department of Ecology), Clean Water Act Section 401 V✓aler N Quality Cerflfncalion and Construction Slormwater General Permit C (Ecology), Hydraulic Permit Approval (Washington Department of 0 Fish and Wildlife), Cultural Resources Assessment (Recreation C G Conservation Office, Stale of Washington). EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA DNS, Critical 'a Area ReporUBiobgist Report, Cultural Resources Assessment LLI DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: Pursuant to RCW 4- 36.708.040, the application will be reviewed for consistency with O the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds Community Development Code, Shoreline Master Program and applicable State and Federal regulations. Q COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 7, 2023. Per ECDC d 20.03005, the comment period for shoreline permits is 30 days. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the In public comment period, receive notice and participate In any T_ hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. p The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the p closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, r or, If no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the M decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined In CV ECDC 20 07 003 have standing to iniliale an administrative appeal. O Appeals of final decisions on shoreline substantial development N permits are heard by the Shoreline Hearings Board, per ECDC Z 24.80.110. J Information on this development application can be viewed or d obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services .... r� Q Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/12/2023 01:54:37 pm rage: 2 Packet Pg. 590 'Classified Proof Attachm U Department, 121 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at Mips://www.edmondswa.govlsemiceS/pubfic_irwolvementpublic n otices/development notices. All of the information on all permits have been consolidated and attached under permit PLN2023- 0016. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshlre, Planner ambe r.brokenshire@edmondswa.gov 425.771-0220 Published: June 7, 2023. EDH978366 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/12/2023 01:54:37 pm Page: 3 Packet Pg. 591 Attachm U CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING (UPDATED DATE) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Port of Edmonds is proposing the following improvements to the Port of Edmonds Marina: • reconstruct and repair a segment of seawall; • reconstruct and renovate the North Portwalk; • construct two new pedestrian plazas that include new restrooms; and • renovate the adjacent parking lot. PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel 27032300401400, located at 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington. Construction will take place on the northern portion of the property. NAME OF APPLICANTS: The Port of Edmonds FILE NUMBER: PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) REQUESTED PERMITS: Design Review and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on both Type III -A permits, with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) making a recommendation on the design review application. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. DATE OF APPLICATION: April 26, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 24, 2023 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 7, 2023 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: The Port of Edmonds, acting as lead agency, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal on October 25, 2021 (SEPA # 202105751). The proposal may require conditions and mitigation measures under the applicable codes outside of the SEPA review process. A copy of the threshold determination may be obtained upon request. REVIEW PROCESS: The design review of the project is a Type III-B decisions while the shoreline permit is a Type III -A decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on the design review and shoreline permit following a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PUBLIC MEETING: A hybrid public meeting will be held before the Architectural Design Board on March 28, 2024 at 6 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Online participation is also available via the following Zoom link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/i 88959586932 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Packet Pg. 592 Attachm U Meeting ID: 889 5958 6932 Password: 591531 NOTE: No public testimony on the proposal will be taken at the Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting. The ADB will be considering the design aspects of the proposal and will forward a recommendation on the design of the proposed project to the Hearing Examiner. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on April 11, 2024 at 3 p.m. The physical location is Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/I/82688031743?pwd=UEROWk5hdU5DN1dRK1V3MkR2WTRSdz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 826 8803 1743 Password: 308007 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: April 11, 2024 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Information on this development application can be obtained online at htto://edmondswa.gov/oublic-notices-text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number PLN2023-0015/PLN2023-0016, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available seven days prior to the hearing. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https://www.edmondswa.eov/services/public involvement/public notices/develoament notices. All of the information on all permits have been consolidated and attached under permit PLN2023-0015/PLN2023-0016. CITY CONTACT: Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner amber.brokenshire@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 00 r y.i C d E t V f4 Q Packet Pg. 593 Attachm U FILE NO.: PLN2023-0015, PLN2023-0016 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On March 20, 2024, the attached Notice of Public Meeting was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library, and the Public Safety buildings. I, Amber M. Brokenshire, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 20th day of March, 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: ��GZfuL�-C� {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 594 Attachm� OF ED& MEMORANDUM td��go Date: May 17, 2023 To: Amber Brokenshire, Planner From: Leif Bjorback, Building Official Re: 458 Admiral Way PLN2023-0015/ PLN2023-0016 Portwalk Project The City of Edmonds Building Division has performed a preliminary building code review of the plans that were submitted under the referenced application number and have the following comments. 1. The project is located in flood zone AE12. Structures such as the new restroom building must be elevated such that the lowest floor level is no lower than 14 feet in elevation. Other structural and nonstructural elements must comply with all flood development standards adopted by the City of Edmonds. 2. A soils report will be required for the subsequent building permits. 3. Structural plans and calculations will be required for the subsequent building permits 4. Energy code compliance forms for exterior lighting will be required for the building permit. 5. All other building code related items will be reviewed under the subsequent building permits. Thank you. City of Edmonds cza Building Department Packet Pg. 595 Attachm� Date To: MEMORANDUM June 16, 2023 Amber Brokenshire, Planning Division From: JoAnneZulauf, Engineering Division Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer M i ke Del i I a, Uti I i ty Engi neer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PL N20160054 —Desi gn Review Port of Edmonds Port Walk - 300 Admiral Way Engi neeri ng has revi ewed the subj ect appl i cati on and found the i nformati on provi ded i s consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compl i ance wi th Engi neeri ng codes and constructi on standards wi I I be revi ewed wi th the bui I di ng permi t appl i cati on for devel opment of the si te. A pproval of the desi gn revi ew phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. The fol I owi ng i nformati on i s provi ded to assi st wi th the ci vi I constructi on pl an revi ew process and i s not i ntended to address a1 I potenti a1 comments that may ari se f rom a f uture bui I di ng permi t ci vi I constructi on pl an revi ew. Utility Engineer Review: Public Easements The ci ty woul d I i ke to take thi s opportuni ty to i denti fy and procure easements for a1 I publ i c uti I i ti es on the si te. a. Verify condition and inspect utilities. b. Note year of installation/replacement. c. Provide draft easements for the city to review. Packet Pg. 596 Water Main Replacement: The city would like to advantage of the I ocati on of the work proposed to replace the water main. Due to its age, condition and size, the main cannot support the fire and domestic demands of the port. R ease contact M i ke Del i I a, Uti I i ty Engi neer, by emai I mi ke.del i I I a(a).edmondswa.gov or phone 425-771-0220 to di scuss these i tems and to work on an i nterl ocal agreement or somethi ng si mi I ar to manage the project. Stormwater Engineer Review: Refer to separate comments by City Stormwater Engineer, Jerry Shuster. R ease contact Jerry directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jerry.shuster(aI.edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Transportation Engineer Review: The fol I owi ng comments are provided by the City Transportation Engineer, Bertrand Hauss. Rease contact Bertrand at 425-771-0220 or by email at Bertrand. hauss(a)-edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. 