The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-09-13 City Council - Full Agenda-32631. Op E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council tn.. ISLP PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 121 - 5TH AVENUE N, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 13, 2022, 7:30 PM COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE WORK SESSIONS FOR THE COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF. COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDAS DO NOT INCLUDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS OR PUBLIC HEARINGS. PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY DIAL -UP PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEND COMMITTEE MEETINGS VIRTUALLY, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THE SAME WAY. IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS THE VIRTUAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH THEIR PERSONAL DEVICES, A MONITOR IS PROVIDED ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE NIGHTS FROM 430- 930 PM AT THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AT 150 5TH AVE N, EDMONDS WA. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: NEIL TIBBOTT (CHAIR), DAVE TEITZEL, COUNCIL PRESIDENT (EX-OFFICIO MEMBER) CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Job Order Contracting - Approval Process (10 min) 2. Presentation of PSA Supplement with Landau Associates for the Civic Center Playfield Project (10 min) 3. Presentation of Construction Contract for the Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Project (10 min) 4. Street Dedication at Intersection of 162nd St SW and 74th PI W (10 min) 5. Presentation of City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) to meet NPDES Stormwater Permit Requirements (15 min) 6. Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) (10 min) 7. Supplemental Agreement with HKA Global, Inc for the Carbon Recovery Project (10 min) Edmonds City Council Agenda September 13, 2022 Page 1 8. Public Water Meter Vault Easement at 23610 Highway 99 (10 min) 9. Resolution Declaring Utility Easements as Surplus at 23610 Highway 99 (10 min) ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda September 13, 2022 Page 2 2.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Job Order Contracting - Approval Process Staff Lead: Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager - Department of Public Works Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History On January 18, 2022, the City amended its purchasing policy and created an avenue for Job Order Contracting (JOC). The JOC program could be utilized by many different departments/divisions including Public Works Engineering, Street & Stormwater Operations, Water & Wastewater Operations, Facilities and Parks. On August 9, 2022, staff discussed the possibility of having Job Order Contract Work Orders placed on consent agenda for approval without having to be presented at the Parks and Public Works Committee meeting. Staff Recommendation Present to full City Council for consideration. Narrative Job Order Contracting (JOC) is designed to expedite the procurement of services through the process approved in the City's purchasing policy and the RCW. Staff is recommending that JOC projects meeting the current fiscal year budget Decision Package process and spending authorizations be placed on the Consent Agenda after submission of JOC consent agenda form (see attached draft) for approval without review and discussion at the monthly Parks and Public Works committee meetings. This will allow for the expedited procurement of project work that has previously been reviewed during the annual budget process. An annual JOC report will be provided at the beginning of the year to review prior year JOC projects and expenditures. Any JOC projects that have not previously been authorized via the Decision Package process will follow the standard purchasing policy review for authorization that correspond to the budget authorization limits. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Work Order Summary form Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a 1110 : 6]:�:Z4L910Y9:-T_TOI WORK ORDER SUMMARY Project Name Budget Decision Package # Amount Budget Amendment Carryforward Approval Date Amount Budget Estimate Fund # BARS # Project Description/Narrative Project Benefit Projected Duration Projected Start Date uarterl Emergency Packet Pg. 4 2.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Presentation of PSA Supplement with Landau Associates for the Civic Center Playfield Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On July 28th, 2021, the City entered into a $39,425.00 contract with Landau Associates to provide geotechnical observation, testing and consultation for the construction of the Civic Center Playfield Project. On December 22nd, 2021, the City entered into Professional Services Supplemental Agreement 1 with Landau Associates for $51,342.00 to cover the increased scope of geotechnical observation, testing and consultation for the construction of the Civic Center Playfield Project. Staff Recommendation Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the next City Council meeting. Narrative Professional Services Supplemental Agreement 2 with Landau Associates for $18,665.00 would cover additional observation and testing for the construction of the Civic Center Playfield Project and consultation concerning the westward movement of groundwater from Civic Center Playfield to the Sprague Street pavement and stormwater system. The total fee for the Professional Services Agreement is $109,432.00. The portion of the contract in Supplemental Agreement No. 2 is scheduled to be complete by Spring of 2023. The project costs are being funded by Park Impact Fees, Funds 125, 126 and 132, City General Fund, RCO/Local Parks/YAF grants, LWCF/State grants, Snohomish County grant, Hazel Miller Foundation grant, playground donations, Verdant/Fitness Zone grant and City bonding. Attachments: Attachment 1 - PSA Supplement 2 with Exhibits Packet Pg. 5 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE NELSON 121 ST" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 . 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-872-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Civic Center Playfield Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Landau Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant.", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Civic Center Playfield Project, dated July 281h, 2021 and amended December 22"a 2021; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified; NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of July 28, 2021 between the parties as amended by Supplemental Agreement No. 1, dated December 2211, 2021 incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement, as amended by Supplemental Agreement No. 1, shall be further amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $39,425.00 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, which was increased by $51,342.00, by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $18,665.00 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $109,432.00 ($39,425.00 plus $51,342.00 plus $18,665.00). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 6 2.2.a 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth in Supplemental Agreements Nos. 1 and 2 but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS LANDAU ASOCIATES, INC. By: By: - - I/J Michael Nelson, Mayor Title: -- V40Ca JtCk ?n.{Sq>6-4� ATTESTIAUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Pg. 7 2.2.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF;h� ) On this Z day of e _ , 20 ,, before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State"�f Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared i , to me known to be the Oc4f - r r r. , ,{ of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he.'she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written OTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: '.1EDAISVR•OEPTFS%EngmeenneCapilalICAPITAL PROJECTSTOMA Civic Cmrer Playfie[&Conwrucuon�600 Bids A Comncis\630 ConuactsTmdau-1 a dau Civic Cemer Professi n l Services Supplemental Agreement 2 Rev A doc Packet Pg. 8 EXHIBIT A LA L A N Ea2a A S S O C I A T E q August 30, 2022 City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Mr. Henry Schroder, PE, Capital Projects Manager Re: Change Order Request No. 2 Geotechnical Construction Monitoring Services Civic Center Playfield Edmonds, Washington Landau Project No. 0074211.010.011 Dear Mr. Schroder: Since September 2021, Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau) has provided geotechnical construction monitoring services in support of the Civic Center Playfield project in Edmonds, Washington (site). Services have been performed in accordance with the scopes outlined in the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Edmonds (City, project owner) and Landau, dated July 28, 2021, and Supplemental Agreement 1, dated December 22, 2021. The original and supplemental scopes include the following services: • 10 part-time site visits to observe subgrade overexcavation. • 6 part-time site visits to observe subgrade preparation. • 10 full-time site visits to observe fill placement and compaction. • 5 full-time site visits to observe utility trench construction. • 8 full-time site visits to observe other construction activities. • A contingency equal to 15 percent of the supplemental budget (proportionally equivalent to three additional, full-time site visits). The above scope items are roughly equivalent to 34 full-time site visits. As of this writing, Landau has completed 79 full- and part-time site visits and has exhausted its authorized budget. Landau requests a $18,665 change order to finance the following additional services requested by the City: • 2 full-time visits to observe subgrade preparation and fill placement associated with the restroom facility. • 1 part-time site visit to observe preparation of the grade beam subgrade. • 1 part-time site visit to observe preparation of the pump pit subgrade. • 1 full-time site visit to observe pump pit backfill placement and compaction. • 2 part-time site visits to observe preparation of the seat terrace subgrade. 155 NE 100th St, Ste 302 • Seattle, WA 98125 • 206.631.8680 • www.landauinc.com Packet Pg. 9 2.2.a Change Order Request No. 2 Landau Associates • 2 part-time site visits to observe preparation of the seat wall subgrade. • 3 part-time site visits for additional, as -needed tasks. • Geotechnical consultation related to groundwater expressions in the pavement in Sprague Street and groundwater infiltration into stormwater drainage structures at the site (limited to 4 hours). • Design recommendations for construction of a groundwater cutoff grout curtain at the western boundary of the park, near Sprague Street (limited to 6 hours). If you have questions or comments, please contact the undersigned at 425.329.0251 or at sgertz@landauinc.com. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Sean M. Gertz, PE Senior Engineer SMG/SRW August 30, 2022 2 Packet Pg. 10 EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION SCHEDULE - 2022 2.2.a LA L A N D A A 5 5 0 C I A T E 5 Personnel Labor Hourly Rate Senior Principal 305 Principal 285 Senior Associate 265 Associate 240 Senior 215 Senior Project 195 Project 175 GIS Analyst / CAD Designer 175 Senior Staff 160 Staff / Senior Technician II 145 Data Specialist 145 CAD / GIS Technician 135 Project Coordinator 125 Assistant / Senior Technician 1 115 Technician 100 Support Staff 85 Expert professional testimony or the preparation thereof for court, deposition, declaration, arbitration, or public testimony is charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Rates apply to all labor, including overtime. Equipment Field, laboratory, and office equipment used in the direct performance of authorized work is charged at unit rates. A rate schedule will be provided on request. Subcontractor Services and Other Expenses Subcontractor billing and other project expenses incurred in the direct performance of authorized routine services will normally be charged at a rate of cost plus a twelve percent (12%) handling charge. A higher handling charge for technical subconsultants and for high -risk field operations may be negotiated on an individual project basis; similarly, a lower handling charge may be negotiated on projects requiring disproportionally high subconsultant involvement. Invoices Invoices for Landau Associates' services will be issued monthly. Interest of 1% percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days. Term Unless otherwise agreed, Landau Associates reserves the right to make reasonable adjustments to our compensation rates over time (e.g., long-term continuing projects). T: Templates\Contracts\2022 Compensation Schedule Landau Associates Packet Pg. 11 2.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Presentation of Construction Contract for the Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On June 14, 2022 staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to a future City Council meeting for possible approval. On June 26, 2022 staff presented this item to City Council to request a rejection of all bids. Staff Recommendation Staff will provide the bid results, proposed construction budget and a possible recommendation to award at the Committee meeting. Narrative This project will expand the capacity of an existing infiltration facility located at Seaview Park by adding an additional row of underground injection wells beneath a stormwater dispersion chamber and connecting it to the existing stormwater drainage system. Major project elements include excavation and backfill for storm pipe, catch basins, a stormwater pre-treatment structure, HMA pavement restoration, infiltration well construction, and connection to existing stormwater system. All bids were rejected for the initial June 28th, 2022 bid opening. Revisions were made to project bid documents and the project was re -advertised for bids on August 16th, 2022. Project bid opening was conducted on September 6th, 2022 and contractor evaluations are currently in progress. The City received three bids and they ranged from a low of $373,941 to $531,821. The engineer's estimate was $344,555. Attachment 2 are the preliminary bid results. This may provide an opportunity to award the project in September. The bid results, project budget and recommendation to award will be provided at the Committee meeting. Construction is expected to begin in October and be complete by December. Project costs are being funded by a Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant and the 422 Utility Fund. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Seaview Phase 2 Project Map Attachment 2 - Preliminary Bid Summary Packet Pg. 12 City of Edmonds Maabook 2.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 FS t. 1890 PROJECT No.: EOFA Preliminary Bid Summary Bid Date: 09/06/2022 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: $344,555.00 CONTRACTOR BID Total I WSB Excavation & Utilities, LLC $ 373,941.00 2 Strider Construction Co., Inc. $ 419,677.00 3 Rodarte Construction, Inc. $ 531,821.00 r- 0 L C Y L a 3 m c� as m z L0 L 0 U c 0 v L 0 U 0 c 0 c a� m L a c 0 .N m c� E E U) m c� c E L a N r.+ C d E t V 0 r a E 2 a Packet Pg. 14 2.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Street Dedication at Intersection of 162nd St SW and 74th PI W Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History Staff Recommendation Forward item to consent agenda for approval at a City Council meeting. Narrative The City is currently reviewing a proposed 2-lot subdivision located at the SE corner of 162nd St SW and 74t" PI W. In accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.085 (Subdivision - Review Criteria), the city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. During review of the proposed development, it was found that a portion of the existing public road as well as public water, sewer and storm utilities are located on private property. There is an existing utility easement that encompasses a portion of this area but does not cover the area in its entirety. In addition, there is no existing access easement over this portion of the property. In coordination with the property owner, a street dedication of approximately 1320sf is proposed. Following Council approval, the street dedication will be recorded against the subject property with the final plat documents for the subdivision. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Site Plan Attachment 3 - Original Easement and Proposed Dedication Packet Pg. 15 i City of Edmonds Vicinity Map - 162nd & 74th 0 Am i` M • * JL ` ■ f ; %P to Iva r Mali ■ ■ * Ar r*x7 y -D ❑N,D 9 R F LYNId WOOD ` f� ` RIM \ " 40 r 1: 6,062 0 505.19 1,010.4 Feet 752.3 This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and i! 9,028 P B p pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accur WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise relic © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI t ti Legend Sections Boundary c Sections N to Edmonds Boundary r — ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP r_ O ArcSDE.GIS.STREET CENTERLIN r _ v — <all other values, d L Interstate y a+ Principal Arterial Minor Arterial; Collector C Local Street; On Ramp O State Highways y - <all other values> N -- 0 1 a� � 2 r (n County Boundary O_ cc Parks ArcSDE.G IS. PROPERTY WASHII ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES v ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES > City of Edmonds r City of Lynnwood a+ C N City of Mountlake Terrace E t Unincorporated King Cc; Unincor R City of Woodway Q Citv of Arlinaton: Citv of Bothell: C a� Notes E Packet Pg. 16 1 _qW 11A _qW 11A SFC'_ A TWP 79M Prl= -F W M 2.4.b SURVEY NOTES: SEE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY WEST ALLIANCE DATED 08/15/2020 RIM=77. 13 I.E.=71.58 15" EX SSMH RIM=65.21 I.E.=57.63 (CTR.) EX SDMH RIM=65.73 I.E.=60.28 8" I.E.=57.43 15" EX GAS LINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION EX CB RIM= 65.94 I.E.=63.74 / a CO 4-) / O � E> HERZER SHORT PLAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PLN2021-0034 ill 30' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 30 0 30 60 EX SIDE SEWER 4' PVC PER CITY AS-BUILTS APPROX. EX UTILITY POLE WITH 5' SEPARATION FROM PROPOSED WATER METER n`• EX SDMH RIM=89.53 ' \ I.E.=80.13 IN I.E.=80.53 N 162nd St. EX SSMH S. W RIM=88.05 I. E. = 78.22 (CTR.) SAWCUT AND PATCH ASPHALT PER GU-410 0 SS- SEE NOTE 7 N S87° 13' E RIM=85. 18 LE.=81.63 EX 6" SS CO W/ 12" LOCKING I EX CB LAMPHOLE COVER WITH 1/2" HEX RIM=87.02 BOLTS AND CONCRETE/ASPHALT ctiJ TCOLLAR YP EX CB RIM 102.33 ° 1@98A4 E LE.= 100.73 EX CB EX CB ffm �0 RIM= 102.81 RIM=1 10. 12 SO I.E.=100.31 \ I.E.=108.37 EX CB 8"So EX CB RIM= 117.54 EX CB RIM= 1 14.34 I.E.= 1 14.44 RIM=87.39 HOUSE I.E.=110.44 I. E. = 79 (W. S.) CB RI M= 4 118.02 � I.E.= 114.62 8� " 7 I.E.= 115.62 6" SD / ROPOSED ---� X 87°13'44'E 407.95' PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILIT�1 ESMT ° i � � • 1 Ilion / N 73 1 5 WATER METER � ° _ CENTERLINE / ° ` SEE WA-130 I.E. =1 1 . 1 1 APPROXIMATE 15' SIDE SEWER O . EX GAS LINE SERVES LOT 2 NbP Q� WETLAND B\�l / RIVATE �{ {n UTIL EASEMENT GRAVEL i �G ACCESS EASME P �e 10.0' PROPOSED TO BENEFIT L 2 _ I I �02 \ oL� `F PUBLIC UTILITY / 15' ��`° HOUSE �' �P `� EASEMENT o WATER SERVICE <� PROTECT TREE o� �° AFN 8306230251 CONNECT TO EX MAIN 0 <" o G LOT 1 ROOTS. HAND DIG AS \0 5� 1" TYPE UPPER TUBING -o ±36,518 SF NEEDED / SD �- VU g R-a PROPOSED ROADWAY / cD 2% 0 ARKING �� Q WIDENING AREA = 81 SF LLS o SDMH e-3 PLUS 18" ASPHALT 8'5� FOR \ I 6 IM=123. 14 8-2 THICKENED o 95.0 1 \ EX WATER SERVICE I.E.=1 17.84 p EDGE TR-523 0' + F " FOR LOTS 1 & 2 I day off Q P SEE SHEET 3 162ND ST7 0 o a LOCATION APPROXIMATE °]C�QDO�DaL�C� d O o TYPICAL SECTION DETAIL 95. 4 / < . ROPOS ASPH LT G o s 858 SF LOT 2 DISCONNECT LOT 2 HOUSE FROM / 4 d [�RI AY P2) ±33,883 SF EX WATER SERVICE. v / o� (��a❑ �g p�js o� p / N 2:1 SL EQ �D �� G PROPO D 3 GRASS JA T 0 I EWAY EX SIDE SEWER W FOOTP H RECORD OF SURVEY o co \ 4" PVC I RIM=EX SDMH (A• F. }�` 201610255002 � G� PER CITY AS-BUILTS HOUSE a I APPROX. a . I. 123.69 o \ SHED cS / tiP 0b� b Q \ < / o L RIM= 72.35 I.E.=70.70 0 G G 0 00 o L 0 F� ° O o 0 O� ��P S87'13'44'E 426.75 j� KEYSTONE o RET. WALL P P P 0 / 0 �G �Pob o�� A- I o P o EX CB O� RIM= 114.72 P o oo� / OP °10 I.E.=112.12 01b WETLAND A �I f \j4, 744 t. F. � ON 95 85 00 o'd w� 0 + 00 o_ 0 il 0 0(n w0 Z + wo Oil w Q r 0 _-2.617. 95 85 NOTE: NO PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY SHALL EXCEED 14% SLOPE 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 LOT 2 DRIVEWAY PROFILE Horizontal Scale: 1" = 30' Vertical Scale: 1 If = 6' PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOT 2 %PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILITY ESMT PUBLIC UMUTY EASEMENT 40� AFN 92030203377 Imo_ l 15. 00' / I SEWER EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOT 2 /LOY go NOTES: 10. A SEPARATE RIGHT -OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. 11. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS CAN TO HOUSE FROM PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CAN BE VIA UNPAVED WALKING PATH OR ALONG EXISTING DRIVEWAY PENDING PROPERTY OWNER APPROVAL. PROPOSED \ 10' DRY \ UTILITY EASEMENT \\ EX DRY UTILITIES \PHONE, CABLE AND POWER \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION 10' PROPOSED GAS \ \ EASEMENT \ \ DRY UTILITY EASEMENT EXHIBIT SCALE: 1 "=30' SITE VICINITY MAP SCALE 1 " = 2,000' N PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT/OWNER......................................... BRETT AND CHERI HERZER 16209 75TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 ENGINEER....................................................... GROUP FOUR, INC. P.O. BOX 1059 LAKE STEVENS, WA. 98258 PHONE: (425) 408-1152 PROJ. MGR.: KEN WILLIAMS SURVEYOR...................................................... WEST ALLIANCE 13614 ASH WAY EVERETT, WA. 98204 NOTES: 1. EXISTING SIDE SEWER CONNECTION AND EXISTING WATER SERVICE COME FROM CITY AS -BUILT DRAWINGS AND ARE APPROXIMATE. WHERE WORK IS REQUIRED ON EXISTING SIDE SEWER OR WATER SERVICE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THEIR LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. PROPOSED ASPHALT DRIVEWAY WILL BE: • 4" MIN THICK MHA CLASS J" PG 58H-22 I 6" CRUSHED SURFACE BASE COURSE PER WSDOT STD SPEC 9-.3.9(3) 3. PROPOSED CUT AND FILL SLOPES AROUND PROPOSED PARKING AREA SHALL BE 2:1 MAX. 4. GRADING QUANTITIES 7 C.Y. CUT 7 C.Y. FILL GRADING QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY COME FROM SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY ONLY AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SHRINK, SWELL OR TOP SOIL REMOVAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP HIS OR HER OWN GRADING QUANTITIES FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 5. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRIVEWAY: 858 SF PAVEMENT WIDENING: 81 SF TOTAL: 939 SF (BELOW THRESHOLD FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW) 6. TREES TO BE PROTECTED SHALL HAVE BARRIER FENCING INSTALLED AT DRIP LINE TO PROTECT ROOT SYSTEM. 7. ROADWAY RESTORATION FOR UTILITY TRENCHING WILL REQUIRE A FULL WIDTH OVERLAY WHERE PATCHES FALL INTO BOTH TRAVEL LANES. 8. FINAL RESTORATION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE CONTRACTOR, NOT THE CITY OF EDMONDS. THIS INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE THAT WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 9. THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO FABRICATE FIRE/AID ADDRESS SIGN. THE CONTRACTOR/OWNER SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION BY EMAIL AT engineeringpermits@edmondswo.gov UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: FABRICATION INFEEDWILLEOF THE BE COLLECTED REQUESTED TOSIGN FABRICATION. ISSUA E. FIRE/AID CAUTION: ADDRESS SIGNS ARE $100 PER SIGN. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION • THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING ® THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CITY OF EDMONDS THIS AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER DATE: Know what's below. OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION Call two business AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE BY: days before OU dig. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION Y Y g• RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. Sheet List Sheet Number Sheet Title C1 DEVELOPMENT C2 TESC PLAN C3 NOTES & DETAILS Iw Q 0 J J U U N N 00 LO00 00 N ~ N Z W Z M Z M''' OM 00 3v 2�j !Ij� U ZI_N N N 0 N U U Y Y 0 0 O z O 0 w z C9 a Y U 0 O Q E�,�� OF WAS/.yNcr 20123035 DNA L�� 0104/2022 E LLJ LOLM U CL Y Q Q a c ~cz 3 US O � O � W 0) o o O m W N J W H W W O a Z LU J Wa LU W N 0 w W W LU Z 2 LU SHEET OF C1 3 21-0504 Packet Pg. 17 _qW 1 /d _qW 1 /d SFC'_ A TWP 7RN Prl= -r%F W M 2.4.b T Q EX CB RIM=85. 18 V I.E.=81.63 / g / EX 6" SS CO W/ 12" LOCKING EX SIDE SEWER b EX CBXC LAMPHOLE COVER WITH 1/2" HEX 4" PVC / RIM=87.02BOLTS AND CONCRETE/ASPHALT PER CITY ASAPPROXCOLLAR RIM 102.33EX CE ° 1008QO REX IM=SSMH \• �0 I. E. =100. 73 4 0 / / oti �Qo �o #gO LE.=57.63 (CTR.) / \ / 9� RIM= 102.81 RIM= 110. 12 / EX SDMH '� S 9 6 1. E. = 100.31 I. E. = 108.37 EX CB EX SDMH RIM=89.53 l g EX CB RIM=1 17.54 S RIM=65.73 ^ I.E.=80. 13 W l EX B 8 o 0 RIM= 1 14.34 I. E. 114.44 b LE.=60.28 80 00 N a I.E.=80.53 N 0 LE.=57.43 15" L I ^ �° l RIM=87. 9 I O q� HOUSE LE.= 1 10.44 i / l �� V h%� ' S� l / EX RIM 588.05 / l LE. 79 (<N.S.) S� �� EX CB RIM= 118.02 r I.E.= 1 14.62 8" LE.=78.22 (CTR.) / 8„ 72" II.E.= 115.62 6" \ I SS PROTECT EX 41O ER POEo r S - 87`13' "E - SS A PUBLIC UTILITY / SHED W EASEMENT r i AFN 9203020337c, 10.0' (( o / I O /' / SHED PUBLIC UTILITY EX GAS LINE / / o B- 1 �� N 44"W ( /�IEM E G EASEMENT E C APPROXIMATE LOCATION j� rI7.73' � Q1 W AFN 8306230251 / USE EX DRIVE WAY AS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE7 , _ ,/ c� ,� / 1. El, 11 / IF NEEDED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PRIVATE 15' SIDE SEWER O� ,EX GAS LINE SERVES LOT 2 / INSTALLED PER DETAIL ER-901 UTIL EASEMENT GRAVEL EX CB IA33 $.F. // / / /ACCESS EASMENT / O �/ 2 / / TO BENEFIT LOT 2 /,, / o RIM_ 65.94 / / / APPLY POST CONSTRUCTION / 15' 0� HOUSE LE.-63.74 // SOIL QUALITY PER DETAIL o o LOT 1 / SD-642 TO ALL DISTURBED / + +36,518 SF PERVIOUS AREAS / / o / / / / I - / I ARKING / / / /� I B-3 / / � S , l 1 / OR / l IM 12 .14 _ / 8-2 / / O d / � 0 ,,� �o � EX WATER SERVICE l / 1 E/ 1 7.84 J � \ / / / ° �o' + P� / FOR LOTS 1 & 2 / / / LOCATION APPROXIMATE � 0 12" / LOT 2 BIR / GRAVEL : cONc. TREE PROTECTION •' a / �� "� / / � / / / EX SIDE SEWER SEE NOT 1 l lE S6M l / / / / // RECOf 4" PVC' 1 �1��i � � l R M 12 / / // (A. F. #: PER CITY AS-BUILTS H USE l (I l I l / / / V , ( l E. 123 / U / APPROX. a . 1 /� / SEX C / / / / / " 0 o RIM4 G 72. 5 P �6 / / / / �/ / \/ 0� G L co LE.=70 0 / / / ° L b 06 / / ° o / / 0) / o / ° / / S87` 13'44 2 l j6. 5 'E 4 �• rl / REI. W / / P`'P / / / o�P o �� ° / EX SDMH l / / 0 �0 P / P C.') �/A-1RIM-77.13 / / o �� I EX I.E.=71.58 15" / / /6 1,7 RIM=11 2% ) � / l �/ /"� lay 00 ov / F� / / OJ / L, \ 1 zo CG '� WETLAND ° / Pi '�° o M f A�2 2" x 2" WOOD/STEEL FILTER FABRIC SECURED TO 2" x 2" 14 GA WIRE FABRIC EQUAL N ,ITAIN21111111?[d3911IN!L194:7U 111 FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN CONTINOUS ROLLS USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE 2" x 2" WOOD/STEEL POSTS --\ WIRE MESH FENCE .I FABRIC 1 1 1 1 1 1 rl TO SUPPORT BRICPPORT FILTERN BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER N MATERIAL 8" TO 12" NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND ENSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL THROUGHOUT PROJECT. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON 2. SILT FENCE TO BE PLACED DOWNSLOPE OF CONSTRUCTION ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS ACTIVITY. BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN REVISION DATE CITY OF EDMONDS FILTER FABRIC FENCE JANUARY 2018 FILTRATION SYSTEMS P PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL St. 18 9 ci APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH E R- 9 0 0 _LS 4 TH IN DE FULL WIDTH GRESS/EGRESS DETAIL NOTES: 10 THE MINIMUM LENGTH SHALL BE EXTENDED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE MATERIAL IS NOT TRACKED OFF SITE AND/OR INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. O2 ATB DRIVEWAY RAMP AND/OR SITE ACCESS ROAD 15' WIDE MIN. SEE TABLE BELOW FOR REQUIRED LENGTH. NOTES: 1. SURFACE WATER - ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING OR DIVERTED TOWARD CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PIPED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE. IF PIPING IS IMPRACTICAL, A MOUNTABLE BERM WITH 5:1 SLOPES WILL BE PERMITTED. 2. MAINTENANCE - THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT OFF SITE AND/OR ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL QUARRY SPALLS AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED OFF SITE AND/OR ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. 3. WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE. WHEN WASHING IS USED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS AND WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. 4. INSPECTION AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH RAIN. *PROVIDE ATB OR ASPHALT TRANSITION WHERE FRONTAGE ROAD IS AN ARTERIAL. LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY CITY INSPECTOR. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN REVISION DATE CITY OF EDMONDS STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION JANUARY 2018 ' T .. ENTRANCE PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL FS t , 18 9 APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH E R - 9 01 PROJECT SIZE MIN LENGTH OF (FEET) QUARRY SPALLS* < 1/4 ACRE 30 < 1 ACRE 50 < 3 ACRE 100 > 3 ACRE 100 UNDISTURBED PLANTS UNDISTURBED TURF (LAWN) (SEE NOTE 1) AREAS (SEE NOTE 1) UNDISTURBEDQt 0" UNDISTURBED TURF/LAWN/LANDSCAPE NATIVE VEGETATION UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL /\/ \/\� \/ �\/\�, UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL \\\/y/\\ \/\\\/\\/\/ %\! STEEP SLOPE NOTE: AMENDED SOILS SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED ON FINISHED SLOPES OPTION 1- NO DISTURBANCE EXCEEDING 33%. AREAS EXCEEDING 33% SHALL BE STABILIZED PER THE PLANTING BEDS TURF (LAWN) AREAS ENGINEER/GEOTECH OF RECORD. 2" ORGANIC MULCH 1=1 I �� //0, =1 I 1=1 11=1 11=1 1=1 I I I�_l 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I� I I I=11111 1_1 11=1 I ICI -1 I I 11=1 11=1 I H I 1=1 I I� 1=1 GRASS: SEED OR SOD mi III 3" OF COMPOST I I III I I 1 1 I 1=-Tff-1 I I I I IE T I-1 I 1111 111 11 I� I -I 11=1 I I-III-� J j I-1 I I I I -I -I � JL� I I -I I I 1.75" OF COMPOST INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO 5" OF 1=III=III=III=1--�Ij- = _��I-III - j =1I 1=111 ll -�1= I - INTO 6.25" OF SITE SOIL (TOTAL SITE SOIL (TOTAL AMENDED I I-II�� m-Ir-11-III - I = ml -III- AMENDED DEPTH OF 9.5", FOR A DEPTH OF 9.5", FORA 1=IIIIIIIIIIII=III=11 SETTLED DEPTH OF 8") SETTLED DEPTH OF 8") SUBSOIL SCARIFIED 4" BELOW ��j/=1 SUBSOIL SCARIFIED 4" BELOW COMPOST AMENDED LAYER \� � COMPOST AMENDED LAYER (12" BELOW SOIL SURFACE) (12" BELOW SOIL SURFACE) OPTION 2 - AMEND IN PLACE OR STOCKPILE AND AMEND GENERAL NOTES: PLANTING BEDS TURF (LAWN) AREAS 1. AREAS OF NO DISTURBANCE 2" ORGANIC allll GRASS: SEED SHALL BE FENCED AND EXISTING VEGETATION AND SOIL SHALL BE MULCH �� /�/ /� I=11 I�-1T 1 I I=111=1 l=I I 1=1 II I I- I I O' FII I=1(i=1 1=1I �I f 111-1 �f=1 I f=11f--ITI=1 OR SOD PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS. 1111 I III-III-IIHII�I�III-I I III=III=III=II�III-III-III 2. TO MEASURE SETTLED DEPTH, 6" IMPORTED TOPSOIL MIX 11=111�11=III=III=III=III III=III=III�II�I�III- 1=111=ll1=1 1=111 �II�III-III-III=II�III 11=III=III=III=III III=1 6 " IMPORTED TOPSOIL MIX WATER SOIL SUFFICIENTLY TO FULLY SATURATE WITHOUT (COMPACTED m=III-IIIJT��=1 1-W=1-lLl I1=1L-�=11�=� T=III (COMPACTED CAUSING EROSION. DEPTH) I=1I I�-I I1 1I I -III -III �I �I I -III -III -III -III 6" 111=�7I11 DEPTH) III-III-IIIIIIIIITI 11I 1-III=III I11=III - 3. COMPOST SHALL MEET SPEC. REQUIREMENTS IN THE 2017 SUBSOIL IS 11; -II L- - III �I it II %l �/ f' = SUBSOIL IS EDMONDS STORMWATER SCARIFIED 6" _ - I. j• \� \ � �' I � SCARIFIED 6" ADDENDUM (CHECKLIST 7). BELOW i \/� \ \� BELOW 4. COMPACTION OF TOPSOIL (WHERE TOPSOIMPIOLRMIDX\t/�\�/� OP�OILDMIX REQUIRED) TO BE TO 85% (MAX) -i OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTION 3 - IMPORT TOPSOIL PER MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST (ASTM D1557). REVISION DATE POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL APRIL 2021 -- CITY OF EDMONDS QUALITY AND DEPTH STANDARD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DETAIL APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH �g913 SD- 642 ill =30' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 60 TESC/SWPPP LEGEND 0 INTERCEPTOR SWALE CL CLEARING LIMITS FILTER FABRIC FENCE (ER-900) TEMPORARY STOCKPILE AREA (AS NEEDED) (BMP C123) MULCH &/OR STRAW MATTING (BMP C121) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION Q�. PLASTIC COVER (BMP C123) CH CONCRETE HANDLING AREA AS NEEDED (BMP C151) �5 TEMPORARY SEEDING (BMP C120) pG DUST CONTROL (BMP C140) OCATCH BASIN INSERT (BMP C220) •""�`-, SURFACE SHEET FLOW TEMPORARY STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (BMP C105 & ER-901) UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: CAUTION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. NOTES: 1. TREES OUTSIDE OF CLEARING LIMITS ARE TO BE PROTECTED. TREES TO BE PROTECTED SHALL HAVE BARRIER FENCING INSTALLED AT DRIP LINE TO PROTECT ROOT SYSTEM. 2. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL TESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN REVISE AND/OR ADJUST ESC MEASURES AS NEEDED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS IMPLEMENTED. 3. WHERE LAND DISTURBANCE SHALL OCCUR NEAR TREES, FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ROOT SYSTEM. 4. OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE. Know what's below. Call two business days before you dig. PLN2021-0034 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION I Iw Q 0 z 0 0 of '0 z N N 0 N U U Y Y � 0 o 6 w z z Y O O O W U 0. ��_EE�,�� J� �� pF WASy�,Lcr � 2 123� < �cisrE�° SS�CNA L E� OB/04/2022 2 N ti LILJ O W LAMM U Y Q O � o ocz� Z �o o� 0 m 0 ►E F_ W W a W 0 W _ w O Z LU _ J _ t� cf) a v W w N � W W LU x cn 0 O 0 W SHEET OF C2 3 21-0504 Packet Pg. 18 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL NOTES: _qW 11A _qW 11A SFC'_ A TWP 29M Prl= -F W M CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES: 2.4.b 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD PLANS AND DETAILS, THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS AND CODES, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL MUNICIPAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS: - CURRENT INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) - 2022 WSDOT/APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION - WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN (CURRENT EDITION 2019) 2. STANDARD PLAN AND TYPE NUMBERS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 3. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOBSITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 4. DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL APPROVED DEVIATIONS FROM THESE PLANS ON A SET OF "AS -BUILT" DRAWINGS AND SHALL SUMMARIZE ALL AS -BUILT CONDITIONS ON ONE SET OF REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE OWNER AND CITY OF EDMONDS PRIOR PROJECT COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET. SEE SURVEY FOR BENCHMARK INFORMATION. 7. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY OTHERS BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN AND TO FURTHER DISCOVER AND PROTECT ANY OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE, TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES AT CONNECTION OR CROSSING POINTS BEFORE TRENCHING FOR NEW UTILITIES. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND SITE FEATURES PRESENTED ON THESE DRAWINGS. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF CONFLICTS THAT ARISE. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONTACT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION SERVICE (1-800-424-5555) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE BEFORE STARTING WORK AND SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 10. PIPE LENGTHS WHERE SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHERE APPLICABLE) AND SHALL THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE CONTENTS THEREOF. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. 12. STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 13. SUBGRADE SOILS IN ALL AREAS WHERE RAIN GARDENS, INFILTRATION OR PERVIOUS PAVEMENT IS TO BE PLACED SHALL BE DELINEATED AND PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES FROM COMPACTIVE ACTIVITIES (I.E. HEAVY EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILING). 14. MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, UTILITIES AND PAVEMENT SHALL BEAR ON MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL. IF SOIL IS DISTURBED, SOFT, LOOSE, WET OR IF ORGANIC MATERIAL IS PRESENT AT SUBGRADE ELEVATION, REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 15. SEE SURVEY AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPED AREAS AND OTHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING SITE FEATURES. 16. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS. FOUNDATION DRAINS SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF OTHER SITE DRAIN LINES AND SHALL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 17. ALL REQUIRED STORMWATER FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 18. ALL ROOF DRAINS, PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS, CATCH BASINS AND OTHER EXTERNAL DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 19. DELETED 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. 21. DELETED 22. AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE EQUIVALENT OF THEIR PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 23. ALL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE COMPOST AMENDED AND SEEDED OR STABILIZED BY OTHER ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR THE PREVENTION OF ON -SITE EROSION AFTER THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF -SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEEPING. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. 25. THIS PROJECT IS NOT A BALANCED EARTHWORK PROJECT. BOTH EXPORT AND IMPORT OF SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 26. SLOPE OF FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT BETWEEN FINISHED CONTOURS OR SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN. 27. FINISHED GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WALLS AT MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10 FEET. 28. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN SHORING AND BRACING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WORKERS, EXISTING BUILDINGS, STREETS, WALKWAYS, UTILITIES AND OTHER EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXCAVATIONS AGAINST LOSS OF GROUND OR CAVING EMBANKMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF SHORING AND BRACING, AS REQUIRED. 29. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY AND FOLLOW CITY PROCEDURES FOR ALL WATER SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, HYDRANT SHUTOFFS, STREET CLOSURES OR OTHER ACCESS RESTRICTIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT RELOCATE OR ELIMINATE ANY HYDRANTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL. 30. COORDINATE AND ARRANGE FOR ALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS, UTILITY RELOCATIONS AND/OR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS WITH THE AFFECTED OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE MADE ONLY WITH ADVANCE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITIES GOVERNING SAID UTILITIES. 31. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 32. EXISTING UTILITY LINES IN SERVICE WHICH ARE DAMAGED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 33. NEW UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE GENERALLY SHOWN BY DIMENSION, WHERE NO DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, LOCATIONS MAY BE SCALED FROM DRAWINGS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND CITY. 34. FIELD STAKE ALL UTILITY STUBS AT THE PROPERTY LINE. 35. TRENCH BACKFILL OF UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95%. COMPACTION TEST REPORTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO PAVING. 36. WHERE NEW PIPE CLEARS AN EXISTING OR NEW UTILITY BY 6" OR LESS, PLACE POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FOAM AS A CUSHION BETWEEN THE UTILITIES. 37. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR CONTINUATION OF SITE UTILITIES WITHIN THE BUILDING. 38. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL WORK. 39. PIPE MATERIAL AND SIGNAGE SUBMITTALS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION w J Uj w d O Of 0- 0 c� z 1. SCHEDULE A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION AT 425-771-0220, EXT. 1326. TWO DAY (48 HR) NOTICE IS REQUIRED. 2. REVIEW TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES. 3. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. 4. INSTALL TESC MEASURES AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL WHILE PREVENTING DISTURBANCE OF ANY AREAS OF VEGETATION OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE. 5. HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES AND/OR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 6. DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES (ONLY AS SHOWN ON SWPPP) 7. DELETED 8. CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GRADE SITE. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION CONTROL NOTES BELOW) 9. OBTAIN WATER SERVICE PERMIT 10. INSTALL UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. STABILIZE AND COMPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR TO REVEGETATION OF ENTIRE SITE. 14. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGETATION. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. EX GRADE 20 ROW w z J d' w W z Z W J U Ld z W W W U m 3 O O x 0 d a VARIES EX ROAD SLOPE 1R" COURSEyPER WSDOT STD SPEC 9-03.9(3) (SEE NOTE 1) NOTE: 1. CSBC DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6" THICK, AND ACHIEVE 95% MINIMUM COMPATION PER ASTM D 1557. REVISION DATE APRIL 2021 < - CITY OF EDMONDS ASPHALT THICKENEJEDGE PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISHTR-523 8.85' EX ROAD SLOPE 162TH ST TYPICAL SECTION (NTS) 1 7' 2% 4" 6" ASPHALT PROPOSED PARKING PAVEMENT TYPICAL SECTION (NTS) 20 ROW 2.1 5' O wz 0 W Lww x¢ wa PAVEMENT J WIDENING 2% MAX ROADWAY PER STD CROSS SLOPE OR DETAIL MATCH EXISTING TR-505 (WHICHEVER IS LESS) X W 2'•� % EX GRADE ASPHALT THICKENED EDGE PER STD DETAIL TR-523 PROPERTY LINE O R.O.W. FINISHED GRADE II II METER SUPPLIEDBY I I II t= L -==III BALL VALVE - - - - - Etc DIRECTION A OF FLOW D J MATERIAL LIST: O ALL 1" SERVICES TO BE TYPE "K" SOFT COPPER TUBING OB 1" BALL CORP. STOP WITH CC THREAD INLET AND COPPER (CTS) GRIP OUTLET (FORD OR MUELLER) OC DUAL PURPOSE UNION OD MIPT X CTS GRIP BALL VALVE CURB STOP EQUAL TO FORD B84-4440 FOR 1" OWHEN REPLACING EXISTING SERVICES: 1" METER SETTER WITH ANGLE BALL METER VALVE 15" HIGH WITH DUAL PURPOSE UNIONS ON INLET AND OUTLET, HORIZONTAL IN HORIZONTAL, OUTLET EQUAL TO FORD VB74-15W-11-44 WHEN PLACING NEW SERVICES: USE SAME AS ABOVE AND ADD A SINGLE CHECK, EQUAL TO FORD VBH74-15W-11-44 0 1" CC TAP SERVICE SADDLE EQUAL TO ROMAC 101S OG IN UNPAVED AREAS: CARSON 1324 MSBCF WITH DUCTILE IRON COVER AND CAST IRON READER DOOR; IN PAVED AREAS: ARMOR CAST A6001946PCX12 BOX W/ A600196969 RCI LID OH FOR VACANT LOT (FUTURE USE) LOCATION MARKED WITH PAINTED 2" X 4- STAKE WITH "WATER" STENCILED ON IT 0 14 GA. VINYL COATED WIRE TRACER (TAPED TO PLASTIC PIPE EVERY 10') TO BE GROUNDED AT METER AND HOUSE ( SCHEDULE 40 3/4" OR 1' PLUG, REMOVE WHEN CONNECTION IS MADE TO CUSTOMER LINE WITH COMPRESSION FITTING OK WATER SERVICE TO HOUSE, INSTALLED BY OWNER/CONTRACTOR (PER PLUMBING CODE) © PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR PURCHASING 3/4" OR 1" METER THROUGH THE CITY AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT; CITY WILL SUPPLY AND INSTALL METER AFTER PURCHASE; IF USING 3/4" METER, CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE REDUCERS OM BACK SIDE OF METER BOX SHALL BE SET AT THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. METER BOXES SHALL NOT BE SET IN DRIVEWAY AREAS UNLESS TRAFFIC RATED BOX IS APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER. \ REVISION DATE CITY OF EDMONDS 3/4"-1" JANUARY 2018 WATER SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS INSTALLATION STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL Fs t 189APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH WA-1 30 1' FINAL JOINT SHALL BE A NEAT SAW CUT STRAIGHT LINE. ALL EXPOSED VERTICAL EDGES SHALL BE TACKED NEATLY PER WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 5-04.3(4) APPROVED TACK OR APPROVED EQUAL AND SEALED PER WSDOT STD 5-04.3(4)A. SLOPE EXCAVATION TO AVOID UNDERMINING EXISTING PAVEMENT. HMA CLASS 1/2- PG 58H-22 (SEE NOTES 4 & 5) 1' EXISTING HMA.'.........................................................................pv EXISTING �� /A a a od MATERIAL�� BEDDING MATERIAL (1-1/4" MINUS) CRUSHED SURFACE BASE COURSE (SEE NOTE 3) IMPORT BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY (SEE NOTE 2) TRENCH WIDTH NOTES: 1. SEE CITY OF EDMONDS MODIFICATIONS TO DIVISION 9 OF THE CURRENT WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR BACKFILLING REQUIREMENTS. 2. SUBMIT PROCTOR AND DENSITY TESTS FROM CERTIFIED TESTING COMPANIES DOCUMENTING THAT THE BACKFILL MEETS A MINIMUM OF 95% DENSITY PER ASTM D 1557. 3. CSBC DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6", AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MULTIPLE EQUAL THICKNESS LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 6". 4. ROADWAY HMA DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4" FOR RESIDENTIAL ROADS AND 6" FOR COLLECTORS/ARTERIALS. 5. ALLEY HMA DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2" THICK. UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER, ANY DEPTH GREATER THAN 2" SHALL MATCH EXISTING. 6. UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER, THE HMA SHALL BE INSTALLED IN MULTIPLE EQUAL THICKNESS LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 2". 7. FINAL PAVEMENT JOINTS SHALL BE NEATLY SAW CUT AND UNIFORMILY SEALED WITH WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 5-04.3(4)A APPROVED JOINT SEALANT OR APPROVED EQUAL. % REVISION DATE TYPICAL HMA AND APRIL 2021 CITY OF EDMONDS UTILITY PATCH PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD DEPARTMENT DETAIL Fs t g 9 APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH G U- 41 0 UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: CAUTION: • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON • THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING ® THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER Know what's below. OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION Call two business AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE days before OU dig. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TO Y Y g• RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. PLN2021-0034 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: ■M CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION w Q 0 z O (N N N O N O U U 3: 3: N O z a`U W z w w W > O O O W U a IL Q EE�,�� pF WAS/.yN � �123� < cisrE '0 SS/0NA L E� OB/04/2022 00 c C � � 2 �_ W Q US m __j Z W 0) o O O m O �77 A/ W N a to W LU ~ 2 O I.L OUj Z 0 J _ W v 0 0 1.1 Z 06 UJI N w W Uj Z 0 z O 0 W SHEET OF C3 3 21-0504 Packet Pg. 19 _qW 1 /d _qW 1 /d SFC'_ A TWP 29M Prl= -F W M 2.4.b z SURVEY NOTES: SEE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY WEST ALLIANCE DATED 08/15/2020 HERZER SHORT PLAT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN HAUL ROUTE ill =30' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 30 0 30 60 EX CB RIM=85.18 LE.=81.63 I / c / EX 6" SS CO W/ 12" LOCKING EX SIDE SEWER �, EX CB LAMPHOLE COVER WITH 1 /2" HEX PER CITY AS "PVC RIM=87.02 BOLTS AND CONCRETE/ASPHALT I APPRO'X Z CYOPLAREX CB RIM 102.33 ° 1@98A(IVEX SSMH / \ O �� I. E. RIM=65.21 EX CB EX C8 ffG=��oo RI,�/ Jam' LE.=57.63 (CTR.) Z 7 RIM=102.81 RIM=110.12 EX SDMH o / S2 g6 I.E.=100.31 I.E.=108.37 EX CB EX SDMH RIM=89.53 I 8 EX CB RIM= 117.54 RIM=65.73 I.E.=81.13 W l a I EX 8 °SO 0 ry RIM=114.34 I.E.=114.44 LE.=60.28 8" _ /�� N I.E.=80.53 N O LE.=57.43 15 �� % �° l I RIM-87. 9 I O °b HOUSE LE.=110.44 0 l 1 L�nl �} EX SSMHL E. 79 (Vh. S.) b EX CB S / RIM= 118.02 RIM=88.05 / � SD I.E.= 114.62 8" LE.=78.22 (CTR.) ASPHALT 8 2" E-115.62 6" I '. o SAWCUT AND PATCH � o � SD 8» I � / ASPHALT PER GU-410 / o _ I / 1 �' X P° 13'44'E 7. g5' I I I I o SS- _ SEE NOTE 7 N / — — / / PUBLIC A�CCE�� , I SMT ° / G I 87° 13' E SHED 48" I S W A PUBLICEASUTILITY ROAD SC\4 12" AFN 9203020337 / I / 10.0' O G O� / SHED I / WORK / � O x / / / PUBLIC UTILITY D / / 0 8-7 �� 71 44"V v - ( Q) a EASEMENT E CEX GA � AFN 8306230251 O / / APPROXIMATE OC d18" / �' N OBSERVED ROAD a 1 1.73' °RAG 1 0 / / / IM 1 ' g / CENTERLINE 32.0' I.E/=I1 . 11, W20-1 PLACE ROAD WORK / APPROXIMATE/ PRIVATE / / / 15' SIDE SEWER O _EX GAS LINE SERVES LOT 2 / / I I N� I ( // // ° �0 / AHEAD SIGN 100' WEST WE�L�AND/B� ( UTIL EASEMENT l GRAVEL, l / t I ( / / �O / 1' 1 / OF ROAD WORK 1,833 F. / / / ACCESS EASME / I I/ 02 / / / / / / ��P I I // / / / ice PUBLIC UOTILITY RI CB / _---'TO BENEFIT L 2 15' �'° HOUSE \ 4 P / / o) I I I I I I I � / / �� EASEMENT R1M=65.94 / / / � � I AFN 8306230251 1.E.=63.74 / l / / / / / 0 NO O LOT 1 \ 1� / I I IIII�4/1 ° ±36,518 SF kp1 / r / PROPOSED ROADWAY / �r 0 ARKING e-3 WIDENING AREA = 81 SIF / / LLS l jl SSMH � / B-2/ / PLUS 18" ASPHALT o % 1 $ FOR / l / IM 1. 14 / // �/ "/ J I I I ❑ / a THICKENED 2 o l/ l.E/- 1 7.8� // I I �7 p EDGE TR-523 L�� lJ� Q o SEE SHEET 3 162ND ST ? r / / / ° / / l / / / / ///j/ // / I ❑ / / ° o TYPICAL SECTION DETAIL "� / 1 LOT 2 GRAVEL ; l ((� /r// o o d • / ,±33,883 SF r a ' CON ' .d • l l l 9D / / / / // �b0do �g pro �� O EX SIDE SEWER i ��0 Qw I\ l I l l lE / / // RECORD OF SURVEY 4" PVC �1i I l / / // (A. F. #201610255002 ❑ /PER CITY AS-BUILTS l/ I (I APPROX.HVUSE %1 I /.lE�123iq 00, o /,, _ o /l�//,)////r SHED d 0l Q rRIM 72. 5 P �� / / ,j� \/ / oh G G I.E.=70 0 G/ S r / `L b 1 °D �� - S'4 / 11 / � / / 1 � 6 % � 87" 13'44/E '> �6 15 ,� // / r / ' �)�o / / ,IP ( / G -- /� J/I (/ l, KRET 'TONE-' J /°/ / / °�P °�o ° LL P P �s EX r RIM 77. 13 / / r 0 ° r P \ 17 1; l A- ° / l \i I EX I8 I.E.-71.58 15" / / l /('RIM= 1 1171 /LOY go \708_ 0 G �� o WETLAND A ° �\4,744 _106- / N I/ / UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: SITE ta_`7 m VICINITY MAP SCALE 1 " = 2,000' N TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES 1) ALL SIGNS SHALL BE BLACK ON ORANGE. 2) MATERIALS SHALL BE HAULED TO AND FROM THE SITE VIA 75TH PL TO 76TH AVE W TO OLYMPIC VIEW DR. CAUTION: • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON • THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING ® THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER Know what's below. OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION Call two business AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE days before OU dig. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER OF RECORD TO Y Y g• RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION m J J U U N N 00 W U-) 00 00 N �� ~ Z V) W Z W Z m m 0 0 m N_ WU U U Z I N N N 0 N N 0 6 w z 2 Y z O O O W U Q ,� � E E J� �� C ff WWAASS&/Ncr V CAP nL A3�, 7230 M < SS/ONA L E� OB/04/2022 W �_ W Q a 5 m O � O a o� � W o� O m 0 O 0 z EE ►E 08 W Q z N J Q � a J W J W O W 0 WO _=zW C�U)OJ otS OC C� = H W v w N U.W°Ca 0o W o� c/ a z O 2 0 W SHEET OF 1 1 21-0504 Packet Pg. 20 2.4.c PRIVATE ACCESS FASFMFNT TO BENEFIT LOT 2 PROPOSED STREET DEDICATION AREA TO PLACE ROAD AND UTILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. LE r ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT EXHIBIT SCALE: 1 "=30' SEWER EASEMENT TO BENEFIT LOT 2 Packet Pg. 21 2.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Presentation of City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) to meet NPDES Stormwater Permit Requirements Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History Staff Recommendation This is a project update on the Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) process. The item can be scheduled for a presentation to the full City Council or placed on the consent agenda for information. Narrative The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) now requires that their receiving water prioritization process be used by all Phase II cities, which includes the City of Edmonds (City), to meet the requirements of S5.C.1.d.ii of the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater permit (Phase II permit). The approach taken to complete this prioritization process follows Ecology's Stormwater Management Action Planning (SMAP) Guidance manual, with data that reflect Edmonds priorities, resident feedback, and the Edmonds specific drainage basins. The City is retaining the services of Herrera Environmental so that it can meet these requirements within the dictated timelines set by DOE and keep the City's NPDES permit compliant. Per DOE deadlines and requirements, the City's receiving water assessment was prepared and submitted to Ecology in March 2022 as the City's Watershed Inventory Technical Memorandum. This included collated existing information and data for conditions and stormwater influence of the watersheds that cover the City limits. Upon completion of the Watershed Inventory Technical Memorandum, per DOE requirements and using DOE's SMAP Guidance document, a basin prioritization Technical memorandum was prepared. The intent of this prioritization is to determine which watershed would be the best candidate for development of a Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP). DOE required that this document be submitted to them by June 30, 2022. The presentation will provide information about this new NPDES requirement, steps that have currently taken place and further steps that will be completed in order for the City to remain compliant with the permit. Packet Pg. 22 2.5 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Edmonds SMAP Presentation Attachment 2 - Technical Memorandum - Receiving Water Prioritization Attachment 3 - Addendum - Receiving Water Prioritization Attachment 4 - Technical Memorandum - Receiving Water Assessment Packet Pg. 23 imnnri-q hirormwalrp-r Arric :JF.To =ssualre7sElir: . J " �:,. l •2'fri: P.�•w,h• ` 4., - • yK 1��r1.'�+' r.� •i•!�'}'r F1''7'.ti.,-. •y • !• i•Ki• . r.� •ti � yr- Y.- � t � •• •,� ••,;'i'�.r?i: •.r- -.�� r '�:' ��' F -y}; ��•�:r r�'�� 'i�:.�y •• ^�t" �^�`� `��- ,;,��it', rC+`��_ j V% .�.0 y i. ]�`�.1 .}=..rt� � j► . *. r'Y 't, { }�_,, r r. 1!�`�' ,r �� t,, y..-33.. • Y"+r 4►y� ..7,t[•.i ��5�� ,\,-.�ti '1�• .'�+.- L ZA .rj f ~ s� .-•�11rf Ix } �• -Ir� •�I' 1 .. 1K 7 t' �.�-'+y'~•e'jT' V�L'. Lilt r r• W. ► r • Provide a brief description of the project & schedule • Describe prioritization results • Highlight next steps Driver: Municipal Stormwater Permit • Stormwater planning requirements include a water health assessment, selecting a priority watershed, and developing an implementation plan Public Input • Workshops • StoryMap and Survey .Jr., Nov. 2021-Jan. 2022 Water Health Assessment 2/8/22 and 2/10/22 Public Workshops 3/31/22 Water Health Assessment Complete here 6/30/22 Selection of Priority Watershed Complete 3/31/23 Implementation Plan Deadline • Posted StoryMap & survey • Held 2 Public Workshops • Watershed Inventory Technical Memorandum Met permit deadline — March 2022 • Prioritization Technical Memorandum Met permit deadline —June 2022 i-A` ........... r - Packet Pg. 29 Watershed Prioritization Process Step 1. Develop List of Candidate Watersheds Step 2. Evaluate Candidate Watersheds Step 3 . Evaluate Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds Is Step 4. Select Highest Priority Watershed and Catchment 9 Watersheds 6 Candidate Watersheds 4Watersheds i Highest Priority Watershed IL � a CO N 0 W 1 � E a E a Packet Pg. 30 Refine List of Candidate Watersheds Watershed City Control Acres in City Reason for Exclusion Edmonds Marsh 77% 1,4o6 Hall Creek —Lake Ballinger 16% 829 Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks 100% 774 Retain for Prioritization Perrinville Creek 42% 541 Shell Creek 100% 1,340 Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks 86% 476 Packet P�=j Identify Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds a * Edmonds Marsh * 'H a I I Cre-ek-Lake B all I i niger * N orthstrea m- F ruitadal a Creeks * Perri nvi I le Creek * Shell Creek Stiltho use -Terrace Creels * Edmonds Marsh * Hall C r-e-ek-Lake Ballinger * Pe rr i nvi I le Creek * Sh-ei l Creep Packet Pg. 32 Identify Priority Watershed �cJ • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creep -Lake Bal II nger • Pe rri nvi Ile Creek Pei rinvi Ile Creek LynnwGGd Ed� c nAfs Esper}ance r +� M ntlake 1�-- errace Echo La Shoreline Brirr �ke.Forest iPark Packet Pg. 33 Identify the following and document in the Implementation Plan: • Retrofit opportunities • Existing projects (with updated cost estimates) • Land management/development strategies • Enhanced stormwater management actions • Proposed implementation schedule/budget/funding sources • Short-term actions (6 years) • Long-term actions 0020years) 2.5.b (L4&k HERRERA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: June 27, 2022 To: Patrick Johnson, City of Edmonds From: Mindy Fohn; Katie Wingrove, PE; and Rebecca Dugopolski, PE; Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Subject: City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization CONTENTS Background.......................................................................................................................................................................3 Step 1: Develop List of Candidate Watersheds....................................................................................................4 Step 2: Evaluate Candidate Watersheds.................................................................................................................7 Receiving Water Use Importance Evaluation...............................................................................................7 Development and Future Growth Evaluation............................................................................................10 Water and Habitat Condition Evaluation....................................................................................................12 Watershed Management Goals and Retrofit Strategies........................................................................14 Step 3: Evaluate Restoration Watersheds For Jurisdiction Control, Public Input, Social Equity, and Projects.............................................................................................................................................17 EdmondsMarsh....................................................................................................................................................18 HallCreek -Lake Ballinger..................................................................................................................................19 PerrinvilleCreek....................................................................................................................................................19 ShellCreek..............................................................................................................................................................20 Step 4: Select Highest Priority Watershed and Catchment...........................................................................21 References........................................................................................................................................................................ 