Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1035 MAIN ST.PDF
1035 MAIN ST ®� rt July 25, 1977 MEMO TO: Engineering Division FROM: E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development Dept. SUBJECT: FILL AT 1035 MP+I N:STR T&mot Please check the fill and grading that was done at 1035 Main Street to see if any damage was done to the stream to the west of the earth work. This is an environmentally sensitive area. PS/ae R C R/Pr) JUL 28 1977 Public works ueui, 61u, 8-6 1 CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT i SIDE SEWER PERMIT Call PRospect 0-1107 when work Is reedy for Inspection. (No Inspec- tions Saturday, Sunday or holldays.) ( �J 2 2564 ADDRESS.....:.......103.....Main Street.--------------------.............---------...............---...--- .............................................................. OWNER...:..........d. _... En ............................................. CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR.......... OWI12Z' ............... Permission is granted ...... NQYe ber....._....22., Y9.6.7..., for days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer With City Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing ordinances. ATTIENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING}: fNOTE No. 1—The owners of the property may obtain a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected. NOTE No. 2—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit. NOTE No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 Inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. No bends In grade sharper than % will be permitted. Nam/ No. 4—Trenches In street must be water settled and surface of street restored* to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to Improper work which may develop within one year of completion. r NOTE No. 5—It 1s unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or Its appur- tenances except to Insert the pipe into the wye. 11110, V.— W-t-m", .-. �' *r. • tlS'" CC k , ,.p • � : c to P.EOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY` PROPOSED CIMM G_PeMll v D�QMMKIPMQ PREPARED FOR Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 1035 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-3380 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone:425-449-4704 Fax:426-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 ,� Geotechnical Engineering Report —) Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Pro]ects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineurin; Repport' Is Based on A Unique Set of Protect-3 'o9111ic Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk manage mentpreferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes ---even minor ones --and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report, to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation :of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti= nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their 'interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional -study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read- Responsibility Provislons Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenviron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Processional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed irrthis report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE the most resole so forth 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G1O6, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:3O1/565-2733 Facsimile:3O1/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.OM June 23, 2014 ES-3380 Echelbarger Investments, LLC 4001 —198" Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Attention: Mr. Todd Echelbarger Dear Mr. Echelbarger: Earth Solutions NW«c, Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Family Residences, 1035 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington". Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed single-family residential structures at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of about four to six feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on - grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. This report provides a geologically hazardous areas assessment, and recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation, foundation and retaining wall design parameters, drainage, the suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill, and other geotechnical recommendations. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Henry T. ` right, E.I.T. Staff En `Weer '1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 0 (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Table of Contents ES-3380 PAGE .............. General: ......... Protect Description......, ... 2 SITE CONDITIONS.:,; 2 Surface .......... ... ... . .................. 2 Subsurface ..... ...... 2 Geologic 3 ,Groundwater.... .......... 3 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS. 3 Slope Reconnaissance..., .......................................... 3 .Landslide Hazard Areas .............. .:.11...: .................... 3 Erosion 4 Analysis of Proposal ................. ........ I............. 5 .Minimum Buffer and -Building Setback ... i ................... 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.,;—.. ............ I ..... i ; o' General...... ........ ............. Site, Preparation. and Temporary Erosion ControL,....,,, .... In -Situ Soils ............................ .......... Structural Fill ................................. ...... Excavations and Slopes ........................... Foundations ..... Seismic Considerations..... Slab -on -Grade.. Floors....* ...... Retaining ...... Utility Trench Support.and Backfill-,�,�,, ..... Pavement Sections...:.,,,.,.,,,.,,,,,.,:�:,.,,,,,,,,,,.,.,.,................,....�..%i.i.iiii,i��4�i,.�i�i: LIMITATIONS... ........... ....... ...... 10 Additional Services,',,.... ....... I-- ............... 10 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents Continued ES-3380 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Distribution Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 1035 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-3380 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed single-family residential structures to be constructed at 1035 Main Street in Edmonds, Washington. To complete the scope of services detailed in our proposal PES-3380 dated May 5, 2014, we performed the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by advancing a boring adjacent to the toe of the steep slope to the north of the property; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during subsurface exploration; • Engineering analyses. and recommendations for the proposed development, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and/or resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation; • Site Plans, prepared by Insight Engineering Co., dated March 31, 2014; • Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangle, Washington, prepared by James P. Minard, dated 1983; • Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report, Critical Areas File Number CRA20140021 and CRA20140022, prepared by City of Edmonds; • North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Summary Report, prepared by Landau Associates, dated March 14, 2007, and; • Edmonds City Code, Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 Project Description ES-3380 Page 2 Based on the site plan provided to us, the existing single-family residential structure and associated outbuildings will be demolished and two new single-family residential structures will be constructed. We anticipate grading activities will include cuts and fills to establish the planned building alignments. Based on the existing grades, we estimate cuts to establish building pad and foundation subgrade elevations will be on the order of up 10 to 12 feet. However, grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. Site improvements will also include underground utility installations. At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However, we anticipate the proposed: residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads on the order of two kips per linear foot and slab -on -grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS .Surface The subject site located at.,1035 Main Street in Edmonds, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of two residential tax parcels (Snohomish County parcel numbers 0434204003000 and 0434204002800) totaling approximately 0.28 acres of land area. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements. The majority of the site is relatively level with a gentle west descending slope. Based on site observation and review of the referenced critical areas reconnaissance report, a south descending slope with a gradient in excess of 50 percent is located to the north of the site. Vegetation within the steep slope area consists of mature trees, saplings, and ivy groundcover. The subject site is bordered to the north, east, and west by residential structures and to the south by Main Street. The Boring Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the approximate limits and local topography of the property. Subsurface As part of the subsurface exploration, a boring was advanced adjacent to the toe of the steep slope area to the north of the site for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions. The boring was advanced to a depth of 26.5 feet below existing grade. Please refer to the boring logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Soil conditions observed at ;the boring location consisted of loose to very dense silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) and poorly graded sand (SP) advance outwash deposits. Overall soil relative density increased with depth. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 Geologic Setting ES-3380 Page 3 According to the referenced geologic map, the subject site is underlain by advance outwash (Qva) deposits. Soil conditions observed at the boring location were generally consistent with advance outwash deposits. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the site soils consist of Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam. The soil conditions observed at the boring location were generally consistent with the NRCS soil mapping. .Groundwater Groundwater seepage was: observed during our fieldwork on May 30, 2014 at a depth of approximately five and one-half feet below existing grades, which likely represents perched groundwater. Seepage should be expected in site excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the winter, spring and early summer months. .GEOLOGICALLY.HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT.. As part of this geotechnical engineering study, the referenced chapter of the Edmonds City Code was reviewed. Per the Edmonds City Code requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Slope Reconnaissance During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance across the steep slope area to the north of the site. