Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1232 7TH AVE S.PDF
IIIIIIIIIIII 6959 1232 7TH AVE S T ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: OG `ZO 3 l �y BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): �2w ,3— COVENANTS(RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS: 1—� / DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver r V"'I Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DA EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: SOILS REPORT DA STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT # WATER METER TAP CARD DATED OTHER: LATEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doe ZONE SETBACKS: FRONT 20 SIDE ..A_,.__ _ MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY]_ yv' r,"'v,d I H� O;; jS RESPONSIBLE I ALLOWED 14%� 10 M N ao o ,���7si N AND DAMAGE '; a .3 a =+� 1DAMAGEMM f� FG�F•I N N N N N N HEI HT 5 3 j AP ROVED BY ENGINEERING ' v-/ E TL.J--IW -i::> /1 NGv�/ ►.iCokA BIdFFE D ��� �IUE-PV-oV1 r_ I T' I�B: CcLlL�/ ®� F E1.1 �c•�E-. H E KE. DV !o W06A F /Jt A F 1 LT STfLI P A G A\ I 'wID� ALL EKPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS Gor,1'IGTIOIJ pt7l T NT i •-- INSPECTIONS RE ' �W1-w— *14TWOE - ALL 425-771-0220 Q FL-0 i FL/�," c z703 ZS06 3oI1 00 PAL->— o F) -- 9, Z-7 -7 -c a . �r2C V I/-PEIOVS SUi-F=-A.C.E: 188 S•F. IVEkwuc _ (oSz__s.�:-. AREA O F 1 S-r v R-'a /!.1J Cr--- I ki G.L U DE S A V-7W Tl2G f=V"kAT (og SI of L0 -� .V. �. 3 A 381° -- I o.H, �I A uu I mIA uv TO�ET I I DETE,NTIO� Sy w H �� sr� I Z I G so [p tv"A' u J I(oLS��we, ! er 94 I j IW-- I IS.71t. SLb1'E w N i o ACT- S tfi I Q.A6E / 9i r.5.9 �L, z-r9'`��c 'AI Irt —/37= -I l .0 C-K.P. S OT� c Ovs 7- , z 4HOVR Z 1, 3( e.1 M- or L>7 G1C) n I K 30 ETC-.J.1T IJ " K 1� co c, e IVE- - Tue oI / ' 1 o Yo cc R.o&.m-= x , c I,I•-r r-�Y/ -r la PVc.pETC-►�ITIOIJ ovTLE-r L.IwF-To �N DISQ /IUFIL.TIz, .1� LSD -IQ O 'f-vJ A C- MC EI �.H . �/ 1-6j ry FLOI,,J F�1 STRIGTO� W/1TE r- A= �. z✓ �. I I :sr CEs-zoo3 --s4 Z,g-0.o DFFUF_sS SLorI=- D= Z 3 o Z 6 AX. i 1Q C>r F IIJ. LW K. SL.Ar3 _ z30, 41 %T m- OF F o oT rLl G - !� GTU h L = Z-59 -s Zz$.7 I s p�.-rVk`�olti1T: SAu.S.��.H. Kite,, 7-40. SZI r IICJ t=IZDLJ` -Or- L-10T I � .1 ✓�11.1AL coNTO V2S� 1 F GI -I /aIJ6L=� 6iG�.0 .lam rI GV T 39 5- -4 A FILL L(co Gv. (DS. plSypsE of .=xGESS A"r A�Pr�/G� SITE FXPOSEZ) SOIL - -Tv 6E. cOVSV-Sp `a1/ Nby nP_.IJ�1tL� CAPE.i� Warki �4No.1.75 7 ou m _c m v -n m m 0 n C Z 1 N 0 o m -, 0 .........................................ECEIVE. ® *V90AM - EVE DEC 12 2003 E U. C,.. i.CONTACT 02,*tvo� F F%4N 461 A coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACH UTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: IZ3V -Y`' k-�L S . �-:PwoT\x)S ° Rich Afdem — 425-670-3208 You%vill neeil to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service Questionnaire. , PUG E T SOUND 0I_ # ENERGY New Customer Construction a Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. Department-1-888-321-7779 You will need to provideparcel number, contact phone number and mailing address. t 0 _ # �.Po D���1 veri�n Dow Brandley — 425-710-4118 You will need to provide Verizon with the location of your project, total line requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your development plan may be required. cook & CA". U0,rAU f .0-P\ AT�T o vADuMND You will need to proved AT & T Broadband with the location of 253-437-6906 or e-mail: your project, a copy of your development and site plan (digital wa-ope-north@broadband.att.com copy if available.) The date in which service is required and a list of contact names hone numbers & mailing addresses. or"°"' Steve Dunphy - 425-774-7769 You will need to provide OV WSD with the survey map of your For customers in Olympic View Service Area site and complete a development information form. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL 1 0 0 PLANNING DATA NAME: ` i 2 DATE: l — / S - O `4 SITE ADDRESS: J —7 33J A.rc 'Z,- PLAN CHK#:0�--_& q PROJECT DESCRIPTION:�- REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED e / No MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: es o FLAG LOT:, Yes No ZONING: �?`�>— CO CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Ql' -7 — S� Studv ReauiredQ,osm ,2 Q" j e a a- 0 ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: _ ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of 12 Exempt SETBACKS: of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) Street �O ' Left Side: �i Right Side: Rear: 15'. Actual Setbacks: , t O , o(� L, F_ ►od Street: Left Side:' -S Right Side: Rear: Steet map checked for additional setback required? Yes / DNA DETACHED STRUCTURES:R�R� AUROCKEIRIES: ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: 13_P,4Y WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: �❑ STAIRS / DECKS: PARKING: Required: `-Z. Actual: v . 2 BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Pointer "H irk —7'—}' P—a-") iJ or=sr:tatum Elevation: Uo . Ste- a3 p '7 Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: S Ll S 2U-0D A.D.U. CREATE N / Yes D ,30 . �- SUBDIVISION: r`� �� ^ ��r-I -- W i' 1A a n C LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMIN10-�- Plan Review By. G-q . -7 e5- NewBPPlanningDataFonn.DOC t Yl'7/t7J/ LOt7J 1 /:00 4L�l4 1 t=u 1 ct,n 0' rat= ul GE OTECH CONS LTANTS, INC. I i Alai Jackson 1& 01 Highway 99 Lyr nwood, Washington 99037 s4ect: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: 13256 Northem 20th Suect. Suite 16 BcllcvL=, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 RECEIVED September 3, 2003 SEP 0 0 2003 JN 03322 DEVELOPMENT SEPVIGE" BUILDING . SEP 2 2 2003 via facsimile: (425) 787-9112 Ware pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family res deuces to be constructed In Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exdloring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide rec6mmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. Thi work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services dated July 24.2003. We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Ind istries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and on onversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the apl roximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. Thg houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet FroT the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight bament. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of apoximately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish flodr elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a deslianated wetland. If t e scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided wit revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of thi , report are warranted: SITE CONDITIONS SItFACE Th ¢I Vicinity Map. Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site is Ibcated on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west, wit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern corner to. approximately 20 feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat destignated wetland, and there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed development area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at approximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is I GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 . 1iJ I 1 I YJV♦ Jackson amber 3, 2003 =.0 1 QUM VPA*- 93 JN 03322 Page 2 covfred'with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with fems and other low gro h vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern part of the site where app oximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally ste per slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered thro ghout the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. CE subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate ons shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the )sed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during ration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. Th test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and operated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from - our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. e test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand : d gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles d occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel till was encountered overflying topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was countered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of it layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact fin ition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. _arge amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered hroughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in the fill. This debris will need o be removed during site clearing. Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs ?sent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual ition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between )ration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive riotions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the. backfill will need to be removed and rer ilaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. C17! OOr CGV.7 a r . uC 4" r M 01 .Lu I tl+n �i r-14= 04 Alan Jackson • • JN 03322 Se 3tember 3, 2003 Page 3 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OP OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A 'RAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE f1INED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REL Y/NG ON THIS REPORT SHOULD THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and ructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this t are based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at if the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our nmendations accordingly. test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and rel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered queen 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, .surficial .layer encountered near top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered )w the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on ventlonal foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the , The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as Iscaping beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed uohout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site ,ed on the topographic Information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project, no cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet 3w existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) can be made iin the eastem property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and vel; the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed ing site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during (oration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To gate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may e to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is ountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected iediately with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for cations of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the of any cut slope. foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be loved as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H.V). Taking into ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot eed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULtANTS. INC. 177/ VJ/ GOVJ a /.00 4ZUt AA Alai i Jackson • September 3, 2003 JN 03322 . Page 4 Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to ach eve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows eac i of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines, respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (H:\� shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can malie recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Ba �ve7l the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required tohe finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, it may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the do nslope foundations on native, dense sand and gravel and leave a tall crawl space, or to step the buildings down the slope. Alternatively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the wet tern edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we recommend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil within the crawl space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet will (require geogrid reinforcement; we can provide a design if necessary. We should review the grading plans once the house layouts are finalized. The site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork con ractor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above the root line. The new fill should be benched into the dense native soils by cutting fiat benches into the dense native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate corrllpaction is being achieved. foundation walls should be backfilled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel ry the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the i of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent dation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill een the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and L4erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather con itions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soli and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate tha a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any Geared areas and around the wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the sift fence for added protection during grading. Rociked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud earlpied off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alig ment .of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet we they. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. ;h Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the nendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include is to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical lints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. u�ivoicuw. af.vo 4d.4f A& LV-u1Mt,n � M*= bb Alan Jackson • • JN 03 September 3, 2003 e 5 Page 5 We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report shc uld also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings .and CONSIDERATIONS Thy' site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 10� feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The sit soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. FOUNDATIONS Th proposed residences_ can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings be ring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up.to 5 feet of properly compacted structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork an Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density tes ng during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fdl beneath foundations, the excavation shc uld be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have bee n exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum wi hs of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to det' rmine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be�cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and eq Ilpment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An lallowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings su rted on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed ab a these competent native soils. A third increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short -tern win or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction setl ement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thic ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a dist ince of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the I bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the fou dation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively lev I, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following uhi ate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading* GEOTECN CONSULTANTS. INC. �LVIVVI, If m Jackson • amber 3, 2003 ULTIMATE LU PARAMETER VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (1) pef is pounds per cubic foot, and (III passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. JN 03322 Page 6 to ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We recommend intaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when ig the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures sed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain . backfill: PARAMETERVALUE Active Earth Pressure " 30 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 135 pcf where: (i) pef is pounds per cubic foot, and (II) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least Q.M times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psi times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid Pressure. values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a lining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values do not Include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters . uld be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. i is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a ier. design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the Is and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent ndations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. u�r uor wua ar.u0 44i0f A MU1r- In � rcuc Od Ala Jackson • • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 7 to tt a above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate des n earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid . de4ity; a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. Hea y construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a di tance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pre ures resulting from the equipment The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be ccomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higt er soil forces that occur during compaction. 