24 2200 Sixth Avenue I Suite 1100 1 Seattle, Washington 1 98121 1 p 206 441 9080 1 f 206 441 9108 SEATTLE, WA 1 PORTLAND, OR I MISSOULA, MT I OLYMPIA, WA I BELLINGHAM, WA x 0 7 co N C, O N N O N O u �I O O M N O Y E Packet Pg. 35 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization TABLES Table 1. Description of Evaluation Category, Purpose, and Selected Metrics Used During Step 2 of the Prioritization Process......................................................................................7 Table 2. Scoring Method to Assess Receiving Water Use Importance...................................................8 Table 3. Receiving Water Use Importance Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basinsin the City of Edmonds...............................................................................................................9 Table 4. Scoring Method to Assess Development and Future Growth................................................10 Table 5. Development and Future Growth Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds.............................................................................................................11 Table 6. Scoring Method to Assess Water and Habitat Condition.........................................................12 Table 7. Water and Habitat Condition Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basins in theCity of Edmonds...............................................................................................................................13 Table 8. Summary of Scoring and Ranking Results for the Candidate Basins in the City ofEdmonds................................................................................................................................................14 Table 9. Watershed Management Goals and Retrofit Strategy Results for the Candidate Basinsin the City of Edmonds.............................................................................................................16 FIGURES Figure 1. Watershed Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds........................................................4 Figure 2. Candidate Watersheds Identified During Step 1 and Step 2 of the Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds..........................................................................................................5 Figure3. City of Edmonds Watersheds................................................................................................................6 Figure 4. Watershed Management Goal Framework....................................................................................15 Figure 5. Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds Identified During Step 2 and Step 3 of the Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds.........................................17 Figure 6. Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds Identified During Step 3 and Priority Watershed Identified During Step 4 of the Prioritization Process forthe City of Edmonds.........................................................................................................................22 Figure 7. City of Edmonds Perrinville Creek Catchment for SMAP Implementation Plan...............23 n� HERRERA June 2022 2 Packet Pg. 36 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization BACKGROUND The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the receiving water prioritization process used for the City of Edmonds (City) to meet the requirements of S5.C.1.d.ii of the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater permit (Phase II permit). The approach taken to complete this prioritization process generally follows Ecology's Stormwater Management Action Planning (SMAP) Guidance (Ecology 2019) with modifications that reflect city priorities, stakeholder feedback and the landscape. The City's receiving water assessment submitted to Ecology with the 2021 Annual Report (prior to March 31, 2022), collated existing information and data for conditions and stormwater influence in the nine watersheds (Herrera 2022). The intent of this prioritization is to select one watershed for development of a Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP). (Ecology uses the term SMAP to refer to both the Stormwater Action Planning process and the development of a Stormwater Management Action Plan for a specific watershed. In this sense SMAP refers to development of a Stormwater Management Action Plan.) Prioritization involved the following steps: 1. Develop list of candidate City watersheds to carry forward through the prioritization process. 2. Evaluate candidate watersheds using selected metrics from the watershed inventory (e.g., stormwater influence, jurisdiction control, and basin size) and develop a scoring, ranking, and rating procedure based on those metrics. Use the ratings to assign watershed management goals of Restoration or Development. 3. Evaluate Restoration and Moderate Restoration watersheds with respect to jurisdiction control, public input, social equity, and existing projects and plans. 4. Select the highest priority watershed. Delineate catchments, if necessary, within the highest priority watershed to identify a 400- to 600-acre catchment for development of the SMAP. Figure 1 depicts the steps for the prioritization process and the number of City watersheds included in each step. n� HERRERA June 2022 3 Packet Pg. 37 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Figure 1. Watershed Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds. STEP 1: DEVELOP LIST OF CANDIDATE WATERSHEDS Nine watersheds were delineated in the City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment technical memorandum (Herrera 2022) and are listed in Figure 2 and depicted spatially in Figure 3. Between Step 1 and Step 2, the list of nine watersheds was reduced to six candidate watersheds. The criteria for removing the three watersheds was based on low City jurisdiction control (4 percent or less), resulting in minimal stormwater influence from the City. The three watersheds that were removed include: • Deer Creek • Lund's Gulch • Southwest Edmonds The remaining six watersheds listed in Figure 2 were moved forward to SMAP prioritization (Step 2). %HERRERA June 2022 4 Packet Pg. 38 2.5.b Technical Memorandum • Deer Creek • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger • Lund's Gulch • Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks • Perrinville Creek • Shell Creek • Southwest Edmonds • Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger • Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks • Perrinville Creek • Shell Creek • Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks Figure 2. Candidate Watersheds Identified During Step 1 and Step 2 of the Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds. %HERRERA June 2022 Packet Pg. 39 Legend ED Edmonds City Limits Edmonds Unincorporated UGA Watershed Boundary - Waterbodies Streams Highway J In rr fcy Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, WAS-S&te Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmi SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Lan Management, EPA, NIPS, USD Figure 3. City of Edmonds Watersheds. 0 0.63 1.25 2.5 N Mil �HERRERA N:\Pr.j,-\Y2021\21-0]]23-000\Ar.Pr.\Ed..ntls_SMAP\Edm.nds_SMAPaprx I Packet Pg. 40 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization STEP 2: EVALUATE CANDIDATE WATERSHEDS Next, the six candidate watersheds were scored and ranked using three evaluation categories: • Receiving Water Use Importance • Development and Future Growth • Water and Habitat Conditions Table 1 summarizes the purpose of each of the prioritization categories and describes the metrics that were used to evaluate them. Metrics were selected with input from City staff and review of Ecology guidance (Ecology 2019). Each of these evaluation categories and their associated metrics are described in additional detail in the following sections. Table 1. Description of Evaluation Category, Purpose, and Selected Metrics Used During Step 2 of the Prioritization Process. Category Purpose Metrics Receiving Determine extent the receiving water • City Park Acres Adjacent to Water Bodies Water Use supports use by aquatic species and • Wellhead Protection Area (10-yearTime of Travel) Importance the community. Higher scores denote 9 Freshwater Salmon and Trout Species Presence a greater diversity of species, habitat 9 Forage Fish Nearshore Species Use presence and community access. * Pocket Estuary Development Determine extent of development and • Percent Total Impervious Area and Future potential future development. Higher • Percent Development in Riparian Buffer Growth scores denote a higher level of • Expected Population Growth development and future development. Water and Determine existing level of impairment • Listed Water Quality Impairments Habitat of water quality and habitat • Water Quality Concerns from Local Studies Conditions conditions. Higher scores denote • Fish Passage Barriers per Stream Mile better conditions. Receiving Water Use Importance Evaluation Water use importance was scored based on City public parks near receiving waters, presence of wellhead protection areas, number of salmonid and trout species, presence of forage fish habitat, and presence of pocket estuaries (representing likely presence of juvenile salmon). The scoring method applied to assess water use importance is summarized in Table 2. %HERRERA June 2022 7 Packet Pg. 41 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Table 2. Scoring Method to Assess Receiving Water Use Importance. Metric Method City Park Watersheds were scored based upon ParkServe®a mapping representing acres of city lands Recreation Areas adjacent to water bodies for public access and recreation. • Score of 0: 0 acres • Score of 1: 1-50 acres • Score of 2: 51-100 acres • Score of 3: Greater than 101 acres Wellhead Watersheds were scored based upon the Washington Department of Health Wellhead Protection Area Mapping representing the percent of watershed area within the 10-year time of travel for (10 year time of groundwater protection. travel) • Score of 0: 0 percent of basin area within 10-year time of travel • Score of 1: 1 percent or greater of basin area in 10-year time of travel Freshwater Watersheds were scored based upon the Statewide Salmon Distribution Database Salmon and Trout representing presence, rearing and diversity of salmonid species. Species Presence • Score of 0: No salmonid or coastal cutthroat trout listed as present • Score of 1: 1 species • Score of 2: 2-3 species • Score of 3: More than 3 species Forage Fish Watersheds were scored based upon Washington State Forage Fish Mapping representing Nearshore Species use of the nearshore habitat by surf smelt and/or herring for spawning. Use • Score of 0: No forage fish spawning at nearshore area • Score of 2: Forage fish spawning present at nearshore area Pocket Estuary Watersheds were scored based upon Washington State Ecology Coastal Atlas Mapping Presence representing presence of pocket estuary use byjuvenile salmonids and other species. • Score of 0: No pocket estuary to supportjuvenile chinook and other species • Score of 2: Presence of pocket estuary to supportjuvenile chinook and other species a Regional parks layer by the Trust for Public Land The highest potential water use importance score is 11. Scores for candidate watersheds ranged from 1 to 9 and are compiled in Table 3. Edmonds Marsh received the highest score (9) for water use importance . However, it is noted that Hall Creek — Lake Ballinger, due to lack of a marine nearshore component, is at a disadvantage in the scoring system. Edmonds Marsh, Perrinville Creek, and Shell Creek are considered to be high in terms of Water Use Importance. %HERRERA June 2022 8 Packet Pg. 42 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Table 3. Receiving Water Use Importance Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds. I City Lands Near Freshwater Salmon Receiving Waters for Wellhead Protection and Trout Species Pocket Public Accessa Area Presence Forage Fish Estuary Yes/ Yes/ Total Watershed Acres Score % Area Score Species Score No Score No Score Score Rank Edmonds Marsh 53 2 5 1 Coho, resident 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 1 trout Shell Creek 70 2 0 0 Coho, resident 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 8 2 trout Perrinville Creek 110 3 0 0 Coho, resident 2 Yes 2 No 0 3 trout Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger 9 1 4 1 Coho, fall 3 No 0 No 0 4 4 chinook, resident trout, winter steelhead, sockeye Northstream-Fruitdale 12 1 0 0 None 0 No 0 No 0 1 5 Creeks Stilthouse-Terrace 9 1 0 0 None 0 No 0 No 0 1 A 5 Creeks a The City Lands Near Receiving Waters for Public Access. metric was developed after the watershed inventory (Herrera 2022) was published. It is a representation of City lands (acres) accessible for public access and represents the value of water bodies within the City for the public. The data source is a comprehensive regional parks layer from ParkServe® by the Trust for Public Land', downloaded August 6, 2021. Mapped parks were selected for proximity to waterways, including connected park areas adjoining those immediately accessible to the waterway. An automated selection along mapped creek lines was used as the starting point for identifying these parks. Additional park areas were added manually based on spatial proximity to the creeks, lakes, or Puget Sound (with assumed access). Red indicates a high level of Water Use Importance. Green indicates a low level of Water Use Importance. Yellow indicates a moderate level of Water Use Importance. This score for the for Hall Creek — Lake Ballinger watershed is an ambiguous result. The Hall Creek — Lake Ballinger watershed does not influence marine nearshore since it discharges to Lake Washington. It is recognized that the scoring system is biased toward watersheds with marine shorelines. &A HERRERA June 2022 Packet Pg. 43 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Development and Future Growth Evaluation Development and future growth was assessed using metrics for total watershed impervious surface, impervious surface within City riparian buffer, and expected population growth. The scoring method applied to assess development and future growth is summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Scoring Method to Assess Development and Future Growth. Metric Method Percent Total Impervious Area Watersheds were scored based upon total (watershed -wide) impervious area as a measure of the degree to which existing development may be contributing pollutants and flow. • Score of 0: Less than 10 percent impervious area • Score of 1: 11-25 percent impervious area • Score of 2: 26 to 40 percent impervious area • Score of 3: 41 percent and greater impervious area Percent of Impervious Area in Watersheds were scored based upon impervious surface within the regulated Stream Riparian Zone riparian stream buffer. (200-foot buffer) • Score of 0: 0 to 30 percent • Score of 1: 31 to 50 percent • Score of 2: 51 to 70 percent • Score of 3: Greater than 71 percent Expected Population Growth Watersheds were scored based upon expected population growth from 2021 to (greater than 1.25 percent 2026. growth from 2021 to 2026) • Score of 0: 0 to 5 percent of area with greater than 1.25 percent growth • Score of 1: 6 to 15 percent of area with greater than 1.25 percent growth • Score of 2: 16 to 30 percent of area with greater than 1.25 percent growth • Score of 3: Greater than 30 percent of area with greater than 1.25 percent growth The highest potential development and future growth score is 9. Scores for candidate watersheds ranged from 3 to 9 and are compiled in Table 5. City of Edmonds watersheds are moderately to highly developed with impervious surface ranging from 28 to 51 percent. Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger, and Shell Creek were the highest ranked watersheds for development and future growth with scores of 9, 7 and 6, respectively. %HERRERA June 2022 10 Packet Pg. 44 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Table S. Development and Future Growth Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds. Watershed Percent Impervious Surface Percent Development in Riparian Buffer Basin Area with Expected Population Growth Greater than 1.25 Percent Total Score Rank % TIA Score Percent Score Percent Score Edmonds Marsh 51 3 76 3 35 3 9 1 Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger 50 3 64 2 17 2 7 2 Shell Creek 48 3 66 2 7 1 6 3 Perrinville Creek 41 3 41 1 5 0 4 4 Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks 37 2 60 2 0 0 4 4 Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks 28 1 60 2 1 0 3 6 TIA: total impervious area. Red indicates a high level of Development and Growth. Green indicates a low level of Development and Growth. & HERRERA June 2022 11 Packet Pg. 45 2.5.b Technical Memorandum Water and Habitat Condition Evaluation City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Water and habitat condition was evaluated using metrics for listed water quality impairments, water quality concerns from local studies, and fish passage barriers per stream mile. Scoring for water quality and habitat conditions are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Scoring Method to Assess Water and Habitat Condition. Metric Scoring Listed Water Quality Watersheds were scored based upon 303(d) listings. Impairments • Score of 0: No listings • Score of 1: 1 to 2 parameters • Score of 2: 3 to 4 parameters • Score of 3: more than 4 parameters listed and/or Category 5 listing Water Quality Concerns Watersheds were scored based upon local studies performed since 2010 that were not from Local Studies submitted to Ecology, do not factor into any 303(d) listings and the studies do not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan associated with them. • Score of 0: No concerns • Score of 1: 1 to 2 parameters of concern • Score of 2: 3 to 4 parameters of concern • Score of 3: more than 4 parameters of concern Fish Passage Barriers Watersheds were scored based upon the number of full fish passage barriers per fish per Stream Mile bearing stream mile. • Score of 0: Less than 2.0 • Score of 1: 2.1 to 4.0 • Score of 2: 4.1 to 6.0 • Score of 3: Greater than 6.1 The highest potential Water and Habitat Conditions score is 9. Scores for the candidate basins ranged from 2 to 6 and are compiled in Table 7. Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek — Lake Ballinger, and Shell Creek watersheds scored the highest out of the six watersheds, indicating poorer water quality and habitat conditions. n� HERRERA June 2022 12 Packet Pg. 46 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Table 7. Water and Habitat Condition Scoring and Ranking for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds. Watershed Listed Water Quality Impairments Water Quality Concerns from Local Studies Fish Passage Barriers per Stream Mile Total Score Rank Number of Parameters Score Number of Parameters Score Full Barriers per Stream Mile Score Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger 5 3 1 1 4.3 2 6 1 Edmonds Marsh 1 1 4 2 6.8 3 6 1 Shell Creek 0 0 1 1 6.1 3 4 3 Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks 0 0 0 0 6.4 3 3 4 Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks 0 0 0 0 6.0 3 3 4 Perrinville Creek 0 0 1 1 3.6 1 2 6 Red indicates a high Water and Habitat Conditions score (with poor water and habitat conditions present). Green indicates a low Water Quality and Habitat Conditions score (with good water quality and habitat conditions present). & HERRERA June 2022 13 Packet Pg. 47 Technical Memorandum 2.5.b City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Watershed Management Goals and Retrofit Strategies Evaluation results were used to apply a rating corresponding with the level of water use importance (high, moderate, low), development and future growth (high, low) and existing water and habitat conditions (high/poor, and low/good). Ratings were applied based upon the total score for each evaluation category and are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Summary of Scoring and Ranking Results for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds. Water Use Importance Development and Growth Water and Habitat Conditions Watershed Total Score Ratinga Total Score Rating Total Score Rating` Edmonds Marsh 9 High 9 High 6 High/Poor Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger 4' Moderate 7 High 6 High/Poor Northstream- Fruitdale Creeks 1 Low 4 Low 3 Low/Good Perrinville Creek High 4 Low 2 Low/Good Shell Creek 8 High 6 High 4 High/Poor Stilthouse- Terrace Creeks 1 Low 3 Low 3 Low/Good a Highest potential Water Use Importance score is 11. Scores 6-11=High, 4-5 = Moderate, <3=Low. b Highest potential Development and Growth score is 9. Scores 7-9=High, 5-6 = Moderate, :A Low. Highest potential Water and Habitat score is 9. Scores of 5-9 = High/Poor, <4 Low/Good. Watersheds were placed in a management category based on watershed prioritization guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce (2016) and the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization Project (Ecology, 2016). In summary, Restoration watersheds (upper right quadrant in Figure 4) are optimum candidates for greatest benefit to the receiving water of stormwater management actions. %HERRERA June 2022 14 Packet Pg. 48 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Highest Watershed Management Matrix Lowest Level of pegradation Highest Source: Ecology, 2016 Figure 4. Watershed Management Goal Framework. The framework is based upon the y-axis from lowest to highest for "Level of Importance" and the x-axis from lowest to highest for "Level of Degradation." For this analysis, the "Level of Importance" is derived from the Water Use Importance evaluation. "Level of Degradation" is derived from the Development and Growth evaluation and the Water and Habitat Condition evaluation. Edmonds watersheds have higher levels of development with watershed percent impervious surface ranging from 28 to 51. Therefore, all of the City's watersheds were assigned management goals of Restoration or Development. No watersheds fit into the Conservation or Protection management goal categories. Ecology guidance (Ecology 2019) recommends "higher priority be assigned to basins with receiving waters that show low to moderate levels of impairment. These receiving waters are expected to benefit more quickly as a result of stormwater management actions". Therefore, Restoration watersheds were then split into two subgroups: Restoration and Moderate Restoration watersheds. Restoration watersheds are those with lower levels of Development and Growth and good Water and Habitat Conditions. In contrast, Moderate Restoration watersheds are characterized by higher levels of Development and Growth and poor Water and Habitat Conditions. Restoration watersheds are less degraded (and impaired) than Moderate Restoration watersheds. Ultimately, Restoration watersheds are more suited for a SMAP Plan because receiving water improvements are more likely due to lower levels of basin degradation. However, due to the high Water Use Importance (i.e., value to aquatic life, the community or drinking water) of both Restoration and Moderate Restoration watersheds, both would benefit from a proactive approach for stormwater retrofits and additional stormwater management actions. The difference is that greater levels of investment would be required in Moderate Restoration watersheds for environmental benefit as compared to Restoration watersheds. n� HERRERA June 2022 15 Packet Pg. 49 Technical Memorandum 2.5.b City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Development watersheds are of low Water Use Importance. Development watersheds are candidates for an opportunistic approach for stormwater retrofits and additional stormwater management actions where these receiving waters would experience some benefit. The Perrinville Creek watershed was categorized as a Restoration watershed, and Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek -Ballinger and Shell Creek were categorized as Moderate Restoration watersheds. The results from assessment of the three evaluation categories, watershed management goals, and retrofit strategy for the candidate watersheds are summarized in Table 9. Table 9. Watershed Management Goals and Retrofit Strategy Results for the Candidate Basins in the City of Edmonds. Water and Watershed Water Development Habitat Management Retrofit Watershed Importance and Growth Conditions Goal Strategy High/Poor Moderate Proactive Edmonds Marsh High High Restoration High/Poor Moderate Proactive Hall Creek — Ballinger Moderate High Restoration Northstream —Fruitdale Creeks Low Low Low/Good Developme Opportunity Perrinville Creek High Low Low/Good Restoration Proactive Shell Creek High High High/Poor Moderate Proactive Low Restoration Stilthouse —Terrace Creeks Low Low/Good DevelommomM Opportunity Note: Color indicates the watershed management matrix as shown in Figure 4. The four Restoration and Moderate Restoration watersheds listed in Figure 5 were moved forward into Step 3. %HERRERA June 2022 16 Packet Pg. 50 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger • Northstream- Fruitdale Creeks • Perrinville Creek • Shell Creek • Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger • Perrinville Creek • Shell Creek Figure S. Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds Identified During Step 2 and Step 3 of the Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds. STEP 3: EVALUATE RESTORATION WATERSHEDS FOR JURISDICTION CONTROL, PUBLIC INPUT, SOCIAL EQUITY, AND PROJECTS The last step in the prioritization process was to evaluate other characteristics of the watersheds These characteristics included jurisdiction control, social equity, public input, and projects. Each of these characteristics are described below to provide background information. Jurisdiction control is the percentage of watershed in the City of Edmonds boundaries. Partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions are noted. Although the City of Edmonds may not have major control of a watershed, partnerships may provide opportunities for coordination to address flow control and water quality problems. Social equity metrics were calculated using data from the Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map. Disparity rankings are 0 to 10, with 10 indicating the highest level of threat to, or vulnerability of, populations in the geographic area. The Environmental Health Disparities (EHD) composite rank is an index of four categories: environmental exposures, environmental effects, socioeconomic factors, and sensitive populations. Rankings are displayed by census tract. Disparity rankings were evaluated using two methods. First, applying the watershed boundary to the census tract map and calculating the rankings for each subcategory and EHD composite score. Watershed rankings are summarized in the Receiving Water Inventory (Herrera 2022, Appendix A). Second, individual census tract rankings were reviewed visually with watershed boundaries overlayed to identify areas within the watershed with higher or lower rankings. Stormwater projects, especially those that increase greenspace, may improve neighborhoods and potentially reduce exposure to environmental hazards. & HERRERA June 2022 17 Packet Pg. 51 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization Public outreach was conducted during development of the watershed inventory and the preliminary prioritization method. The City posted a StoryMap on the project web page and held two virtual public workshops on February 8 and 10, 2022. Public input was collected from the StoryMap survey and the public workshops. Public input is summarized for both the workshops and survey. Public support may be important for funding and implementation of SMAP projects. Projects were identified from the current Stormwater Capital Improvements projects list, City Capital projects list, and studies identifying potential retrofit projects at the conceptual stage. City staff were consulted about the timing, status and probability of implementation of projects Leveraging recent and future projects within a watershed may provide synergy benefitting a target receiving water. Results from this last set of evaluation categories are summarized below by watershed. Edmonds Marsh Watershed Characteristics: The Edmonds Marsh drainage basin is approximately 2.9 square miles and 51 percent impervious surface. Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek flow into Edmonds Marsh prior to flowing into Puget Sound south of the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Terminal. Recent studies have shown sediment contamination at the north end of the marsh; contaminants have included metals and organics typical to those generated by stormwater. Surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat is present along the shoreline. A pocket estuary and continuous eelgrass beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The streams have documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. Jurisdiction Control and Partnerships with Adjacent Municipalities: Seventy seven percent of the watershed is within the City of Edmonds. The remaining 33 percent is in the Cities of Woodway, Shoreline, as well as Snohomish County. Edmonds has no formal or informal stormwater or receiving water focused partnerships with the adjacent municipalities. Public Input: Edmonds Marsh placed third in public opinion in regard to watershed prioritization. The public identified the Willow Creek Daylight project as having a high community and environmental benefit. Social Equity: Edmonds Marsh watershed wide EHD composite score (2.8) was the second lowest of the four watersheds (and similar to Shell Creek), indicating it is among the lowest for threat to and vulnerability of populations. However, upon review of the EHD map, the upper basin has greater levels of sensitive populations and environmental vulnerability (ranks of 6 and 7) compared to the lower basin (rank of 1). Projects: The City is currently leading an effort to implement the Willow Creek Daylight and Marsh Enhancement Project. This project would result in removing a tide gate, daylighting and naturalizing the stream connection between the marsh and Puget Sound, and restoring the marsh. The project would benefit juvenile salmon by providing critical estuary habitat. Controlling stormwater flows upstream of the project could benefit downstream water quality n� HERRERA June 2022 18 Packet Pg. 52 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization and erosion in the project area. Due to challenges with property transfer and ongoing environmental cleanup issues, the project is currently on hold. Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger Watershed Characteristics: The Hall Creek —Lake Ballinger drainage basin is the largest in this assessment at approximately 8.1 square miles and 50 percent impervious surface. The receiving waters are the upper Hall Creek, flowing into Lake Ballinger, and then flowing out to McAleer Creek, and then Lyon Creek flows into McAleer near the terminus to Lake Washington. City stormwater impacts Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger. Hall Creek experiences significant flooding and erosion. Some city lands contribute stormwater to Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is subject to a water quality clean-up plan for phosphorus. Gains have been made in recent years and the lake currently meets the phosphorus loading allocation. Multiple salmon species are documented in the basin including fall chinook, coho, winter steelhead and sockeye, along with resident coastal cutthroat trout. Jurisdiction Control and Partnerships with Adjacent Municipalities: Sixteen percent of the watershed is within the City of Edmonds. The remaining 84 percent is in the cities of Lynnwood, Montlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, and Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds is an active participant in the Lake Ballinger -McAleer Creek Watershed Forum, and an interlocal agreement includes all cities and the county in the watershed. Public Input: Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger placed second in public opinion in regard to watershed prioritization. The public identified Lake Ballinger as a valuable community resource and controlling algal blooms in the lake is a high priority. Social Equity: Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger watershed wide EHD composite score (6.4) was highest of the four restoration watersheds for threat to and vulnerability of populations. When reviewing the EHD map, all census blocks rank either 6 or 7 for sensitive populations and environmental vulnerability. Projects: The City is in the planning stage for the Ballinger Regional Stormwater Facility located at Mathay Public Park with construction anticipated within 5-8 years. Another project is the Lake Ballinger Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project lead by the City of Mountlake Terrace with construction planned for 2023. The project would enhance and restore the floodplain area at the north end of Lake Ballinger. Controlling flows to Hall Creek could benefit the downstream floodplain project. Both projects will include public amenities and green space within the watershed benefitting overburdened communities. Perrinville Creek Watershed Characteristics: The Perrinville Creek drainage basin is approximately 2.01 square miles and 41 percent impervious surface. Perrinville Creek is the mainstem and discharges into Puget Sound. Erosion, flooding and fish passage barriers at the creek mouth are a concern. A n� HERRERA June 2022 19 Packet Pg. 53 2.5.b Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization pocket estuary and limited eelgrass and kelp beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The stream has documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. Jurisdiction Control and Partnerships with Adjacent Municipalities: Forty two percent of the watershed is within the City of Edmonds. The City of Lynnwood controls the remaining 58 percent. The City of Edmonds has two active partnerships to reduce flows to Perrinville Creek, one with the City of Lynnwood and the other with the Snohomish Conservation District. The City of Edmonds completed the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Study in 2015, projects in both jurisdictions were identified in the study. Four projects from the study are included in the City of Lynnwood Capital Improvement Projects list. The City of Edmonds and the Snohomish Conservation District are also implementing a residential rain garden cost -share program in the watershed. Public Input: Perrinville Creek watershed placed highest in public opinion in regard to watershed prioritization. The public indicated removing the fish passage barrier at the creek mouth, restoring fish habitat and controlling flooding was of high community importance and environmental benefit. Social Equity: Perrinville Creek watershed wide EHD composite score (3.4) was second highest of the four watersheds indicating a moderate level of threat to and vulnerability of populations. However, upon review of the EHD map, the upper basin has a greater levels of sensitive populations and environmental vulnerability (ranks of 5 and 6) compared to the lower basin (rank of 1). Projects: Stormwater from the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood has been identified as causing significant impairments to the creek. To begin the process of controlling flows, the City of Edmonds has completed Phase I of the Seaview Infiltration facility and is constructing Phase II in 2022 or 2023. The City implemented stricter flow control requirements for new development and redevelopment in the upper basin. Additionally, the Perrinville Creek Retrofit Study (2015) presents modeled results for flow reduction benefit if retrofit projects are constructed in both Edmonds and Lynnwood. These projects would reduce flood frequency, allow removal of the fish passage barriers that exist at the mouth, and reduce habitat scour. The City anticipates completing design of the Perrinville Creek Recovery Project which will include the replacement of two significant fish passage blocking culverts at the creek mouth, realignment and reconstruction of the streambed along the lower reach, and addressing modifications and possible decommissioning of a diversion structure. The project is currently still in the planning stages including coordination with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and culvert removal is expected in 4 or 5 years. Shell Creek Watershed Characteristics: The Shell Creek drainage basin is approximately 2.1 square miles and 48 percent impervious surface. Shell Creek is the mainstem and Hindley Creek merges at about 750 feet upstream of the discharge point into Puget Sound. Erosion is a water quality V HERRERA June 2022 20 Packet Pg. 54 Technical Memorandum City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization 2.5.b concern. Surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat is present along the shoreline. A pocket estuary and continuous eelgrass beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The streams have documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. Jurisdiction Control and Partnerships with Adjacent Municipalities: Ninety nine percent of the watershed is within the City of Edmonds. There are no adjacent municipalities of note contributing to the watershed. Public Input: Shell Creek was a priority for one community member from a total of 23 survey responses. The community member noted that it drains to Puget Sound and contains important nearshore habitat. Social Equity: Shell Creek watershed wide EHD composite score (2.6) was lowest of the four restoration watersheds (and similar to Edmonds Marsh), indicating it is among the lowest for threat to and vulnerability of populations. However, upon review of the EHD map, the upper basin has greater levels of sensitive populations and environmental vulnerability (ranks of 4 and S) compared to the lower basin (rank of 1). Projects: No stormwater projects or plans have been identified for the Shell Creek basin. STEP 4: SELECT HIGHEST PRIORITY WATERSHED AND CATCHMENT Scoring, ranking and rating watersheds provided the opportunity for the City to better understand the level of importance of receiving waters to aquatic life and the community, the level of development and future growth, and level of condition of receiving waters. Based upon the prioritization results, Perrinville Creek (Figure 6) was selected as the highest priority watershed for the following characteristics: • High water Use importance rating • Moderate level of Development and Future Growth rating • Good Water and Habitat Condition rating • Receiving water benefits are anticipated to occur more quickly than in other watersheds • Strong community support • Leverages existing partnerships with adjacent agencies, • Supports recent and future projects %HERRERA June 2022 21 Packet Pg. 55 Technical Memorandum 2.5.b City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization • Ecology guidance (2019) recommends a catchment size for the SMAP Implementation Plan of between 400 and 600 acres. The size of the Perrinville Creek watershed in the city is 541 acres, thus the full watershed within the city limits is the selected catchment area (Figure 7) for development of the SMAP Implementation Plan. 1. � • Edmonds Marsh • Hall Creek -Lake Ballinger • Perrinville Creek • Shell Creek Figure 6. Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds Identified During Step 3 and Priority Watershed Identified During Step 4 of the Prioritization Process for the City of Edmonds. %HERRERA June 2022 22 Packet Pg. 56 2.5.b iC Brier Kenn- c ke Forest iPark Foy Briercrest i c WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, MET F NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USD C, Legend Figure 7. U City of Edmonds Perrinville Creek ® Perrinville Creek Watershed Waterbodies (Edmonds) Catchment for SMAP Implementation Plai Q - Perrinville SMAP Catchment Streams (Simplified) 0 0.63 1.25 2.5 t Watershed Boundaries Highway LN) Mil Edmonds Boundary T Q �HERRERA N:\Projects\Y2021\21-0]]23-000\ArcPro\Etlmontls_SMAP\Etlmontls_SMAP.aprx Packet Pg. 57 Technical Memorandum 2.5.b City of Edmonds Receiving Water Prioritization REFERENCES Department of Commerce. 2016. Building Cities in the Rain: Watershed Prioritization Guidance for Stormwater Retrofits. <https://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias 1780/34828/default.aspx>. Washington State Department of Commerce. September. Ecology. 2016. Puget Sound Characterization. Volume 1: The Water Resource Assessments (Water Flow and Water Quality). Washington Department of Ecology. Publication Number 11-06-016. Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Action Planning Guidance. Washington Department of Ecology — Water Quality Program. Publication Number 19-10-010. August. Herrera. 2022. City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington. March 21. Addendum prepared in June 2022. n� HERRERA June 2022 24 Packet Pg. 58 2.5.c (L4&k HERRERA ADDENDUM Date: June 28, 2022 To: Patrick Johnson, City of Edmonds From: Rebecca Dugopolski, Mindy Fohn, and Katie Wingrove, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Subject: Addendum to the City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX A The project team was notified by a City of Edmonds citizen that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Passage Crossing Web map tool was updated after publication of the original City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Technical Memorandum (Receiving Water Assessment Technical Memorandum) prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants on March 21, 2022. The updates to the fish passage barriers were significant, so the project team has decided to prepare an addendum to the Receiving Water Assessment Technical Memorandum and to fold this updated information into the receiving water prioritization process that is due for completion by June 30, 2022. WDFW data included in the original Receiving Water Assessment Technical Memorandum was exported in January 2022. It is recognized that this database is updated at intermittent intervals, and potential users are not notified. The fish passage barrier data presented in this addendum was exported on May 2, 2022. This addendum provides an updated version of Table A-3 with updated fish passage barrier information included in the following columns: • # of Barriers per Stream Mile • # of Barriers in Basin • # of Complete Barriers in Basin • Description of Complete Barriers in Basin within City 0 2200 Sixth Avenue I Suite 1100 1 Seattle, Washington 1 98121 1 p 206 441 9080 1 f 206 441 9108 SEATTLE, WA 1 PORTLAND, OR I MISSOULA, MT I OLYMPIA, WA I BELLINGHAM, WA x V 0 0 N N O N a c w u a 0 u 3 u u E 0 O O M N n O i RE Packet Pg. 59 2.5.c r aD 0 E 0 r a a c a c 0 a r c a� E aD am Cu c �a L a� r 3 E L 0 4- 0 L CL r_ 0 N •L O L Q. L d R V E r a Packet Pg. 60 2.5.c Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Existing Landscape Condition Road Crossings Habitat Fragmentation - Furthest Roads (Fish Passage Barriers) Downstream Fish Barrier % Total Impervious Area Road Density # of Barriers per Stream Description of Complete Barriers in Basin Metric/Basin (TIA) (linear feet per acre) Highways Mile # of Barriers in Basin # of Complete Barriers in Basin within City Metric Description % impervious surface Length of roads List of highways that Mapped WDFW fish passage barriers related to road Subset of mapped barriers that are not passable by fish based on processed NLCD (including highways) per cross through the crossings grids acre basin Data Source 2019 MRLC NLCD Merged King County WSDOT highway WDFW Web Map Tool, WDFW Web Map Tool, WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted data Jan Impervious Layer and Snohomish County mapping extracted data Jan 2022; extracted data Jan 2022; data Jan 2022; King County stream 2022; King County stream layer (modified) road shapefiles King County stream layer King County stream layer layer (modified) (modified/ simplified) (modified/ simplified) Updated May 2, 2022 Updated May 2, 2022 Updated May 2, 2022 Updated May 2, 2022 City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 20.4% 81 None 0 0 0 No mapped total barriers Hall Creek -Ballinger 50.0% 136 1-5 4.3 28 11 Total/partial barrier mapping on McAleer SR-99 Creek at 1-5 (outside Edmonds) may block SR-104 access to/from Lake Washington Lund's Gulch 34.7% 96 SR-99 1.3 3 0 No mapped total barriers Northstream-Fruitdale 37.2% 121 SR-524 6.4 9 6 Unknown % passable at Fruitdale and Northstream Creek mouths. Total barriers nearby upstream. Perrinville 40.8% 126 SR-524 3.6 3 1 Total barrier on Perrinville Creek at Talbot Road Shell Creek 47.5% 144 SR-524 6.1 10 4 Total barrier on Shell Creek at 7th Ave N culvert Total barrier on Hindley Creek near confluence with Shell Creek (culvert at Brookmere Dr) Southwest Edmonds 44.0% 122 None Not Applicable 8 4 Not Applicable - no channel in City limits Stilthouse-Terrace 28.2% 107 None 6.0 9 7 Total barrier at mouth of Outfall Creek Unknown % passable at Stilthouse and Terrace Creek mouths Upstream total barriers on Stilthouse and Terrace Edmonds Marsh 51.1% 142 SR-524 6.8 15 11 Total barrier on Shellabarger Creek at SR- SR-104 524 (owned by WSDOT) Total barrier on Willow Creek at Pine St culvert (owned by City) Packet Pg. 61 2.5.c Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Existing Landscape Condition (continued) Habitat Fragmentation - Furthest Recent Redevelopment/ Downstream Fish Barrier (continued) Riparian Buffer Tree Canopy Loss Development Patterns Length of stream prior to first Area with 50% or Greater % of Basin with Recent Metric/Basin complete barrier (linear feet) % Development in Riparian Buffer % Canopy Cover in Riparian Buffer Canopy Loss (%) Redevelopment or Development Metric Description Identify first full barrier and measure % development in riparian buffer % forest cover in riparian buffer Includes areas with 50% or Area with redevelopment or downstream linear feet (includes streams, lakes, and wetlands) (includes streams, lakes, and greater canopy loss from 2006 development activity from 2006- wetlands) to 2017 2017 Data Source WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted data 2019 NLCD - Development Codes 21, 2019 NLCD - Forest Codes 41, 42, 43 WDFW Puget Sound High WDFW Puget Sound High Jan 2022; King County stream layer 22, 23, 24 (excludes wetlands, marsh, shrub) Resolution Change Detection Resolution Change Data (HRCD) (modified) Buffer: DNR stream typing; Buffer: DNR stream typing; (HRCD) 2006 - 2017 Change 2006 - 2017 Change Detection City GIS data: wetlands and City GIS data: wetlands and Data layer layer, includes "Development" and Updated May 2, 2022 waterbodies waterbodies "Redevelopment" change categories City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek No mapped total barriers 18.9% 81.1% 1.17% 1.90% Hall Creek -Ballinger 17,971 63.6% 6.3% 0.78% 2.09% Lund's Gulch No mapped total barriers 19.3% 75.6% 2.83% 4.13% Northstream-Fruitdale Fruitdale: 420 60.1 % 39.5% 1.01 % 1.23% Northstream: 1305 (Unknown barriers at creek mouths) Perrinville 575 40.8% 56.4% 0.73% 1.54% Shell Creek Shell Creek: 2810 66.4% 30.2% 0.77% 1.32% Hindley Creek: 377 Southwest Edmonds Not Applicable - no channel in City 56.6% 38.5% 0.49% 2.11% Stilthouse-Terrace Stilthouse Creek: 935 59.6% 40.0% 0.69% 0.73% Terrace Creek: 458 (Unknown barriers at creek mouths) Outfall Creek: 0 Edmonds Marsh Shellabarger Creek: 3,490 76.2% 5.3% 0.62% 1.33% Willow Creek: 1,558 Packet Pg. 62 2.5.c Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Existing Landscape Condition (continued) Future Development Stormwater Drinking Water Buildable Lands Areas with Higher Projected Infrastructure Stormwater Infrastructure Resources Projection Population Growth % of Basin within 10- % of Basin with Projected Length of Stormwater # of MS4 Outfalls to Shoreline/ % of Basin that is year Travel Time for % of Basin that is Population Growth Greater Than Metric/Basin Pipe (linear feet) # of MS4 Outfalls to Streams Marine Discharge Flow Control Exempt WHPA Redevelopable 1.25% Metric Description City MS4 MS4 outfalls in riparian buffer MS4 outfalls to lakes and Puget Sound Acres of FC Exempt/ Area that is sensitive for From Snohomish County Area by block group with projected total acres drinking water Buildable Lands Report population growth greater than 1.25% from 2021-2026 Data Source City GIS data: Edmonds City GIS data: "STORM -CULVERTS" City GIS data: "STORM_ CULVERTS" City GIS data: WSDOH Wellhead Snohomish County ESRI 2021-2026 USA Population STORM -LINE mapping point layer, modified to classify as point layer, modified to classify as Watershed layer Protection Area Map, 10- Buildable Lands Report Growth (Block group scale) Riparian, Marine, or Other & filtered Riparian, Marine, or Other & filtered to indicating "Puget year Travel Time layer and associated GIS layers to remove BNSF-owned outfalls remove BNSF-owned outfalls according Sound" or "Puget according to STORM_LINEjurisdiction to STORM_LINEjurisdiction field. Sound Piped" drainage field. City only or Basin wide Metric? City City City Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 9,326 1 0 0% 65.6% 1.90% 47.2% Hall Creek -Ballinger 119,915 14 0 0% 4.0% 2.50% 17.2% Lund's Gulch 2,533 1 1 0% 0% 0% 68.3% Northstream-Fruitdale 92,914 2 1 48.7% 0% 3.20% 0% Perrinville 58,088 5 0 0% 0% 1.70% 4.7% Shell Creek 192,492 16 2 10.2% 0% 5.30% 6.9% Southwest Edmonds 19,231 0 0 0% 10.4% 0.40% 17.2% Stilthouse-Terrace 53,222 1 3 35.7% 0% 1.90% 1.1 % Edmonds Marsh 192,578 16 16 54.1% 5.1% 5.50% 35.3% Packet Pg. 63 2.5.c r aD 0 E 0 a a a c 0 a c a� E 0 c 0 L 3 E L 0 /b+ V! 0 0 0 0 0 L a c 0 r 0 N �L 0 L a L 0 yr 0 c,> N0 E Packet Pg. 64 2.5.d (ok- HERRERA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: March 21, 2022 To: Pat Johnson, City of Edmonds From: Rebecca Dugopolski, Mindy Fohn, and Katie Wingrove, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Subject: City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment CONTENTS Background.......................................................................................................................................................................3 Basin Delineation and Receiving Water Identification......................................................................................4 Methods.....................................................................................................................................................................4 Results........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Receiving Water Conditions Assessment...............................................................................................................8 Methods..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Results......................................................................................................................................................................13 Stormwater Management Influence Assessment.............................................................................................14 Methods...................................................................................................................................................................14 Results......................................................................................................................................................................19 Candidate Basins for Prioritization.........................................................................................................................20 EdmondsMarsh....................................................................................................................................................20 Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and Puget Sound..............................20 HallCreek—Ballinger............................................................................................................................................21 Hall Creek, Lake Ballinger, McAleer Creek, Lake Washington.................................................21 ShellCreek..............................................................................................................................................................22 ShellCreek, Hindley Creek....................................................................................................................22 Perrinville.................................................................................................................................................................22 PerrinvilleCreek........................................................................................................................................22 Northstream-Fruitdale.......................................................................................................................................23 Northstream Creek, Fruitdale Creek..................................................................................................23 2200 Sixth Avenue I Suite 1100 1 Seattle, Washington 1 98121 1 p 206 441 9080 1 f 206 441 9108 SEATTLE, WA I PORTLAND, OR I MISSOULA, MT I OLYMPIA, WA I BELLINGHAM, WA N Q E Packet Pg. 65 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Stilthouse-Terrace................................................................................................................................................23 Outfall Creek, Stilthouse Creek, Terrace Creek.............................................................................23 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................24 References........................................................................................................................................................................25 APPENDICES Appendix A Receiving Water Conditions Assessment Tables Appendix B Detailed Scoring Matrix TABLES Table 1. Data Sources for the Basin Delineation.............................................................................................4 Table 2. City of Edmonds Watersheds for the SMAP Process....................................................................5 Table 3. Data Sources for the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment...............................................8 Table 4. Metrics Used to Complete the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment ..........................11 Table 5. City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions Assessment Scores.......................................13 Table 6. Data Sources for Stormwater Management Influence Assessment......................................14 Table 7. Scoring and Weighting Method Used to Complete Stormwater Management InfluenceAssessment.............................................................................................................................17 Table 8. Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Scores..........................................................19 Table 9. Combined Scoring and Candidate Basins for Prioritization.....................................................20 Table 10. Combined Results of Receiving Water Conditions Assessment and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment.................................................................................................24 FIGURES Figure 1. City of Edmonds Watersheds................................................................................................................7 M c as E U r a E n� HERRERA Q March 2022 2 Packet Pg. 66 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment BACKGROUND The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the process used to prepare a receiving water conditions assessment for the City of Edmonds (City) to meet the requirements of SS.C.1.d.i of the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Phase II permit). The approach taken to complete this inventory generally follows Ecology's Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) guidance (Ecology 2019) with modifications that reflect the specific needs of the City and the landscape. The inventory was conducted in three general steps, which are described in detail in following sections: • Basin Delineation and Receiving Water Identification • Receiving Water Conditions Assessment (including an evaluation of water resource uses) • Stormwater Management Influence Assessment The full results from the receiving water conditions assessment are included as Appendix A, (Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3). Table A-4 includes the results of the overburdened communities (equity) inventory. Equity data will be utilized during the prioritization step of the SMAP development process. The intent of this assessment is to provide a characterization of each of the City's basins using two sets of metrics; one aimed at evaluating receiving water conditions and the second at stormwater management influence. Using selected metrics from Appendix A, an initial screening was completed to identify basins that will be carried forward into the prioritization phase of SMAP planning. Summary information is provided for each of the basins that were retained for the next phase of the planning. This technical memorandum along with the Excel workbook (Appendix A) and basin inventory matrix summary (Appendix B) will be submitted to Ecology with the City's annual report by March 31, 2022, as required by the NPDES Phase II permit. During the next phase of this project, the selected basins will be further evaluated and prioritized. This will involve looking more closely at planned activities and expected changes in pollutant loads or flows, opportunities, management goals, and other information to support an informed decision. n� HERRERA March 2022 3 Packet Pg. 67 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment BASIN DELINEATION AND RECEIVING WATER IDENTIFICATION The first step in the SMAP planning process was to delineate the City's basins and identify receiving waters so that the inventory data could be matched with the appropriate basin and receiving waters. The number of basins defined is dependent upon the scale used and needs to be appropriate for supporting the inventory and planning effort. Ecology's SMAP guidance (Ecology 2019) recommends a scale of 1 to 20 square miles. Seven of the nine basins identified meet this guidance, but two are less than 1 square mile. Methods The City provided two primary GIS datasets to develop the basin delineation (Table A-1 in Appendix A). The City's GIS data was supplemented by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream mapping and urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. Table 1 summarizes the data sources used for basin delineations. Table 1. Data Sources for the Basin Delineation. Metric Data Source Method Notes Watershed area City GIS data: "Edmonds -Watersheds" feature See discussion following this table describing class revised drainage basin boundaries Receiving waters City GIS data: "STORM _DITCH_CREEK" feature Edmonds stream mapping is not continuous. (list of streams) class, DNR stream mapping It was used for identification and naming, but not for analysis Receiving waters GIS: NHD layer (list of lakes) City control Washington Geospatial Open Data: Intersected city boundary (and UGA) with all Washington State City Urban Growth Areas watersheds to calculate percent control (2019) DNR: Department of Natural Resources GIS: Geographic Information Systems NHD: National Hydrography Dataset UGA: urban growth area To organize the City drainage basins for the SMAP evaluation process, the following minor revisions were made: • Ecology's SMAP guidance indicates that delineation should cover the "total drainage area, including all contributing areas outside of your permit coverage area" (Ecology 2019). Minor adjustments were needed to expand the delineated boundaries to include areas outside the city: o The Hall -Ballinger Watershed was expanded beyond the city boundary to include King County's McAleer Creek topographic basin extents. & HERRERA March 2022 4 Packet Pg. 68 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment o The Southwest Edmonds Watershed has no open channel inside city limits and did not have a corresponding drainage area mapped by King County, so the Puget Sound Watershed Characterization (PSWC) assessment unit boundary was used to delineate the boundary to its full extent. • Ecology's SMAP guidance states that receiving waters should be identified with a total watershed between 1 to 20 square miles. The City's Surface and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan (Herrera 2010) identified 26 basins, with many of small size. Small basins were grouped together to create SMAP assessment watersheds of appropriate size, where possible. Some minor splits and adjustments were made to merge coastal areas into their adjacent watersheds; these were grouped, where possible, based on shoreline environment categories and mapped coastal features (such as eelgrass). The result is that multiple small streams are grouped into one watershed for analysis. • Catchment delineation is a later step in the SMAP process intended for the priority basin. Ecology guidance indicates that catchments should be between 400 to 600 acres in size. Due to the small size of the City's watersheds, dividing into catchment areas required minimal effort and was completed for all watersheds for future use. Many of the original drainage areas already fit within the catchment size range. Where appropriate, watersheds were split into catchments along city boundaries or major roads with reference to topography. Results Watersheds were named based on hydrologic features of interest. Table 2 lists nine watersheds to be evaluated and prioritized through the SMAP process. Detailed information regarding each watershed is provided in Table A-1 in Appendix A. Table 2. City of Edmonds Watersheds for the SMAP Process. Percent of Total Basin Watershed Name Area (square miles) Within City Limits (%) Receiving Waters Deer Creek 0.35 43% Deer Creek Puget Sound Halls Creek -Ballinger 8.10 16% Hall Creek McAleer Creek Lake Ballinger Lake Washington Puget Sound Lund's Gulch 2.11 4% Lund's Gulch Creek Puget Sound Northstream-Fruitdale 1.21 100% Fruitdale Creek Northstream Creek Pu et Sound V HERRERA March 2022 5 Packet Pg. 69 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 2 (continued). City of Edmonds Watersheds for the SMAP Process. Percent of Total Basin Watershed Name Area (square miles) Within City Limits (%) Receiving Waters Perrinville 2.01 42% Perrinville Creek Pu et Sound Shell Creek 2.11 99% Hindley Creek Shell Creek Puget Sound Southwest Edmonds 1.46 21% Unnamed Creek (outside City) Puget Sound Stilthouse-Terrace 0.87 86% Outfall Creek Stilthouse Creek Terrace Creek Puget Sound Edmonds Marsh 2.89 77% Shellabarger Creek Willow Creek Edmonds Marsh Puget Sound Two watersheds in the City (Deer Creek and Stilthouse-Terrace) are smaller than the Ecology SMAP guidance recommended threshold of 1 square mile. All basins ultimately flow to Puget Sound, including Hall Creek — Ballinger, which flows to Lake Washington first, but then eventually to Puget Sound. Hall Creek -Ballinger is the largest drainage basin. This drainage basin includes the upper system of Hall Creek, Lake Ballinger at the mid -basin, and McAleer Creek at the lower basin. Northstream-Fruitdale, Shell Creek, Stilthouse Terrace, and Edmonds Marsh all have greater than 75 percent of their basin area within the city limits. %HERRERA March 2022 6 Packet Pg. 70 2.5.d 6 ft d Lund's Gulch � O r 164d Q 000' St\� use; errace y c c� Perry itille Northstrea+m--Frruuitdale Lynnwood E nv/ 0 O r Shell Creek t` L Edmonds Marsh d r c m Deer'Creek Brier E Hall tlake rn fn Creek -Ballinger ace N Q L Southwest U Edmonds S h o eline nrr E or st c L O r C� G V v WA State Parks GIS, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NAS, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USG FEM C d E Legend Figure 1. Edmonds City Limits City of Edmonds Watersheds. Q Edmonds Unincorporated UGA Watershed Boundary o 0.63 1.25 2.5 U M i I c�v - Waterbodies Q Streams H E R R E RA Highway Packet Pg. 71 N:\Projects\Y2021\21-0]]23-000\ArcPro\Etlmontls_SMAP\Etlmontls_SMAP.aprx 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT The goal of the receiving water conditions assessment is to develop a high-level screening of the City's basins to provide a simple comparison of the existing condition of each water resource and the water resource uses they support. Information and attributes were scored to allow a quantitative comparison of the basins. Methods The first step of the receiving water conditions assessment was to develop a list of metrics and compile the data by basin. While a wide variety of metrics were developed, not all of them were used in the scoring due to suspected autocorrelation (i.e., degree of similarity) and to simplify and focus the assessment on the metrics that were most helpful. The metrics not used in the scoring are summarized in Table A-2 in Appendix A and may be useful during sub -catchment delineation and prioritization. Table 3 summarizes the metrics and data sources selected for the receiving water conditions assessment. Table 3. Data Sources for the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment. Metric Method Category Metric(s) Data Source(s) Notes Water Quality Benthic index of biotic integrity • Puget Sound Benthos Database Web -based (B-IBI) • Willow Creek Study (Shannon and indicator Wilson 2019) database 303(d) Dissolved Oxygen Ecology WQA Database (2016 Assessment) Web -based Listed indicator Temperature Water Bacteria database Bioassessment Phosphorus Water pH • Willow Creek Study (Shannon and Literature Quality Wilson 2019) review Dissolved Oxygen Conditions • 2017 Stream Team Report (Edmonds Temperature Stream Team 2017) Bacteria • 2020 Stream Team Report (Edmonds Phosphorus Stream Team 2020) Sediment Quality • 2019-2020 Snohomish County Lakes Program Report Sediment/Erosion Metals Export Puget Sound Watershed Characterization, Web -based Metals Export Degradation map review Water Flow Water Flow Puget Sound Watershed Characterization, Web -based Water Flow: Overall Importance map review Groundwater Protection WSDOH Wellhead Protection Times of Web -based Travel Map map review W HERRERA March 2022 8 Packet Pg. 72 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 3 (continued). Data Sources for the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment. Metric Method Category Metric(s) Data Source(s) Notes Nearshore Nearshore Habitat • Shore Zone Inventory (WDNR 2001) Web -based Conditions • King County Brightwater FEIS (2001) map review • City Shoreline Master Program Nearshore Biological • Shore Zone Inventory (WDNR 2001) Web -based • King County Brightwater FEIS (2001) map review • City Shoreline Master Program Mapped Pocket Estuary Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Web -based Recovery Project map review Water ESA Listed Salmon Units • SWIFD Database GIS analysis of Resource • Salmon Scape web -based Uses resoureces GIS analysis of Salmonids and Resident Fish SWIFD Database web -based (Presence, Rearing, Spawning) resoureces Fish Hatcheries • Ecology Coastal Atlas Literature and • 2020 Stream Team Report (Edmonds web -based Stream Team 2020) map review • SalmonScape Public Contact Recreation WSDOH Recreational Beach Classifications Web -based Condition Map map review Web -based Shellfish Harvesting WSDOH Shellfish Growing Areas Map map review Recent Fish Releases 2020 Stream Team Report (Edmonds Literature Stream Team 2020) review Recent Observed Spawning 2020 Stream Team Report (Edmonds Literature Stream Team 2020) review Water Supply WSDOH Wellhead Protection Times of Web -based Travel Map map review ESA: Endangered Species Act FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement GIS: Geographic Information Systems SWIFD: Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution WDNR: Washington Department of Natural Resources WQA: Water Quality Assessment WSDOH: Washington State Department of Health The metrics selected from those listed in Table 3 to represent water resource condition include: • Listed surface water quality impairments • Water quality concerns from local studies %HERRERA March 2022 9 Packet Pg. 73 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment The metrics selected from those listed in Table 3 to represent water resource uses include: • Public recreation — beaches • Public recreation — boat launches • Drinking water supply • Wellhead protection areas • Aquatic habitat —marine and freshwater nearshore • Aquatic species —freshwater • Aquatic species —forage fish • Pocket estuary juvenile fish habitat Water resource condition scoring was based upon the concept that higher levels of water resource use and lower water quality receive higher scores. An assigned weight of I" indicated "moderate importance." An assigned weight of "2" indicated "high importance." Water quality data without a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) were weighted at I" and data with a QAPP was weighted "I" Not all receiving waters are subject to environmental monitoring. Therefore, a bias for waters with environmental monitoring data is inherent. Receiving waters that support certain water resource uses (i.e., swimming, aquatic life, or water supply) tend to be monitored whereas, receiving waters with little to no water resource use are absent of data. Table 4 provides a list of these metrics and a brief description of the scoring and weighting methods. n� HERRERA March 2022 10 Packet Pg. 74 2.5.d Technical Memorandum (continued) City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 4. Metrics Used to Complete the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment. Metric Scoring Method Weighting Method Water Resource Condition Listed Water Quality Basins were scored based on the number of listed water quality parameters or in the receiving water Assigned weight = 2 Impairments downstream of the basin: High importance • Score of 0: No listings • Score of 1: 1 to 2 parameters • Score of 2: 3 to 4 parameters • Score of 3: more than 4 parameters listed and/or Category 5 listing Water Quality Concerns These data are from studies with no documented QAPP therefore are weighted at 1. Assigned weight = 1 from Local Studies • Score of 0: No concerns Moderate importance • Score of 1: 1 to 2 parameters of concern • Score of 2: 3 to 4 parameters of concern • Score of 3: more than 4 parameters of concern Support of Water Resource Uses Public Recreation Beaches • Score of 0: No public recreation access Assigned weight = 1 • Score of 1: 1 point for each public access Moderate importance Public Recreation Boat • Score of 0: No public recreation access Assigned weight = 1 Launches • Score of 1: 1 point for each public access Moderate importance Drinking Water Supply or • Score of 0: 0% of basin area in 10-year time of travel for wellhead Assigned weight = 1 Wellhead Protection Area • Score of 1: 0.5% to 15% of basin area in 10-year time of travel for wellhead Moderate importance (10-yearTime of Travel) • Score of 2: 16% to 60% of basin area in 10-year time of travel for wellhead • Score of 3: greater than 60% of basin area in 10-year time of travel for wellhead Aquatic Habitat —Marine • Score of 0: No eelgrass or kelp present Assigned weight = 1 and Freshwater Nearshore • Score of 1: Patchy eelgrass or kelp in nearshore area Moderate importance • Score of 2: Moderate eelgrass or kelp in nearshore area • Score of 3: Dense eelgrass or kelp in nearshore area & HERRERA March 2022 11 Packet Pg. 75 E Q 2.5.d Technical Memorandum (continued) City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 4 (continued). Metrics Used to Complete the Receiving Water Conditions Assessment. Metric Scoring Method Weighting Method Support of Water Resource Uses (continued) Aquatic Species— • Score of 0: No salmonid or coastal cutthroat trout listed as present Assigned weight = 1 Freshwater • Score of 1: 2 species Moderate importance • Score of 2: 3 species • Score of 3: More than 3 species Aquatic Species —Forage • Score of 0: No forage fish spawning at nearshore area Assigned weight = 1 Fish • Score of 2: Forage fish spawning present at nearshore area Moderate importance Pocket Estuary — Juvenile • Score of 0: No pocket estuary to support juvenile chinook and other species Assigned weight = 1 Fish Habitat • Score of 2: Presence of pocket estuary to support juvenile chinook and other species Moderate importance QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan March 2022 4- 0 C 0 r 0 c a� aD L a C m E y Q m a� C Z L) O W E C 0 E ci r a E r n� HERRERA Q Packet Pg. 76 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Results Table 5 provides the receiving water conditions assessment scores for each drainage basin along with the key rationale for the scoring and where it ranked in the list of nine drainage basins. Note that a high score indicates poor water quality and numerous water resource uses at risk. Detailed results are provided in Appendix B. Table 5. City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions Assessment Scores. Score Water Resource Condition + Water Basin Resource Uses Rank Rationale Edmonds Marsh 18 1 High score due to multiple water quality concerns and multiple water resource uses (community and aquatic species). Hall Creek— 14 2 High score due to multiple water quality concerns and multiple Ballinger water resource uses (community and aquatic species). Lund's Gulch 11 3 Moderate score due to multiple water quality concerns and a moderate number of water resource uses. Deer Creek 9 5 Moderate score due high drinking water supply importance but low to moderate aquatic species use. Shell Creek 9 5 Moderate score due to few water quality concerns and moderate water resource uses in for aquatic species at both the nearshore and stream. Perrinville 7 6 Moderate score due to some water quality concerns and a moderate number of water resource uses. Southwest 7 Low score due to no open stream channel present in the basin. Edmonds Stilthouse- 9 Low score due to minimal fish use. Terrace Northstream- 9 Low score due to minimal water resource uses (only nearshore Fruitdale eelgrass). The sum of the scores for the receiving water conditions assessment ranged from 2 to 18. A score of 2 to 3 represents a basin with no identified problems with condition and low water resource uses. Scores of 14 to 18 represents a basin experiencing water quality issues and an abundance of water resource uses. The basins were then given a number from 1 to 9 (accounting for ties) to cover all 9 basins. The two basins with the highest water quality issues and potential to support multiple water resource uses were Edmonds Marsh and Hall Creek — Ballinger. %HERRERA March 2022 13 Packet Pg. 77 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INFLUENCE ASSESSMENT The intent of this step in the process was to evaluate the extent to which stormwater might be expected to impact water resource conditions and thereby indirectly provide an evaluation of the extent to which stormwater management actions might benefit a basin. Methods The next step of this analysis was to calculate a list of metrics that might be used to evaluate the basins with respect to stormwater management influence. Table 6 summarizes by metric the data sources and method notes. The metrics not used in the scoring that are summarized in Table A-3 in Appendix A and may be useful during sub -catchment delineation and prioritization., While a wide variety of metrics were initially calculated, those that clearly described stormwater impacts and prevented autocorrelation (i.e., degree of similarity) were evaluated. Table 6. Data Sources for Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Metric Category Metric Data Source(s) Method Notes Existing % Total 2019 MRLC NLCD Impervious Layer % impervious surface based Landscape Impervious Area on processed NLCD grids. Condition This layer provides full coverage of all watersheds regardless of jurisdiction Road Density Merged King County and Snohomish Length of roads (including County road shapefiles highways) per acre Highways WSDOT highway mapping List of highways that cross through the basin Mapped WDFW • WDFW Web Map Tool Count of all 0% passable Fish Passage • King County stream layer barriers; count of barriers per Barriers Related to (modified/simplified) stream mile (filtered to road Road Crossings • Supplemented by SWIFD and crossings) Edmonds stream mapping (simplified to main stem) Length of Stream • WDFW Web Map Tool Identify first full barrier and Prior to First • King County stream layer measure downstream linear Complete Barrier (modified/simplified) feet • Supplemented by SWIFD and Edmonds stream mapping (simplified to main stem) %HERRERA March 2022 14 Packet Pg. 78 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 6 (continued). Data Sources for Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Metric Category Metric Data Source(s) Method Notes Existing % Development in • 2019 NLCD - filtered to Development % development in riparian Landscape Riparian Buffer Codes 21, 22, 23, 24 buffer (includes streams, Condition • Buffer: DNR stream typing lakes, and wetlands) (continued) • City GIS data: wetlands and waterbodies % Canopy Cover in • 2019 NLCD - filtered to Forest Codes % forest cover in riparian Riparian Buffer 41, 42, 43 (excludes wetlands, marsh, buffer (includes streams, shrub) lakes, and wetlands) • Buffer: DNR stream typing • City GIS data: wetlands and waterbodies Areas of Canopy WDFW Puget Sound HRCD 2006-2017 % area with 50% or greater Loss in Watershed Change Data layer canopy loss from 2006 to 2017 Recent WDFW Puget Sound HRCD 2006-2017 % area with redevelopment Redevelopment/ Change Detection layer or development activity from Development 2006-2017. Includes Patterns "Development" and "Redevelopment" change categories Length of City GIS data: "STORM -LINE" mapping Linear feet of stormwater Stormwater Pipe pipe in City MS4 MS4 Outfalls to City GIS data: "STORM_ CULVERTS" point Count of MS4 outfalls in Streams layer, modified to classify as Riparian, riparian buffer Marine, or Other & filtered to remove BNSF-owned outfalls according to "STORM_LINE"jurisdiction field MS4 Outfalls to City GIS data: "STORM -CULVERTS" point Count of MS4 outfalls to Shoreline/ Marine layer, modified to classify as Riparian, lakes and Puget Sound Discharge Marine, or Other & filtered to remove BNSF-owned outfalls according to "STORM_LINE"jurisdiction field % Flow Control City GIS data: Watershed layer indicating % flow control exempt Exempt Areas "Puget Sound" or "Puget Sound Piped" drainage area drainage % Area within 10- WSDOH Wellhead Protection Area Map, % area that is sensitive for year Travel Time 10-year Travel Time layer drinking water in watershed for WHPA %HERRERA March 2022 is Packet Pg. 79 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 6 (continued). Data Sources for Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Metric Category Metric Data Source(s) Method Notes Future Buildable Lands Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report % area from Snohomish Development Projection and associated GIS layers County Buildable Lands Report Areas with Higher ESRI 2021-2026 USA Population Growth % area by block group with Projected (Block group scale) projected population growth Population Growth greater than 1.25% from 2021-2026 BNSF: Burlington Northern Santa Fe GIS: Geographic Information Systems MRLC: Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics NLCD: National Land Cover Database WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation ESRI: Environmental Systems Research Institute HRCD: High resolution change data MS4: Municipal separate storm sewer system SWIFD: Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution WSDOH: Washington State Department of Health The metrics selected from those listed in Table 6 to represent stormwater impacts were: • Percent total impervious surface • Percent basin within City control • Road density • Percent of riparian canopy cover • Fish passage barriers • Expected population growth • Future buildable lands Table 7 provides a list of these metrics and a brief description of the scoring and weighting of metrics evaluated. All metrics results are summarized in Table A-3 in Appendix A. Stormwater management influence scoring was based upon the concept that higher levels of impact receive higher scores. An assigned weight of 1" indicated "moderate importance." An assigned weight of "2" indicated "high importance." The following metrics were assigned a weighting of "2": percent total impervious surface, percent of riparian canopy cover and percent of basin within City control. Percent total impervious surface and percent of riparian canopy cover show excellent correlation to stream degradation when measuring the benthic index of biotic integrity (King County 2019). Percent basin within City control implies that projects could be implemented more readily receiving greater points. n� HERRERA March 2022 16 Packet Pg. 80 2.5.d Technical Memorandum (continued) City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 7. Scoring and Weighting Method Used to Complete Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Metric Method Weighting Landscape Condition Percent Total Calculated basin wide. Weighting was scored at 2 due to high correlation of percent total impervious area to stream Assigned weight = 2 Impervious bioassessment impairment. High importance Area • Score 0: Less than 10 percent impervious area • Score of 1: 10 to 30 percent impervious area • Score of 2: 30 to 50 percent impervious area • Score of 3: 50 percent and greater impervious area Percent of The area of the basin within city limits was divided by the total basin area. Weighting was scored at 2 due to high Assigned weight = 2 Basin within importance of the City's ability to implement stormwater management actions. Refer to Table 1 for details. Basin scores High importance City Control were based on the following percentages: • Score of 0: 25 percent and less within city limits • Score of 1: 25 to 50 percent within city limits • Score of 2: 50 to 75 percent within city limits • Score of 3: Greater than 75 percent within city limits Road Density The total length of road was calculated within basin for road per acre (linear feet per acre). Road density correlates with Assigned weight = 1 fragmented habitat and potential export of high metal concentrated pollutants. Moderate importance • Score of 0: 80 to 100 linear feet per acre • Score of 1: 100 to 120 linear feet per acre • Score of 2: 120 to 140 linear feet per acre • Score of 3: Greater than 140 linear feet per acre Percent of Riparian stream buffers were based on stream buffer standards. The total percent canopy cover was then calculated within Assigned weight = 2 Riparian these buffer widths. Basin scores were based on the following percentages: High importance Canopy Cover • Score of 0: 75 to 100 percent canopy cover • Score of 1: 50 to 75 percent canopy cover • Score of 2: 25 to 50 percent canopy cover • Score of 3: Less than 25 percent canopy cover HERRERA March 2022 17 Packet Pg. 81 E Q 2.5.d Technical Memorandum (continued) City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Table 7 (continued). Scoring and Weighting Method Used to Complete Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Metric Method Weighting Future Development Expected Relative development pressure within each basin was calculated from census population growth statistics. Growth was Assigned weight = 1 Population calculated as area of basin with greater than 1.25% growth. Moderate importance Growth • Score of 0: Minimal pressure: Less than 25 percent of area with greater than 1.25% growth • Score of 1: Moderate pressure: 25 to 50 percent of area with greater than 1.25% growth • Score of 2: Moderate high pressure: 50 to 75 percent of area with greater than 1.25% growth • Score of 3: High pressure: Greater than 75 percent of area with greater than 1.25% growth Future Percent of City basin areas identified as redevelopment or development activity were calculated. Assigned weight = 1 Buildable • Score of 0: 0 percent of land area Moderate importance Lands • Score of 1: 0 to 4 percent of land area • Score of 2: Greater than 4 percent of land area E r E a E HERRERA Q March 2022 18 Packet Pg. 82 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Results Table 8 provides a summary of the stormwater management influence scoring results. Detailed results are provided in Appendix B. The three basins that received the highest scores for stormwater management influence from the City were Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek -Ballinger, and Shell Creek. Moderate scores were received by Northstream-Fruitdale, Stilthouse-Terrace, and Perrinville Creek. Low scores were received by Southwest Edmonds, Lund's Gulch, and Deer Creek. Table 8. Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Scores. Basin Score Rank Rationale Edmonds Marsh 24 1 High basin stormwater influence due to high total impervious surface percentage, a majority of the basin is within the City limits, and the presence of numerous fish passage barriers on Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. Hall Creek -Ballinger 17 2 High basin stormwater influence due to high total impervious surface percentage, numerous fish passage barriers, high road density, and low riparian canopy cover. Shell Creek 16 3 High stormwater influence due to high basin total impervious surface percentage, the basin is within the City limits, high road density, and low riparian canopy cover. Northstream-Fruitdale 15 4 Moderate basin stormwater influence due to moderate total impervious surface percentage, a majority of the basin is within the City limits, moderate road density, and moderate riparian canopy cover. Stilthouse-Terrace 13 5 Moderate basin stormwater influence due to lower total impervious surface percentage, a majority of the basin is within the City limits, moderate road density, and low riparian canopy cover. Perrinville 11 6 Moderate basin stormwater influence due to moderate total impervious surface percentage, moderate road density, and low riparian canopy cover. Southwest Edmonds 10 7 Low basin stormwater influence due to total basin impervious surface percentage, moderate road density, and low riparian canopy cover. Lund's Gulch 10 7 Low basin stormwater influence due to low total impervious surface percentage, low presence of stormwater infrastructure, no fish passage barriers, and good canopy cover. Deer Creek 8 9 Low basin stormwater influence due to low total impervious surface percentage, low presence of stormwater infrastructure, no fish passage barriers, and good canopy cover. n� HERRERA March 2022 19 Packet Pg. 83 2.5.d Technical Memorandum (continued) City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment CANDIDATE BASINS FOR PRIORITIZATION The purpose of the scoring matrix is to identify a manageable list of candidate basins to move forward for prioritization. Table 9 combines the water conditions scores with the stormwater management influence scores for each basin, prioritization recommendation, and rationale for retaining or setting aside from prioritization step in the SMAP process. Table 9. Combined Scoring and Candidate Basins for Prioritization. Basin Score Prioritization Recommendation Rationale Edmonds Marsh 42 31 25 Retain for prioritization High stormwater influence Hall Creek —Ballinger High stormwater influence Shell Creek High stormwater influence Perrinville 18 Moderate stormwater influence Northstream-Fruitdale 17 Moderate stormwater influence Stilthouse-Terrace 15 Moderate stormwater influence Lund's Gulch 21 Set aside from prioritization Lowjurisdiction control Low stormwater influence Low stormwater influence Deer Creek 17 Southwest Edmonds 13 Based upon the combined scoring and ranking shown in Table 9, Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek - Ballinger, Shell Creek, Perrinville, Northstream-Fruitdale and Stilthouse Terrace have moderate and high City stormwater influence and should be retained for prioritization. Lund's Gulch, at 4 percent jurisdiction control, should not be moved forward for prioritization. Deer Creek and Southwest -Edmonds, with some water resource uses, both ranked low for City stormwater influence. Summary descriptions of each retained basin, stormwater contributions, and opportunities are provided below. Edmonds Marsh Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek, She//abarger Creek, and Puget Sound Summary: The Edmonds Marsh drainage basin is approximately 2.9 square miles and is 76 percent within the city limits. Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek flow into Edmonds Marsh prior to flowing into Puget Sound south of the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Terminal. The basin has four public access points on the marine shoreline. Recent studies have shown sediment contamination at the north end of the marsh for typical stormwater metals and organics. Surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat is present along the shoreline. A pocket estuary and n� HERRERA March 2022 20 Packet Pg. 84 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment continuous eelgrass beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The streams have documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. The landscape is fragmented by ten fish passage barriers, high road density and two major highways (SR-524 and SR-104). Canopy cover in the riparian area is low, numerous outfalls discharge into the riparian buffer area, and 51 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to fragmented habitat, poor water quality and erosive flows. A higher level of population growth and development is predicted. Opportunities: Potential actions include addressing issues through policies and codes in the City -controlled portions of the basin, coordinating with state agencies regarding fish passage barriers, and restoration in the marsh and stream corridor. The City is leading an effort to implement the Willow Creek Daylight and Marsh Enhancement Project. This project would remove a tide gate, daylight and naturalize the stream connection between the marsh and Puget Sound, and restore the marsh. Hall Creek -Ballinger Hall Creek, Lake Ballinger, McAleer Creek, Lake Washington Summary: The Hall Creek —Ballinger drainage basin is the largest in this assessment at approximately 8.1 square miles. The receiving waters are the upper Hall Creek, flowing into Lake Ballinger, and then flowing out to McAleer Creek, and then Lyon Creek flows into McAleer near the terminus to Lake Washington. Although the City influence only represents 16 percent of the basin, City stormwater impacts Hall Creek significantly and flooding and erosion are well documented. The city limits are adjacent to Hall Creek, but do not include the creek corridor. The basin has public access at Lake Ballinger that includes a swimming beach and boat launch. There is ample water quality data for the creeks and Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is subject to a water quality clean-up plan for phosphorus. Gains have been made in recent years and the lake currently meets the phosphorus loading allocation. Multiple salmon species are documented in the basin including fall chinook, coho, winter steelhead and sockeye, along with resident coastal cutthroat trout. The landscape is fragmented by 10 fish passage barriers, high road density and three major highways (1-5, SR-99 and SR-104). Canopy cover in the riparian areas is low, numerous outfalls discharge into the riparian buffer area, and 50 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to fragmented habitat, poor water quality and erosive flows. A high level of growth is expected in this basin. n� HERRERA March 2022 21 Packet Pg. 85 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment Opportunities: The City only has control of 16 percent of the basin, indicating codes and policies may be minimally effective unless in coordination with adjacent jurisdictions. However, City control of flows into Hall Creek have been shown to be erosive and contribute to downstream flooding and stream degradation. The City is in the planning stage for the Ballinger Regional Stormwater Facility. The facility would be located upstream of Hall Creek to control flows currently flooding and damaging Hall Creek. Another project is the Lake Ballinger Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project lead by the City of Mountlake Terrace. The project would enhance and restore the floodplain area at the north end of Lake Ballinger. Controlling flows to Hall Creek could benefit the downstream floodplain project. Shell Creek Shell Creek, Hindiey Creek Summary: The Shell Creek drainage basin is approximately 2.1 square miles and is 99 percent within the city limits. Shell Creek is the mainstem and Hindley Creek merges at about 750 feet upstream of the discharge point into Puget Sound. Erosion is a water quality concern. Surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat is present along the shoreline. A pocket estuary and continuous eelgrass beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The streams have documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. The landscape is fragmented by high road density and one major highway (SR-524), but no fish passage barriers. Canopy cover in the riparian area is moderate, numerous outfalls discharge into the riparian buffer area, and 48 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to fragmented habitat, poor water quality, and erosive flows. A high level of development and redevelopment is predicted. Opportunities: No stormwater projects or plans have been identified for the Shell Creek basin. Perrinville Perrinville Creek Summary: The Perrinville Creek drainage basin is approximately 2.01 square miles and is 42 percent within the city limits. Perrinville Creek is the mainstem and discharges into Puget Sound. Erosion is a water quality concern. Limited eelgrass and kelp beds provide habitat for juvenile salmon. The stream has documented presence of coho and resident coastal cutthroat trout. n� HERRERA March 2022 22 Packet Pg. 86 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment The landscape is fragmented by high road density and one major highway (SR-524), and two fish passage barriers. Canopy cover in the riparian area is moderate, numerous outfalls discharge into the riparian buffer area, and 41 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to fragmented habitat, poor water quality, and erosive flows. A moderate level of development and redevelopment is predicted. Opportunities: The Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study was completed in 2015. Flow reduction projects were identified in Edmonds and Lynnwood as part of that study. Northstream-Fruitdale Northstream Creek, Fruitdale Creek Summary: The Northstream-Fruitdale drainage basin is approximately 1.21 square miles and is 100 percent within the city limits. Two short and steep drainages are present, Northstream Creek and Fruitdale Creek, with both discharging separately into Puget Sound. Sparse eelgrass and kelp beds provide habitat forjuvenile salmon. The streams have no documented presence of salmonids. The landscape is fragmented by high road density and four fish passage barriers. Canopy cover in the riparian area is moderate and 37 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to poor water quality and erosive flows. A high level of redevelopment is predicted. Opportunities: No stormwater projects or plans have been identified for the Northstream- Fruitdale basin. Stilthouse-Terrace Outtall Creek, Stilthouse Creek, Terrace Creek Summary: The Stilthouse-Terrace drainage basin is approximately 0.87 square miles and is 86 percent within the city limits. Three short and steep drainages are present, Outfall Creek, Stilthouse Creek, and Terrace Creek, all three discharging separately into Puget Sound. Sparse eelgrass and kelp beds provide habitat for juvenile salmon. The streams have no documented presence of salmonids. n� HERRERA March 2022 23 Packet Pg. 87 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment The landscape is fragmented by high road density and one major highway (SR-524), and two fish passage barriers. Canopy cover in the riparian area is moderate and 28 percent of the basin is impervious. Stormwater Contributions: Stormwater impacts likely contribute to fragmented habitat, poor water quality, and erosive flows. Opportunities: No stormwater projects or plans have been identified for the Stilthouse-Terrace basin. SUMMARY All basins were scored and ranked separately based upon the receiving water conditions assessment and then the stormwater management influence assessment. The scores were combined for a final cumulative score and ranking. Table 10 summarizes the results of the combined score. The basins proposed to be retained for prioritization include Edmonds Marsh, Hall Creek -Ballinger, Shell Creek, Perrinville, Northstream-Fruitdale, and Stilthouse-Terrace due to their rating as high or moderate City stormwater influence. Table 10. Combined Results of Receiving Water Conditions Assessment and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment. Basin Result Edmonds Marsh Retained for prioritization for near -term actions Hall Creek -Ballinger Shell Creek Perrinvil le Northstream-Fruitdale Stilthouse-Terrace Deer Creek Eliminated from near -term evaluation due to low jurisdiction control or stormwater influence, but may be considered for potential future actions Lund's Gulch ISouthwest Edmonds %HERRERA March 2022 24 Packet Pg. 88 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment REFERENCES Ballinger Regional Facility Project. 2022. <htti2s://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/12ublic works and utilities/ballinger region al facility project>. Accessed January 10, 2022. Confluence Environmental Company. 2017. Fish Habitat Conditions Provided by the Expanded Willow Creek Daylighting Alternatives. Prepared for Shannon and Wilson by Confluence Environmental Company. Seattle, Washington. December 22. Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Action Planning Guidance. Washington Department of Ecology -Water Quality Program. Publication Number 19-10-010. August. Ecology. 2021. Washington State Water Quality Assessment, 303(d)/305(b) List. Approved WQA Version 3.1.3. Accessed April 2021. <httl2s://apps.ecology.wa.goy/a12provedwga/ApprovedSearch. aspx?LISTING ID=70236>. Edmonds Stream Team. 2017. Condition of Edmonds Streams for Salmon: Water Quality Monitoring and Salmon Stewardship. Edmonds, Washington. July. Edmonds Stream Team. 2020. Edmonds Streams and Marsh Water Quality and Salmon Stewardship Activities, 2015-2020. Prepared by Edmonds Stream Team for Edmonds City Council. Edmonds, Washington. October. Herrera. 2010. Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington. October 14. King County. 2019. Stressor Identification and Recommended Actions for Restoring and Protecting Select Puget Lowland Stream Basins. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Seattle, Washington. December. Shannon and Wilson. 2019. Water Quality Sampling Results in Support of the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Shannon and Wilson, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Edmonds, Washington. June 29. Shannon and Wilson. 2017. Willow Creek Daylight Project Expanded Marsh Concept Design and Hydraulic Modeling Report. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Shannon and Wilson Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Edmonds, Washington. November 7. Tetra Tech. 2015. Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Final Report. Grant Number G14000022. Prepared for City of Edmonds by Tetra Tech, Inc. Seattle, Washington. February 2015. n� HERRERA March 2022 25 Packet Pg. 89 2.5.d City of Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions and Technical Memorandum (continued) Stormwater Management Influence Assessment US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District. 2020. Lake Ballinger Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, Mountlake Terrace, Washington Continuing Authorities Program, Section 206 Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment. Prepared for the City of Montlake Terrace by US Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle, Washington. July 2020. n� HERRERA March 2022 26 Packet Pg. 90 2.5.d APPENDIX A Receiving Water Conditions Assessment Tables L HERRERA Packet Pg. 91 2.5.d E a Packet Pg. 92 2.5.d Table A-1. Delineate Basins and Identify Receiving Waters. Basin Identification Basin Area Receivinc I Waters Basin Jurisdiction Control Metric/Basin Watershed Area s uare miles Area acres Streams Lakes Marine % In City % in City UGA Metric Description Watershed name based on historical, anecdotal, or stream names Total basin area List of streams List of lakes List of marine waters % Area of basin in City limits; excludes UGA, County, and neighboring cities % Area of basin in UGA only Data Source GIS GIS GIS City GIS data: "STORM -DITCH -CREEK" layer, Documents DNR stream mampinci GIS: NHD layer GIS, Documents GIS GIS City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 0.35 224 Deer Creek Puget Sound 42.7% 0% Halls Creek -Ballinger 8.10 5,182 Hall Creek, McAleer Creek (outside City) Lake Ballinger, Lake Washington Puget Sound 15.5% 5.7% Lund's Gulch 2.11 1,349 Lund's Gulch Creek Puget Sound 3.7% 0% Northstream-Fruitdale 1.21 774 Fruitdale Creek, Northstream Creek Puget Sound 100% 0% Perrinville 2.01 1,289 Perrinville Creek Puget Sound 41.9% 0% Shell Creek 2.11 1,353 Hindley Creek, Shell Creek Puget Sound 99.7% 0% Southwest Edmonds 1.46 932 Unnamed Creek (outside City) Puget Sound 20.8% 0% Outtall ree , Stilthouse-Terrace 0.87 554 Stilthouse Creek, Puget Sound 85.8% 0% S e a arger Creek, Edmonds Marsh 2.89 1,851 Willow Creek, Puget Sound 76.6% 8.4% DNR: Department of Natural Resources GIS: Geographic Information Systems NHD: National Hydrography Datasei UGA: urban growth area Packet Pg. 93 2.5.d Table A-2. Assess Receiving Water Conditions. Water Quality Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) 303(d) Listed Water Water Quality Conditions (by Parameter) Dissolved Metric/Basin Score Description Oxygen Temperature Bacteria Bioassessment Phosphorus pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Bacteria Metric Description Excellent (80-100), Good (60-80), Fair (40-60), Creek/waterbody name Creek/lake name and condition Poor (20-40), Very Poor (<20) Data Source Puget Sound Benthos Database, Willow Creek Ecology WQA Database (2016 Assessment) 2020 Edmonds Stream Team Report, Willow Creek Study (Shannon and Wilson, 2019), 2019- Study (Shannon and Wilson, 2019) 2020 Snohomish County Lakes Program Report Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide City only or Basin wide Metric? Deer Creek No Data Not Applicable None None None None None No data No data No data No data Hall Creek -Ballinger Poor -Fair Downstream of City McAleer Creek McAleer Creek McAleer Creek, McAleer Creek Lake Ballinger No data No data No data No data 36 results, Hall Creek 2001-2021 Lund's Gulch Very Poor - Poor Outside of City None None Lund's Gulch None None Upper Lund's Gulch Upper Lund's Gulch Lund's Gulch No data 3 results, Poor - low in summer Poor Good 2013-2017 Northstream-Fruitdale No Data Not Applicable None None None None None No data No data No data No data Perrinville Very Poor 1 result, None None None None None Perrinville Creek Perrinville Creek Perrinville Creek No data 2013 Good Good Good Shell Creek No Data Not Applicable None None None None None Shell Creek Shell Creek Shell Creek No data Good Good Good Southwest Edmonds No Data Not Applicable None None None None None No data No data No data No data Stilthouse-Terrace No Data Not Applicable None None None None None No data No data No data No data Edmonds Marsh Willow Creek Willow Creek None None Marina Park None None Willow Creek Willow Creek Marsh Marine Beach Poor -Very Poor 5 results averaged, 2017 Concern Concern High summer Good - Recent 3-year BEACH shows meeting Shellabarger Creek Shellabarger Creek North Marsh Willow Creek standard Very Poor 1 result, 2017 di Concern Good W, M Willow Creek Concern ESA: Endangered Species Act SWIFD: Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution WSDOH: Washington State Department of Health FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement WDNR: Washington Department of Natural Resources GIS: Geographic Information Systems WQA: Water Quality Assessment Packet Pg. 94 2.5.d Table A-2. Assess Receivinq Water Conditions. Water Quality (continued) Water Flow Nearshore Conditions Water Quality Conditions (by Parameter) Metric/Basin Phosphorus Sediment Quality Sediment/ Erosion Metals Export Water Flow Groundwater Protection Nearshore Habitat Marine Nearshore Biological Mapped Marine Pocket Estuary Metric Description Creek/lake name and condition Metals Export Degradation Water Flow: Overall Groundwater level of risk Presence of eelgrass (sparse/moderate, Presence of surf smelt spawning, sand Presence of NOAA Puget Sound natal (surrogate for WQ impacts to Importance patchy/moderate, continuous), kelp, lance spawning, wildlife haul out, sea and pocket estuaries aquatic life and salmonids) invasives, and native plants bird colony Data Source 2020 Edmonds Stream Team Report, Willow Creek Study (Shannon and Puget Sound Watershed Puget Sound Watershed WSDOH Wellhead Protection Shore Zone Inventory (WDNR 2001), Shore Zone Inventory (WDNR 2001), Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Wilson, 2019), 2019-2020 Snohomish County Lakes Program Report Characterization Characterization Times of Travel Map King County Brightwater FEIS (2001), King County Brightwater FEIS (2001), City Recovery Project (continued) City Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Master Program City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek No data No data No data Moderate -High Low Wellhead Protection Zone -High Patchy/moderate eelgrass No biology identified Yes Risk Hall Creek -Ballinger Lake Ballinger No data No data High High None Invasives: Eurasian milfoil/fragrant Not Applicable Not Applicable Fair water lily (2020 survey); (meeting TMDL levels, Native plants: present improving trend) Lund's Gulch No data No data No data Moderate High None Dense eelgrass No biology identified Yes Northstream-Fruitdale No data No data No data Moderate Moderate None Sparse/moderate eelgrass, kelp No biology identified No Perrinville No data No data Perrinville Creek Moderate Low None Sparse/moderate eelgrass, kelp No biology identified Yes Concern Shell Creek No data No data Shell Creek Moderate Moderate -High None Sparse/moderate eelgrass, kelp Surf Smelt Spawning, Yes Concern Sand Lance Spawning, Wildlife Haul out Southwest Edmonds No data No data No data Moderate -High Low None Sparse/moderate eelgrass, kelp No biology identified Not Applicable Stilthouse-Terrace No data No data No data Low Moderate -High None Sparse/moderate eelgrass No biology identified No Edmonds Marsh Willow Creek North Marsh No data Moderate High None Continuous eelgrass, kelp Surf Smelt Spawning, Yes Good Concern (standard Sand Lance Spawning, exceedances) PAHs and Sea Bird Colony metals (nickel) _ cc d _ O r V a _ N E d IM O _ L 3 E L O 4+ co 4- 0 _ O tC _ d N d L v r _ d E y to d N N a L d -W ED C Z V N w 7 _ L O E CCD G <.i t.i _ d E t U cc a E a Packet Pg. 95 2.5.d Table A-2. Assess Receivinq Water Conditions. Water Resource Uses Salmonids and Resident Fish Metric/Basin ESA Listed Salmon Units Presence I Rearing Spawning Fish Hatcheries Public Contact Recreation Condition Shellfish Harvesting Recent Fish Releases Recent Observed Spawning Water Supply Metric Description Presence of chinook, steelhead (yes/no); Listed salmonid and resident (Res) species by creek; GIS intersect of List of fish hatcheries by creek, List of beaches Approved, Conditionally Description of recent fish Fish counts and year Drinking Water Supply GIS intersect of the SWIFD line features the SWIFD line features for each basin filtered by species lake, or marine waterbody Approved, Prohibited releases Level of Risk for each basin filtered by species Data Source SWIFD (Statewide Salmon Distribution SWIFD (Statewide Salmon Distribution Database) Ecology Coastal Atlas, 2020 Stream WSDOH Recreational Beach WSDOH Shellfish Growing 2020 Stream Team Report 2020 Stream Team Report WSDOH Wellhead Database), Salmon Scape, 2010 Storm Team Report, SalmonScape Classifications Map Areas Map Protection Times of and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan Travel Map City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek No Deer Creek None None None None Prohibited None found None reported High Res Coastal Cutthroat Hall Creek -Ballinger Yes Hall, McAleer & Lyon Creeks Hall Creek Lyon Creek Hall Lake Lake Ballinger Park Beach (swimming) Not Applicable Coho and Chinook 1970's to None reported Low Coho Coho Sockeye Remote incubator Lake Ballinger Boat Ramp 2000's. Fall Chinook Res Coastal Cutthroat McAleer Creek McAleer Creek Winter Steelhead Coho Remote site incubator Fall Chinook Hall & McAleer Creeks Sockeye Lake Ballinger Sockeye Boeing Creek Lund's Gulch Lund's Gulch Lund's Gulch None Lower Lund's Gulch Meadowdale Beach Park Prohibited Chum hatch boxes and Coho (4) 2019 None Res Coastal Cutthroat Coho hatcher in lower Lund's Gulch for release into upper Lund's Gulch Northstream-Fruitdale No None None None JJIM None None Prohibited None found None reported None Perrinville No Perrinville Creek None None None None Prohibited None found None reported None Coho Res Coastal Cutthroat Shell Creek No Shell Creek None None None None Prohibited Chum hatch boxes, Coho from Coho (15-25); Chum (5) in 2019 None Coho Willow Creek Hatchery Res Coastal Cutthroat Southwest Edmonds No None None None None None Prohibited None found None reported Low Stilthouse-Terrace No None None None None None Prohibited None found None reported None Edmonds Marsh No Shellabarger & Willow Creeks None None Puget Sound Edmonds Underwater Park Prohibited None found None reported Low Coho Edmonds Net Pen at marine Olympic Beach Park Res Coastal Cutthroat shoreline Edmonds Marina Edmonds Marina Beach Park (Dog Park) Willow Creek (aka Deer Creek) Fish Hatchery (eggs) at creek mouth _ cc d _ O r V Q _ N E d O _ L 3 E L O 4+ co 4- 0 _ O tC _ d N i d r _ d E y to d to N Q L d C V N w 7 _ O E d t) t t1 d H _ d E t V cc a E a Packet Pg. 96 2.5.d Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Existing Landscape Condition Road Crossings Habitat Fragmentation - Furthest Roads (Fish Passage Barriers) Downstream Fish Barrier % Total Impervious Area Road Density # of Barriers per Description of Complete Barriers in Metric/Basin (TIA) (linear feet per acre) Highways Stream Mile # of Barriers in Basin # of Complete Barriers in Basin Basin Metric Description % impervious surface Length of roads List of highways that Mapped WDFW fish passage barriers related to Subset of mapped barriers that are not passable by fish based on processed NLCD ar*ds (including highways) per acre cross through the basin road crossings Data Source 2019 MRLC NLCD Merged King County WSDOT highway WDFW Web Map Tool; WDFW Web Map Tool; WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted data Impervious Layer and Snohomish County mapping King County stream King County stream layer data Jan 2022; King County stream Jan 2022; King County stream layer road shapefiles layer (modified/ (modified/ simplified) layer (modified) (modified) simplified) City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 20.4% 81 None 0 0 0 No mapped total barriers Hall Creek -Ballinger 50.0% 136 1-5 13.9 91 10 Total/partial barrier mapping on SR-99 McAleer Creek at 1-5 (outside SR-104 Edmonds) may block access to/from Lake Washington Lund's Gulch 34.7% 96 SR-99 2.7 6 0 No mapped total barriers Northstream-Fruitdale 37.2% 121 SR-524 1.4 2 0 Unknown % passable Perrinville 40.8% 126 SR-524 2.4 2 1 Total barrier on Perrinville Creek at Shell Creek 47.5% 144 SR-524 1.8 3 0 No mapped total barriers Southwest Edmonds 44.0% 122 None Not Applicable 6 0 Not Applicable - no channel in City Stilthouse-Terrace 28.2% 107 None 2.7 4 1 Total barrier at mouth of Outfall Creek Unknown % passable at Stilthouse and Terrace Creek mouths Edmonds Marsh 51.1% 142 SR-524 10.5 23 10 Total barrier on Shellabarger Creek at SR-104 SR-524 (owned by WSDOT) Total barrier on Willow Creek at Pine St culvert (owned by City) BNSF: Burlington Northern Santa Fe NLCD: National Land Cover Database ESRI: Environmental Systems Research Institute SWIFD: Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution GIS: Geographic Information Systems WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife HRCD: High resolution change data WSDOH: Washington State Department of Health MRLC: Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation MS4: Municipal separate storm sewer system Packet Pg. 97 2.5.d Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Existing Landscape Condition (continued) Habitat Fragmentation - Furthest Recent Redevelopment/ Downstream Fish Barrier (continued) Riparian Buffer Tree Canopy Loss Development Patterns Length of stream prior to first Area with 50% or Greater % of Basin with Recent Metric/Basin complete barrier (linear feet) % Development in Riparian Buffer % Canopy Cover in Riparian Buffer Canopy Loss (%) Redevelopment or Development Metric Description Identify first full barrier and measure % development in riparian buffer % forest cover in riparian buffer Includes areas with 50% or Area with redevelopment or downstream linear feet (includes streams, lakes, and wetlands) (includes streams, lakes, and m/ptl;indr) greater canopy loss from 2006 to 2017 development activity from 2006- 2017 Data Source WDFW Web Map Tool, extracted data 2019 NLCD - Development Codes 21, 2019 NLCD - Forest Codes 41, 42, 43 WDFW Puget Sound High WDFW Puget Sound High Jan 2022; King County stream layer 22, 23, 24 (excludes wetlands, marsh, shrub) Resolution Change Detection Resolution Change Data (HRCD) (modified) Buffer: DNR stream typing; Buffer: DNR stream typing; (HRCD) 2006 - 2017 Change 2006 - 2017 Change Detection City GIS data: wetlands and City GIS data: wetlands and Data layer layer, includes "Development" and waterbodies waterbodies "Redevelopment" change cateciories City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek No mapped total barriers 18.9% 81.1% 1.17% 1.90% Hall Creek -Ballinger 17,971 63.6% 6.3% 0.78% 2.09% Lund's Gulch No mapped total barriers 19.3% 75.6% 2.83% 4.13% Northstream-Fruitdale Unknown 60.1 % 39.5% 1.01 % 1.23% Perrinville 575 40.8% 56.4% 0.73% 1.54% Shell Creek No mapped total barriers 66.4% 30.2% 0.77% 1.32% Southwest Edmonds Not Applicable - no channel in City 56.6% 38.5% 0.49% 2.11% Stilthouse-Terrace Stilthouse Creek: Unknown 59.6% 40.0% 0.69% 0.73% Terrace Creek: Unknown Outfall Creek: 0 Edmonds Marsh Shellabarger Creek: 3,490 76.2% 5.3% 0.62% 1.33% Willow Creek: 1,558 c R a c U Q c d E m a� �a c �a L M 3 E L 0 4- 0 c 0 r ea r c m a. c m E N d N N a L d R c U d W E Packet Pg. 98 2.5.d Table A-3. Assess Stormwater Management Influence. Metric/Basin Existing Landscape Condition (continued) Future Development Stormwater Infrastructure Stormwater Infrastructure % of Basin that is Flow Control Exempt Drinking Water Resources Buildable Lands Projection Areas with Higher Projected Population Growth Length of Stormwater Pipe (linear feet) # of MS4 Outfalls to Streams # of MS4 Outfalls to Shoreline/ Marine Discharge % of Basin within 10- year Travel Time for WHPA % of Basin that is Redevelopable % of Basin with Projected Population Growth Greater Than 1.25% Metric Description City MS4 MS4 outfalls in riparian buffer MS4 outfalls to lakes and Puget Sound Acres of FC Exempt/ total acres Area that is sensitive for drinking water From Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report Area by block group with projected population growth greater than 1.25% Data Source City GIS data: Edmonds STORM -LINE mapping City GIS data: "STORM -CULVERTS" point layer, modified to classify as Riparian, Marine, or Other & filtered to remove BNSF-owned outfalls according to STORM_LINEjurisdiction field. City GIS data: "STORM_ CULVERTS" point layer, modified to classify as Riparian, Marine, or Other & filtered to remove BNSF-owned outfalls according to STORM_LINEjurisdiction field. City GIS data: Watershed layer indicating "Puget Sound" or "Puget Sound Piped" drainage WSDOH Wellhead Protection Area Map, 10- year Travel Time layer Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report and associated GIS layers ESRI 2021-2026 USA Population Growth (Block group scale) City only or Basin wide Metric? City City City Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 9,326 1 0 0% 65.6% 1.90% 47.2% Hall Creek -Ballinger 119,915 14 0 0% 4.0% 2.50% 17.2% Lund's Gulch 2,533 1 1 0% 0% 0% 68.3% Northstream-Fruitdale 92,914 2 1 48.7% 0% 3.20% 0% Perrinville 58,088 5 0 0% 0% 1.70% 4.7% Shell Creek 192,492 16 2 10.2% 0% 5.30% 6.9% Southwest Edmonds 19,231 0 0 0% 10.4% 0.40% 17.2% Stilthouse-Terrace 53,222 1 3 35.7% 0% 1.90% 1.1 % Edmonds Marsh 192,578 16 16 54.1% 5.1% 5.50% 35.3% c R a c 0 v Q c d E m �a c �a L M 3 E L 0 4- 0 c 0 r ea r c m a. c m E N d N N a L d R c Z v d IX E Packet Pg. 99 2.5.d Table A-4. Overburdened Communities Evaluation. Equity Population Burden Score Environmental Exposure Environmental Effects Population Characteristics Score Metric/Basin EHD Weighted Sensitive Population Weighted Socioeconomics Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Metric Description Composite score evaluating This category includes indicators related This category includes indicators related Composite of Sensitive Environmental exposure refers to Environmental effect refers to Composite of Environmental Exposure threat to and vulnerability of to intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerabilities in to intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerabilities in Populations and Socioeconomics how a person comes into contact adverse environmental quality and Environmental Effects (0.5 populations communities that can modify the communities that can modify the with an environmental hazard. generally, even when population multiplier for EE) environmental risk factors. Indicators in environmental risk factors. Examples of exposure include contact with an environmental this theme relate to biological breathing air, eating food, drinking hazard is unknown or uncertain. susceptibility. People with pre-existing water or living near to where cardiovascular disease or low -birth -weight environmental hazards are released infants may be more vulnerable to or are concentrated. environmental risk factors. Data Source WA Environmental Health WA Environmental Health Disparities Map WA Environmental Health Disparities WA Environmental Health WA Environmental Health WA Environmental Health WA Environmental Health Disparities Disparities Map Map Disparities Map Disparities Map Disparities Map Map City only or Basin wide Metric? Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Basin wide Deer Creek 2.4 1.9 1.5 3.5 4.9 4.1 1.7 Hall Creek -Ballinger 6.4 4.3 5.7 4.8 7.8 3.6 5.0 Lund's Gulch 3.1 2.2 5.2 2.4 3.7 2.1 3.7 Northstream-Fruitdale 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.7 4A 1.1 Perrinville 3.4 2.9 5.3 2.4 3.2 3.4 4.1 Shell Creek 2.6 3.8 1.3 2.7 3.6 3.7 2.6 Southwest Edmonds 3.1 2.2 2.8 3.6 5.3 3.8 2.5 Stilthouse-Terrace 1.1 3.0 2.1 1.3 1.1 3.0 2.6 Edmonds Marsh 2.8 2.8 1.8 3.0 4.1 3.9 2.3 EE: Environmental Exposures EHD: Environmental Health Disparities 4- 0 C 0 r i U) L a i Cd G U) U) 0 U) U) a L d r R C V 0 W Packet Pg. 100 2.5.d APPENDIX B Detailed Scoring Matrix c a c 0 r Q E 0 Cu L E L 0 r 4- 0 Qi L c� C a L d R V G L HERRERA Packet Pg. 101 2.5.d E a Packet Pg. 102 2.5.d aS °c yrep 5°J� 5w�r �ia� Stormwater Influence Stormwater Impacts Percent Total Impervious Surface 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 Percent Basin within City Control 2 1 0 0 3 1 3 0 3 3 Road Density 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 Percent of Riparian Canopy Cover 1 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Fish Passage Barriers 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 Future Growth Expected Population Growth 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 Future Buildable Lands 1 11 21 2 1 11 11 21 2 1 O C O R C d N O L a r C d E fA y O to to Q L d R C ci w G Packet Pg. 103 2.5.d E Packet Pg. 104 2.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On October 25, 2022 the City entered into an agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants to provide services for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update in the amount of $97,090. Staff Recommendation Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the next City Council meeting. Narrative The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) now requires that their receiving water prioritization process be used by all Phase II cities, which includes the City of Edmonds (City), to meet the requirements of S5.C.1.d.ii of the Western Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater permit (Phase II permit). The approach taken to complete this prioritization process follows Ecology's Stormwater Management Action Planning (SMAP) Guidance manual, with data that reflect Edmonds priorities, resident feedback, and the Edmonds specific drainage basins. The City is retaining the services of Herrera Environmental so that it can meet these requirements within the dictated timelines set by DOE and keep the City's NPDES permit compliant. Herrera was selected because this document is one of the sections/parts of the City's upcoming Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update, which was in the early phases of scope development, and Herrera Environmental had been selected to provide these services. Due to the imposed DOE requirements and timelines, portions of the SMAP needed to be started as soon as possible, which required that at least a portion of the scope of work be brought under contract to meet the timelines. This scope and fee covered work that was required to be completed by June 2022. This left the scoping of the remainder of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update and SMAP work on hold until the City finds a replacement for the currently vacant Stormwater Engineer position. It was originally hoped that the Stormwater Engineer position would have been filled by this time, and they would have been able to work on the scoping of the last part of the SMAP scope and fee and also the scope and fee for the remainder of the Stormwater Comprehensive plan update, but unfortunately this has not happened. Packet Pg. 105 2.6 In order to ensure that the City continues to meet the SMAP timelines and be compliant with their NPDES permit requirements, Herrera has provided the City with a scope and fee to cover the costs of finishing the SMAP task. The original scope and fee was $97,090. Per the attached negotiated scope of services, the additional fees to finish the SMAP are $85,022, bringing the total cost to $182,112. All project costs will be funded by the 422 Stormwater Utility Fund. Attachments: Attachment 1- Supplemental Agreement with Herrera Packet Pg. 106 2.6.a CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE NELSON 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Stormwater Management Action Plan WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Herrera Environmental Consultants, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Stormwater Management Action Plan, dated October 25, 2021; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified with regard to providing Receiving Water Assessment and Prioritization services, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of October 25, 2021 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying Agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $97,090 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $85,022 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $182,122 ($97,090 plus $85,022). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying Agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this supplemental agreement, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying Agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth in this Supplemental Agreement 1, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 107 2.6.a DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) Theresa Wood, Vice President On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: a Packet Pg. 108 2.6.a EXHIBIT A - SCOPE CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN The City of Edmonds (the City) authorized Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to prepare a scope of services and cost estimate outlining services that Herrera will provide to support the City's Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP). Rebecca Dugopolski is Herrera's project manager for this project. Patrick Johnson is the City's project manager. This scope of services includes a discussion of the activities, assumptions, deliverables, and a schedule associated with this project: • Task 3.0 — Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation .................................... • Task 4.0 — Project Management/Contract Administration.......................................................2 • Task 5.0 — Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Development..................................................3 • Task 6.0 — Stormwater Management Action Plan(SMAP).........................................................4 • Task 7.0 — Contingency..........................................................................................................................8 • Project Budget ....................................... • Project Schedule.... ................................................................8 ...................................................................................................9 TASK 3.0 — STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Based on the attendance and feedback provided at the Receiving Water Assessment public/stakeholder workshop held earlier in this project, this task will include one additional virtual public/stakeholder workshop scheduled during the lunch hour to gather input on the proposed projects (Task 5.0) and draft SMAP (Task 6.0). The Herrera team will also support up to two City Council meetings (in -person). Assumptions • The StoryMap developed for the initial phase of this project will be updated with the proposed basin/catchment and a short description of the proposed projects r C E a c a� E ( HERRERA Edmonds SMAP_Scope_DRAFT v2 08.31.2022 a September 8, 2022 Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 109 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES • City staff will be responsible for advertising for the public/stakeholder meeting • The Herrera team will lead the preparation of PowerPoint slides and handouts for the public/stakeholder workshop • Preparation for the public/stakeholder workshop will include two, 1-hour coordination meetings and one dry run • Up to 2 Herrera team staff will participate in one public/stakeholder workshop (assumed to be 1 hour long and presented virtually) • One Herrera staff will participate in up to two City Council meetings (in -person). Deliverables • Revised draft and final StoryMap • Draft and final agenda for the public/stakeholder workshop (electronic [Word and PDF]) • Draft and final PowerPoint slides for the public/stakeholder workshop (electronic [PowerPoint and PDF]) • Draft and final meeting notes from the public/stakeholder workshop (electronic [Word and PDF]) • Facilitation of one virtual public/stakeholder workshop • Draft and final PowerPoint slides for the City Council meetings (electronic [PowerPoint and PDF]) • Attendance at up to two City Council meetings TASK 4.0 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Herrera will be responsible for ongoing management and contract administration of this project, including preparing monthly invoices, as well as coordination of work efforts with the City's project manager (Patrick Johnson). Herrera's project manager and contract manager will have phone and e-mail contact with the City's project manager and other City representatives on an as -needed basis with regard to scope, schedule, budget, and invoicing issues. a c as E M Edmonds_SMAP_Scope_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 H E R R E RA Q September 8, 2022 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 110 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES This task also includes a project kickoff meeting and regular check -in meetings between the Herrera and City project manager. These meetings are in addition to task -specific meetings outlined in previous tasks. Assumptions • Check -ins will occur on a monthly basis at a minimum, but can be scheduled more frequently as needed. Meetings will be conducted via conference call (or Microsoft Teams). • Herrera and City will provide contact information for project manager back-up should primary contact(s) be unavailable. Deliverables • Draft and final detailed schedule (Microsoft Project) • Project kickoff meeting with City project manager and Herrera project manager • Monthly (or more frequent if needed) check -in meetings with City project manager and Herrera project manager • Monthly invoices and progress reports TASK 5.0 — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) DEVELOPMENT Herrera will review the summary sheets from the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study. If the study projects are determined to be appropriate, the project summary sheets from the study will be revised to update cost estimates. If the study projects are not determined to be appropriate, new projects will be identified. "Stormwater facility retrofits" developed as part of this task may include projects that retrofit existing treatment and/or flow control facilities/best management practices (BMPs), and new flow control or treatment facilities/BMPs that address impacts from existing development. Pursuant to the receiving water assessment and prioritization work, the CIPs developed for the SMAP will include retrofits intended to provide flow control and/or treatment benefits that address and support the goals for the receiving water. Edmonds_5 MAP_Sco pe_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 n� HERRERA September 8, 2022 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 111 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES Herrera will develop draft and final project summary packages that will include a 1-page description of the project, including existing conditions, proposed concept, project benefits, and cost; a 1-page graphic; and a project cost estimate. Assumptions • This task includes up to two, 1-hour conference calls. o Meeting #1 is to review existing retrofit projects and to determine if existing retrofit projects will be updated or if new projects will be identified. o Meeting #2 is to review the results of updating cost estimates of existing retrofit projects, or to review new project opportunities identified through field visits. • Meeting notes will not be prepared for the conference call discussions; however, a list of action items will be developed following each call that will be distributed via e-mail to the project team. • Two Herrera staff will conduct up to one day of field assessment to evaluate existing projects or identify potential new stormwater retrofit projects. • Projects from the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Retrofit Study will be included in the SMAP, but will not be visited during the field assessment, unless time allows. • City will provide one staff member to accompany Herrera during the field visits. • Herrera will revise cost estimates for up to two existing retrofit projects from the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Retrofit Study. Herrera will also identify BM type, location, and 10% conceptual design for up to two new retrofit projects if needed. Deliverables • Action items for two conference calls (e-mail summary) • Draft and final project summary packages for up to four existing and/or new retrofit projects (Word, Excel, and/or PDF) TASK 6.0 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN (SMAP) The goal of this task is to develop a SMAP document per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit requirement S5.C1.d.iii and accompanying SMAP Edmonds_SMAP_Scope_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 (kji H E R R E RA September 8, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 112 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES guidance developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Herrera will develop a SMAP for one priority catchment area/watershed for the City based on the watershed assessment and prioritization completed in 2022. The SMAP must be finalized in time to meet the NPDES Phase II permit deadline of March 31, 2023. Herrera will prepare a draft and final SMAP that includes: • Summary of SMAP background, assessment and prioritization process, and description and map of the selected watershed. A description of the stormwater facility retrofits needed for the watershed, including the BMP types and preferred locations. • Land management/development strategies and/or actions identified for water quality management. Herrera will conduct a high-level analysis of the benefit of increasing flow control requirements for the entire basin. Herrera will work with City staff to identify lands to protect or conserve, opportunities for depaving projects, and other land management opportunities. o SMAP may include identification of lands to protect or conserve from impervious surface conversions or native vegetation removal, and the strategic means for providing the needed protection, which could be addressed via purchase or zoning or land use policy changes, to name a few options. SMAP may also include other zoning or land use policy changes deemed necessary to prevent the water body from maintaining its current designated uses. Targeted, enhanced, or customized implementation of stormwater management actions related to NPDES Phase II Permit Section S5. Herrera will develop maps to assist with determining which targeted, enhanced, or customized stormwater management actions would most benefit the SMAP catchment, including evaluating the following: o Illicit discharge detection and elimination field screening o Prioritization of source control inspections o Operations and maintenance (O&M) inspections or enhanced maintenance of public facilities o Maintenance that requires capital construction of more than $25,000 o Public education and outreach behavior change programs to support SMAP actions for the receiving water or the selected watershed Edmonds_5 MAP_Sco pe_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 n� HERRERA September 8, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 113 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES o Identified actions shall support other specifically identified stormwater management strategies and actions for the watershed. If applicable, identification of changes needed to local long-range plans, to address SMAP priorities. Herrera will review existing long-range plans to identify changes, if needed. Include a proposed implementation schedule and the determination of the necessary budget to implement SMAP projects and activities. Herrera will work with the City to prioritize retrofits, land management strategies, and targeted, enhanced or customized stormwater management actions; identify costs; and preliminary cost/benefit analysis. After completing this table, a short-term and long-term schedule, costs, and potential funding sources will be developed. o Include facility design, land acquisition, permit fees, installation, O&M, staff, and other resources to support tailored S5.0 activities for the watershed; any desired monitoring and analysis; and administrative support. o Prioritize investments and actions to achieve the quickest and surest possible preservation and/or restoration of designated uses. Develop the SMAP in a way that will expect the investments to meet the goals for the receiving water and can be reasonably implemented over the course of future NPDES Phase II Permit cycles. SMAP budget should identify likely and potential funding sources and a realistic schedule to accomplish progress on both short-term and long-term actions. o Short-term actions (i.e., actions to be accomplished within 6 years). ■ The 6-year timeframe is identified in Growth Management Act (GMA) Capital Facility Planning process. Short-term SMAP actions will help meet water quality goals, but they are a mix of opportunistic efforts (that are the result of other efforts occurring or planned in the area) and strategic projects/activities. These short-term improvements can be helpful in providing visibility to successes and gaining support for continued actions, and will complement the more strategic, long-term approach to meet SMAP objectives. o Long-term actions (i.e., actions to be accomplished within 7 to 20 years). The 20-year timeframe is identified in the GMA Capital Facility Planning process. Long-term SMAP actions and projects are strategic rather than opportunistic. SMAP should include an anticipated schedule for long-term implementation that includes interim steps. This schedule is not intended to be a Permit compliance goal, but rather an indication of the anticipated level of effort that reflects an Edmonds_SMAP_Scope_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 41 H E R R E RA September 8, 2022 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 114 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES understanding of the time and resources required for detailed planning and successful implementation. • A process and schedule to provide future assessment and feedback to improve the planning process and implementation of procedures or projects. Herrera will work with the City to identify assessment and feedback process which may include recommending continued water quality monitoring or expanding existing monitoring. o The process to adaptively manage the SMAP will document the City's progress toward meeting SMAP goals and enables the City to report progress to Council, funders, the public, and Ecology. The process should directly reflect the protection and/or restoration goals that were set for the receiving water. The adaptive management process may also address the process used to develop the SMAP to improve effectiveness of the program. SMAP adaptations are expected over time as the City finds better ways to run the process or learns from implementation. The SMAP may benefit from strategic monitoring, particularly where little data were initially available. The SMAP should include a long-term assessment approach in sufficient detail that it is clear how the City will know and be able to report whether the protection and/or restoration goals are being achieved. The adaptive management process should include implementation tracking and an ongoing assessment of what portion of the planned projects and activities have taken place and how much of the watershed has been addressed. Assumptions • This task includes up to three, 1-hour conference calls. o Meeting #1 is to review the draft list of SWMP enhancements and draft list of land management strategies. o Meeting #2 is to review the draft SMAP actions and prioritize according to costs, feasibility, and time frame for implementation (short term or long term). o Meeting #3 is to review the draft SMAP incorporating the budget, funding sources, timeframe of actions, and adaptive management strategy. Meeting notes will not be prepared for the conference call discussions, however a list of action items will be developed following each call that will be distributed via e-mail to the project team. • The SMAP will include project summary sheets for identified stormwater facility retrofits (developed as part of Task 5.0), management/development strategies, and/or targeted Edmonds_5 MAP_Sco pe_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 n� HERRERA September 8, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 115 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES non-structural actions. It is anticipated that two to four project summary sheets will be developed for management/development strategies and/or targeted non-structural actions in addition to the project summary sheets developed as part of Task 5.0. • The final SMAP will be provided to the City on or before March 1, 2023. Deliverables • Action items for three conference calls (e-mail summary) • Draft and final project summary sheets for two to four management/development strategies and/or or targeted non-structural actions • Draft, revised draft, and final SMAP (Word and PDF) TASK 7.0 - CONTINGENCY The nature of this project is such that additional technical needs may potentially arise that are pertinent to the overall scope of services. However, the specifics of these needs will not be known until some preliminary work has been accomplished. Examples needs could include: • Additional CIP projects (or analysis to support CIP project development) • Additional site investigation work related to CIP development • Additional meetings with staff • Additional public workshops or City Council meetings. Herrera will provide additional services as requested by and authorized by the City, subject to amendment of the approved scope of services. Herrera shall submit a scope of services amendment and corresponding budget estimate for supplemental services not covered in previous tasks as may be requested by the City. The City shall provide written (e-mail) authorization to proceed with any supplemental services prior to any such work being performed by Herrera. PROJECT BUDGET The estimated project budget is provided in Exhibit B. Edmonds_SMAP_Scope_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 (kji H E R R E RA September 8, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 116 2.6.a SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Deliverable/Meeting Timeline a m L Task 3.0 — Stakeholder Draft workshop agenda Jan. 6, 2023 Involvement and Public Draft StoryMap Jan. 13, 2023 = Participation Draft workshop slides Jan. 13, 2023 Final workshop agenda Jan. 20, 2023 Final workshop slides Jan. 20, 2023 0 Public workshop (virtual) Jan. 2023 (TBD) V Draft workshop notes 1 week following workshop Final workshop notes 2 weeks following workshop E Final StoryMap 2 weeks following workshop a Draft City Council slides Feb. 3, 2023 Final City Council slides Feb. 7, 2023 c City Council Meeting 41 Feb. 2023 (TBD) c Draft City Council slides Mar. 3, 3023 Final City Council slides Mar. 7, 2023 Ci}� Council Meeting #2 Mar. 2023 (TBD) 4) L ................................................................................................................................................