1. Traffic Study: A traffic study is required if the proposed project creates more than 25 peak - hour tri ps. 2. If a Traff i c Study is not required, pl ease compl ete and submit aTraffic Impact Analysis Worksheet. Specific mitigation fees will befurther reviewed during the buiIding permit phase of the project. 3. PI ease review Transportation comments on the attached marked up pl an prior to permit submitted. Packet Pg. 597 Attachm� �" ► CITY OF EDMONDS v STORMWATER REVIEW COMMENTS ENGINEERING DIVISION (425) 771-0220 City Website: www.edmondswa.gov DATE: June 16, 2023 TO: Permit Coordinator FROM: Jerry Shuster, P.E., Stormwater Engineer RE: Application #: PLN2023-0016 Project: Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Address: 300 Admiral Way It is recommended that the project be approved to move into engineering design. Note that this approval is in no -way intended to be a warranty as to the proposed system's adequacy and the project engineer is responsible for ensuring the drainage system can be designed to meet all design and maintenance standards without impacting the building footprint or site plan. The review comments below are specific concerns which can be addressed during the next stage of the review process. During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following initial information, corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please submit revised plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below. City of Edmonds handouts, standard details and development code can be found on the City website. Comments on Preliminary Drainage Report, North Portwalk Seawall Reconstruction, C&G Engineering, Received April 26 ,2023. 1. Section I, Page 1 - The application date for this permit (PLN2023-0016) is 3/31/2023, therefore, it is subject to the stormwater code and Addendum that went into effect on July 1, 2022. 2. Section I, Pages 3 and 4 and Section II, Page 1. a. The ownership of the stormwater pipes and outfalls shown in these figures should be discussed and verified. Any easements for City stormwater pipes on Port property should be discussed. If there are no easements, this is an opportunity to clarify ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The City will look into its easements in the project area and the Port should do so as well. b. Dye testing may be necessary to verify flow path from individual catch basins/manholes. 3. Section III, Page 2. a. Note that in the current Stormwater Addendum, detention systems are on the list before perforated stub outs. Packet Pg. 598 Attachm� b. The rationale for the proposed boardwalk having a cross -slope towards the existing parking lot versus sloping it towards Puget Sound should be included. c. A plan view figure delineating the drainage basins for Outfalls 1, 2, & 3 should be included in the report. d. The text states that: "WWHM and Stormshed 3G were used to model the developed flow rates from the addition of the reconstructed boardwalk and the existing conveyance system to check that it has sufficient capacity to convey the existing and developed flows." A summary table showing each pipe segment for the three outfalls, their capacity and their expected flows should be provided as well as a narrative of the assumptions and results of the conveyance analysis. It is difficult to pick this information out of the model outputs. 4. Modeling Outputs - These were not reviewed during this preliminary stage of the project and will be looked at in detail during the next phase. 5. The City has received several comments about water puddling near one of the driveway entrances to the existing 336 Admiral Way property (see red circle in photo below). The City and the Port should take the opportunity to eliminate this pudding as part of this project. Packet Pg. 599 0 .! ■ r zO �/§ ■ a Z = \ k - \)(\(No Nq\ qln ONy S$q� e 2A3n o E m m«, a«,lmvs eE! a a IIVMV3S a« AIVM180d H180NT , _ _ _ \zo - - § � U) - a z ; /L § _- , [ \� . (! m § ! r, \ o inn zu Lu ■` `nC. 189\3 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction File Numbers: PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) Date of Report: March 22, 2023 Staff Contact: Zz Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner ADB Meeting: Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 6:00 P.M. Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Online participation is also available via the following Zoom link: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/*/88959586932 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Meeting ID: 889 5958 6932 Password: 591531 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The Port of Edmonds is proposing to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach due to significant deterioration. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas will be added adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. An Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of the existing esplanade between the boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant, and a Central Plaza will be added in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building, which is to be demolished (Attachments 1— 8). Existing creosote -treated timbers, timber piles, and timber lagging that support the east side of the Portwalk will be replaced with galvanized steel piles. The upper timber section of the seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall. The new Portwalk will follow the same alignment but be elevated six inches to create increased separation from the adjacent fire lane and to improve accessibility. The parking lot will be reconfigured for vehicular and pedestrian safety. Packet Pg. 601 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction II. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant: Port of Edmonds 2. Owner: Port of Edmonds 3. Location: 300 Admiral Way (Tax ID 27032300401400) 4. Zoning: Commercial Waterfront (CW), subject to Chapter 16.55 ECDC (Attachment 9) 5. Shoreline Jurisdiction: Shoreline Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II 6. Existing Use: 13-foot wide boardwalk and supporting seawall that provides public access to the waterfront and shoreline. 7. Proposed Use: No change to the use is proposed. Reconstruction of the Portwalk and the addition of public plazas and restrooms will continue to provide pedestrian access along the waterfront while improving the walkway network along the waterfront. 8. Process: Two land use applications were submitted: Design Review (PLN2023-0015) and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN2023-0016). Since the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III -A decision pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are also Type III -A decisions. The two applications are being consolidated pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are consolidated, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal lead to a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the decision on design review and shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on both permit applications. The public hearing by the Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for April 11, 2024. B. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required for this project because the replacement of the waterfront boardwalk extends along the edge of the waterfront and the proposed seawall reconstruction will occur on lands covered by water. After following the Optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and the threshold determination process of WAC 197- 11-300, the Port of Edmonds issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on October 25, 2021. A SEPA DNS indicates that while there may be some environmental impacts resulting from a project, those can be adequately mitigated by applying existing environmental regulations and best management practices for erosion and sediment controls, spill prevention, and the like. No comments or appeals of the SEPA determination were received. Page 2 of 20 Packet Pg. 602 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction C. PUBLIC NOTICE The applications were submitted on April 26, 2023, and determined to be complete on May 24, 2023. In accordance with ECDC 20.03, a "Notice of Application" was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and Planning and Development Department on June 7, 2023 (Exhibit 12). The notice was not posted at the Edmonds Library since it was closed for renovations. The notice was also published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. June 7, 2023. The comment period for the Notice of Application ran for 30 days and ended on July 7, 2023. An updated notice of application was issued on March 20, 2023 due to an error in the original mailed notice. The updated Notice of Application was published in the Herald Newspaper, and posted at the subject site, the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on March 20, 2023. The notice was again mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site (Attachment 18). A Notice of Public Hearing (which included a notice of the Architectural Design Board meeting) was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Planning and Development Department, and the Edmonds Library on March 20, 2023 (Attachment 18). The notice was also published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on March 20, 2023. To date, no public comments on the proposal have been received. D. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, Building Division, and the Engineering Division. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 approved the proposal. Additional reviews and/or inspections by South County Fire will be provided with future submittals for compliance verification. The Building Division noted the project site is located within Flood Zone AE12 per the preliminary FEMA flood maps and the structure must be designed and constructed to resist the effect of flood hazards and flood loads. The Building Division also noted elements that will need to be addressed under subsequent building permits (Attachment 19). The Engineering Division preliminarily approved the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process (Attachment 20). E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Topography: The subject site is relatively level. Page 3 of 20 Packet Pg. 603 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, the soils on the site consist of "Urban land" soils. 3. Critical Areas: A critical areas determination was made under File No. CRA2021-0155 for the parcel containing the proposed development site. The critical area determination found the site to contain or be adjacent to frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas (seismic hazard), and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Puget Sound). 4. Shoreline: The upland portion of the project site is located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation of the Shoreline Master Program while portions of the boardwalk and seawall are located in the Aquatic II shoreline environment (Attachment 11). Due to the project's location within shoreline jurisdiction, the proposal is subject to the requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC). Compliance with the Shoreline Master Program will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS This property is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. The adjacent sites to the north and south of the subject site are also zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Olympic Beach Park is located on the northern end of the project site which is zoned Public (P). The BNSF railroad right- of-way is east across Admiral Way. East of the railroad is the Harbor Square development and Edmonds Marsh. A zoning map is provided for reference in Attachment 9. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Master Plan Development" and the site is also within the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" overlay. An excerpt of goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan related to this project are shown below: Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi -modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. The subject site is designated as "Mixed Use", having Boardwalk Improvements, and parking lots in the Port of Edmonds Master Plan updated on February 10, 2014. Regarding the "Mixed Use Area" east of Admiral Way, the Master Plan states the following: "Possible uses might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex, marine retail and services complex, Edmonds Yacht Club building, expanded boatyard operations and a building for community facility use." The subject proposal appears to be consistent with the above goals, as it creates a public plaza, public restrooms, and additional parking. The redesign of existing parking lots aims to increase public safety for pedestrians and drivers by shifting the parking lot layout to angled stalls and implementing one-way traffic. The Port of Edmonds Master Plan for the west side of Admiral Way is included as Attachment 17. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: Page 4 of 20 Packet Pg. 604 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.4 Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. A.5 Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown/waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal B. Continue to plan for and implement improvements in the downtown/waterfront area that resolve safety conflicts while encouraging multi -modal transportation and access to the waterfront. 8.1 Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards, the Port of Edmonds, and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline. 8.2 Plan for improvements to resolve transportation and safety conflicts in the downtown/waterfront area. 8.3 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements while protecting downtown's identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small-town pedestrian -oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to the redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small-town character of Edmonds and its economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. Page 5 of 20 Packet Pg. 605 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction D.2 Gradually remove large and inadequately landscaped paved areas and provide for green infrastructure. D.3 Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown/waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way finding devices, • Restrooms. D.4 Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible. D.5 Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. D.6 Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities. D.7 Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty while being appropriate for its location. D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian and bicycle activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed -use areas in the downtown area. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal H. Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses. H.1 Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented destination. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following specific goal for the Shoreline Commercial designation: Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water -oriented and water - dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian -scale development while providing incentives to encourage public -view corridors. Roof and building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of its high Page 6 of 20 Packet Pg. 606 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular, landmark buildings of high quality and sustainable design that take advantage of the visibility and natural environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront. Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public walkways and street fronts. (Comprehensive Plan, page 56) The Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides general design guidance intended to provide a set of tools for the City to use to guide development to result in high -quality, well -designed, and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. These general design guidelines are analyzed below. Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. Findings: The proposed development would not increase the number of curb cuts. The number of driveways is the minimum necessary for vehicular circulation and ingress/egress. The driveway widths are the minimum set by the development code for driveway width. The renovation of the parking lot will improve safety for pedestrians and drivers alike by shifting the parking layout from perpendicular to angled stalls and implementing one-way traffic lanes. This will ensure cars no longer back up straight towards the pedestrian area and will be able to focus on oncoming traffic from a single direction. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Findings: Due to the unique and special nature of the context, i.e. Puget Sound as a significant natural feature, the port marine walkway, seawall reconstruction, and associated site improvements are adjacent to the shoreline, and will optimize public access to and views of the adjacent waterfront. Site design strategies include redesigning the public parking on the eastern portion of the site to minimize its presence as much as possible and to maximize the public view corridor. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. Findings: The northern section of the reconstructed marine port walk will be widened by four feet, increasing the waterfront pedestrian walkway area while separated by automotive traffic by the addition of a permanent six-inch curb and over six feet of landscaped area between the walkway and parking. Relocated ADA parking stalls and pedestrian routes providing connections from the sidewalk along Admiral Way to the port marine walkway will be addressed with the building permit application. Page 7 of 20 Packet Pg. 607 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction There are no existing mass transit stops located on the project site and the proposed project does not include new transit stops. However, the site is located within close proximity to the ferry terminal, train station, and bus stops located along Railroad Avenue, north of Dayton Street. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use buildings. Findings: There will be one pedestrian entrance to the new public restroom on the north side of the building accessible from both the public parking area and the marine port walkway. All entrances are at grade and will incorporate directional signage. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Findings: These objectives do not apply to this project. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. Findings: While not a residential setting, the proposed development creates new gathering spaces, art installation opportunities, and stepped seating that enhance the visual attributes of the site and provide multiple places for interaction, play, seating and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. Findings: The new restroom facility utilizes some design elements tied to historic forms and patterns found downtown and along the waterfront, specifically barnwood textured siding and cedar shake roofing. The scale of the new public restroom is generally consistent with that of the rest of this project, with larger trees and plantings separating this building from the rest of the attached plaza while maintaining consistencywith construction materials. The landscaping, materiality, forms, and colors used throughout the project give the site individual character without standing out contextually. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Findings: The port marine walkway is currently an uncovered boardwalk and the proposal does not include cover. A roof extends over the entrance to the new restroom facilities, providing minimal weather protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. Findings: Pedestrian lighting will be provided on the landward side of the boardwalk, in the Central and Upper Plazas, and throughout the public parking. Photometric plans were included to demonstrate adequate lighting along the port marine walkway (Sheet UDXX of Attachment 8). Attachment 8 provides details of the proposed lights. During the associated building permit review, the final lighting plan will be reviewed to ensure that the total power used for exterior lighting complies with the Washington State Energy Code and that the lighting is directed downwards onto the site. Page 8 of 20 Packet Pg. 608 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. Findings: Signage is not proposed as part of the subject application (Sheet UD02.4 of Attachment 3). Any proposed signage will be reviewed for compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.60 as part of the associated sign permit application review. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. Findings: Existing electrical utilities are visible within the redesigned public parking areas. Efforts have been made to screen the existing and relocated utility cabinets as much as possible with landscaping. Additional screening can be required for electrical substations immediately adjacent to the port marine walkway. A trash enclosure is provided at the southern end of the redesigned parking area. The trash enclosure will be surrounded by fencing and a gate. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Findings: These objectives do not apply as this project is the reconstruction of an existing development. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Findings: The project's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 is discussed in greater detail in Section II.H.4 of this report. The proposed landscaping will help screen and buffer the adjacent parking and driveway from the port marine walkway to the west. Native plantings are being used in the streetscape and parking lot area. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views of the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. Findings: The only proposed building, the small public restroom, will be single -story, which adds human scale to the project. Additional objectives do not apply to this project. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human -scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. Findings: The single -story public restroom reduces the mass of the building. The use of vertical siding also helps to break up the mass of the building. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Page 9 of 20 Packet Pg. 609 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Findings: The roof is a low -slope peaked roof with canopies on the northern side to add an overhang to the structure. The canopies on the southern portions of the eastern and western building fagades also help to add dimension to the roof. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variations in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian -scale environments and streetscapes or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Findings: These objectives do not apply to this project. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Findings: The building provides ground -level details including vertical barnwood-style siding, landscaping along the western facade of the building, and elevated windows that help divide the building into smaller segments. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Findings: These objectives do not apply to this project. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variations in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality in building design. Findings: These objectives do not apply to this project. In addition to the general design objectives, the Comprehensive Plan also provided more specific design objectives for the downtown area addressing site design, building form, and building facade are provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to ensure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. Findings: The proposed development would not increase the number of curb cuts. The number of driveways is the minimum necessary for vehicular circulation and ingress/egress. The driveway widths are the minimum set by the development code for driveway width. The renovation of the parking lot will improve safety for pedestrians and drivers alike by shifting the parking layout from Page 10 of 20 Packet Pg. 610 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction perpendicular to angled stalls and implementing one-way traffic lanes. This will ensure cars no longer back up straight towards the pedestrian area and will be able to focus on oncoming traffic from a single direction. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Crosswalks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. Findings: Due to the unique and special nature of the context, i.e. Puget Sound as a significant natural feature, the port marine walkway, seawall reconstruction, and associated site improvements are adjacent to the shoreline, and will optimize public access to and views of the adjacent waterfront. Site design strategies include redesigning the public parking on the eastern portion of the site to minimize its presence as much as possible and to maximize the public view corridor. Relocated ADA parking stalls and pedestrian routes providing connections from the sidewalk along Admiral Way to the port marine walkway and shoreline will be addressed with the building permit application. Pedestrian access within the site and from Admiral Way is maintained with a walkway between the port marine walkway and the existing street sidewalk. ADA-accessible pedestrian routes are being provided from the street to all site amenities. ADA curb -cut ramps are being provided at all driveway entrances. B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Findings: There will be one pedestrian entrance to the new public restroom on the north side of the building accessible from both the public parking area and the marine port walkway. B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with the existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. Findings: The new public restroom is set back more than 20 feet from the bulkhead, and setback farther from Admiral Way than the adjacent Port of Edmonds administrative offices. Proposed landscape buffers create a visual separation between the public restroom and the waterfront. Existing and proposed landscape buffers create a cohesive streetscape, increased landscape buffers between the port marine walkway, and public parking provide a transition between parking and pedestrian spaces. The Shoreline Master Program has specific requirements for view corridors with the Urban Mixed - Use II shoreline environment. ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a.i requires a view corridor to be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The parcel on which the development site is part of is over 1000 feet wide. Two buildings on the lot total 128 feet of width, approximately 13% of the parcel and thus consistent with the required 30 percent view corridor, leaving 87 percent of the parcel width for the view corridor. Page 11 of 20 Packet Pg. 611 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. Findings: The proposed public restroom building is smaller in scale and proportion than other buildings in the Port of Edmonds marina area. The proposed structure is a one-story building within the 30- foot height limit of the CW zone. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Findings: The port marine walkway is currently an uncovered boardwalk and the proposal does not include a covered walkway. A roof extends over the entrance to the new restroom facilities, providing minimal weather protection. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. Findings: Signage is not proposed as part of the subject application; however, the project plans indicate a directional sign on the northern building fagade (Sheet UD02.4 of Attachment 3). Any proposed signage will be reviewed for compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.60 as part of the associated sign permit application review. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini -parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. Findings: The subject property is not located within the 41" Avenue Arts Corridor. New art installation opportunities will be provided along the portwalk space and in the plazas. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. Findings: The proposed public restroom is a one-story building, 12 feet tall and thus, consistent with the 30-foot height limit of the CW zone. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human -scale of the streetscape. Building facades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Findings: The single -story public restroom reduces the mass of the building, which is further broken up with the use of the wide horizontal band at the top of the northern portion of the building. The use of vertical siding also helps to break up the mass of the building. B.11 Building Fagade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed -use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). Page 12 of 20 Packet Pg. 612 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Findings: The building provides ground -level details including vertical barnwood-style siding, landscaping along the western facade of the building, and elevated windows that help divide the building into smaller segments. B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade. Findings: The project site is not located within the downtown retail or mixed commercial district. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the above goals and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. H. APPLICABLE CODES ECDC 16.55 CW: Commercial Waterfront A. ECDC 16.55.010 Uses The site is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone and is subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.55 ECDC. Pursuant to ECDC 16.55.010.A, neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan are permitted primary uses. The North Portwalk qualifies as open space and a community park, and the Port of Edmonds updated their associated Master Plan on February 10, 2014. Per ECDC 16.55.010.B, off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use is a permitted secondary use within the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. B. ECDC 16.55.020 Site Development Standards Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks for CW-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to R-zoned property are 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The new public restroom structure is located more than 21 feet landward from the bulkhead, complying with the 15-foot setback requirement. The Shoreline Master Program allows the parking setback to be reduced to a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The reconfigured parking is located approximately 22 feet from the seawall and 15 feet from the ordinary high-water mark. If the existing parking is nonconforming within setbacks, it can be replaced and maintained, but not expanded into the minimum required setbacks, per ECDC 17.40.020. The hearing examiner will review whether the reduced parking setback is compliant with the reduced setback allowance in ECDC 24.60.080.D.2. Height: The maximum allowed height in the CW zone is 30 feet. The elevation views on Sheets M-05 of Attachment 3 indicate the restroom structure will be 12 feet tall to the top of the roof. Compliance with zoning height will be verified with the building permit review. Maximum Coverage: There is no maximum coverage for properties within the CW zone. Page 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 613 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the applicable zoning standards of ECDC 16.55. As always, the project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable development standards during the building permit review process. 2. ECDC 17.50 Off -Street Parking Regulations Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, all new buildings within the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. With a new gross floor area of 667 square feet, two parking spaces are required. 142 parking spaces are proposed, so the proposal exceeds the minimum number of required on -site parking stalls. Electric Vehicle Charging Capabilities are required with substantial improvements are made to an existing development, pursuant to ECDC 17.115.040. For non-residential uses, 40 percent of parking spaces are required to be "EV Capable" and 10 percent of spaces are required to have "EV Installed Parking Spaces". Additionally, development activities are required to provide bicycle parking facilities when substantial improvements are made to an existing development. Per ECDC 17.120, short-term bicycle parking is required at a rate of 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces for nonresidential uses. Applicable development standards and zoning codes will be reviewed for compliance during the building permit process. 3. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The subject proposal required SEPA review due to the replacement of the waterfront boardwalk extending along the edge of the waterfront and the proposed seawall reconstruction taking place on lands covered by water. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. 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, Findings: All exterior building elements are harmonious with one another, the overall building itself, and are compatible with the existing development in the vicinity of the site. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; Findings: The proposed colors avoid excessive brightness. Additionally, the colors are consistent with the color scheme found throughout the Port's properties. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level; Findings: Existing electrical utilities are visible within the redesigned public parking areas. Efforts have been made to screen the existing and relocated utility cabinets as much as Page 14 of 20 Packet Pg. 614 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction possible with landscaping. Additional screening could be required for electrical substations immediately adjacent to the port marine walkway. A trash enclosure is provided at the southern end of the redesigned parking area. The trash enclosure will be surrounded by fencing and a gate. 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. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following orsimilar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping, v. The use of multiple materials, Findings: The single -story public restroom reduces the mass of the building. The use of vertical siding also helps to break up the mass of the building. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Findings: Signage is not proposed as part of the subject application; however, the project plans indicate a wall sign on the northern building facade over the main entrance. Any proposed signage will be reviewed for compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.60 as part of the associated sign permit application review. Staff finds the project is consistent with design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.A. 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. Findings: The subject site is relatively level and is almost entirely covered by the existing port walk and adjacent parking lot. The total quantity of impervious surfaces will be generally unchanged from existing conditions. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Findings: The project's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 is discussed in greater detail in Section II.H.4 of this report. The provision of landscaping between the sidewalk and the project site as well as some landscaping within the parking area will enhance the overall site aesthetics. 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. Page 15 of 20 Packet Pg. 615 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Findings: The project's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 is discussed in greater detail in Section II.H.4 of this report. Properties within the vicinity of the project site are commercially -zoned and there are no immediately adjacent residentially -zoned properties. With the subject proposal, landscaping within the interior parking area will be improved. Additionally, street trees and landscaping along Admiral Way will aid in buffering the site from the street while also providing visual interest to the site. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Findings: All landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles will be protected by curbs. 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. Findings: A trash enclosure is provided near the northern property boundary and will be surrounded by a fence and landscaping. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Findings: The screening of the trash enclosure will be effective throughout the year Screening for PUD transformers throughout the site could be improved. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Findings: There are no areas of wood, brick, stone or gravel in lieu of landscaping proposed as part of this project. 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. Findings: Pedestrian lighting will be provided on the landward side of the boardwalk, in the Central and Upper Plazas, and throughout the public parking. Photometric plans were included to demonstrate adequate lighting along the port marine walkway (Sheet UDXX of Attachment 8. Attachment 8 provides details of the proposed lights. During the associated building permit review, the final lighting plan will be reviewed to ensure that the total power used for exterior lighting complies with the Washington State Energy Code and that the lighting is directed downwards onto the site. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.13. 