Loading...
15500 75TH PL W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 14710 15500 75TH PL W O Z D O Ch n O r D m v N y C CD G. 20CD o r: m rn �n o N CD mwG)<- < N m co CA mcop O �-., ;u o �N) M ~ m _ z g° _ C�z r°v° m M ODQ r Cn O O z z !0 0 0) CAD A n g CD o o o ,< .... W 00 w C r C o (0o O N O O O W O Ui O O O W v CD U1 P'r 0 y cD cD m CD y C. CD 7 0 CD z m a ara � d O� IrD O O m U � I re ILI 41 I I d z O Q N 0 W w W A D m m co m z v N O N O 0 7 Wo 00 0 7 w A 0 0 C-1 N .n.. N ..n... -< 90 Cl)OD O m m 0 0 c 0 0 N 0 O 0 3 m 3 m cu O O CD O 3 o cp o CD Q. n W 3 CD a w 3 C CD D D n n 0 0 D y 0 z z z D �I O CD a fD CD m DTi CD a y fD Q T CD N ( 3 CD < Z CD O .R cn M v 0 3 cnm m 7 < L D Z N D z m z G) N O 0 w O o j O O O O N A W V N m A = O A D m m v K 0 z v 0 W O K M c m m D z W r v O W O W V C m D m O m v 0 z v 0 V V 0 O 3 m m m » 'a rn � m CD c a fD TI a 7 rr � a D o o CD z CD G) o� N CD 0 7 9 3. � =i m X (i x m Z G) 00 Oo X CD m n a N e c c W w a z0 v { 7 `° D C r o � (P coY O 0 O O O N m�. 0 V A A M JJ = 1p � 0 r 0 0 O 0 N z n r_ v co m m v a 0 V V 0 O 3 3 m > m > a m CD a T 7 01 . 1. RETURN ADDRESS: CONFORMED COPY pGS City of Edmonds, City Clerk 201304150244 121 5th Avenue North 0411512013 10:08am $75.00 Edmonds, WA 98020 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 4175GTON COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference #: Grantor(s): (1)64005;� 1.DL_42A). (7ZXhgh,VVAl,�;&.'t2,dj Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec 0$' Twn 27I Rng 4 E Qtr .5`Y V4L of/ 1Xf_ OR Lot Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) 005222 00O2D 10 (2) Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned . CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING DATE:--f PAGE 4 OF Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: 1. Description of Subiect Property. APF OVEP FOR RECORDING: DATE: �,�---/� PAOE OF This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of / 6 6 d p ;Zg,r— (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 1-Ut JbS. INC-A7Do vJDAL r--- -fRAL-IS -8kKJ aoo .D-cam 3 VT p/ LO rr 4L LV t✓ o)-,f W i-Jf 6X I ST )q.� 41 so N 10 F- t-07- i L V v✓ or w 4-1I or X r ST Z5 T�0 ✓' C 2r l 75 T1 AVE kJ -'be-SO- errV or t7AM o?D 32 n3 RED Q 15,03 01Q7 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of APPROVED OR RECORDING: DATE: PAGE OF the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the rile as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or I DONE this I day of 4tte,aSJ C90/a OWNER(s) By: 710 By: 6�z t D� By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF Qk-M 1 !S� ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �wlvl / Gi IfQ OG —09lV signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. i DATED this i day of ulwp-1 Merry Public NOTARY PUBLIC SIM of wnw4w My commission expires: UM USMIAMOVA MY AppoinUm"t Expiros Sep 27, 2014 A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 1f5SC�7 7Ei" PL_ t> tAlA q8?,c�( Map/Location: -tn.k Jim Gn5oc25tcno ca-bl O 3 Owner: public private unknown other Date: P�- $i — t Z Inspector: ce�¢T 4' Date of last inspection, FN TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: ++= t0 Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating X Immediate action needed Needs further Inspection Dead tree Tree #: Species: LA 4t. tt DBti: do* # of trunks: I_ Height:_ Spread: _592' RECEIVED Form: 9 generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed AUG 2 3 2012 Crown class: ❑ dominant bUco-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed DEVELOPMENTSERVIr)RQ CTR Live crown ratio: A50 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi- maturg N mature F1 over-mature/senescent v"' "r Cumunrus L-004 tq A eA o Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned 9 oppe ❑ crown raised Ll pollarded LJ crown reduced U flush cuts ❑ cabledibraced ❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. 0 normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: tJA Foliage density: Knormal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wirelties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 19average ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y (ID ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards woundwood development: ❑ excellent Xaverage U poor [J none LJ other Vigor class: ❑ excellent Maverage ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: hA SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. &residence ❑ commercial lJ industrial LJ park LJ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlanflorest Landscape type: CJ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Ar.r.rr..?%w- Irrigation: Wone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive F7 trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y C NJ ❑ construction O soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25.50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N to s� %dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 171 drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted 71 droughty ❑ saline []alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ smali volume ❑ disease center ❑ historyof fail C.l clay CJ expansive ❑ slope aspect: ra 04CM jtifj:b% zr:. -r Obstructions: LI lights CJ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy C1 recently exposed Awindward, canopy edge R area prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: Wie—ST To QaASY Occurrence of snowfice storms ❑ never Kseldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: Kbuilding L.:I parking LJ traffic Kpedestrian D4.recreation LS(landscape W hardscape Ni�small features LJ utility lines Can target be moved? Y V can use be restricted? Y Q 'Tq,��, ,� 6gc t Sz% , j C•. Occupancy: 1.1 occasional use ❑ intermittent use F1 frequent use Rconstant use 1410CGb{� Pct.3�- The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. S (D TREET ME, TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y © Mushroom/conk/bracket present: YV I0: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate IK low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate '.J low filb. Root pruned: 5V( distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y © When: Restricted root area; n severe U moderate R low Potential for root failure: U severe ❑ moderate QI low LEAN: Z_Q deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ,Kself-corrected Sall heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y No Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y (TjT WO+t A-f PA.il2.+,:ST' Compounding factors: yeah §evenly: n severe ❑ moderate Flow CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = seven:, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poorta er % Bow, swee "� ••'4 i'' Codominanls/lorks taou Multiple attachments nl a Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam ou►aa Decay J Cavil Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleedinaitap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holelbee hive Deadwood/stubs B orers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: _ - �+�►+�a+.+*r -ram sJ " w ►-4. 52d5kILEailure potential: 1 - low; 2 - mediunohigh; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other o'J T- Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm): Failure Potential + Size of Part +Target Rating -Hazard Rating Q 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" {75 cm} Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; Z + + 1. = 3 - frequent use constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part U reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy R crown reduce 17 restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further. ❑ root crown U decay U aerial O monitor Remove tree: (D N Replace? O N Move target: Y 0 Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none Revaluate Notification: L owner ❑ manager U governing agency COMMENTS Date: A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: I5SCY7 'CIF+ t� 5 n�5�fr.�lA 48?caE, HAZARD RATING: "r•�.k Pg��1 '� ��a�ar� oQa r o 3 --�- + 3 + ---� Map/Location: Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Owner: public private x unknown other Potential of part Rating Rating Date: tZ Inspector:c.aa�'t 416- X Immediate action needed ¢moo,&c F 14 ?-rTrGa1:-- Needs further Inspection wit Date of last inspection: Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #: —1529z— Species:t—��-- DBH: Z-Z" 0 of trunks: Height CoO't Spread: z0f Form: ® generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: R dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ Intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratlo: 10 % Age class: O young O semi -mature ® mature O over-mature/senescent Pruning history: O crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised O pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced O none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Speclal Value: ❑ specimen D heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color: ❑ normal ® chlorobc O necrotic Epicormlcs? Y 6D Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal 09 sparse Leaf size: X normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wlre/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ❑ average K poor Twig Diebacl?. V N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent O average ❑ poor 91 none Aevwja,=J'(IXother _ ly�< Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ fair Kpoor Major pests/diseases: Wx %40R`l_ c►a 'tom--� SITE CONDITIONS Site Character OffTesidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlforest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound O lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break pi QAM, o.d Irrigation: M none O adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive O trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y O ❑ construction O soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: ° 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y r� �° dripline w/fill soil: i0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: U06 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage O shallow ❑ compacted O droughty ❑ saline 0 alkaline O acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: pp..sv_r ,cr_rr Obstructions: O lights O signage D line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: O single tree Melowcanopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge . ❑ area prone to wfndthrow Prevailing wind direction: wx:5rr To Occurrence of snowfice storms ❑ never A seldom ❑ regularly 1r-e':S�'T TARrET Use Under Tree: Nbuilding D parking O traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape O handscape O small features O utilitylines Can target be moved? Y © Can use be restricted? Y &b ) W to 4 - P.W=- Occupancy: D occasional use O intermittent use ❑ frequent use Kconstant use�� The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS' Suspect root rat Y 6� Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y (D to: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate stow Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate Klow Root pruned: _,� distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate O low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe 9moderate LEAN: I Q deg, from vertical ❑ natural O unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y © Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y ® tj0'r -Y When: O low Compounding factors: VORLI-Y RoPsJY w Cc N [ JY . Lean severity: ❑ severe ;(moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT R00T CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight w Cracks/s lits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco Cavity Conks/mush rooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: a t` Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium- high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating ©18 3D" (45 75 cm}; 4 AV (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional us ' 2 intermittent use; + 3a +_ ii _ = I p 3 - frequent us44-- constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin O raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: © N Replace? 