4ainina Wall Backfill and Watenwoofin ickfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining uctural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of rticles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand d gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as aining wall backfill. purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a ining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively srmeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved., The ground surface must also e away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains immendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining foundation walls. bThe above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The erformance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, Naterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the Hails are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. 4pplying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help ;o prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through he concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is mportant to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete valls from the surrounding soil. BS-0*GRADE building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on ,Jura) fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and iced with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Ala Jackson JN 03322 Se ember 3, 2003 Page 8 All h labs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, As noted by the American Concrete Inst tute (ACI) in Section 3.23 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper. mot ;lure protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wo d, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI aIsc notes that vapor retarders, such as. 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is deft ied as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot. (psf) per hour, as etermined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, althpugh the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for va r passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour whgn tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meat this requirement. In t�e recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded co pactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be plaid over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a'blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. Ho ver, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI liter ture because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, whiLh is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Th refore, N there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet -before the slab is i stalled, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that. because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, join spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other me sures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installa.tion of W4er Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" ge erally agrees with the recent ACI literature. Wel recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these iss 'es and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all me_ ns should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. ROCKERIES Wei anticipate thatrockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry spJIls should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A pelf forated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. Wrecommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent nat a soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3--to 4-man rocks and the fill should be placed and compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery co struction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly ve ical so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were no established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and - --I- - -- ----QEOTECH-CONSULTANTS—INC. -- ----- vyw oilZl vj 1 /:00 4L71 1 UMUIMLIM rf+= yp. Alaii Jackson • • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 9 proposed osed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than two times the height of the rockery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged rookeries or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. Welcan provide a rockery detail if necessary. Th construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering me hods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a pro r manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The roc eries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local pra ice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or i clusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed ov time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the VATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However. vertical cuts should not be ma a near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Ad �inistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Tyre B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet. in height cannot be excavated at an incl nation steeper then. 1;1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bo om of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes ca lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of the. cuts at the sit , the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the lineof seepage and the ge .technical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures. above -recommended temporary slope. inclination is based on what has been successful at r sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a ively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. porary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes ild also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. se note that gravel can cave suddenly and without waming. Excavation, foundation, and utility ractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow slo ighing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the sloe face is important for long4errn stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of pa ios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope_ Th can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final Inc ination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or pe anent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate spgcies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. An� disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slop. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed ardas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed onIthe slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. - - GEOTECH CONSULTANTS-INC•--- -- 'oy/oil Loos 1/:Vu 4L7/Obi bLU1LUH PAGE 11 1 • Ala Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 10 We anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floo elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there Mal be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the norther sid of the northernmost house and the southern side of the. southernmost house. If the house to bons or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, sho ions will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for sh Ing if it is necessary. GE CONSIDERATIONS Fodndation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains sholuld also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. -These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert sh uld be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it sh uld be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the fou dation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. In j eneral, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should th4 become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Grdundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. If seepage is encountered in an. excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pip.-, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at t le bottom of the excavation. Tha excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away fro 1 the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, sla s, or pavements. are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences sh uld slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area .is paved. Surface drains should be prided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Additionally, a drainage Swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface ru -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of th driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, st rm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a uitable outfall located away from any slopes. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and ott er deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed th ughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or removed sand and gravel above. the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as str ictural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. -- aw Ujf1t36.! It:nts 4'L7/q 1 ULUIECH. PAGE 12 l Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep ember 3. 2003 Page 11 Stru tural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backflll, placed under, or close to, a building, beh d permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to s pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or nea 1, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that rest. Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and mut t be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General sec on, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we rec ,mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction )ment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness Id not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not 5ently, compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents -nmended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557.91 (Modified Proctor). Tire General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the gra el below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in we weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a sit or day content of no more than 5 pe ent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that po Ion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site co ditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater co ditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If th subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those ob erved in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions an reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are co t monly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil sapies in test pits. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS;-INC.— n-Ji oai loon t i : no vta r t ULU 1 hL;H PAGE 13 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep�ember 3, 2003 Page 12 Sub urface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions freq ently require making additional expenditures .to attain a properly constructed project: It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for fic application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on rved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. .Our conclusions and nmendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of Ice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is ssed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, iques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described In our report for deration in design. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In Jddition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide ge echnical consultation. testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate w ther earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the rec mmendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the eve t subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Ho ever, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the co ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will the responsibility of the contractor. Subsequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be ch ed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached sch dule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnical as s of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also, It ay involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which wo�Id also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise noted by the owner, we wo Id assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design team as required on a time -and -materials basis. I the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually ie. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our mendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. _ I _ - _ - ---. -------- ----- ....----- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. -RAC. _- M.I JI VJf fVVJ L f . VV 1LJ! Oi UMV IQUI II��/F IIA 14 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Se ember 3, 2003 Page 13 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3.4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we ma be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 1T/JHS: esm i IL Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer ILXF'IKE5 U1-31- CG J/ James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager - -' GEOTECH CONSUL a,ir v.rr'�ail.r.r alvv �a.rr er♦ tLIJIG1.r1.1 r'Aht 1'a Room CDaW 1 TH p YAAt Q� i .t . =t 'Is NTH 3 temp r wrr IL SR g li:a I y o� � PR OILIlrM 1 \{� # »ro K 3111 �81TM Sf ,fir,. ;,TA z 1�111 ar_181 Sr w'°R � _ �.l�q�:B 19iM SY 1 w� - ti W � iMTOt-SSY A I ST 51!1IM• CRERR ST t eur Aug r �'� �► tio�i� �a� � a a ""�3 �° I r = Jr ♦ I w �, Re = I M 96TH STIR . i I,�toor LM wclr n !s OR sw 6{i! r Et a = _ R,7•r� S � RlIIDI tl � . r EYLMRJ �� � Rr 1,L. • YA of F.: � salnr I g ttt„n� � I eoR it .Yl • �� a wy l ZWTN $ ST SW , 01001 wr _ s '/ .14 SUN / i�Q 6d� a GLEN sr t i s* Sil se�wl. 712 a r >� sF• aM Q I ' 1 24 - revwwa r !Yj( a :z • lsy OriL c +r'"'mn • 9 A Jr .?�; ' ..� N1t! PK sr vNtar:E' a ELLfir- of FK e ..ol • 6' +/if lie IN! Ir i=R $T le a no. I o Ci • \ ' 1� VI a • 'I''• f/ �' 3 ��$ NGDLE. a N' rr . al agTN SJ FL'�-••'+i'j, sw .23 UNION UM<w, OM r a I CECAR Sr �e Rj (Eyf,( dF/ +. !�tl¢tM RmIELL WY xoRa me o yIj•- fT ' r ^ �rIP� a�i� , � ST , sm. n \ aatlo[II a u1 ; wat► ;,,la .r ttsarra K� :1stR SIR`� �I • ;j sa Arll IF r (I116 NN raj n I r < ii iI ml KI t x s` 21TrM ri nn sal 1'• III' :` 21e1N I �• r 1 as F I ` 9• z, -1 1" tanl30 coou I I �, - s� `� SITE i sra:•� It00 ' 1 I � - . 229M 1= a Yi' OT 1 al c 31144 d ;"', �1-. alr it • [jylrl K ��pp��,,••.1..,,__ w .:• M . r �!1 mart! • :: �' �i{ P 6�•• �.y " i� .Y1i I _ � �Y••�'�rlIL � I� � • n,. ,0. .7�1-- _ � OIL 4�j' p� ryN=l� �Qq{ , I,?L a el � �py1= I i"•'ia • , � gW4Y '� R•,•Y •Y !_��P , 7i�i � N• q� Y� ��Ta�. qI� r 1 cl VICINITY MAP GEOTECH CONSl1LTANI IN( 1230 - 7th Avenue South S, Edmonds, Washington v---.��-- Job Mo22 . Duly 2003 f Not to Scale 'VJI VJ/'iVVJ ♦ f • VV •LJf'�T V:JOl • N V approximate wetland boundary %W-U 1 W n TP-5 ' L� TP- i i t - i 1 r TP-q, proposed SFRs r '. P-3 TP- proposed plat lines - TP-1 i 1 y! ,r•y'r i I 230 240 PAL*- 16 A, SITE EXPLORATION' PLAN GEOTEC CONSULTAM'S, M 1.230 - 7th Avenue South #� Edmonds, 'Washington J�022 July2003 N Scale 2 VJI VJI iVVJ i I . VV -i JV♦ • %acu 1 ca,n Test Pit 1 : 0 - 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0 - 5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense 5.0 - 6.0 -becomes dense to very dense "No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 2 0 - 1.0 FILL Brown sand and ravel FILL, I with yard waste, .1.0 - 2.0 TOPSOIL loose Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant rots, dry, 2.0 - 4.0 SW loose Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, highly weathered, with abundant roots, slightly moist, 4.0 - 9.0 medium -dense Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist, dense 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 3 0- 1 ,0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris incl. 12- 1.0 - 6.0 SW inch concrete rubble Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, 6.0 - 7.0 medium -grained, slightly moist, dense -with more cobbles, becomes very.wet 'Groundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 4 I 0- 0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.5 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL, at 1.5 2.0 feet 2.0- 5.