Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-11 Hearing Examiner PacketOF EDA' v ti Agenda Edmonds Hearing Examiner REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 11, 2024, 3:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This meeting is Hybrid per ECDC ECDC 10.35.010(F) and is located at the Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Ave N, 3rd Floor Brackett Room Zoom Link Meeting Info: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom. us/j/82688031743?pwd=U EROW k5 hd U5 DN 1d RK1V3 M kR2 WTRSdzO9 Passcode: 308007 Or join by phone: 253 215 8782 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 8498 : Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction (PLN2023-0015/PLN2023- 0016) 3. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda April 11, 2024 Page 1 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/11/2024 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Design Review - Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction (PLN2023-0015/PLN2023-0016) Staff Lead: Amber Brokenshire Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Amber Brokenshire Background/History 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. 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. 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 Design Review application in PLN2023-0015 was reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on March 28, 2024 during a regularly scheduled meeting. The ADB made recommendations 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. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the requested Design Review (PLN2023-0015) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN2023-0016) with the conditions included in the attached staff report because staff believes the proposal is consistent with Title 24 ECDC Shoreline Master Program and applicable Zoning Codes. Narrative The Staff Report and Attachments 1-17 provide an analysis of the project proposal and staff recommendation. Attachments: Staff Report Packet Pg. 2 Attachment 1. Design Application (PLN2023-0015) Attachment 2. Applicant Design Standards Statement Attachment 3. Substantial Development Permit (PLN2023-0016) Attachment 4. SDP Criteria Compliance Narrative Attachment 5. North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Design Plans Attachment 6. Preliminary Site Renderings Attachment 7. Preliminary Civil Drawings Attachment 8. Stormwater Drainage Report dated March 31, 2023 Attachment 9. Landscape Plan Attachment 10. Lighting Plan Attachment 11. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan Attachment 12. Geotechnical Engineering Report -Landau Associates, November 30, 2023 Attachment 13. Cultural Resources Discovery Plan Attachment 14. SEPA Checklist Attachment 15. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance Attachment 16. Notice of SEPA Determination Attachment 17. Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment 18. Aerial Photograph Attachment 19. Shoreline Environments Map Attachment 20. Critical Area Determination File Number CRA2021-0155 Attachment 21. Public Notice Documentation - Notice of Application, Notice of Public Meeting, Notice of Public Hearing Attachment 22. Building Division Comments Attachment 23. Engineering Division Memorandum of Compliance Attachment 24. Port of Edmonds Master Plan Attachment 25. Architectural Design Board Staff Report Attachment 26. Draft Architectural Design Board March 28, 2024 Minutes Attachments: PLN2023-0015,0016 HE_StaffReport_with Attachments - Packet Pg. 3 Inc. I S9V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th 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 & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction File Numbers: PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) Date of Report: April 4, 2024 From: Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner Public Hearing: Thursday, April 11, 2023 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds City Hall, 121— 5th Ave N, 3 d Floor, Brackett Room. Online participation is also available via the following Zoom link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/i/82688031743?pwd=UEROWk5hdU5DN1dRK1V3MkR2WTRSdz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 826 8803 1743 Password 308007 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. A new public restroom is proposed within the Central Plaza. (Attachments 1— 6). 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. 4 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction II. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: ...................................................................................... 1 II. TABLE OF CONTENTS: ............................................................................................................ 2 III. ATTACHMENTS: ..................................................................................................................... 2 IV. GENERAL INFORMATION: ..................................................................................................... 3 V. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: .................................................................................... 4 VI. PUBLIC NOTICE: ..................................................................................................................... 4 VII. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: ...................................................................................................... 4 VIII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: .................................................................................................... 5 IX. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: .................................................................................... 6 X. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.........................................................................................................6 XI. APPLICABLE CODES: .............................................................................................................. 8 1. Chapter 16.55 ECDC Commercial Waterfront ...............................................................8 2. Chapter 17.50 ECDC Off -Street Parking Regulations..................................................10 3. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review..............................................................10 4. Chapter 20.13 ECDC Landscaping Requirements........................................................10 XII. TITLE 24 ECDC EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM................................................11 1. ECDC 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria.........................................11 2. PLN2023-0016 — North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction...................................11 XIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: ............................................................................ 26 XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: ........................................................................................................... 26 III. ATTACHMENTS: There is some overlap between the attachments associated with this staff report and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) staff report. To avoid duplication of materials, the attachments to this staff report that were also attachments to the ADB staff report have included the ADB staff report attachment number in parenthesis at the end of the attachment title. 1. Land Use Application (PLN2023-0015) — Design Review (ADB-1) 2. Applicant Design Standards Statement (PLN2023-0015) (ADB-2) 3. Land Use Application (PLN2023-0016) — Shoreline Substantial Development Permit North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 4. Applicant Land Use Criteria Compliance Narrative (PLN2023-0016) 5. North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Design Plans (PLN2023-0015) (ADB-3) 6. Preliminary Site Renderings (ADB-4) 7. Preliminary Civil Drawings (ADB-5) 8. Stormwater Drainage Report dated March 31, 2023 (ADB-6) 9. Landscape Plan (ADB-7) 10. Lighting Plan (ADB-8) 11. Critical Areas Report and Mitigation Plan (ADB-12) P Packet Pg. 5 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction IV. 12. Geotechnical Engineering Report —Landau Associates, November 30, 2023 (ADB-13) 13. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan 14. SEPA Checklist 15. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 16. Notice of SEPA 17. Zoning and Vicinity Map (ADB-9) 18. Aerial Photo (ADB-10) 19. Shoreline Environments Map (ADB-11) 20. Critical Area Determination File Number CRA2021-0155 (ADB-15) 21. Public Notice Documentation — Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing 22. Building Division Comments (ADB-19) 23. Engineering Division Memorandum of Compliance (ADB-20) 24. Port of Edmonds Master Plan (ADB-17) 25. Architectural Design Board Staff Report 26. Draft Architectural Design Board March 28, 2024 Minutes GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Applicant: Port of Edmonds 2. Owner: Port of Edmonds 3. Location: 300 Admiral Way (Tax ID 27032300401400) 4. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW) 5. Request: Two land use applications were submitted: a Design Review Permit (PLN2023-0015) and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN2023-0016). Review Process: 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 leads to a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the decision on design review and shoreline permits 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 comments on both permit applications. 6. Applicable Codes: a. Chapter 16.55 ECDC — Commercial Waterfront b. Chapter 17.50 ECDC — Off Street Parking Regulations c. Chapter 20.11 ECDC —General Design Review d. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscaping Requirements e. Title 24 ECDC Shoreline Master Program P Packet Pg. 6 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction V. 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. No comments or appeals of the SEPA determination were received. The SEPA Checklist is provided in Attachment 14 and SEPA DNS is provided in Attachment 15 Documentation on the notice of SEPA DNS is provided in Attachment 16 (Notice of Issuance of DNS) VI. 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 (Attachment 21). 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, 2024, 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, the Community Development Department, and the Library on March 20, 2024. The notice was again mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site (Attachment 21). 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, 2024 (Attachment 21). The notice was also published in the Herald Newspaper and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on March 20, 2024. To date, no public comments on the proposal have been received. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. VII. TECHNICAL 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 AE per the preliminary FEMA flood maps and the structure must be designed and constructed to resist the effect of flood hazards P Packet Pg. 7 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction and flood loads. The Building Division also noted elements that will need to be addressed under subsequent building permits (Attachment 22). 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 23). VIII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topography: The subject site is relatively level. 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). Frequently Flooded Areas: As noted in the Building Division's comments above and within Attachment 22, the subject property is located within Flood Zone AE according to draft FEMA floodplain maps. While the FEMA maps are draft, ECDC 23.70.010.13 allows the City of Edmonds discretion in using the most up-to-date information in determining whether the site is within the floodplain and subject to floodplain development restrictions. The City of Edmonds has determined that all development applications within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones in the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map will be subject to the requirements of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.07. This also has implications for height calculations which are discussed below in Section X1.1.6 of this staff report. Seismic Hazard: The subject site is located within a mapped liquefaction hazard area. A geotechnical report provided in Attachment 12 addresses the liquefaction seismic hazard. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area: A significant amount of analysis has been conducted on the project's impact and benefits on the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The applicants have provided a critical area report from Landau Associates which determined the project would not likely jeopardize endangered species or designated critical habitat (Attachment 11). 4. Vegetation: The majority of the site contains very limited existing vegetation since the majority of the site is gravel/paved and is utilized as a parking lot. Landscaping throughout the property will have updated landscaping consistent with the Chapter 20.13 ECDC. See Section II.H.4 of the ADB staff report in Attachment 25 for a discussion of the landscaping requirements. 5. 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 19). 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). P Packet Pg. 8 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction IX. 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 17. X. 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. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: 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. P Packet Pg. 9 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction B.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 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. 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 P Packet Pg. 10 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented destination. 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 Area" in the Port of Edmonds Master Plan dated March 10, 2014. The subject site is designated as "Mixed Use", having Boardwalk Improvements, and parking lots within the Port of Edmonds Master Plan. 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 24. 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 sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular, landmark buildings of high quality and sustainable design which 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. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. XI. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. Chapter 16.55 ECDC Commercial Waterfront A. ECDC 16.55.010 Uses P Packet Pg. 11 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 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 16.55.010.13, 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 approximately 13.5 feet landward from the mean high-water mark and 8 feet landward from the bulkhead and therefore is not in compliance 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 8 feet from the seawall and 16 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. Height: The maximum allowed height in the CW zone is 30 feet. The elevation views on Sheets M-05 of Attachment 5 indicate the restroom structure will be 12 feet tall to the top of the roof. As noted above in Section VIII.3 of this staff report, the subject development site is located within the flood plain according to the draft FEMA flood plain maps. The City of Edmonds has decided to use the draft FEMA maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regard to floodplain development including the requirements of ECDC 19.07 and the height exception provided in ECDC 21.40.030.D.1. Normally zoning height is determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones (such as this site), height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above the base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. Compliance with zoning height will be verified at the time of building permit review. Maximum Coverage: There is no maximum coverage for properties within the CW zone. The proposed does not meet minimum setbacks within the CW zone (Attachment 5, Sheet UD01.0). Otherwise, staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the applicable zoning standards of Chapter 16.55 ECDC. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable development standards during the building permit review process. P Packet Pg. 12 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 2. Chapter 17.50 ECDC 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 gross floor area of 667 square feet, at least 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. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the Architectural Design Board to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. This project required review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 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. The ADB staff report (Attachment 25) contains a detailed analysis of how the proposal is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design and ECDC 20.11.030.E Site Treatment. The ADB reviewed the proposal at the March 28, 2024 meeting and recommended approval of the project with the following conditions (Attachment 26): 1. INCORPORATE MURAL ARTWORK/PAINT ON THE SIDE OF THE RESTROOM, AND 2. INCORPORATE CREATIVE ARTWORK, TRIBAL REFERENCE WITH HISTORICAL/CULTURAL/EDUCATIONAL ASPECT WITHIN THE SITE. 4. Chapter 20.13 ECDC 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 17). Properties immediately adjacent to the project site are commercially zoned, and there are no immediately adjacent residentially zoned properties. The landscaping plan was part of the review conducted by the ADB which recommended approval of the project (Attachment 26). Section II.H.4 of the ADB staff report in Attachment 25 provides an analysis of the project's compliance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Pa Packet Pg. 13 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction XII. TITLE 24 ECDC EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The landward portion of the project 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 19). 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) and required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit. One shoreline substantial development permit is associated with this project, PLN2023-0016 (Attachments 3 and 4). This section evaluates the proposal's compliance with the City's Shoreline Master Program including relevant policies and development regulations. 1. ECDC 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria. A. A substantial development permit shall be required for all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010. B. In order for a substantial development permit to be approved, the decision maker must find that the proposal is consistent with the following criteria: All regulations of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by an approval of a shoreline variance under ECDC 24.80.060. 2. All policies of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. Staff Findings: The subject development is not specifically exempted by ECDC 24.80.010, thus a shoreline substantial development permit is required. The analysis below demonstrates how the shoreline permit associated with the proposal is consistent with the relevant regulations and policies of the Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program. 2. PLN2023-0016 — North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction with Site Improvements A. Chapter 24.20 ECDC Goals and Policies for the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program ECDC 24.20.010 Economic Development Element ECDC 24.20.010.8 Economic Development Goal. It is a goal of the city to encourage port facilities, tourist facilities, mixed -use, commercial, and light industrial development in specific and limited shoreline areas which enhance the public's access to the shoreline. Water -dependent, -oriented, and water -enjoyment development are preferred in shoreline areas. The nature of this economic development should attract, and be open to, the general public and should not unduly interfere with the character of the shoreline area or with nearby shoreline and upland uses ECDC 24.20.010.0 Economic Development Policies 5. New development or redevelopment should avoid or mitigate additional loss of shoreline ecological functions. 8. Economic benefits derived from wildlife, marine and fish habitats, public access, recreational scuba diving, and tourism should be recognized and retained. Pc/ Packet Pg. 14 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 11. The recreational opportunities along the shoreline should be developed as an economic asset in a manner that will enhance the public enjoyment of the shorelines and in -water -related activities. Staff Findings: The proposed project is a reconstruction of an existing water -dependent recreational use. The subject development proposes to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of the existing waterfront boardwalk and repair a segment of the existing seawall. The renovated boardwalk will enhance amenities along the waterfront and provide upgraded public access to the waterfront and shoreline. Two new plazas are proposed adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access. One of the plazas will be constructed in an area currently occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building that is slated to be demolished. Reconfigured parking at the site will improve access points to the waterfront. ii. ECDC 24.20.020 Public Access Element ECDC 24.20.020.8 Public Access Element Goal 1. It is a goal of the city to provide the maximum reasonable opportunity for the public to view and enjoy the amenities of the shoreline area from public viewpoints, while assuring that such access does not contribute to intrusions upon private property, nuisance, personal danger, or over- burdening of fragile natural resources. ECDC 24.20.020.0 Public Access Policies 1. 5. Public pedestrian access for neighborhood use should be encouraged. ECDC 24.20.020. D Public Access Goal 2. Incorporate public access into new shoreline development and unify individual public access elements into an organized system. ECDC 24.20.020.E Public Access Policies 2. 1. Public access will be considered in the review of all private and public developments (including land division) with the exception of one- and two-family dwelling units when necessary to mitigate significant environmental impacts or through provisions designed to exchange access rights for development bonuses. 2. Developments, uses and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public's access to the water. 3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge without adversely affecting a sensitive environment and, if feasible, should be designed with provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons. 4. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy. 5. Assure that public access improvements result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 6. No public access shall be acquired through a taking without just compensation. Staff Findings: Redevelopment and reconstruction of the site will improve public access to the shoreline and waterfront. Pedestrian connections are maintained from Admiral Way to the shoreline. The project proposes to widen the north section of the Portwalk Pc/ Packet Pg. 15 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction by four feet, allowing for increased pedestrian usage. The proposed development and associated public access will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or values as found in the Biological Evaluation (Attachment 11). iii. ECDC 24.20.030 Recreational Element ECDC 24.20.030.8 Recreational Goal. It is the goal of the city to provide substantial recreational opportunities for the public in shoreline areas through the preservation and expansion of these opportunities through programs such as acquisition, development, and maintenance. ECDC24.20.030.0 Recreational Policies 3. The city should consider both active and passive in -water, shoreline, and upland recreational needs in the development of recreational areas to meet local and regional needs. 5. Recreation facilities in the shoreline area should be restricted to those dependent upon a shoreline location, or those benefiting from a shoreline or in -water location that is in the public interest. 6. Public recreation facilities should be designed, developed, and maintained to respect the shoreline environment and minimize the degradation of the shoreline and its natural systems. 9. Recreational boating facilities including waterway trails and trailheads, terminals, moorage, and service facilities should be allowed on private property, except in the natural environment. Staff Findings: The project is providing access for enjoyment and use of the shoreline by improving accessible routes, pedestrian connectivity, and circulation along the waterfront. This project will not reduce the existing moorage and recreational boating facilities currently available. iv. ECDC 24.20.040 Circulation Element ECDC 24.20.040.8 Circulation Goal. It is the goal of the city to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and emergency services within the shoreline area while recognizing and enhancing the unique, fragile and scenic character of the shoreline area with minimum disruption to the shoreline environment and minimum conflict between different users. ECDC 24.20.040.0 Circulation Policies 1. Railroad Avenue, Dayton Street, Main Street, Admiral Way, and Sunset Avenue, which provide access to and through the city's accessible downtown shoreline area, should be designed and regulated to safely accommodate the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic using these corridors, as well as to facilitate egress and ingress from adjacent properties and to enhance the scenic character and recreational use of this corridor, while recognizing that shoreline uses should have primary access to Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way. Pa Packet Pg. 16 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 2. Whenever practicable, safe pedestrian and bicycle movement on and off roadways in the shoreline area should be encouraged as a means of personal transportation and recreation. 8. Pedestrian walkways, trails, and bicycle linkages should be provided between the historic downtown and the waterfront, including the train station and ferry terminal Staff Findings: The project is located on the west side of Admiral Way and the proposed Portwalk rehabilitation and seawall reconstruction will further promote shoreline uses. Waterfront frontage improvements including a widened pedestrian walkway on the east side of the development and more curb ramps to the Portwalk will help improve pedestrian circulation through the site. The site is within proximity to the ferry terminal, train station, and bus stops. Bicycle parking is required for those who arrive at the site via bicycle. V. ECDC 24.20.050 Shoreline Use Element ECDC 24.20.050.8 Shoreline Use Goals 1. Allow for a diversity of uses within the shoreline area consistent with the dramatically different character of the various shorelines within the city, and to preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic quality of important shoreline areas while allowing for reasonable development which meet the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act. 2. Provide performance and development standards for shoreline uses which achieve compatibility among activities. 6. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been degraded or diminished in ecological value and functions as a result of post activities or catastrophic events. 9. Encourage increased accessibility to the shoreline for a variety of users and activities ECDC 24.20.050.0 Shoreline Use Policies 4. Overwater structures other than ferry terminal passenger shelters, docks, piers, walkways, breakwaters, and other similar structures should be prohibited with the exception of minor appurtenant buildings, buoys, divers' rest floats, and art sculpture. 6. Uses in shoreline areas should not degrade water quality and land disturbances (land covered by water and the land area adjacent to the ordinary high-water mark) should be the minimum necessary. 8. Multiple uses of shorelines should be encouraged. Shoreline uses which allow large numbers of people to enjoy the marine environment should be given a higher priority than uses that lead to the usurpation of the limited urban waterfront by any single use activity. 9. Shoreline use should be compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and consistent with long-range comprehensive planning for waterfront use. 14. The rehabilitation of "natural systems" (e.g., the improvement in water quality, removal of beach obstructions, etc.) should be encouraged. Pa Packet Pg. 17 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Staff Findings: The port marine walkway is an existing water -oriented use that is particularly suited to this shoreline location and consistent with other development in the area. Approximately 75 square feet of aquatic habitat will be gained between N Dock and P Dock due to the replacement of the upper timber bulkhead. Additionally, glass blocks will be used in the new boardwalk surface, increasing light transmission and reducing the existing amount of shading associated with the current overwater cover, reducing potential adverse effects from the overwater structure. As has been noted, the development is consistent with the City of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan regarding the long-range use of the site and this portion of the waterfront. vi. ECDC 24.20.090 Views and Aesthetics Element ECDC 24.20.090.8 Views and Aesthetics Goal. It is the goal of the city to assure that the public's ability and opportunity to enjoy shoreline views and aesthetics is protected. ECDC 24.20.090. Views and Aesthetics Policies 1. The scenic and aesthetic qualities of shorelines and public vistas should be preserved through development standards. 2. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation which partially impairs views. Staff Findings: Reconstruction of the boardwalk will result in the consolidation of five existing viewing bump -outs to a larger single location to provide enhanced public access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound. vii. ECDC 24.20.100 Urban Design Element ECDC 24.20.100.8. Urban Design Goal. It is a goal of the city to encourage development within the shoreline area that is visually coherent, provides visual and physical linkage to the shoreline, enhances the waterfront, and is consistent with the streetscape plan. ECDC 24.20. 100. C Urban Design Policies The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of Brackett's Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed -use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. 2. Projects should be encouraged to provide "street furniture," public art, related interpretative signage, landscaping and other amenities within or adjacent to the right-of-way of Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way to complement a pedestrian promenade along the shoreline consistent with the streetscape plan. 3. Where possible, the owner of uplands abutting pedestrian waterfront activities should be encouraged to incorporate public art elements, public art and cultural Pa Packet Pg. 18 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction amenities that promote aesthetic considerations consistent with the city of Edmonds Arts Commission goals. 4. New and remodeled developments should provide public view corridors adjacent to either the north or south property line to enhance public visual access to the Puget Sound and to provide for a visual link between the downtown and its waterfront roots. The location of the view corridor should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties in order to maximize public visual access to Puget Sound. Properties with significant frontage on the shoreline should consider providing view corridors in multiple locations so as to maximize public visual access to the shoreline. In the application of design standards, the preservation of public views shall be given priority over landscaping and fencing requirements. 5. Projects should minimize the amount of vehicular parking in the urban mixed -use 1 and 11 shoreline environments through the use of joint -use parking agreements (where permitted), and by locating employee parking off -site and outside the urban mixed -use 1 and 1l shoreline environments. 6. Projects should be designed to locate vehicular parking away from the shoreline, bulkhead, or areas of pedestrian circulation. 7. Developments should provide conveniently situated bicycle parking on site. 8. Projects should be designed to minimize impacts to existing shoreline ecological functions. Staff 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 (see Section X11.2.C.iv of this staff report). Site design strategies include placing a majority of the parking lot to the side (east) of the project site to minimize its presence as much as possible and to maximize the public view corridor. Various seating areas are proposed including stepped seating in the new plaza spaces and benches throughout the development. B. Chapter 24.30 ECDC Shoreline Environments ECDC 24.30.030 Aquatic Environment ECDC 24.30.030.A Purpose. The purpose of the aquatic high -intensity environment (aquatic Il) is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. ECDC24.30.030.8 Classification Criteria. Aquatic 11 (High Intensity). These areas are more intensely developed areas with water -dependent uses. The marine nearshore has been significantly modified by commercial waterfront development, including the Port of Edmonds Marina and the Washington State Ferries pier. Pa Packet Pg. 19 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction ECDC 24.30.030.D Management Policies 3. Uses and activities within the aquatic 1 and 11 environments should be compatible with the adjoining shoreline environments. 9. Restoration opportunities associated with project impacts should be encouraged in the aquatic environment. 10. Uses that adversely impact the ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed except where necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, and then only when their impacts are mitigated according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Staff Findings: The port marine walkway is an existing water- and marine -oriented use that is particularly suited to this shoreline location and provides open -space amenities to the public. The development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values (Attachments 11) Approximately 75 square feet of aquatic habitat will be due to the replacement of the upper timber bulkhead. Additionally, glass blocks will be used in the new boardwalk surface, increasing light transmission and reducing the existing amount of shading associated with the current overwater cover, reducing potential adverse effects from the overwater structure. ECDC 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use ECDC 24.30.070.A Purpose. The purpose of the urban mixed -use environment is to provide for high -intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. ECDC 24.30.070.8.2 Designation Criteria. Urban Mixed -Use 11. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation. ECDC 24.30.070.D Management Policies 1. In regulating uses in urban mixed -use environments, first priority should be given to water -dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water -related and water - enjoyment uses. Non -water -oriented uses may be allowed as part of mixed -use developments. Non -water -oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. 2. Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed. 3. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated urban mixed use; however, consideration should be given to the potential for displacement of non -water -oriented uses with water - oriented uses when analyzing full utilization of urban waterfronts before considering expansion of such areas. Pa Packet Pg. 20 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction 4. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be provided. 5. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. 6. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low -impact development techniques where feasible and appropriate. 7. Any new development shall include environmental cleanup, restoration of the shoreline, or other development techniques where feasible and appropriate to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, and shall comply with any relevant state and federal law. Staff Findings: The existing and proposed reconstruction/renovated boardwalk and associated Portwalk support recreation use in addition to providing public access to the marina and Puget Sound, and provide water -oriented uses consistent with the purpose of the Urban Mixed -Use shoreline environment. The project is consistent with the design guidelines of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 20.11 ECDC (Attachments 25 and 26). Visual and public access to the shoreline will be increased by the proposed development. The reconstruction project will include a level of restoration to the shoreline and will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values (Attachments 11). C. Chapter 24.40 ECDC General Policies and Regulations ECDC 24.40.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources ECDC 24.40.010.8 Regulations 1. Where practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by appropriate authorities. 2. The city may require that a site be redesigned or that development be postponed for a definite or indefinite period if this is reasonably necessary to protect a historic site or items of historic, archeological, or cultural significance. 