6D N Move target: Y © other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner O manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS _rb4E%S_ t s w►�s-ram-{ per, aA Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 1J!505,c2r7 'i5-"' Pc..- S t� �1!��J�, cals� QAZCG Map/Locatlon: Tb.k M2C­,— -.*' m6OC2a60 CCZ>f O 3 Owner: public private X— unknown other Date: lam- K - t Z Inspector:y TAG, �1 ► ez-T Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: —3_ + 3 + _ `�— - _ _1 Q._- Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating X_ Immediate action neededw�+o Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree #: Z2e species: �Llrr- 28'' 7 3 `0 r i OBH: 't�o�trunks: Height: .0 Spread: _ Form: ❑ generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry Kmajor asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: ❑ dominant 5�1-co-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: _ 50 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature U mature ❑ over-matu re/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced ®none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic []wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color fig normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicermics? Y IV Growth obstructions: Foliage density: I$ normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: 0 normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wiretiles ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 60average ❑ poor 7WIg Ofeback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none N M other Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: L V le 41sk-0 I e..,A -A L -t W_J 0 fGS SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. Xresidence O commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlforest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound I❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break r JA rC0 P-FAW Irrigation: 94none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y n ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y %dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% %dripline grade lowered: 0�° 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: Ner-r APPAs i�W-C Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed Windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: Wey" 'C -ro Occurrence of snow(ce storms ❑ never I1-seldom ❑ regularly e-ns-Y TARGET Use Under Tree: IN building ❑ parking Cl traffic A pedestrian ® recreation M landscape 14LDardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y S) Can use be restricted? Y 0 Ka-zta.rsra• -Cc-_ Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use IV4onstant usevP The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. tam TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y 6) Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y 6) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate %low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate blow Root pruned: _ distance from trunk Root area affected: _�% Buttress wounded: Y When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe IV moderate ❑ low LEAN. IeL deg. from vertical ❑ natural O unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y ® Roots broken Y ® Soil cracking: Y © war S � Compounding factors: to "( Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate blow, CROWN MUM: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweepX Codominanis/forks Multiple attachments q —ram qe TILLi Included bark OJV- Excessive and weight `! W0 K t �-+— Cracks/s lits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco Cavity Con ks/m ush room s/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nestin hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: ge!n S — 'rQJ ►.S V-- Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium( high; 4 - severe Inspection period: _ annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 18-30" (45 75 cm); 4 >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use, 2 intermittent use; + 25 + _�_ = _! p 3 - frequent us , 4�- onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight O crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: O root crown ❑ decay O aerial O monitor Remove tree: ©N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: [&none ❑ evaluate Notification: El owner O manager O governing agency COMMENTS Date: ' - A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas��° TREE HAZARD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 1157-5C XD 745' " Eli- o f cxJ-A 482caF, HAZARD RATING: Map/Location: +_ + Failure + Size + Target Hazard Owner public private X unknown other Potential of part Rating Rating Date: 95- hA - t Z, Inspector. VE--y ► r l c. sa7-'7 4�' X Immediate action needed 20—taw '-- Date of last inspection: Needs further inspection ee>ws-Yw Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #: 33 Z-- Species: bae+-�. Pic L _S=> "ram DBH: W # of trunks: t Height: 250' Spread: Form: generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: V dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate O suppressed Live crown ratio: 4 o % Age class: ❑ young l4semi-mature ❑ mature O over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned O topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced Knone O multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Speclal Value: O specimen O heritage/historic O wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. gglnormal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormlcs? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal %sparse Leaf size: O normal ❑ small ❑ stakes O wire/tles ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 99average O poer 7WIg Dieback? © N O curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: O excellent O average ❑ poor ❑ none Mother L Le Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: Iy� P t3 2ECy a V- t!o0 {- of t-r ►a -A' 2(a. Q Y 'r CJ to tc.5 I s/-f IFbA k a. co,w- 1-r�>�-,as.. t0 J. O u TK- SiTECONDITIONS Site Character. IRTesidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial O park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodland\forest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed O container O mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border O wind break Of U bcV u azAL. Irrigation: ISLnone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y l:% ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing °/a drlpline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N °/a dripflne w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-500/a 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-500/a 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline D acidic O small volume O disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay O expansive O slope a aspect: 00 0�1-* Obstructions: O lights ❑ signage ❑ line-ot-sight ❑ view O overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy O above canopy ❑ recently exposed Kwindward. canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: ws"VT eo cS-t" Occurrence of snowlice storms ❑ never 14seldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: Kbuilding ❑ parking ❑ traffic O pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape O small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y (9 Can use be restricted? Y(D WI_ - V!:Ar- Occu anc : ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ fre uent use 00C_C - K�'''�� �s a-gi%% -r p y q L'�constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT MECTS: Suspect root rot: Y l:% Mushroom/conk/brackel present: Y N ID: Exposed roots: ❑sccevere ❑ moderate IQ low Undermined: O severe O moderate [glow Root pruned: U/ distance from trunk Root area affected: _e% Buttress wounded: Y V When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe O moderate O low Potential for root failure: O severe R moderate O low LEAN: _ ID deg. from vertical ❑ natural O unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y & Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y w�tG, r-rr Compounding factors: Lean severity: ❑ severe Iffi moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROUT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks -Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight -Cracks/splits -Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam -Decay -Cavity Con kslmushroom s/bracket -Bleeding/"a flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs BorersAermites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential; 1 - low; 2 - mediurn4D high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm): Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating v/3 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + _ �_ 3 -frequent use®constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay O aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: ON Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency COMMENTS Date: T. SH�ti.� tom- �Ro��ov =MJC-- -ro P2=xt w"L_e-1 To R0Lr_.E 4 pGY��- C.C�IJ P l "T'l dn� T ' . ' A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Arepa TREE HAZARD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: !J;5T" tit._ S kwc2tAMN,�, LJ^ 1?AZCG Map/Location: Tax �q2c c>d4nGgr� owl 3 Owner: public private —X unknown other T ►S 1 saw Date: AS• Ml - t Z Inspector: _�v t �.c� Lim c_c&-47-` C Date of last inspection: RJ TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: _ + _� +____ _ —LQ— Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed W-Q-#v%CJ Needs further inspection w L-ct.t GoNS�+rt2.J Dead tree — e--rt of-� Dee #: 3k'I Species: Rt P.` � DON: 7-a" # of trunks: t Height: 100 Spread: _3 2_ Form: ® generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: 54 dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: r3-0 % Age class: ❑ young O semi -mature ® mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning bfstory : ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced Ql none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen O hedtagemistoric ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen O shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. Knormal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: ® normal O sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wirelties ❑ signs D cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ® average ❑ poor 7WIg Oieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none ❑ other Vigor class: ❑ excellent ® average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: tj 0 t'i Y SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. ® residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space O natural O woodlandVorest Landscape type: O parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound O lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break ab w Irrigation: X none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y V ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing . ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: CO 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0°/° 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty O saline ❑ alkaline O acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ historyof fail O clay O expansive ❑ slope O aspect: �pN� -�-( Obstructions: O lights ❑ signage ❑ line-ol-sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy {$above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge . ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: u0v6;'r To ccurrence of snowlce storms ❑ never 91seldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Ttee: Kbuilding O parking O traffic ❑ pedestrian O recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utilitylines Can target be moved? Y 0 Can use be restricted? Y © 4LVPWG69 "CX_W6W t'sm. Occupancy: ❑ occasional use O intermittent use ❑ frequent use lj!