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include features such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. The slope is vegetated with mature trees, saplings, and ivy groundcover. In general, based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the steep slope to the north of the property can be characterized as good. Landslide. Hazard Areas. With respect to landslide hazard areas, section 23.80.020 of the Edmonds City Code defines landslide hazard areas as "areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds, landslide hazard areas specifically include: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 ES-3380 Page 4 Areas of ancient or historic failures in Edmonds which include all areas within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc.; 2. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more except areas composed of consolidated rock; 3. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; and 4. Any area located. on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. Based on site observation and the referenced critical areas reconnaissance report, a south - descending steep slope with gradient in excess of 50 percent is located to the north of the subject property. Per the above definition of landslide hazard areas, the steep slope to the north of the subject property classifies as a landslide hazard area based on a slope gradient of 40 percent or steeper with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more. The proposed development will not alter the landslide hazard area. ,Erosion. Hazard Areas With respect to erosion hazard areas, section 23.80.020 of the Edmonds City Code defines erosion hazards as "at least those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe", "severe", or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds, erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils'and springs or ground water seepage; and 3. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope." Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC ES-3380 June 23, 2014 Page 5 As previously indicated, the on -site soils are generally consistent with Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam. Based on the Edmonds City Code definition, the steep slope area to the north of site classifies as an, erosion hazard area. The proposed development will not alter the erosion hazard area. Analvsis of Proposal The proposed development will involve demolition of the existing single-family residential structure and associated outbuildings and construction of two new single-family residential structures. Based on the referenced site plans, the grading will involve cuts and fills to establish level building pad.* areas. Based on the information provided to us, the proposed development will not impact the landslide hazard and erosion hazard area and adjacent properties. Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions and will not adversely impact other critical areas. Minimum Buffer and. Building -Setback Based on the results of our study and our understanding of the proposed development, in our opinion, the proposed development should incorporate a minimum no -disturbance buffer of 10 feet and a minimum building setback of 15 feet from the landslide hazard area. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, construction of the proposed residential structures at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, temporaryexcavations, retaining walls, and the suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of approximately four to six feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on - grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Organic material exposed at subgrade elevations must be removed below design elevation and grades restored with structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as. necessary. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Echelbarger Investments, LLC and his representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Earth Solutions Nw, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 Site Preparation and Earthwork ES-3380 Page 6 Based on the referenced site plans and given the existing topography, we anticipate grading for the project will involve cuts of up to 10 to 12 feet to establish building pad and foundation subgrade alignments. Silt fencing and temporary erosion control measures should be placed along the perimeter of the site prior to beginning grading activities. Temporary Erosion Control Temporary construction entrances, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a temporary road surface. Silt fences should be placed along the margins of the property. Interceptor swales and a temporary sediment pond may be necessary for control of surface water during construction. Erosion control measures should conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and City of Edmonds standards. In -Situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the boring location are generally suitable for use as structural fill. However, successful use of the on -site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. The site soils were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration on May 30, 2014. Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils will generally have a moderate sensitivity to moisture. During periods of dry weather, the on -site soils should generally be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the moisture content is at or near the optimum level at the time of placement. Successful placement and compaction of the on -site soils during periods of precipitation will be difficult. If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). , For soil placed in utility trenches underlying structural areas, compaction requirements are, dictated by the local city, county, or utility district, and in general are specified as 95 percent ;relative compaction. The upper 24 inches of foundation subgrade areas and the upper 12 inches of slab -on -grade and pavement subgrade areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 Excavations and Slopes ES-3380 Page 7 The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health. -Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. Based on the: soil conditions encountered at the boring location, the loose to medium dense native soils encountered in the upper approximately four to six feet of the boring location and where fill and/or groundwater seepage is exposed are classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.51-1:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Medium dense to dense native soils encountered below approximately four to six feet where no groundwater seepage is exposed would be classified as Type B by OSHANVISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B soils must be sloped no steeper than 1 H:1V. The presence of perched groundwater may cause caving of the temporary slopes due to hydrostatic pressure. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm the soil type and allowable slope inclination are appropriate for the soil exposed by the excavation. If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. A representative of ESNW should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. . Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring location, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of about four to six feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are observed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with granular structural fill will be necessary. Organic material exposed at foundation subgrade elevations must be removed and grades restored with structural fill. Provided the structures will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of the new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) * Coefficient of friction . 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC ES-3380 June 23, 2014 Page 8 With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Considerations The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class D, should be used for design. In our opinion, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. The soil relative density and the absence of an established shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this opinion. Slab -On -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free -draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free -draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based ;on the minus three-quarters inch fraction. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a material specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls If retaining walls will be utilized, they should be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) • At -rest earth pressure (restrained condition) • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient of friction • Seismic surcharge `Where H equals retained height 35 pcf 50 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 300 pcf 0.40 6H* (active) 12H* (at -rest condition) Earth Solutions NK LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLLC ES-3380 June 23, 2014 Page 9 Where sloping or other surcharge conditions will be present, supplement recommendations and design earth pressure values should beprovided by ESNW. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not "develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free -draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18. inches behind the wall.. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and should be connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided as Plate 3. Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed during our fieldwork on May 30, 2014 at a depth of approximately five and one-half feet below existing grades, which likely represents perched groundwater. Seepage should be expected in site excavations, particularly in the winter, spring and early summer months. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve passive elements such as interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Surface water should not be allowed to runoff over sloped areas and should not be allowed to pond near the top of sloped areas or -retaining structures. Surface grades must be designed to direct water away from buildings. The grade adjacent to buildings should be sloped Iaway from the buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a horizontal distance of ten feet. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4 of this report. Utility Trench Support and, Backfill. In our opinion, the soils observed at the boring location are generally suitable for support of utilities. In general, the soils observed at the boring location should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable requirements of the City of Edmonds. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill or thicker crushed rock sections prior to pavement. Cement treatment of the subgrade soil can also be considered for stabilizing pavement subgrade areas. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Echelbarger Investments, LLC June 23, 2014 ES-3380 Page 10 For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections can be considered for preliminary design: • Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The HMA, CRB and ATB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications: LIMITATIONS. The recommendations and,conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the boring location may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional. Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during. construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC _Is r A a• �P! t a t u t+ It 1-3 —��'- t ST a' 1 xl• �' t' �Arr Jr IIA - t •I� �� f i5 �(.0 rt ,tl , � Mq.N � � , '!�` at14+ + t•�. • ';sip, wrl Fit_R vr aw° u is osrrxs :�. 1,9 a a `, tr - , 6 c� it to IN Farea0! i a aa►: �� 4aNmvj V&i , fit, e I / , i. e' �r•,aah r iAA AM kkA t1E4�F�y.r Rk � �°' �`61C .ICr GIB � t f .I voi S' pcw t--•_...� r one"�vpktr�an � JJ sr I VIV 11 � r _ mod` tr jam 57 e �' wekLb Reference: NORTH ' " - � • Snohomish County, Washington Map 454 By The Thomas Guide Vicinity Map Rand McNally 1035 Main Street 32nd Edition Edmonds, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color:" ESNW cannot be Drwn• GLS Date 06/19/2014 Proj. No. 3380 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked HTW Date June 2014 1 Plate 1 resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. 202 House Concrete Driveway LEGEND i i i i i I I I I 1 I I I I 1 220 210 ALL["Y 204 206 208 - - 212 214 216 218 , 1 �� d\'shade 220 .218 t.Garage I Grave, I : Driveway1214 Lots B1 Lot, A a r\, I I :I � —204 — I1 206 208 i 212 MAIN B-1-i— Approximate Location of ESNW Boring, Proj. No. ES-3380, May 2014 Subject Site Existing Building I 210 STREET NORTH 0 15 30 60 1 "=30' Scale in Feet NOTE; The graphics shown on this plate are hot intended for designer purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of Vicinity Map existing and / or proposed site features: The information illustrated 1035 Main Street is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our Edmonds, Washington study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color, ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 06/19/2014 Proj. No. 3380 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked HTW Date June 2014 Plate 2 resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. r NOTES: 18" Min. 777 ° 0 0 0 0 ° o o 00 , o o co ° o0 ° Q o �° 0 0 ° °°m°00 00 ° 00010 0 0 0 ° Q °°o 000 °°0,°00 ° Q ° o00 0O 0 0 ° 8 ° o0 , o Q o o n o o O o 0 o O 0 � O° 0 o. � 0 0 0 0 O o o Q ° 0 0 0 i o °0 00000�0. o0 00 000 00 0 0 0 0° O o o° 0 0 O 000 o o Q O0 0 0 °O °o 00 C °° ° °0 0 0 °° °, O 0 0 0 °0 ° o . o ° 0 Q ° ° O °O ° , o 0 , , 0 0 0 o 0 o D 0 nn Do ° 0 00 e 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }/ 0 0 0 00 0 0° 00 0 0°0 & 0 0 0 B 0 Q 0000 0 0o O 0 0 0 0 0°� o • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be.feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: o 00 Q °oop Q Free Draining Structural Backfill .r.r.r.r. 1 inch Drain Rock Structural Fill \ Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 1035 Main Street Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 06/23/2014 Proj. No. 3380 Checked HTW Date June 2014 Plate 3 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. r•r•r•r•r ti•ti•ti•ti• r•r•r•r•r ti•ti•ti•ti• 1" Drain Rock r•r•r•r•r ti•ti•ti•ti• SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 1035 Main Street Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 06/23/2014 Proj. No. 3380 Checked- HTW Date June 2014 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-3380 The subsurface conditions., at the site were explored by advancing one boring at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The boring logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface" exploration was completed on May 30, 2014. The boring was advanced to a maximum depth of 26.5 feet below existing grades. Logs of the boring advanced by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ''e �'� r S �� Gw WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FSAND INES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) c C , o Q.? ;. GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, OR GRAVEL FINES D MIXTURES, LITTLE COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE. FRACTION GRAVELS WITH FINES c o o. ' GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SAND AND CLEAN SANDS �' SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE SANDS WITH FINES '' h' 1 SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) SL. CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY q SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY GRAINED SOILS SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS C'CLAYS, INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYFINE SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,_LEAN CLAYS _ OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS slzE SILTS LIQUID LIMB CLADS GREATER THAN50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS, .............. ........ PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 2 vim Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711` CLIENT-Echelbarger.ln_vestmen!s,:LLC .4_ _ _ PROJECT NAME . 1035. Main Street PROJECT NUMBER W3380-, Y PROJECT LOCATION. Edmonds, Washington DATE STARTED 5/30/14 ; - ,— COMPLETED 5/30/14 —� _ GROUND ELEVATION 205 ft_ _ —, HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD , HSA- . - J _ AT TIME OF DRILLING =- LOGGED BY . HTW -__ CHECKED BY HTW _ AT END OF DRILLINGNOTES.. Brambles 4 _ _. AFTER DRILLING — .. w a _j : W F M o OJ ? > TESTS o_ O' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Z W m OU Z C� 0 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp to moist SS 100'; 5-4-4 MC = 25.40% SM (8) Fines = 8.60 /o SS 100 6-8-10 MC = 23.10% (18) Fines = 4.00% 0: SM ., 5S 1001.`11(33)18 MC = 27.20% r.. = SS 100 : 20-50/5" MC = 19.90% s Black poorly graded SAND with silt, loose, wet [USDA Classification: gravelly SAND] -moderate seepage 19m Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet [USDA Classification: SAND] Gray poorly graded SAND, very dense, moist to wet 1 SID J T 1 m. J - W Z LU za . tc:onnnuea ivexr rage/ Earth solutions BORING NUMBER B-1 1805 - 136th Place .N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 2 OF 2 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Echelbarger Investments .LLC PROJECT NAME _1035 Main. Street PROJECT NUMBER. .3380 ,.. 4 � PROJECT LOCATION Edmond, Washingtvn�_-_ wa. o =-r ► w w a CO D: 0 �I-D 0>> TESTS Ui a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p mOz vUi Qz L) m 20 _.. ,. Gray ponrty:graded;SAND verydense; rh6i it to wet:(confinued): SS 100 19-50 MC = 21.40% SP 23.0 1sz,o Gray silty SAND, very dense, wet 25:.. SM 16-36- MC = 22.00% [USDA Classification: loamy SAND] SS 100 50/3" Fines = 23.70% _ 26,5... 178.5 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite. Bottom of hole at 26.5 feet. 'm F 0 C7 Vi 5 a d 11gJ1 } a x m µ2 Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-3380 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805 -136th Place WE., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT: EchelhaMher Investment LLC PROJECT NAME . 1035 Edmonds.. PROJECT NUMBER ES-3380 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES ' I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I.. HYDROMETER 4. ?3.. 2 1.5 ! 4 112 � - 3.. 100140240 L. 6 .. _81 ,:1416 20 .30 .40. 50.60.. 100 _ ._. .. 95 _ 90 — 85 - 80 75 70 .... _ — 65 c7 60 55-- -- Go W 5t) - u- z-- w w o.lit35 — 30 20 16 _ Ilk 5 0 100 _ 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES — GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification. LL PL PI Cc Cu O B-1 5.Oft. _ USDA: Black Gravelly Sand. USCS: SP-SM'with Gravel. 1.00 6.49 . ® B-1 7xtt. USDA: Brown Sand. USCS: SM. A B 1 25.011. USDA: Gray Loamy Sand.. USCS_; SM.., , — Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Silt —----- ay Cl07 — O B 1 5.Oft. 19 .... 0.59 0.232 0.0.91 .... 8.6 Z. B-1 7.511. 9.5 0.241 _ 0.157 14.0 w A B-1 25.0ft. _ 4.75 0.228 0.148 23.7 N Report Distribution ES-3380 EMAIL_ONLY Echelbarger Investments, LLC 4001 —198th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREET=FILE Name: �C V� {i il�=�D�( �{ 30 0O Date: N Site Address: 6 (V (n f-�-_ Plan Check # & Z� � � �0 Project Description: // � S ,-e Reduced Site Plan Provided: / NO) Zoning: — Map Page: �-- Corner Lot: (YES / Flag Lot: (YES / 10 ,(c Critical Areas Determination #: 4a &:�,q 14 Q0 -z Z E--&'A 1, /,J cS i S f 40 Study Required Z3,70 /0 r kie 7vnL ❑ Waiver SEPA Determination: 91-Exempt ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form Required Setbacks Street: s Z Si -� 5 Sid Re r: ,� l Actual Setbacks Street: 2 Side: �v Side: Rear: ❑ Detached Structures: ❑ Rockeries: ❑ Fences/Trellises: , { M-Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: Tit/ 4 c� 3 ❑ Stairs/Deck: Bui/din Height Datum Point: C PUrS �V afro-1— Datum Elevation: Z.0 Z 96 r Maximum Height Allowed: C Z ` Actual Height: _ -LZ 9 . y Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: �-r;,r W�d sfd Lot Area: �p Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Lot Coverage Calculations: St 2 06 % S�- ADU Created: (YES / NO) Subdivision: �� 1 15d/kGn AC S 30 �O Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES ANDO \Comments ht�rCc� 1� �UISC �� CB.r�i+1 /'-P—C, Z v8- $Za y I = , (� 0 y- / 4 5W corn_ �)C�V C— o 1 l Z�S Jh, ,-c ��G�IM ��) ti I ceO� — ZOZs % cde rti gr LV wr (inkGn Plan Review By: �I ` �_Ia Form 1 06:AM� C z— �� City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: 1'' 6� Property Owner: 4 S-e- Critical Area File #: �� Oo .Z Z Permit Number: �G ZO IVO 3 c7 Site Location: (0 3 S' , r f Parcel Number: 0o ci 3L(2 oH Do3000 Project Description: N'(,,w S 2t; o,(c f ❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project describe above. 1. There will be no alteration of a•Critical Area or its required buffer. o�c. tv/��tl �11'; cA 6b 5/1 7 [S 0/1 Y 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. ❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. Critical Area Report Required: The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. / The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40,120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. -- The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. i Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. l The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 0 ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. ❑ Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). At D s Reviewer - U- Signature 8 il 3 I Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation Engineering f89p-19�o September 23, 1991 Lloyd Engbretson 1035 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Resident: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR On October 11, 1991, the City of Edmonds Water Section will be increasing your water pressure to your residence to approximately 120 pounds per square inch. If not already existing (as required in the plumbing code, Chapter 19.30.020 in the Edmonds City Code Book), you or your plumber must install a pressure regulating valve to protect your water lines and fixtures. This will allow you to adjust the pressure to your needs and protect you from pressure surges. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 771-3202, extension 317 or Scott Highland at extension 318. Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor RH/lk Enclosure WPRESS/TXTWATER • Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 19.30 CHAPTER 19.30 PLUMBING CODE 19.30.000 ADOPTION OF UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE Uniform Plumbing Code, 1988 Edition (including Appendices A,B,C,D,E and H, but excluding Appendix I), copyrighted in 1988 by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, is adopted and by.this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full as the "Plumbing Code for the City of Edmonds,' subject to Chapter 12 of said Code relating to fuel gas piping being superseded by the Uniform Mechanical Code as set forth in section 19.25.000. (Ord. 2725, 1989] 19.30.010 BOARD OF APPEALS Section 201 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, adopted by this chapter, is amended as follows: 201 Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals created and established in Chapter 10.15 of the Edmonds City Code shall act as a Board of Appeals in making a determination of any appeal arising from actions of, or interpretations by, the administrative authority. (Ord. 2725, 1989] 19.30.020 PRESSURE REGULATORS A. Residential. An approved type of pressure regulator preceded by an adequate strainer shall be installed on all residential occupancies, adjacent to the water shutoff on the interior of any such occupancy which shall reduce the pressure to eighty psi or less. For potable water services up to and including one and one-half inch regulators, provision shall be made to prevent pressure on the building site of the regulator from exceeding main supply pressure. Approved regulators with integral bypasses are acceptable. The strainer shall be readily accessible for cleaning without removing the regulator or strainer body or disconnecting the supply piping. All pipe size determinations shall be based on eighty percent of the reduced pressure. B. other. Section 1007(c) of the Uniform Plumbing Code as previously adopted is amended as follows: (c) Any water system provided with a pressure regulating device or check valve at its source or other water system (09/30/89) 203 -" RI BUILDING DEPARTMENT Applicant Fill USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER PERMIT APPLICATION Inside Heavy Lines JOB ADDRESS J\•7 7\S�[U•BBDIIVI\SION NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) no W / tD 44/ LEGAL LOT ❑YES El No PLAT NAMEN NO.' MAI'ING ADDRESS Z Q_J CIT NUM BER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE NO. E-LLPHONE /• EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 'PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY NAME f• U W F I U It DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY -- N i I 3 ADDRESS STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED ❑YES 7No PERMIT FOR WORK' IN PUBLIC R/W ❑YES NO UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED ❑YES NO CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER ❑YES NO SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED ❑YES NO _U J m a NAME SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO. m ADDRESS 0 F U SEE MEMO DATED Q CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER REMARKS I F Z 0 STATE LICENSE NUMBER CITY LICENSE NUMBER CHECKED BY U Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach Four Copies) METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE F Q REMARKS Z ; _0 f- IL SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. I ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT U 0 W •l// . SHORELINE 0 J Q REMARKS SEE Q EtLIM� A*� 7g0306 FOQ EN V , RE ; VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE YARDS FRONT SIDE REAR LOT COVERAGE ❑ NEW RESIDENTIAL ❑GAS LINE FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION � COD�E}���777 HEIGHT NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ SIGN ADD ❑ ❑ RETAINING DEMOLISH ❑WALL, ❑ ALTER EXCAVATE FENCE DR FILL ( X_FT) V �i�W `� G I'7�6 1 SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED ElYES El NO AREA OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANT LOAD PLAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY ❑ REPAIR PRE -MOVE swim INSP. POOL OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX SHOULD BE CODED 31.04. REMARKS QEI*7 $0•306 0 F z NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING } S u W UNITS W r IK M1 W NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE V m � 0 F. PLAN CHECK FEE VALUATION FEE PROPOSED USE � - Z W lC a 0 PLOT PLAN INDICATE BUILDING SETBACKS, ABUTTING STREETS) BUILDING PLUMBING N W 0' m 0 J W ' W O MECHANICAL FENCE f. 2 0 f SIGN Lon W J i "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and successois in interest, agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and RETAINING WALL HMO r!; and :III claims fni danrlces of whatever nature, =— 0 - v- ET PUBLIC 1,10RKS EUVIRWIMEINTAL REVIEW PROJECT NAME: FILL P-gaM77 FILE !4 Ic!�5 MAW �1 ASSESSMENT DATED: AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE: MCI= stg0w;d! RFg�Rwm M!, AlaV WR W"*,x LVA: fol Mt.,P., -, m- a-w" L; q w a A A PREPARED BY: DATE: �� ALE 78030 FILE # FOR4 FOR [% FIR:IL] DLCLP'T UTION OF [SMMa/1NONSIGINIFICANCE] Description of proposal Lloyd 8 Irma*Engbretson Proponent 450 cubic.yard fill Location of Proposal 1035 Main Street Lead Agency City of Edmonds This Proposal has been c?et:ermi.nEd to [hx=/not have] .a sioni.fic:.?nt ad- verse impact upon -the envirori. cnt. An EIS */is not] required tinder 10-1 43.21C.030(2) (c) . Tni.s decision v.,as made after review by -Uhc lead agen;y of a co:^pleted enviro;:r:ental cliecllist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Mary Lou Block Position/Title Associate City Planner Date June 6, 1978 Signature�%kh, ,� • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS11ENT • FILE. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 450 Cat, P/'/ �7-4,e 47'X akenel ieP4 -made of fAe 41Aa off' *4Ai✓p✓yew. � �`�?(�:� PROPONENT: EXISTING USE: I/aca.,t 4t/s.,�,.� �ovs� ah ! /�, arcEA� rye v"-�,✓ fG</ Nour� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSAL: SOILS/TOPOGRAPHY - - o7w- SD�S - GeksSf O% in/XC� i'!(. WATER/DRAINAGE - AM,'_ Y o ��e keen ,some AIR QUALITY - No I�topLfM - No 9Da/T-�d,�/,q� TrC.prrrc, CIRCULATION - No 7"*-ORV-M ilimT .40D QiYy/ T.Q4i'iVG VEGETATION - siTF is TREsEr✓yz-Y ECONOMI C - N4-r*IP,RG?, CITY SERVICES - Nd' _rAipte-T OV46rss 4*79;2 ,rj18p10Mo. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: There will be certain environmental impacts but they do not constitute a signif- icant adverse impact on the environment and no environmental impact statement will be required. There will be significant adverse impacts on the environment and an environmental impact statement will be required. There will be certain impacts on the environment however it is necessary to obtai more information before a declaration of significance or non -significance is made Aw S112 179 CITY PLANNER D E CITY ENGINEER DATE PROJECT NAME � �-�J 7)#I 'st Ell V I RONIMENfAL ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED 5 - 3 -- 7 5 780306 In order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, the responsible official must make a declaration of environmental impact as early as possible in the process of evaluating a project. The information in this form will be used to determine whether it will be necess- ary to require an environmental impact statement. If an impact statement is not required, a Statement of Negative Declaration will be placed in the file. If an impact statement is required, a draft statement must be filed with this office, public notice given and a review period of 30 days allowed. The final statement and comments must be filed with the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor and the Ecological Commission. The Edmonds Planning Staff will assist you in any way we can in accumulating this information and we would appreciate .your cooperation. 1. Land: Area in acres 7-4d> k0, Soils type C-L-Ay / 0"C Limitations Description of topography (% slope)A,,,,o* Sl.pe. C �,kk.d 0_ 10, Grading: estimated cubic yds. Filling: estimated cubic yds. 2. Water: NOTE: If grading or filling wi T exceed 500 cubic yards YS(� a grading and filling plan must be submitted with the application. Stream - estimated flow (cubic feet per second) N. O Will stream be altered? 00 To what degree? - Impact on storm drainage (increase in run-off) , A.) Estimated area.to be paved Estimated area in open space N C-7 Shorelines: within 200 ft. ofil 'lean Higher High Water Adjacent to shorelines zone N(4 0 Environmental Assessment, page 2 3. Vegetation: Type of trees J t- V,t-iQ, % to be. removed 0 Minimum diameter of trees to remain 0 " Ground cover e'�Ia��t��Yw� Vti��g % to be removed CouerOJ Proposed landscaping, if any V 4. Existing Land Use within 300 ft. radius of proposed development: Vacant Single Family Multi - Family Comm. Other North x South Y" East X, West K 5. Circulation: Estimated increase in auto trips daily C' Estimated demand for public transportation Cr? Degree of change on adjacent streets 6. Area of impact: neighborhood city-wide d regional 7. Effect on air quality: A,)v 8. Changes in noise generation:'' A.)d C' ,^^-q G- .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .41 •42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 DATE: A $25 fee will be collected by the City of Edmonds for analysis of the Environmental Checklist and the preparation of a Threshold Determination. No -fee will be charged for proposals which would be categorically exempt if they were not located in an environ- mentally sensitive area. ENVIRON11-1ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROU14D 1. Name of Proponent L If--. - Zly/-: 3R &T- 5 0 2. Address and Phone /0 3 -v-- No Proponent: umaer '0W 4 , iJ . 