3. Upon receipt of an application for a shoreline permit or request for a statement of exemption for development on properties with 500 feet of a site known to contain a historic, cultural, or archaeological resource(s), the city shall require a cultural resource site assessment; provided, that this requirement may be waived if the administrator determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground -disturbing activities and will not impact a known historic cultural or archaeological site. The site assessment shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional, as applicable, to determine the presence of significant historic or archaeological resources. The fee for the services of the professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional shall be paid by the landowner or responsible party. 4. Whenever historic, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site Pa Packet Pg. 21 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction shall be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as possible to the administrator. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and appropriate Native American Tribes. In such cases, the developer shall allow site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged. Work should not resume until approval is obtained from the shoreline administrator. Staff Findings: A cultural resources assessment was conducted for the proposed development. Pursuant to RCW 42.56.300 cultural resource assessments may be exempt from public disclosure, so the assessment has not been provided as an attachment. In summary, the assessment found: During background research and field investigation, no archaeological sites were identified at the project location. 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 expose 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. A Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the project is provided in Attachment 13. ii. ECDC 24.40.020 Critical Areas The Shoreline Master Program adopts the City of Edmonds' critical area ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026), except for the specific subsections identified in ECDC 24.40.020.C. None of the exceptions in ECDC 24.40.020.0 apply to the subject project. See the discussion on critical areas above in Section VIII.3 of this staff report regarding critical areas on or near the development site. ECDC 24.40.020.E. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall be regulated in accordance with the following: 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. 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. 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 Pa Packet Pg. 22 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result. Staff Findings: A Critical Areas Report is provided in Attachment 11. For this portion of the development, the relative critical area code sections that apply are related to geologically hazardous areas with the identified liquefaction hazard on the site and frequently flooded areas with the City's adoption of the FEMA FIRMS maps (ECDC 19.07). A geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80.050 has been submitted and is provided as Attachments 12. The development is consistent with the critical area requirements of ECDC 24.40.020 as well as Chapters 23.40 (General Provisions), 23.70 (Frequently Flooded Areas), and 23.80 ECDC (Geologically Hazardous Areas). The proposed construction will be reviewed during the building permit process for building code requirements within frequently flooded areas as provided in the International Building Code and as amended in ECDC 19.07. ECDC 24.40.020.F. Critical Saltwater Habitats. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below are met: a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020. b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate costs to accomplish the same general purpose. c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery. Staff Findings: Reconstruction and renovation of the boardwalk and underlying seawall were deemed necessary due to significant deterioration. The assessment of habitat conditions within the project area is included in the Critical Area and Mitigation report (Attachment 11). The project includes unavoidable work in water and in adjacent upland habitats. Mitigation sequencing and plans for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and associated buffers are provided in Section 5.0 of the Critical Area report. The proposed development and associated public access will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or values. iii. ECDC 24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction ECDC 24.40.030.B.5 Development within the shoreline environment shall meet the standards and provisions for the protection of frequently flooded areas as provided to areas of special flood hazard in the current edition of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in Title 19 ECDC. Staff Findings: It has been determined that the subject property is located within a frequently flooded area and subject to the requirements of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.07 (Attachment 22). Pa Packet Pg. 23 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction ECDC 24.40.030.13 also notes that development and redevelopment shall be located and designed to prevent the need for structural flood hazard reduction measures. The proposed development does not require structural flood hazard reduction measures. The proposed development is consistent with the flood hazard reduction regulations of ECDC 24.40.030. iv. ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views ECDC 24.40.040.8.1 Except as provided in subsections (8)(2) through (4) of this section, shoreline substantial developments or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of the following conditions are present: a. Where the use or modification will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. ECDC 24.40.040.8.5 Shoreline development by public entities, such as local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, should provide public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline. ECDC 24.40.040.B.10 Shoreline uses, modifications and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing or adversely interfering with the public's existing physical and visual access to the water and shorelines. Staff Findings: The proposed development will not impact public access to the shoreline area and public access consistent with ECDC 24.40.040.B.1 and B.5 is being provided and improved with the proposed project. ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a.i Landward of the ordinary high -watermark, a view corridor must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor must be in one continuous piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas, and landscaping will be allowed, provided, that they do not obscure the view from adjacent public right-of-way to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of the Puget Sound. Staff Findings: 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 in 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 (see Attachment 5, Sheet UD01.0). V. ECDC 24.40.060 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution A stormwater drainage report is provided in Attachment 8. Compliance with the City's storm water regulations in Chapter 18.30 ECDC will also meet the provisions of ECDC 24.40.040. The City's stormwater engineer recommended the project be approved to Pa Packet Pg. 24 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction move into the Engineering Design phase and found the stormwater report compliant with the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC (Attachment 23). vi. ECDC 24.40.080 Shoreline development permitted by area designation ECDC 24.40.080 identifies the allowed uses in the various shoreline area designations. The proposed project is a mix of recreational use, shoreline stabilization, and transportation use, all of which are permitted through a shoreline substantial development permit process. vii. ECDC 24.40.090 Shoreline bulk and dimensional standards The bulk and dimensional requirements for recreation within the Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II shoreline environments in ECDC 24.40.090 are detailed in the table below: Shoreline Shore Building Buffer Maximum Maximum Parking Designation Setback Setback Height Coverage Urban Mixed -Use II 15 feet N/A N/A 30 feet None 60 feet' Aquatic II N/A N/A N/A 15 feet 4 N/A N/A z See ECDC 24.40.040(B)(11) for view corridor requirements. 3 No side setback is required from adjacent commercial property. A minimum 15-foot setback is required from the lot line adjacent to shoreline residential environments. The area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six -foot -high fence or hedge. 4 Above ordinary high-water mark. ' In the urban mixed -use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080(D)(2)(c) and (D)(3)(c). is Side setbacks determined by the underlying zoning. No required side setback in the BD2, CG, or MP2 zones. Five-foot side setback in the OR zone. The bulk and dimensional requirements for parking within the Urban Mixed -Use II shoreline environment in ECDC 24.40.090 are detailed in the table below: Shoreline Shore Building Buffer Designation Setback Setback Urban Mixed -Use II 15 feet' N/A N/A ' In the urban mixed -use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080(D)(2)(c) and (D)(3)(c). Staff Findings: The new public restroom structure is located approximately 13.5 feet landward from the bulkhead, not complying with the 15-foot setback requirement (Attachment 5). No side setbacks are required as the site is not adjacent to any shoreline residential environments and the proposal is consistent with the view corridor requirements of ECDC 24.40.040.13.11. The elevation views on Sheets M-04 and M-05 of Attachment 5 indicate the structure will be approximately 12 feet tall to the top of the roof (see height discussion in Section X1.1.6 above). Pa Packet Pg. 25 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction The reconfigured parking is located approximately 8 feet from the seawall and 16 feet from the mean high-water mark (See Attachment 5, Sheet UD01.0). 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 for new parking area is compliant with the reduced setback allowance in ECDC 24.60.080.D.2. D. Chapter 24.50 ECDC General Modification Policies and Regulations ECDC 24.50.010 General Modification Policies ECDC 24.50.010.A.3 Regulate shoreline modifications to assure that modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions and require mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. ECDC 24.50.010.A.5 Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem -wide processes in the placement and design of shoreline modifications. To avoid and reduce ecological impacts, the mitigation sequence in ECDC 24.40.020(D)(3) shall be utilized. Staff Findings: The proposed reconstruction and renovations do not trigger the need for new shoreline modifications. The Critical Area Report details the conservation measures and best management practices used to reduce impacts to the environment during construction through minimization and mitigation. These minimization measures do not result in a permanent net loss of area or function of critical areas present in the study area. ii. ECDC 24.50.020 Shoreline Stabilization ECDC 24.50.020.D.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. Staff Findings: The Criteria Compliance Narrative provided (Attachment 4) addresses the need for the bulkhead replacement due to deteriorating timber from a previous structural assessment and feasibility study conducted in 2020, with the recommendation for replacement in a 5-to-10-year timeframe. The proposed reconstruction and renovations do not trigger the need for new shoreline modifications. The Critical Area Report details the conservation (Attachment 11). E. Chapter 24.60 ECDC Specific Use Policies and Regulations ECDC 24.60.060 Recreational Development ECDC 24.60.060.A. Applicability. Recreational development provides opportunities for play, sports, relaxation, amusement, or contemplation. It includes facilities for passive recreational activities, such as hiking, photography, viewing, and fishing. It also includes facilities for active or more intensive uses such as parks, campgrounds, and golf courses. This section applies to both publicly and privately owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club, group, association, or individual. Commercial recreational development must be consistent with the provisions of this section and the provisions of ECDC 24.60.030 for commercial uses. Pa Packet Pg. 26 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction This master program gives priority to recreational development that is primarily related to access to, enjoyment, and use of the water and shorelines of the state. ECDC 24.60.060. B. Recreational Development Policies. 1. Encourage the coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning to mutually address recreational needs. Shoreline recreational development should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open space plans. 2. Encourage the linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas, and public access points in a linear system, such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, and scenic drives. 3. Locate and design recreational developments in a manner that preserves, enhances, or creates scenic views and vistas. 4. Locate and design recreational facilities to minimize adverse impacts including those related to stormwater runoff, water quality, visual qualities, public access, and vegetation and habitat maintenance. 5. Encourage physical and visual access to shorelines and surface waters. 7. Prohibit the use of recreational off -road vehicles within the shoreline area, except by public agencies for maintenance operations and emergency services. Staff Findings: This project provides access for enjoyment and use of the shoreline and waterfront by improving accessibility, pedestrian connectivity, and circulation along the waterfront. The project plans to and will optimize public access to and views of the adjacent waterfront. Stormwater runoff is being mitigated through a variety of new drainage patterns to catch basins located around the site before the conveyance to existing discharge locations into Puget Sound. New Stormwater Vaults will be installed into the existing parking lot to meet the enhanced treatment standard requirements (Attachment 8). ECDC 24.60.060.0 Recreational Development Regulations 2. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for: a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on -site and off -site; b. Vehicular traffic, both inside and outside the facility; c. Vehicular parking; d. Water supply, sewage disposal, and garbage collection; e. The prevention of overflows and trespasses onto adjacent properties; f. Screening, buffer strips, fences, and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties; g. Security; and h. Maintenance. Pa Packet Pg. 27 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Staff Findings: Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access are to be provided for on -site. The reconfiguration of the existing parking area aims to increase safety and accessibility. Screening is provided with the improved landscaping proposed with the redevelopment. Security is provided for with adequate lighting and maintenance will be provided by the Port of Edmonds. ECDC 24.60.080 Transportation and Parking This section describes the requirements for transportation and parking facilities within shoreline jurisdiction. The relevant provisions from this section are related to parking. ECDC 24.60.080.0 Transportation and Parking Regulations 1. Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water -dependent uses. 6. Parking facilities are not a water -dependent use and shall only be permitted within the shoreline to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline. 7. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject property. Specific parking standards for uses are identified in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, as now or hereafter amended. 8. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Parking should not be located between the building(s) on the subject property and the shoreline. Exterior parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units, must be attractively landscaped with vegetation that will not obstruct the view of the shoreline from adjacent public areas or adjacent public rights -of -way. Staff Findings: The parking associated with the development is consistent with Chapter 17.50 ECDC and supports an authorized water -oriented shoreline use. Site design strategies include placing a majority of the parking stalls to the side (east) of the portwalk to minimize their presence as much as possible and to maximize the public view corridor. The parking lot will be landscaped consistent with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Safe pedestrian routes are provided through the parking area connecting the waterfront to Admiral Way. ECDC 24.60.080. D Transportation and Parking —Shoreline Area Regulations 3.c. Parking Facilities. In the urban mixed -use 11 environment, the 60 foot setback for parking established in ECDC 24.40.090 may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead. Pc/ Packet Pg. 28 Files PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 North Portwalk & Seawall Reconstruction Staff Findings: The reconfigured parking in the location of the existing Port Administration Building is to be located approximately 8 feet from the seawall and 16 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 for new parking area is compliant with the reduced setback allowance in ECDC 24.60.080.D.2. The reconstruction and renovation 900-foot-long section of affected port walk and four - foot wide expansion will provide additional open space and increase accessibility to the waterfront. XIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis within and the attachments included with this report, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the policies and regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program as codified in Title 24 ECDC, and with the general design review criteria Chapter 20.11 ECDC and the Urban Design Chapter in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the design review (PLN2023-0015) and shoreline substantial development permit for the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction (PLN2023-0016) with the following condition: 1. Accept conditions put forth by the Architectural Design Board; The applicant will clarify and remedy setback non-compliance for new structures on the site pursuant requirements found within ECDC 16.55; All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the site shall be screened to mitigate impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping, and/or fencing; 4. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with the conditions of all related federal, state, and local permits. XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: City of Edmonds 121— 5t" Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Bob McChesney Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Pc/ Packet Pg. 29 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 Number Street 336 ADMIRAL WAY City Zip Code EDMONDS 98020 Associated Building Permit Number Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner First Name Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension UBI # E-mail Address County Parcel Number 27032300401400 Tenant Name Last Name or Company Name EDMONDS PORT OF Floor Number Suite or Room Number Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 300 ADMIRAL WAY City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98020 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: 3/31/2023 Submitted By: Bob McChesney Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 30 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. 31 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. 32 Attach U MyBuildingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: North Portwalk 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. Packet Pg. 33 Attach U 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 o Comprehensive Plan by developing public access along the waterfront and J enhancing the Edmonds Marina. New signage and art opportunities have a been created along the Portwalk and in the plazas. E 500 Union Street, Suite 700 R Seattle, WA 98101 Q p 206.652.5080 f 206.652.5079 www.makersorch.com 03_Cover Letter.docx-2/16/23 Packet Pg. 34 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 a net gain in aquatic habitat. As a result, the project does not result in 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 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's SMP for shoreline development. The project's design and construction conform to the rules and conditions of Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use under the City's SMP and will result in no net loss of 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). Packet Pg. 35 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuitdingPermit.com Land Use Application #1292270 - 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 Number Street 336 ADMIRAL WAY City Zip Code EDMONDS 98020 Associated Building Permit Number Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner First Name Apartment or Suite Number Phone Number Extension UBI # E-mail Address County Parcel Number 27032300401400 Tenant Name Last Name or Company Name EDMONDS PORT OF Floor Number Suite or Room Number Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 300 ADMIRAL WAY City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98020 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 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. I 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 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 36 Attach rr CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildinBPermit.com Land Use Application #1292270 - 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 New Activity Type Use Approval Scope of Work Conditional Use 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 Project Information Use (s) - proposed Use - existing Zoning - existing Recreational use Recreational use CW Packet Pg. 37 Page 2 of 2 Attach a MyBuitdingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Application 1D: 1292270 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 a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, we are also applying for Design Review concurrently. See Technical Memorandum 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. Shoreline Permit Packet Pg. 38 Attach a MyBuildingPermit.com Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Application ID: 1292270 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. Packet Pg. 39 Attach a Technical Memorandum TO: David Levitan, City of Edmonds CC: Bob McChesney and Brittany Williams, Port of Edmonds FROM: Steven Quarterman DATE: April 25, 2023 RE: Shoreline Master Program Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Project No. 0173038.010.017 Introduction The Port of Edmonds (Port) is proposing to reconstruct 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 (project; Site). 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. In -water and upland areas of the Site within 200 feet (ft) of the Port of Edmonds Marina (Puget Sound) are within the jurisdiction of the City of Edmonds's (City's) Shoreline Master Program (SMP; the Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDC], Chapter 24). The Site's SMP environmental designations are Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II, in which the seawall and adjacent upland is located in the Urban Mixed Use II designation and the overwater portion of the boardwalk is in the Aquatic II shoreline environment. As a waterfront boardwalk, the proposed project is a reconstruction of an existing water -dependent recreational development. Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) has prepared this technical memorandum to assist the Port with demonstrating project consistency with the regulations presented in the City's SMP. Information presented in the project plans, Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study, Biological Evaluation, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, Geotechnical Report, and Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) prepared for the project provide supplemental information to this technical memorandum and collectively provide the minimum application requirements specified in ECDC 24.80.070. The regulations applicable to the project include those provided in the SMP related to Archaeological and Historic Resources (ECDC 24.40.010), Critical Areas (ECDC 24.40.020), Public Access (24.40.040), Bulk and Dimensional Standards (ECDC 24.40.090), General Shoreline Modification Regulations (24.50.010[B]), Shoreline Stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020), Recreational Development (ECDC 24.60.060), and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Criteria (ECDC 24.80.040). LALSANDAU 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 • Seattle, WA 98125 • 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 40 Attach a Landau Associates Project Description The Port 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 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 (i.e., Upper Plaza and Central Plaza) will also 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 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 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 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 along the same alignment 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 SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 2 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 41 Attach a Landau Associates 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 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. Permitted Use Project activities that occur in SMP jurisdiction include boardwalk and seawall reconstruction with additional public access amenities. The existing and proposed reconstructed/renovated boardwalk and associated Portwalk support recreational use in addition to providing public access to the marina (Puget Sound) and adjacent areas. In accordance with ECDC 24.40.080, recreational development in the Aquatic II and Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environments are permitted as a shoreline substantial development. In accordance with ECDC 24.50.020.F(2)(b), bulkheads or revetments are prohibited in the Aquatic II shoreline environment, except for an approved water -dependent development subject to policies and regulations of the SMP, and are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP. The City has indicated the project is subject to approval as a shoreline substantial development. Shoreline Regulations The following regulations (in bold) were copied from the SMP, which identifies applicable shoreline regulations. Archaeological and Historic Resources (ECDC 24.40.010) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with applicable regulations related to archaeological and historic resources for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. 1) Where practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by appropriate authorities. The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP's) Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data does not list any recorded cemeteries, publicly available Traditional Cultural Properties, or precontact archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project location, and no adverse impacts to sites having SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 42 Landau Associates historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value are anticipated. An Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) will be provided to the construction contractor. The IDP would address procedures in case of an unanticipated discovery: notification procedures (including for the State Historical Preservation Officer [SHPO] and affected tribes if archaeological, historic, or culturally significant items are discovered, and for the Snohomish County Medical Examiner if human remains are found), the authority to temporarily stop construction, and procedures for evaluating and recovering intact materials. 2) The city may require that a site be redesigned or that development be postponed for a definite or indefinite period if this is reasonably necessary to protect a historic site or items of historic, archeological, or cultural significance. Refer to response to item 1 above. 3) Upon receipt of application for a shoreline permit or request for a statement of exemption for development on properties with[in] 500 feet of a site known to contain an historic, cultural or archaeological resource(s), the city shall require a cultural resource site assessment; provided, that this requirement may be waived if the administrator determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground disturbing activities and will not impact a known historic cultural or archaeological site. The site assessment shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional, as applicable, to determine the presence of significant historic or archaeological resources. The fee for the services of the professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional shall be paid by the landowner or responsible party. A cultural resources overview, which includes a summary of the precontact and historical land use of the project Site and the cultural resources that may be encountered, is provided with this application. In addition, the Port of Edmonds Administration Building will be inventoried for potential listing on state and/or national registers, and results of consultation with DAHP will be provided when available. 4) Whenever historic, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the administrator. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and appropriate Native American Tribes. In such cases, the developer shall allow site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged. Work should not resume until approval is obtained from the shoreline administrator. An IDP will be provided to the construction contractor. The IDP would address procedures in case of an unanticipated discovery, notification procedures (including for the SHPO and affected tribes if archaeological, historic, or culturally significant items are discovered, and for the Snohomish County Medical Examiner if human remains are found), the authority to temporarily stop construction, and procedures for evaluating and recovering intact materials. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 4 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 43 Landau Associates Critical Areas (ECDC 24.40.020) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with applicable regulations related to critical areas for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. 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 and recommendations that minimize risk caused by 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. While the proposed bulkhead reconstruction is considered new development, it is necessary to maintain and support the reconstruction of the existing boardwalk. The proposed project will not result in a net loss of ecological functions (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above), and no feasible alternative locations are available because the project is a component of the Port's Public Access Plan for the waterfront boardwalk, which also includes planned improvements to the Central Portwalk and South Portwalk that extend from the North Portwalk and collectively run the length of the Port of Edmonds Marina. 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 Critical Saltwater Habitats: 1) Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below are met: a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.020. Reconstruction and renovation of the approximately 13-foot-wide boardwalk and underlying seawall are necessary due to significant deterioration. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to the water/shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 5 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 44 Attach a Landau Associates RCW 90.58.020 specifies uses in the following order of preference: (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary The project is consistent with RCW 90.58.020, such that: • The project is designed to protect statewide interest in compliance with the City SMP, which was developed and adopted in accordance with RCW 90.58 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. • The natural character of the shoreline is impacted by existing development on/adjacent to the shoreline, and Ports are provided a priority for alterations to the shoreline in facilitating public access. • The project will protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline to the extent feasible (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above), and • The completed project will improve public access to and recreational opportunities at the shoreline. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose. The project is reconstruction/renovation of an existing shoreline Portwalk; no alternative alignment is feasible. c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. Refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above, which also applies to critical saltwater habitat. d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery. The project includes best management practices (BMPs) and conservation measures for resource and species protection, including: • Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) and Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control (SPCC) plans will be developed and implemented throughout construction. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 6 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 45 Attach a Landau Associates • Work below high tide line (HTL)/mean higher -high water (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 the HTL/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. 3) Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all overwater and nearshore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. Assessment of habitat conditions in the project area is included in the project Biological Evaluation (Refer to Section 6.0, Environmental Conditions of the Biological Evaluation). Public Access (24.40.040) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with applicable regulations related to public access for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. 1) Except as provided in subsections (113)(2) through (4) of this section, shoreline substantial developments or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of the following conditions are present: Criteria (a) through (f) are omitted because the project provides improved public access. 2) An applicant need not provide public access where one or more [of] the following conditions apply: Criteria (a) through (f) are omitted as the project provides improved public access. 3) In order to meet any of the conditions in subsections (113)(2)(a) through (e) of this section, the applicant must first demonstrate, and the city determine in its findings that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, including but not limited to: Criteria (a) through (c) are omitted because the project provides improved public access. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 7 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 46 Landau Associates 4) Exceptions. The following uses, developments, modifications, and activities are exempt from providing public pedestrian access under this section: Criteria (a) and (b) are omitted because the project provides improved public access. 5) Shoreline development by public entities, such as local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, should provide public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline. The proposed project provides public access improvements to the shoreline. 6) Public Use Facilities. a. In addition to the public pedestrian areas required by subsection (13)(1) of this section, the applicant may propose and/or the city may require that benches, picnic tables, a public access pier or boardwalk, or other public use facilities be constructed on the subject property. The proposed project includes reconstructed boardwalk and additional amenities to improve public access to the shoreline. b. If public use facilities are required or proposed, the city will determine the size, location, and other regulations (design considerations) on a case -by -case basis. Condition noted. 7) Timing. The public pedestrian access required by this section must be completed and available at the time of occupancy or completion of work; provided, however, that the city may on a case -by -case basis defer the physical availability of public access in the following cases: Criteria (a) and (b) are omitted because the project provides improved public access that will be accessible upon completion of construction. 8) Easements Recorded. In each case where public pedestrian access is required, whether it is physically available at the end of development or deferred until a later date, all owners of the subject property must record a public pedestrian easement, in a form approved by the city attorney, establishing the right of the public to access, use and traverse that portion of the subject property. Not applicable. 9) Signs. The city shall require the posting of signs, obtained from the city at the city's cost, designating public pedestrian access. The planning manager or his/her designee is authorized to establish reasonable rules and regulations governing the public's use of public pedestrian access and use areas under this chapter. Where appropriate, these rules and regulations shall be included within the document recorded under subsection (13)(8) of this section. Not applicable. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 8 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 47 Landau Associates 10) Shoreline uses, modifications and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's existing physical and visual access to the water and shorelines. The objective of the proposed project is to improve public access to the shoreline. 11) View Protection Regulations. a. Within the urban mixed use I, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the following required view corridors: Criteria (i) and (ii) are omitted because no building or other major structures will be located in view corridors. 12) Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way shall not be diminished (RCW 35.79.035 and 36.87.130). The proposed project includes reconstructed boardwalk and additional amenities to improve public access to the shoreline. 13) Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street and shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons, where feasible. The North Portwalk does not have direct connections to public streets but is indirectly connected to Dayton Avenue and Admiral Way via sidewalk and a public parking lot. The boardwalk will include curb ramps to facilitate access by disabled and physically impaired persons. 14) Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running contemporaneous with the authorized land use, at a minimum. Said recording with the county auditor's office shall occur at the time of permit approval (RCW 58.17.110). Not applicable. 15) The minimum width of public access easements shall be 25 feet, unless the administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such cases, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary, as determined by the administrator, to relieve the hardship. Provided the larger easement is not needed for emergency access. Not applicable. 16) Future actions by the applicant successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided. Condition noted. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 9 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 48 Attach a Landau Associates 17) Visual access shall be maintained, enhanced, and preserved on shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights -of -way and within public view corridors as designated by the city. The project consists of reconstruction/renovation of an existing Portwalk, and visual access may be improved as a result of demolition of the Port Administration Building in support of development of the Central Plaza. Bulk and Dimensional Standards (ECDC 24.40.090) The bulk and dimensional standards for overwater structures indicate no shore setback requirements in the Urban Mixed Use II or Aquatic II shoreline environment designations. The maximum height above deck of overwater structure is three ft in both the Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II shoreline environment designations, and the boardwalk will be approximately 4 ft above MHHW. The proposed boardwalk will be raised approximately 6 inches above its current elevation. General Shoreline Modification Regulations (24.50.010[B]) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with the applicable general shoreline modification regulations provided for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. 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 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 feasible alternative locations are available because the project is reconstruction/renovation of an existing Portwalk and is a component of the Port's Public Access Plan for the waterfront boardwalk, which also includes planned improvements to the Central Portwalk and South Portwalk that extend from the North Portwalk and collectively run the length of the Port of Edmonds Marina. The property is developed with existing recreational/commercial land uses, and bioengineering design options are not feasible due to the extent of adjacent development to the shoreline. 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 in the project area. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 10 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 49 Landau Associates 4) Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable federal and state permits and shall meet all permit requirements. The Port will be acquiring permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 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. The geotechnical report and Biological Evaluation were prepared by respective qualified critical area consultants applying applicable best available science and guidance. Shoreline Stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with the applicable shoreline stabilization regulations provided for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. 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 proposed 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 sheetpile bulkhead to replace a section of deteriorating timber bulkhead. 3) New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. The proposed project is reconstruction/renovation of an existing Portwalk and associated bulkhead. Renovations to the bulkhead rely on the underlying bulkhead for support; however, negative impacts to shoreline areas are avoided (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above). 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 structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. Not applicable; no steep slopes or bluffs occur in the project area. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 11 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 50 Landau Associates 5) New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner: Criteria (a) through (d) are omitted because the proposed shoreline stabilization is a replacement of an existing segment of deteriorating timber bulkhead as opposed to "new structural stabilization." 6) Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential 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 specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized 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 armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures. Not applicable, because the shoreline stabilization is replacement of an existing segment of deteriorating timber bulkhead that supports an existing boardwalk (overwater and upland). Need for repair of the bulkhead was determined through a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study (CG Engineering 2020). 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 due to the extent of recreational/commercial development adjacent to the bulkhead and 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. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 12 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 51 Landau Associates 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 an existing bulkhead that limits sediment conveyance from the shoreline. The existing conditions of onsite sediment conveyance will be maintained as part of the completed project. 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 in the project 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 close to the eroding bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than six feet from the toe of the bank. Not applicable. 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. Need for replacement of the bulkhead was determined through 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 (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above). SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 13 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 52 Landau Associates 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. 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 (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above), 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 proposed 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. The project includes installation of a steel sheetpile bulkhead to replace a deteriorating section of timber bulkhead. The 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 (refer to item 5 under Public Access Goal 2 above). 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. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 14 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 53 Landau Associates 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; The project includes installation of a steel sheetpile bulkhead to replace a deteriorating section of timber bulkhead. Deterioration of the existing structure is due to 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. 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 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 (HPA) to be issued by WDFW will be incorporated into 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 sheet pile 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 proposed steel sheet pile 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: 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 project Geotechnical Report for Site plan showing requirements (a) and (b) above. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 15 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 54 Attach a Landau Associates 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 existing bulkhead. Similarly, no significant deposition of sediments occur in the marina. b. Evidence of past or potential erosion due to tidal action and/or waves; Not applicable; the potential for erosion from tidal action and/or waves are interrupted by the marina. c. Littoral drift; and The SMP Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Sea -Run Consulting 2007) identifies the project vicinity as an area of No Appreciable Net Shore Drift. Furthermore, longshore currents in the project area are interrupted by the surrounding marina. d. An estimate of shoreline erosion rates. Not applicable; shoreline erosion in the project area is not significant due to the existing bulkhead and the effect on longshore currents from the surrounding marina 3) A description and analysis of the urgency and risk associated with the specific site characteristics. Need for replacement of the bulkhead was determined through a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study, with recommendation for replacement in a 5-to-10-year timeframe (CG Engineering 2020). Recreational Development (ECDC 24.60.060) The discussion below includes evaluation of the project's consistency with the applicable recreational development regulations provided for projects in jurisdiction of the SMP. Water -oriented recreational development is permitted in the Urban Mixed Use II and Aquatic II shoreline environment subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP. 1) The following recreational uses and developments are prohibited: Criteria (a) and (d) are omitted because the proposed project will not provide prohibited uses. 2) Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for: a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on site and off site; The project includes improvements to the adjacent parking lot, development of plazas in the Portwalk, and curb ramps on the boardwalk to improve and enhance vehicular SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 16 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 55 Attach a Landau Associates and pedestrian access. No offsite improvements are needed because the Site is served by existing roadways and sidewalks. b. Vehicular traffic, both inside and outside the facility; The project includes improvements to the adjacent parking lot, and no offsite improvements are needed because the Site is served by existing roadways. c. Vehicular parking; A net gain of three parking stalls will be provided as part of the completed project A total of 142 parking stalls will be provided. d. Water supply, sewage disposal, and garbage collection; The project includes water utilities for the adjacent marina and onsite restrooms. The restroom facilities will be connected to the City wastewater collection system. Onsite garbage facilities will be relocated as part of the project. e. The prevention of overflows and trespasses onto adjacent properties; Not applicable. The project is a component of public access to the waterfront and provides connection to adjacent City parks (i.e., Olympic Beach and Marina Beach Park). f. Screening, buffer strips, fences, and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties; Not applicable. The project is a component of public access to the waterfront and provides connection to adjacent City parks (i.e., Olympic Beach and Marina Beach Park). g. Security; and Pedestrian lighting will be provided on the landward side of the boardwalk and in the Central and Upper Plazas; security gates will be located at dock entrances. h. Maintenance. The Port will maintain the project as needed to ensure public safety and enjoyment of the facility. 3) Valuable shoreline resources and fragile or unique areas, such as wetlands and accretion shore forms, shall be used only for nonintensive recreation activities. Not applicable. 4) Encourage recreational facilities to provide signage and enforce regulations that prohibit tree cutting and limit the taking of marine life, driftwood, and the like. Condition noted, however, such signage would not be necessary due to characteristic of the Portwalk facility, in which limited tree cover is provided at the Site in parking lot/Portwalk SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 17 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 56 Attach a Landau Associates planters and that the boardwalk is located over the water surface and does not provide direct access to marine life. 5) Signs associated with recreational facilities shall be kept to a minimum in number and size and shall be erected as informational or directional aids only. Signs associated with the project are limited to Dock designations on gangway security gates 6) Stairways and landings shall be located upland of existing bulkheads, banks, and the ordinary high water mark unless integral to a water -dependent use or overwater structure permitted by this master program. Landings associated with the marina gangways, which are integral to water -dependent use of the marina, will be incorporated into the boardwalk. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Criteria (ECDC 24.80.040) As specified in ECDC 24.80.040(B), in order for a substantial development permit to be approved, the decision maker must find that the proposal is consistent with the following criteria: 1) All regulations of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by an approval of a shoreline variance under ECDC 24.80.060, The evaluation in this technical memorandum demonstrates project consistency with the City SMP. 2) All policies of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. ECDC 24.20.000 indicates that the goals and policies that form the foundation of the SMP are implemented through the regulations in ECDC 24.40 through 24.60. This technical memorandum demonstrates project consistency with the applicable regulations in ECDC 24.40 through 24.60, and therefore, consistency with the applicable policies of the SMP. Conclusion The Port is proposing a project to reconstruct the approximately 900-foot-long, 13-foot-wide 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. This project is required to comply with the requirements of the SMP. This technical memorandum demonstrates that the proposed project's purpose and design are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's SMP for shoreline development. The discussion and analysis of project elements, with respect to the applicable ECDC, demonstrates that the proposed project's design and construction conform to the rules and conditions of Shoreline Substantial Development under the City's SMP and will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 18 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 57 Attach a Landau Associates Use of This Technical Memorandum This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Port and City for specific application to the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Project. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau. 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, shall be at the user's sole risk. Landau warrants that within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, these services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. Landau makes no other warranty, either express or implied. Re -assessment of permit/compliance needs may be needed based on changes to the project as described above. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/JAF/tac [\\EDMDATA01\PROJECTS\173\038.010\R\SHORELINE\PEDM PORTWALK SMP_TM-FINAL _04.25.2023.DOCXJ References CG Engineering. 2020. Structural Assessment & Feasibility Study, Port of Edmonds Waterfront Boardwalk. May 19. Sea -Run Consulting, TetraTech, Inc., Reid Middleton, Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline Inventory & Characterization, SMA Grant Agreement No. 60600108. November SMP Consistency Evaluation North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 19 April 25, 2023 Packet Pg. 58 It 5 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 ICLEAR TBD ITO 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 SCALE DIR DIRECTION OC ON CENTER VERT VERTICAL VFY VERIFY SYMBOL LEGEND 6X12 GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PANEL MODULE © ® - -GBCP _ ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION FURNITURE ID CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE GBCP 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 PROJECT SITE PROJECT MAP NTS Packet Pg. 59 RECEIVED ®t5 .r DOCK"M" DOCK"N' DOCK 7' ° ° DOCK"G" DOCK'R'DOCK"S' ° DOCK'T' DOCK"U" DOCK"V, i N GENERAL NOTE: S EXISTING LIGHTS ARE SHOWN BUT NOT MARKED WITHIN PROJECT AREA. TOTALPROJECT LE G T-VERIFY IN (FIELD - - - DEMO - - - - - O a- i 0 O RKE a I z PaRK.—TMPR—ME—PLAH IRUH R 4 O ADMIRAL WAY I O � m [>TIaE, a Doi --- __— ? - - - - - - - - C] - o TR�� ROE �Ac�Ec. w O Q E w ww LL y 0 I\ EDMONDS I IIO� O Q o Qa YACHT CLUB Li a > � DE 0 Q O E O M III OeSNG I Q ® O y � n p ADMIRAL WAY I o d W L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J L — — - 2ui r PLANTING ALONGNG ADMIRAL WAY ADMIRAL WAY PORTWALK &SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j ■ j R o GENERAL NOTE: HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED I }a L_TYP -----� IS'-4" 6'-10" I I I I � I I I TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' j ■ '� j U Tag,-,.�. O l e o o e o 00000o Ir �,' � la �� aoe °O TRASH ENCLOSURE'S' D �- x 3' 6' b" P. TYP. 000 .W� I I Tve=ra�RASH ENCLOSURE'C' j ■ '� �J � CD O M N O N z J ` a 4 Emerged No. t L045 D—,,g N. +�+ UD01.0 sneeL of Packet Pg. 60 Attachment 5 RECEIVED AR - --- ------- � �— — — — — — — rA2 ---- ---------- a ''4„ DOCK GATE �M8N'SEE SHEET UD04 MHHW 9.06 SEE SHEET UD05 FOR r DOCK GATE'P' SURFACE TREATMENT SEE SHEEP LOW DOCK SEE SHEET -- — -- —_ — _ — — — — — — — — — DETAIL$ — — TY .UNO. x u CONCRETE wau 0 ua NCLOS RE uWd P S PE P, UNO. UOW — — — CENTRAL PL ZA O r----- SLEC EUBS 1 UBSTA710N, iYP. PEDESTRIAN LIGHT SEE SHEEP UD06 III A ♦ o PLAN, SEE SEE ELECTRICAL PUBLIC / O RESTROOM RE H :- P to d l Z o • EXISTING L N P z 0 Z —I — — — — — — — EDMONDS YACHT CLUB Q n - , CURB RAMP #5 & 96, SEE CIVIL Li WPROJECw 0 BOUNDARY O I I 0 (] 3 z a o {y F61 EXISTING OIL/WATER SEPARATOR � 0 Ya LLI EXISTING GARBAGE ENCLOSURE 0 Q I �\`` _ _ 'V"W,°w#N+" ADMIRAL WAY d = 0 a CENTRAL PORTWALK & SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PI AN 0 FLOATING POCK DOCK GATE' SEE SHEET UJ�D$4 / A _ TYP_ roi. TYP._ _ _ _ _ _ _ W II++ DOCK GATE' DOCK GATE'p'_r SEE SHEEP UD04 04 �yA` / 8i V � SEE SHEET UD04 r -- CP#2 SEE CIVIL 1t �3 —� LL a� i o ACURB PROJECT A BOUNDARY RAMP #3 121 POWDERCOATED SEE CIVIL (2) POWDERCOATED ^O I CURB RAMP rib ALUMINUMBENCHES-THIS ALUMINUMBENCHES-THIS _ SEE CIVIL AREA AREA REPLACE EXISTING STREET REPLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION REPLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION LIGHT, NEW LOCATION � 0 IL RELOCATED N JI \�\1 \\\���-----\\\< ELECTRICAL UTILITY EXISTING ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ],e„w fllllt 111 IN PLACE UPON --;j d LOT REDESIGN -;!_ [ ii� ` CABINET II`�'�I U �� T i ": ` I NEW STREET LIGHT LOCATION LIGHT LOCATION LOCANEW TION O Q Imo/-y/-/y/�,IT EXISTING TO REMAIN 1////}EXISTING TO REMAIN I r O 04 N _ _ ".j; l �. Z 2C DrawlUDO� J d NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j j . 1/16"=1'-0" Sheet 0 w E v 0 r a Attachment 5 RECEIVED AR a DA NG oDOCK G�K o GA NG GG X x GATE'T DOCK GATE'U' to 1EESHEETUD04 �- - - - - - SEESH19 1004 21 4 PORfWA[R-zy ' MHHW+9.06 GUARDRAIL, I POSEE: FACE OF RTWALK/ _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -r 13 a In C CONCRETE fiOA)ING GOCK T PArytt 116.121 GLASS B K T- SEE SHEET UDO , TYP. CURB RAMP#1 SEE CIVIL A _ A DOCK GATE' SEE SHEET z O 3 / /� I1 l uWa I ' I 0 jo a o° z DOCK GATE' SEE SHEET`U 4 I O o RGAiING DGGN Q %lA / A 14 um PPLANLASZEE `" PROPOSED PORTWALK DESIGN SHALL NOT REDUCE VEHICULAR 300 ADMIRAL WAY 'o O - W t z 0 o 3 0 Z ���✓/-�/�''/�` - •""-1\ ADJACENT ACCESS TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES PExF9 uM� _ I 0 DOCK GATE'R' SEE SHEET UD04 .iH� I o L J o CURB RAMP #2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — L� o O SEE CIVIL O 044 3 w PROJECT i,.,, BOUNDARY 2c� I O Q n CURB RAMP N3 A 0 GATED INCHES SEE CIVIL 121 POWDERCOATED AAREMINUM BENCHES THIS _ RE PLACE EXISTING STREET I 0, REPLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT, NEW LOCATION LIGHT, NEW LOCATION I�I I d 0 w Li RELOCATED Z � M CLEG ViILI ABINET UTILITY I }Jt a� aj NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j . ,w E V W Y[ � a �t 3 0 a as c,s w� x m 0 0 —- 0 0 M N O N P,.j-t , Z 2C4 J D,owing No a UD01 Sh-t +' C w E t ci f>3 a Attachment 5 RECEIVED Ap, GENERAL NOTES: 1. A 10-YEAR WARRANTY IS REQUIRED FOR a SITE FURNISHINGS. 2. ALL METHODS, MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2018 BUILDING CODE (IBC) AS PI6 6.."3.-- °� TYR__TYP_���I AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY. r e'-10T s 3. ALL REFERENCE TO OTHER CODES, ACI, a 5- ASTM, ETC. SHALL BE FOR THE LATEST OR MOST CURRENT EDITION AVAILABLE. I I I I z � ~ 3 O a 0�3 �QE Z N w w C OaE 'C a W o < 0 I 0 z 1 CENTRAL PLAZA SITE PLAN " E I Y[ � a I I PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO RELOCATED ELEC SUBSTATION �l LL POLE SYSTEM, MANUF777 a }I _ _ _ _ _ POLE INSERTS: L 24'1" 12'-0" 4]'-]" �^�';d.� FINISH: 4°°^°eel:e a°,°y F °Qee N COUNT: 31 Q 1"9c S .yh POLES: FINISH: COUNT: 10 SHADE SAIL: FINISH: 2 UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT - �. COUNT:CUSTOM-CONFIGASSHOWN 1 {C PLANTER EXISTING P EXISTING PLANTER 02 PLAN DETAIL ° r' LA SEE UD07 FOR PNTING V / —° — PROVIDE CIP CONC PATHWAY TO EXISTING RESTROOMS TWI I O o CL O OANTER EXISTING PL I 1 q N Q O Prq-t Z 204: j a UPPER PLAZA SITE PLAN j . UDO Sh-t +' C w E t ci a EE::lt5 116'-9" PORMALK. SEE UDO.5.0 URB PLANTINGAREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONG PER PLAN PER PLAN SEE 11 .1 FOR PLANTING PLAN FOOTING AND J� BEAM PER STRUCTURAL TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH PLANTER & PORTWALK uz' = ra' PORTWALK _GUARD RAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL SEE SHEET UD06 FOR SECURITY GATE DETAILS SEE SHEET UD03 FOR RAILING DETAILS—""" PORTW ALK, SEE UD05.0 PER PLAIN CONIC PER PLAIN PER PLAIN MENEEMEMEN MEN MENEM mcFOOTINGAND BEA PER------, �1..IING UNDER GATE -SOUD (BEYOND) STRUCTURAL �,w III 3 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH RAMP, GATE AND GANGWAY "=1'. +16'-Y' '-0" PORTWALK. SEE UDD5.0 PLANTING AREA 6„ PER PLAN 4'-0 fl'-9' T 6" T 6" CUR BENCH AREA CIP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN CONIC PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 BRUSHED ALUMINUM MOUNTED BENCH FOOTING AND BEAM PER srzucruRAL 06 S REETLEVELP.RTWALILEVEL 1 SECTION THROUGH NORTH PARKING LOT BENCHES & PORTWALK L TION T +V 10" PORIALK. SEE UDD5.0 76.. 76.. COINCP ER p GBCP PLAN ��PER PLAN CENTRAL PLAZA SURFACE TED FITNGIAND EAMPERUCTURAL SECTION THROUGH CENTRAL PLAZA PORTWALK OVERLOOK 2 vz° = r-a' 6,.7" 6.. CUR SUBSTATION AREA PER P AN CIP CONC� tl6'1 PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 GBCP GBCP PER PLAN�PER PLAN (2) BOLLARDS PER PLAN, SEE UDXX.X FOR BOLLARD DETAIL FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL 4 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BOLLARD, SUBSTATION, & PORTWALK 3 PORT VALK —GUARDRAIL- L SEE SHEET UD03 0 3 a ZV #� L 6"PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL O O Uul Z N � Z c O o�s E z � O J Lu w w N 0 � 0 � 3 Z- O O Q N a Y a Z 0 PORTWALK 0 "' U 4 GUARDRAIL N LLl N -SEE SHEET UD03 f+ O d w Z 6^ LEvi �omwuK Q r` o3� r� Lu Yi -16-7' PORMALK, 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 P NTING PLAN 56" STREET LEVEL ELEVATION CORTEN PIANTER GRADUAL CHANGE -THIS AREA DETAIL PER MANUF. EDGE OF ENSURE TOP EDGE OF CORTEN EXISTING FACE REMAINS THE SAME EDGE OF CONIC PLANTER ELEVATION BEYOND CURB BEYOND FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL --__-- 6 SECTION THROUGH EXISTING ROADWAY & PORTWALK uz=ro^ W 2 C r O O u r O O M N O - N Z J a C c a,jeot N, i oas � o­my N. +�+ sip Q Packet Pg. 64 EIII EE::15 15'-0' MIN CLR '-6" UNOBSTRUCTED FIRE ACCESS AISED ORTEN PLA ITERS, SEE P NTING PLAN <&' STREET LEVEL ELEVATION COR GRADUAL CHANGE - THIS AREA DETA EDGE OF EXISTING ENSURETOP EDGE OF CORTEN FACE REMAINS THE SAME EDGI PLANER ELEVATION BEYOND CURT FOOTING ANDS BEAM PER STRUCTURAL -- l SECTION THROUGH CORTEN PLANTERS BETWEEN DOCK"_, &'U' PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 7-6 7 6 - GBCP PER PLAN GBCP PER PLAN PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 PLANTER R MANUF. CONC (OND 6' PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL PREC,.AST PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 C�jtNC IS'-0"MIN CLR 6. 6. 11L W/ t ]'-6' 7'-6„ UNOBSTRUCTED SEE PLANTING PLAN R GBCP GBCP FIRE ACCESS P LE PER PLAN PFR PLAN OWN S PRP N3"H CURB GUARD LK AIAROUNDPLANTING AREA GUARDRAIL- SEESHEET UD03 PROVIDEBRICK TO MATCH EXIST PVMi AREA 6 nREEra PomwALK Lev[T 0 9—LEVELBEYOND FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH UPPER PLAZA PLANTER & PORTWALK /2"= 1'{' SEESHEET UD06FOR SECURITY GATE DETAILS EXISTING PROPOSED PAVEMENT PORTWALK BEYOND PAVEMENT PER PLAN EXISTING BATHROOM . .. .. p6'nBEEr LEvo a voNDEv[T IECTION THROUGH EXISTING & PROPOSED PAVEMENT & DOCK "V" GATE 'z. = 1.-0° +16'-," PORTWALK, SEE UD05.0 6'-6'• 7-9" T 6" RAMP GBCP GBCP PER PLAN PER PLAN PER PLAN PORTWALK GUARDRAIL - SEE SHEET UD03 6"CURB BEYOND ' PORTWALK EVEL 06 STREET LEVEL FOOTING AND BEAM PER STRUCTURAL TYPICAL SECTION 3 ur=r-0THROUGH RAMP & PORTWALK ° I 1 1 1 2045 DI —mg N. � snee .T Q Packet Pg. 65 ItE Apr, 2 NE SET EDGE OF FOOTING, 4" MIN FROM CURB FACE, TYP PROVIDE a CONC 1 '$" 2'-I I" 4'�" FOOTINGS W/ I" CHAMFER AS LOCATED PROVIDE ------- 3XIS PROVIDE F CLEAR INTERIOR FOR Ill 3'-5" X 2 DUMPSTERS-SHOWN AS FO CLEAR INTERIOR FOR CARTS DASHED' SHOWN AS DASHED ----------------------- ---------,'' 3' 1298 == Z/ 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE 'A' -PLAN VIEW I . �� 10 L'J 1/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'-0" X CHU' POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF 4"AFF 6" PORTWALK LEVEL ------ - - - ---------1 --------------� F - 0 STREET LEVEL ENCLOSURE'A' - SOUTH EAST ELEVATION ENSURE FOOTING DOES NOT ENCROACH EDGE OF ADA ACCESS AISLE --------- PROVIDE 15'4Y" X 10'-6" CLEAR INTERIOR FOR (2) DUMPSTERS-SHOWNAS DASHED PROVIDE 3"H ,CONIC FOOTINGS WA 1" CHAMFER ASLOCATED ET EDGE O FOOTING r' 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/ U v2 = r-o" 1 6" PORTWALK LEVEL 0 STREET LEVEL DTRASH ENCLOSURE'A' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION yr=r-0° 'POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZ STYLE SIDING - SET DOOR LEAF 4" AFF 1 F----------------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 75"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'-0" POWDER COAT ALUM DOOR LEAF W/ HORIZONTAL STYLE SEE SIDING,SET DOOR LEAF 4"AFF N 0 STREET LEVEL I2) DUMPSTERS II I I I PLA I TRASH ENCLOSURE LOSURE W W - NORTH WEST ELEVATION TRASH ENC-SOUTH WEST ELEVATION 7 1/r,=1.�. 8 U2 E n TRASH ENCLOSURE'A' -PLAN VIEW 1 ■ �� i *� TRASH ENCLOSURE DESIGN STYLE REFERENECE U 1/z'=VnP 9 y ,r , � NCLOSURE IMAGE FOR REFERENCE COURTESY OF EADS FENCE COMPANY O O to O O M N O " N Z J r- 4) E Project No. 2045 D—Img N. ram+ S Q Packet Pg. 66 I a t5 <t APn 28, PROVIDE II'-0'X T-"" CLEAR INTERIOR F R (2) DUMPSTERS-SHO NAS DASHED 0.7 O: i F� o� O 0 STREET LEVEL PRVIDE3"HCONc 3 TRASH ENCLOSURE'C'-NORTHEASTELEVATION TINGS W/ I" 2 "1/= 1'-D' CH FOOFERASLOCATED SET EDGE OF FOOTING 6" FROM CURB FACE l ASH ENCLOSURE'C' - PLAN VIEW 75"H PANELS W/ POWDER COATALUM OR EQUIVALENT (2) DUMPSTERS (6) 6" SQ.. 82'H POWDER COAT ALUM r POSTS & WELDED BASE W/ PYRAMID CAP (2) 6' U' X 44Y' POWDERCOATALUM DOOR LEAF HORIZONTAL STYLE SIDING, SET DOOR LEAF 4'AFF 0 STREET LEVEL TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION 2 I/z•= I.O• I ,I Ir I I I I I I 0 STREETLEVEL v TRASH ENCLOSURE'C' - NORTH EAST ELEVATION z=ro° 2045 Drawing N. I S Q Packet Pg. 67 EE::15 RAILING BEYOND p II -ENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 14'=V :ENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION C = V-a EDMONDS YACHT CLUB F BEYOND (NOT TO SCALED i ❑ 8 ❑ :ENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 4" = 1'-0 — EDMONDS YACHT CLUB BEYOND (NOT TO SCALEI yd-c n CENTRAL PLAZA -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION Q Packet Pg. 68 zoos DI —mg N. s7 It 5 RE EIVED APri z n UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT PLAN DETAIL Q 6 3 LJ v4°=r-a' t t+ z 0 O Z N � 'a z C �o� C ��h z O J 3 H Q W ono L1 Q E J n UPPER PLAZA PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL O �' w 14 Q C <( I� J in N +� o J Q � z w o �D O D_ z o � Q o n UPPER PLAZA PLAN DETAIL �I Yi o3 42'-0" INGROUND POLE MOUNTS PER PLAN PLANTERS SEE PLANTING PLAN 3-U MIN. PED ,F 0 , EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ ACCESSI CL OF POLE -MOUNTS W a GATE BEYOND EXSTING �RESTROOM LU TI 2 r O O n CENTRAL PLAZA - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 49 O O M N O r N Z J a c m E P j-t No. 2045 Drawing N. }� Shee d PROVIDE JOINT FILLER MATERIAL BETWEEN CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AND GBCP Q Packet Pg. 69 Q Packet Pg. 69 EE::lt5 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 �Q U 1. 01 PORTWALK GUARDRAIL SECTION AT POST �`f ENSURE ALL GUARDRAIL OPENINGS TO BE <4" TYP. OO OO OO OO OO OO I I OO OO TYPICALPORTWALK GUARDRAIL CONNECTION �J I I=1'-0" GUARDRAIL � EXISTING GUARDRAIL° ====MEL Jm TYPICAL GUARDRAIL ALIGNMENT w/ RESPECT TO GANGWAYPL o i.. = I'_ GENERAL NOTES: y I. SMALL WOODEN MEMBERS SHALL H, PRE -DRILLED HOLES TO PREVENT SPUTTI (� DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL BOLTS. NUTS, WASHERS, ETC. SH/ HOT DIPPER GALVANIZED AFTER FABRR {Q IN ACCORDANCE W/ ASTM A153. o C OU Z u rA 7 LO z C Ino-o �z E w W :�Qa I E 0 0 waw L N T 003 I 0 Z - a a° 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 V=IVO' I L -_1 , ---I ° () GUARDRAIL ALIGNMENT ON DOCK'M&N' v y E ( E OJ Q � r O Q: d - ~I C i H zl ci !Y 3 ( O a I Q Cw a 1 Packet Pg. 70 ME::lt5 RECEIVED sxowx-nAaownaf i P[a uoxuF. ieo. GuvAxiz[o uur+�wUM GA*[ � fanMe: —REOING1 eoaoea eoSpo Af Hoe rGOUARE aE Mss � �` ' 12 a u azoct anxfL oo GAT[ cn u SECURITY GATE'P'; Q;'R'; T 8'UFRONT GN6 ALV STEEL SHEET LEIIERS T ioP mGE � QC� L�,iER�xc Ii �l SEE GATE SIGNAGE DETAIL Poaiwn�o�ioocaxc oEuls IEE,o i a Pux� SECURIIY GATE'P;'Q;'R'.'I' 8'U' ELEVATION FOR ENT ol S SEES OSECURITY GATE' MIN' FRONT ELEVATION "/ = I_-0 cnxcwgr 7� SECU1,17 GATE'P'; Q', R'; i',8'U' PLAN LAYOUi0 SECURITY GATE'M8N' PLAN LAYOUT L� SEE 'o FOR ATE I-E, ME [[� ------- eMfx,ox, oxo SATE F— PE—E" A SECURTY GATE'V' FROM ELEVATION >o Al.lYo �ATE'M &N'EASi ELEV �1 SECURITY GATE'M &N'WESi ELEVATION �, SECURITY GATE'S'SOUTH ELEVATION ��I/4..=1'-U' �'.J 1/4"=1'_U d" '$uIa -------- ��soo ��LS, IS, o77- %1 SECURITY GATES' PLAN LAYOUT �J I/4..=I�-p. SECURITY GATES' NORTH ELEVATION ILCLA­ Ell-T /I PIEa cA,f SECURITY GATE'V'PLAN LAYOVi �j GENERAL NOTES 'a 1. VERIFY IN FIELD GANGWAY r LOCATIONS THEN PROVIDE 3' CLEARWAY IN-BETWEEN RAILI INSIDE METAL GATES. a. - 3 C OU Z N 7 Z c O 0 O c E z MID0 J � W �Q9 0 E www C tea° Q d AYE o 1 oar r O w y a U z N � 3 2045 ci Drawing No. � UD04.0 QSheet of Packet Pg. 71 I a It RECEIVED GATE SIGNAGE kEFERENCE FRONT VIEW 1'{Y' =, ° 0 "ATESIGNAGE'M8N' �\ GATE SIGNAGE'P' GATESIGNAGE•Q• LJ r'=ro•• LJ vz•=r-a' LJ uz•=r-a• N [RD � GATESIGNAGE'R G GATE SIGNAGE'S ( GATESIGNAGET � GATESIGNAGE•a' ( GATESIGNAGE•V' LJ vz• = r-a• LJ I iz• = r-a• LJ r-a• CJ uz• = r-o° \J uz• = r-a• C is t4 3 0 a z 0 z N 0 E W 0 0 a Packet Pg. 72 MLL:15 RECEIVED 01 RAMP ELEVATION FRONT VIEW, TYP. I®r� a� C m 1717 o 0 MPF m y ®SILL 1 o^� �_ ®�EOFPa�EL °no 16]LLILLLILLLLJ —III—ECONCR— MIA IRKI- 4 TYPICAL CONCRETE &GLASS BLOCK- TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN U 1/4"=1'O' 7 TYPICAL CONCRETE&GLASS BLOCK- TYPICAL PANEL PATTERN PLAN �J I/T= 1'-0" (1 RAMP ELEVATION SECTION VIEW, TYP. so �\ TYPICAL SECTION OF GLASS BLOCK & CONCRETE PAVERS NT$ TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN PLAN AT PLANTER TYPICAL CONCRETE & GLASS BLOCK PANEL PATTERN AT RAMPS v Protest Concrete COI GENERAL NOTES: I. ALLOVERWATERPAVING TOBESPECIFIED WITH']IR' end Fmish Optiarm STRUCTURAL -GRADE GLASS BLOCK, CONFIGURED WITI IO AI Z'MIOSU51 LIGHT MCON RANSMIS IMET 1 THANMOANELST OR HAVE DES OO F GLASS BLOCK PAVER ONE 3.ALL PANELS HAVE CO CONCRETE WITHANEURALGREY FTI (VERIFY) o . NNE a._ Z O Z U OE N � O C 00 O�CNCRETE FINISH -FOR REFERENCE ONLY (J z N NTS 10 0 J � W �Q9 o�E 0 ww � Na 0 3 O Z — a Qo ~ Y oar c a m E t o V z Sheet of Packet Pg. 73 N a It RECEIVED RESERVEDI AIFIX SIGN VI RIVET TO POST(2 PER SIGN TTYPP) PARKING 6113112A'K1B �STFAFTEE ADAON I RCWI09212, PER Ste! m pm V O 7kZW6"ZINC PLATED STEEL, O _PREPUNCHED SGN POST OR SIMILAR O GENERAL NOTE: O (1)PROVIDE AN"ADA O PARKING STALL SIGN PER PLAN. O (2) IN ADDITION TO(1). FOR VAN -ACCESSIBLE PARKING O STALLS, PROVIDE "VAN -ACCESSIBLE" SIGN. O FROM E V MAX. SPACING BETWEEN SIGNS. O (3) SIGN(S) TO BE MOUNTED " MIN. ABOVE FINISHED ,A ELEVATION. O O O O O O ADJACENT HOLESBOLT IN (2( O PROVIDE ZGA MOUNTING SLEEVE FOR SIGNAGE O o ADA PARKING SIGN DETAILED ELEVATION \- / 1/7'=1',' ",DEGREE(ANGLED(ADAPARKINGSTALLPLAND RAIL FI L 1 Packet Pg. 74 I a t5 RECEIVED PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FRONT VIEW 3T;. �rwC[151 aiao odExa uv SvnC[o s[e 3 & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED SIDE VIEW you PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED BOTTOM VIEW U 11/2"=1'U' 5 dn. PEDETRIANLIGHi BRACKETDETAIL �OOD� � S � A � • I Dr�to� T & I BIRD DETERRENT PRODUCT SHEET I /2" = 1'-D" NOTE: 'PEDESTRIAN LIGHT' TO BE LEO AREA LIGHT LE SERIES: POLE: 12FI Wi:4 LB EPA: 1.14 FI2 PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR MATERIAL POW DERCOAT METAL -'TITANIUM' LEO Area Light M1 �e.., O,L. 11..1 l u �, f. t _•., •r...�T ...r.rr �r M..Iw1.M.!•+. r.l.. �..Er.t 1i... 1�o�4M rw .» 0".,. 0 a z 0 Z 0 E W 4- 0 L 0 a Packet Pg. 75 EE::lt5 RECEIVED I I I I I° I I II I I °I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I OMETRIC PLAN 0 t-asa PHOT R O s. 3 O oV Z U N � O U�0 �z�o E J 3 W �Qa O o03 zo z g a QE � E E Ja 0 < v o Wo O Yi o -- Q oQv� V c c u c c r c c r e 0 s ( E s GENERAL NOTE: HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED 1 J i P-;—t No. zoo, UDXX Sheel of Packet Pg. 76 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachment 5 CITY OF EDMONDS PL NNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT "C OPTIONAL ADA COMPUANT DUAL HEIGHT DRINKING FOUNTAIN W/ CANE SKIRT EXTERIOR LED LIGHT FIXTURE OPTIONAL SKYLIGHT (TYP 3 PLCS) (TYP 4 PLCS) 12 C 3 � d t Z 3068 3068 } ci DOOR W/VENT W/VENT = \ 0 + p E LU m I.IJ La 0 0 IL n 41 2'-10" 3' G'-10' 6'-10" 3' 2'-10" n 1'-6" 26'-0' 1'-6" ++ 29'-0. FRONT ELEVATION FOR REFERENCE a 4" CIA PLUMBING VENT PIPE ONLY =+ (TYP 2 PLCS) CEDAR SHAKE TEXTURE TYP ALL ROOF PANELS BARNWOOD TEXTURE EXHAUST FANS TYP ALL EXTERIOR WALLS y� (TYP 2 PLCS) O CL I.,,Sdll' Bldg. #7 Spa ,% WA 99216 2 I �® 3 ecast Products N. Ngn.q n W, or , rx 76W ®®®® W MONTROSE 3068 °o+ = CIO STANDARD BUILDING DOOR fax I � r �mmea Heel" m ppx,�r� n' .0� � C �ry e. nwapnm r a 1 Cl) N O N 4�1111'-2" 3' 11'-2�" Z rLorxo. 26'-0" d WILDING ELEVATIONS xo< REAR ELEVATION ++ d M-04 C Q Packet Pg. 77 RECEIVED Attachment 5 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 �m��m■�.�■,����m���m� a�mmm iSIMON=Simon mmmmmmn.�.�.�.mmmmn �mmmmmmmm n�ma�mmma�ma�ma�mm■nm�mmma�ma�ma�� El 111 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 C M 3 0 a 0 z _ 0 E ,15 W �0 L 0 a v� r E M a 3i CL I. Willi— Bldg. f7 Spokane, WA 99216 M CXT� y acast Products N. H*.y ]] 11111. o, TX MW lJl MONTROSE CXT STANDARD BUILDING � was O O M N O N o D c 1e z 1 a 1 p xo. J BUILDING ELEVATIONSo N� a M-05 Packet Pg. 78 Attach a �1jlogo rr���V �I!o1� id - t� PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION PORTWALK LOOKING NORTH 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 79 Attach a Iry PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION NORTH PARKING LOT 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 80 Attach a PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION SOUTH PLAZA 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 81 A. Vw j Attach a Fl 1 PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION NORTH PLAZA 3/31/2023 r J c Packet Pg. 82 611 Ci op �:. �•f s1c gory 4r0 ' 40 o won — smog _ -.dm ,,•,•- � d� � ���1111111111�`�� �' ,�r��L?� � ti' ice"" ` s .., - :. • � „ yet ••►� >- �- �- ;/► !• _ �� �• 1 l.a . Yam' � f �J - .�y��-` �-` ,'► - �'� � .•Sr_� ��� ��. V ► - �.�. � 'fir '� �� � °'- � � - �k . •,yam ��sy� � y • �„` ^'- i 14 04 c Attach a PORT OF EDMONDS NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION RESTROOM AT NIGHT LOOKING NORTH 3/31/2023 Packet Pg. 88 � v; ` ;fig' �-• ; •- ,•.:M. t�4. ...ram � 4 + � ! _ � � Yf . 1• ~•r -' w '�-.•, l �- �\ �t � __ .•, ». E� _ _ �, � � •fi .