-constant use vt:ot <—T The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y © Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y m ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ® low Root pruned: _4 distance from trunk Root area affecled: Or % Buttress wounded: Y When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: Jasevere ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN: ?_44>_ deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural M self -corrected Sail heaving: Y ® Nc - 4Pf4�2 T Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N T f�S� Compounding factors: x1 M2.x 1 n- �— � i! c t Iz r3 J "V-- %ean severity: $severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CRDWNDEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I : low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, swee —r Coda mi nants/f orks av Multiple attachments c� Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Con ks/m ushrooms/bracket Bleedinoap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bo rers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium;® high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating ©18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + + ► _ _ 0 3 - frequent use 4r�- onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce Cl restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove free: tD N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Eiieel on adjacent trees: ❑ none ®evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date, COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: l�5C Y2 ''(ri'r'► f� '5 t�rx-�1n�1 �r t g82t. HAZARD RATING: Map/Location: Tax P^e-2-e— Failure + Size + Target Hazard Owner public private_ unknown other Potential of part Rating Rating Date: f3- Ml - 1 Z Inspector: _Vgny t r-1 T4E-E . 1 t ten. c.t012-T - —X Immediate action needed wWignm Date of last Inspection: Rca,w, J �'"(G7r� Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #: ,0 Species: e.:�,-- DBH: �; _ # of trunks: _- I _ Height: e0_'_ Spread: Form: generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: 29 dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate O suppressed Live crown ratio: 3C2 % Age class: ❑ young �O semi -mature ❑ mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabied/braced g none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Ifalue: ❑ specimen ❑ hedtage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. %normal O chlorotic O necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: & normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wireAles O signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent glaverage ❑ poor Twig Oleback? Y N D curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: O excellent ❑ average ❑ poor D none N a. mother (Vt !( Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: \/ eXZ- f! J -C W t -rH 1 Q %1,'' SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. Xresidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park O open space ❑ natural O woodland\forest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break ch a A-tU9L--- Irrigation: -none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y (D ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change D line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty D saline O alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: '7 p Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines O underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree A below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: vW WS-r -rao �rOccurrence of snowrce storms ❑ never PSeldom ❑ regularly TARIrET Use Under Tree: &building ❑ parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrtan ❑ recreation ❑ landscape O hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y (fil Can use be restricted? Y © k-'-Z� r--:. Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use ❑ constant use t`� The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROUTDEFECTS.' Suspect root rat: Y © Mushroom/conldbrackell -p''re``sent: Y <0 ID: Exposed roots: El severe ❑ moderate ❑ low 7`r Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Root pruned: _V distance from trunk Real area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y © When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: Rf severe ❑ moderate 0 low LEAN: 10 deg. from vertical O natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y C,) Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y © Mery Compounding factors: L JL{ t1►11amcm k{—f __ Lean severity: 9severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Con ks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bo rers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: --c'y-J +-3 7 T� _ _ Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium(j�high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm 2J618" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential +Size of Part +Target Rating =Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: i - occasional use, 2 intermittent use; + + _ 3 - frequent use 4�- conslant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean O thin O raise canopy O crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay D aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: Y�N Replace? Y N Move larget; Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager O governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban AYeas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: i" -2 ' JAE-21 r PL_ 5 t�rx r, Q_t�, ca1.A 48� HAZARD RATING: Map/Location: Tax �� '� i=600'Er� cacz�ro 3 �— Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Owner: public private unknown other Potential of part Rating Rating Date: �- +� — l Z Inspector. ILV r nS Tom, J fin. GT immediate action neededw t�,c Needs further inspection �Ng Date of Iasi inspection: � Dead free TREE CHARACTERISTICS Treat 3,t-t4 Species: DBH: (C) tf of trunks: J Height: r Spread: IIO I Form: K generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry O stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: 91 dominant O co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: W % Age class: N young ❑ semi -mature O mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised O pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced 64none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen O heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree O screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous O protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color ffi normal ❑ chlorofic O necrotic Eplcormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: D normal O sparse Leal size: O normal O small O stakes O wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: O excellent llaverage ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y N O curb/pavement O guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none a4 father l V` ( Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average ❑ fair CI poor Major pestsldiseases:ydan"2.-f VAspasl-e w t -rtA t %J-- SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. 4 residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial O park El open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlanclVorest Landscape We: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn O shrub border ❑ wind break irrigation: ® none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y t0 ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing O site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-1000/6 Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted O droughty ❑ saline O alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail O clay ❑ expansive O slope ° aspect: NIA.. Obstructions: O lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view O overhead lines ❑ underground utilities O traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree i d below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed O windward, canopy edge . ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: W�-t '�92 Wpk%-Mccurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never ,19-seldom ❑ regularly TARAFT Use Under Tree: Xbuilding ❑ parking ❑ traffic O pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y Q Can use be restricted? Y (2) C'.4c-' Occupancy: O occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use ipconstant use tip t�---r The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y 6) Mushroom/conkdbracket present: Y t) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe O moderate ❑ low Vs-. Undermined: ❑ severe O moderate O low W11b. Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: JV_ % Buttress wounded: Y (&) When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: Gd severe O moderate ❑ low LEAN. _I_ deg. from vertical O natural ❑ unnalural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y 0 Roots broken Y 6) Soil cracking: Y 40 1J or Compounding factors: 1 V!:( W e�x Gar—yr Lean severity: Wevere ❑ moderate O low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor to er Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive and weight Wr 0tr Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Woundstseam Decay Cavity Con ks/m ush rooms/b racket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs BorersAermites/ants Cankers/ alWburis Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: 'T Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - mediumhigh; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <ii (15 cm)�D-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) 3 Target rating: 1 - occasional use, 2 intermittent use; + Z + � _ �— 3 - frequent use 5onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part ❑ reduce and weight O crown clean ❑ thin O raise canopy ❑ crown reduce C restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown O decay O aerial D monitor Remove tree:: N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none O evaluate Notification: ❑ owner O manager O governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Are�sl TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: llf�CZ7 '74Yr" B.- S qAZ—,CF, Map/Location: -A' 6!bS c23= 0c;nf O 3 Owner: public private _?