7 78' q' Cpmo 0VY-7 9 ozo 3. Dat�cElist Submitted t 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Nature and Brier Uescriptioii o ne Pro}�os<i inc .ucT- ing but not limited to its size, general design ele- ments, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): YS U LLt. 4ja 7. Location o Propo:a7 aescri e�-plhysi-ial setting of the proposal, as well as Elie extent of the land area affected by any environii;ental in;pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurar-- understand- ing of the environmental setting of they proposal) 8. Estimate lla— t=e-Zor Comp letion of tnc: 1'rollosed Act an 9. LiSL of all Pcrc.iits, Licenses or GoVerim:ent Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local -- including rezones): IUda� M&C •1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 10. Do youRave'any plans for future additiOns cxP ansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: ./ i�J r� 11. Do you knold of any plan Uy oC ers which may attect the property covered by your ;proposal? If yes, explain: 12. Attach any other application form that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIROZ1;1,1ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) • Yes Maybe No (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ✓ (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? ✓ _ (c) Change in topography or ground / surface relief features? V (d) The destruction, covering or modification of'any unique geologic / or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition off: ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the charnel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation:. er+,-�. F_ 7-0° atono., (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration / of ambient air quality? ✓ (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in c'imate, either locally or regionally? ✓ Explanation: -32- '1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17' 18 19 20' 21' 22 23 24', 25' 26I 271 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 10. Do yooave• any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: 11. Do you no:� of any plans Sy t ers which may attect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: 12. Attach any other application form that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRON1,1ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) • Yes Pia be No (1) Garth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of'any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or chari�cs in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed'o( the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation:. (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in c'iRiate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: -32- Yes Maybe No (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? — (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and / amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters., or in any alteration -of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction / or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer.by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of ' water otherwise available for public water supplies? Explanation: (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including; trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? q� (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or eirdangered / species of flora? -33- •- 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3'2 33 34 35 36 37 38I39 40 41. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Yes Maybe No_. (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of Fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into.an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing / fish or caildlife habitat? Explanation: (6) Noise . Will the proposal increase -Y- / exisClnF; noise levels? ✓ Explanation: (7) LiLht and Glare. Will the pro - goal] prucluce new light or Flare? � Explanation: (8) Land Use. ]dill the proposal r'esu t in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: -34- Yes M e No 1� 1. 1; 1: 1� 1' V li 1F 15 2C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 1 (9) Natural Resou_ races. Will the pro- 2 posy resuZ in. 3 4 • (a) Increase in the rate of use S of any natural resources? S (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? r Explanation: (10) }tick of U seta Does the proposal invo ve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci- dent or upset conditions? Explanation: (11) Po ulation. Will the proposal alter tre location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: (12) Nousin�. Will the proposal affect existing housing availability, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: ._._ (13) TLi""sL�r.tat:ion/Ci.r.cullt:ion. Dill tie proposa resulCin: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on exiting parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? (e) Alterati.ons to waterborne, rail or air traffic? -35- • Yes Maybe No ' 1 r 2 3 4, 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 I 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 36 I 37 38 39 40 41 i 42 43 44 45 ' 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 j 57 '58 59 60 61 (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: (14) Publtc Services. Will the pro- poSal—have 111 effect upon, or result in a need for new govern- mental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? T (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of'public facili- ties, including; roads? _ (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: (15) l:ne•r Y. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- menL of new sources of energy? Explanation: (16) ULilities. Will the proposal resuft in a need for n%.. ,vstems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e).. Storm water drainage? (f) 'Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: -36- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 142 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 .,� es Maybe No .(17I''� lient.- tiealtll• Will the p roposal y resin.[ increation of . :u1y health het70 Or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _. Explanation: (18) Acstheti.cs. Will the,proposal result— in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? • Explanation: (19) Recreation. Will the proposal resdrL in an impact upon the or quantity of existing e recreational recreational opportunities? Explanation: (20) . Archc�oloic.al./Ili sr.ori.cal ; Will the proposal•alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical. site, structure, object / or building? _ems/ Explanation: III. SIGNATURE; I. the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowle the above information is true and complete.dge that tlead aE;encunderstood ficanco that it miy may withdIt is raw any declaration of non-signi- ght issue in reliance upon this checl:li�t should there be any misrepresentation or lack of full disclosure on my part, Proponent:. IR;TU, LDWAC 197-1.0-370 WITEDRAI-ML OF AFFAMSH Di:TEIu� I��1'1'10ti. i at any time after t11c entry of a declara- tion of: sifnificance, the proponent modifies t:he proposal so that, in the judgment of the leas! od' iy, a1.1 sio Proposal adverse enviclar,(?nion impacts resulting therefrom are. elimin- ated, the declaration of significance ^hall be withdrawn and a declaration of 11011-S1t;11if'caace erltr.red instead lead agency shallalso revise the regt its Si;PA isters a . The public information center accordingly. ].f the pro - shall of a proposal i.s a private applicant, the proposal shall not: be considered modified until aE.]. license applica- tions for the proposal are revised to reflect the modification. -37- W-0 a-� 4me NORKS DEPARTMENT CHEMIO • � Date BUILDING PERIIT REVIEW. 01 kcc>.s-Address Street Right -of -Way Existing %o REQD �a Access Easements Existing REQD Utility Easement Existing — REQD _ Lot per Subdivision Plat Assessor Map Site Plan Checked for Accuracy Underground Wiring Regd. Check Accuracy of Legal Description Envirormentally Sensitive Area Environmental Checklist Reqd. Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Management Area f -,Slope, Soil, Vegetation Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin Existing Zoning Per Code 1�5 Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. ADB # Approval Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd. Review By: Date: y Existing Water Main Size Water Main Reqd. Service Line Reqd. Hydrant Size Existing Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size Detector Check Meter.Regd. Cross Connection Inspection Fire Department Comments Water Meter Charge Reqd. Review by: Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Sanitary Sewer Availability Date: Date: Permit No. Proj Drawing No. File No. Side Sewer Availability Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. Review By: Date: g • Open Existing Reqd. Culvert Reqd. Size c4ISO Catch Basin Reqd, Indicate--ot Site Plan oShoulder drainage nkii.ntain collection ale p runoff H. ?tudiole regd. Indicate on e Plan il Conditi , d Ground Water Field Checked t ' y Date Strut aving Reqd. H Curb and Gutt e d. w Sidewalk Reqd. w Curb Cut for Driveway Reqd. x Right -of -Way Construction Pe eqd. H Bond Reqd. for Publ' rovements Street N ign Reqd. er Sipzi.ng Read. A . Pre Permit Site Inspection made on z a BY: SS[ ER U w w WATER a H z STREET H ENGINEERING `�//9 Special Requirements listed in merro to Comrninity Development Department, Building Division D BY Date o All items filled in on Building Permit Application BY Date a' Drawings Stamped and Notations Made a BY Date Approved by Public 4orks Deparm nt Revised: lv 10-1977 1 RECEIVED JCS k 4' 1978 �Pu lic Works Out. July 25, 1977 MEMO TO: Engineering Division FROM: E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development. Dept. SUBJECT: FILL AT 1035 MAIN STREET Please check the fill and grading that was done -.at 1035 Main Street to.see if any damage was done to the stream to the west of the earth work. This is an environmentally sensitive area.* f PS/ae k7A�a4J Bldg. nsp. Dt. �ls ' Bldg. Off. D�. 0 STREET FILE Certificate of Occupancv Building Division '7C. 1 g9\3 This certificate is issued in accordance with the requirements of Section 111 of the 2012 International Building Code certifying that at the time of issuance this single family residence was in. compliance with the applicable provisions of the codes and ordinances of the city regulating construction and use of buildings. Description: 64 - Single Family Residence New Site Address: 1035 MAIN ST, EDMONDS Construction Type: VB Owner: TODD ECHELBARGER 4001 198TH ST SW #2 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 . - Official Permit No: Parcel No: Occupancy Group POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE BLD20140380 00434204002800 R-3/U 05/18/2015 Date Issued Filed for Record By: Pacific Coast Surveys, Inc. PO Box 13619 Mill Creek, WA 98082 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 00434204003000 AND 00434204002800 NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC.24, T.27N., R.3E., W.M. THE GRANTOR, Echelbarger Investments LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation, their heirs, successors and assigns, as owners of the following described property: Lots 30 and 31, block 40, city of Edmonds per the plat recorded in Volume 2 of plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the county of Snohomish, State of Washington. For and in consideration of mutual benefit and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grants and conveys to THE GRANTEE, Echelbarger Investments LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation, their heirs, successors and assigns, as owners of the following described property: Lots 28 and 29, block 40, city of Edmonds per the plat recorded in Volume 2 of plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the county of Snohomish, State of Washington. A non-exclusive easement for storm drainage purposes, over, under, across and upon the following described property: The South 10.00 feet of Lots 30 and 31, block 40, city of Edmonds per the plat recorded in Volume 2 of plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the county of Snohomish, State of Washington. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns Dated , 2014 GRANTOR GRANTEE M Todd Echelbarger LIM Todd Echelbarger PAGE 1 OF 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON') ) SS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me, Todd Echelbarger, to me known to be the vice president of Echelbarger Investments, LLC and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the use and purpose therein mentioned. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me, Todd Echelbarger, to me known to be the vice president of Echelbarger Investments, LLC and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the use and purpose therein mentioned. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My commission expires: PAGE 2 OF 2 -----!— — — — — — — — -— — — — — — — — — - L — _ _ :f FOUND REBAR W/CAP�/\C STAMPED "LS&A 9891 „ — _ — 2- 0.2'(W) & 0.7'(S) �w OF CORNER — N 89'36'06 W 0.00' \ 000 FENCE w r------ 1------ I ONSK ES i " 8 �M � - 48' J I � PG /PATIO FIREPLACE I LU I I 6,602 S.F. J--� ti \ �_ 6 J AN 0434204003000 _ _ \ I AFN 04 1-13 I I z I I LC ^D I I HOUSE o FF=205 / I ( FOOTING L: 200.75 _ PORCH POST _ (TYP.) r PORCH1 — ~ ' WALKWAY I .-�..1�•.f � 1 ♦ ♦ 1, / ROPOSED SEWER LINE TBM - PROPOSED GAS LINE . CB a a RIM: 202.56 I CONCRETE ._. � 7EX IDRIVL IAY�1 . °- I I 20 .. CONC.: G ° 4 EEO W w w a / 71M=201.45 / FOUND 'ONC(W)=187.55 / NO SHII 'ONC(E5)= 187.6// o i OF COF IROP & WEIR=192.95 / o —�SJS / SS—�— �CONCRETE CURB_ ENGINEERING DIVISION i. AR D NOTED Dater Zone S — 6 Corner Flag_,,,,,, Setbacks Required Actual Front 5 ?0 20 Sides C O S1 S Rear f,/ (S Other Height 25- 2 `i WRD BVPLANNING SCALE: 1" = 20' er3L 0 10 20 6tD-20 (qo3,Y© PROPOSED PHONE, AIpEkG Q0 V ND m CABLE &; POWER LINE EX. F.H. r PROPOSED DRAINAGE C} IN LEAD 3 0.7' (W) �a PROPOSED S x SITE AREA: 6,602 SQUARE FEET LOT SLOPE NORTHEAST - SOUTHWEST 212- 202 = 10 10 VERTICAL FEET = 81'. SLOPE 125 LINEAR FEET HEIGHT CALCULATION A= 202 B= 208.4 C= 208 n— nnn 820.4 / 4 = 205.1 AVERAGE GRADE= 205.1 ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT= 229.8 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT= 230.1 I LOT COVERAGE 9s RESIDENCE 2,067 SQUARE FEET INC. COVERED PORCHES, GARAGE 265't TOTAL 2,067 SQUARE FEET 2,067 / 6,602 WATFR IINF LOT COVERAGE \\ N 89'36'01 " W 1308.32' EXTEND LANSCAPE \, M.AJN ST d / CONCRETE WALK / / °° ° / IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.• RESIDENCE 2,700 SQUARE FEET (including overhangs and Patio) DRIVEWAY 700 SQUARE FEET Scanned WALKWAY 50 SQUARE FEET TOTAL i ,,450-SQU .FEET AUG 11 20A NOTE: ��U'LDINQ DEPARFWENT r"!Tv of o �asao� 1. SEE GRADING/TESC AND DRAINAGE/UTILITY PLANS FORSTREET FLE2.ALL MO�ENFWILL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURE METHOD OF SURVEY. SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELD TRAVERSE INSTRUMENTATION: LEICA TCRA 1205 ROBOTIC ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION PRECISION. MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 332-130-090 BASIS OF BEARING: THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF IITH AVENUE, AS THE BEARING OF NOO'00'031. BM FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 11TH AND BELL ELEVATION = 251.11' TB EX. CB RIM: 202.56' DATUM: NAVD 88 ENGINEER SURVEYOR INSIW ENGINEERNG COMPANY PACIFIC COAST SURWM INC. PO BOX 1478 PO BOX 13619 EVERETT, WA 98206 MILL CREEK, WA 98082 CONTACT. BROW R. KAIAB, RE CONTACT.• DARREN J. RIDDLE PH. (425) 303-9363 PH: (425) 508-4951 FAX. (425) 303-9362 FAX: (425) 357-3577 JAPFUCAATIOWIVER ECI EKnWa &MI eff. LLC 4001 198TH ST. SW., SUITE 2 LYNNWOOD, WA 98306 PH: (425) 673-1100 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 30 AND 31, BLOCK 40, CI7Y OF EDMONDS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOL 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SHE ADDRESS: 1035 MAIN ST. EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX ACCOUNT N0. S: 0434204003000 NW 114, SE 114, SEC.24, T.27N., R.3E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1035 MA17V ST. DESIGNED BY.• DATE: I SCALE: JOB NO.: JRC 03-31-2014 1 "=20' 14-0646 SITE PLAN @33 ING CO. P.O. BOX -1478 EVERETT, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX . INF0@INSIGHnWGPMMR1NG= GENERAL NOTES: i nI v REMOVE EX SD PIPE (TYP) -� I ROOF/FOOTING DRAIN 1 RIM=205.4 IE=200.5 I I 22LF 610 PVC ® 1.14% 38LF, 2470 ---DETENTION PIPE ®0.5% 'i blkl�b 1 (SEE PIPE SPECS) WAIL t;5, i CB#1 I / /)AITDr11 CTDI IrT110r, I I - - - - - - - - - - - I ----------'_ a SD SD SD - W W W- RIM-201.45 CONC(W)-187.55 CONC(E)=187.65 0vVNEnCQ &0,P &� WEIR-192.95 10 etnAt �,n.IS �EC-PON^fEl I" Fnc) F .ti.,_ .. I � � �C t�T 1 RELAY 130E OF THE �8"\EXISTING RCP STORMpRAI� 44 PIPE TO 0.5q 12 \ 11LF 870 PVC 6 2.369 tti AL POSM SUFfACES TA RIM=203.12(t) BE VERSED WHIN 2 QAY3 t4 j It 'KL \\ IE=198.43 (A E, W) CONCRETE CURB \\ IE: 194.05 -I �\ IWOO r-kM 1 A1) 1 \ -ro 06 PROPOSED 6" CLEANOUT WITH 12" CAST IRON LAMPHOLE COVER AND 1/2" HEX BOLTS. RIM=205.8 IE=194.56 , � 0T6# 5 (CONTRACTOR WILL FIELD VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES.) �cc TOTVED IN►�►e LIST OFAPPROVp PIPE MATERIALS FOR DETENH0N METAL_ tFOR ACSP- ALUMINIZED CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (TYPE 2 MEETS AASTO .Oii=RE10.DESIGNATIONS M274 AND M36) INS EASRP- ALUMINUM SPIRAL RIBBED PIPE (16 GAUGE OR BETTER) CAP- CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPE (16 GAUGE OR BETTER) DIP- DUCTILE IRON PIPE (CLASS 50 OR BETTER) CONCRETE_ nv �_ K ��� PCP- PLAIN CONCRETE PIPE W ® RCP- REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE PQLVI N(p 6VWW5 PLAS77C: OP.USA �DOUtUC VLON PVCP- POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE (SOR 35 OR BETTER) Know whars below. CPEP-CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE (SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL, Call before you dig. RPPN RIBBED POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PI UTILITYCONTLICTNOTE.- - - - _NW .1,14,_SE 114, SEC. 24, T.27N., R.3E., W.M. AI-VU .AULL) ANU SHALL I HUNUUUHLY FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE CONTENTS `•' - -- - - - - --- - _ __. .rt-:'`'w THEREOF. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE METHOD OF SURVEY. W I I <•D` , x ;F V vV� "'t 1, i 4 `k t t� t 7 -x�' `� RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELD TRAVERSE >.° t t � 41 00STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE INSTRUMENTATION: �- 4" C,Q, i r- e t RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. LEICA TCRA 1205 ROBOTIC ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION *c '"`' RIM=205.5 � I I I �__ ��� , 88� / I FLOW CONTROL STRUC� DETAIL 13. MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, UTILITIES AND PAVEMENT SHALL BEAR ON MEDIUM PRECISION: IE=199. J 1 I I DENSE TO VERY DENSE NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL. IF SOIL IS MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 332-130-090 NOT TO SCALE DISTURBED, SOFT, LOOSE, WET OR IF ORGANIC MATERIAL IS PRESENT AT l I SUBGRADE ELEVATION, REMOVE AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL BASIS OF BEARING: `JARr ti,�� „ I I PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THE Alt-IfillildrAITM CENTER 28LF, 4"0 PVC 019% 10 24 Zz zz' M C ; li DRAINAGE 1 1 PATH (TYP.) i 11 I \ I \ IT//11GIC LIIYC PROPOSED 3/4" WATER METER N 89036'01 " W k 1308.32' NOTES: 1. APPLICANT SHALL REPAIR/REPLACE ALL DAMAGE TO UTILITIES OR FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PER CITY STANDARDS THAT IS CAUSED OR OCCURS DURING THE PERMITTED PROJECT. 2. DRIVEWAY RUNOFF SHALL BE DIRECTED CATCH BASIN. 3. IF RIM TO I.E. EXCEEDS 5, A TYPE 11 CATCH BASIN SHALL BE REQUIRED. 4. THE CURB/GUTTER MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED IF IT IS CURRENTLY DAMAGED. 5. IF RE -USING EXISTING SEWER LATERAL (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO CITY MAIN): CONDITIONS MUST BE VERIFIED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CONTACT EDMONDS SEWER DIVISION AT 425-771-0236. t POWER LINE TO IS LINE I .00' / 4 �• a �+ 'W_ W W- `�� EX. PO WER' POLE (TO REMAIN) I I _ I X x Z x k Nz 00 POLYPROPYLENE SAFETY STEP 12" 0. C. (TYP) wn i. 4: LADDER SHALL BE SECURED TO WALL OF CATCH BASIN LINE OF 11 TH AVENUE, AS THE BEARING OF N00'00'03"E. 14. SEE SURVEY AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPED AREAS AND OTHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING SITE r& BM FEATURES. 15. SEE MRCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS. FOUNDATION FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE THE fNTERSECT/ON OF 1 iTH AND BELL DRAINS SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF OTHER SITE DRAIN LINES AND SHALL BE EL ELEVATION = 251.11' TIGHTLINED TO THE STORM GRAIN SYSTEM WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. 16. ALL REQUIRED STORMWATER FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION TBM PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PAVEMENT. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. EX. CB RIM: 202.56 ' I Z ALL ,ROOF DRAINS, PERIMETER FOUNDATION DRAINS, CATCH BASINS AND OTHER EX71fRNAL DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.DA NAW 88 18. COA,WCTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL •PERMITS REQUIRED FOR.. INSTALLATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. ENGINEER SURVEYOR 19._ . AS :'+ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS ON AND OFF SITE SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE E90IVALENT OF THEIR RECONSTRUCTION CONDITION 1N INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY PACIFlC COAST SURVEYS, INC ACCORDANCE. WITH APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS PO BOX 1478 PO BOX 13619 EVERETT, WA 98206 MILL CREEK, WA 98082 20. ALL DISTURBED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR STABILIZED BY OTHER CONTACT. BRIAN R. KALAB, P.E. CONTACT.• DARREN J. RIDDLE PH: (425) 303-9363 PH: (425) 508-4951 ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR THE PREVENTION OF ON -SITE EROSION AFTER THE FAX: (425) 303-9362 FAX: (425) 357-3577 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC GRADING" AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT/ OWNER 21. THE.CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP OFF -SITE STREETS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEtPING. WASHING OF THESE STREETS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS, LLC APPROVAL. 