� ! mac, � �'-i ` �. ifs ./! . � ' . ^a A � � .. .. a,., • > IVA k v �1 r"� � ;V•_��•ti_� - _ram' t F 6 4WF�-- e P'A . tF i`3.1 �. t„ �, . ' . ;� '4 /��a s- � ,ram; J I'• om i I a t7 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 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 OESiGN CIVIL ENGINEER SOIL/GEOTECH ENGINEER SURVEYOR WATER/SEWER/STORM GAS ERGV FIRE IDMONK WA MEA20 I, r, I1HIIx11@10FT FEDMONUS.ORG CONTACT. ST 1M WRDHABER mxTA[T. TARED LxDER RUI BE 42Si7Z.STEVEN WRIGHT CoxiA[T. DOOG._A. 425.]]3O.L 1.PE8.225.SP3 a25.ESF.F_ STRUE.CTURAL ENGIN EER PLUMBING ELECTRICAL AIR" GA... HARBOR POWER rvEERS vA45TArt..IEDE.L.' EyR'uLESAN. REGuu.NipxDALLOixER APPLICABLE LOCAL DEIIBCI oa.,APAAna�oaAosPFCFLC"OxSFGRR ` BRIDGE AND MUNICIPALCONSTRUCTION 111INC INC wh„SPAR ENi 1 DO.1STxRMWA RMANAGEMENTMAxGALFORTHEPR­ I ­ .1 ­E All—E. PINS MUST BE ON THE AUSDE W.C.— C.NST1U­ IS 1. NROGRCGL 4 IEM= =�'E ILANS MOST BE 11 THE ENGINEER 01 RECORD AND TIE LOCAL IUW•ANRI S WNPARE.FEE.SEE1UFVEYOAIFNGHMARRINFDRMATIDNTxEBLILDINGI FIELD ENVE' OR OBTAINED FROM AVA11FLE RECORDS ANDS .. LD T.=BE BE =:DEBED SREVISEDD,.BG2PROTECTD,]LALLDCATDNSERxMEI.�,:Esss;..0N. �°o wPDR H ,WxEREAPPLLABLHANDSxALL STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH TIE FECO1M­ OF THIS REPORT, ALL NE EQUIPME STCKRPLIN%DA xDN A PRD,EG,EPAiALLiIMESFR0MG0MPACOVIALTNNMIESHLEI A' 14 MANHOULS CATCH BASINS, UFFUT ES AND PAVEMENIF 514L BEAR ON NREOIUM DENSE TO VERY =NATIVE IRIIIN­ FACE I LEVAT_ REMOVE ANN RE"C' WIT. CINIAACTED STRILICTUFAL HILL PER GEOTECIMCAL REPORT, INDICAT11 ON THE PINS. IF IMPROVEMENTSixDICATED ONOITAHNAN%SE DRAWIxas. AIFIIAIPERMITS REauIRED To"wnALwnoxaTAusRF wA�EOMo owaToEP.° K ow: n� ro E P P""�°owNERAxNLA Y 22.UVEx F TEIRPRENTCNITx"DAEIHPRRAEREREEDLOHOSuc ON ODIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITQUMENTS ILE CGNTNOLPax5FOR 5PECRCGRADINGANNFROSIONCONTROL WILL No 'N IMQ IRIMINTS, W sHl D� HE5ED5DN POWERCABLE & TELEPHONE EN i xry PuO A.P/.FEPRMCE AL OF THE REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR To FF LL REPRESENTATIVE AND C- 31, BEEMEMECHANICAL INGS,WHEREAPPLABLE,FORCONTINDATION01SNEGTILTIE,WDHIx,HE G BRTSEFELF�RDALDRAWxGS,WHFRFAPPL BLHTDRF RIORE� RI�LWDRR. B BEE xDSG�ED WINGS,WILREAPPLCABLEIPDRSITEIRRIGATIDN EM. xSTALNT1110EH S 1. WOOA.EIaswP. Tl1, a'fgBaPTINGWITHIIIENGINEER-D 5IONAi<25]] N220.E..IM, ID CES NBEMAIxTAI UNTILPERMAxEx,YEG—.NSF—BLSHEB. RAC 11 PLPRRILaaxoioRoE° SHAl B. CONSTRLCTBUILDING(ANTICIPATEDTOBEINTANDEMWIHAo,ACFNTAPARTMENTSNH DATUM TO CONVERT CLEVATIMNE HORIZONTAL 8111DINATE .xDRx2DxENAP BAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAULROUTE AIMURAL— AACUC .sirt�, VICINITY MAP ABBREVIATIONS moo *I CAUTIONI CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI 1-800-424-5555 UPFU REN SFSBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION c � GIN 0 a 0 _ Z v 0 qe� ^y L I Q W 0 0 a Packet Pg. 90 It 7 RECEIVED APNI36,2N23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. GINEERM 3 r-E %.N.sx� 2C 0 a z -Y-" `�rrl_ V �460! begat — O E �;a® I WN12 i 0 I i a ILLL zoxns ox-slrcAxo lx.xe now axINoswE— — — JF — — — — — —. — — — — — — smla Iry erica— 1' / ""Re•m _ _ v; ni / y / � J; •3 I �O: 21060.2 - _—— — — — — —— S 03/31/2 NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 1 0 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY 1 g Q FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM k Il i THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. O r+ IX 1 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AND DEMO PLAN E—ON CONTROL PLAN O I. «RR.M—AILC-1rvo Mxvoox.RORoxAR1— RRnC.—P.a. W U 2 3 nRoOIRRmRx oFnm>.13TXFxoon,xE,xl�nRon.VxoxoA.onwa.ExonrvEEOEom�Eoox T- O .xEw�,.xRRRORE.As.. O >- N I.N nEn.sons.n�Amsaonst�rv.�nmrvslxo.nnoxmnnoOxsRn nnmonlrvs.nnExolRxE O ;o pZ s ox—.—LV—non u�—TING xRe —.1. soo 01-1 N ax ox-N AxOIrv.xRRow. Q 0l w a 1. A-10NAL IEnenulRe0011116CONST-01. O z < z. —INS-10x RE0uIReo Ox AU G-10N mN1101 merx00s 1110Re mxeRwoRn CIN-1rv. C Q M N o vt u: w O ho OD o z fsBLDXXXX-XXXX Z wZ LM ZO �o APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n Q a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY E C2.1 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V m �F Q Packet Pg. 91 I a t7 RECEIVED APN136,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. Imo N G� 9 wAmTs �l >•m N s¢ rim[ s J'e' � NIN 9 w�oxx�s%u¢ �� wamc oEra� (1191 1RYR0.� D9E 1TN)��e S' DIAMEIE�YSAE�� rLlk ttld 90'd ]o'd tld GTCaJIW4! sv.WOmEo q1 fl«E5. V.4 511uw wAT16 N vA4InR NPUGTx1. I IN NNN wpm �,NR .-mx,e>. eAKN. asw«N�iz«�N �vioCITY OF EDMONDS WATTLE eIN rALLATION R�NDAR A1e PUBLIC WDRKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL ER-903 OO�O�O e-W n I G1C1 WM NOTES: GQ- OF EDMONDS TEMPORARY PuQF WORKS..SEDIMENT TRAP DEPARTMENT FOR CATCH BASINS STANDARD DETAIL s, , ER-902 2 CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAIL N. ca � � GIN EEGIN EE R is200 r 778D .was) 3 O a begat V 4g01 r- E Q /il/2 W0 O O N C Z V a ILL T< 31 5 JO: 21060.2 I w/31/'e ^O^ Y� J l4 O r+ � N F- I Z W 0 = U Z O J Q ON N F- m r Y � W O �3 =O cM a Q M N o of Ld C ho OD fSBLDXXXX-XXXX o z a 0 Z LM o W Z APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: BY: "`.` CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V }e Q Packet Pg. 92 I a It RECEIVED APH126, 2FI23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. �=D x �E FIRE-1— w rvDaTM M w s OaFA C IF xFWPDa x°� aF- - C3 --- - _ - — _ 0Fx--[, � —a=nrvxfsw,Nrva KING WAMF ...SM, LOOT =o�aM�--_____- FowDafwaaaFA�Hw�.x �OJ x n - ---- -- ---- ca � GINGGP"- 3 ONE, t_H aSD� 2C A%E(A23) )TB-3535 0 ---- z - w - 0 g t Lu O5/il/2 xWxxnLF I ; a° _ I I ® E —T. P.,,MNT H-/ Da -- nfau :; _ ----------- --------- JF 21060.2 NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 0 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY 1 a FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM g THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED ST RAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. r,a J 1 OVERALL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN s[AtE � w UI ~ � AD o zD .D aD© GE.—NIULFrvcINFFaoF.—D. IN...—R.—xTH[ ZL. aFnulaFntFrvTS Df axflis.=aw_..RfnwA.F.ANVALVLL_V,G._.la[D PAVING LEGEND IIII. x[wA PHALTrynu,Y SAwcuT W Z Q IRTI aFttuFFry Dav ITIN F IPowpp GAs�axoxE, un<¶nOSArvrvD WEx, wA vaAxD SlmarvD A WRI.-ofs axrarvow FD uxfs. NaW�a[PureDlmPFavlDDs O OVFPu I—TING—FIFIX Q Q (� zs � ry o � ; Z A. suaucF,w[TDDN.—) - FW/aFPuCEDa F:sD=SF.a OFauxOFFWIUFL=TOFxISINGu Cla INS, N u J O - Fw/11111Dcoxca11PA—ENT:az,seN SF. PAvemENr 11111E WILL coxnx11 TD SHFFT Q OD Y Q - NII/11 uc ASIHDASLT PAVE11W:V,sys SF. P1111— aoxOFF III COrvrN—OSHE11PLow TOF IsnxG urzx lrvx 0 � Q i.D 0 a 3 s A J SIEA 11-11PLAx:AI :ECIII—ONSFORDFCOaAT [.[ATDRESWITHIINFW[ox[11TL PDaT _ C4 o J O h Z Z Q aTHFaD ALFDw F DaFFSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z 2 w � W 0 a. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY E C3.1 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V m �F Q Packet Pg. 93 mv::lt7 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FORT m Q DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY PAVING LEGEND �� GINGGRM ND„a99NALT/U00,.9Arc0, FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM i z l3 aTN AYE. s., suRE z THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED O 01ESP,rE"'n'N0A6P"ACT V, u 3 ME 5>"„"',°-a59oa2 STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. "'CMa, a Axcazm ne-sse6 O NE E;6 �,sx9 z IE 3x 711 _ __ — _— —_ — ---- TrME'I3� ---- 7 _ O _=_ ----_ _,:EP':3;- z E --- '--q s _— — — ---------- -- -- —— � , O_ONCR€F�WALL— — B CONCRETE WALK �• c xiz - q 'a .sv �° 0 IL -- e �2.0� , °� e 2A.39 3322 h �� —a PAa d� �� y 2axx I ` 2z92 2292 �3 'oc.,3.6a .C.,366 I IEI6 )113E L . b . ° --..-w.---"� -- . = I a06.23.29 a06.23.26 w ' fs32 Cr--, L ,d I Y IIol L_—JL--J I d I—T6AW[OT UNE 3.99 Nd AMP 13.2E OC e0c. 13.° C.13.2 31 CO: 21080' 03/31 /: BOC.13° 91 s0c v0 ' M�6s 21228 TI6, ��°o�*A'3°a0la"twaaEol Anc" I f`1��125 ' I , V/ F 119 C0 wE EMS IN9U TO MEET PxING ---J 'Lu °T.O[.3 �M o1256'MA CHul9TlE'S�, TI r s06 r J V) I >- J 0 — c. x3. eP 0 � � Q Pc�nu N L H L eo °e i I O 0 -- -- -- -- - -— - -- -- -- ---- - - C 3 Q N oo ZQ oI o�W.E .n N o z Z PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN Eu'ms xEaor`rni�EEow ruivaefsBLDXXXX-XXXX z j w '° a. 30 a ° 0© APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n +'i w (D a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY: "3.2 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V Q Packet Pg. 94 �t7 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c C °' ■ o NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE ■ DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINGGFM z _ _ FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 ^ ^ I: ONEmo-NSx 9aR°° >: THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 3 "" <�si na(t ns-ss5s STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t' p ■ a o o o ■ _ _ _ — _ _ _ — — --. r— — — — — _ _ wAwxNG LEGEND -- --_� — ����-----------------__— HF /UIEGE AWM 0 --.—_---------�_--_---_-- ■�� �OVFRuv DnS,lxG wsrxnFr Z A. =Lv aat=— —_3B =_ sz_-- —¢—' — ---- i33Y—-.96---x eo 0 — — ° — — W 05/il/ 19 C 9■� — — — NwaoEPUP O -3-3P l�fii d' -- s— o - rosEo „-sa-- - ' xm�- R-RsPo §° -- - - - ■ -- a N—PR v6-55 n,� d.70 I Cy' w RE EN G> I a. 3 R M 'vc R EPx N ' a'o �saro EiOVERw/D xFA:R E;"'wSxE.r.P Eov °vFRfww.,t. iE IS PVC w/°vERF�°ww�:9.e° , Qe^9vcwwwERrow-(All: aS IF �a we xE�. u.s° R•RNENF:9. ° R°,9,RxRxRF R3° �,o- t sF:wa'° R•RNENF,:,..° "",°" 19.R5 R'TR 11 , 31 CO: 21080 �RS , w/31/ E➢ , %S °°Ts,R D xREc 90/vovERFL°w NE1:1°9° C' , v FMISTING ASPHALT WFRU W� a � Eois"0VwER3wo°vFMI°x°w Fl:,°.: � R w Eob. °woPxRFowFrF°."°Y, Nx,S,R°�,RE.,9° r a D E C < o —�— ¢ E r ■ ■ El N o o Z ■ ■ C h p ��,xaoF�a�'EowFu<�aF""�5E5Ax°wINRF N z I CM) Q 2 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 10 ° 9 ,D ,0© BLDXXXX-XXXX Z APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY: *3.3 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V Q Packet Pg. 95 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c C mom \ NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 0 0 _ �\ "5 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINGGRNI j's J FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 + q �x�x 9B0 ■ \ THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED �Em (�]ie=SASS a ■ a STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. a° O0 _-- --- o s — _ _ _ _ — — — — — ■— — PAVING LEGEND _____--_ ■ _ ENE NT-140 O - — _+9 ■ i0s— \ /' — _ _ _ — 3.93- — .9L — _ _ v/ vgN=G� �r !�T ff4 3 ��� '�T�f��x�S��., _� S ttS'T'Vv!"S'`'•S_F-�^�rT_�'�'TT•T_T.�_-_ � .:�rT r��-� Sall . E W oisv O T«.. o . 969� -� aM 93— s N@.�x� �,9 9 66� «.99 a J a.s N, 90,9 P ■ ------------------------------------- — — I R . �xcgEPIAN9 EI9 C solo �— Lm AEN I PPgT I .. I T.9 no �-0 Isl b^6v lrunv� ■ g]�6.TEopLLFL, -- — ---=o— —� — — — — (1)RRE HYD NT I■ ■ a 3 21060. \ 03/31/ �\` % ■ moNo/ NEPSialPINGPERAacH m IEPi3"PV�NEI:1130 9 T. 11.so �0v[auTExISTINP nsPNgET �s gP[UTUNEttP ; /A W Z CL ■ W r O a J f- O ; N � uf O r ol Y O- Z -- -- -- -- -- --�-- O f Q M a 3 Q wow N c� Z ho 0 A LE o ,xEP .FEET N 1 0 a <fSBLDXXXX-XXXX o Z o • 2 w PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 2� © APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION a io o s ]o zo CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: 6Y: E "3.4 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V m Q Packet Pg. 96 RECEIVED APN136,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c C NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE R DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINGGIM �0 z z FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 °T6s",ASIN <-ssgaoss 0 0 THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 3 oN �si ns STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t+ AUE(.zs7 ne-ssss O IL ° EPAVIING LEGENG N NTll.—M O \TONEWPICYNIEN 1—vu -----—OVEauvvxlSnxGAsvxAEr Z 0 ° // -- W oi3v o O \ / / // f 9"/s ,luTvsTwcur EoPcu'x`e Homy ira , CON s / L o �otEWPro � Qa TSEo ---/ / / i . < _ >Ea�Gx > y�r / IE. r.W^- am NDE ,I 4O: 21060. -- — Ls / �u e, xv lvwMp — Lf. EE oAUEu iI F`xE HVPaANT As:EMSLvG., I: a.nu 1 _ r.+ Z -- N Q 1 s �r�. , r 13.53 MP "� I `,,—T rN6 Tx --�T= =I -� - rvEAlM63.o --� --IN�ASPxAr -- - - - oN NE Ia wALN Yo I _ le'ry s MATCH LINE 1/C3.7 0 Q ~ % MATCH LINE 1/C3.5 , Q GO CDY o 1 ARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN M ¢ 3 EwIE 1 .o Z_ C4 ID Cm Z o fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z o.o Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION COD a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: 6Y: `3.5 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V Q Packet Pg. 97 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. Ulu ----- z�z Q;Q o 0 � , g aurPAulemcoxcl 120 o'm o _ -- uAx� Y i `roc 3e9 lro 3,i �ra�;;;o L„wFPoYPnx / `, 0-2 __ CONCRETEPAVERS c.. PER €rT"�^�>" J °-------------------------- I 1-7 PER 28 ---- m m a`\ PER C i — m IPIb"PVC Cl cczo o \* I I iE13o"Pxo 3.fo \ IE M. 1) cox�T.;e ^ I Pv iz IE 1/C3.7 MATCH LINE 1/C3.8 E 1/C3.5 ♦n ) MATCH LINE /C3.6 / 2 , fiTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN x b a 0© NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 0 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINEERN(- FOOTTRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 arx AYE.:.'uz THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 778DNP 3 ��' <�siasoa �� STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t+ AxE(.zs7 ne-ssss 0 IL PAVIING LEGEND xE Mum xA — Z Q o"",'ISTws—Al N �/ U) 41,G GUf11 E W0 /il/2 0 0 a N C t 0 T< V' Al 3I JF 21060.2 w/31/'e ^0 iNN.l. m A- z W� a CO r J 0 N TZ r Y ol z CD 3 Q M ¢CNI ID c9 z_ N o Z fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z o o Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n +� w CAD a CITY OF EDMONDS r-� DATE: 6Y: "3.6 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V m Q Packet Pg. 98 RECEIVED Apn126, 2B23 A PORTION OF R:.» _ nw___ p__ _ �op1u-srz,,smewax, nr --„^ IE�s��'s3o wsBTIDnGAwGBrRaR e ¢,6 LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, so -ovcaur DClswG AsvxnLr MATCH LINE I/C3.7 , MATCH LINE 1/C3.5 ♦c 1 NEwsTRIRING RERARCN fovERarERI=DNGA=PNALT R I \ 1 I� PRooa °wF owEf % I Im IR is"avc wopo IRiow EI: I. / w, Z ROT GTRurnIRE. a.Eo /// Q, Q / / / / / / 1 PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 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. PAVING LEGENG - HF /UTLIn sAWM I oVER1Ar ExISTING—Al N A LE ESBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DMSION N lz Ca � GINGGIR K- 3 0a <�_> � as� o ACEU2s7 ne-ssRG O a z O Z E Wo isiix O O a v� c m z a N: TA N' AT 3 I JO: 21080.2 03/31/2 ^O A N W� a W r r J N � O r Y o Z Q 3 Q M a c� Z N j o 0 Z J a r+ C �3.7 V �R Q Packet Pg. 99 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c C orr��_;z� a I I�, 1 "5os JJII ❑ `` NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY � GINiGFM IE 1/C3.7 i \ s. MATCH LINE 1/C3.8 �O °��,�� !3 TN pvs s sorts z OMM,, EMMMMMMMM M M M M M������ �7 FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED �. A)I:o,oN9ao ME tQ55`)II 8590 E 1/C3.5 ♦c TAATCH LINE 1/C3.6 STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. a. 3^ ��`L�'Q \ i ❑b, a+ 3° I1 PAVING LEGENG N—C' 0sus x6 0 �Le Efit i I I II I O E;a 9NE NEW STRIPINGPENAa N g o a P oIN E.InINN oNALT f m`-- o�a��"C"),111, a,sso -----w,_ ,_ I" ► � c � a�< 1 1 m a v is ❑ 1 I � � 1 � l --- _ I �O: 21060. 0 ADMIRAL WAY --- - - --- -- N z W a 00 0 Z ewd PARTIAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN = f Q M a 3 Q E o to 0 5 'N 30© N o C 0 z_ N ° Z 0 fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z o Q APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n +� w CAD a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: 6Y: E ..3.8 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V Q Packet Pg. 100 I a t7 RECEIVED APN136,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. l Y�e�.e�.. •1... del .r _ YW'�• ' III.• .� •w . ,.. � er 1� .• eew . eeee� � 1� •r .r . r r r. r •�I .0 . _� _� eer •� Mr �� • � •r ..ems •q11 ••1. •e_ •r lei •r•I •ram e.l�. w. . •r.er .ee... �r P r •••e•r u er l.r ... r.+ � . r Ia►T « [�Y.ONOSI I••C N•DIIANT ASSCYRIT H OF EDMONDS TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL 14CITY s, GU-100 euo A C C CAPPEG CROSG CROSG TEE W/ PWG m AS SEE SBE 39-9ENQ C � s�EeN� z�/z RENG ,- /.RENo NOTES: POEMYR � 480I NeXI IaV•�aF � Po�iRLe r PM.A 1wnx IaF aE MSRxxFn .plxrs 11 mmxua A T. caxocle RSu� xm mm Rnxo ew] xo xnn CITY OF EDMONDS CONCRETE THRUST Rwewr ene BLOCKING PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL a' LdBfLpY �pe� �� �a MV WL I�.caR�F � ��• Cg IpIE N N^.TES- nMc m oxeox e a ]� cl.Muxr xmar saxoxm s[cxrwnors IaR ' x x eE A.M.. aP r. IAo sxla< aE NSTAIm Ix wlnMe Eaua nxaalme uRs xrn r� •omna xw MRm Rru ff • I.xw no r rve wua�we/u+RMas. x a r ]Ilcx. ux IMw.ID � ]� 6wex6R uP o[mx wPI]m TYPICAL HMA AND rs srTE "CITY OF EDMONDS UTILITY PATCH R� PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL �PRo.,:o xY. A MIMw GU-410 "'•�1YUTI MI6 il.[ IIN•T MIY 1P L G 'Y Y•10 6 LAMB IVIIR 90FE x5 6 MW ] IxKMNfJ/ r.NP�a. ro NOTES: MI6 IriMS 5/e' cslc CITY OF EDMONDS CONCRETE x¢�aoae EXTRUDED CURB PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENTpETAIL TR-522 ca � GIN EEGIN EE R r _855 .was>: 3 A%E'Q5) 17e 1 0 a t begat V 4g01 e° k r E Q W 0 0 a v� c� G V Q T< 311 JF - 21060.2 w/31/'e ^0^ Li N IW� W r J C ; N Y O 3 Q ' a N o o Z J fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z Q o c Q ~ Z p EC LJ +� w o n APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION a CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: �r 6Y: �3.9 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V }I Q Packet Pg. 101 I a It RECEIVED APNI36,2N23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. II I I I —AI � I II I Ila I I I� ---- — ----- -- — — ——— — —I — --- ca � � GINEERNI AVE S., SUIT 20C t _> as� AX (.23) ))8-3535 o a --—— — z ` E Lu e n _-------------------- / T, jF _ 4O: 210604: CLOSED NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE FOR THE \\111 7\ 1 ' w/31 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY �� 1 I Q FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM l 11 THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCKGATES. L� 1 OVERALLSITEIMPROVEMENTANDTRAFFICCONTROLPLAN o p w 80Lu ooNFOAM,o,NE NINNPNPN PNIwwN,wFN«DNmoPE�IE:iM�mLINE ,ION SNN« = Z _. NE.ENENEP,A,«��zFPN�,YN�TIwFFI«PNTaPmER �: YM��,=I�N=°A�INPpEn. co a r F- O a Z O ; o w 10 o Z T..Y rn J 0 0 3 d A a a-J N ho m0 tiowlNaE O o z F- fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z ? o Z APPROVEDFORCONSTRUCTION n w N OU a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: Ir 6Y E C4.1 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION V Q Packet Pg. 102 mv::lt7 RECEIVED ApnI 26,= 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. A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c AC.NG lRw'I_:IE� 5 5 GINGIN EERK- A><Ec�sl ne—ssss Aj S., SUIT 200 ��� oEssANo,O ILNA�LoA � ■ � ■ IL iE�i '^fir i iiiiim a OEM���sarair�ss�s>•.a�ss,� CONCRETE WALK i ■s»�srs�s�®��r�■sue®da��.�-® .. J� ®� � IIIIIII /m1,_-I■\ -IIIIIII 3 Lo CO z WZ N m0 ti°wIN°E ■ ho N o z BLDXXXX-XXXX Z 0 M � Z O PARTIAL SITEIMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN w '° APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION n +� w 7 U a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY: E D"4.2 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V Q Packet Pg. 103 RECEIVED APNI36,2N23 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. c ■ o NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY �5 GINiGFM z z FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM m °TTx A � �:mox ;ao PROVIDEDONTRADTONTO THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 3 ON' < i ni-xsoa a a " cxoivossl Al%RrxinmE a IN"ll AT STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t+ AxE(.zs7 ne-uis x.s,b°xP, CONCRETE TIER P �, 0 IL 12_ o o _ x P..E No z -- ` _--_—_'—------------------ ---- _—_—_---_—_— --- — — —_— .�o -------------------- —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------- — _--- ----- 0 a c DRR 0 E �R.AR AILIGNT — — I aax ExiE : ❑ O O O - ❑-- PARTIALSITEIMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN ,x o s 1D ,x© E Wo isi/: 0 WMl Imp— 0 a. so I VIE JI JO: 21060.: 0 w.ra�rraF�q.l�lr LV 0 W = zo co a o r H Z C ; o LLJ z < mZ Y > J 0) MUTCD STANDARD DETAIL C 3 0' 2 Nn A ¢ a —J N ho m0 tioWINRE o z F— A fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z 04 ? o F— Z APPROVEDFORCONSTRUCTION n w N O a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: Ir DY: E "4.3 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION V }i Q Packet Pg. 104 I a t7 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. 0 0 0 _---W ¢ a xoiaNa Erz�w �rznrNinnvE _ � a , a -- _-- --__ ----- --- -------------------- �- -- __------ ---— — — — — — — -- -_-� ,,--------------------------------�,-- ----__, - _--------- _-___ ■ -- --y-- — — — — --------- ----- - -- - ---- -J- r����rf'�t.'.�■����ll����t�6��wa���®��_� ifs ozl�az G�tOi`G ■ �;`S°Ua—N—oaK ■ u1� ■ 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 GINEEPM FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM"S ;ao THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED I:mox 3 oN' <asj ne-esoa" STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. ACE(�2s7 ns-ssss t' O a z O z E W0 /il/2 O O a V! C O t v R Q T< 311 JF - 21060.2 03/31/'e ^O^ W U w F— LU p = ZQ �O r F— O a Z �[� o m Z r Y rn > J 0 3 0 d A a aw N ho -� tiowlNaE CD o z F- fSBLDXXXX-XXXX z o H Z APPROVED pFOR CONSTRUCTION J w N O a CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: DY: �4.4 CITY ENGINEERING —SION V �F Q Packet Pg. 105 RECEIVED APH136,21323 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 oc / / / / z�• —_ __ CON / PG / <'� ERARa. / 1 —E° E-1T1 — — —--------------------- I RFA IN waRK � s T.—V cc MATCH LINE 1/C4.7 ■=16AQxWjjM=MM�MMM7i=N=� MATCH LINE 1/C4.75 , ■ 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. ESBLDXXXX-XXXX APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING —SION Packet Pg. 106 RECEIVED APNI36,21323 -.a J 31 z�z a, aB—EEN FOR I A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, R/ o O xoiP"o Ere�w i>E"wi"JA`n \�� T---------_- _ / � ---\--_----------- — --- 111'- CONCRETE PAVERS cNAIN IN FEx�EJ 1Y>en s'"a'cA ® a IE 1/C4.7 W \ E 1/C4.5 , i ILL 0 a TM aNlosE aaso � I �I 1 �A � I I wo m I Z -1 IGJ I 1 cv I I I I II \ m m MATCH LINE mi - - - N MATCH LINE OO I � �NGE 3 EAST, W.M. NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE 0 DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINGGPJM- FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 .TN AYE.:. "z THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 778DN' 3 ��' <�siasoa �� STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t+ AUE(.zs7 ne-ssss 0 IL z O Z E W0 /il/2 O O a N C t V Q T< 3 JF JO: 21060.2 03/31/'e O Q LL F- F— LU p = ZQ CO r H O a Z u i J W Z Y co o s > J d c) ¢3 a—J N ho -� 04 OTUN° ILLaE O o z fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z ? o � Z APPROVEDFORCONSTRUCTION J w N OU a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: DY: E "4.6 CITY ENGINEERING DMSION V �F Q Packet Pg. 107 RECEIVED Apn126,= A PORTION OF a,¢ 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 7 ■I ■ ■ 1 ■ I I ■ ' zsuxsnclxO wOxx oxl sx , n ❑ / DL 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 N lz Ca � GINGGIR K- 3 0a <�_> � as� o ACEU2s7 ne—ss3s 0 a z 0 E Wo isiix 0 0 a v� c m z Q TA AT 3 JP JO: 21060.2 03/31/2 ^0^ W U_ F- F— LU p = ZQ �O r F— O a Z �[� o m Z r Y rn > J 0 i 3 d A a aw N o cf m0 O h z N I O wz Z'm �o J D o N 0 n r+ C "4.7 V Q Packet Pg. 108 RECEIVED APN136,21323 A PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. ti Wi \\ JJ I psF '7'1 IE 1/C4.7 ,c MATCH LINE 1/C4.8 �O "77M OMM E 1/C4.5 ♦c MATCH LINE 1/C4.6 I � 1 � i n[I r p� o p] F92p _ _I ,I ■ -� ADMIRAL WAy ®\r ----R----ss 'I I I$ a � I � I i � I PARTIALSITEIMPROVEMENTAND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN 7 IAA -.o NOTE: THE ENTIRE PORTWALK SHALL BE CLOSED FOR THE � � DURATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY GINGGRNI FOOT TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN THE VICINITY IS TO AND FROM !3 +*N zz s. sBRr: THE DOCK GATES. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE DIRECTED 3 ��' <�B>778Das� STRAIGHT TO ADMIRAL WAY FROM DOCK GATES. t+ AxE(.zs7 ne-ssss O a z O z C E W O O ILLL Ti A' 3 jI �O: 210604: w/31 O sZ O U_ w L.� N F- F— LU p 2 z co r F— O a z �[� o m z Y o s > J d A ¢3 a—J C4 ho m0 tiBwINaE O o z 71 fSBLDXXXX-XXXX Z ? o � Z APPROVEDpFOR CONSTRUCTION n w N O a CITY OF EDMONDS r+ DATE: BY: E 4.8 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION V Q Packet Pg. 109 EE::lt7 RECEIVED I I I I I° I I II I I °I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I OMETRIC PLAN 0 t-asa PHOT R O s. 3 O oV Z U N � O U�0 �z�o E J 3 W �Qa O o03 zo z g a QE � E E Ja 0 < v o Wo O Yi o -- Q oQv� V c c u c c r c c r e 0 s ( E s GENERAL NOTE: HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED 1 J i P-;—t No. zoo, UDXX Sheel of Packet Pg. 110 RECEIVED Aplil 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 111 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 112 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2(jlr3inage 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 113 RE C E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2(J2�3inage 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 ac) Total: 7,529 sf (0.17 ac) dF ,� Total parcel area: 4.34 ac Total hard surfaces: 0.68 ac q4' Q. 2 � PGHS/PG1S: 0.17 ac aP Total disturbed area: 2.70 ac SUBJECT PROPERTY \ �� a z PROJECT o SITE 0 w Figure 1-1: Vicinity map (from Edmonds GIS) 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 114 RE C E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2(JJr3inage Report Section I, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT M OUTFALL nOO V 7-407 \ 7 40 7p40 A F r 1 s 8 0 7-119 20 ..� 7-401 7-11 7-117 ....:...,` 7-335 B CON P�, 2PCO 7-1 9 7-115 -. F 114 �. 7-4 36 1■ 17-112 305 Figure 1-2: Map with storm pipe material, north end of project site (from Edmonds GIS) C �M ENGINEERING 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgenglne Packet Pg. 115 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *t7-0a April 26, 2CZr3inage 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 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 116 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *41'0a April 26, 2CZr3inage 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 the DOE Manual. This report is based on the steps recommended in Chapter 7 of the Edmonds Stormwater 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, Minimum Requirements #1-9 will apply to all new and replaced hard surfaces. Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans: The stormwater site plan consists of this report and the civil drawings and is prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the DOE Manual and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation that addresses the 13 elements of Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. See Section IV and the civil drawings. C 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 117 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2(JJr3inage 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 118 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *t7-0a April 26, 2(JJr3inage 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 ?,(X)0 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater" Yes No Minimum Requirements No. 1 through 5 apply Minimum Requirement No. 2 applies Next Questbm Docs the project add 5,000 square leet or more of ne%v 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 project? All Minimum Requirements apply to the neN and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. No Yes Does the project add 5,000 square toot or No more of new hard surfaces? Yes Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 119 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 1-2 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 120 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 121 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *41'0a April 26, 2(J2�3inage Report Section II, Page 3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UTILITY LOCATE PAINT i i i 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. -41 CB 3473FROM FIGURE 11-2 r r UTILITY LOCATE PAINT;,- M H 7-405 4W 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 122 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *41'0a April 26, 2(jjr3inage Report Section II, Page 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT M DEPARTMENT N ARNIE'S DOCK "U" �l I� Figure II-4: Existing boardwalk, facing SW DOCK T `a EXISTING CATCH BASIN J. f - r ��tf t 1 .S � N•• t i% f. f Figure II-5: Existing boardwalk, facing south C ll=M ENGINEERING 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 123 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 124 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 125 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 126 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 127 RECEIVED 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 High Flow Threshold for POC 8: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 9 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 9: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 10 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 10: 50 year Low Flow Threshold for POC 11 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 11: 50 year MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.48 Impervious Total 0.48 Basin Total 0.48 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name : Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Attach a Packet Pg. 128 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 a Packet Pg. 129 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 a Packet Pg. 130 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GroundWater: 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 Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 2.3 2.3 2.3 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name : Basin 10 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Pervious Total Impervious Land Use PARKING FLAT Impervious Total Basin Total acre 0 acre 0.09 0.09 0.09 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Attach a Packet Pg. 131 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) - a .... ., .., ., .... 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 a Packet Pg. 132 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 133 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 134 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 135 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 136 RECEIVED Attach a April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT M DEPARTMENTPredeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #9 cV CD Total Pervious Area:2.3 N Z Total Impervious Area:O a c O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #9 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:2.3 y C O 11 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. 137 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Periods for Predeveloped. POC #11 Flow(cfs) 0.001998 0.003283 0.004007 0.004759 0.005213 0.005589 Periods for Mitigated. POC #11 Flow(cfs) 0.02984 0.03935 0.046168 0.055396 0.062731 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. 138 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 Packet Pg. 139 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 a Packet Pg. 140 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 a Packet Pg. 141 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.2 Impervious Total 0.2 Basin Total 0.2 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name : Basin 4 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.26 Impervious Total 0.26 Basin Total 0.26 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.13 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:0.13 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. 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 Attach a Packet Pg. 142 RECEIVED Attach a April 26, 2023 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. 143 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 #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 providedIas -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. 144 RECEIVED Attach a April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT M DEPARTMENT warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. NC be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business 04 profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use J of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. has been advised of the d possibility of such damages. Packet Pg. 145 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 acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.13 PARKING FLAT 0.09 Impervious Total 0.22 Basin Total 0.22 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Name : Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Groundwater Attach a Packet Pg. 146 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious 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 a Packet Pg. 147 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 148 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT100 year Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year 0.205543 Periods for Mitigated. Flow(cfs) 0.094493 0.124608 0.146197 0.175422 0.198649 0.223161 Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. POC #2 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. 149 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Packet Pg. 150 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 a 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 Packet Pg. 151 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach a 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 1 31.00 ft ISlope 3.87% Up Invert 1 7.60 ft Dn Invert 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 Packet Pg. 152 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 IDn Invert Attach a 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 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 9.60 ft Dn Invert 1 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 UpNode CB5 Material unspecified Size 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 40.00 ft Slope 2.50% Up Invert 9.20 ft IDn Invert 8.20 ft Packet Pg. 153 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO VENT DEPARTMENT Attachn 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 CB6 Material unspecified ISize 8 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 63.00 ft iSlope 0.16% Up Invert 1 10.90 ft jDn Invert 1 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% 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 CB7 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 Packet Pg. 154 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 CB9 UpNode CB8 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 52.00 ft Slope 0.96% Up Invert 8.30 ft IDn 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 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 Slope 0.76% Up Invert 7.70 ft IDn Invert 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% 3.00 ft Dron across MH 1 0.00 ft Ex/Infil Rate 1 0.00 in/hr Node Records Packet Pg. 155 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 156 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 13.97 sf MH/CB Type Node Record Id: CB7 Attach a Packet Pg. 157 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 o 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 INo 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. 158 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 159 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachr CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELO DEPARTMENT CB2 C133 10.9841 ------ 0.0004 ------ 10.9845 12.5600 CB1 C132 11.1188 ------ ------ ------ 11.1188 12.6200 CBS C137 9.3412 ------ ------ ------ 9.3412 13.2500 CB6 C137 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. 160 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A N O N z J a 0 0 L W N _ O U d m 3 d Cn _ 3 O a 0 z W _ 0 E m W 4- 0 r- O a c a� E w a w �3 i 0 0_ 0 X m Cn i w x co 0 0 Lo CD 0 M N O N z J a _ d E u w Q Packet Pg. 161 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 a 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 Slope 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 Packet Pg. 162 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach a 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 Slope 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 Packet Pg. 163 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 a 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 1 0.50% 2.00% 3.00 ft Won 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 INo 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 Packet Pg. 164 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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) fVel (ft/s) Mow P1 0.06 1.7796 0.0337 0.0837 8 in Diam 2.3663 5.0993 0.06 Packet Pg. 165 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 166 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT m fll Packet Pg. 167 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 a 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 iSlope 1 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. 168 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Attach a 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 IDn 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 UpNode CB4 Material unspecified Size 12 in Diam Ent Losses Groove End w/Headwall Length 9.50 ft ISlope 1 12.63% Packet Pg. 169 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachn 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 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. 170 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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) Wel (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. 171 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HGL Analysis From Node To Node HG EI (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) I Adjusted HG El (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. 