�__ unknown other Date: P5-'A - t Z Inspector: j — tom. e -w-C - Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree #-. S'z Species: V HAZARD RATING: —3 — + +_ Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating X Immediate action needed Needs further Inspection Gc,,_14,,a... Dead tree -""'00 DBH: 16n!' Hof trunks: I Height: cf�:O Spread: 2O Form: 99 generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: & dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 20 % Age class: ❑young ❑ semi -mature E9 mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped O crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced &hone O multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual O street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous El protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color- ® normal ❑ chlorotic O necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: ® normal ❑ sparse Leal size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent [avverage ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average O poor ❑ none N/4 Iglother 1 �J Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average S? fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: 226if W 4eL G..t-tTQ2:r_> P=y4 Ly SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. V residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandUorest Landscape type: O parkway ❑ raised bed ❑container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break N ntued- Irrigation: & none O adequate ❑ inadequate O excessive ❑ trunk wettied Recent site disturbance? Y (D O construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% %dripline grade lowered: 0°/° 10-25°/° 25-50°/° 50-75% 75100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty Cl saline ❑ alkaline O acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ historyof fail O clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope U aspect: P *rr � z Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree O below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: Ue gT ,ro r%r.TOccurrence of snowdce storms ❑ never lcseldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: B-building O parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape O small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y 6) Can use be restricted? Y �D 4 �� g 6;w4 GJo--- Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use Inconstant use �4ust~ ��"� %5rj t, L-"T The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS.' Suspect root rot: Y f N Mush room/conk/bracket present: Y C) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low N,i+. Undermined: ❑ severe O moderate ❑ low *j/A Root pruned: �0 distance from trunk Root area affected: 1L, % Buttress wounded: Y (Z When: Restricted rout area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe Qkmoderate ❑ low LEAN.10_ deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y nN Roots broken Y Q Soil cracking: Y Compounding factors: 1-i �f W%ea GVA- r _ _ Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow,swee Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight T t?v r..1 tL- Cracks/s lits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conkstm ush rooms/bracket 81eedin sa flow Loosetcracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Z Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - mediurr(D- high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm)(n8-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use, 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use 4t� constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean O thin ❑ raise canopy Cl crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown O decay D aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: G) N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none CJ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS - A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas w © TREE HAZARD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: I �-2SCzD 7451" PL S tic r ��l ems, cai� Qf�ZcaF, Map/Locatlon: Tax Me2-& *� a!�)6i�ie2Etron) OCZ)f 0 -3 Owner: public private K unknown other Date: 5-;A- 12inspector: _I(-�y►.S T�� __» c-Aga7T 4- Date of last inspection: RJ 74q(' (on*_ i HUARD RATING: — + + _ Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed��� Needs further inspection �Nx Dead tree • TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree* 3!5" Species: Qda=G rk�0• OBH: dot trunks: �_ Height: _ _ Spread: Zo Form: @+ generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: jK dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: _ 10 % Age class: ❑ young 19 semi -mature ❑ mature ❑ over-maturelsenescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned Cl topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced ® none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic O wildlife ❑ unusual O street tree O screen O shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color: 9normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: 0 normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal O small ❑ stakes O wire/ties O signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent Faverage O poor Twig Dieback? Y N O curb/pavement O guards Woundwood development: D excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none m* mother 1, \) Y Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average 54fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: _ k%ffk_al K bJ 1-r F-t k \J y SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. L9 residence ❑ commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlforest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break o6 uA-'rW4a-aD ­ Irrigation: Rhone O adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y ® ❑ construction O soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing % dripline paved: 0% 10.25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ IIII soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% %dripline grade lowered: 09r° 10 25% 25-50% 50-75°t° 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage O shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail O clay ❑ expansive O slope U aspect: 644 Obstructions: O lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree 5dbelow canopy ❑ above canopy D recently exposed O windward, canopy edge. ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: M M*--Z "r-�S-(Occurrence of snowfice storms ❑ never jiceldom D regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: A building $aparking traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape O hardscape O small features ❑ utility fines Can target be moved? Y &) Can use be restricted? Y ® �^Io N c-A� Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use ❑ constant use � A,Z fibc t L--r The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y & Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y &) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low m/N Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low r�a Root pruned:_ distance from trunk Root area tiffected:_% Buttress wounded: Y © When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: Ri severe ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN: ZS deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Sall heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y N Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y N 401 1 r_V!74CAW_ o4- % V %? Compounding factors: Ge-Ao1PV-cc0*-'5,% obi u3!A=o f WaMCair " Lean severity: 91severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWNDEFECM . Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multi le attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco Cavity Con ks/mush rooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borersite rmites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection perlod: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating (918-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use- 2 intermittent use; + 3 + 3 -frequent use constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: © N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency COMMENTS Date: Other: ' A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban(Afeas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 1505C�7 !1_1 ► Ek- S ExEmmotA C�IQG>"` - LJ-r,'?AZ G Map/Location: Te.x -` ���L22a�f 03 Owner: public private _ unknown other Date: 9- +'{ -1Z Inspector: k.2v t Tg .,Jo--- t --mn, c ya0-T 4V' RJ Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree fk ,55M— species: IlLgqC> la �C - OBH: " li of trunks: I_ Height: _ IL'* Spread: _ HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating A _ Immediate action needed Needs further Inspectionco w s«c1 m3mri trao 0w� Form: 'fY generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout O stag -headed Grown class: 1R dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 1 c5 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature N-mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised LJ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced 4 none O multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/histodc ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. Q normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal 4 sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent » average ❑ poor Ttvlg Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement O guards Woundwood development ❑ excellent 0 average ❑ poor ❑ none w/A, &Jother V Y Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average I!J�fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: lT IrA 1 \/ Y SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. Wesidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodiandVorest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: Alone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y ® ❑ construction O soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % dripline grade lowered: 0% 10.25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow compacted ❑ droughty 0 saline O alkaline O acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ historyof fail O clay ❑ expansive O slope ° aspect: u/,� Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy %above canopy ❑ recently exposed O windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: WC----'r -ra -r Occurrence of snowfice storms ❑ never %eldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: i6building ❑ parking ¢ltrafflc 6irpedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features ❑ utilitylines Can target be moved? Y © Can use be restricted? Y Occupancy: ❑ occasional use O intermittent use ❑ frequent use Kconstant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS Suspect root rot: Y @> Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y 6) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe O moderate ❑ tow w/4 Undermined: ❑ severe O moderate O low M t r4c5vs— Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: °/o Buttress wounded: Y © When: Restricted root area: O severe O moderate O low Potential for root failure: ® severe ❑ moderate O low LEAN: _!_ deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y &d Decay in plane of lean: Y 0 Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y ® (. r A PFOA-4�T Compounding factors: t J Le W W:l C.IA--L Lean severity: O severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominanis/torks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight t v s Cracks/splits Y ONI-- —C kS Hangers GirdlingL�rJ Wounds/seam Decay Cavi Con ks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bo rers/te rmites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: o Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium(,`) high; 4 - severe Inspection period: _ annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 6) 18-30" (45-75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + 3 + �` _ �_ 3 - frequent us%- constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean O thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: O root crown ❑ decay O aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: 6 N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other. Effect on adjacent frees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner O manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS I VI (v A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: l�74ai 'Pt_ t> �Tx"tCi—� r caSA g82436 Map/Location: Tax_ ---._--.-- Owner: public private _ unknown other Date: a- kA—tZ Inspector: yr A T�� ► , c�aQ-t - Date of last inspection: AJ S'rt�c HAZARD RATING: 3 +Z- +4 Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating IC Immediate action needed %2-CKA0'�' Needs further I Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree # 302— Species: OBH: — I & N of trunks: Height: "I Q Spread: Z.p Form: 04 generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: a dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 30 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature & mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: O crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced ® none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic O wildlife O unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. 9 normal O chlorotic O necrotic Epicormlcs? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal ftsparse Leal size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 54 average ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent O average D poor ❑ none N Mother JL( Vigor class: ❑ excellent average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: ry !( W uj� C. id—r. N, Z`t =r= -r%3P§[NJ %-� k l 'J_ SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. li'Fesidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandltorest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed O container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: l�rnone ❑ adequate O inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wattled Recent silo disturbance? Y Id ❑ co struction ❑ soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N %dripline w/fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay O expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: 111_� Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree Kbelow canopy ❑ above canopy O recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: L44051T "QP! ' -rbccurrence of snowAce storms (--)never Vseldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: 9 building ❑ parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ handscape O small features ❑ utilitylines Can target be moved? Y ® Can use be restricted? Y (D C:"J« Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use &xonstant use �cx�s t S ViW t �T The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TRFF DFFFCTS ROOT DEFECTS Suspect root rot: Y V& Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y (�D to: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low V� Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate O low �/Ar Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: % Buttress wounded: Y When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: ®severe ❑ moderate O low LEAN: ZZ- deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural D self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y Q Roots broken Y <]C) Soil cracking: Y ® WV-r Compounding factors: L V `( W=rL C., VA Y Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end wei ht Lrti✓ <a Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: _ Y +� Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium(fhigh; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <ti" (15 cm►1�J618" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential +Size of Part +Target Rating =Hazard Rating 3-18-3t1" (45-75 cm); 4 - >34" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use, 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use 4D- onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part D reduce and weight ❑ crown clean O thin D raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure O shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay 0 aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: & N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: D none ❑ evaluate Notification: O owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS 12 A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVAL UATiON FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 145 5C:?9 'JGit" P►- S Map/Location: Owner: public private unknown other Date: Ps- K - t Z Inspector: l��/ t T+�G•, 1s cern-T Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: N_+2- + 10 Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating X_ Immediate action neededW�� Needs further inspection tc ojS?Q- — Dead tree ` V"-` QP`'' Tye #: ,3t'�'=z Species: P.%;;! 'b., DBH: _ # of trunks: �� Height: 'l Or Spread: L 2! Form: i9 generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: 2'dominant ❑ co -dominant O intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: t� _ % Age class: ❑ young O semi -mature ® mature O over-mature/senescent Pruning history: O crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned D topped O crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced O flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced '® none D multiple pruning events Approx dates: Speclal Value: O specimen ❑ heritage/historic O wildlife O unusual ❑ street tree D screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. 0 normal ❑ chtorotic D necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: O normal 54 sparse Leal size: K normal D small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties D signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent ® average ❑ poor Tlvtg Dieback? Y N O curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent O average D poor 0 none t,* glother L V Y Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average O fair ® poor Major pests/diseases: 1y%4 '-T2 &51Wa , t "T t SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. ® residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park O open space ❑ natural O woodlandlVorest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed O container ❑ mound O lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: 4irnone D adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wattled Recent site disturbance? YJ ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/till soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50°/a 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted D droughty O saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center O history of fail D clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: tJ /A Obstructions: O lights O signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: Weld %�- Occurrence of snowdce storms D never ❑ seldom ❑ regularly TARRFT Use Under Tree: W-building CO parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features O utility lines Can target be moved? Y (9> Can use be restricted? Y 45) Ka.? tc,C�S oac_oc. W.OL�9= Occupancy: D occasional use D intermittent use ❑ frequent use lAconstant use k-tt> 't>V k ---r The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TRrF IIFFr-CTC _ ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y 0 Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y 6) ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe D moderate ❑ low U,'A� Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low ky�' Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: I$severe ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN., deg. from vertical ❑ natural 4 unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y (f) Roots broken Y 0 Soil cracking: Y ® V"pe Compounding factors: Lean severity: Rsevere ❑ moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of Individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m � moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sapBleeding/sap flow . Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs BorersAermites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: --r W V— Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high;(C�evere Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm) jD6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45-75 cm),, 30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use* 2 intermittent use; l� J + 2 + L p 3 - frequent us , 4�- onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT -- Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin D raise canopy Cl crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: 6) N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other. _ --- Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZARD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: Cho !Jl i r" Pi-. 5 Map/Location: -Cin P,x ten_ If 0c:Z2(Ca 3 Owner: public private _X unknown other Date: K - t Z Inspector: cAg2Q_-''t 'it-- F:1,J Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating S_ immediate action needed lecm-oLw- w t-rw Needs further inspection Dead tree _9W e-"vs' 4-1 Tree #:_ species: tagor;;� -C>.192' DBH: 1 0 of trunks: _ I Height: � spread: 25 Form: 19% generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: $4 dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 30 % Age class: ❑ young D semi -mature &mature O over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned O topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts O cabled/braced 51 none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen D heritage/historic O wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ streettree D screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. X normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructlons: Foliage density: ® normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: O normal ❑ small ❑ stakes Owire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 2average ❑ poor Twlg Oleback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none �a. ® other 1 V `e Vigor class: ❑ excellent Eiraverage ❑ fair D poor Major pests/diseases: `\/`f U F' tom" t SITE CONDITIONS , Site Character. 21 residence ❑ commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlforest Landscape type: O parkway ❑ raised bed D container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: ® none O adequate ❑ Inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wetded Recent site disturbance? Y0 ❑ co truction ❑ soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing O site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-7511/0 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted D droughty D saline ❑ alkaline D acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center D history of fail O clay ❑ expansive D slope ' aspect: Q/A Obstructions: ❑ lights O signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. O Exposure to wind: O single tree ❑ below canopy Rabove canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge . ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: War 'ro Occurrence of snowAce storms ❑ never ❑ seldom ❑ regularly TARGET - Use lfnder Tree: M building O parking ❑ traffic O pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑ landscape O hardscape O small features ❑ utllity lines Can target be moved? Y () Can use be restricted? Y Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use Of requeni use gconstani use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rol: Y (No Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y ® ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe Q moderate O low " Undermined: ❑ severe O moderate O low N a Root pruned: _I L5' distance from trunk Root area affected: ^% Buttress wounded: Y (f When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate O tow Potential for root failure: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN.• 10 deg. from vertical ❑ natural V -unnatural O self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay In plane of lean: Y (t> Roots broken Y t$> Soil cracking: Y uw—r a Compounding factors: l V `? ujdykG,tri ` r Lean severity: O severe Kjoderate O low CROWN DEFECTS., Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Deco Cavity Con ks/m u s h roo ms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holeibee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: "rP4.j VZ `r Failure potential: 1 - low9nmedium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating ©18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - 530" (75 cm) Target rating: 1- occasional use4 intermittent use; 2 + 3 +_ _ �� 3 - frequent use; onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean O thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure El shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown O decay D aerial E3 monitor Remove tree: & N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: 0 owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in UrbarY Areas TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: EL 'S ter tC rope- calA Qf�ZG�=, Map/Location: PeC24c'� -10 a75o2etrOC� owl 0 3 Owner: public private - - --- unknown other Date: a- �'( - t Z Inspector:y t rS T Wy, tJ 1 cep-T 4k' Date of last inspection: F90J TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: t -.L_ + _ = t co Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating C Immediate action needed P---k^oJ— t.JtT44 Needs further Inspection,���i Dead tree Tree #: 3$!,E Species:Ae--O��--- OBH: 1V # of trunks: I Height: t oo.01 Spread: Form: lK generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: N dominant ❑ cc -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: Zo % Age class: ❑ young O semi -mature 59 mature ❑ over-maturelsenescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised O pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced 19 none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic O wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree O screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. ® normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y N Growth obstructions: Faltage density: [6normal O sparse Leaf size: ❑ normal ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wlre/tles ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 2 average O poor Twig Dleback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement O guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor ❑ none W/A, r other l VY Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average O fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: k�s'+Okl_f W am:t CM IF�>`f t V I-f SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. PIresidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park O open space ❑ natural ❑ woodland\forest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound O lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break c6�- Irrigation: Knone O adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y Q ❑ construction ❑ soil disturbance O grade change O line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N %dripline w/IIII soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 09' 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow D compacted ❑ droughty O saline ❑ alkaline O acidic ❑ small volume O disease center ❑ history of fail El clay 0 expansive ❑ slope o aspect: � Obstructions: Olights ❑signage O line -of -sight ❑ view O overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: O single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy I❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: Wesrc To Wx6Tbccurrence of snowlce storms O never F2saldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: & building O parking O traffic ❑ pedestrian O recreation O landscape O hardscape O small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y (f+i Can use be restricted? Y dD Ke.Z�a2ruS C�r.1c Occupancy: ❑ occasional use ❑ intermittent use ❑ frequent use ❑ constant use �VS`�' l'S �i3v t The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. ton4 TRFF nFFFCTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y o Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y ® ID: Exposed roots: O severe ❑ moderate O low N�� Undermined: O severe O moderate ❑ low W/,L Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: °!° Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: O severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: D severe 91moderate ❑ low LEAN: ZO deg. from vertical ❑ natural V unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y 6.;, Roots broken Y 0 Soil cracking: Y Q 063,-r XkPnNa-a r Compounding factors: t v �( t-J&--t4w Lean severity: ",severe O moderate O low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate. I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight em V4 --t rJ —r (L Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flaw Looselcracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/ alls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: T'�+-�'�' c7'r S Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - mediumfj�high; 4 - severe Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 018-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + .� + r'i = 110 3 - frequent usc�onstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: O remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce O restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: lospecl further: O root crown ❑ decay C aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: �" Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect an adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: ❑ owner D manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Ar asp TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: I1�565C�0 'r5'_"Pi— S �r ram►-�o"�, c,�iA Q�Z.ca6 Map/Location: Tax P�2� l� mslSCJ�jr� oGZaf O 3 Owner: public private _ unknown other Date: R) - lZ, Inspector:►sa, cgay_Cr PW zrilclo� Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: L_ + _2___ + t C Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Wk- K `` Needs further inspectionGt #�A -X-- Dead tree I?.Jt_' r46fJ TREE CHARACTERISTICS Tree 4: -302 species: 9-dM=;- DBH: # of trunks: _ ( Height: 9�O� Spread: Form: generally symmetric ❑ minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: I39-dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate O suppressed Live crown ratio: _(6_ % Age class: ❑ young O semi -mature `141 mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts O cabled/braced 1Z none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. X normal ❑ chlorotic O necrotic Epicormlcs? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: 0 normal 9 sparse Leaf size: O normal O small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties O signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent CKaverage ❑ poor Twig Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent O average 0 poor ❑ none ► /4, `® other 10 h( Vigor class: O excellent ❑ average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: ___>A4Z;rrfrot W 1 '-C, trt ly`t' SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: D�residence O commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlforest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break 94 Irrigation: 9none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y (SN) ❑ co struction ❑ soil disturbance 0 grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline wl fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% %dripline grade lowered: 0°/ 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty O saline O alkaline O acidic O small volume O disease center O history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ' aspect: Obstructions: ❑ lights O signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view O overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. O Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree Etelow canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: wt� -- "5-r zv n_ Occurrence of snowAce storms ❑ never IRIseldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: Kbuilding ❑ parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian O recreation ❑ landscape ❑ hardscape ❑ small features O utility lines Can target be moved? Y V Can use be restricted? Y Q trl�.Y.p.2;.. '� d ,*4 c-mff- Kou'5= Occupancy: ❑ occasional use O intermittent use ❑ frequent use Xconstant use L-> >av The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form, TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y &I Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y ® ID: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate O low O/Ac. Undermined: ❑ severe O moderate O low4 Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: °/° Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Potential for root failure: ❑ severe NLmoderate ❑ low LEAN: &!D— deg. from vertical [3natural gonnalural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y Q Roots broken Y © Soil cracking: Y to c-r Compounding factors: \ 0 K W go, K Lean severity: O severe ❑ moderate CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) ❑ low DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Borv, sweep Codominanis/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight v Cracks/s kits L.- Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Gonks/mush rooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/term ites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: '7R+4 ram-/ P6=x--rr S Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - highsnsevere Inspection period: annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm)(D6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3-18-30" (45.75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use0constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean O thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay D aerial O monitor Remove tree: &N Replace? Y N Move target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notification: Downer ❑ manager O governing agency Date: COMMENTS 16 ' A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in UrbanAreas TREE HAZARDS EVALUATION FORM 2nd Edition Site/Address: 1150SG2f2 7_15T'r BL_ S U QSZc6 Map/Location: -TeaYPC�t I*- [�54c2�tc OZZ)i Q 3 Owner: public private _.. X _ -_ unknown other Oate: Inspector V=!j9u►wl Tom. t cr'r—R--t '44" Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating >C Immediate action needed Needs further Inspection . Dead tree --r4 c5a Tree d: ?_ Species: 0=1r'a i �t� OBH: +6' 3W �B of trunks: Z oto W Height: loU • Spread: �� r Form: ❑ generally symmetric Kminor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: ❑ dominant igco-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: % Age class: ❑ young 0 semi -mature 0 mature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: O crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised O pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled/braced M.none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen O heritage/historic ❑ wildlife ❑ unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. ® normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormlcs? Y N Growth obstructions: Foliage density: §Q normal O sparse Leal size: Knormal O small ❑ stakes ❑ wiretties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent Waverage ❑ poor Twlg Dieback? Y N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: O excellent ❑ average 09 poor ❑ none ® other t ,-? Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average Kfair O poor Major pests/diseases: - t V1-f `� C:w-j--r-4..j L lL SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. ® residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park O open space ❑ natural ❑ woodland4orest Landscape type: ❑ parkway O raised bed ❑ container O mound O lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break ae Irrigation: ® none O adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent silo disturbance? Y X) ❑ construction O soil disturbance O grade change ❑ line clearing O site clearing %dripline paved: 000 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N %dripline w/tIII soil: 0% 14 25% 25-54�° 50-75% 75-140% % dripline grade lowered: 0° 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline O acidic O small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: W:g Obstructions: O lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities O traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure io wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ®.windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction:WeS-r tow;b�S-r Occurrence of snowfice storms O never Meldom ❑ regularly TA9W.FT Use Under Tree: P building O parking ❑ traffic ❑ pedestrian K recreation 91andscape O hardsoape ❑ small features ❑ utility lines Can target be moved? Y � Can use be restricted? Y 6) 4:*-+« Occupancy: ❑ occasional use O intermittent use ❑ frequent use Xconstant use '3v � "—?- The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: Y © Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y 0 to: Exposed roots: ❑ severe. O moderate F low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Root pruned: distance from trunk Root area affected: °lo Buttress wounded: Y N When: Restricted root area: O severe O moderate O low Potential for root failure: O severe ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN: deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y © Roots broken Y N Soil cracking: Y Q Ncr'r r C^%f t-e-T A-c s� Compounding factors: v��e Ky't tNc cot (V`!