`.Z...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1...................../................................................................._ Task 4.0 — Project Draft detailed schedule Sept. 16, 2022 a Management/Contract Final detailed schedule Sept. 30, 2022 N Administration PM check -in meetings Sept. 2022 through March 2023 0 Monthly invoices and progress reports Sept. 2022 through March 2023 A > Task 5.0 — Capital CIP Meeting #1 Sept. 2022 (TBD) a) Improvement Projects Action items from CIP Meeting #1 1 week following meeting Conduct field reconnaissance Oct. 2022 m CIP Meeting 42 Nov. 2022 (TBD) _ Action items from CIP Meeting #2 1 week following meeting z 3 Draft project summary package Dec. 14, 2022 Final project summary package Mar. 6, 2023 Task 6.0 — Stormwater SMAP Meeting #I Sept. 2022 (TBD) L Management Action Plan Action items from SMAP Meeting 41 1 week following meeting Q (SMAP) Draft project summary sheets (programmatic) Dec. 14, 2022 Draft SMAP Dec.14, 2022 d d SMAP Meeting #2 Jan. 2023 (TBD) Action items from SMAP Meeting #2 1 week following meeting 3 Revised draft SMAP Feb. 7, 2023 co SMAP Meeting #3 Feb. 2023 (TBD) Action items from SMAP Meeting 43 1 week following meeting Final project summary sheets (programmatic) Mar. 6, 2023 z Final SMAP plan Mar. 6, 2023 Task 7.0 - Contingency TBD TBD Q TBD: to be determined c a The proposed project timeline assumes that the notice to proceed will be issued on September 13, 2022. z HERRERA M Q Ed monds_SMAP_Scope_DRAFT_v2_08.31.2022 September 8, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 117 EXHIBIT B (i.6.a�' Herrera Environmental Consultants 8/31/2022 0 c Cost Estimate for City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Action Plan O r Herrera Project No. [21-07723-001] r Task No. Project Capital th Stakeholder Stormwater Involvement and Management/Public Participation Contract Project (CIP) Action Plan Total .. Herrera Labor based on: Burdened Labor Rates Administration Development N Schedule Task Start .. --ILL Task End Date r �� r r r r � .2 Staff Title 2022 Burdened Labor Rates ' Michaud, Joy Scientist VI $277.83 8 46 4 17 14 10 8 4 75 76 i Dugopolski, Rebecca Engineer V $237.87 16 24 Fontaine, Matthew Engineer V $237.94 6 2 Fohn, Mindy Scientist IV $178.44 4 2 4 44 8 62 i Wingrove, Katie Engineer III $163.23 18 1 17 10 46 L Johnson,Rachel Engineerll $142.15 6 1 115 18 16 156 = Jackowich, Pamela Administrative Coordinator IV $135.67 0 0 10 0 10 10 a+ .3 Maloof, Charles Project Accountant II $119.29 10 Total Hours per Task 50 40 190 117 42 439 ++ Subtotal Labor $9,738 I $8,040 $32,684 I $21,885 I $7,984 $80,332 Subtotal Herrera Labor $9,738 I $8,040 $32,684 I $21,885 I $7,984 I $80,332 E 0)Escalated 3% Escalation on Herrera Labor in 2023 $292 I $241 $981 $657 I $240 $2,410 Q Subtotal Herrera Labor $10,030 I $8,281 $33,665 $22,542 I $8,224 $82,742 _ R c Subconsultants (1) Cascadia Consulting Group $0 $2,000 $2,000 E 2 !Z Subtotal Subconsultant Cost $o $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 a W Travel and Per Diem (PD) - r L ++ ,Auto Use Mile $0.63 36 1 44 1 0 1 72 1 152 1 d Subtotal Per Diem o $23 $28 $o $45 $95 E t Other Direct Costs (ODCs) R r Camera, digital Day $10.00 1 0 2 3 Q IGPS unit (Garmin/Toughbook navig) Day $50.00 1 0 2 3 ++ 3% Fee on ODCs $0 $2 $0 $o $a $5 Subtotal ODCs $o $62 $o $o $12a $1ss E v r Subtotal Per Diem, Lab Costs, and ODCs $0 I $84 I $28 I $0 I $169 I $280 I Q Grand Subtotal $10,030 $8,365 $35,692 $22,542 $8,392 $85,022 Grand Total = ' Packet Pg. 118 2.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Supplemental Agreement with HKA Global, Inc for the Carbon Recovery Project Staff Lead: Pamela Randolph Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History In early March, the City hired HKA Global, Inc. to assist the WWTP Manager with on -call construction management support, analysis of potential change order requests, review of extra costs, disputed work and time extension requests and other services as requested. HKA's initial contract was established March 1, 2022 for $55,000. In May of this year, City staff requested a Supplemental Agreement for $89,175, which was approved. On May 17, 2022, Supplemental Agreement #1 with HKA Global for the Carbon Recovery Project was approved by City Council. Staff Recommendation Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the next City Council meeting. Narrative The City hired HKA Global, Inc. to assist the WWTP Manager with on -call construction management support, analysis of potential change order requests, review of extra costs, disputed work and time extension requests and other services as requested. This supplemental agreement will provide additional budget to continue HKA's services on the Carbon Recovery Project. The original HKA contract amount of $55,000, Supplemental Agreement (#1) for $89,175 and the Supplemental Agreement #2 will be managed under the Carbon Recovery Project and subject to the of ownership. The total expense is for $268,650 and will be shared with our Treatment Plant Partners. City of Shoreline $25,490 City of Mountlake Terrace $62,257 Olympic View Water District $44,464 City of Edmonds $136,439 Attachments: Attachment 1 - HKA Supplemental Agreement 2 Packet Pg. 119 2.7.a CITY OF EDMONDS r� MIKE NELSON rr4di��-) 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WWTP Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and HKA Global, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for consulting services with respect to WWTP Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Project, dated March 8, 2022 and amended May 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified with regard to construction engineering services; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of March 8, 2022 between the parties, as amended by Supplemental Agreement 1, dated May 23, 2022, both of which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is further amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying Agreement, as amended by Supplemental Agreement 1, shall be further amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $55,000 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $89,175, by Supplemental Agreement 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $124,475 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $268,650 ($55,000, plus $89,175, plus $124,475). 1.3 Exhibit A to the underlying Agreement, as amended by Supplemental Agreement 1, consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby further amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit A to this Supplemental Agreement 2, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 120 2.7.a 2. In all other respects, the underlying Agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth in Supplemental Agreement 1 and 2 but only as set forth therein. DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS HKA GLOBAL INC Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE : Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Henry Spieker, Partner Packet Pg. 121 2.7.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 122 2.7.a 0016rArmil Agreement for Professional Services EXHIBIT A Scope of Services: HKA shall provide the scope of services outlined below: A. Scope: 1. Provide continued consulting services to City of Edmonds Public Works related to the construction of the WWTP Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Project. Services may include analysis of claims and disputed extra work, review of change order requests, time extension requests, review of entitlement, on -call CM support, and other services as requested. B. Budget Estimate: HKA shall provide the services outlined in Section A based on the hourly rates for professional services included in the project fee schedule below: Task Budget Cost Estimate On -Call CM through February 2023 17 Weeks (15 hrs/week) @ $325/hr $82,875 COR / Claim Review through February 2023 80 hrs @ 395/hr $31,600 Management Reserve $10,000 Total $124,475 WWTP Phase 6 Carbon Recovery PROJECT FEE SCHEDULE (January 2022): Partner (Spieker) $ 395 Director (Zimmerman) $ 345 Assoc. Director (Gockel) $ 325 Manager(Rosenker) $ 305 Sr. Assoc. Consultant $ 300 Assoc. Consultant (Hawn) $ 270 The above hourly rates apply to all services performed on the Client's behalf to the nearest quarter of an hour, including travel time. Computerized time and expense reports are included with HKA's monthly billing statements or are otherwise available upon request. HKA reserves the right to review and adjust this Fee Schedule effective January 1 st of each year. Out-of-pocket expenses such as travel, lodging, meals and overnight couriers will be billed at cost. Special project expenses such as laboratory tests, special fees, extra insurance, equipment, materials, charges for outside computer services, etc., will be billed at cost plus 15%. Mileage will be charged at the current U.S. Federal Government rate. Copies of expense receipts are available upon request. C. Retainer: HKA will not require a retainer prior to commencement of services HKA Glnba I Inc. One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 820 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Packet Pg. 123 2.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Public Water Meter Vault Easement at 23610 Highway 99 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History Staff Recommendation Forward item to a future consent agenda for approval by the City Council. Narrative The City is currently reviewing a proposed development project, Apollo Apartments located at 23610 Highway 99. This site falls within the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.60 - CG (General Commercial Zone and the Highway 99 Subarea revitalization project area. The zoning requires a total planting buffer and sidewalk width to be a minimum of 13-feet. A vault sized for a 3" meter is too large to fit within the planting buffer, therefore the water vault will be located on private property and a public easement will be required. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Water Vault Easement Attachment 3 - Site Plan Packet Pg. 124 1;0-11 City of Edmonds 23601 Highway 99 ffjr~ E.51aE"f AA CE . 1 VIE •j 41,61. r5i: 1 ■' ■ ' _ 7 ./ ■ ■ 1■ 114 -.-�P/Av ff i. W • loss,. , r R i J f t d 1' I ■ ■ FF--41 •I L� A .T J11111191 1: 6,062 0 0 505.19 1,010.4 Feet 752.3 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and 9,OZ8 P B P PP B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be aca WGS 1984 Web Mercator_ Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reli © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT 2.8a O Legend M N Sections Boundary CU Sections C Edmonds Boundary E ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP N R ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN W — <all other values> � Interstate tB Principal Arterial d Minor Arterial; Collector Local Street; On Ramp State Highways — <all other values> V -- a 7 1 d 2 Q County Boundary Parks C ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHIr 'V ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES > ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY CITIES r City of Edmonds d City of Lynnwood E City of Mountlake Terrace V fC Unincorporated King Co; Unincor Q City of Woodway a+ C Citv of Arlinaton: Citv of Bothell: t Notes Apollo Apartments Site Q Packet Pg. 125 2.8.b Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Grantor(s): 234 Edmonds JCV LLC Grantee: City of Edmonds Abbreviated Legal: Parcels A and B, City of Edmonds Short Plat No. 5-23-88: 8809210451 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 004519-001-002-1, 004519-001-002-04, 004519-001- 002-03 and 004519-001-002-02 UTILITY EASEMENT Property Address: 23606 and 23611 Highway 99 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantor(s) herein, the undersigned, 234 Edmonds JCV LLC, ("GRANTOR") hereby grant(s) to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation ("GRANTEE"), a permanent easement for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of a water meter vault and water meters, over, across, through, and below the following described property, and the further right, at GRANTEE's sole expense, to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions thereon interfering with the location, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of said water meter vault and water meters and necessary appurtenances, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described as the following property: The legal description of the easement area is detailed in Exhibit A. The easement area is depicted in the drawing attached as Exhibit B. GRANTEE shall, at GRANTEE'S sole expense, be responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, relocation and reconstruction of the systems. Further, GRANTEE agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities, provided GRANTOR, their heirs, or assigns shall not plant trees, shall make reasonable efforts to inhibit the growth of volunteer trees, and shall not construct any permanent structures over, upon, or within the permanent easement. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold GRANTOR harmless from any and all liability or damage, including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or arising directly from GRANTEE's use, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, relocation and reconstruction of and access to the systems, except those arising from any of GRANTOR'S acts, omissions or negligence. GRANTOR expressly reserves all rights not inconsistent with those granted to GRANTEE herein. Each party shall reasonably cooperate with the other in the performance of their obligations stated herein and to affect the purposes of this Agreement DATED THIS DAY OF Accepted by the City Council dated CITY OF EDMONDS 234 Edmonds JCV LLC day of 20 20 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Pg. 126 2.8.b By Michael Nelson, Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney On this day personally appeared before me 234 Edmonds JCV LLC, to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Packet Pg. 127 2.8.b EXHIBIT A PARCEL00451900100201 THAT PORTION OF PARCEL A OF CITY OF EDMONDS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 12, 1998, UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 9810125004, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID PARCEL A; THENCE SOUTH 27°18'45" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A, AND EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR PACIFIC HIGHWAY, A DISTANCE OF 71.57 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 62°44'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 12.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°18'45" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A, A DISTANCE OF 20.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62°46'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 12.30 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A, AND EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR PACIFIC HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTH 27°18'45" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL A AND EASTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY, 20.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST, W.M., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 248.5 SQUARE FEET+/- Packet Pg. 128 2.8.b NW CORNER — PARCEL A S62' 44' 54"E 12.30' TPOB EASEMENT AREA N27' 18' 45"E---�— 20.20' Q- c" '4zz N Q �0'., c iVAL 1 "=100' JOB NO. 2220271.50 08/24/2022 LEGAL BY: DF EXHIBIT BY: GD NW 1/4, SE 1/4, S31, T27N, R4E w:\sdskproj\2022\2220271\water esmt.dwg EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AFN 9810125004 APN 00451900100201 236TH STREET SW N88' 3651 "W o-7 181.43' to S88' 36' 51 "E I -S27' 18' 45"W 71.57' S27' 18' 45"W 20.19' PARCEL B N N62' 46' 49"W BOUNDARY LINE 12.30' ADJUSTMENT AFN 9810125004 APN 00451900100203 3 PARCEL C CITY OF EDMONDS S-23-88 AFN 8809210451 APN 00451900100202 88' 37' 03"W 331.07' 5 8 V mom F.9 dr& 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 200, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX Packet Pg. 129 2.8.c GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE COMPOST -AMENDED PER 2014 SWMMWW BMP T5.13. / i.62 / 2. TOP AND TOE REFER TO FINISHED GRADE AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE WALLS, RESPECTIVELY. 3. A MINIMUM OF 3' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION AND V VERTICAL SEPARATION IS oyp ❑ REQUIRED BETWEEN DRY UTILITIES (POWER, GAS, PHONE, CABLE, ETC) AND SEWER WATER AND STORM, AND A MINIMUM OF 5' HORIZONTAL _ _ _ BHP SEPARATION AND V VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM ANY CITY -OWNED LINES. _ _ / SSMH RIM=436!7 OH 4. A TYPE II CATCH BASIN IS REQUIRED WHENEVER RIM TO INVERT EXCEEDS 5'. NO Jv1/D 5. A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PIPES LOCATED UNDER S/ / DRIVEABLE SURFACES AND V OF COVER UNDER LANDSCAPE SURFACES. / 10 0 6. ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE ROUTED TO DETENTION VAULT BY PLUMBING CONSULTANT. INLETS MUST BE ROUTED TO LOCATIONS WITH ACCESS OPENINGS DIRECTLY ABOVE. .5' MAX E 7. ROOF SHALL BE COATED WITH AN INERT, NON -LEACHABLE ENAMEL COATING.' HT RE' 8. IN COVERED PARKING GARAGES, CATCH BASINS SHALL HAVE OIL/WATER / FOUY SEPARATORS AND SHALL CONNECT TO SANITARY SEWER. REFER TO ST MI PLUMBING PLAN. / 0 '(V 9. SEE C3.3 FOR CATCH BASIN DETAILS. / CBim=437.01\1 10. RETAINING WALLS AND DETENTION VAULT REQUIRE SEPARATE BUILDING IE 2" DI(NE) 43 .65 9+ 1 12" DI(SWi-43�5 PERMITS. / 8=437.61 11. DRIVEWAY SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 14%. IE " DI(NE)=433.95 w MIL) / x / 1 2" DI(SW) 433.95 / / So, CONTINUED ON 2/C3.1 I / 9+ 0 / I / 44 IT h a CB RIM = 41 7� NO MID' 8+ 0 ,q \ 44 / CB RIM 442.16 / IE 12" DI(NE)=4 .16 TOP:444.0 0 TOE: 443.0 0 \� 8+ 0 1 FOOTING �\ C3.2 DRAINS/ / / q � OP: 445.0 TOE: 443.0 yv a ly / \ v $SMH RIM=41. j NO MID j A\ 7+50 / � � ° TOP:446.0TOE: 443.0 1 o I TOP:447.0 TOE: 443.0 / I 7+00 / a ° PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILT FFE: 443.0 TOP: 447.5 \ / TOE: 443.0 \ TOP:448.0 TOE: 443.0 TIE WALL FTG DRAINS B RIM RAMP DOWN TO O TO BLDG FTG DRAINS IE 12" MATCH EXISTING CONTINUED ON 2/C3.1 L IM=447. / " a /7r, ° a,� l l ENTR 20.00' INGRESS/EGRESS f EASEMENT 55.6 ' NE 1 /4, SE 1 /4, SECTION 31 , DRAIN /l/lNE I WATER L/NF / rl J ( I TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. GAS I EXIST 6" WA IE (BASED ON POTHOLING): 410.9 � LINE NEW 12" STORM TOP OF PIPE: 409.4 II � SEWER LINE w WOOD F NCE END D.1 '(S). Ill EASEMENT (NOT I N RECORD) I I /KA C I y y tf / C CHAIN FINK FENCE/ START 11MI / n /-- - - - - / I 0.1 '(S) OF PROPERTY LINE. I 1 / LOT 7 ♦ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN ENTRYWAY TO STAIRWELL CONTINUED ON 1/C3.1 I I I 1 / a j �Aj1.1 I I ND E38 LF�^^12" DIP @ 6.4% SEE 1/C3.1 FOR �'I'SITED 17-21. '� 4 BUILDING ABOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE 1.0'(S) OF SET CORNER. 1 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 SD-4_ I y/ I 30 LF - 12" PVC @ 4.5% 1 6" PVC FOOTING DRAIN DISCHARGE LINE SHALL BE TIGHTLINED TO 12" VAULT DISCHARGE PIPE TOP: 416.15 TOE: 416.0 4-19LF-12"IPVC @2.0% i- CONTINUED ON 3/C3.1 - TOP: 418.3 TOE: 414.0 I 6.5' MAX EXPOSED HT RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL TOP �420.25 TOE: 414.0 rr TOP: 4 0.5 TOE: 41 .0 11 TOP: 421.01 TOE: 415.01 I TOP: 421.5 \ TOE: 415.5 1 \ I I� TOP: 422.0 TOE: 416.5 I o \� o ICI \ I I � TOP:422.5 \ TOE: 418.0 J TOP: 423.03 TOE: 418.0 LOT 5 TOP:423.8 TOE: 421.7 I TOP:423.4 TOE: 418.0 TRANSFORMER A-54449 PER SNO PUD F/ CONTINUED ON 1/C3.1 CONTINUED ON 3/C3.1 1ST BASEMENT PLAN (2ND LEVEL 2 SCALE: 1" = 40' 4" FTG DRAIN IE: 411.75 TIGHTLINE CONNECTION TO CONTINUED ON 2/C3.1 CONT'""'r^ ^"' I If-) VAULT DISCHARGE PIPE. FTG DRAINS AROUND VAULT LAID FLAT 208'x22.5'x10.5' DETENTION VAULT W/ FLOW CONTROL ASSEMBLY 2 3 4 C3.2 C3.2 C3.2 / i POSSIBLE CONNECTION LOCATION FROM PLUMBING, TYP (SEE NOTE 6) 2.0' ACCESS MANHOLE WITH STEP AND LADDER TO VAULT eBOTTOM, TYP C3.3 CONTINUED ON 2/C3.1 2ND BASEMENT PLAN (1ST LEVEL SCALE: 1" = 40' GRADING QUANTITIES TOTAL EXCAVATION (CUT) - 21,760 CU YDS TOTAL EMBANKMENT (FILL) - 15,010 CU YDS TOTAL 36,770 CU YDS 7 CONTINUED ON 1/C3.1 ENTRYWAY TO STAIRWELL 78 LF - 6" PVC @ 0.5% (STORM LINE FROM MWS) GARAGE SLAB GRADING PER ARCH. DRAINAGE IN GARAGE PER PLUMBING. GARAGE MUST DRAIN TO SANITARY SEWER, TYP CROSSWALK TO ELEVATOR EN I RY J _ Efir-I 2.0%, 422.75 ® I 423.3 V S%� III 423.7 2.0 %� I i '�*� 423.9 40 0 20 40 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS O C I ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 7 G GUI LL 4, of WA$� ct' E� • 25385 �Q 1 STEg i 0 08/ 31 / 22 J Q J Q � Q m m J J J J m Q Q Q Q N J J can w Q Q w H H H H CC z w w H m m m m w wm m cn cn cn va oC oC to cn w c� O V) 7 7 W w w w w w w w w w O O r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rl N 00 0) r-I 00 lz:3- Ln Q N N N r-I O N N N m 0) N Ifs rl lz:3- lz:3- 1-0 00 00 CD r-I CD r-I O O O O O Y D' Q DESIGN: TAF DRAWN: ATD CHECK: JPU JOB NO: 20261.20 DATE: 09/21 /2020 Z Q !W V N Q Z Z Q �Q LI H 0) N IZrnop O OZ of 7 Li Q Q Ld Q = 'W^ < ^ V / Q = V o Z m O _ Z J p O 0 O z Q N W C7 Q SHEET: THE QUANTITIES SHOWN ABOVE ARE FOR THE PERMIT PROCESS DATE: ONLY. THESE VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE. DO NOT USE FOR BIDDING, PAYMENT, OR ESTIMATING PURPOSES. BY: C3ml 0 10 20 40 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION Packet Pg. 130 2.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/13/2022 Resolution Declaring Utility Easements as Surplus at 23610 Highway 99 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On August 9, 2022 staff presented the Release of Easement to the Parks and Public Works Committee. Staff Recommendation Forward to Public Hearing on Disposition of Easement on September 27, 2022. Narrative RCW 35.94.040 provides a process for disposing of surplus utility property. Through the attached resolution, the City will declare the utility easements as surplus. The disposition of sewer -storm easements located at 23601 Highway 99 will be brought before the full council at a public hearing on September 27, 2022. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Resolution Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map Attachment 3 - Survey of Sewer -Storm Easement Packet Pg. 131 2.9.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING AS SURPLUS SEWER AND STORM UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 236TH STREET SW, APPROXIMATELY 176 FEET EAST OF HIGHWAY 99 IN EDMONDS, WASHSINGTON. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is reviewing a development application for property located at the southeast corner of Highway 99 and 236`k' Street SW, consisting of tax parcel numbers 00451900100201, -202, -203, and -204 (collectively the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, in 1962, the city acquired storm utility and sewer utility easements, respectively recorded under auditor's file numbers 1588234 and 1588238 (collectively the "Utility Easements"); and WHEREAS, the Utility Easements encumber the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the city has determined that it no longer needs the Utility Easements to provide continued public utility service to the Subject Property or any other property in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, the city has determined that it has no foreseeable future need for the Utility Easements; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.94.040 provides a process for disposing of surplus utility property; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Utility Easements described above are hereby determined to be surplus to the city's needs and are not required for providing continued public utility service. Section 2. Any disposition of the Utility Easements should proceed in accordance with RCW 35.94.040. RESOLVED this day of 32022. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 132 2.9.a ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 133 2.9b it L 3 ;■ 23 706 23720 m �81 2380 * 23904 JW of Edmonds IOWA W =a 8215 1 23525 � ■ APOLLO APTS VICINITY MAP 23625 I� It 2341A23422�234235 23508 , n n . 235141 a 235 • in 23526, ■ c r'I u Cal! 'Fir 2 7t�14 5 23815 2-a238 r.;827� F13,031 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 376.2 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is 4,514 p B P pp g reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accura WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliak © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIC E5„,•,d� N 1 .e •.• rADun,lek 7 Legend N t4 - Sections Boundary r Sections d Edmonds Boundary y to ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_BUILDIP W ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN — <all other values, Interstate Principal Arterial C •L Minor Arterial; Collector V Local Street; On Ramp Q State Highways O - <all other values> ++ 3 -- 0 O to 1 2 1Z County Boundary Parks ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHII V ArcSDE.GIS. PROPERTY _CITIES ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES N City of Edmonds City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace V Unincorporated King Cc; Unincor Q City of Woodway a+ Citv of Arlinaton: Citv of Bothell: C N Notes Packet Pg. 134 (5. 2.9.c O N O O o0*0 < c cn c� o o On mo v o z m I- <n v, : n; o a o ,� r-< 2 o o w o 0 O N Z cO SRm c o o '' cn Z a I' m z a s 1- °m° x 2 a N m '� 0 2 m a _ -zi �\ m z o m o a n ma i rn Z I -I a m z on a cn "i o v 4, N m m m n I.- Arn m Z C Sao cry „�o n (7) o o o LO I� zy n p 00 m C" ZD z I,, cn a z o �� cocn rn 2 m Zo I O N U) n o C) �yz y y a 0 w � o \ V � \ c \ \ IV Z7 \ V 04 \ 'A 1448_ _ 0 y rI I � a � ` om I '\ \ Go l F -� I - I -�-- - 442 - - w Ell Z it - � I IC ^: 00* z I r I I wa« FTF m N '\ rov m --444----------- \\ o I ` I o o \ i ' o I I i 1. I8\ \ \ I c_ \\ r4__N ED ------ _--------442-------__-- ONE WALL c� \ nlIT1C \\ �� CLaa I � I I� ' \ �� -440- I w N k I w(A %o '---- T, y ASPHALT CURB a m---------T FTF Q) a RDCK WALLo ^ \� WALKOUT BASEMENT I ; g€� m — — — — — — — — — — ------ T I OVERHANG- - - - - - I I I 1 \ - _436 - 6 _ \\'i,---Iv '/\�I\ g g AkIi— -- J n _ O -- -- _ '/ I� p C �p II II �p Z - i' -- --- list V I � / vrnrn I ---------------- I T \\ -- �- --- — — — � —43.i2 I -z(, 0'm -O 3\ I \\ I\ -- -- - I ----------- L------ ------ — _j I C — — — — I `- --------WOOD,FENCE \, - - �------ I IL CIO _ I 00 '141 CIO - -- —--- ----------------------- I — --� _ _>__ - --- - o - ' - — - - - _ -- - - - -------- --- ------------------a -----------------426--- i ��, DUMPSTER = - Itv all - oCONCRETE CURB ,�� I - `'------- r \ _ I NO ocn n \I I r ---------------------------------- o- ,----- �m �' r- ------------- ----- --I-- -- --- '------------ I ---- , - N \ Y-------- -o- r ----------- ---- I -' DD— u)CIO CIO 00 Z n 11 �_ I m II II 41 II v --- � 11\I I� I SD 0�lx^ z V i �SDm m r r� SD 1 1 I aaZ �� N i.,o i-----------¢- c� �a ! _- SAT 1 I r� w - I II----��,------------------ �~ + n2 1 I I mcrn n cn //� -0�� I % cN,zO (6; �-I O z I I a I II co I II II II Qca r y w a , = I I / I --------- —_ II -------------- - N tel m {.' y � z I I o / I I �, �, ------------------ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - c l la CONCRETE CURB i i------- d �} c� I i - - _53) _ _ - — - - - I o o CONCRETE CURB_ I ; m i N i Hoy db o z it. ---==-y ---- �----- r R✓� Z m a � --� —_-- — _ — � _— _ --- q--- A �I � O 1 N --_ _ -S - ,----' N �R ®-- ---------IrI oYO --- --\\ �------------- --- 77 SS �i --- --4F6------4 ---------- 30� 'o � y c c cn I I (n Z I II o i' I I / I 12 a —0 t $� eo 00 00 = /---------------- I I / I I I € O i I I I I P I o 0 o rn �' i\ ---- - rn rn I I SON ozi cnc�- cz2` I m o !� 02 - 0 2 Z o Co I I. N C C I m a I -cam 2 y m55 cn I Z7� z �1�7Z '< Z a I Z O Z 0 oo ~on z a mcn mom= orn (m �� on =y zZm �o Wow mo o �o -I o mZm r � a �o o� I I I I O I � ~ i � I I I I I I I I I I Z c ono= a a�apmn a nTapmn a 0 m= N m=� Z-^�m z��- m �- Z-^�m 4,c)z��- m r- n1 m rrn00 zF, zc�O- C-0(6-I �o� m Zo-r.,-,' O�^,O�o� Z cn �1 °°o �� °°o 0 �nAz� z mmo IS) v 000�ro„ 000rn v�� -zrn.: � -Zrn.: cn can��Z� om c, o .c�� Z zo�o� N Cc)) ZpyCD, c��y --I �Occ.. cO'.)g Dap I Dao I J. m�p� mcmn�� m m ygo oc�o,? vm'zo �mzo o y 'z = r- n rrI OF y 0 z oz I I I r I I-------- --- I ` o I N N E I I—CTJ__- -- I o O NCI `P O II I)oo00 LI \I O o I O EEEX I I N I I IEaw I I I C7 I I I ` I I I � aoi 3001 13 I I I \ I r+1 I I I I -0- I I I C O V O I I �ZNo o 76TH AVE, W. <_ N -------------- o ?z oa�o 'z�=z oc z N cn o r,i rn� � 2 Packet Pg. 135