172 OD C N E L (6 Q III11�/r 'I•�' iso, rlrl�■� � � .. H '�Ijl7) • 11 '����1I IMME, a I 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 a Packet Pg. 174 RECEIVED Attach a April 26, 2023 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pervious Land Use acre N c C, Lawn, Flat .03 N Z J Pervious Total 0.03 a c 0 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.16 L SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.13 W O Impervious Total 0.29 U Basin Total 0.32 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.32 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.03 Total Impervious Area:0.29 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.005328 5 year 0.008754 10 year 0.010685 25 year 0.012692 50 year 0.013901 100 year 0.014905 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.07316 5 year 0.096898 10 year 0.113973 25 year 0.13715 50 year 0.155614 100 year 0.175137 Packet Pg. 175 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 176 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 177 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 178 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 179 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 180 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 181 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 182 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 183 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 184 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 185 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 186 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 187 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 w Seattle, WA 98125 Q 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 188 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. Document prepared by: � 4 - } ,,c, --Steve Qluarterman i 5enioe Associate Document reviewed by: Jeffrey Fellows, PE Vi resident, Operations Date: February 16, 2023 Project No.: 0173038.010.017 File path: \\edmdata 01\projects\173\038.010\R\FWHCA CritAreas\LAI_Portwalk Critical Areas Report Final_02.16.2023.docx Project Coordinator: tac LALANDAU Packet Pg. 189 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 190 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 191 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 192 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 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 Q Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 193 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 194 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 Q Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vii February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 195 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 196 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 197 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 198 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 199 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 200 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 201 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 202 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 203 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 204 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 205 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 206 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 207 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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://maps.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. 208 RECEIVED .f cr PLANNI Nttachr Packet Pg. 209 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF E PLANNING & D v fR Q Legend Project Area Study Area (200-ft buffer) LA LSANDAU Source: Bing Aerial Imagery, 2021 Attach a u S � Arnie's I Restaurant i A . I Edmonds Yacht Club ti Port Administration Building 0 250 500 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. North Portwalk and Figure Seawall Reconstruction Project Area Map Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 210 1 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures Packet Pg. 211 00 C N E U (0 Q i1 W Q a Packet Pc 00 Q g C� W W w Cl) N O N N a Q G v 7 0 N d cc A 7 7 Z .3 dQ 8 u Hi e N f0 L+ Q c O f6 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attachment 8 \\edmdaW01\p,.je ,\113\038.010\R\FWHCA Cri[A—\N-3.d— LA LANDAU tia Priority Habitats and Species on the Web Report osty: 11 n W2021 PHS SPGC9WH8D48t3 Overview Occvr�r• bra Fed" sto.4 f ft futa 8-40- Lxrrlb- PHS SpecoWINaDeats Detais Rier4 NM Apafc Maefd 9r Nnw IeA AOL—q ►M NWo qMWW f e—, IAw,- WW 1Wi WSW • NYW Cam EM&U" salm DUN" fNYWf�fltd• Svelte Nrrr Kx Gr.rrw SWIM Or" us fen Wd vwd► Serwo hdarrr Stww If41 Yf 8if� NN MSUWVSfr,. MSLMedeaxerer e aAM N SDC>+ N OY/Iry RwaAlon � f WPEe AYryprerWecowwrrwdrrfara lirrtww..rl.Eao>:.��7 awl�ftv roe OIfd.YfA M •M�rr Mrs Frew l���f��t •�.w ti �r IIrOF'A/ raw w � uM wrbYr F �.aF• del• e'rrw ri tra � 1Y/t♦Mf♦ �M� M t• F �A� YM /1FN f/ M �wyt �Y 1� w�yr MV aY�f• I� fr/M M1� wV ��1� rMMr b N F�YYI oprrY� • � ra � wre w.wrrr wF � • wtwlf/r • w^ wrM a+reY www V w� w wtla wY Y+'U raw rVt�'�M�r-w w ��ab �11�r t♦wp'ww� r�M� nrlMwr �rMr ti awM MM wNaAt! nntaer� YM rti Iwle 1/aw �r traw0 • to Ir.Yr �r w Mr wftirw r� M�� Nw w M� wt�a wrMw� �w aA r���.a f r✓t•M �! a aar re North Portwalk and I Figure Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Priority Habitats and Species /A� Edmonds, Washington on the Web A-3 Packet Pc RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX E Site Plan Excerpts Packet Pg. 215 erg ! ■)7 _ @ z� ! ■p& � F— � . LL. F— £co \0 /� < LU :)! ; - ! L } §!(]` (� /zo I §;! a_ �ml _ jg - z \ \ { \§ \ \| ) \ \ }/ \ 2S)§ RM :&§2 z� \U Cl) 2 0 - � � �\(\,\ \� o §.: o \ z ,. �| §! W < � � Q O N \ IN \\ n co-...,. .,..,. � \ !,)/ r ®ON 0 . r,,.; Cli, n ( §!! Z M � 0 1 . -� 0\\\ !!:,[ - Ngd31�` T7 ON« 133HS d3A o o a m mm, )|)(( a*, l«vs -o ! NoaonMiSNOOM , »I _ )IIVM180d H18ON ! / 6 ! j ) R zo : \ 2 / -( / ( } 0 }( / ! < � � �om6 SRON ]Vd3N30 T— GNV 133HS d3A00 zry T--: U z ozo96 Ym 'sallovm to 0 lVdiviov 922-002 iv�mensMIAM N9lS34 )0(1)0(IXX 0 rs`yNo„ 1-30 e o NouonMiSNOOM IIVMV3S ONV )IIVM180d H18ON T� 2 w 2. Hw- NM ff� g 11 o i 0 1 N iop n H M 2-- < 0 U 388, H-F 2,z2a' 9 o I 0 o o a .3 H !a HIs H 41 2 He dtl 0 2 HE z sa-z Mi H M M -1 H.-gam I. H p 'o o mh - , .M. N- 8" UH -a q-5 gi -E --6 1 21° -o HIS RH a < IN H o -- -i � o is a� oho o M, I n HE H .8 In E < M 'n 2 0 Wp� Es �t Hy�, W of U - 823 30 Dog a M. �o, yoG tz, 8 a H - < < UpIg o 9M. Nk- H, Q, �2r �'S z H, H E M o —2., 04 &2 ^ } §l:;� `°« . NV -ld owlO ON¥ eo&Noo Naso 3 M Aodn3 ■ )2 J z �\ ~ oza m'samm, 0 ■ y@ a*, i«vs -o ! 0 )(m�a�M,»I_ _ a�ON 6 A ) R zo : °3 _ ) )) \ � ° § \ � CL � \ � m D -F -T -�F� \ : / \ j < � 04 )! =e6 S-lIV134 OW30 4Nd (v -10diN00 NOISOd3 MVdOdW31 Z <m � OZ086 VM `SONOW03 AVM lvdiviOV 9££-00£ 0 r V iv1 mans MIAM N91534 XXhIX/XX o N0110f1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S 0NV JIlVM1210d H1210N z O 0 F (n 0 o m a� Z p - 02LU O 0 F - LU <. >O U aw a o m a Ll 0 z 0 Q o ". i �_Y yp Rdy¢yey k S ggS -N yq If® Om g F �z P ¢� i H_ M N O N UCV — �zo LU a Packet Pc a o �oe NV'ld r U Z .3R� OZ096 VM 'SONOW03 a"18 3 W AVM 1Vdiviov 9££-00£ iv1 iNsns MIAM N91534 XXhIX/XX 0 o N0110f1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S 0NV )IlVM1210d H1210N © Z � \ O 41 -i tl U zo - J zo � _ �^•< " w o Fell a o I II I I I I FTI s �uuuuuuu O LL 0 z 0 Q NN 2wa O 0 �++ N o e0 W a "a Packet Pc U 7�. < ?5 S1IV134 (INV NV]d -iiin (INV 9NIGVdO oz096 Ym 'sallovm lvdiriav 922-002 Wawa M SNOO11VMV3S (INV )IIVM180d H180N T ivllmensM31AMN91SM )OVIXM NO-1-30 Z'E:)/l 3NII HXVA I I / � I I I O 1� 1. i ME W IN on MME 7EMWI 3NIlMH:)iMVV4M M M Im'! MI Mi 7r I zo g U) 0 0 p z t LU 0 T-H. —M > a19 moo 0 M ------------ 60 60 L IRS 5w I 21. ;0 Od A I F,77� < W LLJ 1. Lj< M N j ry N II III IIIII a_ I im I P T III M l z Jill flim, ff A 0 ri (///I,- "JOH). 11 Tj 0 LLJ COI jl If diIIIIIII ils/1ss W)IIIIIIIIt I I 0 W1,1111ml I I Lj- 0 1 lop I 11,114MMIJ 1 1 L111111L1 El I111111111111 A 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 n < 11,11111116111111 'I /h II 11111)6�111 z 11110IIIIIIIIII 0, O�ME III IIIIIIIIIIIII II F, Z, r, �i 11111 2E 0 q LD 1, <D d U 5 ru —wm � I I I I I 1 11 11 fw- 00 1z wo 1111111111111111111 Z< <-2 zE< 0 2 Kw S w z < w 0 a: (D z C) < 6j < 0mD C, 1w8 C, 2 nPR H ww- I z r.,nN('PFTF WAI K Packet Pc at Z < a""='a e ` � g iv1 mans MIAM N�IS34 )OVIX XX ;ea6 3 ox W Ndld Aiiiii l (INV ONI4` O OZ086 tlM 'SONOW03 AVM 1tl211WOV 9££-00£ o NOI onuSN00M IIVMV3S (INV )IIVM180d H18ON M M V = J0 z O O p G xXx zo 0O �Q �gm zO p nC7 wg OLU - UU mY m�zJo OLL i LLO =O>^Q VI Q w V1 K pY oo w ~ w ¢ y p V a v z a 3ap�3 a` 0 a m pw a O K 3 H Q ` woLLaa Z. snpo Z �0�O='J w o w 0C eo O O x r zm2H Vi FOA 3NIl HJIVA b'EJ/T All HJ1tlW M z I I I I I 0 I 1 II II II �I ml I � "I n I I ICI I I o I I I I I IIIII = z I l l l h l v 11111�1 I i—f- o i I I I z 1I I I I I � �_ o I I � ICI o.I11�I I I I I 1 1 1 ° III 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 11sI.'yI I I I ; I Ixl O I = 1 1 I Z'£7/T 3NII HJ1tlWmsM/04 NVIl HJ1tlWN Alt o ° �I I M M ■ C z a rr N o 0 n V = zo � a "a Packet Pc U at Z <M `y e � �,� � '� g iv1 msns MIA3N N�IS34 )OVIXXX ;ea6 ox Ndld )limn (INV ONI4` O OZ086 tlM 'SONOW03 AVM 1V21IWOV 9££-00£ o NOI10f1uSN00321 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVM180d H18ON V = J0 z O O p� p�zir, GxXx zo o O1,�Q �gm ZO n p U wg OLU - V U m Y m HZ_J� Q OLL i aZu=� u O =O>^Q V1 Q w N K pY oo w~ p ¢ y p U a v z z a S 3 a` 0 d o m a p p CL a Q K a 3 CL 2QNp r~aHa W = 7 w o LL a Q c�� snpH a =Osv= ' 0D eo Q x F Z pLLH to n 7 Q I b'E7/T 3NII H71tlW III ----- II L'£7/1 3NII H71VW CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc <;6 o % NVId Aiiiii l 4NV ONIOZE) Lo OZ096 VM 'SONOW03 AVM IV2IIWOV 9££-00£ V w z o NOI10f1MiSN003d IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVM180d H18ON = -0 t U ;m 02 LU 0 F _ w — t`' 0 U aw a o a W, S.0/T 3NII HXVA W R £M m m m- O Ss N T o o8G 1 I q- n M N O N CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc <;or o % NVId Alllllfl 4Nd �NI4d21� (4 OZ086 VM 'SONOWO3 co AVM 1V21IWOV 94£-002 ; U iv1 mans MIAM NNSM XXhO(/XX a w NoaonMiSNOOM llVMV3S ONV )IlVM180d H18ON = -0 t U ;m 02 Lu w — t`' 0 U aw a o a 7 CL \\ alp \\ \ \ N o \ \I I O cn o- ..... J 0 O ml y O o I� III o w o II a Q I II I I I I I IIgI I I I I ( I I o I I I I I II 5'£J/T 3NII H]1tlW . �. 9'E]./T 3z Il.HJ1tlW. o . I I J..I■ I I I 04 NI wa CN o°= I 41 QI CV U — (=zo � a "a Packet Pc .� or o % Nhld Alllllfl 4Nd ONI4d21O � OZ086 VM 'SONOW03 `ry) AVM IV2IIWOV 94£-002 U iv1 mans MIAM N9IS34 XXhO(/XX a w o„d,a s3a e o o NoaonUSN00321 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVM180d H18ON = E )/I 3NIl HXVVY 1 m m m ■ )/I 3NII H]1tlW CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc U at Z e`y g ltl1LIWsns MII NIDISM )OVIXXX ;ea6 ox W Ndld Aiiiii l (INV ONI4` OOo OZ086 03 VM 'SONOW AVM 1V211WOV 9££-00£ o NoaonuSN00321 llVMV3S (INV )IlVM180d H18ON ; V = J0 z O O p� GxXx zo o O1,�Q �gm ZO n p U wg OLU - V U m Y m HZ_J� Q OLL i Ii0 =O>^Q V1 Q w N K pY oo w~ p ¢ y 0 p U a v� z z a 3o—I—:; a` CL o m p _ a Q K a Q 3 I_ L 2 N p HaH a IN= 7 woLLaQ c�� =<_ snpH a =Osv= ' 0W� eo O O x F z p 2 H n I rr N o 0 n V = �zo � a "a Packet Pc 3G Sl l d134 0) a m 9� All-iiin (INV JNIGM) 0 Z < I5 OZO86 VM `SONOW03 AVM WWI r v iv1 mans MlI N9IS34 XXhIX/XX No„ 1-3a NOIlOf1?11SN00321 I1VMV3S ONV JIlVM1210d H1210N rM 11�Ij11f � • ■ ■ ��II, - �°� �000aaee • hI�II� - ��II� '���� ' CCCCA90 , : - � , � D00099� l.�ipill�l I 18000090 �i -- Q V t s ga N wpitCla4$s s tsb gE [ ! ■ `�ttgia � ■ � y or. .IE �c j � il:i'a911�1�a� r' oil _ a ey L■ E b ZG p� • I Ut m ■ 's w �� 1,y qs gq I p all p ■ Or 5 I'll oe0n = �zo LU a Packet P� a o �o- N'dld 10diNOO r yaW 9� OIddVdi 4NV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS 0 V Z I �RIU °� OZ086 VM `SONOW03 AVM 1V211WOV 9££-00£ r \,J lv1 isms KMlAM N9IS34 XXhIX/XX 0 o N0110f1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S 0NV )IlVM1210d H1210N = © Z \ O 41 - tl U zo - � ZO � _ �^•< " w Lu \\ 8 d o m 1l I i a J 1�II i r ---# /(( f • �WI ------ 7 I I I I= I __ y Q w Q \\l _ - oJuuu _ sic z IIII I� <a I IIIIII - Wad N IIIIII I =�° I � illlll � IIII I I "III' - � �-IIIII a I -- •IIIII. -.o I =d s i L� I I 1/ll �. I ____- { $ a � I w o n IIIII Q IIIIIP ��x� a y g o z V(III it C71 ° 3 odlll I0-00 0 w IIII s oF0Gu� ~ a I ,., u, zo,�� o d== u u m Y LL =F oW I15Z o a = x a i s — I IIII o U3 IIII =N �o> � H �IIIIII1iv9111111 �=o I�oraz s= � IN. II l a z pll6iellllllj o�w3 F IIIIIIIIVIINI I I o 3: O (IIVIIIIIIIIAIIII li 1 _ o > a IIIINIIIIIIIIII,„„III, a 2o hllhl�������ll� W LL LL a 0 =? i a FOz U N e W o u uo •----------- ---------- �°^--�--- 8 � O O zo N wa O N 20 �++ N o e0 W a ba Packet Pc a4om - Olddd211 4Nd 1N3W3A021dW1 NVId 10diN00 HIS�_� (v `SONOvm l7 c =a AVM OZ096 VM lvdiriOV 9££-00£ r UZ_ $oa rW g ivllmsN5M31AM N91534 )OVIXX 3 W o N01 on8iSN00321 I1VMV3S 0NV JIlVM1210d H1210N Z 0 M o I III 11 11 1 1 .II �' =om F o zLU � o� dx LL0 LU og�� ` I IIII I II e .a o a a o m Q a°°°---PB CONC o w 'II II I M to III I LLJ Q mIIIII u = �------------- Ilii L--- o- IIIIIIII ----------------------------- N II Illflf I wow Ilrillll irll l you 0 �II� 1111111111TI11111 � s i'^ z o 1oI e IIII I, �w --- — H I111111111111111 I I 1 3 I 1 w n I'�� Illllillllll= IIIIIIIIIIII I II111 o 11111111111111111/ II117111 j 11111111 II1111111111111 1 1 Po � 0 z I1111111111111 I I 1111114IIIIIII 1 1 II111111111111 j -1 LL, I 0 111111111111111 I I1011111IIIIII I-- p 11111111111111 n 111111111111111j Q 111111111,11IIIIy 111111111111111111 Z 5 > a 111111111111111I 111111111.11111j1 o = z o a G W III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111 o 0 0 1,o G — 111111111111114111j1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII111 Y u 3 F m m f z 0 111111111111111#I111 j z a 1z= g j111111111111111111 u o a N g wwo1111111111111111111 � � a � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII � 3 a z F a 11111111111111111 IIII1111111111111jj1 l > o 3 0 11j1111111111111111j1 a S w lllilillilllllllllll o z < 0M(D 2 Zp< a� sW ~Q~o`9 a 2 nPR !'nN(:RFTF WAI K W N o C% — �CL _30 W a a Packet Pc U l7 c""='a e` g iv1 iNsns MIAM N�IS34 )OVIX XX 3 wo Slld134 aNd Ndld 10211N0O OIAAVd1 4NV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 AVM 1V21IWOV 9££-00£ o NOI10f1uSN00321 11VMV3S (INV )IlVM180d H18ON (� r M 0 0 zO o 0 o x V X 000�Q i q z= W.M.G j► I , ;1 1 I f �, U Wpm �w W. M. 0m� � s Z. a; 'o� 3:o I i i,l �I111 a` a o m 0-oQ I E La a 4 wZQYo f ljl,f W�oa N �!� j`j`F a 0�zIl� 0�=r l/ll� zoLLHin o IF1•®��t j; �a £b7/T 3NI1 H71VA M b'tO/T All HXVW O I II II I ,I I III I I z c=W=IIIII I I 0 III I I I I I I I I N I I I I I z II II 0 I I I I I w I I 1 1 �_ 0 0 I I o s I II II I I `0 oW3 I I o�e I I I I I z 0 IIIII I I 0 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 p I m I III Z'b]/T 3NIl HXVA I I ■...... ,.I Nev.3/NnH�1vw N oo�z 04 ma W a a I �1 ® I Im g' � I lal s � I I Packet Pc U �om a l7 c""='a e ` �® 9� g lV1NW9ns MIAM N�IS34 )OVIXXX ;ea6 3 wo NVId 10diNOO Oldd`d2i (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 tlM `SONOWO3 AVM 1V21IWOV 9££-00£ o NOI10f1uSNOOM IIVMV3S ONV )IIVM180d H18ON r J0 -0 O w p z p Ezi xx U G xXx m �Z ZO�H o O H ¢ oF0 �g m z 0 w OQ U t~jNpY m Z m F 0 _ 0LU i az LLO x0>^O n v w in pY oa 111 F ¢u z¢ 3ppN3 aw 0 o m as �i pwz a Q Od ~ ¢ H Q z wOLL¢O ~ Z u Y r 10 ¢ 1 p H c 0 W Z p 2 H v~ I� 3NII HXVW I I I \ I w 5'V T�;;f�--L-r-I-Irrl� 3NII HXVA Q = I I I I l l l l I ;I N I ° I I II II II I I j Igo 16 :� .I a� I o I N o II I I I III I i z I I I I I >�-I F J Id o ° IIIIIIII II. w IIIIIII I rri I I I I I I I Nld I'�° J I I I I I 0 I o Eta I I I I I °. Qg Z I o \I II III T I Ia' I I If Q I I I .Lz.�. s II I I a 11I�° I O £'b7/T 3NII H71VW I I I 7V /T Z11 HXVW I '° -. N �a Q io, 1 1 1 r I aj1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 b'£7/T 3NII HiN ----- L'0113NII HJ1VW - - - CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc a o Ndld 10211N0O LID v a t ^m OIAAV i 4NV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS 0 Z OZ096 VM `SONOW03 3 W AVM 1Vd1WOV 9££-00£ lV1NW9ns MIXX r V AMN9ISM )OVIX o„d, s3a e o N0110f1miSN00321 llVMV3S (INV )IlVM180d H18ON = �0 �o- O Zr' = p - a r' � ZOw� o2,p 7 V U m Y =O�^p V 1 U w N �pX,a" aoza'a w a p 3 a 0 a 3:- a Oa woaao Z Q Y F O D O = Z p2H tt; Z O x Uzo � U 0 � Z m O Q w lL L O 0 F _ w — OU a a a 9'bJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW O I I I II I .. III I° a o ' _ ■ _ R - - - - - - 9itO/T 3NIT HXVA - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -G- - I I I I i r vl II I ens z�z Is Ir. I I I — 1I \ s \\ �, r \ \ O II I 11 III II I I' a . d. �/ I ■ b'VD T 3NIl HJ1tlW oilnl�---Ni-r-I-rrl� ----- 140, T 3NIl HJ1tlW � - CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc a o Ndld 10211N0O (4 v a t ^m Oldd`d211 4NV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 3 W AVM 1Vd1WOV 9££-00£ iv1 iNsns MIr V AM NNSM )OVIXXX o„d,a s3a e o N0110f1miSN00321 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVM180d H18ON �0 �o-Z O = Fr' ZOw� o 2 1, p 7 V U m Y =O�^p V 1 U w N �pX,a" aoza'a a 0 a wo p 3 0 3:- a Oa w0a F0 Z Q Y 0� a 0 Q 0M=� Z p2H tt; Z r \ CL \q cn \\ 1 1 O \\ III Z O / / O o I \ 1 z O I I I I I I I ~ O CL ° w I R Q �m3 I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I l l l I I I 9'MJ/T 3NII H71tlW Moommoom M9i b]/T 3 II HXVA ° I I I I T-.Im I 1'' 11 JIM OI zor N , I z. I I g�0 \ 05� 5■5 _- u;�\ CANOPY r- - r m RES iROOM BUILDING m FFE=13.4 r Z O x Uzo � U 0 � Z m O Q w lL L O 0 F _ w — OU a a a Packet Pc �om NVId 10diNOO a 9� OIAAV i 4NV A3MAOddW1 HIS U Z_ OZ086 VM `SONOW03 lvdiriOV 9££-00£ r iv1 msns MIAM N9IS34 XXhO(/XX o„d,a s3a e o NoaonUSN00321 IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVM180d H18ON �0 �o- O Zr, = p - a r, � Z O wF o 2 N p 7 V U m Y =O�^p V 1 U w N �pX,a" aoza'a a 0 a w p 3 0 3:- a Oa w0a00 Z Q Y F 0(D a 0 Q 0 m=� Z p2H tt; W LLJ sus z II ry _--------- z _- Z � O � 0 -;------------ r7 � N , Z � - OLI , U (n O ny 3Q_ Nil HXVVY � ■ Nil H]1tlW E CV U — itzo � a "a Packet Pc U �om a Z_ `y e �® 9� g ltl1LIWsns MIAM N�IS34 )OVIXXX ;ea6 o N'dld 10diN0000 OIAAV i (INV 1N3W3AOddW1 HIS OZ086 VM `SONOW03 lvdiviOV 9££-00£ o NoaonuSN00321 IIVMV3S 0NV )IIVM180d H18ON r = J0 -0 O p� p�Qi-ice GxX zo o 1,�Q O �gm ZO n 0 7 wg OLU - V U m Y Q 0 i Ii0 =O>^Q V1 Q w V1 . pY oa Ill H' p ¢ y p U a v Z z a aw 0 w 0 o QCL a 0 a Oa z0aa'0 Z Q Y F =Os Ox Hz0w� O O p x F z p w H n 0�� 1 °' 1pt'ea -f,PRp d, W \ f' Z �u� ry ® I _Fx-__ + = aka - g 1 ® Q 0 ry , BEN o ss- IMZ P. "gip o� � 5 8> 3 O C Q I I t I r ; � I---------- � I - --- �'L_bJ/T 3NIl HJ1tlW 1 �G� ■ ■ N —InI I 8'7J/T 3NIl HD1tlW \ N CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc U �"Wog r�� R R Mg Z. I P Ho E HE pi i MUR In 9 M o go q H o i UO S310N -wdnionais T— T--: OZO86 VM 'SaNOIN(13 co AVM IV81NOV 922 o NoaonUSNOOM llVMV3S (INV AlVM180d HAON R.- g 21 1 qv �RH o0g 5� g��gp � zo -. Ho. o OR OE -H 2E m M1111111 �„ee,.ee, rr C', I. 7E LU a5 zz SRON ivviondis iVd3N30 U I agga OZO86 VM 'SaNOV4(13 fn A= AVM lvdlv4(]V 922 VJW 13S SMDObd M9 XKftM NO-16-30 — I.-o o NoaonmiSN0038 IIVMV3S (INV )IIVMI80d HAON m -5 H L I I .1 M. I CV I CL Lu z cm N O N ry= ® E o mm � o % N`dld 311S ll'da3A0 ^T' zM M1°� OZ086 VM `SONOWO3 N AVM IV81NOV 9££ r v, 13S S DOO d M9 )OV1O W 0 o NOI onUSNOOM IIVMV3S ONV )IIVMI80d H18ON = �l M CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc N'dld 311d lV'1121dd T z Z;_ <� � "M1°� � OZ086 tlM `SONOWO3 r^ AVM IV211WOV 9££ V J 13S S N3o9d0 1d M9 )W)O(M 0 o N0110f1?11SN003d IIVMV3S ONV NIVM180d HAON Z'ES/T 3NIl 71tlN NLMLJL" Z'ES 3NIl H]1V RAMP I Z'fS/Z 3NIl HJ1tlNF II I I I / I I I `s ;qr__" -- £'ES/T 3NIl HJ1tlW 11 I was I I IIIIII I I I I I � � V Y111 I I I I I I 11 I II ��aa I I I rC a �Y �o o l l III 1 I � I I �N I I III IT �awwwwg 1 1 -4 -- z o I I I I I I TTIT l I II I 1 1 IIIII I I I I II ���_ It zm I d'I �o 0 W WWW I j I I bz IIIIII I Pi 11HU° ° I III I II I Q� ZQ Y � IIIIII I \m as I I I I I I I I I I �m i l l I I 11 II I ? IIII I% ICI I� I I I a IIII WTI I I I ALUMINUM RAMP a wN Jf �m IIII(/raRll 1�IIIII //AEII;; W I -E a a- 1_FcoN--- ® apt II I Wo I I I I I I I IIIII La ._B z I I I I I I II I �Fa III') i�iJ11 a� III' I I 3 1 I I I I I I I I HL e- ///// llll.flll I ��`II �.- w>- C( I I I 111111111°1111111�1i 'm6l1' 1I111111111 S aoaow j I I jl IIIII// I IIIIIII // �"� � � ao N� �� I I I I I I" I I II I I I 111111111 1 I q�—�g ° � Q I I/ I 1 11'71lllllll IIIIIIIIIIII I E ', ~ a Z'ES/T 3NIl HXVVN ��M������ Z'£S/Z3NI,HJ1VNf I I M N wa I IIIIIIIIIIIII LL I I I I I I N ooi IIIiL7.l IIIII I I I I I ■ Q CONCRETE rr N I. ° n V = itzo � a "a Packet Pc 13S S DOO d M9 a Vd N'dld 311d lV'1121dd OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 AVM 1V211WOtl 9££ o N0110f1?11SN00M 11VMV3S ONV NIVM180d HAON N Cl) u, C i ■ ■ —<——e— s S/Z NIHJl/�m/ II 11111I \�\ z — I loW I I I I I I I I W I ,II ( I I I I IIII I ■ _ ° i i II II 11 I i I I I �m I I'I J¢II w• - - I I I II II I I I I I I 1 — 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 1 1 a a ,, ALUMINUM RAMP 3ti I I I I I I I i o I d 1 \ o kCQ Q � I--- I I - 771 -- II rr-�i�; II j II v� ovv II I I MI j I I III � v \\\ \ \ I I I I I I MI I I \ \\ \ �-- 1 LM \ \ \ \ \ \ El El I q ■\ Z // � \ I III Ft- I 11 I � w II w I I 111 I I ; Z'£S Z 3NIl H71V RAMP .. E'f5/Z3z Il HJ1tlW 1 M 1 ■ . I 4. ■■■�■■■ �'" ;;S/T 3NIl Hai;�. I I 1 s� •� r I '" £'ES/Z3N11 H3iVVV Q 1 ■ ~ " N I I I I IZ� II IIIIIII IIII .. a CV U — �zo � a "a Packet Pc �® Edo yr N'dld 311d lV'1121dd z Z;_ <� � "M1°� � OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 1355 AVM 1V211WOV 9££ rv3o Sao aos3a 0 o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S ONV )IltlM1210d H1210N _ b'bJ/T.3NIl H111W p ..... ■ i I I 1 II lip i�0 b'bJ/Z 3NIl HXVV4 U � I it ALUMINUM RAMP 3� 0 o Q I� m ,III 1 1 J- Y �� 1 1 1 1 1 3 Z 3 \ \ \ \\Z ■, E'bJ T 3NIl HJltl4`F�� �a �� Z3- ltlV 04 o°= I a , I / III Y O'1'� e II ALUMINUM RAMP o f I I I I I IV S/T 3NIl HJ1tlW *5.3. .1M- p ' 11 n X CV U C zo � a "a Packet Pc NV-ld ONIW`d21d A334 r z Z;_ <� � "M1°� � OZ086 tlM `SONOW(13 r^ AVM IV2IIWOV 9££ V J 13S S DOO d M9 )W)O(W 0 o N0110f1?11SNO03d IIVMV3S ONV )IIVMI80d HAON Z'VS/I 3NIl HXVA M E N Z'IS/Z 3NIl HXVA COV wa N �o Z'b5 3NIYt4]1VW RAMP U O £'b5/T 3NIl H]1tlW Q U 2 Y � ❑ Um p o 0 o c P.A. 11\ CONC WALK CONCRETE s 3 p U U m 3 21 J 3 J I � ALUMINUM RAMP n �' �o CONCRETE � � CL o j ® \ L Z Ii CZ rz� z w Z'b5/T 3NIl H71tlW Z'b5/Z 3NIl H]ltlW p I 0 r rr CV o 0n V = �zo LU a Packet Pc N N`d�d ONIW`d21d NON N z Z;_ <� � "M1°� � OZO86 tlM `SONOWO3 CIO 13S S AVM 1V211WOtl 9££ IDOO d M9 )W)O(/%X 0 o NOIlOf1?11SNOOM IIVMV3S ONV NIVM180d HAON ■ £'bS/I 31NI1 4J1tlNF -� 0 ■ ■ ■ WON■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ £'bS/Z 3NIl HXVVC '. �n Y 33 O Zm p yW� 3 m WW m p d � Q d K O j ALUMINUM RAMP O Y U O O U o o � ■ Z � O � � m IQ, 4 E I I ■ 1 � '. 1. CV U — itzo � a "a Packet Pc N N`d�d ONIW`d21d NON M z Z;_ <� � "M1°� � OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 135 5 AVM lvdlv4OV 9££ NO-1-3a 0 o NOIlOf1?11SN00321 IlVMV3S ONV )IltlM1210d H1210N _ b'bS/13NIl HXVA O E M E N. bi bS/Z 3NIl HXVA U O 0 U ti \ O W �O� ALUMINUM RAMP EllumlliMl 3� WQ W U 3m WW p d O U CV wa CN N 0o ■ O O ALUMINUM RAMP .. iL, o� RAMP I • O ■ Z • V' ■ Z . Q ■ Y U ■ A e £'bS/l 3NI1 HJltl b'bS/l 3NI1 H31tlW O w MENEM E'b5/Z 3NIl HJ1tlN b'b5/Z 3NIl HJ1M U � O � o m rr N o e0 n Lu a Packet Pc SN@U0 !\Ld � � § M} ¥ o a m mm3 ■ y@ ~ a«, 1mV9 , _ „ )( m� a � M , »I _ )IIVMI80d H18 ON :« Q, .f I � � � �T � . �l ■ - # SN@U0 !\0 � ■)7 z� 2 ) oz a m mm3 ■y@ ~ AVM ,lmvs , _ „ \(m�aNO03d,»I_ )IIVM180dOON :« Q, :f I ! j . LL \ \a 21 « 3S a SN01103S Z�R _ < � M1°� � OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 Ld U AVM lvdlv4Otl 94£ 13S S DOO d M9 )WV ,M co 0 o N0110f1?11SN003d IIVMV3S ONV �IIVM180d H18ON = A AA A I y 99 F 5. 3 w� I I I I I I I I f TIT g o G - 5 �1 �t---- --------- - - --' ----� G -P .... C, « e N wf N o N ma LU a a H I I I I I I I I �IIT d g o � � '. g IIi�IIII-III g 5 w w Pi G N Packet Pc N Packet Pc sIVi 3a 313 doNoo � � § } ¥ o a m mno ■ y@ ~ AVM , ma 922 _ „ \(maonaNOOM,»3S_ _aHAa< )§ HIP . :lit ƒ \ \ )( !§[ f § H- d 2 \ v � 04 [/i sIVoa gknd!06 2�S � § } ¥ o a m mm3 ■ y@ ~ AVM , 1mV9 , \( maon a NOO M , »I _ )IIVMI80d H18 ON 7,1T } ^ (! ;! Ll \ .,. , § I N§§(! . § + i [ ; \ $ �{ ] AH _ N Packet Pc co m sera»_ =z: m«�o 9\cd ~. wpm °::_ ra: ;;,, ® ° cl 03A0/vowso:� I,V:a a e, sGNOAoa aq N . SNO j 2 j 2 j 6e § 6 ■ 0 \)$E m§ e§d:j§ G »)<B&!: ,!_\: ® »»\2o<g:a7=-'y �E))z»§G;!!�m§!E � �e >;�:le.);®�`2�22 _ omllt2�«F`y(�2�� ©b!»X)\§))�e!)!! LU cq Z ! ) 6 ( § m ! < z t } / ) / 2 ( 7 0 o e z V) a ! a m ! ) Z 0 � w !_ °) \ 222 ]Z Q n�»y );E ,! � y < § \r 2 ! \ ( ( Q 2 \\ \ § § § G u 2 > 0.5 % � )§ < 72y� 2 93oe ew §g! e E§2®�®!> � ))()§y4 � CL S$ §oo=o&� e�ua&ewrRR&®�- � � a . Q < � }. kou. (\uo e§®#$ /!3$\0 $<§! 6z\:2Q0o0u Z § _ 0 )\,!\G � § LL.B} E.KLDo »:� 0u0-< \[#§\\§@( %<<!!2®%SSSS§§- Q ± , L 0_2 f �!!!»§§:l66S<»� \\( 7#<a�=-00000::: _m 00 NVId HIS NIVMidOd 1V?J3N3O 6LOS-699 (90Z) :xm 0909-Z99 (90Z) ;131 £Z/L/Z SE) HS „9£X.*Z bOJ 38V NMOHS S31VOS 310N 31111 ONIM"O ITSVM 311LV3S OOL 31105 '1S NOINfI OOS SS32100V 'c]�"%�� S2i3?I v o ry " o p o 1= 03NO3H0 uo�6u!ysoM 'spuowP3 !A-M 1-!-PV 9££ NOIlOf asZ.4O3?J IIVMVIS (INV N\\IIIVM1121Od Hi2JON Sa NOWa3 JO lOQd o NM,,,, 03AOtlddtl NOIld R10530 31V0 0 )A/WW :03NOIS30 SNOISIA3i1 $ 0 I I I o -- ---- 0 0 ooai — ro oQ 21 ii,.!� _ Noll It. �. i1mom" Mir 6� 0 loI ll Nil ill , ` O�' Y w1711® .Np C� Nil mil , Iil mNll � INl.. Nils' s. .. Nil: 'mil �iIN rr il . is pJ` - �I�■1�in�i,�7 ` milli ipl,,< 13 � d Ai -- - -------- - ---- -- NIL�--- „ I I I I ItlYI Y 77 _ Laal 41� I 1�1 M Packet W w L AO l NVId 111S AWM1MOd O311VECI 6LOG-699 (90Z) :WJ .9£XJ6 a03 38V NMOHS S31VOS 31ON 0909-Z99 (90Z) :131 311I1 ONIM"O LOT VM '311LV3S :03NO3HO uo�6uiq"m 'spuowp3 !A,m lo�iwpV 9££ OOL 31105 '1S NOINO 005 :S53a00V :NMvaa NOUOf asZoO]2J 11VMVIS ONV A1Wi1JOd H12JON v v w ww :03NOISAU SaNMM] J0 i?]Od SHO YM Y 3 E a crecrz wnu M NCD �a N o°z o>� U SNOISVIAN 00 HIL16 _ aa�o 9tc ? a;6;_a _am_�m ° SH2MY , /^G ƒg�,$ » eM"�.j eon » Aa a m SGNOAm JO Od ` " c , 2 \:0 ~ ��-\®___ / 3 a , - - ) L ° ( \ � & \ � \ \ < p , < \ » /- - ~ ------« � � � a J / y 7 , � ` � - ° / \ \t \ / 024 \ , y \ )`� oai z : ` ® \ — _ 3 > ) 0/ ° /\ 5 @ ° ! ^ - 0\ / / \ § co �MHS „KXJ6 a03 38V NMOHS S3WOS 31ON SNVId VZVId 83ddn F W&N3U 03;�VljV 111 Va0 6LOs-699 (90Z) :XV3 OBOS—ZS' (90Z) 131 101B6 VM '31llb35 OOL 31105 'lS NOINO 005 :S53a00V o p o 03NO3H0 uo�6uiysoM 'spuowp3 'RoM Iwiwptl 9££ NOIlOf1b1SN00321-nVMV3S ONV N\\IlIWi1I10d Hi2ION SGNMWa3 JO iO]Od / S2 OMY ? o ry o �NM2a2 03AOaddV NSNOIa0530 31V0 .".. AA/WW :03NOIS30 sNOISIn3a O O �O o a w Wwz�a�°mw�� O»C'uo�JwwU Z �< Wo w Q = p Q Q z0U� JJ C!' ��> �O ❑ao �¢ Q0pw0=0z > 0 M: 0 z wQUO5Om a .aN(DQao�o aU'�a�p0 Q z�i=�zZUNw gNo��a9w Za a' O w O UO < ¢ aa o m w o0 0 o to w o u 0 _ a o LL o '< a a-� l_=_d U O F U 0 1 — U S 0 d 'o oWLLo-g_o_ U 00 O N H U � t 33## 7 w "e z4q f� duo i � J n. i ® ■ g� L >y M 5 0 Ilk'Oi allI - ® O I III 8 — IL�,I - I OR04 - Lo-b sit o I Q I w � g ..aa. •o� Q w N N g a �ry w U= I a d.b d dm oe. 0 N N wb " LLJ a U a I.L e ;00 S e va a _, zF£Iaom/a+ `®- `c ^\ WE ,:aS_,a: a ° :K>03A3~ mores/s., :,»§ E s2NOAa ao �§ML_M , *\§ 0 �\z oz - � \ I 00 a re a _, =_ F£Faom/a+ ;c 31 ,:a: z _ z / . mores \� w V AW S`= _,a: a :K> � »� � a � a ° - §��� __SNDISIAAH _, m ƒ~{ ! \ \\ ( //) ` \§!/ | zw ( ) Q , ( � n. / � w Z JO l SNOIIV�,I�AN3y13� 6c09-z99 (906) :xVd cz/9/z S3HS .,KX„b6 UOJ 3aV NMOHS S31VOS :310N T NVId 3dnsolOw,q 4CIy 106 VM S'3 (90Z) :131 IO 196 VM '31llV35 E 03N33HO uo16ui111M '1111113 :FOM IOJI"- 9CI OOL 3110S '1S NOINO 009 �SS3NOOV o NMVaG N0110fk11SN003�J 11VMV3S GNV N1VM1?JOd H1JON M"""' OUNOWa3 -d0 1NOd sa3ii Y IIV 03 0aaav NOUIa0S3a 31V0 w. wvgh :03NOIS30 SNOISIAAH .. S�3 owe owe w 3 d62 d<p w0 _F5 w0 Op �Ua 0Ua U2 O9 p �o3 _ z0 w� U w c0oo o y psi a uo g 0 E l) 'O 0 CC4O y 0 o 0 I O Q owa 0o a3 a0z0 w�mOUp 40O iu nOU O2 §OR T U OQ 8.51 06 O O i o.Ot Ox O00 rc� ' N - oa0 % �Oz n _ ^ "a - -------------------- o W > --- OO Q V W o�u w m§ oom x § 0000000000000 000000000000000 000000^0^0000000 .o I Packet W w w Z J Z SNOI1Vn313 6LO9-z99 (90z) - cz/9/z 33HS .,KX„b6 i103 3aV NMOHS S31VOS 310N T NVId 3dnos1 0909-Z99 (90Z) :131 10196 VM '311LV3S :03NO3H0 uo�6uiysoM 'spuowp3 :FOM IOJIW�/ 9F£ OOL 311N5 '15 NOINN OOS5532100V o NMvaa NOIlOfk11SN003a 11VMV3S aNV N1VM1?JOd H1�JON i'�'�"'��M"""' SaNOWa3 A0 lHod sa3ii Y IIV a3 oaaav NOUNDS3a Siva w. AA/W4'J03NOI530 SNOISIA3N ,. .. Cl) N O N 1H 150d 1tl101 )13H `JNIOIS 1tl101 9�00a00000000 00000000000001 s a ao a ro Saw xaoa-'a 3�o w6a y&I. � uWFt ,^ iwo -�bw o5 3 _e3�a:o3o-zLL y06 �nO0a�,00 W Packet 00 6c09-z99 (90z) :xV1 cz/e/z 33HS .,KX„b6 803 321V NMOHS S31VOS :310N SNOIldn3l3 VZVld lV&N30 0909-zss (90Z) 131 31111 ONIM"O 10106 VM o. 6 OOL v31105�'15 '4NO.I'�N31� "L"V3"S O1OOS 553200V :03M03HO -N--M 'spwp3 :FOM 1-1!-W WE NM" N0110fk11S003�J IlVMV3S GNV NVMidOd H1�JON a3 oaaaN wJWW �03N01530 SaNOW❑ A0 lNOd SNOISIAAH 31va o � .. I I I Lm I I I I I — UU ~O i� O �O 'T m m luv1 1O i� I I I I I Packet W w Packet LL OD 6L09-Z99 (9OZ) :XV1 LZ/9L/9 Q133HS aO1 3W NMOHS S31VOS :31ON VI l V1I ]IV /� V VAA III J Sli v i3a II v aaa v I Ie ^l v miaod OBOS-ZS9 (9O4 :131 „9£X„*Z 311I1 oNIMVHO XL86 VM '7LLV3S OOL 31Ins '15 NOW ooS :ss3aaav 6" Q t M z O :O3N33HO uo�5 uiq"m 'spuowp3 'FOM Iouiwpv 9£C :NMV6a NOI XO JISNOO]?J 7VMVIS aNV Y17VMi2JOd Hi?JON ° O o SONOWa3 dO lZiOd a3noa33v NOI1dIa va v w /ww :a3NOIS3a SNOISIAIIn3a m O w U iK iu w ¢ E ? o 3 z 3 w p o G' a z °000 �o w - 5 a o a u� c93� a` e x Ill\� y i p 3 6 0 W NEI 4 3. 0 u 0 0 U 0 193� rommummum■ gas" --- L 111111 1111 1111111 MENNEN IIII;F �r 11 11 1 � Ir 1L Ii ■' 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 I 10< I3 G _ a E�j R gO m =��a° Sm o 9-Z ip �j uiuy uw �O0 � 0 dxUOm U O O z G Q m ¢r Fm, py-w Q w 53 w j~pQ zOOza Z. 0O Q< a s p o off O U 1 Z <m=3 U < O S 0 F �ry Packet OD 6LOS-ZS9 (90Z) :XVA LZ/6L/9 �133HS *Z a01 3W NMOHS S1VOS :31ON IV 111I /� S3iv!D niid 33S 0905-ZS9 (90Z) :131 „KX 311I1 ONIMVHO 10196 VM '3lllV3S OOL 31IHS '1S NO�NA Dos :SS3aa0V Q o z O :03NO3HO uol6 uiy soM 'spuowp3 .,(oM IonwpV 9f£ NOI XO JISN003 7VMVIS (INV Y17VMi2JOd Hi?JON o NMvaa alAOHddv NOINoIdOS30 ]Iva v w Wmh a3NOIS3a SGNOWa3 dO i�l0d o= 3w� i y�< "'Uwe 5>Oqu I �=�W��m3aw - uGO < W w 0 3� u� �zu&o �oF a 3 e o o a u b 0 I �m Op a i W - d' < o m <g 7 3 0 a � e 0 u HUI u < I 1 u � I 1 1 1166 1 �1♦Ye 1 ■r I Packet Packet LL 00 6L09—Z99 (90Z) :XVA lZ/bZ/S Q133HS :310N SlIVAG iN3NiVD i Dpvns OBOS—ZS9 (90Z) :131 „92%„bZ a01 3W NMOHS S31VOS 311I1 ONIMYaa 101B6 VM '31llV35 Q o 1= :03NO3HO uiy soM 'spuowp3 .,(oM IoaiwpV 9f£ uo�6O3 00 31Ins '15 NOW ooS :ss3aaaV o h z O NOI XO JISNO117VMi2JO1d ON Hi?J 7VMVIS ONV > ry o :NMVaa SONOWa3 dO laQd 03n0addV NOI1dIaOS30 31V0 u 3' M/WW :a3NOIS3a SNOISIn3a u o O 3�ap a a 0=o�i w u�uw3 W �Edrc �goz�o � �00 z UGNmU a az�p� 5tp�ahm� O�f6<6m ma i 3 m a qJ� 0 z F M a o N wa s � ooi a N 00 00 ��o 00 00 00 00 FEE 000 000 000 OOO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o °°• _ _ OOC] o00 C]C] 00 00 00 I 13 000 000 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °°"•_ 000 000 00 00 00 00 000 00 o0 00 00 / f0 6 � Hu M90� 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 w 000000 o00000 000000 000000 _ o00000 o00000 000000 000000 � o00000 000000 000000 000000 . 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 ��0000 ®000 000000 000000 11 Packet W w 0o SlIYl34 1N3dd1 CI 6c09-zs9 (90z) :xV3 zz/oz/m Q133HS „9£H„bZ a0J 3aV NMOHS S3�V3S :310N 810'? JNIlHJII NVINisa aaimvao 1O o86SVM57l V35 :131 O I= :ONO3HO uo�6uiy11M 'spuowp3 'AoM IoiiwpV 9££ OOL 311f1S '1S NOINII OOS :SS3a00V z :NMvaO NOIiXf JISNOO]?J 77VMVIS ONV Y17VMi2JOd Hi?JON °O — o SaNOWaA d0 i2]Od v"�•'/�� S2i3%' W a3noaaav Nouelaos3a va v w na/ww :03NOIS30 Y SNOISIn3a a o 5, t J �I { E _ C O a 0 a 0 u - � � n Packet W 00 6LOS-ZS9 (90Z) :XVA ZZ/OZ/Ol Q133HS :310N SlIVi3a 30VNJIS OBOS-Z99 (90Z) I. „9fX„IZ a01 3W NMOHS S31VOS 311I1 ONIMVHO 10 L86 VM '7LLV3S o 1= :AN uo�6 uiy soM 'spuowp3 'FOM "'Iv 9f£ OOL 311HS '1S NOINH OOS :SS3a00V o NOI XO JISN003 7VMVIS (INV >1117VMi2JOd Hi?JON`/�.Wmh ry o SONOWa3 jO laQd SUDIVY4 03noaddV NOI1dISOs3a 31V0 o :0 SNOISIn3a u o Q O0 E O�w ��Ezzo W DiUO u �zm�° I 0 ¢d u� moo oad "P4 $ 2 oyeS PU I �P �4 h R, �.-C.,000000000 :0000000011001 Packet W °D 1o= '310s-Z9 (90Z) :Xz/s/ 31n(AH0S9 NVId 311S JNI1NVld 0909-Z9(90Z) :131 E HS £X.*Z a01 38V NMOHS S31VOS 31ON '311111 ONIM"O 1O196 VM LLV35 a00V °OOL 305 1S NOINfOOS :SS3o O 3NO3HO 6uNoM "P"IP3 !AIM lw!'PV 9££ NM,,,, NOlDnas0Old O^ ° 11VMV3S ONV >MMi2JOd H12JON `/�. Of )A/WW :03NOIS3O SCNOWa3 JO i2]Od S213)IVY4 Wnoaddtl NOlNOIa0530 31V0 o ry SNOIsI 3a 9*O I z ° 00 O z o O < o z w¢_0 w 0= V j Zp �wUU U❑ �Z O ttt � s vl��L a w .tzU <OHl a >� 00¢_O°¢O D U iow0z�0 o�aZ�¢w¢ O� �o pQLL��NLL�z Ox U��a�Omo_ OzU dz wQw aU��t=j�30v� How-RnwaZ_pw �m¢z�¢aU<zQO .zo wyz2-z' 00so_ O 0w WU¢ O,n3wUZ¢r�s'� LLz_dzUm�03LLz3z� z OmWJw�JQ¢wjwti�z Oz-�N>ONwOm��O ¢ <y oz aO ou'Q>¢m U ¢xz�w00¢F LLi r �pYOU�VU°,r�°w'�<�< �r0¢�zLL�¢LLO¢0�>O ¢LL3c�Zti`-'zzzoa3u°w E o¢ z O�Q o m0 z� 3 aN �Oo z p� H w po z LLp r �NwQ 3� °o d ws m O a owl maw �O Zo_U wz z �� ww°zgozzo°°zi���Oz ° . ¢00 z lw'zNa ¢O ,n�Wo ¢ zWZao Dw:jwz° t¢Ew!Z ?E zmo zz°7mos a ° Qwow °wgOwH z u z:Q<> uo> zam §P-O '0 Omyw 030-waw U U >Ozi ° z F .612 zOow ¢�aQ¢UwQ (�mJwO W VN°� ZoOQ O•n �o °zUwZ wamz3�°gZ¢>m°u J za °w3w� w¢J�Ooaw3Do�o zzz� Aw—tt f zZaLL �mQm}mo�.E.=w 0 owgo �oOZ a �Qwm x rm ww °Nw <QQw�Q2 Z<Nwa�°wNiwmo- °.o��p ��°>m0 zw- Oa VUN� z O,60>you ziZzaw1wowooQJQ <z�<Jgo,Z-Z22Z00wyo¢O OZCn0H� w3wVUm UO0z�:U¢zwd¢ w.U0zaa:gU i0 O•°Em3Npopw °z _ N 0 0 0 75 0 6 0 0 6 0 X X M r U ° � rn i o U o 8 m 'g m E m c o oo i o •n E U °° I D E O o m 8 E N 5 ._E m d �' m N c❑ 2 i 2 d Q m ° Ea 3 U �°, xo m`o °x°' oz° F 3ti Y3 E 0 o 0 3 h j t 1 o ° o o ° w 'o 3 E ° E ° E' 'v o _ o g o 2 o° y o u !o a „ IN '^ o o `o r v N°° o o c o D o d o E 'c m ;o o a i 0 0 c p •o ° a U U (9 z -., Z I,w 'a o a ¢¢ O o Packet Ww co -8133HS „9£X.*Z a03 38V NMOHS S31VOS 310N SNVId DMINVld VZVId M3ddn '8 ivNiN33 (130NVIN3 31111 ONIMVa0 6LOS-699 (90Z) :XVJ 0909-Z99 (90Z) ;131 10196 VM '311LV35 OOL 3110s '1S NOINI 009 :S53a00V '�'w"���"/�� SUDI Y w £z/s/z 67 o 03NO3H0 uo�6u!ysoM 'spuowp3 :FOM lo�!wPtl 9££ NOIlO b1SN003J-nVMV3S ONV AlWi1JOd Hi2JON SGNOWa3 J0 12i0d o NMVaa 03noadav Nol dlaas3a 31va JJ./WW 03NOI530 SNOISIn3a �p _ i ye o Vay _ F7 't I I � - zQd w < C Q > w o O I 3 p rc Z Q 1) 0 w I aU O w I 1 Q Z I 1 1 I 1 1 I R I Q Q a - I I I - I 1 I I I 0 1 Q ° Z= I n� II Q J M O � N 0 I I I I J I I I I f I a l p II I I I p I pll - -- 555■■■Ili III ■ �-- r 1 I 1 � / I I I 1 I I I I I _ I I I I I 111 — I I I 1 a I I 1 I I Q I I I I 0z I - I z I a I I I I I J d _ I L__-----_ __J - I z I I I I I I c r I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I a I z O IV I i - I z a 3 d I i I 1 I I i I I j I I I I j I a w ~ Z - Z Q a OZ ------------ - a H r GYINCREIE AIX Q a w2CD ? I I1 I 1 Y I I I Q �§ U n /'� o1z Q V p>� — o o e e o 0 I I w4 _ Packet OD 6LOs-699 (90Z) :XV3 #133HS „9£XJ6 a03 38V NMOHS S3WOS 31ON Z d0 l sin OIIVO NVId `ONI1NVld 090S-ZS9 (90Z) :131 31111 ONIMtlaa IOLR6 VM '31LLV3S " OOL 311NS '15 NOINa 005S53aaaV 03NO3HO uol6uiy"m 'opuowp3 'Rom lw,,pV 9££ z z C) o :Nmtlaa NOiion 1SNOO]2J HHVMV3S ONV N\HIVM1210d H12JON �'\•""�'�'�'�• - �� v w AA/WW :a3N MV"' SGNOWa3 J0 lOOd SHOWN 03AO.V NOI1d IaOS3a 31Va a ry o SNOISVN3a lm�© M 0 a u x ii o^ 3 o am U U G U d 3 O z$ f o� i i i 'u oo o a a _ 3 o u� o 000 d �1y�t 1 0 o O 1 0----------------- Y `o o 3 aS a a� 3 3 LL Ory 3 a a rc o i Jz-o O 60 0 � _ 0 U dry QH aS a a� 3 3 LL Ory 3 a a rc o i Jz-o O 60 0 � _ 0 U dry QH > .• - mr,� O _ a O - w O 3 � - d � O - 3 Ury Q d a 3M 0 0 0 i C Packet P� LL OD 6LOs-699 (90Z) :XV3 H3HS „9£XJ6 a03 38V NMOHS S31VOS :31ON SIIVACI `JNI1NVld OBOS—M (90Z) :131 31111 ONIM"O [OLR6 VM '31LLV3S V " OOL 31105 'lS NOINO 009 SS3a00V 03NO3H0 uo�6uiysoM 'spuowp3 .,(oM IwiwpV 9££ z z O o A33HO NOIlOf1b1SN00321 HHVMVIS ONV A�Wi1 JOd Hi2JON w" ei/ww :a3NOIs3a SGNOWa3 J0 i2]Od S213� YMw a3noaddv NOI1dIaos3SNOISVN3aa 31tla a 1 i dR a� o U e O 3 � O O� 0 � rc W rc O i o O 3 0 O O O A-<— 0O No o U U U Q'^ 13 0 cm z N w� z N Ht � r A 1 ° �w �F? Lu a Packet P� RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A N O N z J a Staff Qualifications. m 3 O (L x O z W C O E m W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d X U) i w x co 0 0 LO CD 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 276 RECEIVED Attach a April 26, 2023 CITY,,$Q ygp Quarterman PLANNICNGP&PaVPWAbciate Ecologist N 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. LALANDAU Packet Pg. 277 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Jeffrey Fellows, PE Vice President, Operations Expertise Phase I and ll 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 II 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 • S S O C t A t F' Packet Pg. 278 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 w Seattle, WA 98125 Q 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 279 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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: \\edmdata0l\Projects\173\038.010\R\Geotech\Signature Page.docx Project Coordinator: MCS Steven R. Wright, PE Sean Gertz, PE LANDAU ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 280 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope of Services................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Geologic Setting..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Subsurface Conditions........................................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Soil Conditions.................................................................................................2-2 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions..................................................................................2-2 3.0 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................3-1 3.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 24.40.020)...............................................................3-1 3.2 General Shoreline Modification Regulations (ECDC 24.50.010[B])....................................3-2 3.3 Shoreline Stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020)...........................................................................3-2 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................4-1 4.1 Seismic Design Considerations...........