� bt2L.c C.�s�'t' Lean severity: ❑ severe El moderate ❑ low CROWN DEFECTS: Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow,sweep Codominants/forksJOS, WCA-%l `rc►� Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive and weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay t.. -r tiIrw( Cavl 2-' " r-NdEuw5t— Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sapBleeding/sap flow Loosetcracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: `"zRa.}w.1W--Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - mediumiZ high; 4 - severe Inspection period:.. — annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential +Size of Part +Target Rating =Hazard Rating ©18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - Ar (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent uselo:bonstant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight O crown clean []thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: O root crown ❑ decay O aerial []monitor Remove tree: e� Replace? Y N Move target: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none O evaluate Notification: ❑ owner O manager O governing agency COMMENTS Y N Other: Date: 3 4 5 :ESIDENCE )OR i. iH FLOOR NESS, ABELED AER AS TTOM OF GLAZING SS THAN 'THE HE PLANE ESS SHALL W9 I GS - .W.B.. iAN 18" ERS, AN 1S OF THEIR ri FOLLOWS: R ND AN 4 MANUAL TING OF 1.5 N OF 4 SQ. .R 1000 BTU ) CLOSER OVE INLET, TOM ALL LLOWING THE iF.I. TIONS ofwAsyr qly As part of the Building Permit SubmittaloA4sU1 NELSON GEOTECFINICAL ASSOC., INC. -6 shall provide a disclosure letter, stamped and signed addressing the provisions of t" ECDC 23.80 for geologically hazardous dNAL areas and include the following language: axrwas As part of the Building Permit Submittal J.C. MCDONNELL, ENGINEERING, PC shall provide a disclosure letter, stamped and signed addressing the provisions of ECDC 23.80 for geologically hazardous areas and include the following language: • In her/his judgment the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer q cpnform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report • That the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil Instability will be minimized subject to the conditions set foitb in the report and that the Proposed development will not increase the potential for soft movement. Minimized shall mean that the applicant has utilized best available science and commonly accepted _engineering and architectural practice to minimize, to the anent possible, the risks -associated with development ojthe property. • The statement shall include, as a condition, an evaluation setting forth the statistical probability (percentage) of earth movement within a 25 year period, the susceptibility of the risk, or hazard to correction, by on -site Improvements and the measures taken to mitigate the risk or hazard. • The geotechnical engineer shall review the erosion and sediment control plan and provide a statement about the adequacy of the plan with respect to site conditions and report findings. From the guidelines in the 2007 Landau Summary Report; an identification of landslide hazards applicable to the site, the on -site measures taken to correct or reduce the hazards, as applicable, and, measures taken to mitigate potential impacts from the remaining hazards. • For sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks from deep-seated or large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by Individual lot owners, the statement shall identify what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development The statement shall specify any risks from earth movement that are not Pally mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed Improvements. Parthet recommendations, signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer, shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions or other supporting data _ Mike Mitchell, Owner, Professional Engineer of Mitchell Engineering, Inc. Engineer of record : The structural engineer of record shall submit a disclosure letter or include a drawings that includes the following language: • That he/she has reviewed the geotechnical reports, understands its recommendatlona, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risk of loss due to slides on the site. • That he/she has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the report • Note any risks, hazards, potential problems from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures. James Thomas, Owner, Architect of Architectural Design Assoc., PS is hereby Designated as the LEAD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Who has reviewed the geotechnical report, understands its' recommendations and has incorporated into the design the establish measures to reduce the risk of injury or damage form any earth movement predicted in the report. PROJECT LEGEND: �IRECrION OF CUT ETAIL DESIGNATION BUILDING SECTION ANNOTATION x. SHEET ETAIL DESIGNATION DETAIL ANNOTATION SHEET ■ SOLID BEARING TO FOUNDATION @ GIRDER TRUSSES, HIP MASTERS, BEAMS AND HEADERS (MIN. 2 STUDS) 11OV SMOKE DETECTOR w/ BATTARY BACKUP - INTCONNECTION F1 50 C.F.M. CEILING FAN V.T.O. SHEET INDEX: T1.0 TITLE SHEET SP1.0 SITE PLAN A1.0 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS A1.1 RIGHT AND LEFT SIDE ELEVATI01 A2.0 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A2.1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN A3.0 FOUNDATION PLAN A3.1 MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN A3.3 ROOF FRAMING PLAN A5.0 ENERGY INFORMATION- WALL SECTIONS A5.1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS A5.2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS S-1.0 STRCUTURAL NOTES AND DETAIL S-1.1 STRUCTURAL NOTES AND DETAIL O 105 C.F.M. WHOLE HOUSE FAN V.T.O. . PROJECT DATA: PROJECT TEAM: OWNERS/CLIENT: GEORGE AND GINGER OLSON 3528 102ND PL SE e EVERETT WA.98208 425-337-S046 ARCHITECT: JAMES THOMAS, ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, PS 2221 EVERETT AVENUE #101 EVERETT WA.98201 Ph: 4A-259-0661 Email: jthomas@arch-design.net STRUCTURAL ENGINEER MIKE MITCHELL, P.E. MITCHELL ENGINEERING, INC. 7821 168TH AVE. NE i REDMOND WA. 98052 Ph: 425447-1500 Fax: 425-747-5403 Email: mltcheliengineering@wmcast.net TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 00500900000103 ZONING RS-12 PROPERTY ADDRESS 15500 75TH PL W., EDMONDS, WA. 98206 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE VB SPRINKLER SYSTEM: N/A OCCUPANCY: R-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ( PARTIAL DESCRIPTIC SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC.05 T 27N R 4E W.M. SEE SHT. Cl FOR COMPLETE DESCRIPTION GOVERNING CODES 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE v WAC 51-51 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 2009 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE W/ NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOC., INC. WAC 51-54 17311 135TH AVE NE A-500 2009 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE W/ WAC WOODINVILLE WA. 98072 51-56, 51-57 Ph: 425-486-1669 Fax: -2510 2006INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE N khals@nelsongeatech.com nelson eater WASHINGTON STATE AMENDMENTS CIVIL ENGINEER 2009 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE 'A JOHN MCDONNELL, P.E. WAC 51-11 IC MCDONNELL ENGINEERING, PC 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE PO BOX 13199 CITY of Edmonds DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MILL CREEK, WA. 98043 Ph: 425-7440916 STANDARDS & SPECIFICATIONS Fax: 425-744-0946 Email:jancdan2@fronHer.com ����� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ARBORI N ���� KEVIN TEAGUE, RLA LAND SURVEY0 HARMSEN AND ASSOCIATES INC TOM BARRY, PLS MOO 146TH ST 2 STE. 104 9811 METRON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Ph: 36, -79 Ph: 360-805-9732 307 N. OLYMPIC AVE. STE. 205 ARLINGTON WA.98223 Fax: Ph: 360-415-3777 kevint5-9732 Email: kevint@hannsen.com Fax: 360-435-4822 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J.C. Mc DONNELL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS P.O. Box 13199 Mill Creek, WA. 98082 STORM DRAINAGE STUDY For GEORGE OLSON SFR Located at 156th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. TAX ID.: 00500900000103 DEVELOPER: Mr. George Olson 3528 102ND Place SE, Everett, WA. 98208 Issue Date: July 20, 2011 Revision Date: August 8, 2012 Revision Date: March 28, 2013 PREPARED BY: J. C. McDonnell, MS, PE SURVEYOR OF RECORD: Metron Land Surveying 307 N. Olympic, Suite 205 Arlington, WA 98223 Tel: (360) 435-3777 EXPIRES 101131 11 I d n 1 Li F— L Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is an undeveloped lot located at the North of the intersection of 75t' Place W and the unopened ROW for 156t' Street SW in Edmonds, WA. 98020. The Legal Description places the property in Section 05, Township 27N, Range 03E, WM. The existing site is wooded without any existing structures. The site is the most northerly residential lot on 75`h Place W. within the Meadowdale slide area. The property is adjacent to the Meadowdale Beach County Park on the north boundary. Sewer, water, telephone and power utilities are available to the south of the frontage in the street. Detention for this Single Family residence is to be conventional underground pipe or tank sized by the pertinent Edmonds regulation for a house of this size with an internal restrictor and pipe conveyance to the drainage conveyance within the BNSF Right -of - Way. The existing right-of-way measures 40-feet total, twenty feet (20) from the existing ROW centerline to the subject property line. No additional dedications have been required as of this writing. Runoff from the lot will be metered into the public storm drain in 73`d Place and will be conveyed through pipes to Puget Sound to protect shoreline properties from erosion WATER QUALITY AND TESC METHODS PROPOSED Type of water quality measure(s) proposed: 1. DOE Standard erosion control BMPs will be designed at the detailed construction plan stage such as mulch, seed, hay bales, sediment traps, plastic sheeting, sediment ponds and TESC entrances to control construction runoff, as required. 2. Mulching and other winter soil management techniques will be specified in the ' construction plans. 11 I IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 2 CD 29 Ln N = E� I �4.5' I ` 25 00' t� ADY1 �12"} Ljj� j GE=9'�J5 I' ill rn c I"t =90J5 CT, a a I SLOPE I ` Cp C. ENTR PAD El. .83 N MAIN FLR', EL. 97.0 UPPER FLR.107.0 J �, II �� fI L n ' GE = 92.85 I I IE =92 a I� xo 1 �ffi o� EDrill SLOPE ?T OPENYJ! 0 0 I o ST AIRS I stai s n I �- � �- GARAGE F1R.105.3 � SLOPE CONG ORI\`• D= "-8'A 0 32.78' m 0 ' Lu = EL. 92.3 I! 1 F F F w a m c c aO c OaciOE= c IL fn H N O N N Y co " tI-- 0, N au) CN l!) M 70 'D U (6 : cn .. :.N O a N " O :o tm :>' `- c -0 a co �-a sp a) fU a) •— C U > •- > 3 ._ (L) OOma)0 �0 rnrn" O "-' '0 -D Co O C O ofW�smm� , cV M IT Lri Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is a vacant waterfront lot at the northerly end of 76t' Place West. The site is bordered on the north with the Meadowdale County Park, to the east by a steep slope two hundred to three hundred feet high and to the south by an existing house. The site is bordered to the east by 76`" Place and to the west by the Burlington Northern Railway ROW and the shoreline of Puget Sound. The site elevation is 6-10 feet below the road surface elevation and the westerly portion of the property drops to the railroad ROW at a 60-percent slope. ,The site is in reasonably good and stable condition with few significant trees and numerous alder trees. There is a large amount of wood debris piled along the slope on the westerly third of the lot. The Snohomish County Soil Survey lists the site soil type as Alderwood Gravely Sandy Loam with 8 to 15 percent slopes. The Gravely Sandy Loam corresponds to a type "C" Isoil with CN's of 81 to 85 depending upon the vegetation and cover conditions. Parcel Legal Description LUNDS MEADOWDALE TRACTS BLK 000 D-03 - TH PTN LOT 4 LY W OF W LN EXIST RD ALSO N 10FT LOT 1 LY W OF W LN OF EXIST RD TGW VAC PTN 75TH AVE W DESC CITY OF EDM ORD 3203 REC AF9806030197 ' Temporary erosion control BMP's will be required to control erosion and potential silt P production off the construction area until the site is stabilized and the landscaping is in iplace. 