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation TEST PIT LOG GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South � coL�rsur.Taar+rrs, INC. Edmonds, Washington rya ivo: o ,coge g;- . 03322 August 2003 EMT 3 V� JI VJI LVVJ L 1 • VV I- I Mr- VLV ILV I a rm%m A Test Pit 5 .i 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant foots, dry, loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.0 SIP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, dense *Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet'during excavation Test Pit 6 0- 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant mots, dry, loose 1.0 - 3.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense SP -becomes mediunoralned, very moist dense No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation .Test Pit 7 0- 2.0 FILL Gray-brown.sand and gravel FILL, dry, loose and Old TOPSOIL - 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel and cobbles, with occasional roots, slightly moist; medium -dense 4.0 - 7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during exmuafinn TEST PIT LOGS GEO'TECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS, INC Edmonds, Washington Job No: Dates L�geO �• 03322 August 2003 EMT 4 backfill away from ition.. Provide surface where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven GeotdxUle Washed J�k Filter Fabric (7/8" min. Oda ��0O0a )°0O0 6" min s • Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB I 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) '•Ord �•D.•Q. •. 11 Free -Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOT"S: (1) in I spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypa ses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer o report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEQTECH TWICAL DRAIN DETAIL Coivsv><.raMMr- 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Jab No: Bat& SC&k- pia; 03322 August 2003 Not to Scale 5 Inc 1890 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering September 4, 2003 Mr. Al Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 RE: 7th & Elm Short Plat Dear Mr. Jackson: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform you that during the short plat review process it has been brought to my attention that the property in question may have had unclean fill and construction debris illegally dumped and abandoned on the property over the period of many years. Due to the potential of contaminated soils, and the unknown amount of possible illegal fill material placed on site, the following shall be required of the project: Prior to the start of tree removal, site preparation work, grading, utilities, etc. a geotechnical report shall be provided to the City as required by Uniform Building Code.. The report shall include all criteria as described in Uniform Building Code Section 1804.3 including but not limited to a narrative on possible soil contamination and soil cleanup/remediation if necessary, as well as exportation of unclean fill material. Note, if contaminated soils are found you are required by State Law to inform the Department of Ecology (local contact 425-649-7000) and follow their regulatory guidelines. By copy of this letter I am instructing the City Engineer to withhold final approval of the civil plans for this short plat until the geotechnical report is received, reviewed and approved by appropriate City staff, including but not limited to outside peer review as deemed necessary by the City. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal City business hours of 9:00am to noon and 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday at 425-771-0220 extension 1226. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Dave Gebert, City Engineer 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 0 k'% KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 28, 2003 Kleinfelder Project Number: 36170 Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf OCT 310 BUILDING DEPT. This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder's) responses to the October 24, 2003 letter prepared by Mr. Alan Jackson (site developer). Kleinfelder performed a third -party independent geotechnical review for this site. Kleinfelder's review comments are presented in our October 15, 2003 letter. Mr. Jackson's October 24, 2003 letter addresses Kleinfelder's review comments presented in our October 15, 2003 letter. Kleinfelder has no additional geotechnical issues associated with this site at this time. Please call us at (425) 562-4200 if you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical issues with this site. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. James M. Schmidt Senior Geotechnical Engineer L K James A. McElroy Manager, Geotechnical Engineering . 36170/§ 1.2L 95.doc — -- - ----- -- —Page l of 1 Kleinfelder, Inc. Copyright 2003 Klein K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax />/ k4 KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 15, 2003 Kleinfelder Project Number: 36170 Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue .North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf - RECEIVED BUILDING DEPT. This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) third -party independent review comments regarding geotechnical aspects for the Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat located at 1230 — 7th Avenue South in Edmonds, Washington. Kleinfelder's services were performed in accordance with The City of Edmonds Task Order Number 2, dated September 26, 2003. SITE DESCRIPTION The short plat will consist of dividing an approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The site is bounded by 7th Avenue South to the east, residential homes and lawn space to the north and west, and single-family residences to the south. The east portion of the site is fairly level and consists of mowed grass and forbs. The middle portion of the site slopes down steeply (up to 30 percent) to the west. Vegetation in the middle portion of the site consists of deciduous and conifer trees and shrubs. The west portion of the site is relatively flat and comprises a forested wetland. Willow Creek flows along the west edge of the site. The local neighbors have reported that up to approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris has been dumped along the southern half of the site and extends approximately halfway down the steeply sloping portion of the site. Vehicles dumping yard waste and construction debris have become stuck. and required assistance for removal. The neighbors have also reported that historic construction in this area has exposed springs within the slope. 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page 1 of Copyright 2003 Meinfelder, Inc. K L E 1 N F E L DER 2405 140th Avenue,NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax k4 KLEINFELDER F PROJECT DESCRIPTION One single-family residence will be located only on the easternmost quarter of each lot, while the larger remaining portion will be a critical areas tract Each home will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight basement. The homes will also be set back approximately 25 feet from 7th Avenue South. Cuts and fills on the order of 8 to 10 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation. Some filling in the home backyards will be necessary to create a lawn area. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services was to provide third -party independent review of available geotechnical documents for.the site and preparation of this report. THIRD -PARTY INDEPENDENT REVIEW Our third -party review consisted of reviewing the following documents that were provided by the City of Edmonds: Five letters of complaint from local neighbors. • Critical Areas Report 1230 7th Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds, Dated May 8, 2003. • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat, 1230 — 7" Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. for Alan Jackson, dated September 3, 2003. • Letter of Interest, prepared by the City of Edmonds to Mr. Alan Jackson. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . Soil Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Geotech) explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating seven backhoe test pits in August 2003. The test pits were located in the east portion of the site where the residential homes will be located and extended to a maximum depth of about 9 feet below ground surface. Subsurface conditions encountered by Geotech consist of up to 24 inches of topsoil overlying up to 3 feet of weathered sand and gravel with abundant roots. This layer overlies dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles. Up to 2 feet of fill was encountered in three test pits. Geotech stated that large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and fill. The site soils are classified as "Everett Series" according to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. 36170/SEA3L280.doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 2 of 4 �'q KLEINFELDER P Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet below ground surface in two test pits. Because the test pits were open only for a short time period, the static water level wasnot confirmed. The Landau Associates (Landau) critical areas report encountered drain tiles on the west portion of the property. The drain tiles reportedly collect water from the east side of 7th Avenue and deliver it to the project site as a point source approximately 6 inches below the ground surface. REVIEW COMMENTS As previously stated, the purpose of our services was to provide third -party independent review of available geotechnical documents for the site. Based on our review of the referenced project, we offer the following review comments. Review Comment No. 1: Geotech's geotechnical report, Landau's critical areas report, and information provided by the local neighbors all identify the presence of yard waste on the site. However, the lateral and vertical extent and the material type and chemical make up of the yard waste has not been investigated. Consequently, the potential for impact to the development cannot at this time be determined. We suggest that the developer identify the lateral and vertical extent of the yard waste. The yard waste limits should be shown on a map with respect to the proposed home locations. The documents reviewed do not address the .potential for chemical contamination of the soil and groundwater below the yard waste. Because the yard waste has been placed on this slope over several years, we believe that there is a potential that chemicals (such as total petroleum hydrocarbons) may have also been dumped along with the yard waste. We suggest that the developer prepare a sampling and analysis plan for evaluating soil and groundwater conditions beneath the yard waste. Site cleanup, if required, should be performed in accordance with Washington State and City of Edmonds regulations. Review Comment No. 2: The documents reviewed do not indicate whether the yard waste that might be located outside the residential home footprint will remain. We suggest that a slope stability study be performed to assess the potential for slope instability following site development if yard waste is to remain on the property. - 36170/SEA3L280.doc — — Page 3 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. J k'q KLEINFELDER .i CLOSURE We will be pleased to discuss the above comments with you and representatives from the design team at your convenience. Should you have any questions or wish to arrange a meeting to discuss this letter, please call us at (425) 562-4200. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. James M. Schmidt, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page 4 of Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. J V �STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File S-2003-34 From: athleen T Associate Planner Date: JULY 2, 2003 �0 20 03 File: S-2003-34 Wilderness Bluff rj Property Owner: Brian & Delores Buchea PE Applicant: Alan Jackson TABLE OF CONTENTS Nection Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 2 ............................. A. Application........................................................................................................ 2 B. Decision ............. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................3 .......................... A. Analysis of Design: Compliance with ECDC 16.20......................................................................... 3 B. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan............................................................................................... 3 C. Critical Areas Review: Compliance with ECDC 20.15B.................................................................. 4 D. Wetland Buffer Averaging: Compliance with ECDC 20.15B.080B................................................ 5 E. Subdivision Review Criteria: Compliance with ECDC 20.75.085.................................................... 6 F. Public Comments.............................................................................................................................. 6 III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.........................................................................:..7 A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 7 B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 7 C. Timeframes................................................................................................. IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL................................................................:. 8 .......... V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ................................................ g ......................... VI. APPENDICES.............................................................................................. VII. PARTIES OF RECORD...........................................:.................................. Staff Report Wilderness Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Alan Jackson (See Attachment 2.) 2. Site Location: 1230 7te Ave S (See Attachment 1.) 3. Request: To subdivide a 77,106 square -foot lot into 4-lots. There is a category 2 Wetland on -site. The applicant requests to increase the wetland buffer in some areas while decreasing it in other areas —referred to as wetland buffer averaging in the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4. Review Process: Following the public comment period, Planning Staff reviews the request pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code makes an administrative decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, Single -Family Residential. b. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15B, Critical Areas. d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.15B.080B, Wetland Buffer Averaging. e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75.085, Subdivision Requirements. Note: All code sections referenced in this report can be viewed via the City's website www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. B. Decision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and considering the Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The Subdivision is APPROVED with the following conditions: Pri9r to Recording: Prior to construction of engineering requirements, fencing must be installed to protect the critical areas and related buffer. 2. Complete the Engineering Division conditions, listed as "Required prior to Recording" on Attachment 4. 3. Complete removal of debris and revegetation of wetland as required by Attachment 11 or bond for the improvements. 4. Revise short plat map to reflect Critical Areas Easement across Lots 1 through 4. Language should be added to the face of the plat map, stating the limitations of the critical areas easement. Contact the Planning Division for a copy of the standard language. 5. Revise the final short plat document to include signature blocks for the property owners, City of Edmonds Planning Division and City of Edmonds Engineering Division. Also add standard language as required by the Engineering Division 6. Add rebar/stakes to all new property corners. 7. Submit copies of the final short plat documents for review and approval with a current title report. 8. Record short plat documents with the Snohomish County Auditor. 9. After recording, provide three copies of the final recorded short plat to City of Edmonds Planning Division. July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 3 of 8 Prior to issuance of any building permit: 1. Complete the Engineering Division conditions, listed as "Required with Building Permit" on Attachment 4. 2. Submit a geotechnical reports which demonstrates compliance with ECDC Title 19 regarding landslide hazard areas. 3. Demonstrate compliance with the recommended mitigation measures of the Landau Associates Critical Areas Report dated 5/8/03. Refer to Attachment 11. Permanent fencing must be installed and signage is required for critical area and buffers. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Analysis of Design: Compliance with ECDC 16.20. 1. Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-6 (Single -Family Residential). Compliance with the RS-6 standards is documented below. 2. Lot sizes and dimensions: a) Proposed number of lots: 4 b) Proposed Lot sizes: Lot Area (Minimum 6,000) Lot Width (60 Feet Reg) Lot 1 19,639 Square Feet 66.3 Feet Lot 2 19,275 Square Feet 66.3 Feet Lot 3 19,277 Square Feet 66.3 Feet Lot 4 18,916 Square Feet 66.3 Feet c) Areas. Setbacks and Lot Width: Lot areas and width for all of the proposed lots are adequate for the RS-6 zone. Setbacks for all future development should be as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, 20' Street Setbacks: From the east property line and 4 5' Side Setbacks: From north and south property lines 15' Rear Setback: The rear setback is not applicable, because it falls within the wetland. However, a 15' building setback will be required from the edge of the buffer. Refer to Attachment 11. d) Corner Lots: Not applicable e) Flag Lots: Not applicable 3. Lot arrangement to topography: Satisfactory. B. Conformance to Comprehensive Plan 1. Facts: The subject property falls within the single-family small lot designation. Refer to the following Residential Development policies: July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 4 of 8 a) B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. b) B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. c) B.5.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. 2. Facts: The applicant is proposing to leave the wetland and buffer area completely undisturbed. The Comprehensive Plan also cites goals and policies directly related to preserving open space. a) Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with the following policies. b) B.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: lands which have unique scientific or educational values; areas which have an abundance of wildlife particularly where there are habitats of rare or endangered species; natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with priority to highways classified as scenic; areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as water sheds; land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or industrial development; bogs and wetlands; land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments.and adjacent uses; lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses both passive and active; areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation. c) B.3. Open space would be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate setback space and separation between structures. 3. Conclusions: The proposeddivision of the lots complies with the comprehensive plan policies. C. Critical Areas Review: Compliance with ECDC 20.15B. 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-97-59 Study Required 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: Staff visited the site and determined that further study would be necessary to determine the presence of a steep slope hazard area and/or a wetland and stream as defined by ECDC 20.15B. a) Based on the topographic map submitted by the applicant, prepared by AFM Industries, the slope does not qualify as steep slope hazard area, per ECDC 20.15B.060A3c. Rather ' it appears to qualify as a landslide hazard area per ECDC 20.15B.060A3b. At time of building permit application for each of the lots, the applicant must submit the required soils report and related geologic information as required by ECDC Title 19. b) In terms of the wetland potential, the applicant entered into a three party contract with the City of Edmonds and Landau Associates, as required by ECDC 20.15B.140D. Landau conducted the review and concluded that a Category 2 wetland exists on site. Refer to the map in Attachment 11. The map delineates the edge of the wetland and identifies a 50- foot buffer from the edge of the wetland. The applicant has proposed to decrease the buffer in some areas while increasing it in others. Alsorefer to Attachment 11. Wetland buffer averaging is allowed by ECDC 20.15B.080B. _ July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 5 of 8 c) The study from Landau also identifies Willow Creek on -site. It is a category 2 stream The required buffer area is far exceeded by the presence of the wetland, so it is not necessary to identify it. D. Wetland Buffer Averaging: Compliance with ECDC 20.15B.080B 1. The applicant has requested to modify the wetland buffer area —specifically decreasing it by 956 square feet and increasing it by 974 square feet. Averaging buffer widths may be authorized when the applicant demonstrates all of the following: a) Averaging is necessary to provide reasonable use of the property. Refer to ECDC 20.15B.040C1 to 6. b) The critical area contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics and that reduction from standard buffer widths will occur only immediately next to the portion of the critical area determined to be least sensitive. c) Low intensity land uses will be located immediately next to areas where the buffer width is reduced, and that such low intensity land uses are guaranteed in perpetuity by covenant, deed restriction, easement, or other legally binding mechanism d) Width averaging will not adversely impact the critical area's functional values, e) The total areas contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance, except where a previously existing legal encumbrance exists, shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50% of the standard buffer width required. f) When the buffer is reduced, a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and fencing where appropriate must be reviewed and submitted for the area of the remaining buffer. The purpose of the buffer enhancement plan is to improve the function of the buffer to provide adequate protection to the critical area. 2. Applicant's Responses: The Critical Areas Report completed by Landau Associates responds to the criteria. Refer to Attachment 11. 3. Staff Response: a) The property is zoned for single family residential, RS-6, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet. The applicant is only requesting to construct 4 single family residences on a property 77,106 square feet in size. Based on the underlying zoning the property could yield 12 lots. However, recognizing the constraints of the critical area, it is reasonable to allow development on the portion of the property not occupied by the wetland. The applicant is only requesting to reduce the buffer area no greater than 10 feet in width along the eastern edge to allow for adequate buildable area on lots 3 and 4. b) The site has been significantly disturbed by illegal dumping. Since the applicant will be required to remove the debris and re -vegetate in the disturbed areas, sensitivity is not an issue. c) Reduction of the standard 50-foot buffer width will only occur adjacent to single family residences. Single family residential is considered to be the least intensive land use. The applicant will be required to record the wetland and revised buffer as a critical areas easement. Refer to condition of approval #3. d) According to Landau Associates review, width averaging of the buffer will not adversely impact the critical area's functional values. July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 6 of 8 e) The buffer averaging will result in a net increase of 18 square feet to the wetland buffer area. f) The applicant must comply with the recommended mitigation measures including fencing of the rear yards and revegetation of disturbed areas. g) Because the standard buffer for a class 2 wetland is 50 feet. Buffers could be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet. In this case, it is only being reduced to 40 feet. 4. Conclusions. The buffer modification should be granted. E. Subdivision Review Criteria: Compliance with ECDC 20.75.085 1. Facts: ECDC Section 20.75.085 lists the following criteria to be used when reviewing a proposed subdivision: Environmental, Lot and Street Layout, Dedications, Improvements, and Flood Plain Management. 2. Staff Response: a) Environmental. Although the proposal includes removal of a small portion of the wetland buffer and equal part will be added to that buffer. The wetland will remain undisturbed. The lot placement is compatible with the existing topography. Each lot meets the dimensional requirements of ECDC 16.20.030. b) Lot and Street Layout. Each lot exceeds the minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Each lot contains an adequate buildable area. To minimize drainage issues, each lot must be connected to the city's storm water system. c) Dedications. Refer to Attachment 5. d) Improvements. Refer to the Engineering memorandum contained in Attachment 5. e) Flood Plain Management. The subject property does not fall into a flood plain zone. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. F. Public Comments 1. Public Comments: Refer to Attachments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The concerns are summarized below. 2. Staff Response: a) Drainage. The applicant must comply with the requirements of ECDC Title 18. Refer to Attachment 4. The applicant is only responsible for the drainage that will be generated by the new development on site. The applicant is not responsible for accommodating drainage for neighboring development. b) Wetland Preservation. The wetland will remain undisturbed. Only a portion of the wetland buffer area will be modified. Refer to Attachment 11, which indicates the wetland buffer area that will be removed and the equivalent area that will be enhanced. c) Soil Stability. The applicant will be required to submit a soils report with each building permit application. d) Dumping. Over the years there has been significant illegal dumping on -site. As part of the subdivision the applicant will remove the debris, as encouraged by Landau Associates critical areas review. e) Ownership. The site is privately owned. Provided that the applicant complies with the Edmonds Community Development Code requirements, the City cannot deny the short July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 7 of 8 plat application. In addition, the City does not have the funds available to purchase the Property f) Wildlife. By preserving the wetland, the existing wildlife habitat can be maintained. g) Open Space. The wetland and associated buffer are occupies approximately 76%. The site is 1.77 acres in size, and the applicant is proposing that 1.35 acres remain undisturbed. h) Critical Areas Review. The critical areas review was conducted by an independent reviewer, Landau Associates. i) Subdivision Review. Review by the City of short plat applications is detailed in the Edmonds Community Development Code. The ECDC states that short plats be reviewed by a designated staff member. The City does not have a City Review Board to review, short plat applications. III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.95.050.B.2. provides for Staff to reconsider his/her decision or recommendation if a written request for reconsideration is filed by the applicant within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the initial decision. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.010.A describes how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Development Services Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. Appeals are presented to the Hearing Examiner. C. Timeframes The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the staff has issued their decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request were filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. July 2, 2003 / Staff Report Wildemess Bluff File No. S-2003-34 Page 8 of 8 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.075.100 states "A preliminary approval of a subdivision or lot line adjustment will expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has obtained approval of the final plat or has filed an application to extend the time before the approval expires." V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by City Staff request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. VI. APPENDICES Attachments 1 through 11: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application 3. Plat Map 4. Memorandum from the Engineering Division, dated 3/05/03 5. Letter from Louise Thorson 6. Letter from Robert & Sherian Marvin 7. Letter from Helene Spangler 8. Letter from M.C. Malin 9. Letter from Olof Strandell 10. Letter from Carol Hayes 11. Wetland Report by Landau Assoc. VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Brian & Dolores Buchea Alan Jackson Parks Division Engineering Division PO Box 1595 30277 Hwy 20 E Planning Division Public Works Division Ferdale, WA 98248 Republic, WA 99166 Fire Department Building Division Lisa Bride Louise Thorson Robert & Sherian Marvin Helene Spangler Suite 135 622 Elm PI 661 Birch St 606 Elm PI 4100 — 190 St SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Lynnwood, WA 98036 M.C. Malin Olof Strandell Carol Hayes 1224 — 70' Ave S 626 Elm PI 709 Elm PI W Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 July 2, 2003 / Staff Report � Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment 1 File No. S-03-34 city of edmonds land use application 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 0 HOME OCCUPATION 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION V SHORTSUBDIVISION �F1�T3 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT( 1 0 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVE PM 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT FILE # "Q- -34 ' ZONE FZg-" (!D ATB roL— I Q -O REC'D BY �FEEE RECEIPT # a HEARING DATE 0 HE 0 STAFF 0 PB 0 ADB 0 CC 0 STREET VACATION 0 REZONE 17-Z.h,_v,�,, 0 SHORELINE PERMIT 40--- P—A- o��,j 0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION C - P 7_ T 9 I 0 OTHER: o� PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1230 7TH AVE. S. EDMONDS WA .98020 C PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) WILDERNESS BLUFF PROPERTY 0 WNBR BRIAN & DOLORES BUCHEA PHONE# 360-380-1353 ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1595, FERNDALE, WA 98248 E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # TAXACCOUNT# 270325003011 SEC. 25 Twp. 27 RNG 03 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICANT ALAN R. 7ACKSON PHONE# 425-750-0854 ADDRESS 30277 HWY 20 E, REPUBLIC, WA 99166 E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT L I S A BRIDE ADDRESS 00-194TH ST. SW, PHONE# 425-339-7432 SUITE 135,LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 E-MAILADDRESS 1•isabride@cbba.com FAX# 425-672-9182 The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of reasonable attorney's fees, arising from harmless fr Edmonds Processing of the application an om an and all damages, including furnis inaccurate or incomplete information y action or infraction based in whole or shed by the Epp 'cant, his/her/its agents or employu� false, misleading, By my signature, I certify that the info19.�VA an knowledge and that I am authorized to erewith submitted are the behalf of the owner ass listtedd correct below. to �e best of my SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENTA A I DATE G• / b Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent application, and grant pe 's 'on f e public officials and the stat}aapply City for Edmonds to enter the subject Property for the purp es o ' spe ion -,a d pos ' subject land use g attendant to this a icat' n. ] SIGNATURE OF O r DATE - 0 This aPPl►cation form was revised on 1/27/00. To ve rify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. L•u,Q3 C �RYVLANN'NG OM & Ha„dOuts Puma Handoutru and U. Applicatlon.doc S-2003-34 Attachment 2 N.W. 1/4, S.W.114, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3. EASr wA4 RECEIVE® FEB 19 2003 PERMIT COUNTER yr'anny,Nop GRAPWC SCALE 30 0 is JO 60 (MFEEW : inch = 30 ft. Legal Descrfptian K sow att IH/ 6* K Bm ARl Q K mmzw 6nae1 Or K cal" awessKsipaweBr msoni � a xo � wamcsisKan4rx=vmwmw• ®m NEW mom ®awwrou MOWN K O2wr vamsl mwv � Bads of Bearing: RS n el. RAW Phvject Data: PROWSW Be sEa tR AmAQ 4 RAN cal: BEEN" canna we as^ ant aln�at can®�sffmvm Q 40-ja sa im^, 04=W w ./-amXF waaf mte 01W � pm� 4m Owner. rl pplica»t. wAWMa = aw�cml raawr Rmmn mc w� {yp cam Anwoos IQ Q m D (n :RTIFICATE. A.F.M. INDUSTRIES, INC. Preliminary Short Plat Map .-► of OAT Or_ tl � N Bane AkRJadann oT` s w 3 w '� `' d ao26 y � :a spa c for Alan Jackson 3 Xwerett WA 98203 OPAW, or; atE, . • TeL• 426.353.8060 'w NO. SCALE CD CAi Fair 425.363.6859 M.RP. O1/2B/at 2002-039 1 013mik 4&Lbdw&fm0mdm&njd C EMED Or SLV?WY CREW FW BOOK S?Etr/OF: r"► so ra+i f CA) 0.4N. Jr AFJ1. NO.. NC AFW - JB ,,, c1TY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND SUBDIVISIONS./� File No.: S-03-34 '' 3 Name:.. Buchea Approved by �� / .f 1) Vicinity: 1330 7t° Ave S ,. . En ineerin Pro am Manager date Reg'd pno - to recordlIIh?'if k6q'd w/bldg. .bond hosted Coril�i ete is Rights -of *ay for:pubhc streets X basements {City utilities, private access,. other utilities); Provide easements as needed. X Street improvements (ACT? with curb and gutter): . Each lot shall have an individual access to 7t° Ave S. X X 4:: ` :Street U* n-AarouA4" .. _ All lots shall have an on -site turn around X S; Side�v�llcs :and/tjr walkways::- . - .. Construct five -foot -wide concrete sidewalk to City standards X along the entire property frontage. N/A X 7: Ptanting strips:.... - .