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Liquefaction Potential......................................................................................4-3 4.2 Bulkhead Design.................................................................................................................4-4 4.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................4-4 4.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design.....................................................................................4-5 4.3 Pile Foundations.................................................................................................................4-6 4.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles............................................................................4-6 4.3.2 Downdrag Loads..............................................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Group Interaction Effect..................................................................................4-6 4.3.4 Lateral Pile Capacity........................................................................................4-6 4.3.5 Constructability Considerations.......................................................................4-6 5.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS.................................................5-1 6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................6-1 7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................7-1 Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iii October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 281 RECEIVED April 26, 2CO$AFT 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 a 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 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction iv 0173038.010.011 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 282 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ASCE......................................................................... American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM.................................................................................................ASTM International bgs................................................................................................. below ground surface City.........................................................................................................City of Edmonds CLE....................................................................................contingency-level earthquake ECDC............................................................... Edmonds Community Development Code ft....................................................................................................................... foot/feet IBC........................................................................................ International Building Code LAI............................................................................................... Landau Associates, Inc. MCER.......................................................................... maximum considered earthquake Port....................................................................................................... Port of Edmonds SMP........................................................................................Shoreline Master Program WDFW....................................................... Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction V 0173038.010.011 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 283 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This page intentionally left bunk. Geotechnical Engineering Report North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction vi 0173038.010.011 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 284 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 285 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 286 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 287 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 288 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 289 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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 and 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 Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-1 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 290 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 291 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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 section of deteriorating timber bulkhead. 3) New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant negative impacts to adjacent or down -current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. The proposed project includes reconstruction/renovation of an existing portwalk and associated bulkhead. Renovations to the bulkhead rely on the underlying seawall for support; however, negative impacts to shoreline areas are avoided. 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 structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. Not applicable. No steep slopes or bluffs occur on site or in the surrounding area. 5) New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner: Criteria (a) through (d) are omitted, because the proposed shoreline stabilization includes replacement of a deteriorating timber bulkhead as opposed to "new structural stabilization." 6) Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential 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 specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized 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 armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures. Not applicable. The proposed shoreline stabilization includes replacement of a segment of deteriorating timber bulkhead that supports an existing boardwalk (overwater and upland). The need for bulkhead repair was determined via a Structural Assessment and Feasibility Study (CG Engineering 2020). Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-3 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 292 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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 close to the eroding bank as possible and in no case shall it be more than six feet from the toe of the bank. Not applicable. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-4 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 293 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. Geotechnical Engineering Report 0173038.010.011 North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction 3-5 October 15, 2021 Packet Pg. 294 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 295 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 296 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 297 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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 (Tj 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) = 2.71ai (a) The coefficient Fv 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,, 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. 298 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 299 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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 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. 300 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 301 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 302 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 303 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 304 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 305 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT7.0 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. 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. 306 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a Landau Associates CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTYOud, 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. 307 RECEIVED April 2 , 2023 CITY OF EMMONDSDRAFT PLANNING & D VELOPOPME DFPAR FNT Puget Sound Project Location N o 0.s 1 Miles I Data Source: Esri 2012 North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Attachrr� Puget Dr T24 Caspers St 2 Z Q n r _ Main St o ity s wdoia waY Park Woodway Pine St m 11� /I Deer a Creek I 0 0 I I T4 220th St SW � Q 232nd St SW m a o a ` 3 a �1. Seattle Tacoma Olympia W a s h i n g t o i Vicinity Map Figure 1 a Packet Pg. 308 OD C N L co Q CQ G O O a x w c v b 00 ) < a W � W uj C / < °} Ec ai$ \�} ��� ! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�������� } k( k( k � � F 7 00 \ < n � ck}£ 7�23kƒ |a !f!`®�!2■=!g ��lf_ ©$ ($} {`�-2a�\���}�\ƒ!k �A §/�■2 % K �&�!/�flkfk�!§■!§�i § \ !| � 2± �. }77 ) k�( \§cc 2 tt Y. � k � � � \ E / 7 co C N E L m Q 3 Q 3 IJIII- I Wd VG:ZT v E O L N b0 p Y E y y v o c voc n v � m v c � H Q � c v 0 3 Q O C � N M � N a — d' Q � W T 41 . O E m w 10 R. 7. Y o m v y N v s 3 v w N iz Qom«-o r= v�aa° v a C aciao�af0iao�u`oam�otow1 N w a o u v? s �> o 0 30v v E £o o� as+o N v-Ra¢mav°�m�m:mY3 w O Z is v J a J � Q vo yLi 3 — (0 L � � 3 E E a Y � W � U 1° o 3 a � o os L O Z 00 CD E L m Q lllz- I Wd 99:ZT �iLo LL (0 � o v �n n"co c a, o c v= E ° E 2 W � U IC ° O.-a aa�c O aL 6 � W ° Z s.J- v n pueT 00 \ < \�} (( k� a W � W LLI }� k � � � 7 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A N O N z J a Field Explorations Cu m 3 O (L O z W C O E m W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d X U) i w x co 0 0 LO CD 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 315 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 316 RECEIVED Attach a April 2 CITY OF PLANNING & DEPAI Soil Classification System DMONDS EVELOPMENT LISCS MENT MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL"' DESCRIPTIONS 121131 GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVEL 0 o 0 ° 0 GW Well -graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines J N O@ 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 on No. 4 sieve) fines) o GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) SAND AND CLEAN SAND $W Well -graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines O O O ,n Z w m I t t m SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SP � w IX SAND WITH FINES $M < o 00 0 (More than 50% of fraction Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) @ coarse passed (Appreciable amount of $C — 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 t m N SILT AND CLAY plasticity Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy CL 0 @ (D (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 c4 SILT AND CLAY CH o.Dj m Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay z0 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 A_ I 14 LANDAU Reconstruction Soil Classification System and Key /\ �I ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington A N O N Z J IL_ a O v 3 L (n a O V d O a L rr 3 I O tZ N «n I W 2 �O O O L0 O O M 04 O N Z J a Packet Pg. 317 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF PLANNING &IDMONDS EVELOPMENT 10 15 SAMPLE[ a� „ D o Z m (D 16 a m > E c w in 06 S-1 s-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 IATA a> n IT A? n E m rn b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 B-1 k SOIL PROFILE 75 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 0 o tE>1 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined t° m `-' Holocene Drilling Inc. ❑ a � Drilled By: g m U) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 AC Asphalt SP (ASPHALT) Tan, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel (medium dense, moist) 16 (FILL) 13 W=3 GS SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel 12 (medium dense, wet) W = 18 -loose 7 GS -with 22 32 W-14 GS Gray, fine to coarse SAND (dense, wet) 33 (WHIDBEY FORMATION) W = 16 SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt 29 GS SM (medium dense, wet) m I 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 Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 0 c Moisture Content (%) C Plastic Liquid C Limit I�� Limit S 20 40 60 80 C - SPT N-Value - .L�.. 0 Nonstandard N-Value 0 ` 3 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X i 0 20 40 60 80 s t _ -: i t - s -: t Q � t - 0 s t XA • e 1ALANDAU I Reconstruction I Log of Boring B-1 AQent�TATFC Edmonds, Washington X* •: A f Figure 0 M A-2 a (1 of 2) Packet Pg. 318 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF B-1 PLANNING &IDMONDS EVELOPMENT SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a5 o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger Z„ n E 75 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined _>10 ° a> Z 16 a m ? n LL 0 M o t> `U E rn Holocene Drilling Inc. Drilled By: g w in — U m Q U) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 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, Total Depth of Boring = 4 Gray, fine to coarse, silty SAND with trace organics (medium dense, wet) �[70 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. m 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. r North Portwalk and Seawall Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 0 c Moisture Content (%) C Plastic Liquid C Limit I�� Limit S 20 40 60 80 - - SPT N-Value - .15 0 Nonstandard N-Value 0 ` m a 20 40 60 80 o i X Fines Content (%) X C9 20 40 60 80 c s c A LLANDAU I Reconstruction I Log of Boring B-1 AQent�TATFC Edmonds, Washington XO Figure 0 M A-2 a (2 of 2) Packet Pg. 319 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF PLANNING &IDMONDS EVELOPMENT 10 15 SAMPLE[ a� „ D o Z m N 16 Q N > E c w in 06 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 IATA a> 0- IT A? n E m rn b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 b2 5 2 4 3 16 29 14 34 B-2 SOIL PROFILE Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger 0 tE>1 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined o a U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. U U) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 AC Asphalt SP (ASPHALT) Tan, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel (loose, moist) (FILL) W = 7 -very loose GS SP Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (ve loose, wet) W = 16 -with gravel GS SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with trac$ gravel (medium dense, wet) (WHIDBEY FORMATIIRN) W = 13 SM Gray, fine to medium, silty SAND with GS gravel (medium dense, wet) W = SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with gravel GS and trace silt (medium dense, wet) SP- Gray, fine to medium SAND with silt SM (medium dense, wet) m I 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 Attach LAI Project No: 0173038.010 0 c Moisture Content (%) C Plastic Liquid C Limit I�� Limit S 20 40 60 80 - - SPT N-Value - .15 0 Nonstandard N-Value 0 ` 3 20 40 60 80 X Fines Content (%) X i 0 20 40 60 80 Q 17 1ALANDAU I Reconstruction I Log of Boring B-2 AQent�TATFC Edmonds, Washington • • r A, Figure 0 M A-3 a (1 of 2) Packet Pg. 320 RECEIVED April 2 CITY OF B-2 PLANNING &IDMONDS EVELOPMENT x 0 35 40 45 50 x IL c� x r_ 3 0 0 55 0 z X 0 m J_ 0 Cl) 1­ 60 1­ 65 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE �5 o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger a> o -0 T o E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined 2 Z a °' n 4: �, co o E � Holocene Drilling Inc. Drilled By: 9 a, w in m ( a U) Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 xs to W = 19 7. Gray, fine to medium SAND with silt S-9 b2 34 GS U.,S (medium dense, wet) -dense S-10 b2 43 Boring Completed 03/08/21 Total Depth of Boring = 41.5 ft. r� 70 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate 06 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. North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Attach a LAI Project No: 0173038.010 C C Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit Limit d 20 40 60 80 C A SPT N-Value A A Nonstandard N-Value A m 20 40 60 80 0 X Fines Content (%) X 0 20 40 60 80 t XA: t Log of Boring B-2 Figure A-3 a (2 of 2) Packet Pg. 321 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX E Laboratory Soil Testing Packet Pg. 322 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 323 Kil o6 Q M O W N O N wC.0 N U �L W Q z z w zzo 0, oW wp 0 .- O N OOD � CD (o O� It co N C, C, ;g6iaM Aq aawzj IUGOJGd 9 0 o a v7 a v7 U7 U7 U7 Z)U U) U) U) 0 .Q U N 0 .y .0 C � N @ N p f�6 N M zz 41 0) s m R .0 s 0) s - 0 0 0 z p fQ fa fa N � pN U N pN U pN U j O 0� O O i' N C� LL > > LL LL 0 (0 OD -q CD f- Z 0 O O O O v N cM Cj V fl. N lhlh V CD 66 co O v7Z 0 0 3 z m m m m m E 8 C 0 C C 0.9 C U W (a 7 M Y r Co C) U) C) -C U o a) C dW E L -p w O Z a dV d V r �a Packet Pg. 324 Kil o6 Q M O W N O N wC.0 N U �L W Q z z w zzo 0, oW wp 0 .- O m OOD � CD (o O� It M N C, C, ;g6iaM Aq aawzj IUGOJGd 0 -o . cn a cn cn cn ' Z)U 0 .Q U N .0 .y . y L L fC6 3 > .3: p Z m rn p Z m rn w co o co 0 0 O O N N N N N 8 8 T T i C i C C LL LL 0 (0 7 O � CO co f- O (0 N Z O O (D C) N In N In rM CL N 66666 V CO n O coZ 0 fi.8 0 N m N m N m N m N m 3 Q Z ul$ E 8 C: O C) N N_ L C 0 C: O c U U co 7 M 1 Co C) M C) -O o U N c dW E L -p w O Z a dV d V r �a Packet Pg. 325 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations Packet Pg. 326 RECEIVED April 26, 20AAFT Attach a 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. 327 0.21 2 ONV Z SV3JV ONIMVd N33M132 AVM3AI80 JNIISIX3 30 3NFI2IAIN3O F r 0 OA3 A9 03ionN1SN0O NIVAMIS M3N V321V 3dVnSaNVI M3N m U H 2 U Q� >- W 0 � wo< p Z w 0 W awe a• _S o � N < Y J w W• � o w zd U _ N ZX Q J CD 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 vui ~ W 0 w a Z am z 0 H OVZZ �U2U) O}off aU)z x000 w 1�w° QW o 0 W w F— N c V J o J a a 0 o n z J V♦ x o c 0 wo o LU ❑ 3 U Om o S w o a CL J LL 0 ex J Q CL � Q j Q • 1 m m Z W w Q w Lt. w �R V cr Packet Pg. 328 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a EXPLORATION BORING LOG CITY OF EDMONDSNuimber EB-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DAMES & MOORE aa Z w RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Q 0 Blows/Foot o Cl) < 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, damp, gray, fine to medium SAND T B 20 with gravel; 2° seam of dark brown sand (fill) 9 ii —5 loose, saturated, gray -brown medium SAND with 2 g some silt and trace fine gravel (fill?) 5 • — 10 1 — ATD medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly coarse SAND • 22 15 17 —15 no sample recovery 5 b Iis 24 2' heave - washed 20 dense, saturated, gray gravelly, medium SAND T 8 49• with some silt l 81 1' heave - washed — 25 - dense, saturated, gray, silty medium SAND with I 12 38• scattered fine gravel 26 1' heave - washed — 30 — dense, saturated, gray, medium to coarse SAND with T 11 45 fine gravel, trace silt in a few zones _ 30 Subsurface amditiona depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thts exploratory hole, modified by geologic InteRuetetions, engineering analysis, end Judgment. They are not necessaTgy representative of other times and locations. We will not accept reapcnstblltty for the use or Interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 329 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 PL RATION BORINGttL EXPLORATION a 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 - 501a, 5018" BOH @ 39' _ 40 — 45 ---- 50 - 55 — 60 --- 65 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of thla ecploratory hole, modified by gedogic Interpmtmdons, engfneedng anatyels, and Judgment They ere not necessarily representattve of other times and locations. We will not accept responsiblllty for the use or Interpretation by dhers of Information presented on this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO.07-066 Packet Pg. 330 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 I CITY OFEDMONDsNumber EB-2 PANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attach a EXPLORATION BORING LO DAMES $ MOORE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION d? W Q 0 RESISTANCE alawsfFoot o < 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, moist, gray and brown SAND with 2-1/2' to 3' g T 20 scattered gravel, dark streaks at (fill) io — 10 loose, moist, gray, medium SAND with gravel (fill?) — 5 4 I4 4 8♦ loose, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (fill?) 2 7 4 10 ATD 4 medium dense, saturated, gray -brown, gravelly, 7 17♦ medium to coarse SAND with silt 10 dense, saturated, fine to medium SAND I 8 ♦44 1 26 15 very dense, saturated, gray, coarse sandy GRAVEL r 23 61 38 20 dense, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium SAND-------� I 71 I 311A dense, saturated, gravelly, coarse SAND 27 25 1 f— -. very dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, poorly sorted T SAND with silt ! 14 31 79, 1' heave - washed 11 48 BOH @ 29' 30 Subsurface oondftlom depldsd represent our cbservatlona at the time and location of thla aplorstory hole, modifled by geologic Intarpretatfona, engineering snalysls, end Judgment They are not necessarily representathm of other times and loxatlons. We Will nat accept responsibillty for the use or InterpretAm by others of Irrformabon presented an this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB a EDMONDS MARINA E EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 Q PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 331 IVED 26, 2023 ITY OF E S NNING & D EL Et DEPART ENT ��**�� a ADMIRAL WAY Attach a A N O N H a O r �I _ O t1 d co 3 ca d U) R O a 41 1 SCALE (IN FEET) EPAJR YARD .0 Ioo $'TEST HOLE SITE PLAN MAP BUILDING REHABILITATION PROJECT PORT OF EDMONDS, EDMONDS, VITA H ONG WEST & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 IVED ri 2023 MONDSVELOPMENT Attach a HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE z o MOISTURE f d SPT (blows/foot) w J d o io 20 30 40 50 so 10 eon SYMBOLS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AI A : � 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: 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: B991 rc W I-- w 0 lV w a i BORING BH-1 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION 15 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: " f t . Packet Pg. 333 CANCNITINY IVE D itG 26,V20 23 O DMONDS & EEL HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE r o MOISTURE X A SPT [blows/foot} ,Cn .J d Y 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 c4n SYMBOLS OESCRIPTION Attach a Cc w r Uj x 0 iV Uj 1--1 0. SP Very loose to loose, brown to gray, gravel- ly fine to med. SAND: trace silt, organic = ® in surface i foot, moist .= :.. .... .. ... ..... (Fill) -ti 4: ... . , _ .. SP Med- dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND: grades less gravelly with depth Q® ;..�. .. (Marine Sand) Q ® SFJ - becoming gravelly, fine to coarse SAND 20 ...... .. s _ SP Q F— = - SM Medium dense, gray. silty, fine SAND: some LU L gravel, till -like LU . becoming dense, gray, silty. fine to medium SAND: some gravel i--i30 ;; ":" NOTE: Gravel clast blocks sampler opening. I GP Dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL: well rounded to Q SP subangular Q.LU :� (Marine Gravel) ® Q SM Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND: 40 = some silt; trace gravel (Marine Sand) •L b ..;.., BOTTOM OF BORING _ NOTES: 1) Positive head maintained below iD feet. - �} Initial groundwater measurement 50 . feet) 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 Flap, Edmonds PROJECT NUMBER: B991 A N O N z J a_ _ 0 w 3 C 0 d c3a d 07 C R (L s 0 z N c 0 E W �0+ L 0 a BORING BH-2 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION: 16 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 43.5 f t packet Pg. 334 RECEIVED Attach a April 2b2Q2�3 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT and Exploration Man B--3 9� Approx. Original ~9B-4 Proposed Breakwater ~� B—' 5 Existing Brea kwater � J � r Proposed Breakwater J Extension t 1 Existing Bulkhead `Proposed Sheet Pile Breakwater Existing Bulkhead� Admiral Way yet rya ate 9 o 100 200 &B-1 Boring Location and Number Scale in Feet J-1327-01 April 1984 HART-CROWSER & associates inc. Figure 11 Packet Pg. 335 RECEIVED Attach a Apr0m,don L O g B -1 i i �SS�OrIL�b�vq STANDARD LABORATORY PLA NI'ffl iMv�Lbp PgP4 PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS M DEPARTMENT N t 11.0.0 d �nq M_ 7D MCh v.00l C N Depth Z ADoroalrnale Ground SurlaCrr Elevallon rn Feet 1 Feet Sarnote Anloes per Fool d i Q I S 10 20 50 100 Loose, wet, dark gray, fine to meditnt SAID with I i =O scattered silt and organics. I • ff 5-1 Ficdiun dense, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND, I N .Q ATD S-2 ID Grades to fine to medtum SAND. 5-3 l3 Grades to fine gravelly SAND. S-4 zo Dense, saturated, gray, very sandy G?.AVEL to gravelly SAND. 25 5-5 Dense saturated, gray, slightly silty, slightly 5-6 Bottom of Boringq at 29.0 Feet 30 Completed 2/24/g4 Ground Waler Level ernton.le Seal n ., wa rar t.•.1 tOa I. AaQ AI lima or Dr.n-eq obaa.rrt.on well Tra or S1v11r0 Sr l• • Natural Waler Content {X) LO T_ CD Sampling Laboratp Tess Notes C 9 N 2' 0_0 SOLI S0000 US GI -in 511e wnlle ala TUIJ Tr,a a.al Unc on, eke and t Sell Inlrrpl.r.•r and N 5rma4 CH Conavlldatian TooZ Undra.ned r[lual chjr'prt -AT be graevat ]' 00She1b, rub• % ParmrrpddT Taal ICU 1pa nel Gonsohd,lyd undr e 2 Wrtor Lal -1 n0-c sled, 11 rvr Ihr dais J a 52m01a e�nod IOrclr.sd e•'0 -by vrr7 r11h the 11rne p, .. offCvn•no S.—W.r DS Da CI 5hrar TCD T11sr1rl Conaor,dale6 Dished err Y C W OU lJn[Onl.nav Compnaa•On J. Vlrur Co+�Te le r1 no[ da+minrd on rafr n,o S151e Rrc D•r1T Walar COnlont [X} rmarama ll rra nor on ismp +ra wl[h E P Sarnplor Puahad 7V Tor •anr, trl PUrIK 1— 8 I Llo.lo INr—IWa—IY aiONC• nIanl S1r+41 Confan L V HT d.■.1 i C■1I" PP Poc\at Penu.a.alai_ asl l�m.l Ll 1 (0 Not Drlran t�. tr1 Cvnlanr J-1327-0 1 March 1984 HART-CROWSEA 8 assccialm inC. Figure Packet Pg. 336 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a 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. 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 337 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2CZrBinage 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 338 REC E IVEDPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March April 26, 2CZr3inage Report Section VII, 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 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 339 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2CZrBinage 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 340 REC E IV DPortwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March *41'0a April 26, 2CNinage Report Section VII, Page 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING & DEVELOPN Figure VII-1: Map of project area (from Edmonds GIS) C 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ENGINEERING ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 341 0■§& § ]p ■ »^ ( ) Q : Nqd �niin(IN¥S$q�e 2A3n o E m m«, a«,�m�s eEz ,Noa2m�a«�@a T- ! 0 > ,_ N _ \ } « } \-- — — — — _ n \ s 0 0 z 0 \ / < CO \ If KI inn / ) zo - )/ \ § \ r| o -; 0 § [ w( § 0 a W S1Idl34 (INV NVId (v ),iniin 4N`d DNI4dNO CIO OZO96 VM `SONOW03 1,VM IVNIWOV 922-002 V 1tl1HWEns M31A3tl N9153O EZ/TE/EO - a w o NOIlOf1M1SN00321 I1VMV3S ONV NlVM1210d H1210N N s a.^. ------------- 1 H o 20 _ T �" gm- O W WW r� d 1 s - _- n--- wl a,l�� 11 11 II I I I" III If I I I 1 lv I €=WWwll II II Im I I I i I I II I I II"I I 1 Illjjll I I III iI�IIIII 111 nP'�1 11 11 1 I I� of I111 III11" I'III U I f I I I I I I RAN I� II IIIj1111 I'If1Il ° f IIIIIII ITIJ Ilf =s III IIIIII,IIM lull l 1�;.11l I II °f I I I I I I I ��I II Il l l l l l I I j gl 11111111111111111 I I I II1111111111 II 111111111111117111111111 I � I IIIIII (IIIIIII I I 11111111111111111111 1 I IIIIII"rlllllll I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � (IIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIII.;-IIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� IIIIIIIII=,IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII illlllllllllllllllll Will IIIIIIII-111j11 Ij11111111IIIIIIIIII II11I1111111111,1111 I1111111111111111I1I Illlllllllllllllllll IIII1111111I11111111 I11111111111IIIIIIII lllllllllllllllllljll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIj� IIIIiililllllllllll a W w 16 W0 N�n Z� W t. W �5 � o° 0 = Z w W ~ Q r, � O 0 Q 0 N O J m 0 m H Z 0 �zYm a>�2 Y p F Q a< nZza 30- �owo aa0a F�aHQ wOLLaO Z Q Y r ���0� Q F o Q 0:) ZD2Hv~ U) Cn w 11 V "-) E'£J/T 3NIl HJ1tlW 1 6'EJ/T 3NIl HDIM I 1 z 1 1'1I I Q I I I I = 1 1 lall I O II II II i I �I � I I Iml I I n I I I I I I s z I I I I Im I I o ;III I I I N I I I I I O vwi- 0 01j O 111 11 I m I I o I I I I ICI I zo I m I I o Q I I I I II� 4-1 I Im I I I I I ? m l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I Ixl 0 it I I i�i I I iZ'EJ/T 3_VI1 HJ1tlW M Ell Mill IN EJ/z lIHJ1VW N 0 w o>s 04 worc I i I I. N oma �w LU Q CL U a I.L NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NI(]VdO o � M OZO96 VM `SONOW03 ` J QW JVM WHIWOV 942-002 U ltlllIW805 MNI0A3 tlN9153O sz3T�Easo o NOIl nUSNO03M llVMV3S ONV NlVMid0d H18ON N Z 0 X U WxxxxZO XXXo 3i J 3 m UZ o Z 0 _ 0 a_ O w I o$ O LL z LL O `s °W o w ce p U I -W3o F4$$n$ e e $ al =F e 53w 3 m - �0 o = Z¢ 0 Ww W ~ IJ � n 01, 0 lc H OJ 1, O 7 6] TJ m H z 00 Y p F Q 3 a—v-Zi �owo � w z °aoa ��¢�a z a: < 0 Z Q O U M � 0 0 Lii Q F � 0:30 z0�Hv~ U) in '�V'£J/T 3NI14i71VW LJ ,TE � 1 I 11 1 1 z o l l I Is n z I o I I I I ICI I II I I I I I � o ~ I 1�1 I IIIII 1 1111�1I r N o I � E,I I$I'I �I I Iml�i gel o (Ld J� �II111 IIIII I I I o z I I °: I111j o o Q a I III I I I I ' i \ v-r / Ilm o II I I I I II � III £'EJ/T 3_VI1 H71VW z N o = I 1 OgHJIVW .>s � � N ma °caw 1 I I 1 I NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NKMO o o a OZ086 tlM `SONOW03 QW JtlM WHIWOV 9££-00£ U wtl mu05M31MUNDIM EZ/TEE//EO o NOIlOnUSN0038 llVMV3S ONV NlVMi8Od H18ONN011-0— N Z 0 X U Wxxxx XXX� z 3i 3 m �z o ZO 02 a_ w I o$ O LL z LL O °W w ce p U H= a o m !Him -------A--- � 11 J El' $=a \ I °I Ia a NW ¢ a I.fi w � �\ Z U "H9 8 > �0 - 0 Z � o = Fw W ~ ¢ IJ � n 01, 0 ¢ H OJ 1, O 7 61 U m H Z 00 Y p F Q 3 a—v-Zi �owo w� °aoa WoLL¢o Z Q O U M � 0 0 Lii Q F � 0 �0=ac Z0�Hv~ U) Q W S£7/T 3NI1 H71tlW 9i E7/T 3NI1 H71tlW Z Q S 0 1 o 0 z N p \ J z 0 O N N-) CO Z. N Z. I; IS icnm.eozn%enee�aa�e,:c, �r�rrs�rl� p Q ? N o x z n mmn NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NI(]VdO o OZO96 VM `SONOW03 w J VM 1V211WOV 9££-00£ o N011 n8ISNO03M IIVMV3S ONV NIVMid0d H18ON MLO ` J EU N Z 0 X U Wxxxx XXX� z 3i 3 m �Z o ZO 02 w I o$ O LL z LL O °W w ce p U m m m 1 z�z , I 1 r , I F � 1 3 W � 1 I , I , a NW w tP W T 19:g �W6 �i Q o W NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NIad O OZO96 VM `SONOW03 kVM IVNIWOV )££-00£ o NOI1 n8ISNO03M IIVMV3S ONV NIVMid0d H18ON (4 �y► ` J � U N ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 tlN9153O sz3itlaso �0 - �o = ZQ 0 Ww W ~ IJzi � O 0 lc OJ , O 7 6] U m f- Z 00 Y p F Q 3 a — �owo � w z °aoa ��a�a z a: < 0 Z Q O U M � 0 0 Q F 0 :30=ac Z��Hv~i Z 0 X U Wxxxx XXX� z 3i �J 3 m 2Z o ZD _ 02 a_ w I o$ O LL z LL O °W w ce p U eW � saLL oa z �as M9 U) W �\0 � 05� W m�u < S � — ti t =l O RES7ROOM BUILDING FFE= I3. 4 o oI F-- - t-• - mom' o , II 3 U— o a ml 3$ � 0 o I o Q I I .l I I esoa � I P a w--- o I 5'0/L 3_4Il H71tlW £7/fpH7ltlw I I _I j N o w col w o II I, ell jl llla $ " W^ N N gym? a W N w go IS �" 17:g �W6 �� Q « W NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NIad O o OZ096 VM `SONOW03 kVM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NOIlOnUSN003M IlVMV3S ONV NIVMid0d H18ON M ; ; � V N ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 tlN 9153O sz3T�£aso �0 - �o = Z 0 WwF W ~ Q (�1 � OJ 2)1, lclu 6l U m H Z 00 Y p F Q 3apv~i 2i �owo � w z °aoa ��a�a z a: < 0 Z Q O U M � 0 0 Q F O:30 Z��Hv~i -0 X U Wxxxx XXX� z 3i �J 3 m 2Z o ZD _ 02 a_ w I o$ O LL z LL O °W w ce p U eW � saLL z z �as D9 6'£J/T 3NIl IdDiM M M M M ■ L'£J/T 3NIl HJ1tlW x a 0 go Z=?7 17:g �W6 %� Q W NVId l.lnin 4NV 9NI(]VdO OZ096 VM `SONOW03 kVM IVNIWOV 9££-00£ o NOI n8ISN003M IIVMV3S ONV AIVMid0d H18ON M0 � V N ltlllIW805 MNI�A3 tlN9153O sz3itlaso �0 - �oZ 0 = FwF W ~ Qzi (1 � O 0 Q H OJ , O 7 6] U m f— Z 00 �JomZ< 3 a — �owo °aoa ��a�a WoLLao Z Q O U M � 0 0 Q F U O:3O=ac Z��Hv~i Z 0 AU i � z w to 3 J 3 co U) o Z D _ 0 a_ O w I o$ O LL z LL O °W w ce p U eW � saLL z z �as D9 HJ1tlW I m ■ HJ1tlW EW a W w RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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, TechniquesforDust 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 2-15 Packet Pg. 350 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 0 Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-16 Packet Pg. 351 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 ce a r. • C nv p e is a es o sa 'ta s e if o e y e o w a o 'ty or o e p ov d ea e. • O ai a ro is s to d oc p s i s i a e co n d d 'ti a a 'o c er 'al d m st 'al c' ' ie , c d t su e of a w er is a e n ct' n o s dr n n to r cc a r f o q 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 in ui i s d v s f es o e t se ' i a is o i s). • r. g n- o w to o it' n ins ec a s dr in r n- s a r c r s. ec d e c o o 11 o st at di ge . I u 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, a ' ar se er , a p to a p to di ge . is p o b us u c ec rd s ch s pi s e at' s i to s' e w c cti s a s w e e t P. o id a 'n e dy , o ch i t n ys' i s d ec co ne io s tw en co e n s to s ce s to a st at sir 1 , co d sp ti s t s r 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 h ie s • I of n ct' ns o o 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. 352 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 353 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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 Many ems) 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. 354 RECEIVED Attach a 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 (BIRO), P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA.94707, or EPA to Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-24 Packet Pg. 355 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 356 RECEIVED Attach a 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. 357 RECEIVED Attach a 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. s s 5, Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-2 7 ,a Packet Pg. 358 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach rr 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. 359 RECEIVED Attach a 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 i 'i - u i cr' ti u n o c a fa urg of to s rc c de u d r es ar s to e is 'o , aU a re an a r' g ti ' y as k c n e s n si if an ex s p u nt a ri s r P 1 io C t o o r d on in ut 'd of t o a p v t s r n- n d on m' at' n h e as' le pl' a e eat' n P. • e p e ar s g ar , a ne de , t r e c to in io of st at . • er e ct' it y i in in or i n h co a n o f st in at . • A 1' ab u u l u e o ro toe t o iv' y se r 6) f s l, e o t n c ri a iv i s i in . o r e ti ' y n o e fl r ai t o ni ry e r, p ve b h o a o 'ty e s pe e o a ed t pr e d in e 1 an to a id ar s. i re Volume IV - Source Control BMPs — December 2014 2-38 Packet Pg. 360 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 361 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. VA " " Ma".008iff" A, FARps A' V'A a,'", A InA , A 2 V"A ff., ;F" WE NO I AN wa 0, 111155 V'"'A AV I Z-FAW-draliva FZ.zrzzzA,A WAIVAJ 1 I Brad-! am, M-9, 20, Z. I A A Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs — December 2014 4-39 Packet Pg. 362 RECEIVED April 26, 2023 Attach a 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. 363 REC E IVFJ;)portwalk Seawall Construction - CG #21060.20 March ftt10a April 26, 2CZrBinage 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 Q Edmonds, WA 98020 ph.425.778.8500 1 f.425.778.5536 www.cgengine Packet Pg. 364 Attach a I L 101 101 1.1 I F I F w DOCK "N" DOCK "P" I DOCK "Q" ° DOCK "R'l ° L DOCK "S" ° I DOCK "T" I DOCK "U" DOCK "V" _ cn ° I I a o I° O O - to J X O O O ° a O 0 O i O N ° ° i ° F10A11NGDOCK ° UPPER PORTWALK PLANTING PLAN UD07.1 ? A o w ow w ° ° °° °--------------------------------- -- ----� 1 _z z Q I X X X z ° ° ° o o U o — T-- T — —T— — T — —T — — — — T -- T— P (� o ° J ° ° O FLOATING DOCK c ,8 ` I O Cn w Q ° '� I L U U T FLOAnNGDOgC UPPER PLAZA -PLANTING SITE PLAN 1 UD07.1 0FLOA77NGDOCK v o O FLOA77NGDOCK CENTRAL PLAZA PLANTINGS ITE 2 PLAN uDo7.1 '� I o --------------------------- --------------- --------- —� r----- ------------------- — --------------- V RESTROOM o. FACILITY Z z ��R\p � 0 ° I IF WALL FO ---FO 0 — — — --LU T c� ---T----T -- T — —T — — -- -- T -- T -- — T -- t — ---T --- --- T --- --- T --- -- T v _ _ r — 300 ADMIRAL WAY ` I I O O W (n 7 I FA og O CO 7 I I I I I Co I Q 0 0 LLJ ,., .: I I I r, o ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 � Pa�ovooa aoo;oa;; =a000000. aoo.0000 � o esaee.e o. I W w / n U cn 06 >e C8 �2or ■ X I ■ ■ ■ ° EDMONDS YACHT CLUB I I P 1�6 1 i '' Z Q STREET TREES MUST BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S STREET TREE PLAN i I I &o IM i s o I I I ,n 1 , I �' Q U—i i co o I--T � I I I 0 ,� �° i - �-�� I O (n �® I I I oo I I fl EE 11 I � C I 1 I � U I zg F ) t ) 4.✓ `i..J P ❑ OL _ O 'CL�L I I -CL O iCL ,. .+ •W .... � � L I I L L I I � I SIB �� o I , it LJO z J F- z 1 L° P I Q ADMIRAL WAY — - \TI —� T C lF'RS I I I � ti ---- O Q � GENERAL PLANTING SITE PLAN 0' 16' 32' 64' Z 0 0 NOTES: TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES: � w 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� 0 Corms nuttallii `Gracilis' Pacific Dogwood 3 cal 8 2 DISCUSS LIMITS OF WORK AND METHODS. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL 2 ALL WORK HALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITHSPECIFICATIONS - O S 8 03 "IRRIGATION 0° 00 C C � � 0 o Ln Ln Chamaecypans obtusa Slender Hinoki Cypress 3" cal NOT COMMENCE UNTIL ACCESS, LMITS OF WORK, AND METHODS ARE SYSTEMS". < 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 z E CDLn Lq o zW�� 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. a J X � Q0 0 44.1 Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweetgum 3 Q o N 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 . Ln 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 Ln ILL] o 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. o 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 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 a 0 U L C C) NNd 6L d U) CU Y 0 IL 0 z 0 E W 0 r_ a U s 0 CL U) W CD LO 0 O M N O N z J a E s U a Packet Pg. 365 Attach a CONCRETE WALK uc> CONCRETE WALL I n z Orrl 1*1 0 8' 16' 32' 1 UPPER PLAZA -PLANTING SITE PLAN 1 = 16 -0 )I FLOATING DOCK 01 FLOATING DOCK I� LPLANTING AREA #8 $ 9 uDo7s uDo7.2 PLANTING AREA #9 1 7:::: I I I I LI I I Wo ... o.o o _J I lo� W I I I o,� g'. g '. o W W PLANTING AREA #10 L--------- J UD07.3 [PL NTING REA #4 u o .2 r— — — — — — — 000000 ^0000 L—__J L---J L--J -------------- � 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 PLANTING AREA #12 3 —�------ UD07.3 o. W W I I °W I I I I * W I ---------J PLANTING AREA # 15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I WWWWWWWWW W IW W W W W W o I WWWWW WWW�,; 1 s� I W WW �WW L------------------------------------------------------------------------------- j 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 �— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PLANTING AREA #13 4 UD07.3 EXISTING PLANTER TO REMAIN 00 EDMONDS YACHT CLUB FLOATING DOCK 300 ADMIRAL WAY EXISTING PLANTERS TO REMAIN I CENTRAL PLAZA PLANTING SITE PLAN 8' 16 32 NORTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 0 8' 16' 32' 2 1 „= 16'-0�, 3 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 .. z � Lw � w Q cn LLw Q z z C:) u o V) cn O w � Q O Cn Cn � w z O zC: O z Q I I I C -C g J O�� EL LLu 0 Q � � W Q LJJ 77 ::D w C45 L T J O Q O F- V) zz Oz(-0 CL Lu C� OLLJz �Q z J zz J �W in 0 0 H r � w o zo c 00 0 6 M CD CD E Ln Q1 c Q z � N � N c O Ln Ln c zw Qo • ^ Q0 o z O CD Ln u N � s cn —1 x a LL 0 0 Q N N w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U D07.1 Sheet t Packet Pg. 366 Attach a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o°o°00000° X x x x °000°o ° ° °00000° o00000000° 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 ,,.. L., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n ❑-------------------------� I I I I I I I I I I I O 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 I I OODOo000000�00�00 NOOTKA ROSE SALAL 12 7 AMANOGAWA FLOWERING CHERRY 3 0 O 2 0000 000 0 0 ° 000 oo° KINNIKINNIK 80 SF 000 00 °o 0 000 00 0 °00 0 0 AMANOGAWA FLOWERING CHERRY 3 o°oo °o o°0o°Oo °o 0 0°00 0 00 0°00 °000000 o°Oo°Oo°Oo oo°Oo°Ooo 0 o° o0 00 °Ooo oo° 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 16 PLANTING AREA #3 0 4' s' 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 �/8 NTING AREA #7 � 4' 8' 16' PLANTING AREA #8 �4� 8� 16' 7 1 = 1'-0" (8)- 1 /8" = 1'-0" no -- gj -. - 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 oar oa��oa�D �oa�o�oa�D r ��OD ��Do p�ODo o�ODo � OD ° ++++++++++ + ++++ ++ + 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 , ❑ ❑ 000000000000°0°0 0000000000000c) , I 0000000000000000 --J 0000000000000000 0000000000000°0° 000000000000000° 0000000°0000000 —, 000°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 o w c� U Q w L _ z C:� C:) u o i) O cn w I/ Q �J � O z� r n O � O lJ l ' O� o Wow 0 U J LI O U z— E Z 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 w (-o Q0 CD oQO O Ln cn N d .� Cn x v w -- Li- 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. 367 Attach a 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 LLL 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 � = 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 F 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. 12L� L'-L ALL (TO 0'-6" (SEE SPEC) 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 Cn -0 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� 0) 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 0 Q N N w O Q z cn O z F-: O El- Cn cc > u w cn w w 0 w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U D07.3 Sheet of N C d t Q 3� 0 a a) 0 w i x co r O O Ln r O O M N O N Z J IL c as E m t1 is Q Packet Pg. 368 Attach a o O I I o°o I I 00o I I 0 o I I 0000000.00000000o ❑ ❑ 0°0000000°0°0°0° KINNIKINNIK °° 195 SF ° ° ° °°°---� °o°0°0°00000000o I 0000000000000000 000000000000000 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I I 00000o0000000°0°0° o°°o° 00 I I °0 00o ❑ ❑ OOOO°O O00O o°o o°o°o° 0O0 °OOoo00 0OOO 0000000 000 0°000000 000 000000000 0 O 0°0°00000° OOOOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 00000000000°00 0 00000000000 ° / 1 0 3 WINTER DAPHNE SWEET BOX 20 SF 6 Q 4ke g Q�Do 0�0 OQ� OQ D OQ�D 0 �D OQ ��Do ��ODo Q�Oo pQ�D ° —of BD OQUD Lit + + + + + + + + +++ ++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ 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�1 j811 = 1'-o" -- - CHIEF JOSEPH PINE SWEETGUM 4 4 >000 KINNIKINNIK °°°° 24 SF °°°°°°°° 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 KINNIKINNIK 75 SF MUGO PINE 3 TALL OREGON GRAPE 6 HEAVENLY BAMBOO 14 PLANTING AREA # 12 0 4' 81 3 1 /8ii = 11-0ii �-o w w X N O LL- L+w o w O W Q Q z w Lc = O cn w w � Q O cn cn � o z� U) O 0 O cn 0 O�� ui E O LIJ --C) w LIL- O�� V) z� _J Q� Q E F— Q w O<(_0 Z O Lw F-- Z � Q = O J � z CL O Q z o r = 21 •y Lw --- � � � O C 00 O O� 0-) CD L Ln� Ln p1 Q z � O N N c Ln Ln c zwc_0 (-D CL0^Q0 CDd u Ln cn L d .� Cn X 2 LLJ Q w 0 0 Q z cn O z � o h cn nc > o w cn w w 0 w Q 0 Project No. 2045 Drawing No. U DO7.4 Sheet ccf Packet Pg. 369 RECEIVED �, PEDESTRIAN LIGHT FRONT VIEW 3T;. �rwc[151 aiao odExa uvsvnc[o s[e 3 & PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED SIDE VIEW you PEDESTRIAN LIGHT DETAILED BOTTOM VIEW U 11/2"=1'D' 5 dn. PEDESTRIANLIGHi BRACKETDETAIL NOTE: y 'PEDESTRIAN LIGHT' TO BE LEO AREA LIGHT LE SERIES: POLE: 12FI Wi:4 LB EPA: 1.14 FI2 PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR MATERIAL POW DERCOAT METAL -'TITANIUM' (Q LEO Area Light 0 Fop.. t D.1. flv.l I I L 1 \L1 LJ w t O Z O E OMI�IaY1M•11 L•.tc•, • rr r� . �0��. W •Orr.•.w•..I.r Y•�� . •.wl • • •rr+.rrrr•�rrrr r.rrrr� �F O a..�..�...rr�•..0 �. 0 •i. �. ��. r,r err d •u �.rrr rr� v YwM/ M.•.•rl •M.I••S' N � �/rOr,t 1iwi. rr ar ww �. �w••••u w r••r "MOM 1..�.••w•rr �i r� rllr�.rr ti VID •.� r� 1.� •err f_E•. wlf w MA—MAU 1r. r.� rrm ar r.w.. E•1� w^ � Ger 7- wr= r ►•+•....� ..r 1 } Pit now %�� ►�`L ���iW��1`n►�'s Packet Pg. 370 <. CD m Q U) CD a CD Cr (D A N O N 0 T1 N O) Co m w A CJ1 V 0 O O m 0 Sr (o w D m w w 3 w N O O A Co O A W r 0 0 n r r ;a zocc m O O N O D m m 3 M O D O W N _z U)O S ? rt m CD w v o r n O � � N n CO Cn O O A 0 0 O S N m 0 c 3 N � C w, m m D o 3 O w 3 a 3 (D. 7 N 3 0 (0 N A N ( (D a Tm CD C01 � rF N C a 0 G N V Ln O 83 O N a 3 3 CD U n y N r m a m o-0a 3'OLo � 3 7 w w O a a d <° o D w =3 o o 63 D �? (a � o o m o w 3 m . w o °gym aw-a a 1 w, -o o `° w N _ V O N O o N CDN w 0 S 3 m a 3 (o 0 w . � c a C =^ o N N N 1 O n oCD N -O Ot N o N O A (D m O. O) O' N Q m CD a 0 m N Attachm a m DSO 6i T --7 Z < m O PO C O d O cn 3 a (D+ rt O Z r m m � W 90 O -0 m wrCz W O O O a N j C 1 9 I 0 3 Ln Packet Pg. 371 M G. (A (D Q U) CD '5 CD a (D A N O N 0 3 E _ L T �. ,' 3. N ° 3 w 7 w 3 P 3 w (D C+ C Q �. n O Vl 7 p Z 0 3 (a Cr m 3 'rt in Q p =CD A ° = N 3 Q (D NO (D o 3- < o CD C cn m w rn Q � 7 N m o- o 0 N O 3 � a 0 Q m 7 N =r CI LD. O ? (O w 0 3 m D Q CD w N 7 N < O. CD O N CD N N N � Ut OJ O O w 3 o CD o m 0 L. O N (D Oi (4 0 S m O ' O Q 0 w n Q m N Q 0- CD a w �L 7 Cl O Q w O (D O (OD 7 N 0 3 c O C n w _� E 3 c 3 m (0 Q s CD 5' o 0 3 0 w N < O CD 8- 3 O O N C 0 3 NN Na rn CD o Attachm a 0 DSO 0') T Z 7 Q < m0 POC 1 1 rt is 1 d O cn a cD rt O Z r m W w O 90 O 0 -0 m wr(Si W ° O O a N r C fi O 1 3 Ln Packet Pg. 372 CG1 <. (A O Q U) (D a (D Cr (D A N O N 0 r m m a N m T 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A W W N N A A W W N N C A W W A A W W A A O W A W V N m W V N (n W V N 0 N — T T T T T T T T T T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0! Cr 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 0 Am 0 0 Am 0 0 A 0 V (n 0 0 V (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 V (n V 01 OD W A N A N A N N W (n W (n W (n V A V A V A m m O V O W A (O O O V (n N n G) C C C C C C C C C C C C m o O O o 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 N N N G) N N G) D 0 G7 G) G � to T Attachm a 0 DSO 0') T 0 7 Q < m0 PO C rt C)10 W I v O� d C cn 3 a C CD+ O Z r m W W O 90 O 0 -0 m wrCz W O O —� i O a N r C --h O 3 Ln Packet Pg. 373 A G. fA CD Q U) (D '5 (D a (D A N O N 0 C7 oC r EX. U) rm 0 v r 3 w (D CD m -1 n CD o _ _ CL Co ° 0 3 CD ry 0 (n D a a 0 a N m Q O X' CD 0 p M O CL C 5.0 CA 13 (D O N w 0 0 m N 0 m co (A 3 0 CD O 0 _� -a m o m _ O 3 3' o o ,c' c N c co 0 = F Q = Q o 0 Q c O+ 0 0 o v 3 CD (D O O CD m =3 N = 7 � CD N 3 (Q = o a0 C CD N 3 O fD N 0- ID T. N C=3 O �p = CD O a 3 N :3 0 C O n O .. fD o p c 0 N r = N N = CLCL(D O O- -00 O fD -n 3 O (D Co fA 0 .0 N (D o N O m � �. o (D N v O 7 (D (Q N C 3 N 3 0 O (D � M O Q C 0 O CL rH n 0 O 7 N -7 N S. _ o v y a =r m CL X 0 c T. N 6 m _ Q A m a CD T1 O 3 0 Q 9 Q N _ O Q 7 -O 0 N Q _ N O aO o 0 O 3 = p� N� 7 N f/ = T. O fD 3 C N N_ `G = 3 9 CD O 3 N "O N a N Q N N fD (D O O a c' w 6 (D 3 CD Q CD w _ 0- 0 O Q CD D rn ° CL- a w 9 w a fD 2: N 0- m Q o <_. m Sn m CD w Q m < O CL m a N O (D O �p 0 (n L1 O o Z N 0' _ O 0 Q F 0 O _ O M S 'O+ O O O 3 U) CD 3 N O Z 0 0 0 m Attachm a 0 0 DSO 6i T --7 CL C < m O PO O 'O E 10 rt v O� W I d r m rCA) O -m W-j r* fi O 3 L Packet Pg. 374 m (D (D Q C- v c N K W N N c 2n 0 0 0 CA N_ N Cn A TI N m W W A Ot O O� o W W W CD N c CC O D N Q X CD G CD 3 0 3 o 2 m 3 CD CD m o w o CroSD W 0 0 0 3 w cD cL 0 O O (p 7 "6 S rF Qi ai a o E?. N A: C. C. C_ CDn s N _ O N m CD CD Cn ci N — N CCD — c S 7 W (D 7 O CD C) m m m o 0 01 CD CD N w m m o o a. ?S o m o W 3 oa o -0 CD CCDL N, n Z Cl)C• (A (A OJ O (1 O CD ff+ 0) v 3 (D CD I Q�-� c v Q m Q N a S O (D 3 (D 3 O cn n 6 o s w Q (D (D ar 7 `G O T � 0 x 3 C 07 3 O 07 O G) CD 0 w m m En 0 Attachm a O D O � T T 00 PO 7 i m O W �0 I O � 0 O o O a N > t MN O Z N C O W r o o a N r* C E fi O 1 3 Ln Packet Pg. 375 /®10 RECEIVED I L I I II I I I I I I I II I I I °I I I I I I I I I °I I II - J � r ,: C a r ' i ° t —I— — • � lip ' ���. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN j . a�I Aft 0 t- a I I I I O d I I I I I I I Z O O Z u N I I Z I C moo O I I owe � z�N I° € oJ3. W �i W a E O �� •. I o 0 3 Z °€, O z g d Q o y - 0 Y, U w0 0 s�. �O OZ _ = O F1 't Yi o o � x r O O 49 r O O M O IN -_- J a c m EP-j-t No. s 2045 GENERAL NOTE: V Drawing N:,. HATCH DENOTES AREA OF PROPOSED I (a UDXX QSheel of Packet Pg. 376 Attachm U 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 w Seattle, WA 98125 Q 206.631.8680 Packet Pg. 377 Attachm U 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: yt i�c1i- ---Steve Quarterman Senior Associate Document reviewed by: Jeffrey Fellows, PE Vi resident, 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. 378 Attachm�a� 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. 379 Attachm U 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. 380 Attachm�a� 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. 381 Attachm U Landau Associates 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 1 M PACT 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 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 Q Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction v February 16, 2023 Packet Pg. 382 Attachm�a� 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. 383 Attachm U Landau Associates 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. 384 Attachm�a� 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. 385 Attachm�a� 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. 386 Attachnn 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. 387 Attachm�a� 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. 388 Attachm�a� 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. 389 Attachm U 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. 390 Attachm�a� 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. 391 Attachnn 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. 392 Attachm�a� Landau Associates 5.0 MITIGATION This section outlines a mitigation sequence and mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, waterways, and associated buffers. 5.1 Mitigation Sequencing ECDC Chapter 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. 393 Attachnn 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. 394 Attachnn 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. 395 Attachnn 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. 396 Attachm U 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.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. 397 Attachm U 0 3 d 0 E 21 puget or lS 24' Caspers St z v r Puget Sound Project Location c1ty: ark ay i 104 220th St SW 3 v a' r 0 0 Creek 0 1 a 3 0 S lot - a � o ; Q Project E Everett Location N o 0.5 1 o Seattle Spokane Tacoma o I Olympia Miles Washington o I a Data Source: Esri 2012 North Portwalk and Figure Seawall Reconstruction Lid L A N DAU Port of Edmonds Vicinity Map 1 + s 0 C I. 1 9 s Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 398 Attachm U v a Legend Project Area Study Area (200-ft buffer) LA LSANDAU Source: Bing Aerial Imagery, 2021 R ILI T s Arnie's I Restaurant i A . I Edmonds Yacht Club ti Port Administration Building 0 250 500 Scale in Feet Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. North Portwalk and Figure Seawall Reconstruction Project Area Map Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 399 1 Attachm U APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures A (14 O N z J a 0 0 L W N C O U d 3 CU U) _ 3 O a x 0 z W _ 0 E M W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i 0 0_ 0 W CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a _ d E w Q Packet Pg. 400 ent 11 C Packet Pc N i � Y 0 o v a >0 N 0 i ao Z Am m GJ C S � 3 6 Y E r z N a a �F c �8 � n P � O p� • O� �b 9 n� H Q 0� Z �m n _ Q rW^ V W W Z dQ Q Z 0 0 0 z O g w a ? �E1 E • i 3 D. aoeoo=eee�' v z J. J ent 11 C Packet Pc Attachment 11 C 12/3/2021 \\edmd.W01\prole ,\173\038.010\R\FWHC Cri[ ,..a \N-3.d.a Priority Habitats and Species on the Web t r v Repo tOwty: iin OM21 PHS Specgmfmamats Overvew PHS Spoc4WHabdats Detads AOt� Meg AprOc Md DMCL/[/y•ww..wr.w..rwNw.M.r.M.vlwI�yr.r I�.wtiM.r MVM�rwsw...w rrw.rrr■ Mw•wN•rwrw.. ~• •.wow w.w�ry w/ �wr�w�ww Mw+. w.K rwv� r�rwwiw wy wsww�tirl�r•wlM w1 wYw w.wrrllF �IwI.•VwY� r r.. w �.r r1 w.r.A w� Y MV�Mwrw � � w.w Y rtiw �Ilrw. r�1..r♦ ti Mw w)��Y� �111w.w. ww.w w�.+tir'I M 1w �/ w wr.. Y NA tiw� lrww � ��/ N.rti rnw w wwrw � ..iwr rrr Mom. h"Mr •..w•• M rnw� wrrr •w ApI.Y w �/�wwwwl .� r/r+w � w r.w. w North Por walk and Figure Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Priority Habitats and Species Lit L A N D A U Edmonds, Washington on the Web A-3 9b Nwrr pl,l HA Aon/uY NA 1VIn� 9ORf Q,tw1N SO."Mn'w rws.w 31�^ Csrn. Ana w.. ww.ro • PM Cos E7ABtlSN MMNIYfN-! Full G�..Fr sOVO fJMF' LosF� nt0 YY�d► SMK� hdwr $Mw MA•r 1fIMw MM RI$ Urrq U.P1t91. 0�\M 90C11 Wd OeMMo M N Drpa Rwawon ASMMPE D M�rA4convrMmFor� 1io r wrw .ci w. p�•y;ggrw�ewlwerw � DAY ?49� �IWFr Packet Pc Attachm U M N O N z J a _ 0 L W N C O U d APPENDIX C Staff Qualifications. 3 O a x O z W C O E W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 404 Attachm U Steven Quarterman Senior Associate Ecologist 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. LALANDAU Packet Pg. 405 Attachm U 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 11 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 II 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 II 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 • S S O C t n 1 F' Packet Pg. 406 Attach m� 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 Packet Pg. 407 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 O �. �d G e°V I /�Z3 [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. 408 Attach m TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Scope of Services................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Geologic Setting..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Surface Conditions..............................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Subsurface Conditions........................................................................................................2-1 2.3.1 Soil Conditions.................................................................................................2-2 2.3.2 Groundwater Conditions..................................................................................2-2 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................3-1 3.1 Seismic Design Considerations...........................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Liquefaction Potential......................................................................................3-3 3.1.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80.050 and ECDC 23.80.060) ..............3-4 3.2 Bulkhead Design.................................................................................................................3-5 3.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................3-6 3.2.2 Tieback Anchor Design.....................................................................................3-7 3.2.3 Batter Pile Tension Capacity............................................................................3-8 3.3 Pile Foundations.................................................................................................................3-8 3.3.1 Axial Capacity of Single Piles............................................................................3-8 3.3.2 Lateral Pile Capacity........................................................................................3-9 3.3.3 Constructability Considerations.....................................................................3-10 4.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS.................................................4-1 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT......................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................6-1 FIGURES Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan 3 Lateral Earth Pressure, Static and Seismic Conditions, Sections 1 through 5 4 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 1 5 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 2 6 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 3 7 Lateral Earth Pressure, Liquefied Condition, Section 5 8 Axial Pile Capacity — 12-inch Diameter Pipe Pile Packet Pg. 409 Attachm� 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 Packet Pg. 410 Attach m 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 Packet Pg. 411 Attach m� This page intentionally left blank. M (N 0 N z J a 0 L W N C O U d m 3 cu 0 U) _ 0 le cu 3 O a x 0 z W _ 0 E m W 4- 0 r- O (L c 0 E w a w �3 i 0 0_ 0 w m U) i w x co 0 C LO 0 0 M N O N z J a _ d E w Q Packet Pg. 412 Attachm� 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. Packet Pg. 413 Attach m 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). Packet Pg. 414 Attach m — 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. Packet Pg. 415 Attachm� 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. Packet Pg. 416 Attachm� • 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. Packet Pg. 417 Attach m 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 1 Personal communications between author and Dennis Titus of CG Engineering, Inc. Packet Pg. 418 Attachm� 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,) Fa, Fv = short -period (0.2 second) and long -period (1.0 second) site coefficients, respectively Packet Pg. 419 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 420 Attach m 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 Packet Pg. 421 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 422 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 423 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 424 Attachm� 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 Packet Pg. 425 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 426 Attachm� 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) Whidbey Sand (Reese) Below 67.6 60 38 — Formation mudline Table 6. LPILE Soil Parameters for Liquefied Condition at Section 2 Eso 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 — 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 anticipated to move laterally during the CLE. The impact of this moving soil should be evaluated by 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. 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 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. The contractor should be required to complete a Wave Equation Analysis of Piles (WEAP) to evaluate driving conditions. Landau is available to provide WEAP input parameters upon request. Packet Pg. 427 Attachm� 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. Packet Pg. 428 Attachm� 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. Packet Pg. 429 Attachm� 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. Packet Pg. 430 Attach m 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/. Packet Pg. 431 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 432 Attachm� Puget Sound Project Location N 0 0.5 1 Miles LALANDAU A S S O C I A T E S Data Source: Esri. North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Port of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington i Q 3 Q E a 0 524 ty > eOwdo rk pO way moire su --- m L V I �- 104 220th St SW 7 I C I I o I Q S � 232nd St SW=, � I m 3 o = 3 � a 0 Seattle Spokane Tacoma Ilympia Washington Vicinity Map Figure 1 a Packet Pg. 433 Attach m Legend S Approximate Boring Location and Designation C J Alignment Sections LALANDAU A$$ O C I A T E$ Data Source: CG Engineering 0 70 140 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Scale in Feet Replacement Edmonds, Washington Site and Exploration Map Packet Pg. 434 Attachm� 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. 435 Attachm� 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. 436 Attachm� 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. 437 Attachm� 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. 438 Attachm� 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. 439 Attach m 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 H 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. Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Figure LALANDAU Seawall Replacement Axial Pile Capacity - 12 inch Diameter Pipe Pile 8 A s s o c i A T E s Edmonds, WA Packet Pg. 440 Attach m� M N O N z J a O L W N C O U d APPENDIX A Field Explorations C. 3 O a O z W C O E W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 441 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 442 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. 443 Attachm� F-10 i B-1 LAI Project No: 0173038.010 a SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE c ture Content (%)Liquid C P-ti. Limit Limit t 20 40 60 80 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger g >E E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined ca ♦ SPT N-Value ♦ ONon-Standard N-Value ` _ @ 3 20 40 60 80 g Q > 01 o � cn Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. c X Fines Content (%) X w in m � Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 t 06 of tj cD 20 40 60 80 s AC Asphalt t t SIP (ASPHALT) < 0 Tan, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 0.1 (medium dense, moist) c 16 (FILL) ♦: u z �7I7 _ IIII�II 13 0 ♦ t a SIP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel 1.0 (medium dense, wet) 1 12 ♦ G S W; GS -loose t 1.5 7 79 t 15 �7�7 �� Illllulllll'' 1.0 22 20 1.5 32 L� 1.5 33 0 z 0 0 [30 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) X* 9: z m N N 35 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 ti North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 Edmonds, Washington A S S O C I A T E S Figure A-2 a (1 of 2) Packet Pg. 444 Attachm� SAMPLE DATA iv o (D � 0 o to L z SZ N > E c >> o N 3 o m w in xs 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. z B-1 LAI Project No: 0173038.010 a SOIL PROFILE c Moisture Content (%) C Plastic Liquid Limit Limit t 20 40 60 80 o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger g A SPT N-Value A E - E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined m 0 Non -Standard N-Value A s @ CO >> 3 20 40 60 80 o E U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. X Fines Content (%) X m v BCS 03/08/21 Logged By: Date: ° U (D 20 40 60 80 s SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt (medium SM dense, wet) A W;GS --- ............. SP- Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel and SM silt (dense, wet) X* A 70 ~ Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. m 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. o 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. m n ti North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-1 Edmonds, Washington A S S O C I A T E S Figure A-2 a (2 of 2) Packet Pg. 445 Attachm� F-10 B-2 i LAI Project No: 0173038.010 a c SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE ture Content (%)Liquid C P-ti. Limit Limit t 20 40 60 80 Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger g >E E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined ca ♦ SPT N-Value ♦ ONon-Standard N-Value ` _ @ 3 20 40 60 80 g Q > 01 ❑ � cn Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. c X Fines Content (%) X w in m � Logged By: BCS Date: 03/08/21 t 06 IY cD cD 20 40 60 80 s AC Ashpalt t t SP- (ASPHALT) < SM 0 Tan, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt _ (loose, moist) 1.0 5 (FILL) ♦ u z 1.0 W; GS -very loose ` 2 ❑ = Q i SP ---- Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (very - � �(J 1.5 4 loose, wet) ♦ G S W; GS -with gravel t 1.5 3 i 15 �7�7 �� Illllulllll'' 1.0 16 20 1.5 29 SP Gray, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel (medium dense, wet) (WHIDBEY FORMATION) W; GS SP_ SM W; GS 1.0 14 0 z 0 0 [30 5� 1.5 34 Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt (medium dense, wet) -grades to with gravel z N tV C Z 35 J o Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. d 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. E t North Portwalk and Seawall Figure LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 A_3 Q Edmonds, Washington (1 of 2) A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 446 Attachm� SAMPLE DATA iv z FU �' $ r O N � @ Q N U >O LL N D > E c U 3o N o w in xs 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. z B-2 LAI Project No: 0173038.010 c SOIL PROFILE c Moisture Content (%) Plastic Liquid Limit Limit 20 40 60 80 0 � o Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger g A SPT N-Value A E 4 E Ground Elevation (ft): Not Determined m 0 Non -Standard N-Value A t cn 3 20 40 60 80 a U) Drilled By: Holocene Drilling Inc. X Fines Content (%) X m U) Logged B BCS Date: 03/08/21 gg y' ° U D (9 20 40 60 80 I SP- Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt SM (medium dense, wet) t XO A : t -becomes dense 70 ~ Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. m 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 North Portwalk and Seawall LANDAU Reconstruction Log of Boring B-2 Edmonds, Washington A S S O C I A T E S Figure A-3 a (of 2) Packet Pg. 447 Attach m� APPENDIX E Laboratory Soil Testing A (14 O N z J a 0 0 L W N C O U d 3 cu U) _ 3 O a x 0 z W _ 0 E W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i 0 0_ 0 CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a _ d E w Q Packet Pg. 448 Attach m 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. Packet Pg. 449 Attachm� 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 Reconstruction Grain Size Distribution a LALANDAU R Edmonds, Washington 1 A S S O C I A T E S Packet Pg. 450 Attachm� 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 a B-2 Packet Pg. 451 Attach m� M N O N z J a O L W N C O U d APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations C. 3 O a O z y C O E W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 452 Attach m� 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. Packet Pg. 453 Attach m� M N O N z J a O L W N C O U d APPENDIX C Summary Logs of Previous Explorations C. 3 O a O z y C O E W 4- 0 t O a c a� E w a w �3 i O a d CO i w x co 0 0 LO 0 0 M N O N z J a c d E w Q Packet Pg. 454 DRAFT Attach m 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. 455 Attachm� EXISTING BOARDWALK EB-1 O' 3 0 w z PROPOSED EDMONDS YACHT CLUB w �� LEASE AREA o Z< w I-� x w w� z a LL� w o O= U ✓Ui Y z 0 J Z 39 cr�� LU w w V> Z y— EB-2 z w w • z ; --r v 7777 U m I10' 4 2' 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. 456 Attachm a EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 DAMES & MOORE aa Z w RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Q 0 Blows/Foot 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 ? — 5 - — loose, saturated, gray -brown medium SAND with 8 some silt and trace fine gravel (fill?) 12 1 3 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 j 2 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, modlfted by geologic Intmpretabons, engineering analysis, end Judgment. They ere not necesser{ly representative of other times and locations. We will not accept reaponsiblllty for the use or Interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 457 Attachm a EXPLORATION BORING L Number EB-1 PAGE 2 OF 2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a o a ? 0 � O DAMES & MOORE RESISTANCE Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 very dense, saturated, gray fine SAND with trace - gravel 3' heave - washed - T 15 24 50/8, 5018" BOH @ 39' 40 — 45 50 — - - 55 60 - -- - 65 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of Bile Wloratory hole, modified by geologic Intarpretsdons, engineering analysis, and Judgment They are not necessargy representative of other times and locations. we will not accept responsibliiiy for the use or Interpretation by others of Informatlon presented on this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 458 Attachm I EXPLORATION BORING LO Number EB-2 DAMES & MOORE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ad ? W ¢ o ;E RESISTANCE Blows/Foot o 0 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 -' — medium dense, saturated, gray -brown, gravelly, 7 17♦ 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 _ 14 31 79 I'heave - washed 48 BOH @ 29' 30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the lime and location of tins axpioretory hale, modified by geologic Interpretetlona, engineering analysts, and Judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We wtit not accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of Intonation presented on this log. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Packet Pg. 459 H - ADMIRAL WAY Attachm a M N NORTH SCALE (IN FEET) EDAM YAJW .0 Iaa $•ter ]ROLE SITE PLAN MAP BUILDING REHABILITATION PROJECT PORT OF EDMONDS, EDMDNDS, WA H ONG WEST & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 N C d E t V ca Q t 3 i 0 a d 0 U) i w x c� 0 C Li 0 0 M N O N z J IL c a� E 0 a Packet Pg. 460 h HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES SPT RESISTANCE/HOISTUAE x o MOISTURE f d SPT (blows/Foot) w J d 0 10 20 30 4Q 50 50 10 00 N D_t_ t t t t 1_!—(� l�l 5 i, 1 j BORING LOG SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION Attachm a ' 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 Ned. 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 w x 0 N w a 3 BORING BH-1 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATID1t 15 ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 39 f t . packet Pg. 461 Attach m HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG VT RESISTANCENOISTL*E i a 1401STURE X d SPT (blows/foot) ,Cn .J d Y 0 10 20 3a as 50 60 70 eo c4r, 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) Med_ 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 SAND: 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 Flay, Edmonds PROJECT NUMBER: B991 cc w w x 0 N LU 0- 0 BORING BH-2 DATE DRILLED: 12-26-89 SURFACE ELEVATION: 16 ft. TOTAL DEPTH' 43.5 f t packet Pg. 462 Attachm a Site and Explorat-ion Plan B--3 9� Approx. Original ~9B-4 Proposed Breakwater B--5 Fxistin 9 Brea kwatef � Proposed Breakwater J Extension 1 Existing Bulkhead res� P _PropQ5ed Sheet Pile Breakwater Existing Bulkhead 1 Admiral Way &B-1 Boring Location and Number rya ate 9 M N O N z J P.m. 0 w 0 L 0 a� o: a� Y_ R 3 0 a 0 z c 0 E M w 0 1= 0 a c E a� 3i 0 a a� M w i x cc 0 0 Ln 0 0 M N O N z J a c a� 0 100 200 E Scale in Feet J-1327-01 April 1984 a HART-CROWSER & asspntntp.t in Figure 11 Packet Pg. 463 Attachm� Boring Log B -1 SOIL STANDARD LABORATORY INTERPRETATION PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS N r O ,,AD,Pdund -.,qhl_ ]d -ch e,00l ' N ADDroalrTlale (1`fDY/fd Sur1a[s Efsvalion rn Fser i Depth per Fool Feel Samols _ ; J + ZAslows D Loose, wet, dark gray, fine to medium SAl[D with scattered slit and organics. 5-1 Piedium dense, saturated, gray, fine gravelly SAND. S ATD 5-2 ID Grades to fine to medium SAND. 5-3 l3 Grades to fine gravelly SAND. 5-4 zo 1 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 v • Natural Wafer Content (%) Ln O Ground Wafer Level sampling LaGoratO Tests Notes ^_ ch N 2' 0.0 Sow 500on US Groin Site Analrul TVV Tnar.11 VnConao6d... o , Son dlsv .'rnt s•e In larb•n..s ■nd O N arnlon.l! Sul Sampl■ CH _ Consolddafion Test undrs,neo rdloal C>t+'.crf mar e■ en Ouu Z ] OO. Shrrbr rufla % Pumareddr ism ICU !f4•gl CDntohdalaa Vndr■matl ] W.ler Le"I d wd,[Had. in For Iha dale J . d n Same 4 terCJr.00 r•-d "ar •.rr r lh Ih@ IIm! of .. ^ cvll•na ssr..o'r CS Da C1 Shur TCD Tlisnal Consohtlal•d Drs,nad fear Warlr la.aI Wild) OV VnCon6ned COmprar+Hon J. Wrlrr C&-jVrl Aor dsTsfnnnid on •afr � Alp AN l,ms of Or,ll,n9 A Flo SamDl! pace. Walef COnlG nt [x.) small rarrrrs nor on s!m?las wlrh� ;a r,* sampler Pushed 7V Torrane• ttl Plaal,[ 1- t t Llowd INaT alpnlNCanl C•,+61 denlanL Oba ■r ral.pn Wan Tnr or Sldllad SeU•on Hr IFaH a■uI i C all T. PP PGCPen Urdme qr. rar L,m,l l�1 L. 1 17.1.. Cynlan, yam., ate, Cr rn J-1327-Q 1 March 1984 Q HART-CROWSER 8 associates Inc Figure Packet Pg. 464 Attach m� Loc.AT(O �l S To?- No?-TH+ MAP-'o A GvLkH;—�AD � PLAc.E-M&n— BH- I � f. L>A o� Po P-t of EciioN c> s MA P-IN P,, � SO lo0 2co 300 SALE : FEETr SITE PLAN MAP HONG WEST NORTH BULKHEAD REPLACEMENT PROJECT & ASSOCIATES PORT OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FIGURE 2 Packet Pg. 465 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 vi based on the symbols recommendated it Classification system. Graphical log! jective field indentification of soi: data where available. Letter designat the basis of laboratory data and cal( SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS BOREHOLE SAMPLES ® 2.0' 00 Split Spoon (SPT) TShelby Tube a3.0' 00 Split Spoon with Brass Rings Grab Samples (cuttings) mCore Run TEST PIT SAMPLES Bag (bulk sample) OGrab (small volumn) TShelby Tube HAND BORING SAMPLES Non-standard penetration (40 lb. hammer with 12 inch drop) OGrab Sample (post hole) IShelby Tube ROTARY BOREHOLE SAMPLES mContinuous Core Samples irious soil types are i the Unified Soil are based on sub- s, and laboratory .ions are assigned on ulations. GROUNDWATER INSTALLATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS entonite Seal rout Backfill uttings Backfill or Caved Hole iezometer Casing Q Groundwater Level (noted during drilling) 2 Groundwater Level (measured in piezometer after water level stabilized) lotted Piezometer Tip nd Backfill ATTERBERG LIMITS PL ILL o - Natural Moisture PL - Plastic Limit LL - Liquid Limit HONG WEST 9 ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 466 Attachm� 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. Nan -Cohesive Soil Standard Cohesive Soil Standard Approximate Shear Density Penetration Consistancy Penetration Strength in TSF Resistance Resistance (Blows/fool) (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 4-9 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 I 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. slickensidcd having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance. calcareous containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate. HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES Packet Pg. 467 Attach m� 1 W1] f— W W W �- 20 d LU 0 30 40 HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 U') I is is NO 0 1 14 H BORING LOG SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION ,•. t �•t� 2' Asphalt over 1/2' of 5/8' Crushed Rock Very loose, dark red brown, fine to medium '• SAND: trace silt 6 some fine gravel; '• scattered wood fragments 9 other organic debris; damp. (Fill) --.Sp Loose to medium dense, gray, gravelly, fine .: SW 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) SP 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 LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90086 PAGE: 1 OF 2 BORING B-3 DATE DRILLED: 8/06/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 49.0 ft. I Packet Pg. 468 1 Attach m� 4 I— W W lL �6 a w 0 7 HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 so u-) SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION D , ................... ;...... ...;....... .. is All 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 M O tV W a 6 BORING B-3 OATE ORILLEO: B/06/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. w Q TOTAL DEPTH: 49.0 ft Packet Pg. 469 Attach m lI 10 �-A 20 1 HONG WEST 9 ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d ME 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so U"") SYMBOLS 0 INA II, DESCRIPTION SP 2' Asphalt over 1/2' 5/8' Crushed Rock Medium dense, brown to gray, fine SAND: some gravel; dry to damp. (Fill) Yr SW Medium dense, brown to gray; fine to '.� SP coarse SAND: some gravel; moist to wet; 1 bedded with interbedded fine and coarse ` sand . (Marine Sand Beds) gray gravelly sand .Y, 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) dense, gray, fine to medium sand, trace gravel ! :r tY SM Dense to very dense, gray, silty fine SAND: Sp trace medium to coarse sand S fine gravel; saturated; massive. (Marine Sand Bed) PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90066 PAGE: 1 OF 2 w w M 0 N W a V.M 9■m BORING BH-2 i DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. < TOTAL DEPTH: 54.0 ft. Packet Pg. 470 Attach m� LU LU LL n Lu 0 40 HONG WEST 9 ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % A SPT (blows/foot) w J d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 SYMBOLS SM SP 50 ............ ........:...... . 50/6' 60 70 BO 0 DESCRIPTION Dense to very dense, gray, silty fine SAND: as above. (Marine Sand Bed) Bottom of boring @ 54.0 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds; Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90086 PAGE: 2 OF 2 w w 0 IV LLLJ a M BORING BH-2 E DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 C.) w w SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. Q TOTAL DEPTH: 54.0 ft Packet Pg. 471 Attach m� 10 LU LU LL H 20 2 1— CL W O 30 40 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % d SPT (blows/foot) w _1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 co�c SYMBOLS A. ....... I 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 Sp to coarse SAND: beds of silty fine sand; damp to wet (below 11.5 ft.) . (Marine Beach Sand) l.