4001 198TH ST SW. SUITE 2 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 22. THIS_.PROJECT IS NOT A BALANCED EARTHWORK PROJECT. BOTH EXPORT AND PH: (425) 673-1100 IMPORT OF SOIL AND ROCK MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 23. SLOPE OF FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE CONSTANT BETWEEN FINISHED CONTOURS OR SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN. LOTS 28 AND 29, BLOCK 40, CITY OF EDMONDS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOL. 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH 24. FIN H GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WALLS AT MINIMUM 57 SLOPE COUNTY, SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF FO A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10 FEET. WASHINGTON. 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN CITYOFEDMONDS SHORING AND BRACING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WORKERS, EXISTING BUILDINGS, STREETS, WALKWAYS, UTILITIES. AND OTHER EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ANDEXCAVATIONS AGAINST LOSS OF GROUND OR CAVING EMBANKMENTS. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF SHORING AND BRACING, AS REQUIRED. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY AND FOLLOW CIDPROCEDURES FOR ALL WATER SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, HYDRANT SHUTOFFS, STREET CLOSURES OR OTHER ACCESS RESTRICTIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT FOR.PUBLICWORKSDIRECIIOR DATE RELOCATE OR ELIMINATE ANY HYDRANTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN I APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL. CATCH BASIN TYPE II 48 f'�� DETAIL 27. COORDINATE AND ARRANGE FOR ALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS, UTILITY RELOCATIONS V21V/pj �Z' Gt1RIb 6(G AND/OR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS WITH THE AFFECTED OWNERS AND APPROPRIATE AS NO ED WAr�p �bTi�l NOT ro SCALE Date: A �Q(�l �/ UTILITY COMPANIES. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE MADE ONLY I WITH ADVANCE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITIES GOVERNING, SAID UTILITIES. V StQt�1N 501u. R W N A" . _ a 1 28. EXISTING UTILITY LINES IN SERVICE WHICH ARE DAMAGED TO CONCTRRUCTION WORK REV. NO. DESCRIPTION INITIALS DATE L co1�r t r /t-Ni hU'*5 SHALL BE REPLACED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 29. NEW UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE GENERALLY SHOWN BY DIMENSION, WHERE NO �- -� rb-"I���ln L PIP STAKES DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, LOCATIONS MAY BE SCALED FROM DRAWINGS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND AND CITY. 30 WHERE NEW PIPE CLEARS AN EXISTING OR NEW UTILITY BY 6" OR LESS PLACE IlWERWOUS SURFACE DRIVEWAY & WALKWAY ROOF OUTLINE IMP. AREA I506F 2,700 SF 3 � 0 SF LINE I TYPE AREA (SQUARE FEET) 1 1 NON -REGULATED 0 CAUTION.• 2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, 3 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 SHALLINCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 0 1-800-44-5555 4 ALL OF T EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGSOLING TO PHYSICALLYHE SCALE: 1" = 10' VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS 5 SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC 6 INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, 10 5 0 10 20 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO 7 RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. n REPLACED NEW (POST 1977) EXEMPT 0 REGULATED + 3�1 SO -�s�- -- -- .- POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC FOAM AS A CUSHION BETWEEN THE UTILITIES. MATERIAL TO BE So`O L1 ��� B5/4" - K, AL AL AL 31. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR CONTINUATION OF SITE ASTM A 3s 1/4" f �� """"""""""" UTILITIES WITHIN THE BUILDING. INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. PLATE GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION 32. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL WORK. P.O. BOX - 14'78 - "-- - PER ASTM A 123 33. .SEC LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS (WHERE APPLICABLE) FOR SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. EVERETT, WA 98206 1-7 8' -7 SMOOTH COUPLNG BAND (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX 4- i 2' 4-1 2" BAND 12" OR FOR SMOOTH PIPE INFO@ 12" 24" COUPLING BAND NOTES: ' INSIGHTENGINEERING.NET PLATE DETAIL 1, THE SMOOTH COUPLING BAND SHALL BE USED IN NOTE: COMBINATION WITH CONCRETE PIPE. COUPLING BAND COLAR 2" PIPE �✓ ( ) 2. CONCRETE PIPE WITHOUT BALL AND SPIGOT SHALL 1. EXCESS CUT MAY BE SPREAD ON SITE. SITE ADDRESS: 1035 MAIN ST. EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 T 1/4" NOT BE INSTALLED ON GRADES 1N EXCESS OF 2. ANY SOIL REMOVED FROM THE SITE MUST BE HAULE CITY 1/4" I 20% APPROVED SITE. TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S: 0434204003000 3. THE FIRST ANCHOR SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE _ PLATE (SEE DETAIL) FIRST SECTION OF. THE PIPE AND REMAINING tzil HOSEVENLY SPACED THROUGHOUT THE of R S -k- MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLATION.ANCHORS �� 1 w NW 1 , SE 1/4, SEC.24, T.27N., ME., W.M. ASTM A 36 1/4" PLATE GALVANIZED 4. IF THE PIPE BEING INSTALLED HAS A MANHOLE OR I Q � �. 1035 MAIN ST. -'� AFTER FABRICATION CATCH BASIN ON THE LOWER END OF THE PIPE, _ z 1-1/2" x 6' STAKES THE FIRST PIPE ANCHOR MAY BE ELIMINATED TOTAL REGULATED IMPERVIOUS AREA PER ASTM A 153 DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY.• DATE: SCALE: JOB NO.: EACH SIDE OF CULVERT tAM MITIGATION REQUIRED IF IN EXCESS OF 2000 SF - 3 150 FLA EN TO POINT 5. WHEN CMP IS USED THE ANCHORS MAY BE ,o '3649 ti ® "_ ANCHOR ASSEMBLY C I S T E¢ Gti �'"tI 140646.DWG JRC 03-31-2014 1 -1 D' 14-0646 ATTACHED TO THE COUPLING BANDS USED TO JOIN s TOTAL AREA MITIGATED BY EXIS77NG STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(S) - 0 THE PIPE AS LONG AS THE SPECIFIED SPACING SICNAL E� 07 SHEET REGULATED AREA NOT YET MITIGATED = 0 PIPE ANCHOR ASSEMBLY IS NOT EXCEEDED. AUU k 1 G14 Cl AREA PROPOSED TO BE MITIGATED BY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUE = 0 6. ALL PIPE ANCHORS SHALL BE SECURELY INSTALLED BUILDING DEPAR�tTME DRAINAGE AND UTILITYPLAN of NOT TO SCALE BEFORE BACKFILLING AROUND THE PIPE. CITY OF EDMONDS 2 AREA PROPOSED TO BE MITIGATED THROUGH CONVENTIONAL SWM TECHNIQUES =54 -50 V �C,NTc0N 515TC- 0 bGS► & N)0 -10 3 500 ItM�P 60EF �C� _-�, NW 1/4, SE 14, SEC.24, T.27N., ME, W.M. ---------------------------G----------------- ---------------------- �- p + A , , SNOHOMSH COUNTY WASHINGTON FOUND REBAR W/CAPS ; �'/ ; 014- Ln STAMPED LS&A 9.8r91 4„ _� :� - �� `-�, _ TREE PROTECTION AEA URES: 0. 2 ' (W) & 0. 7' ( / ` - _ _ L6 ? \ '' ,rW6 W-" \ � \ \ \ \ 1/1/ \ ` ` 1 ` / 1. THE APPLICANT MAY NOT FILL, EXCAVATE, STACK OR "i c CORNER l / 1 `� ��\� \ o0Q\ F�n / c X l t, STORE ANY EQUIPMENT, OR COMPACT THE EARTH IN ANY OF . L� 89°36'DU "0.00'I x \ /V C` �1 WAY WITHIN THE AREA DEFINED BY THE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED. -----1- X X 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN ROPE BARRIERS ON THE DRIP LINE OR PLACE BALES OF HAY TO TREE I \ 4, \ j f /, 1 " \ \ PROTECT ROOTS. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL PRO`-'/_-/f T PROVIDE SUPERVISION WHENEVER EQUIPMENT OR TRUCKS TECflO \ 1 �� / ARE MOVING NEAR TREES. 12 ,I cp gF Q I IF THE GRADE LEVEL ADJOINING A RETAINING TREE IS TO IYA,C 4_0 9E RAISED OR LOWERED, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT 16 A DRY ROCK WALL OR ROCK WELL AROUND THE TREE. THE P TREE SEDRIPF LINE. THIS WALL OR WELL MUST BE EQUAL TO THE I �� \ i • F, �` 4. THE APPLICANT MAY NOT INSTALL GROUND LEVEL • I % - 208 11 000 `�'Z nr� IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MATERIAL WITHIN THE AREA DEFINED I CL N IF\ 1 100 , a`� 9Y THE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED. TIT O I PROPOSED 5. THE GRADE LEVEL AROUND ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED - -- - - - - - - - - - �- ~ - ' e 4' BLOCK NAY NOT BE LOWERED WITHIN THE GREATER OF THE I ELT \ -� FOLLOWING AREAS: (A) THE AREA DEFINED BY THE DRIP q Mu / I e WALL LINE OF THE TREE, OR (8) AN AREA AROUND THE TREE MU N N 00 O EQUAL TO ONE FOOT IN DIAMETER FOR EACH ONE INCH OF I O r \ o� REE CALIPER. /1 S ! CAR- I I do o�' CL / o. THE APPLICANT MAY PRUNE BRANCHES AND ROOTS, I - - - - -�� - - - I OQ + - �, rFRTILIZE AND WATER AS HORTICULTURALLY APPROPRIATE �` FOR ANY TREES AND GROUND COVER WHICH ARE TO BE - I � � A GARAGE � ! . � 00 O - RETAINED. CB RIM -200.97 (TBR) ) o (TBR) �. o lE 4 RCP(S)-199.67 /� o �1/OOD F NC i oQ �ti - LOT B I i �\ LCI DIN) IE 4 PVC(N)-199.87 X i� IE 4PVC(N)=199.87 0 6,602 S.F. ---- -�� i ° ti 000b.,- 6,6C 1E 4 PVC(E)=199.77 / ti N 0434204003000 00 �,- - `���o�TT/ / / , _ - Q T/� \ \� AFN 0434 �33 `32 •� � � CB RIM=201.17 (10K) -.. - ...- ...___.....- ...... ....... - IE 4" PVC(W)=199.87 1E 4" PVC(E)-199.87 CB RIM=201.50 ! (TBR) IE 4" PVC(N)=1P9.20 IE 4" PVC(S)=1 P9.25 Ar I �1 I I I ° WM IE 8" RCP(W)=198.36 IE 8" RCP(E)-)198.36 IE 4" RCP(N)I--' 198.36 S / \r 1\ Know what's below. Call Before you dig. UTILITT CONFLICTNOTE.- CALTION"" 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 E?I$TWG UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY WRIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS _SWWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORAM77ON AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. OF CORINER QJEX. 26LFN670 SIDE-1 �\ , c'FWFR (a 1 9R7K - � IE• 194.05 \\ TEMP \ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ` �� (� 6 \\ 00 NuC tv% \ SIN u 4tv,- � v Z_ ZZz I M THE 12 ELEMENTS OF TESL BMP ELEMENT 11 - MARK CLEARING LIMITS: LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ARE CLEARLY MARKED. ELEMENT 12 - ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ACCESS: A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS SHOWN. ELEMENT 13 - CONTROL FLOW RATES: FLOW IS VERY MINIMAL. ELEMENT 14 - INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS: SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION AND MULCH ARE PROPOSED. ELEMENT 15 - STABILIZE SOILS: SOIL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED BY MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING AND SEEDS. ELEMENT 16 - PROTECT SLOPES: SLOPES ARE PROTECTED BY PLASTIC COVERING, MULCHING AND EXISTING VEGETATION. ELEMENT 17- PROTECT DRAIN INLETS: INLET PROTECTIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE STORM DRAINS. ELEMENT18 - STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS: OUTLET PROTECTIONS ARE NOT PROPOSED. ELEMENT J9 - CONTROL POLLUTANTS: ALL VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT AND PETROLEUM PRODUCT STORAGE/DISPERSING AREAS WILL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO DETECT ANY LEAKS OF SPILLS, AND TO IDENTIFY MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND PREVENT LEAKS OF SPILLS. ELEMENT 110 - CONTROL DEWATERING: THESE WILL BE NO DEWATERING AS PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. ELEMENT I I I - MAINTAIN BMP's: ALL TESC BMPs SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED AS NEEDED. ELEMENT 112 - MANAGE THE PROJECT: THIS COULD BE ACHIEVED BY MINIMIZING THE EXTENT AND DURATION OF THE AREA EXPOSED AND BY EMPHASIZING EROSION CONTROL THEN SEDIMENT CONTROL, FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN C❑NTINU❑S ROLLS. USE STAPLES FILTER FABRIC OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH SECURED TO 2' X 2' FABRIC TO WIRE. 