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. Findings: The North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction will be consistent with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The community -based facilities continue the low-rise massing of the area to preserve views and places the new structure Page 16 of 20 Packet Pg. 616 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction set back from the Admiral Way property line consistent with existing contextual buildings. Public access to the shoreline is also provided and enhanced which supports the city's goal for the Edmonds waterfront. The proposed public landscape areas are consistent with the adjacent site character. 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, mailboxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Findings: Findings: The Port strives for general consistency between its properties, so any future street furniture at the subject site should be compatible with that of the surrounding area. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.C. 4. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. The subject site is located within the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone (Attachment 8). Properties immediately adjacent to the project site are commercially zoned, and there are no immediately adjacent residentially -zoned properties. ECDC 20.13.000 gives the ADB authority to interpret and modify the requirements of the landscaping code (Chapter 20.13 ECDC), provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. The applicant's landscaping plan is included as Attachment 7. A. ECDC 20.13.030.D describes Type IV landscaping as: Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees shall be deciduous and planted 25 feet on center and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height. 2. Plant materials that will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Type IV landscaping is required along the eastern project boundary adjacent to Admiral Way. The landscape plan (Attachment 7) indicates landscaping along this portion of the project site. Landscaping along this street frontage includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Staff feels the proposed landscaping along the eastern side of the project site is consistent with the intent and requirements of Type IV landscaping and that the proposed landscaping along the northern side of the site will provide a visual separation and soften the appearance of the building and parking area when viewed from the street. The tree species, spacing and location of the street trees will be reviewed with civil plans for the development under the associated building permit application review. ECDC 20.13.030.E describes Type V landscaping as: Page 17 of 20 Packet Pg. 617 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Type V landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. 3. Required Amount. a. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking spaces, at least 17.5 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. b. If the parking area contains more than 99 parking spaces, at least 35 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. c. If the parking area contains more than 50 but less than 100 parking spaces, the director — or his designee — shall determine the required amount of landscaping by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. The area must be landscaped as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section. 4. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in any direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one- half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple - lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. eioswales integrated into parking lot designs are strongly encouraged. e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 square feet for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. g. Shade trees are required at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter. The proposal includes 142 on -site parking spaces, which pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.E.1.a would require 4,970 square feet of Type V landscaping (based on a ratio of 35 square feet per parking space). The landscape plan for the project (Attachment 7) indicates fifteen landscape beds within the project area. Sheets 3 and 5 of Attachment 7 indicate that the landscaping ground cover is 1,411 square feet, while 4970 square feet of type V landscaping is required. Trees and shrubs are shown within these landscape planters but are not included in the square footage calculations. Therefore, a recommended condition of approval has been added requesting that the applicant comply with the Type V landscaping requirements by calculating the entirety of landscape beds to meet the minimum required total area, ensuring that all Type V landscape planters meet the minimum size required per planter and that all planters are planted in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E.2. Page 18 of 20 Packet Pg. 618 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Staff feels that if the recommended conditions of approval are followed, the proposal can be consistent with the Type V landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.D. III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to 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 to this report, staff recommends that the ADB recommend APPROVAL of the design for the proposed North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction to the Hearing Examine with the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or buildings shall be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 2. The project shall comply with the Type V landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E, including the need to expand and/or recalculate proposed landscape beds to meet the minimum required total area, ensure that all Type V landscape planters meet the minimum size required per planter, and all planters must planted in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E.2, including one tree per planter. 3. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. IV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Design Standards Statement 3. Project Drawings 4. Project Renderings 5. Preliminary Civil Improvements Plan 6. Preliminary Stormwater Report 7. Landscaping Plan 8. Lighting Plan 9. Zoning and Vicinity Map 10. Project Site Aerial Photo 11. Shoreline Designation Map 12. Critical Areas Report 13. Geotechnical Engineering Report 14. SEPA Documentation 15. Critical Area Determination CRA2021-0155 16. Cultural Resources Report 17. Port of Edmonds Master Plan 18. Public Notice Documentation 19. Building Division Comments 20. Engineering Compliance Memorandum Page 19 of 20 Packet Pg. 619 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction V. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121— 5t" Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Bob McChesney Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 20 of 20 Packet Pg. 620 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/28/2024 Review of Individual Member Comments on the 2020 Urban Design Element Staff Lead: Jeff Levy Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History As introduced at the February 22 meeting (media linked and draft minutes are in the March 28 packet), Edmonds is currently doing a periodic update of its comprehensive plan consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in RCW 36.70A.130. As part of that work, and consistent with the ADB's powers and duties in ECC 10.05.040, the Board is reviewing the Urban Design portion of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This is not a required element of the comprehensive plan, but rather is optional as noted in RCW 36.70A.080. Staff Recommendation No decision is requested. Discuss the initial comments received from Board Members Jeude and Brooks (Attachments 1 & 2) and any others available at the March 28 meeting. Narrative The goal of this work is for the Board to determine whether particular existing language should remain as -is, needs to be updated, needs to be removed, or whether some new information needs to be added. Next Steps Two additional Board touches of the comprehensive plan are anticipated: 1) In April, review of consolidated comments 2) In May, final ADB recommendation Attachments: Attachment 1 - Board Member Jeude comments Attachment 2 - Brooks Review February 22 ADB meeting media Packet Pg. 621 Urban Design General. The man-made environment is an expression of human culture and reflects, in physical form, the social values of the members of the community. The manner- i wh:,.hmLay the man-made elements are integrated into the natural environment helps create the community's special characteristics -ate, contributes to the quality of life in Edmonds, and solidifies its position as a cultural destination. The beauty and variety of the natural surroundings in Edmonds and the historical development of the City's businesses and residences have combined to create an interesting, aR4-visually attractive, and valued -community. Views, especially views from public corridors and public places, are an iwpoi4an integral community asset. During past years of rapid and unchecked growth, unsightly development — of poor quality or design — does exiAcnopped up in the City. -Aging-, misfit, and poorly maintained buildings in some parts of the City can create an aesthetic problem if . Retaining historic buildings ea*rpositively reinforces the character of wi-some areas, such as the downtown core. T4e Decades of strip -mall type of —development along Highway 99 has oftepresulted in economic underdevelopment and disconnection of private properties that mare aesthetically displeasing and not conducive to pedestrian movement or community development. ^'Utility wires are placed underground where new development takes place, however overhead wires still exist in most of the older parts of the City where they interfere with views and create visual blight. Commercial signs contribute to the color and variety of community life as well as providing an important function, but they may also create discordant and unsightly conditions where they are excessive or of poor design. Street landscaping is a significant and highly valued goal, but it has been utilized in the past on a limited basis. The City recognizes that tree canopy protection and streetscaping balances urban growth by preserving a healthy, sustainable and livable community. ,Many opportunities exist for parking lots, access roads, streets, and buildings ear -to be better integrated with the landscape. Urban Design Goals & Policies The general design objectives provided with this goal are intended to provide general guidance, while the subsequent design objectives (Goals B, C and D) for specific locations or situations are intended to supplement the general objectives and add more guidance for those specific situations. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "13.2") Packet Pg. 622 General Design Goal A. Design goals and objectives are intended t provide a set of tools for the City to use to guide future development to r-esu that results in high quality, well -designed, and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. The goals and related objectives contained in this section are intended to: • Maintain and improve the physical appearance and character of Edmonds, • improve retail and pedestrian circulation, aeeessibi accessibility and interaction options, • improve business opportunities; that align with neighborhood comprehensive plans, • protect natural environments using sustainable and LEED design practices; • protect and enhance the residential character and quali , of life of Edmonds. General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.l Vehicular Access. Improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order- to impr-&ve pedestfiai+, A.2 Layout of Parking. LeemingLocate buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian interaction and -access, -and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side, rear and under developments. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is highly desirable for commercial, multi -family ,.o&,.�er and mixed --use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tieing that tieseaehsite to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Packet Pg. 623 A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. In business and retail settings, enhance with pocket -park seating, vegetation and protect existing trees A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. Avoid massing. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide a unified look to covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. E�,,,,�,�,t;,. ge Provide signage that supplies clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to -that support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. Support the Creative District designation. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design, preferably located at the back of the building. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Protect the existing tree canopy or replace them when removal is necessary. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and adjacent buildings, and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous, box- like building forms. Packet Pg. 624 N= A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by efleettragigproviding open space and human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, mallows for additional light to enter buildings er�and pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should shall be employed to support pedestrian scale and accessible environments and streetscapes, or -and to help break up large building masses to keep in scale and character with the surrounding environment. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building - the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place - is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building facades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, neutral/PNW colors or design elements on building facades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials ea* -helps reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas In addition to the general design goal and objectives described above under Goal A, supplemental design objectives are outlined below for specific areas or districts within the city. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, Packet Pg. 625 these should be are the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should shall be used „Foss there is fie reasonable ble alternative -if available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve and encourage pedestrian access and interaction from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks;, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should shall be accentuated by the use e special materials, signage, or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable -and, oriented to the pedestrian streetscape and4+yJaeinglocated at sidewalk grade. Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor,. Ereett age the F- row and provide public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing beach areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the pedestrian scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses, or -and building elements. New construction shall use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a complementary covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Packet Pg. 626 Im Signage. Lighting of s=a sSign li�h�g shall be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building his encouraged. Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities that promote community interaction and feeling of place, such as mini- and pocket parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., shall be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. These elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4t1i Avenue Arts Corridor, art must be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Meet code restrictions. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes sl}exld shall be pedestrian in scale. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building facades shetA&must respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. All designs must incorporate a base, middle and top, and canopies. B.11 Building Fagade. Provide a Shuman -scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed --use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous, and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and and leer see into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should beare encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade. Urban Design Goal C: Highway 99 Corridor. Additional Design Objectives for the Highway 99 Corridor should support its function as a locus of commercial and desired peten64-mixed--use activity, building on the availability of multiple forms of transportation and its proximate location to surrounding neighborhoods. C.1 General Appearance and Identity. Design of buildings and spaces along Highway 99 should shall eneeufage provide a feeling of identity associated with different sections of the highway. Packet Pg. 627 M= C.2 Site Design. Site design must allow for vechicular access and parking as well as safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever- possible, sites sheuldSites shall provide pedestrian -friendly connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby residential neighborhoods. C.3 Massing. Large buildiniz masses shall be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize a human scale and encourage connectivity with the streetscape. CA Building Facade. Provide a human -scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed -use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous, and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base . C.35 Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping feneing tenon -cement materials and _rg een spaceshould shall be used to soften the street front of sites, and also used o buffer more intensive uses from adjoining less --intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from residential development). Urban Design Goal D: Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Design in neighborhood commercial areas should seek to support and enhance the function of the neighborhood center while paying close attention to its place within the neighborhood setting. D.1 Landscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping, mini - and pocket parks ands gradations in building scale to provide compatible development and community connectivity. Streetscape and Street Trees General. Trees are a .,.,',,, ble ass an asset to the community. -They help absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air, and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure. Trees on public property and within the right-of-way are a common and valued feature of the City's urban design. Supporting, maintaining and enhancing the tree canopy should be considered a normal part of a development's street landscape. "Streetscape" is a term that refers to the street environment, often including pedestrian features, landscaping, lighting, pavement materials, and signage. The streetscape plays an important role in the