•.11 .r 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; :tt a few silty sand interbeds: gravel well • rounded; saturated. .•}.� (Marine Sand Bed) massive, fine to medium sand interbed. ••l :'v i 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: i OF 2 BORING BH-1 DATE DRILLED: 8/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. TOTAL DEPTH: 67.5 ft. I s w w O N W a Packet Pg. 472 1 Attach m� y 5 w w w �6 F-- a w 0 7 HONG WEST G ASSOCIATES BORING LOG SPT RESISTANCE/MOISTURE % o MOISTURE % d SPT (blows/foot) w J a ME 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 c, SYMBOLS O a 1 m1: 4: r - i p ........ :........ c r .......... ...... r b m: BO/9': 0 O: 75/4': .............. ►� CEO SW ,:Asp DESCRIPTION - becoming finer, silty at depth. - sand is olive gray below. - fine sand with abundant shell fragments Very dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SANG: some silt; till -like. (Glacial Drift?) Large gravel 6 cobbles; harder drilling 10 ft. of slough 6 heave: no sample attempted 67.5. Bottom of boring @ 67.5 feet. PROJECT NAME: Port of Edmonds: Bulkhead Restoration LOCATION: Port of Edmonds Marina PROJECT NUMBER: 90OB6 PAGE: 2 OF 2 cc w w O N W a BORING BH-1 i DATE DRILLED: B/03/90 SURFACE ELEVATION: ft. ` TOTAL DEPTH: 67.5 ft. Packet Pg. 473 a APPENDIX 2 LA BORA TOR Y TES T PROGRA M RESUL TS HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES U K',1 K1 �.1 K"1 4 Packet Pg. 474 Attachm� HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Port of Edmonds North Bulkhead Replacement -----------------•----------------------------------- .................. •.._._.... ington 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington ----• ----------------------- Project Number: 90086 -----------------------------------•---------------------------------- Date Tested: 8-8-90 -------------------------------------------------------•---. •----------•--••-- Remarks: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------•-------------------....._...................------......-_--.............------. ----------------------------------------------------------- --..... --................................ 100 90 80 W 70 J J a 60 V) ►— 50 Z W L) 40 W IL 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-3 ------------------------------ Sample Number: S-6 --------------------------------- Depth: 27.5 feet --------------------------------------------------- Sample Description: Gravel: 7 ------------------------------------------ Sand: 84 Silt: 9 ............................................... Clay: ----------- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium crse Fine I Crs• SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 1 ------ i 1 1 1 --- ---- t ...... 1 1 ........ I ---....... i ' t--- i ............ ..................................................... ... 1 ... .;. . i . ....... ......4..}.. ....... 1 1 i r_.4_ . ---------------- ..........._ ------------------------------- ------ ......................................... 1 i ........ ... � i 1 -h- -t............................. -- i --. - -- - -------- ---------------- 1 - i 1 I 1 i V.: i ............. . .......... ..... ......................................._ ......................... ................... .....{. .------- ..... .....T---.- --- .,.--- }. -}......................... i 1 1 .--T---�._..----. 1 1 1 _..___.._ ....... _____._.___._.._ 1 . ...r_.-...._...... 1 S 2 0.001 Reviewed By: _..--5_.115- S 2 5 2 S 2 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES S 2 S 10 Packet Pg. 475 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: 100 90 80 W /70 J J a 60 in �- 50 Z UJ w 40 w a_ 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-2 ------------------------------ Sample Number: S-6 ................................. Depth: 22.5 feet -------------------- Sample Description: Gravel: 4 Sand: 93 ----•-------------------------------------- Silt: 3 ............................................... Clay: ------------------ --------------------------- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fin* I Medium Crse Fins I Crs• SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 VA 1 3/2 2 3 ..................................................................1...... ... .J.. .L. .1. .. ... .._...J. .... -. _. ... ............. ......................................... .... .+. ...Y... .Y. .F. .i. -------- -------. ---; -- 5 2 0.001 5 2 5 2 5 2 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By: ..... 5EIE.......... 5 2 5 10 Packet Pg. 476 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: -------------•--.....--------------------•-•-•--......----...---------------------- -------------•----•-•--...•---•--•--......--------------------------------------.....--------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•••------------... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------•-...-•-•--------------. IUU 90 80 W 70 J J 60 t-- 50 z W w 40 W CL 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-1 ----- ----------------------- Sample Number: S-6 ................................. Depth: 22.5 feet -------------------- - Description: Gravel: 31 .......................................... Sand: 65 Silt: 4 Clay: ............................................. Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fin• Medium Crss Fine I croe SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 I I I I I I 1 ............ ......•.................................. .... .'..... ...... i ... t. •t• •}..... 1.... ......r ..i. _ ............. ......................................... ...- .----Y--- I i .. .. -T. ••- _. I I ... -- ....... ....... ......�. ..-- ..... - ----- . i - — - ............ ................ ---•--•................................. -••....................................... ..._ ........ ..... ... I .x..}- }• -- ------ ---- - ----- ---------------- --------------•- -----------------------------------------•-- •--------------- . -------.�..-•-�--- ............. I I ---� ...}...,. --- i i ----- - .. - I I I , 0 2 0.001 5 2 0 2 5 2 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Reviewed By: ...... 5&15:.......... 5 2 5 10 Packet Pg. 477 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: 100 90 780 i-,.1 / 0 J J 60 in 50 Z W =U 40 w a_ 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-2 ---- ------- --------•---------- Sample Number: S-9 -•--------- --------------------- Depth: 37.5 feet ------------------------- -- -- Sample Description: Gravel: 0 Sand: 83 ........................................... Silt: 17 Clay: .............................................. Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Cree Fine I Crse SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/9 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 ............... ........................................ ........ A... .L. .1......................... .L-- ----L ............. ......................................... .... ....L... .L...................................... ..L....... ................ ............................................ .......}.....y,..... 1 ... Y...F...}------------------------- �...�---. ..Y... ti....�..... 5 2 0.001 Reviewed By: ..... ,5 5 2 5 2 5 2 0.01 0.1 1 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES 5 2 5 10 Packet Pg. 478 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: Atterberq Limits: non —plastic_.___..._ __ IVV 90 80 w 70 J J 60 N i- 50 z w 40 w °- 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-3 --------------- -------------- Sample Number: S-9 --------------------------------- Depth: 42.5 feet ------------••------------ -- Sample Description: Gravel: 0 Sand: 82 -•----------------------------------------- Silt: 18 ---------------------•--...---------- ------ C I ay: ---------- ---------------------------------- 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 i i ------------- ............. ---------------------------------------- ......................................... ..-. -;.. ..... .... -; ----- .... ... -. ..._... -•----- ..._..4..}._ -.--. - ..----4---4. . ............. ----------- ............................................ ----------------------------------------- .......... ..J.... 1 1 ----- ..... ----- i 1 i 1 1 I : .i. .L. .............................. 1 -- - ------ -. ---. -'I. 4- 1 ..L...J...i..- -- 1 ............... ..............................................i. .• . -- 1 .. -. • .. 1 1 1 1 ... J... .i. .i. .. ___._._. .. -... J ..L. -. i .-••-• 5 0.001 Reviewed By: 2 5 2 5 2 3 2 5 2 5 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Packet Pg. 479 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 ....................... ...................................................... Atterberjq__Limits: non_ —plastic _.................. -- -- - -- ....... w W J J Q r Z W U o_ w a. 1UU 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: BH-1 ------------------------------ Sample Number: 5-13 ................................. Depth: 53.0 feet ------ -- Sample Description: Gravel: 1 Sand: 84 Silt: 15 Clay: ............................................. Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine I Medium Crze Fine Cne SIEVE SIZES 200 100 50 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/8 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 ------------- ----------------------------------------- ---- -f - - - •-- - ------ ---- --- _ ........ L... - - ----------- ---- ----------------------------------------- ---- -{. .r... -Y- _,. _. _._____ ---. -�. .F-- ..1.- ----------- ............ ----------------------------------------• ........................................ ---- -1. ..L..... .... ... ..... .... L--- t } - -I- _-- -- ------ ------- ------i---- ---- --- -/-- -.... L--'- - ............... •-•------------------------------------- ----- ---- �..t..}... ............................ . ... :...i.. ............. ......................................... .. .{. .... ... .. .F. .{. -- -------- -----.{- .F.. ..r....r..;. . s 0.001 Reviewed By: 2 3 2 S z 3 z S 2 S 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Packet Pg. 480 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 -------- ----- ------ ....- ---- - --------------•-----..................----------------------•-------------.........------•......-•-- lUU 90 80 W 70 J J 60 in �- 50 z W 40 W a_ 30 20 10 0 Test Hole Number: 81-1-1 ----------•------------------- Sample Number: 5-14 ------------------------------•-- Depth: 57.5 f eet ................................................... Sample Description: Gravel: 39 Sand: 52 ------------------------------------------- Silt: 9 ............................................... clay: --------------------------------------------- Clay Silt Sand Gravel Fine Modlum C:, Fine Crso SIEVE SIZES 200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 4 3/B 3/4 1 3/2 2 3 ------..... ......................................... .... ........L----- ---- L....... t... ....... ........ -L--- --' i- ............ . ........................................ .... -;_ _• ------ --- y....j...+--------------------------- _ - -T" __ ............ -....-----•_ ....................................... ---------- -- -------------------------------- ---- -. ....L... -.-.------- --- ..L. -t -- I --- --- -- - ----- --- ---•---- --...-_ ---- .�.... .;.... r..;. . ............ ......................................... .....:. .. .:. -t -- ------- ----- 1-. ..:.. ............. ......................................... ........ --- --- Y--- }. .�. ._ ------- ------{- -r-- -Y---- ---- . 3 2 0.001 Reviewed By:...... 3 2 5 2 S 2 S 2 3 0.01 0.1 1 10 GRAIN SIZE — MILLIMETRES Packet Pg. 481 Attachment 13 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. 482 Attachment 13 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. 483 Attachment 13 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 29t' Ave W Everett, WA 98204 Lead Representative: J. 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. 484 Attachm U 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. 485 Attachm U 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. 486 Attachm U • 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. 487 Attachm U 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. 488 Attachm U 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. 489 Attachm U Activity Type Total Area Total Volume Material (footprint) including armoring) 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. 490 Attachm U 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. 491 Attachm U 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. 492 Attachm U 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. 493 Attachm U 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. 494 Attachm U 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. 495 Attachm U 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. 496 Attachm U 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. 497 Attachm U 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. 498 Attachm U 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. 499 Attachm U 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. 500 Attachm U 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. 501 Attachm U 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. 502 Attachm U 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. 503 Attachm U 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. 504 Attachm U 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. 505 Attachm U 16. Utilities h( elpl a. Sir utilities currently available at the site: lectrici natural ga ater, use serve ele hon n)tary sew 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 part of the 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 Colncast. C. Signature ItELLP 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: Name of signe( Position and AI Date Suornmea". i o- o(e- .LcT i SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 22 of 22 Packet Pg. 506 Attachm U PORT OF A1lul1l;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. 507 Attachm U 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. 508 Attachm U PORT o� I 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. 509 Attache a " City of Edmonds 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 accur S_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise relia Jty of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI .0 Y,S Legend 0 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 Notes Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and 1 Seawall Reconstruction (PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016) 11 46 I I ' N CQ O 0:5 (D Q � n O Q ( (D Q N W n C oo D Q c (D �•aQ L� Q�n zT CD (D O Q Q � � N C,J cn or 0 w 0 0 ea �a as m CL 3 0 0 CL Ln v N 70 y -0 M (D O Q O 0 O O Q (n Q 3 Q o n Q fi s GMOC:E::) y w Q 2• 07 0 O (D T' � O 7 = . N L N w Y Q Q 3 Q p7 Q � D o (L 0 Z c 0 E W 4- 0 LI 0 a Ol CD J 0 0 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 511 1 r. , r, City of Edmonds Project Site Aerial Attachme Legend ' ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINE <all other values> 1 2 i 5; 4 9; 71; 7;8 • State Highways Ve — <all other values> 1 .� 1 2 r_ s Sections Boundary 4 • ' Sections Edmonds Boundary i ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY BUILDIN< .!. ' ArcSDE.GIS.STREET-CENTERLINE: <all other values> • Interstate �V i Principal Arterial Minor Arterial; Collector Local Street; On Ramp s 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 O 0_ s i O z C O E W 4- 0 O o_ N C V a t 3 �I O CL d IX Cn W 2 �D r O O LO r O O M N O N z J a c d s V f� r� a Packet Pg. 512 Attachm a 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 Legend 0 Rezones PRD U Shoreline Environment f Aquatic I 1 ■ Aquatic 11 ■ Conservancy t ■ Natural ` • Shoreline Residential I 1 ■ Shoreline Residential II It ■ Shoreline Residential III 4 Urban Mixed Use I ■ Urban Mixed Use II ■ Urban Mixed Use III # 1 z Urban Mixed Use IV = ■ Urban Railroad f RoW U ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN U <all other values> 1 � G G 2 U e 5; 4 � C 9;71;7;8 p C State Highways ,all other values> 0 1 � Notes s �a Shoreline Jurisdictions Q Port of Edmonds Portwalk Project Packet Pg. 513 Attachm U 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 e 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. 514 Attachm U 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. 515 Attachm U 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. 516 Attachm U Legend ® Seismic Hazard Areas Flood Hazard Area Flood Hazard Area f` w, I'. 01 yfl� f 00 VIA 51, I! Critical Area Map CRA2021-0155 300 Admiral Way J a H E Scale f° w 1 inch = 350 feet a Packet Pg. 517 'nC. t Ra., CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING (UPDATED DATE) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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. 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/u/88959586932 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Packet Pg. 518 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/j/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 httr)://edmondswa.gov/public-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/development 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 Packet Pg. 519 Attachm U FILE NO.: PLN2023-0015, PLN2023-0016 Applicant: Port of Edmonds Project: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction DECLARATION OF POSTING On March 20, 2024, the attached Notice of Application, Notice of Public Meeting, and Notice of Public Hearing 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: i't'z {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 520 Attachm U File No.: PLN2023-0015/PLN2023-0016 Applicant: Port of Edmonds Project: North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction DECLARATION OF MAILING On March 20, 2024, the attached Notice of Application, Notice of Public Meeting, and Notice of Public Hearing 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 21 st day of June 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Packet Pg. 521 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. 522 1 City of Edmonds PLN2023-0015, 0016 52A Q I I � . ■ II■ � I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - i f 5 °oC C 0 �I p ' LU lI ♦ r ■ -ifn ED L 1: 6,062 - - - - PINE Q 0 505.19 1,010.4 Feet 752.3 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and g,028 P B P PP g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accu WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reli © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT ❑ ° a s O z Legend c O Sections Boundary E Sections W W Edmonds Boundary "- O ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY _BUILDIP C ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN d — <all other values, U) N Interstate = N Principal Arterial E L Minor Arterial; Collector V Local Street; On Ramp r Q State Highways r <all other values> 31 0 o 1 CL 4) 2 <Q County Boundary Cl) Parks W ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHIP ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES o O ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES L City of Edmonds O O City of Lynnwood 9 ce) N City of Mountlake Terrace CD Unincorporated King Co; Unincor J City of Woodway ♦3 Citv of Arlington: Citv of Bothell: w Notes s �a Mailing Map Q Packet Pg. 523 Attachm U Legal Invoice Sound Publishing, Inc. Unit Attn: A/R PO Box 930 Everett WA 98206-0930 Bill To: City of Edmonds Development Services Attn Debbie Rothfus 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Legal Description: City Applications Desc: PLN2023-0015 & PLN2023-0016 PLN2023-0015 & PLN20 Ordered By: MICHELLE MARTIN Issues Ordered: 1 RELIVD MAR 2 5 2024 DEVELOPLX.ryT SERACES COUNTER Date: 03/19/2024 Everett Daily Herald Customer Account #: 86031703 Legal Description: EDH993291 Legal #: EDH993291 Ad Cost: $ 184.04 Published: Everett Daily Herald Start Date: 03/19/2024 End Date: 03/19/2024 Due: $ 184.04 Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-800-485-4920 City of Edmonds Development Services Account #: 86031703 Attn Debbie Rothfus Invoice #: EDH993291 121 - 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020-3145 Due: $ 184.04 Packet Pg. 524 Attachm U 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 EDH993291 PLN2023-0015 & PLN20 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 03/19/2024 and ending on 03/19/2024 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amour of the fee fOA such publican $184.04. Subscribed a d sworn before me on this day of �1 b� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Hii-ids D<vdupmeiv Serview 186031703 MICHELLE MARTIN E da Phillips ary Publicf Washingtonnt Expires BJ2912025 n Number 43t7 Packet Pg. 525 Classified Proof Attachm U CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Pon of Edmonds Is proposing the following Improvements to the Pori or Edmonds Marina; • reconstruct and repair a segment of seawall; • reconstruct and renovate the North Porlwalk; construct two new pedestrian plazas that Include new rastrooms, and renovate the adjacent parking lot. Existing creosote -treated timbers, limber piles, and timber lagging that support the east side of the Ponwalk Will be replaced with galvanized steel piles. The upper (timber) section of the seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wail. The new Porlwalk will improve pedestrian access along the waterfront by widening the northern portion by lour 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 jot. The parking lot will be reconfigured for vehicular and pedestrian safely. PROJECT LOCATION Parcel 27032300401400. located at 336 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washinglon. Construction will take place on the northern portion of the property. NAME OF APPLICANTS' The Port of Edmonds FILE NUMB PLN2023-0015 (Design Review), PLN2023-0016 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) RE_ _ UESTED PERMITSDesign Review and Shoreline �u slantiT eevvelopment Permit. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing on both Type III -A permits, with the Arc hllectural Design Board (ADO) making a recommendation on the design review application. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a dale has been scheduled. DATE OF APPLICATION: April26, 2023 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 24, 2023 DATE OF UB I NO IC June 7, 2023 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYhe Part of Edmonds, acting as lead agency. Issued a Determination of Nonsignlficance (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 Nvo 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. PUBLIC HEARING iffF67 AATUN: 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 51h Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Bracked Room Or join the Zoom meet" at- https://us06web.zoom.us/y84274057639?pwd=ZFdpQzg4bOFEUU 9LcElybkci4bnF5UT09 Meeting ID: 842 7405 7639 Passcode:882737 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL -DUE: April 11, 2024 Any person Fas 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 lime prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision healing, it any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 03/20/2024 12:35:31 pm Pa>',� _ A N O N Z J a C 0 r V 3 L N C 0 V d 10 3 d Cn C Y 3 0 a s 0 Z N 0 E W 4- 0 0 a N C d E s V Q t 3 j 0 a d r Cn j w x co 0 0 Sri 0 0 A N O N Z J a c m E a Packet Pg. 526 Classified Proof Attachm U 10 the decislon on the project permit. Inromnation on this development application can be obtained online at http:/fedmondswa.gov/public-notices-text/development- notices.htlnl 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 10 the application number for all Inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available seven days prior to the hearing. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PUBLIC MEETING: A hybrid public meeting will be held "Galore the Architectural Design Board on April 11, 2024 at 7 p.m. al Edmonds City Hall, 121 Sth Avenue N, 3rd floor. Brackett R coin. Online panicipation is also available via the following Zoom link- hltps7ledmondswa-gov2oom.us/j/88959586932 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Meeting 10: 889 5958 6932 Password: 591531 NOTE: No public testimony on the proposal will be taken at the Architectural Design Board (ADS) meeting. The ADS will be considering the design aspects of the proposal and will forward a recommendation on the design of the proposed project to the Bearing Examiner, 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://wtwi.edmon(iswa.govfsewiee.Vpubfic involvemenUplib4c n otices/development 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 a mber.broke nshireRaedmondsvia.Slov 4-771-02 Published: March 19, 2024. EOH993291 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 03/20/2024 12:35:31 pm Page: 3 Packet Pg. 527 Attachm�a� CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION `nc. 199V 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. 528 Attachm�a� 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 - 5t" 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 httDS://www.edmondswa.Rov/services/Dublic 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 Packet Pg. 529 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. 530 Attachm U 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 i nstal I ati on/repl acement. c. Provide draft easements for the city to review. Packet Pg. 531 Attachm U 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(@.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. 532 Attachm U �" ► 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. 533 Attachm U 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. 534 0 ■ r za eeb § q� = \ k ,' \( #awe > Nq} qln ONy S$qVH e 2A3n o E m m«, a«,Imy� eE! Noun8ISN0038 IIVMV3S a« AIVMId0d H18ON ` f \� \-. sJL \ <� z \_ 01 \� \� e 0— e 3 — a z 0-- \ z \Ll 0 0 OF 0 \ / \ / LJLJL\\) (zo )3 o , - ) C)m - «--® -; i@ | \�. \ , o inn 23 a Attachm U 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 i. Port of Edmonds Vicinity The Port complex incorporates approximately 64 acres including the Port shore based operations, marina, leased property and property held jointly by the Port and the City of Edmonds. See Vicinity Map, Exhibit A. Packet Pg. 536 Attachm U 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, such as the Harbor Square area. The Port also recognizes the potential of a master development plan that might include the "old Safeway" property and Harbor Square. The Port is committed to working with the appropriate parties in realizing this potential. 2. Port Property - Site Opportunities The core of the Port property is located on a narrow strip of land between Puget Sound and the BNSF tracks. Uses of the site are limited as a result of this Packet Pg. 537 Attachm�a� 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 public launch facility has decreased significantly. The cost center has not been 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 (IAC); now since has become the Recreation Conservation Organization (RCO) . The grant covenant stipulates the Port will continue to operate and maintain the 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. 538 Attachm�a� 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 to provide guidance for site development. • Conserve and protect the shoreline and environmental quality. • Maintain a quality marina and marina related services. • Support Port tenants. Packet Pg. 539 Attachm�a� • 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. 540 Attachm U • 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 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 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 Crossing project team will also examine, during the final design and permitting phase of the project, whether an emergency only crossing could be incorporated into the Edmonds Crossing Project, to increase safety and convenience for pedestrian, equipment, and vehicle crossing. 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 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 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. 541 Attachm�a� 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 This area was identified in previous master plans as a mixed use area with 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). 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, Packet Pg. 542 Attachm U 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 be reviewed for necessary improvements and enhancements. 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 through Washington State Recreational Conservation Organization (RCO) to upgrade the existing south sling launch and the Port is in the process of Packet Pg. 543 Attachm�a� 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. 544 Attachm U r S t I Az N z O i Z~ TZ N s� M w x Sao 0 ` w o -1-, +� ~al Zs z C) S ° o z Nc O w o w L •Ln y+ QI O s` . • >. z1 At , . O s;. I, w Zv O E r ., IIIr Q u - q_. g-- �f �R i C ( ��`9• �: W 0 < EgaE age .',o � C :any #�E <$ x C G \ �1 i,,�,, t S t f 1 Packet Pg. 545 Attach m If Lu o imi O ig'I O iso . O ! IZ 1 O »I O iY E IM yQ A I t i �r � C 0 Z Z ❑ 0 � W. O W Q W F 0 w°oz ONO N K N a U -I — w �w (7l7 3cc 00 W0 c� 0 Z a J N a o W I— Q Q Z a' O m C7 W Z LL NLli = o Z 3 Q o a �o� W W o LL N O LLI N li Z a Attachm U 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 related to the Sling Launch at the Port of Edmonds. At that time, maintenance costs were increasing due to the aging mechanisms and an inspection revealed that substantial improvements were needed if the launch was going to continue operations. Necessary improvements were made based upon the proven need and demand for this public amenity. • April 2012 — Port conducts a survey — Results were a combination of online responses collected 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 Staff Retreat — Special Public Meeting the results of the survey were reviewed and key components were incorporated into our daily routines as well as future directional plans. • 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. Packet Pg. 547 Attachm�a� • 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. Packet Pg. 548 `nC. 189\3 Attachm U CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th 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: iz 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. 549 Attachm U 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. 550 Attachm U 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. 551 Attachm U 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. 552 Attachm U 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. B.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. B.2 Plan for improvements to resolve transportation and safety conflicts in the downtown/waterfront area. B.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. 553 Attachnn U 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. 554 Attachm U 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. 555 Attachm U 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 consistency with 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. 556 Attachm U 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. 557 Attachm U 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 facades 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. 558 Attachm U 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. 559 Attachm U 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. 560 Attachnn U 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 16.55.010.13, 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. 561 Attachm U 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. 562 Attachm U 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 20.11.030.8. 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. 563 Attachnn U 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. B. 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. 564 Attachm U 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. 565 Attachnn U 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. 566 Attachm�a� 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. 567 Attachm U 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. 568 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting March 28, 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 Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Board Members Absent Alex Hutchinson (excused) Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 22, 2024 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Jeff Levy, Senior Planner Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. PLN2023-0015 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Associate Planner Amber Brokenshire made the presentation. She discussed the review process, site context, and proposal. She reviewed how the proposal will meet site development standards including setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, and two proposed conditions highlighted in the staff report regarding landscaping and screening of mechanical equipment. Staff is recommending that the ADB forward a recommendation of approval to the Hearing Examiner with staffs two proposed conditions. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q March 28, 2024 Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 569 Clarification questions were asked about the screening, parking, accessibility of the restrooms, access to the portwalk, opportunities for art, and landscaping. A concern was raised about the potential slipping hazard of the proposed glass blocks. Ms. Brokenshire responded that a condition could be that materials are used that prevent slippage. The applicant explained the Port would have to put "melt" down; the blocks also come with non -slip coating. A concern was also raised about the heat of glass blocks for dogs' feet. The applicant did not think this would be an issue due to open air circulation underneath. Commissioners were pleased with the extensive landscaping plan. Additional clarification questions were asked about seating and the potential for historical plaques or recognition of the native tribes who historically used the waterfront area. The applicant stated they have not settled on artwork yet. There was a question about whether the project actually complies with the design criteria especially regarding being a unique, creative, beautiful place unlike any other. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan talks about everything in the downtown area being an identity element; encouraging a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment, and associated business; providing for a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, and natural features; providing space for local businesses and cottage industries; and providing open space for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. There were comments that this is a nice place to just sit and enjoy the nature. It doesn't necessarily need a lot of retail, but opportunities for food trucks or other ways to make it a little more exciting would be nice. There was discussion about the bathroom being a very utilitarian structure that could be more creative in its design. The applicant explained the bathroom was designed to match the other one. There was brief discussion about whether a bathroom is even necessary in this location. Several board members felt it was important. The Board discussed possible conditions of approval such as emphasizing the tribal connection in an educational/historical way and including various additional art installations such as public sculptures. There was also some question about what could be done with the restroom. The applicant discussed cost constraints for the Port and noted that reasons for selecting the restroom were because of the cost, to match the other restroom, and for the longevity of the building. In general, board members suggested that the restroom needs additional architectural detailing to comply fully with the design guideline. There were suggestions about putting something on the building to add more interest such as a mural or other artwork. Another idea was adding planters/landscaping to add more interest. It was also noted that the illustration of the restroom looking west isn't consistent with the drawings in the packet. The plans don't have the different treatment of the waterline. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 1) INCORPORATE MURAL ARTWORK/PAINT ON THE SIDE OF THE RESTROOM BUILDING, AND 2) INCORPORATE CREATIVE ARTWORK, TRIBAL REFERENCE WITH HISTORICAL/CULTURAL/EDUCATIONAL ASPECT WITHIN THE SITE. MOTION PASSED (3-1). AYES: BAYER, BROOKS, JEUDE NOES: LOCH Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q March 28, 2024 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 570 BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Review of Individual Member Comments on the 2020 Urban Design Element Senior Planner Jeff Levy said he would compile all the comments/edits for discussion at the next meeting, highlighting any areas where there might be conflicting ideas. This would be followed up by a first draft for review at the following meeting. There was a suggestion that it would be easier to start from scratch than to try to edit an outdated document. Staff explained that was an option. There was discussion about the process and the anticipated timeline in order to complete the first complete draft of the Comprehensive Plan component by June. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Loch expressed frustration about the large size of this meeting's packet for the ADB to review and requested that only the material necessary for the ADB to consider be included in the future. Mr. Clugston concurred. Chair Bayer requested getting the consolidated document with enough time prior to the next meeting to be able to review it. Mr. Clugston agreed and stated their intent is to get the packets out a week before the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting r Minutes of Regular Meeting Q March 28, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 571