- . - .- . N/A X 8 :Water system ibVroyements (pipelines, fire;hydrantsi pump stations°.teiemeterm D ;etc,* Provide service to each lot. X Connect to public water systern. X i. SanitarY,sewer systeni improyements (pipelines, pump Stations teleriieteriii, health district, etc.): Provide new service to each lot X Connect to public sewers stem X 10: Stoin sewer system improvements: (pipelines, pump Stations D.OE;.fisheries Provide stone sewer service to all proposed lots. X Construct storm detention system sized to provide adequate X capacity for all proposed impervious surface areas in accordance with ECDC 18.30. Any detained surface area that may be directed toward the X wetland area must go through water quality process Connect to Public Storms stem X 11. On -site. drainage: (pliin per Ord: '3013), Connect all new impervious surfaces to detentions stem. X X 12. Underground wiring (P.6.0,4,1387); Required for all new services X X 13. Excavation and adin . er UBC, Cha ter 70 : Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan. X X 14. Si a e(per City Engineer):_ N/A X 15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120): N/A X S-2003-34 V:\dww\sp\03-34buchea plt.doc Attachment 4 ". Req'd prior Req'd w/bldg Bond tit : torrplet� i to recording Permit <pgsti,r- "1= xt 16. As -built drawn►.g s (p. er City Engineer ..,: .)c. Required for all u tility construction. X X : 17. Other reguirements; 18. Engineering fees:;:. a) Drainage system design review at $50 per lot X b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees to be paid in full. X c) Drainage system inspection fee at $50 per inspection. X d) Plat inspection fee: 2.2% of improvement costs X e) Plan review fee: $250. X ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF EDMONDS DATE The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivisidn can be recorded Authorized for recording by: Date: V:\dvrw\sp\03-34buchea plt.doc -Z rt 11V a :E Lpef I-) S-2003-34 Attachment 5 June 5, 2003 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5t° Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Notice of Development Application dated 5/ 15/03 File #S-03-34 Applicant, Alan Jackson Project Location: 1230 7t° Avenue S. Edmonds, WA Attention: Stephen F. Bullock lins.letteris to cover -the City. ofl;drnm&'.Land-else-Complaintifens-of-whieirI May 30,2003'aud-vatted lk::. ;':c 4:WFlet' ad completed this Complaint Form, (of which I was told was not the correct form) in response to the Notice of Development Application dated 5/15/03. The contents of this complaint form was written as follows: 1230 7 h Avenue S., Edmonds, WA. This land/hill where the four homes are to be built is not solid land. It has grown from years of dumping debris. Two vehicles have had to be towed from this area after unloading their trash. We are still recovering from our loss due to the three subdivisions that have been built around our property. If the water table is disturbed again and our home is flooded, we will hold this contractor/builder, Alan Jackson and the City of Edmonds responsible. It would be good if the City of Edmonds would purchase this property and let it be a sanctuary for the small critters that remain. Robert & Sherian Marvin May 30, 2003 Respectfully, �Zian Mary Attachment S-2003-34 Attachment 6 30)2,003 MAY 3; J 2003 ,�VELOPMEN7 SERV�IC�E�S s ll' � U7 Y t'r� i^-,/� �lk�Q.e GLvYI a CbYI CQl� {� l I.pyh,Q pwy�1^ �iv� dwo s4yean, � `�`lLrDS�Q ,Ldj,,s,s a,+ o I'S G�5 k, v� -� � '� -Yl•e la.� at' 4cC4 s � ytn,uk< <,om,,.) �O- n" ho�.ses. YVi� ct�n�n� ave to PRQ�r t Gn d u.l�''-GC Sa'ri.L (itP/� 1 jAp Ap &-4cnA I VPX� C4�tce,✓v�.ed '�`°� �.t aY,�� � �CR,vu��� '"`�v c� �v�ll li�ke�� csfxn v� V ri �s will r�e�w � .�1 �A&v "`-7 D � aV lav e,',' wl p k-4, wfs Ov--61,ase arroyvo,&-c� fvtb(eM5- Y3, re ()I Ay s-2oo3-aa Ol�'�{Q�{S�dGCe Attachment 7 ToX 0 s act . .� �� y �e W il dl (i �'e -l�w� 1 t u�e3 ]k bqaoe � �i�.t creek. �a<< lL vt I'rn njS � �7 � ✓'dJ� � (ctlal� ay�d S-5� wal da�� 4fsaA- W L"t (fifef u V� eaolj x 5.5 1 y IUAIT s ti-Y." - 0-t4l"l J 0 Le �Ai� � p�P�'W��li bi��S O�aSSuorl' Y'�.CaBnS� �(n.ge�r ��wp5 U occ-0.S i Lghu) Gib �pke, .�e 15 no `lam` is -�D a vL-d b cc. (ems ev' 1 A% vildli^ not PDISOVII ��� y 0-YY1 c,VV�,ce4�- JACJ 0 a) d 'Ktt -��� "s s k u��Y cart 0- S �e � do w VA d) avLct � i�' w i,� a vc e_� e c � (aces 14CIi be- Itle -e � rn � n � s�� s � h � � cav� i �� � �- r� 6✓�. ,p� 1 � A/b M{ 40 s ,e d m 1 fa, ef (o- 11" -�o) 10o3 S 0 Ce4-e-, I � ) #elkn e I , ��(t r�Pp, 6 0(a EIG m �Lbf;�aNas/ IZA 9(�DaC) z/ZS :T '-�S- 013 3'' This site has been designated as a critical area, CA-97-59. There was a good reason for that. The top one-third is steep bank and the bottom two-thirds is marsh land that is the source of Willow Creek; the only water supply to the Deer Creek Salmon Hatchery. This site had been for sale, for decades. In all those years no builder could find a way to build houses on this site, and for good reason. The entire area here is a large seepage area fed by the huge rain basin area around Chase Lake. The many spring in this area of the bowl flow year round, undiminished and many expensive problems have been caused to homeowners because the City has issued building permits without taking ground water sources into consideration. There are at least seven houses very close to this site that have had to retrofit drainage corrections that have cost homeowners from one to fifty thousand dollars. In my view, the city should be held responsible for errors. It is the City that should maintain the body of knotledge of land and water conditions within its boundaries. It is the City, upon whom the builders rely to issue viable building permits. It is the City who draws up the regulations pertaining to development, and it must be the City who rejects unsuitable sites for the protection of the builders and the future homeowners. This site, CA-97-59; falls in the category of, Unsuitable For Development. RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES S-2003-34 /` �/�, Attachment 8 Attachment to City of Edmonds Land Use Complaint Form - 7-03 Subject: Notice of Development Application; May 15, 2003, File #S-03-34 Details of Complaint:pr This Complaint is filed because of my concerns that the City of Edmonds follow city codes and regulations, as well as those of state and federal agencies, and will not repeat earlier mistakes when considering the approval or rejection of the subject permit application. 1230 7"' Ave S appears utterly unsuitable for the intended subdivision and home construction. The proposed development is in conflict with city and environmental codes. The lot forms a deep ravine with very steep sides (a Critical Area with Erosion Potential), sloping down into a small creek that eventually feeds the Deer Creek Salmon Hatchery. As amply demonstrated by the recent construction at 729 Elm Place W, it is highly likely that any soil removal or disturbance will expose presently unknown, subsurface springs and water strata. This has become a major problem for homeowners in this area causing costly repairs and no doubt exposing the issuer of the building permits to potentially devastating lawsuits. The likelihood that the wetlands on 1230 7t' Ave will be ruined or seriously damaged by this construction project through soil erosion and other negative impacts cannot be ignored. In addition, as encountered during the construction of 729 Elm Place, it is to be expected that silt, mud and suspended concrete dust will be carried into Willows Creek, a designated fish carrying stream. During the 729 Elm Place project Willows Creek was often filled with mud and silt, depositing a thick layer in the creek bed. No fish would have survived in that environment. After city approved changes at 729 Elm Place, the water from the springs is now dumped into a new and certainly not inexpensive city storm sewer. The flow in the creek itself has been reduced to a trickle. The creek is no longer the living stream it used to be, taking away from the rights of the lot owners. This presents another opening for legal challenge against the city. I contend that the City of Edmonds utterly failed to investigate these problems before issuing the building permit, and to monitor and control the construction. It inflicted irreparable harm to the creek and left the future owner of 729 Elm Place with a major, never ending problem. The purpose of this Complaint is to prevent a repeat of this debacle. The proposed development at 1230 7"' Ave S will impact an environmentally still much more sensitive area. I believe the City cannot afford not to request input from state and federal environmental and wildlife agencies before any decision is made to proceed with this development. With this notice I request that: 1. The City of Edmonds require the Applicant to present a review of the impact of the proposed project on the environment, prepared by an independent, recognized authority and demonstrating no adverse effects to the steep slopes, to area fish and wildlife, to the wetlands and creek, to existing homeowners, and to the salmon hatchery. 2. The City Review Board positively and irrefutably establish that the proposed development meets, or does not meet, as the case may be, any and all applicable city, county, state and federal codes and regulations, and make available to the public a detailed and unabbreviated record of its deliberations. S-2003-34 Attachment 9 Name (o se RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES '`•'Dn AhN / Q1�,_ ./ _tom S-2003-34 Attachment 10 r., n I: Also � /ems � s�v�- � �. � `Si s u r,a- mor�.Q. wa.9�eb ��, ��� jo f-o► Gl �... S. ��. l�s ic- Si % 2Y.2 c, (ter 010- 2g F,l �i �v.--ems cz. �rs� s. �- A,,-�. ct zcf ca-�l v4.` G�!i`r e c�e, cv, t sz VIO�7 cJ Name (please print): Phone: �2 5 77. y�3 Address:�d 9 1...ni AL Critical Areas Report 1230 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington May 8, 2003 Prepared for City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5ch Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0967 S-2003-34 Attachment 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.0 METHODOLOGY 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW 3.2 FIELD DELINEATION RESULTS 3.2.1 Critical Areas Habitat 3.2.2 Upland Habitat 3.3 CRITICAL AREAS CLASSIFICATION AND BUFFERS 4.0 MITIGATING MEASURES 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT 6.0 REFERENCES APPENDICES A Wetland Delineation Methodology B Wetland Data Sheets LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title I Vicinity Map 2 Wetland Flagging Map Pa 1-1 2-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-3 4-1 5-1 6-1 05/08/03 11EDMNAS%WPR0C107411107TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC ii LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1.0 INTRODUCTION Landau Associates wetland biologists conducted a critical areas study, consisting of a wetland delineation and stream assessment, on the approximately 1.78-acre property at 1230 Vh Avenue South located in Edmonds, Washington on February 12, 2003 (Figure 1). The scope of services for this project included: • Review of public domain information available for this site, including the Snohomish County area soil survey (Debose and Klungland 1983) and the City of Edmonds (City) Critical Areas Determinations (dated April 25, 1997 and June 20, 2001) for this site • Conduct a critical areas site investigation including the field delineation of onsite wetlands and flagging the onsite reach of Willow Creek • Prepare a Critical Areas Report documenting the findings of the site visit, including a brief summary of the methodology used, wetland habitat present onsite, classification and buffer determination for onsite wetlands and Willow Creek, mitigating measures appropriate to preserve onsite critical areas, and copies of supporting documents and figures (field data sheets, site map, and critical area survey map). 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This approximately 1.78-acre property is undeveloped and is bound by 7`s Avenue South on the east side, houses and maintained lawn associated with the Elm Place development on the north and west sides, and single family residences on Paradise Lane on the south side. The easternmost portion of the site, in the Vh Avenue South right-of-way, is fairly level and is comprised of mowed grasses and forbs. The property slopes down steeply to the west of the right-of-way to approximately the mid -portion of the site. This area is comprised of forested and shrub habitat. The entire western half of the site's gently undulating topography is relatively flat and is comprised entirely of forested wetland. In addition, the south tributary to Willow Creek flows along the western edge of the site. Willow Creek is the only water supply for the Deer Creek Hatchery (City of Edmonds 1990). This site has been used for dumping of landscaping waste and other refuse, such as lumber, carpeting, building materials, etc. Most of the dumping has occurred on the southern half of the site and extends approximately halfway down the slope. A smaller dumping area, composed entirely of landscaping waste, occurs at the south-central portion of the site, directly behind Lot 17 (a residence on Paradise Lane). 05✓08/03 NEDMNAMPRO0070 WTH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 1-1 LANDAU AssociATEs 2.0 METHODOLOGY Landau Associates biologists Diane Brewster and Rone Brewer conducted the critical areas field investigation on March S, 2003. Wetlands were delineated using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), and supplemented with the USACE Regional Guidance letter on the 1987 Manual (USACE 1994). The routine determination was used because the onsite wetland area has a homogeneous vegetation, soil, and hydrologic regime. Appendix A provides a complete description of the methodology used in this investigation. Public domain resources were reviewed prior to the site visit to determine existing conditions and potential wetland indicators on the site. During the site visit, the project site was walked to identify plant community types and identify wetland habitat. Three representative sample plots were selected within wetland and adjacent upland areas to define the wetland habitat and its extent. Each sample plot was marked with pink flagging and labeled TP-I, TP-2, etc. Data on vegetation, soil, and hydrology were collected at each point and recorded on the 1987 routine wetland investigation data form. Appendix B provides the data sheets completed for this project. The wetland edge was determined where the following three parameters were met: 1) the dominant plant species were considered hydrophytic by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Reed 1988); 2) soil was considered hydric under federal definition; and 3) hydrologic conditions meeting the federal wetland definitions were present or inferred. The wetland boundaries were marked in the field with pink flagging printed with the words "Wetland Boundary." To distinguish these flags from wetland flagging placed in July 2002 by a different firm, each of our flags was marked with the letters "LA" and then numbered sequentially. The stream course was also marked using pink flagging labeled LA-Sl, LA-S12, etc. These flags were not surveyed for reasons discussed in the field delineation results section of this report. The original wetland survey map (B&A Inc. 2002) is accepted for the purpose of this -Critical Areas Report (Figure 2). 05/08/03 UEDMNASIWPR0C107411107TH AVE CRRICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 2-1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES I• a l; 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW Both the Snohomish County area soil survey (Debose and Ilungland 1983) and the City's I; Critical Areas Determinations (City of Edmonds 2001; City of Edmonds 1997) indicated the presence of wetland habitat and a creek onsite. One soil type, Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent (map unit 19), is mapped on the entire site (Debose and Klungland 1983). The Everett series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on terraces and outwash plains, and formed in glacial outwash. A typical profile includes a layer of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) (Appendix A), very gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 6 inches below ground surface (BGS). Below this, to a depth of 18 inches, this soil is a dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) very gravelly sandy loam. Everett gravelly sandy loam is not identified as hydric (or wetland) soil, nor does it have hydric inclusions (USDA 1988). However, one of its inclusions, Alderwood, does have Norma loam (a hydric soil) as an inclusion. Both the April 25, 1997 and the June 20, 2001 • Critical Areas Determinations completed by the City identified wetland habitat and Willow Creek as occurring on this site. The City gives Willow Creek a rating of Class 2 stream, requiring a 25-ft buffer (measured from the top of the bank) and a 15-ft building setback. 3.2 FIELD DELINEATION RESULTS The weather during the March 5, 2003. site visit was cool (ranging from approximately 40 to 507) with scattered showers. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the water year to -date precipitation was slightly below normal for the Puget lowlands of western Washington. It had rained heavily on March 2, 2003. 3.2.1 CRITICAL AREAS HABITAT We identified one wetland and one creek on this site. The majority of the observed wetland habitat was located in the western half of the site with the wetland edge located between 206 ft and 216 ft in elevation. In addition, an area meeting the soils, vegetation, and hydrology parameters was observed near the southern end of the site where the wetland extends east up the slope to the edge of the large dumping area at approximately 236 ft in elevation. This upslope area has the same soils and vegetation community as found on adjacent upland portions of the slope. The deciding factor to classify this area as wetland was the presence of groundwater within 12 inches of the soil surface. However, the groundwater 05/08/03 11EDMNAMPROCDMI1017TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 3-1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES pattern had a distinctive V-sha pe ape (appearing farther upslope at one location only). A later investigation and site visit on April 18, 2003 determined the water source to be outflow from drain tiles that collect water from the east side of 7`' Avenue and deliver water to the project site as point source approximately 6 inches below the surface. The upland portions of the project site adjacent to this area are considered to be the natural conditions where groundwater travels downslope from the east side of Vh Avenue at a depth below 12 inches from the surface. Because the hydrology at the one upslope area is due to an artificial point source that discharges groundwater close to the soil surface, this area is not considered as wetland and the wetland edge is considered to be the original boundary (as delineated by B&A Inc. 2002) near the. toe of the slope where water seeps into the wetland at a relatively constant topographic elevation across the site. The onsite wetland is part of a larger wetland system adjacent to Willow Creek that extends offsite to the west and north. However, the offsite wetland habitat has been disturbed by adjacent developments and consists primarily of maintained lawn rather than the native plant communities found. on this site. A small area of upland was observed in the northwesternmost corner of the site, but was not flagged because its location excludes any development in this area. Willow Creek meanders through the wetland, flowing first to the north, then to the southwest. It enters the site via a culvert at the southwest boundary of the site. The culvert collects waters from what was the creek's original headwater area prior to development of this area. Willow Creek exits the site at the northwest boundary, joining the west fork of Willow Creek just outside the site boundaries, then flows to the Deer Creek Hatchery and eventually into Puget Sound. The wetland is composed of palustrine forested habitat and is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) with a few western red cedar (Thuja plicata, FAC) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FAU-) scattered throughout. Numerous snags were observed throughout the wetland. The understory is dominated by patches of salmonbeny (Rubes spectabilis, FAC+), with areas of vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC-), Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armenicus, FAC-) and red huckleberry (Vaccinium parifolium, FACU) on hummocks along the edges. The sparsely vegetated ground layer is dominated by patches of skunk cabbage (Lysitchitum americanum, OBL) and piggyback -plant (Tolmiea menziesii, FAC). Other groundlayer species observed in the wetland include lady fern (Athyrium felix- femina, FAC), deer fern (Blechnum spicant, FAC+), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC+), and patches of slough sedge (Carex obnutpa, OBL) and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara, FAC+). Vegetation observed throughout the wetland meets the definition of hydrophytic (wetland or water - loving) vegetation. 05/08103 11EDMNAMPROC107411IWTH AVE CRMCAL AREAS RPT.DOC 3-2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES Soil observed in the wetland is typical of Norma soil and consists of a black 0 tYP (1 YR 2/1) silt loam to a depth of 11 inches BGS. Below 11 inches, soils are a dark gray (10YR 4/1), gravelly sandy loam. This soil meets the definition of hydric soil. The wetland is located within the Willow Creek flood plain. Soils in this area are saturated to the i surface and small areas of pooled water up to 1 inch were observed. Based on a visual evaluation, groundwater flows downgradient from the eastern portion of the site into the wetland and Willow Creek. Wetland hydrology indicators include adventitious roots on the trees located within the wetland, water - stained leaves, saturated soils, and areas of standing water. Based on these characteristics, this area meets I the criteria for wetland hydrology. i 3.2.2 UPLAND HABITAT Upland habitat is comprised of both forested and shrub habitat. The shrub habitat is dominated by nearly monotypic stands of Himalayan blackberry. The forested habitat has widely spaced trees consisting of red alder, big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU), western red cedar, and holly (Ilex aquifolia, FACU). The understory is dominated by salmonberry with areas of Indian plum (Oemlaria cerisformis, FACU), black raspberry (Rebus leucodermis, NI) and an ornamental shrub identified as laurel. The ground layer is composed of patches of stinging nettle and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU). Soils•are similar in color and texture to those observed in the wetland; however, no groundwater was encountered to 18 inches BGS. Thus, the upland area does not meet the vegetation or hydrologic parameters for wetland habitat. ' 3.3 CRITICAL AREAS CLASSIFICATION AND BUFFERS The onsite wetland meets the City of Edmonds definition for a Class 2 Wetland because it is greater than 1 acre in size, is comprised of one habitat type (forested) without an open water component, and does not support species listed as threatened or endangered. Class 2 wetlands are typically given 50-ft buffers with a 15-ft building setback from the edge of the buffer. 1 Willow Creek meets the City's definition for a Category 2 Stream because its flow is less than 20 cubic ft per second and its waters are used by salmon (offsite) at the Deer Creek Hatchery. Category 2 streams are typically given a 50-ft buffer by the City with the same building setback as described for wetland buffers. Because of the position of Willow Creek on this site, the creek and its buffer are contained within the onsite wetland and its buffer. 05/08/03 11EDMNAMPRO00701017TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 3-3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1 4.0 MITIGATING MEASURES 1 The site design plan, dated February 11, 2003, has been reviewed in consideration of mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the onsite wetland and stream. The elements of the site ' design that affect the onsite critical areas or hydrology into these areas include: 1. Building four residences along the east side of the site 2. Averaging the wetland buffer by adding buffer width at the north end of the site and reducing the buffer width at the south end while keeping the total pre -averaging buffer acreage 1 3. Tightlining runoff from driveways into the existing sewer system 4. Collecting roof runoff and dispersing it into infiltration/dispersion trenches at the back of each property 5. Installing ejector pumps in the basement of each home to be tightlined into the sewer system. ' In light of these proposed elements, recommended mitigating measures are given below: 1. Place 6-ft-tall wooden fences along the back boundary of each yard to ensure that people do ' not start to encroach into the buffer or throw yard waste into the buffer. 2. Clear all previously dumped materials from the site. ' 3. Returning roof runoff to the drainage basin via the proposed infiltration/dispersion trenches is recommended in order to ensure that the hydrology of the Willow Creek drainage basin is maintained. This element is recommended if further study finds that slope stability will not be adversely affected by this shallow groundwater and surface runoff. Infiltration rates for the trenches would need to match the stormwater runoff rates for storm events up to the 100- year storm. 4. Rather than tightline water from the ejector pumps to the sewer system, this water could be diverted into the infiltration/dispersion trenches to allow current groundwater flows to be maintained into the Willow Creek drainage basin. This measure is recommended only if this additional runoff would not adversely affect the infiltration and runoff rate calculations described in item 4. 5. The outfall of the existing drain file (encountered on the April 18, 2003 site visit) should be incorporated into the infiltration/dispersion trench to spread water flow across the area and reduce point source erosion. Again, this measure would only be feasible if it did not adversely affect the infiltration and runoff rate calculations described in item 4. 6. Buffer areas that were cleared by large equipment during preliminary site studies should be revegetated with native shrub and tree species that occur on the site in the'same densities that occur in undisturbed buffer areas. This will help to stabilize the slope. In addition, restoration of dense vegetation will serve to protect the wetland and stream from human intrusion. MOM 11EDMNAMPROC1074111017TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 4-1 l ANDAu AssoclATEs 7. The proposed buffer averaging will reduce the buffer near the south end of the site by a maximum of 5 ft. This is not expected to adversely affect the wetland and stream as long as a fence is installed. OS/08/03 NEDMNAMPROC1074111017TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 4-2 LANDAU AssOCIATES 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds and their consultants for the specific application to this project. The use by others, or for purposes other than intended, is at the user's sole risk. The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the Jackson Short Plat project, the City's Critical Areas Regulations, and on vegetative, soil, and hydrology conditions observed during site visits on March 5 and April 18, 2003. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Wetland areas delineated by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until the USACE and/ or local jurisdictional agencies validate the wetland boundaries. Since wetlands are dynamic communities, wetland boundaries change over time. The USACE typically recognizes wetland delineations for a period of 5 years. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Diane Brewster Senior Wetlands Ecologist Samuel Casne Director, Natural Resources DLB/SRC/ccy 05/08/03 \1EDMNAS%WPROC%074111017TH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DDC 5-1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 6.0 REFERENCES B & A Inc. 2002. City of Edmonds Critical Areas Study: Wilderness Bluff" Planned Residential Development. Prepared for A.F.M. Industries, Inc. Gig Harbor, Washington. October. ' City of Edmonds. 2001. City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination. Applicant: Brian & Doloris Buchea. Site Location: West of 7th Avenue South between Elm Street and Birch Street (1.78-acre site). Determination No.: CA-97-59. June 20. ' . City of Edmonds. 1997. City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination. Applicant: Brian & Doloris Buchea/Paul Sowa, John L. Scott Realty. Site Location: West of 7t' Avenue South between Elm Street ' and Birch Street (1.78-acre site). Determination No.: CA-97-59. April 25. City of Edmonds. 1990. Where in the World is Your Watershed: A Guide to Edmonds' Watershed ' Protection (pamphlet). City of Edmonds Public Works Department, Park & Recreation Department, and, Engineering Division. Edmonds, Washington. Debose, A. and M. Klungland. 1983. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington. U.S. I Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University Agriculture Research Center. July. ' Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988, revised 1993. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). Washington, DC. USACE. 2002. Special Public Notice: Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch. Seattle, Washington. USACE. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. Seattle, Washington. May 23. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. USDA. 1988. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. October. 05/08/03 \1EDMNAMPROCN0741110VTH AVE CRITICAL AREAS RPT.DOC 6-1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES tloo e S $ p nD v a % S - 612 ifaD tra! 1114. ae mf nN 70e nr1 nro lilt ills 7l0 °21 11fs nN If]1 /IN Ifb 1131 11rr 1125 lire •n]7 /1b 1141 1126 1140 11 r6 1,73 113e liar Ira Ito 1140 list 1f]I 11q ftq 1140 11e1 1136 1/u nw 7fee /fee all 639 11b 1132 1t= rrse ttef nD 1fA ifeD 1147 1/31 e] Q ar ew 700 Toe 7q efe era 71e 77e no No 61 t � 70f 79 1206 1211 0, I h rno 71i /rrr ara eas 1 ao � frro Tr1 ttu to 710 7" 743 Na ns 1117 +rro Q firs 7/2 77� e:] 12" q 7s0 7w � Na 1:33 ros 707 e1e sr: lyre fro 1 1r1 1237 +rr1 1226 2rr +2r7 f7r7 BIRCH PL /ire /rra n, re ttre /rra all 1 1 1 / f 1r11 123"0 7240 710 7,2 Ira+ 12" 1r34 12a7 uq rrsl 1239 1242 tras 129/ 1290 ; ,�, D �° Subject Property I= 4 1230 7th Ave S!" 'rA 'rb IlSe 7350 P. O 17ts C g W7 77D 671 ro7 � = g ab at 6D1 17 $ ld ii fro faTH WY 7D1 e, 7p 7" nr ns 7]0 1:51 u7r :0 o 710 lie eta , 749 7q 647 744 7 1 /106 no 060 , 14THWYSW 4f1 6 9 9 q 1407 e20 Uf0 645 fets lie er/ e10 /e16 % 1419 � est r en urt 14TH WY SW 1423 lost 630 lie 143/ efs ale 626 774 720 n7 14TM WY efa BN � 7n eu 10519 tout am 717 - /f W ns It 1ee6 eq nD lie im so? e0D 1432 710 1 2606 o soz 3 3 10/15 740 ew eoe 3 Not to Scale _s Source: City of Edmonds W 1230 7th Avenue South tA LANDAU Edmonds, Washington ASSOCIATES Vicinity Map Figure 1 ullr\/Ilunv ul Ave "euanu I I:w/4111MIZIUMUCal Areas ReportV-V.dwg (A)T1gum 2-5/8/M I r ` ♦ + . f ♦ + ♦ ♦ ` • N88030'114W 29C� '8 r _ ' `� L. 1 � d0• - r' + • ♦ ♦ • .• w • T?d973i!' '.V ♦ . ` V ♦ •11. , [ 1 ; 1:t•:� 1 I, \\� e1r i , , ,ig tMllow Creek Y • ♦ • ♦ I c. •. 11 1 II • I/ 1 1 ' I- 1 1�' ; I 1 ; 1 1 or. SAN � t` 25* N _ • ti �+ �• ♦ r • ♦ • • •� r 1 r 11 1 rt.:f �ii it 1 ./� 1 _ a�_ rh • S°a, cd 11� __--_- n ♦ V • • ` • ♦ ♦ V • �♦ • C(��3 • ` ♦ ♦ • • • • • M 1 1 � /i //I 1 � 11 \\`f\ \`®� 1 � II1' R t LATER - ♦ • • .. • • '' 1 . 5l4ww + r + • r.• • ` Y Y - Y �• ♦ ` + + + + . + . ♦ `lilts' i ; I :� � % ; % ;•, ; ' ' 3I • r I a C.li. of I •,� ��' Ti •�O�TV A ''q • + • , i7ta;a •.1�c 1 / ; ' ,tsy 1 //;, 1 ; ., 1 1 71 ------------- 14 jr I 1 n \ 1 MT t2' CM CULVERT Source: AFM Industries 2003 0 50 100. 