livability and character of Edmonds. Public streets, with their associated walkways and pedestrian spaces, provide the places for people to interact with their neighbors, accommodate public events and commerce, promote human needs for enjoyment and exercise including arts and aesthetics, and can improve the ecological function of the city. When designed properly, the streetscape complements the urban design elements incorporated into the development of private property. A Streetscape Plan was developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. It focused on the public realm along streets, certain areas of the City such as the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, Highway 99 International area, and downtown. The Streetscape Packet Pg. 628 Plan included a Street Tree Plan as an appendix. The Street Tree Plan has since been updated to reflect lessons learned about preferred tree species in certain locations. The Street Tree Plan provides guidance to the City in selecting and maintaining street trees in specific areas. In 2011, the City adopted a `Complete Streets' program that prioritizes accommodating the needs of all users - including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and individual vehicles - in transportation projects. The intent is to create safe environments for people of all ages and abilities while improving transportation options and connections between the City's destinations and centers of activity. A complete streets approach earrimproves the ability of residents and visitors to experience the City in a variety of ways while improving environmental quality, enhancing economic activity, and promoting a healthy lifestyle. „hertz feasible, streetStreet trees or -and other landscaping located between the travel lane and the sidewalk e-arrimprove the pedestrian experience and are highly encouraged. This section has a key goal and several policies specifically related to streetscape and street trees within the public right of way. Streetscape and Street Trees Goals & Policies Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. A.1. Encourage improvements to streets that link parks, open spaces, recreation centers, employment centers, and transportation nodes. A.2. R '. nee the rood for short to Ensure there is adequate parking for peppers customerss and loading for businesses with the need o rthrough pedestrian - oriented design, especially downtown. A.3. Provide sustainable streetscapes that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. AA Promote the planting and maintenence of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections; strengthen the character and identify of downtown and other retail/commercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. A.5. £eek-tePriooritlze maintenance and rrretention of existing healthy trees in the rights -of -way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or allowing a hazard or nuisance. Packet Pg. 629 A.6. cog -Selection and mmana_eg memt pf trees for planting in the public rights -of -way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, view corridors, safety, maintenence, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, and adaptability to the regional environment. Implementation Actions Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority Streetscape and Street Tree goals. The actions identified here are specifically called out as being impet4ant inter al; but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2018. Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2018. Packet Pg. 630 C Urban Design General. The man-made environment is an expression of human culture and reflects, in physical form, the social values of the members of the community. The manner in which the man-made elements are integrated into the natural environment helps create the community's special characteristics and contribute to the quality of life in Edmonds. The beauty and variety of the natural surroundings in Edmonds and the historical development of the A City have combined to create an interesting and visually attractive community. Views, especially ``►�1t� views from public corridors and public places, are an important community asset. V However, unsightly development — of poor quality or design — does exist in the City. Aging buildi s a/w" in some parts of the City can create an aesthetic problem if they are not maintained. R historic buildings can positively reinforce the character of an area such as downtown. The strip type of development along Highway 99 has often resulted in economic underdevelopment of private properties that end up being aesthetically displeasing. tla4m, Although utility wires are placed underground where new development takes place, overhead wires still exist in most of the older parts of the City where they interfere with views and create visual blight. Commercial signs contribute to the color and variety of community life as well as providing an important function but they may also create discordant and unsightly conditions where they are excessive or of poor design. Street landscaping has been utilized in the past on a limited basis. However, in many areas. parking lots, access roads, streets and buildings can be better integrated with the landscape. Urban Design Goals & Policies The general design objectives provided with this goal are intended to provide general guidance, while the subsequent design objectives (Goals B. C and D) for specific locations or situations are intended to supplement the general objectives and add more guidance for those specific situations. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") General Design Goal A. Design goals and objectives are intended to provide a set of tools for the City to use to guide future development to result in high quality, well -designed, and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. The goals and related objectives contained in this section are intended to: • improve the physical appearance and character of Edmonds, • improve retail and pedestrian circulation options, Packet Pg. 631 C • improve business opportunities, • protect natural environments using sustainable design practices, • protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds. s� General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.l Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. AA Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the strcetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tieing each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. z Packet Pg. 632 C Design objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building - the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place - is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building facades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building facades to help define the scale and style of the structure AlnI " - Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildni;•,� while allowing variety and individuality of building design. III arf ,d Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas In addition to the general design goal and objectives described above under Goal A. supplemental design objectives are outlined below for specific areas or districts within the city. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example. -D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. Packet Pg. 633 C B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian strectscape by being located at sidewalk grade. BA Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tic each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing beach areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic i forms or patterns. F B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public strectscape. — Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the pri\ me streetscape than adjoins the Public strectscape. In the 41, $1 1 .. 3ilt- .a .t W 5 Packet Pg. 634 C Streelscape and Street Trees t;oal '%. I[nhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. nk parks, A.I• cEncourae enters, cmp oyment centents �, t►ndttranspotrtat on node~ n spaces, recreation A.2. Balance the need for short-term parking for shoppers and loading for businesses with the need for pedestrian -oriented design, especially downtown. A.3. As opportunities arise, provide for sustainable streetscapcs that can enhance the natural environment, help ensure safety, and complement the characteristics of the neighborhood or district in which they are located. A.4. Promote the planting and maintenance of landscaping and street trees to enhance City gateways and connections. strengthen the character and identify of downtown and other retailkommercial centers; and improve the pedestrian environment. A.5. Seek to maintain and retain existing healthy trees in the rights -of -way without sacrificing public safety or public infrastructure or allowing a hazard or nuisance. A.6. Selecting and managing trees for planting in the public rights -of -way should be based on a variety of factors, such as aesthetics, view corridors. safety, afeto the maintenence, size, spacing, longevity, location, utilities, and adaptability regional environment. Implementation Actions that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address Implementation actions are steps t Tree goals. The actions identified here are specifically called out high priority Streetscape and Stree as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action l: Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2018. Action 2: Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2018 G�� �� f '� /i% i''jaeb Sr�E►4e1�/C -� CS Packet Pg. 635