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC EQUAL M(l 2" X 2' WOOD OR o I IVIRE MESH SUPPORT FE��E EQUIVALENT I IUPP❑RTFILTER FA I TIC• 81- 12 :o - N I I BURY B❑TTOM ❑F FILTER MATERIAL 8' TO 12' II 6� 6' MAX. ..� s• u • • d » PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN 2' X 2' WOOD POSTS ❑REQUIVALENT THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE ER❑SI❑N CONTROL METHODS BEFORE STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSI❑N CONTROL, OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN, - W W - FILTER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEMS NOT TO SCALE STD DTL. El.1 \O/ i' MIN. RADIUS QUARRY SPALLS 2-4' MIN DIA 8'-12' MIN. DEPTH - 9N gcpFopt,r �. F O O�A�`rFd yGCFd •tO�F,p O CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY PR❑VIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DURING THE EGRESS AREA CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION C❑NTROL MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. I rim r CB OVER FLITWKH❑LES ;.I CATCH BASIN TE f' STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL E111). THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRICTION PERIOD. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL ERO: MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE T EM 30W Y SEDDSENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS NOT TO SCALE STD DTL. E1.2 NOT TO SCALE STD OIL. E1.3 ESC NOTES (ECDC 18.30.050) A. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACTIVITIES NECESSITATING A CLEARING OR CONSTRI%CTIONSEQUENCE GRADING PERMIT AND ALL UTILITY PROJECTS CONSISTING OF MORE THAN 500 1. REVIEW ESC NOTES. LINEAL FEET OF TRENCH EXCAVATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TO PERMANENTLY STABILIZE EXPOSED 2• CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. SOIL RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION. PROJECTS INVOLVING A CRITICAL AREA MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY COMBINATION OF THE ESC 3. INSTALL ESC MEASURES AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. COMPLIANCE WILL BE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPROVED ESC PLAN. GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ESC 4. HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF PLANS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL. THE PLAN MUST ADDRESS THE EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. (ALL TEMPORARY FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE I. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE. CONSTRUCTION CLEARING. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE, WHENEVER PRACTICAL, LIMITED TO ONE ROUTE. AND/OR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED ROCK VEGETATION 1S ESTABLISHED). TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED 5. ROUGH GRADE SITE AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL DRAINAGE THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM FEATURES. ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS. STREET WASHING SHALL BE 6. DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES. ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT 1S REMOVED IN THIS MANNER. 2. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED AREAS. ALL SOILS 7. CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GRADE REMAINDER OF SITE REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE SURFACE DISTURBANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. APPLICATION OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOD, HYDROSEEDING, (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION OR OTHER VEGETATION, PLASTIC COVERING, OR MULCHING. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED, DESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. THE CONTROL NOTES BELOW). EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. (TYPICALLY, NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS 8. INSTALL UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30 AND NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30). g, STABILIZE AND REVEGETATE ENTIRE SITE. J. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ADJACENT 10. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGETATION. EROSION PROPERTIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION BY APPROPRIATE CONTROL FEATURES CAN BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE USE OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES OR STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. MULCHING, OR BY A COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS. 4. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - MAINTENANCE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. 5. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - OTHER BMPS. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED RUNOFF SHALL BE APPLIED. 6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: A. EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED AND STOCKPILED MATERIALS; UTILITYCONFLICTNOT7 B. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY CAUTION.' AND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES; THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON C. TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS, THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS); HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE ® 1-800-424-5555 D. TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING; POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. E DAILY CLEANUP AND STREET MAINTENANCE. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO 7. ADDITIONAL ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. ALL NEW VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO RESOLVE ALL OF GREATER THAN, OR EQUAL TO, ONE ACRE IN ADDITION TO MEEI7NG THE PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL COMPLY WITH ESC REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW. CALL TWO (2) B USINESS DA YS 8. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT I DELINEATECLEARING AND EASEMENT LIMITS. IN THE FIELD, MARK CLEARING LIMITS ANDDIOR ANY EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 SENSITIVE/CRITICAL AREAS AND THE BUFFERS, TREES AND DRAINAGE COURSES. 9 ESC MINIMUM STORMWATER RUNOFF SHALL PASS THROUGH A SEDIMENT POND OR SEDIMENTS' T.E.S.C. LEGEND TRAP, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS. SEDIMENT PONDS AND TRAPS, PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, AND OTHER BMPS INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP 1N GRADING. THESE BMPS SF SF SILT FENCE SHALL BE FUNCTIONAL BEFORE LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE EARTHEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES, AND DIVERSIONS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. 10. ESC. MWIdUM REQUIREMENT - CUT AND FILL SLOPES. CUT AND FILL SLOPES - - r=_ TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. IN ADDITION, SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESC REQUIREMENT NO. 2. CATCH BASIN INSERT 11. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONTROLLING OFF -SITE EROSION. PROPERTIES PROTECTION (TYP.) AND WATER WAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DUE TO INCREASES IN THE VOLUME, VELOCITY, AND PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE. G.T. CLEARING LIMITS 12. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZATION OF TEMPORARY CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. ALL TEMPORARY ON -SITE CONVEYANCE CHANNELS SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION FROM THE EXPECTED VELOCITY OF FLOW FROM A TWO-YEAR, 24-HOUR FREQUENCY -.m1- MULCH &/OR STRAW MATTING STORM FOR THE DEVELOPED CONDITION. STABILIZATION ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION OF OUTLETS, ADJACENT STREAM BANKS, SLOPES AND DOWNSTREAM REACHES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE OUTLETS OF ALL CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. 13. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION. ALL STORM ®- PL PLASTIC COVER DRAIN INLETS MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WITHOUT FIRST BEING FfLTEREO OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT. FLOW ARROW (EX.) 14. ESC REQUIREMENT - REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BMPS. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY BMPS ARE NO CITY OF EDMONDS LONGER NEEDED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE. DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESULTING FROM REMOVAL SHALL BE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - DEWATERING CONSTRUCTION SITES. DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL DISCHARGE INTO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT POND. 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT -CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS FOR -PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE , OTHER THAN SEDIMENT ON CONSTRUCTION SITES. ALL POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT THAT OCCUR ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE HANDLED AND ----- ----------------___-___,-_ ____ DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAMINATION OF STORM WATER. - ----- ----- - -- -- --- I Z EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - FINANCIAL LIABILITY - ----- ------ - - PERFORMANCE BONDING, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. [ORD. 3013 § 1, 1995]. REV N0. DESCRIPTION INITIALS DATE GRADING QUAAT) TIES. • CUT: 30 Cu.Yds. FILL: 80 Cu.Yds. (GRADING QUANTITIES WERE CALCULATED USING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT DESKTOP COMPOSITE METHOD. CALCULATIONS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR SOIL SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE) NOTE: 1. EXCESS CUT MAY BE SPREAD ON SITE. 2. ANY SOIL REMOVED FROM THE SITE MUST BE HAULED TO A CITY APPROVED SITE. SUB AUG 112014 BUILDING DEPARa'MEt INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. P.O. BOX - 1478 EVERETT, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX INFO@ INSIGHTENGINEERING.NET SITE ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S: 1035 MAIN ST. EDMONDS, WA 98020 0434204003000 NW 114, SE 114, SEC.24, T.27N., R"3E., W.M. 1035 MAIN ST. DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE. JOB NO.: 140646.DWG I JRC 03-31-2014 1 "=10 14-0646 SHEET C2 GRADING AND TESC PLAN Of 2