14 LANDAU scale In Feet 1230 nth Avenue south WFlagging FlMa ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington _ 99.in 9 P Figure 2 0 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM I•W-4I MMUM TO: Al Jackson R kCIM ED FROM: Diane Brewster TT FILE APR 0120 DATE: March 31, 2004 Comm RE: WILDERNESS BLUFF RESPONSE TO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS INTRODUCTION City of Edmonds (City) Planning Division staff reviewed the design plans for the four proposed residences at Wilderness Bluff located at 1230 7`h Avenue S. in Edmonds, Washington and provided comments regarding the sensitive areas in the western portion of the site. In a memorandum dated March 15, 2004, Meg Gruwell documented the City's concern regarding the potential impacts of the reduced building setback and the infiltration trench filter strip on the wetland buffer. The memorandum requested that Diane Brewster review these issues and provide comments on the impacts, if any, on the wetland and wetland buffer. At the request of Al Jackson, these issues are addressed in this memo. As designed, vegetation in the outer 10 ft of the wetland buffer has been temporarily cleared on this site. This was necessary to remove the trash and junk piles that occurred throughout this portion of the buffer and the adjacent upland. In addition, this area of wetland buffer also will serve as a filter strip for the infiltration trenches to be placed at the edge of the buffer behind each residence. Clearing this section of the buffer is a benefit to the wetland and its buffer by removing trash, such as tires, carpet, and lumber, and providing the infiltration trench design required by the City that will allow the wetland to continue to receive runoff amounts similar to pre -development conditions. This filter strip will be initially seeded with grasses for sediment control purposes, then planted with native shrubs and trees to replace lost buffer vegetation. BUILDING SET BACK The March 15, 2003 City memo documents that the Wilderness Bluff site plan shows a building setback from the wetland boundary edge that is reduced from the typical 15-ft width to a 10-ft width. Their concern is whether the reduced setback will adversely affect the wetland buffer. The purpose of a building setback is to allow enough room for heavy equipment to maneuver around the construction site and avoid degradation to the wetland buffer vegetation. Because the first 10 ft of the buffer has been temporarily cleared of vegetation; no buffer vegetation occurs within 20 ft of FJ 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 9 (425) 778-0907 9 fax (425) 778-6409 9 www.landauinc.com t the building footprints. Thus, the reduced building setback will have no adverse affect on existing buffer vegetation during construction of the project. A line of straw bales (located between the cleared filter strip and the undisturbed buffer vegetation) mark.the edge of remaining buffer vegetation and no equipment will go beyond these bales, ensuring that the existing buffer vegetation will not be disturbed. The infiltration trenches will be installed and the final grading of the filter strip will be completed after the backfill phase for the house foundations. Following construction of the trenches and filter strip, the fence along the edge of the wetland buffer (located between the infiltration trenches and filter strip) will be installed to protect the cleared buffer area from further disturbance and compaction. This filter strip will be initially seeded with grasses for sediment control purposes, then planted with native shrubs and trees to restore native buffer vegetation. FILTER STRIP WITHIN THE NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT The March 15, 2003 City memorandum documents the location of the 10-ft filter strip within the outer portion of the wetland buffer and requests an evaluation of any impacts on the buffer and/or wetland. Wetland buffers serve numerous functions, one of which is to attenuate and filter ground and surface waters that flow into the wetland. Thus, the proposed filter strip is a low -impact use of buffer area, and is compatible with the functions naturally provided by buffers. The temporary clearing of vegetation in this area was done to satisfy engineering requirements for the infiltration trenches and to remove the trash that was present onsite. The cleared area will be initially seeded with grasses to provide sediment and erosion control. This will protect the downslope buffer vegetation and wetland habitat. Native shrubs and trees will be planted per the Plant Recommendations report by Dave Timbrook (see attached) to restore buffer vegetation to the filter strip and will serve to provide the runoff attenuation and filtration typically present in naturally -occurring systems. Four trees are proposed to replace the three trees removed from the filter strip area. The proposed shrubs will provide greater shrub cover than that originally present in this area, and will replace some dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry. The swordfern proposed for groundcover will replace the previously weedy ground vegetation species. As long as specifications for plant materials, timing of planting, and watering the new plantings as presented in the Plant Recommendations report are followed, the revegetation plan is expected to be successful. In addition, the soils in this area also contain a healthy seed base and live roots of the previous shrub, tree, and groundcover vegetative community and volunteers of these species are expected to re-establish along with the new plantings. o3/ im %\Edmdwawwedoa7mwwemm Bluff Tech Me—doc 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES • • The work completed within the filter strip will improve this area beyond pre -development conditions given the amount of trash and invasive plants that were present on this site and will restore the naturally -occurring functions within the buffer. CONCLUSION The reduced building setback and use of the outer 10 ft of the buffer for a filter strip will have no adverse affect on the wetland buffer or the wetland. Because this site had been used as an informal landfill for years, this site plan results in an improvement of buffer by removing trash and junk from the buffer. In addition, the temporary disturbance to buffer vegetation for installation of the infiltration trenches and establishment of the 10-ft filter strip is minimal compared to the benefit of continuing to provide pre -development runoff to the wetland, ensuring that the Wilderness Bluff development will not significantly reduce the water budget of the wetland. USE OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Al Jackson and his consultants for the specific application to this project. The use by others, or for purposes other than intended, is at the user's sole risk. The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the project, City of Edmonds Critical Areas Regulations, and on vegetative, soil, and hydrologic conditions observed during numerous site visits. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. 03/31/04 UEdmdata\sharedoc%729\Wildemess Bluff Tech Memo.doc 3 LANDAU AssociIATES DAVE TEMBROOK CONSULTING ARBORIST - ISA Cettified #PN1199 359 NE 195th Street Sbareliney WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 362-6410 Cell (425) 343-2248 PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS for 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH EDMONDS WA Prepared for Also Jackson August 59 2003 2004 PERMIT CWLATER Property address: 1230 7te Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7m Ave.' S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The Current development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and. 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas. Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Deaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, Ocean Spray, SaW and Sword Fern with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. PLANT SIZE OTY APPROX. S Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.06 ea. Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea, Red Flowering Currant (Rites sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfem (Polystichum munitum) 1 gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature height plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum spacing of S feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing should be the maximum for them. The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. The Swordfern should also be planted in groups with a spacing of 18 inches. The ultimate survival of the plant material will be the care they get immediately after they are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next fiill growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fiilfill the watering needs for establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fidll and winter. Continued watering in the spring and, summer will insure the survival of the plants. I i It ELM FLA CE j ♦ • t. . . . f t . • f { • • f a 1 �\ • t ♦ s • ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • ♦' ♦ .t V 1; 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • t • • f t ♦ f ♦ • • 1 1 � f ♦ f f f ♦ f ♦ ! f f ♦ f f f f •• • f f f ♦ • t ♦ ♦ f ♦ { ♦ • f f • i f f ! f F. ♦ { ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ { • • ♦ f • __ _ ♦ • ♦ { • • • { • ♦ ♦ ♦ { ♦ f ♦ • • _-_—__--__�__—_ ♦. ♦ t ♦ f { ♦ 't • ♦ f ! f f ♦ OFk F f k f • • 11 S1T♦ f ♦ t i ♦ f • • ♦ ♦ { • f ♦ t ♦ f • ♦ ♦ f f f f ♦ • ♦ i ♦ i ♦ ♦ t ♦ i ♦ f f ♦ ♦ ♦ • f f f f f f f r f ♦ • { { f ♦ f f ! f f f t • f Q• { f • • ♦ f • ♦ ♦ • ♦ f ♦ ♦ •. ♦ ♦ s QUO, � ``\t ` \\` � • f f ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • `'�'. -�'�---_--_ 31 �1y O \ `.tip♦ � f s a ♦ f ♦ _ �L--�•--_ --_ 1 •• � � 1 ova � '-- -_-_ �-- - •+--___ `--__-- --�_ --- --- `T- _Fy, A711, 7A An I F1 I• lip •I -1 � I � I v � . . i � I I• I I 0 3 R L4 ,` o A M 31 .. • • LANDAU IA ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM LI TO: Lambert Creek FROM: Landau Associates DATE: 04/01/2004 RE: PAYMENT FOR WILDERNESS BLUFF - PROJECT # 792001 WE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CHECK NO 2322 DATED 04/01/2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF $800.00 FROM LAMBERT CREEK LLC. FOR PAYMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICES PROVIDED BY LANDAU ASSOCIATES. RECEIVED BY BILL ORTIZ �-tIt �0 ACCOUNTING DE r.ANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 9 (425) 778-0907 9 fax (425) 778-6409 9 www.landauinc.com G18OTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • 13256 Northeast 2Uth Street. Suite 16 Bellevue. Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 Alan Jackson ` 16401 Highway 99 r Lynnwood, Washington 99037 Subject, Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences — Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson, April 16, 2004 JN 03322 RECEIVED APR 19 2004 PERMIT COUNTER via facsimile- (425) 787-9112 We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots.(Lots 1, 2, and 3) of the subplat. The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by CSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003. We completed a geotechnical study of this site on September 3, 2003. The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level'discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability at the subject site. GEOTVCH CONSULTANTS. INC. bran Jackson • • JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, EOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. b Ap/-O' 3James H.'Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stott or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 4sa Bride via facsimile: (425) 672-9182 Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JHS: jhs* GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 0 STREET FIE, DAVE TIMBROOK CONSULTING ARBORIST - ISA Certified #PN1199 359 NE 195th Street Shoreline, WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 362-6410 Cell (425) 343-2248 � .GF IV ED APR 1.9 2004 PERMIT COU" ER PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS for 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH EDMONDS WA Prepared- for Alan Jackson August 5, 2003 k,CUX5;6A 13,,IA STREE-T FILE Property address: 1230 7" Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7 h Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, Ocean Spray, Salal and Sword Fern with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are. not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. PLANT SIZE OTY APPROX. $ Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea. Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea. Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea_ Red Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) 1 gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature height. Plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum spacing of 5 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing should be the maximum for them. The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. The Swordfern should also be planted in groups with a spacing of.18 inches. . The ultimate survival of the plant material willbe the care they get immediately after they are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next full, growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fulfill the watering needs for establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall and winter. Continued watering in the spring and summer will insure the survival of the plants. rVR�' V/ ELM PLACE �L 1 �f • 1 � / d.. { ♦ f ♦ f f f 4!f{f f f f f f7k f t f t t t t < t ♦ f E f t ! < i Ui l i t t f k ♦ k i { { { a ♦ i ♦ f s s / r ! < t f rf ♦ ! t f � ♦ < r f ♦ < f 1 4 E f <. < E f f f f ♦ ♦ t < f ! f t < 4 1 /• IF f 4 ♦ { f { ♦ ♦ 4 f ♦ { ♦ 4 { f { 4 f 1 1 f ♦ f r ♦ f ♦ f ♦ f ♦ ♦ ,. ♦ f ♦ f ♦ f f f 1 1 �'! f E f f f f f ♦ f f { { f tt t t t f f t f --------------------- ON____--f t f 4 f t f 4 f ♦ f {' ♦ f 4 { • t f f 4 f -� �- � f r r r < r r f r f f t t ♦. t f f � t r ♦ ♦ < ♦ -------------------- -- k E f i k f t t t t f k f t t 1) "�/i r k f f 4 4 k i F i f { f 4 { 4• 4 { f f 4 f f 4 1 yii f E E f E k f f f k f { { k < { t f t t ♦ f f f ♦ t f f fTas f t♦ ♦ f{ f I f i a t♦ i t 4 { f 4! f f f k t k fyi,+ f { f f f flyt ♦ f f t t f �I`ww !' t V N { {• f 4 ♦ { f f� f { f ♦ .{... i'f� { { t f •ice{ • t f t f ♦ ♦ < f ! i t f ♦ t t f f k ! f E E f f f t t f E ♦ t! { f ♦ k f ♦ t 4 i { f f f f ♦ { 4 ♦ f f 4 { t { /�� ; k� ! ♦ f k f < < E f f f f f f f t f f f f f ! < t t E E E f k t f < k 4 ♦ f f f 4 E f < t t f t t f I i i f f f F i i ♦ f �70 E t f f E f ♦ { 4 � f t t � f t ♦ ♦ f ♦{ � f E ♦ f 4 t f < f f { f t { { { f ♦ { { y f f 4 f ♦ { yyy ' *vv \ t � ! f t � t f f f ♦ ! f t f ♦ f ♦ vi f { t ♦ < < vvl vv� f f f t t f ♦ t f f f f jw�, Iv vy { ♦1 4 t ♦ f i i f f _--------- vvvl v \f f f f t .t f f f f ! v.��y-i1�_i-_•___• __ NJ 1` `� f f f ♦ E f 4 i N►LNv �'I C�v aa_Vl�j/1�� 1 a , 1 1 I � � 1 -�- ---- - ---- Awes fib � �- I I I I � I II I � � /voo .nr u-w . . Lori . . • + I ; , CD h I 1 i A — to 14R7D• I _ Or r . • E . IOxs Ss n �\I 17 . raalr• ' � 1 ; C. tit—• —; �—r"i"' � ��. 5C C.O. I 1 1 I 1 I 1 v I I 1 I \ maw eesnoa . . . . .. . . .. .. _ ... .I r ly 1 / • / I � 1 fx. ce. — — s . .. .. IdA:S . .. 'j?" / / j �1�" , r i � /' 'p�CX�. Cy$ rar_----'- \ _tea . . .. •.Y ' r-•' r r / i�; /r, 1i 1 ' SEX. C.B. ` ` ` '` ' - • EX W MDRA i SK sat ma I h \ /Z C6 14 \I 15 I 1 17 r1d �i -4 �ti Ad&vss. I I 21 _J_-- I � � A1[ STti!!iJ sue, � I NE III 30' Bags!# Y. ftj"t Dates la P M A& LAAID14Z- m *AM cr uv/siparAe Rat euaoc (FCQTW) saw PAR" FWPOSM omm- am 1195 nxew4 a MNE :CORDING CERTIFICATE. rXED�FOR RECORD THIS M DAY Or _ A Plot Map o � ^ ST✓ 1 I o A.F.M. INDU,S'TRIP.S. INC. I Preliminary LVIVG r, SETBACKS: FRONT SIDE -_ a ....-... O HER � HEIG, APP ,?VVED BY ENCdNEERING V(li. wI lb/-r,. 1 �i ALL BE MAXIMUM gl''IVEWAY � LLED 14% " 9 0, 74• \ N 1 ID 9 S� Sr- - I �PHG'i-1 tt /1 Mew �iCoPA C{IdFF$ �" FEJ.1cE HERE. DV I !ay it Cr I W06p W, Ne. GpMPL T , (POSED'at1RFACES TO FILTF VERED WITHIN 2 DAYS F-6 e&4e r �v M Lt�G�¢ WATER & SEWER fi INSPECTIONS. READ. DALL 4-771-0220 EXT. 1 IW P; �EA-A TZid'�1. , W '1 PLD i FL,wJ I�, F D w w -TAX o,c_ct Z 703 ZS"DO 3 o I 1 0 0 t� tll C P,-.r--r- O F ) -- V J: I%Z-1-7 sa.F=r 'r 1/+�PE2�/IOUS S UTLFb:GE ; �. L3 U I I_DII.1 c. ROOF S. (-- p GC F� = I g 8 S• F. 17 R.1 Y E � W f.l..i� _ �o S Z_ _ S • F-. A AREA O F 1> I S-r V R. Z /A" V DE S -Z OF- LOT/ -I-n �v u�P,4 g11FF i+; �IuG (0 9.51 M � M M 160 I n TOTO .T. I� DETTIO J Sy 1 Iro�o �i.lr�,t�l al L 0 Z39,4 TD M. PruP�� e�1 �I 5.�cr C-Kl P, S PILE/ ov6V- I NI" 4 HOUR Z 3 ca.�a.al o c X 30 ETC-- t o" N K y II 1 3 1 IIS4 IU � A co c, �.tVE � q tl gu VARY v SPA LLS � „ KS C- 48 FLC>I J fZt=STftIGTOr- WA.TE iL r,. �/ a%o N r. C,A��s PEW s7-Z40,0 Z. 3 0. Z- 6 e234,SI FIu. L%4JK. sv113 _ Z3o.4t N�fax, "—I. 'L 51.$ 1 t>sTt-. os= FaOTII,1G= f HC_TvAL = Z-5� ,S zzg -7' r->/-TUhI?O1h1T; SAI.I.G.A`.H. = z4-0, Sz' , 1u r.--o w -T OG L,o-r I �\ "1 ✓F•II.IAL c0N-ro U2.S, 1 F Gl✓ LlCED lR 6(�AU1IJlo V S C-v . -4 D s . SGAL FILL-: LfaO C-0. -(Ds. �¢ pISPOSE of ,_xcESS Hr 7Rul ArrR-0va-a s tTG VEXPOSE17 SOIL.- -too IS covEQSp W 2 ovTt_eT �-1�1>✓ To DISP /ILiFIL,rI?.. ICE s�--Iiz tJ D I W� B cc 'r7 I w � �� • WM ., 0 F EDllr_ IN 7 AVE S CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS- BUILT ADDRESS H❑ME❑WNER 1232 - 7 AYE S GRAM NW C❑NTRACT❑R SCALE NTS DATE DRAWN WATERLINE 12-10-2004 IDY SIBREL N❑. 2004-0320 �. '•�....,�ri.+w ;,.:- 'T+ .�."''.r.o,^„_"—�...-�. 1.•.`st'yi';.'Y�.�w.wrlSq'",",w-r""�.`t':;-yc ��,•�,.,y„^��,s1 1�i'�'3i i}.'.• ..F • C i Of EdmondsPERMIT NO: 9843 1 o R PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES n t g9 SIDE SEWS* Address of Construction: CX LID # Property Tax Account Parcel No. 9-70 3 2 ; M Attach copies of all access Owner and/or Contractor, License #: utility easements Verified and Approved by 5AISingle Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) ❑ Public uilding Permit #: Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes *RW Construction Permit # Cross other, **Private Property: ❑ Yes No **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. _ Owner/Contractor q& Owner or co tractor signature and acknowledgement statement: ate By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled 0ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-42q 5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION ' rY\ W FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensions i 24 HOUR NOTICE REOUIRED FOR ALL INSPEO�TION REOUE-- STS_ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I 4I , ee $ - 1 Repair Fee $ Issue eorm t _50 . Date Iss Assessment Fee $ Receipt No:�.� City Permit Surcharge Fee 600 a, Total Fees Paid $ �7/ NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES - b NO Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: 1 Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: 0< Initial: I IV ` As -built to Street File: ❑ t� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg;forms;ssperrnitjlg4/00 - " .. • I 6m ADDRESS S A -VC- c, R CONTRACTOR rA--.n, /V W I '5QamE DATE (o/ivie/®`� IBRA1�¢tJ I SCALE o PERT NO. 20,44 "O � 7AVE S —� 25FROM CURB a m 6" PVC 7AVES SDR 35 GRAVITY SEWER ss ss ss ss EASEMENT 6" C/O @ GRADE 2.5' 8' 2" POLY W/ TRACER WIRE FORCE LINE 4' GRAVITY GRINDER PUMP 3' FROM WALL 1232 3' CHECK VALVE 1.5' FROM PUMP 3' GRINDER/EJECTOR PERMIT # 2004-0747 OF ED-:610� CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT d ADDRESS HOMEOWNER 1232 - 7 AVE S CONTRACTOR SCALE _GRAHAM NW NTS DATE DRAAW PERMIT At 1890 01 /27/2005 BY S I B RE L 03/21 /2005 NO. 9843 . yY r FDATE RECEIVED 1 r r• CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS DAVib (. FFOR C76?AN>gM Mom/wirer /r W MAILING ADDRESS ill: 7 1C) I O Re 11n.ST,4 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE W0DDI N V t L_Le oo-7-1 4 -18$- •289 % NAME ADWESS a i CITY,, ZIP TELEPHONE NAME CBL# ADDRESS 7A1 o t 0 t4 e CITY ZIP TELEPHONE OOP /4v1 t- STATE LICENSE NUMBER on A toXPLFj/�TLOI�uS�TE C KED 2 PROPERTY TAX'. ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. t• ® QCA 1 tl I 54,o -T LA-r-4 5-Z003-3q of 2DONZ-0167-?: ® NEW RESIDENTIAL � ' PLUMBING / MECH ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ CHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN FENCE ❑ REPAIR 10 G CYDS ❑ .( X ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER ` GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM i (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: 11 a OF NUMBER F CRITICAL OF DWELLING AREAS D STORIES 7— UNITS NUMBER CA -11 - DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE PERMIT EXPIRES 2 PERMIT JJ��(('�� ff NUMBER 0O — f� l ORES j� f SUITE/APT# itD LAT �E/SUBDIVISION NO LOT NO. LID NO. 1J LID FEE $ CP PUBLRW Pe IC OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Approveeqd r Permit Rulretl •-------- Street Use Permit Req'd " PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required •Q % MET IZEIO LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED r, YES)( NO 13 /�k z W REMARKS z OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE z z ESN : 0 A I Nf (( NGINEERING REVIEWED BY v DATE /IkIRE REVIEWED BY DATE m k LL VARIANCE OR CU .; SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND REQ'D POSTED SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSEDI EXP Q s� 1 2-4 �15 LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSE p FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR 2. Cif'' O z PARKING I LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DA E. REO'D PROVIDED �u REM k ^"...,,, .�„ m_.M-... v ry w m m., j •�~"..".< d' T" . C :T" "-"3 a7 C"� +� l 1 CHECKED BY TYPE OF CON_ST ON ad"�AI COQE dd] OCCUPANT GROUP ' �r`y's�9r 4 q d SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Wy,S JAREA f T REMARKS t9 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 VALUATION Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAZING LOT SLOPE % ~^� '" Building Permit ,� . Z �^" City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE Plumbing ' 1, .� THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t Mechanical BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC 2 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading t SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review 4 2 �6 w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS n PERMIT LIMIT! 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK 15 STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection ;% SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION N 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire RBVIeW Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND a Fire Inspection Recei t # ll p a ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. / Total Amt. Due = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' ' Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL This,application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. SIG[J!) UR (,WMER OR AGENT)_ DATE SI NED 6VO OFFICIALS SI NATURE DATE 425i / 2M 771-0220 ATTENTIION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL._. ,RELEASED-BY04, EXT 1333 �, /DATE` i �J /cz -INAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- (i OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 / I ORIGINAL -FILE • YELLOW .'INSPECTOR PINK - OWNER OASSESSOR PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCCOUUNTINGNTING �'� '�• ... .. ., _ _ - «ltsfi�7.I�R'.T,,. .. . �i°�:."P""n...... ..-.....—,-%�"-^ ... �.�w.,,,,n}... µ-r-"'�"'P•"�0"Tl�7�:F ... r... r e ... - .-� "V City of Edmonds RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: ^n B. Type of Work (be specific): ti/ (AIS�C��GIN A Mailing Address: AZ (e 3 r h State License #: D. Building Permit # (if applicable) 747)'f - 0319 "1 0 Phone: Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: . F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES O G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES _NO INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages ' or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any offits departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason. of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ,WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall -be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must, be trained as required by . (WAC) 296-155-305. and must have certification verifying completion of the .. :required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes.' All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end fdf the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ ...Three sets of construction drawing"s.of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555)'PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK i I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND. THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKTHE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: l i.° � ,:• .;:�ti :Date': - 112�1 [ � - .. ,�• (Contractor or Agent) FOR CITY USE ONLY Approved by: Time Authorized: Void'After 14 1 i Spec'al Conditions:.ypd u -- II1�JS/L/)7./.�1LL t �J/ Right-of-way Fee: Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: �` Receipt Nip- D Issued bw: - 9 /7 i,l11�._..�,.. UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT'COD Ph ne 425-77 -0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: _ DATE 1 Inspector's ignature -5, 5'DATE-1 J� 1 ,1/1 0 For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout., NO WORK SHALL 131JAN PIZIOIZ TO 1`ElZMIT ISSUANCE NW 1/4, SW' 1/4, SECTION 25, TOW SHIP ELM PLACE I C) C) N29RI8, w w w w w w w w w 1492.99'w w .v w v`, - �%j'- -' T_ 7- w Nil, I I III � w wd. w w w w w w w w w w w w w w I I I I . (."w .v w w w • w w• w w w w w .t, w w w � �9 � l� 1 0o w w w w v, w w w w w w w w w LOT 1%1/ w w w w w w .� w .v '• v. • 19, 6y39. S.F. w w w w w w w w w w w w w w I J. �.v w w w w � � w w w � w .i. w .� w I• 1 I j I w w w Nv w \ w w w w w w w w w wl I I 1 x • y, .V w w w w .�. w w •�. w w w .�. w •�• I I I I 1 I w w LL]� .t, w •�. w w � � � w � w w. w w I I � PLC I � w w w w w w w •�. I.� i �6'' I• 1 I ( 1 �'� w w •� w w w �" w w w w w w w w w l ! I I1 w w w �� .� w w w •� w 's, I i I 1 1 IG `` w w\ .� .v •� w \V w f L0 Tw 2 CL w v. .i, w w 2 1 I I 1 I 19,7�75 S. F,t, w ` •►� w \ . I I w w w w , w :1, LLJ ;4- .� �' w w w� ww w w .� w • w w w� .i, w w w 'w ' I I I • I I 1 � w w w w w w •� w w w w w w 2�0.74'.� w I o ( / C.).. I.i. .�• w ,t, w w w w �, w w .i. .i,, . w w w •i. , I I1>%/ w w w •�. w w w w �, w .� w �, w w OE 1' . w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w •� I. a, P,�. I w w w w w w w w Lw 0 �' I .v w.' w w w i I XISTING .�' w �' I AN. SWR. & WATER I I PLO w w w w w w w w w w w w .v .� �, w w w. tTILITY EASEMENT . I .V w •V .w •t, .t, .t, .t, w ' .t, +l. w w .v w •b •L � ! 1 . ------- 1 11 (w w 14e w w w w w w w w w w w IJ J I IV w�?90.77�, Jl, �� ,i, ,v �t w +t, w w •v w w w w w .� w .� w � / / � �•' �, w ��/]v�` F`�, w w w w w w w w w w w �, w � / / v w v, w w w LTv ,w P ER w w w w w w •�• w w A/ 18, 916 S.F. � w w se i cv EXIST 12 " CONC. CULVERT 14 15 I I 16. 1 7 PROPOSED SI 56'X38(N 7 NORTH, A GE 3 EAST, Wk. - - - - - SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR .VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE a. 15 SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN •SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 1 CALL 1-800-424-5555. 1 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION* SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC o I WORKS CONSTRUCTION" AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE -CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY o _ REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. o - Q 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE M } CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. SSCO 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF IE=233.12 THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. c 1 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY o 1 CONSTRUCTION. �- �'� Q (2) 8x6 WYES (N&S) 6. SIDE SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL AND BEDDED PER CITY STANDARD a v W/CO TO GRADE DETAILS. BACKFILL ABOVE BEDDING SHALL BE CDF (2 SACK MIX). IE=233.08 ' 7. SIDE SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS FOR SUCH 1 INSTALLATION. 8. SEWER LATERAL SHALL BE TESTED AND OBSERVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. 1 48t LFN8"4 9. SIDE SEWER STUBS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2"x4" LOCATED AT THE END WITH ccn SEWER LINE PORTION ABOVE GROUND PAINTED WHITE WITH BLACK LETTERS LABELED "SEWER" WITH DEPTH. z Q I S=1.00% 10. . LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVERS SHALL, BE PLACED OVER CLEANOUTS AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND w CORE dt RECHANN� AT ALL PROPERTY LINES.6 o 1 SSMH EX 11. LATERAL INTO THE SEWER MANHOLE SHALL HAVE A SAND COLLAR. a S RIM=240.52 WATER NOTESSW1. M. H. IE=23260 (VERIFY) S 1. APPROXIMATE LOCA11ONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF cy THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS '� .O N TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 4 CALL 1-800-424-5555.t 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR* MUNICIPAL PUBLIC sSlONAL ��� 30' 25' (2) DOMESTIC Q N WATER METERS (lYP) WORKS CONSTRUC110N" •AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY . 'PER COE STD DETAIL E7.6 REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. EXPIRES:11 07/04 /p.13•03 . 0 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE .INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL N011FY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. DESIGN/DRAWN/CHECKED: JSH co 1 ' '/7 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT. AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT. TO THE INSPECTION BY CoI THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. , M 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY EXIST WATER CONSTRUCTION. ;w o 6. CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS SHALL INSTALL THE WATER METER AND LINE TO THE MAIN. c� MAIN 7. ALL WATER SERVICES BETWEEN METER AND HOUSE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. `� M ALL MATERIAL, EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF .THE CONTRACTOR. 4 (; C CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL FOR SERVICE INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. ci 8. WATER SERVICES BETWEEN HOUSE AND METER SHALL BE TYPE "K" COPPER PIPE OR 160 PSI w Ll 10 E POLY PIPE PER CITY STANDARDS. L In C 0 S 9. CALL THE ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE FOR INSPECTION, TESTING AND PURITY. tR N 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SERVICE LINES WITH CURB STOPS AND METER BOXES TO PROPERTY x c LINE. B 1(E=234.32 11. COORDINATE PLACEMENT OF WATER Li CDF BACKFILL W/ CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS �� - C6 j DEPARTMENT TO OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CITY INSPECTION. ai c c v a. CLCL v Q CONNECTION POINT C v 'o FOR SFR W/ CO � LLIN �• r'a TO GRADE (TYP) Qj z v DETAICLPER �E6.2� 0 N c IE=235.6 Clca 1 o I N EX. C. SSCO 0,) i j IE=236.92 EX. C.B. Birch P•1-cce I EX. C. B. EX. FIRE HYDRANT / U, -__► O M Lu / APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONLu H gay'Engineer Date LLJ ~ IN Q Z1. W CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 C4 R c FEB ; D 31004 PERMIT COUNTER 03 -�l� �'-�,� NUJ RECEIVED FEB - 32004 PERMIT COUNTER NW 1/4, SW 1/4, SECTION 25, TO ELM PLACE N88'030 ` J N 296 .L .v v. �v �v �v �v �v �v •v •v �v �v Ji y � I �1 I I • I I I I �v ova,• �v �v •v .v �v •v •v �v �. �v .v �v .I, .v I I 1 co I I I .� •v �. .� .� •� •� 19,659. S.F? .v V/ %v Iv Nv %v %l/ \v • 1 y v. .v .v .L .v �, .1r .V .v •v IP •V I I I I I I IV I-P .v •v I'v I I I I I I I I • .v �v �v •li �v �v �v �v � •li .li .V •v •li y .V I I I I I %v •v .v .v .v .V w •v �v •v .v w .v w •v \v I •� I I 1 1 I ♦-i _290.,ZOI 1 14, y � .v •v •v .v '� •v �v •v •v w v� .v •v I.v i 3C I • 1 I TT�I�, c •� ( 1 .v .v .v w �v •v \" .v •v v vi •v •v .v w .v I I I I 1 \ 1 ,, lic � � �. � �'� I ly •v .v I/�' .v �L v �v �L •v •v .v •v I �'' CL 19,Z75 S. F.v • .v .v .v �v �Y •� � �v �Y •v �l. .v �l. •v .v •v . �L �1/ a I I ( I I 1 . � ,.,� I .v �v •v �('� ' •v v� .v .v .v .v � � .v .v .v •v � I I I \1 G 4- �v w •v �( •v .v .v •v .v .v •v •v y .v .v •v I I I I 11 1v`\ •v qL .v .v `v 2'J0.74' (i)NvI I I I pE I .v .v •v •v .v •v w v. .v �v W �v •v •v .v •v I 3� I I 1 Q. •v •v •v •v •v •v v. \v "v I ` O.v . 7� .v Ji �v �L •v •v •v I I I � I EXISTING � � � � � � � � � � � � � SAN. SWR. & WATER I UTILITY EASEMENT •v .v \11 .►. .v �v 41 .� .v v .� w .v •� .� •v �. I 1. . I •v �v J/ � •v •v •v � � � •v y y y •v .v � `Y `LIT I I I •v .v - .t`- --Tj -- .v- -- .v-------w-- - .lr- d, ,tom _ •i, .�,-�90.77�, , q, y \L, %4, 11, ( / I ' �� .v ��jv�- F`��v v. .v .v •v .v J. �v .v .v Vi •v �v w ( l l N88 � � \ \ w \/ /.v 7i"9\s� •v .v � v. v �v �v �v �v �v .v �v � ,) I c`„7o �'L� `v .v .v •v � •v .v .v � l •v �D'` / l /l 3 / / l • T -)J 113 s r 0 IW C) 1 I i N EXIST 12 " CONC. CULVERT I 1 4 15 I 16 PROPOSED I I I � / i 56, (. ) I I GE 3 EAST, W.M. 15 SSCO IE=233.12 W�Cp TO t�OWEE �, . IE=233.08 ' 48f LF-8"0 SEWER LINE S=1.009G CORE & RECHANN i, 6 -EX SSMH 1 RIM=240.52 IE--232.60 (VERIFY) --- (2) DOMESTIC t3 WATER METERS (TYP) ,,,PER COE STD DETAIL E/.6 A 1/ EXIST WATER MAIN SSCO 11E=234.32 1 CONNECTION N FOR SFR W/ CO TO GRADE (TYP) PER COE STD DETAIL E6.2 IE=235.6 ssco IE=236.92 _W EX. C.B. Birch P*l,cce EX. C. B. EX. FIRE HYDRANT 2 SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS ANDARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR .VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE a SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN •SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ' SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION" AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE • CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY o REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE N CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. o 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. v 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY �- o CONSTRUCTION. ►- 6. SIDE SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL AND' BEDDED PER CITY STANDARD a i DETAILS. BACKFILL ABOVE BEDDING SHALL BE CDF (2 SACK MIX). 7. SIDE SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS FOR SUCH o INSTALLATION. 8. SEWER LATERAL SHALL BE TESTED AND OBSERVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ,c to 9. SIDE SEWER STUBS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2"x4" LOCATED AT THE END WITH o b PORTION ABOVE GROUND PAINTED WHITE WITH BLACK LETTERS LABELED "SEWER" WITH DEPTH. 10. . LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVERS SHALL' BE PLACED OVER CLEANOUTS AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND 8181 AT ALL PROPERTY LINES. o a 11. LATERAL INTO THE SEWER MANHOLE SHALL HAVE A SAND COLLAR. a WATER NOTES s S 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLCT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555.t 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM .TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR*MUNICIPAL PUBLIC s`S.0NAL E � WORKS CONSTRUCTION" • AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. EXPIRES:it 07/04 /0-/3•-o3 . 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. DESIGN/DRAWN/CHECKED: JSH 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT. AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT. TO THE INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. w 6. CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS SHALL INSTALL THE WATER METER AND LINE TO THE MAIN. '� 7. -ALL WATER SERVICES BETWEEN METER AND HOUSE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. >Ir - en ALL MATERIAL, EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF .THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL FOR SERVICE INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. Q M 8. WATER SERVICES BETWEEN HOUSE AND METER SHALL BE TYPE "K" COPPER PIPE OR 160 PSI v POLY PIPE PER CITY STANDARDS. 4 E E 9. CALL THE ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE FOR, INSPECTIONtrt -TESTING AND PURITY. _ �' H 0 � u 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SERVICE LINES WITH CURB STOPS AND METER BOXES TO PROPERTY �' ..: oo c LINE, 11. COORDINATE PLACEMENT OF WATER LINE CDF BACKFILL W/ CITY' OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS G c DEPARTMENT TO OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CITY INSPECTION. ppad r V aJ GJ` ON G. lu a. Wyk E c 0 N ,C c 0 Jc APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. C' ngineer Date CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-SSSS LL U . 0� (A Z3LIJ � cl O © � uj LI.I 'EB - 3 MIT cDUNTER �a3a 7A aPe5 &?�an1 Nu' S-F-,L R""4ED FEB - 3 2004 PERMIT COUNTER