11 1� IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 11 Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The proposed project will construct approximately 3,660 SF of new rooftop and driveway surfaces to 0.465 acres of the immediate building lot. The development does not require detention if drained to the public ROW storm system by gravity from the property line. Unfortunately, we have demonstrated that, based upon the existing street profile, gravity storm drains cannot be constructed from the edge of the existing site to reach the available public storm system. However, another gravity option has been achieved, a direct discharge by DRISCO pipe to the railroad storm drainage ditch. The gravity alternative has been permitted by BNSF Railroad with conditions described herein. The slope stability over the long term is the primary consideration with gravity discharge. So onsite storm detention will be developed to minimize erosion risk to the downstream. Detention volume is designed for Small Sites as directed by the City of Edmonds in accordance with the ECDC and the ESLHA. Base upon the sensitivity of the Site, Edmonds City staff has required that the detention be sized by a licensed Civil Engineer in lieu of the pre -established tables for sites of this size. In addition to site rooftop detention, the project must address a contribution of offsite runoff from the public right —of —way immediately adjacent to the lot frontage. Surface water falling on the existing asphalt road from the intersection of 76a' Avenue SW with 1561h Place SW north to the County Park gate concentrates against an existing asphalt curb and flows onto the Olson site as a point discharge just under the south end of the existing guard rail. The point discharge of public water currently eroding the southerly portion of the Olson property has been temporarily pipe to the BNSF ditch to avoid further slope damage. Clearly, it is understood that open channel flow down the Olson slope as a sheet flow to the BNSF railroad right-of-way represents a hazard to the embankment. In the permanent design, Edmonds has required a separate SD pipeline to separate the public runoff from the site roof drainage. However, due to the requirements of sewerage pumping for this project and the limited space provided south of the house for this feature, conflicting requirements force all the utility pipes into a 10-foot setback south of the house. The same topographical restrictions that prevent the Olson's from draining to the City storm drains by gravity apply equally to this trapped public runoff. In this design, this runoff must be captured and transported around the Olson house to the storm system. For the purposes of this analysis, stormwater collected in the east ditch of 76`h is assumed to be a minor component in the offsite contribution. IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 DEVELOPMENT AREA DISTRIBUTIONS Site Development Area Distribution Total Property Area 0.465Acres, (20,260 SF) ' _ Development Area 0.254Acres, 11,060 SF) Existing Pervious = 0.465Acres, (20,260 SF) Existing Impervious Area 0.000 Acres Proposed Impervious — 0.084Acres Proposed Pervious = = 0.381 Acres Rooftop Impervious Area = 2,590 SF Access Drive & Entry Impervious = 1,077 SF Deck Surface Area 0 SF (spaced deck) ' Total Created Impervious Surface _ 3,667 SF (0.084 AC) Offsite Contributing Area Existing Pervious 0.099 Acres, (4,429 SF) Existing Impervious Area = 0.079 Acres, (3,450 SF) Offsite Contributing Area = 0.179 Acres, (7,782 SF) Total Created Impervious Surface = 3,667 SF (0.084 AC) Allowable Q2 = 0.084 AC * 0.10 CFS/AC = 0.0084 CFS (Not required for Site) ' Allowable Q10 = 0.084 AC * 0.25 CFS/AC = 0.0211 CFS ' City of Edmonds detention requirement has been imposed on this project requiring the use of the WWHM model to size the detention pipe serving the house rooftop. Use WWHM but the PEAK discharge from the detention system has to be 0.25 CFS/acre impervious or less (See Table 5-3 Edmonds stormwater supplement). DO NOT size it to the duration standard in WWHM. ' So if you have 4,000 square feet of impervious (for example) your PEAK discharge from your detention system from the 10-year event would be 0.023 CFS (=4,000/43560 *0.25). Size the detention system & orifice for this discharge (don't worry about the 2 or 100 yr events) IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 5 Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 1 03/28/13 SITE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 1 A. DESIGN CRITERIA The City of Edmonds Drainage Ordinance requires that storm water from new ' impervious surfaces created by this development must be detained. ECDC 19.10.030(F)(1) requires that drainage detention for properties with these types of conditions must be designed by a Licensed Engineer. The Drainage System Standard Table cannot be used. This site is NOT'eligible for the Standard Plans drainage design. By size, this site is considered a Small Site Development under the Edmonds Stormwater ' Code Supplement. The Site is a Category 1 Small Site based on the fact that less than 5,000 SF of impervious is to be created, less than 3/4 of an acre of land area is converted from woodland to lawn and a runoff increase of greater than 0.1 CFS is not proposed to result in the 100-year event after construction. But, due to the geotechnical characteristics, calculations must be provided to show the design limits the peak rate of runoff to the pre -developed 2-year condition while limiting the 10-year event and the 100-year event to the pre -developed. A procedure using the DOE model, WWHM, has been provided by the City of Edmonds for this calculation. No consideration has been given to the site's location within 100 feet of the shoreline of Puget Sound. 1 Category 1 Small Site Projects are subject to the following Minimum Requirements: Small Site Development Requirement 41: Stormwater Site Plan Preparation The Stormwater Site Plan or Drainage Plan is included in the Project Plan Set. Small Site Development Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Per Edmonds Staff, the SWPP is not required for SFR less than 5,000 SF so it is ' not included in this Plan set. BMP's are specified on the TESC Plan. Small Site Development Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollutants Specific source pollution controls are not required for single family residential sites. General requirements for these sites include the preventing the discharge of ' pollutants to the City's storm drainage system per City code. Small Site Development Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems ' and Outfalls. The preservation of the Natural Drainage System and Outfalls on this project assumes the ability to release detained runoff at the historical undeveloped rate ' as a point discharge or a sheet flow to the west line of the property. This option has required concurrence from the City of Edmonds, the BNSF railroad and the Project Geotechmcal Engineer. Geotechnical has declared the permanent ' sheetflow release option to be unacceptable based upon the soil conditions observed. IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) ' 03/28/ 13 A. DESIGN CRITERIA (cont.) Small Site Development Requirement #5: Onsite Control of Stormwater Onsite control of stormwater via infiltration is not a desirable alternative for this Site due to the slope of the ground, the soil type and the sensitive geotechnical ' conditions of the site. The design detail of the drainage system on the Olson property includes small site detention with an anchored gravity pipe to the downstream property drainage feature. F Small Site Development Requirement #7: Flow Control The geotechnical condition of the site, the ESLHA development code, the proximity to the downstream railroad right-of-way and the need for extra erosion control determine that detention for flow control is required. Small Site Development Requirement #8: Wetland Protection Site does not have a requirement for Wetland Protection. Small Site Development Requirement #9: Operation & Maintenance Documentation is required for any structural BMP such as the Detention System and the Pump Discharge system or gravity outfall as required on this project. Small Site Development Requirement #11: Financial Liability This requirement for this single family residential site does not apply as the site is not to be constructed adjacent to any Critical Area. BNSF Railroad Approval Conditions The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad has agreed to permit the discharge of this runoff onto their Right -of -Way if and only if the following conditions are met: "This has field engineering approval with following items: o Must be fuse welded HDPE end -to -end including diffuser. Diffuser cannot lie in ditch, may come over wall but BNSF will need ability to maintain and clean our ditch without obstruction with on track equipment. o BNSF not responsible for upkeep / maintenance / or damage caused by BNSF. o Must be staked in slope in manner to make sure will not slide down hill. No soil disturbing activities during construction on slope, no tree falling on slope, or on BNSF property. o No men beyond wall, no equipment on slope during construction. o No modifications to the wall can take place. o Do not want riprap in ditch. We use clamshell buckets or on track excavator to scoop out ditches. o No personnel between wall and tracks. These requested changes have been incorporated into the plan submittal package. I J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC r Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 B. DETENTION CALCULATION & STRUCTURE VOLUME Using the described City of Edmonds procedure with the WWHM produced a Detention Volume required to release the allowable Q10 for the subject project of : Site requires a Q10 match. Therefore: Allowable Q10 = 0.084 AC * 0.25 CFS/AC = 0.0211 CFS Required Detention is 36 LF of 30" CMP * 4.92 CF/FT = 176.72 CF ' Design Detention = — 36LF-30" CMP * 4.92 CF/FT= 176.72 CF 48" SD Manhole(s) Vol. 2* 12.566 CF/FT * 2.5 FT = 62.84 CF Subtotal = 239.56 CF Outlet Orifice requirements are as follows: For 30" pipe, Orifice Diameter = 0.72" (23/32") I n Select 36 LF of 30" pipe and 4' of 18" connector pipe with two 48" SDMH's (OR EQUAL) SEE SUPPORTING WWHM PRINTOUT IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. OFFSITE CONTRIBUTING FLOWS Offsite Contributing Area Existing Pervious Existing Impervious Area Offsite Contributing Area 0.099 Acres, (4,429 SF) 0.079 Acres, (3,450 SF) 0.179 Acres, (7,782 SF) The street runoff flow to a low point at the southeast corner of the Olson property. Overland sheetflow from this point has been responsible for causing a small slide to develop at the southwest corner of the property. To resolve this issue, a temporary Catch Basin was constructed with a temporary flexible pipe to safely discharge this flow over the bank to the railroad ditch. A permanent CB will be set with a storm drain directing the runoff to a CB downstream of the Restrictor Manhole. The pipe will be an 8" PVC or equivalent with a minimum slope of 7.9%. Minimum capacity of the 8" pipe will be 4.9 CFS, sufficient to meet this requirement. I J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 ITASK: DRAINAGE SYSTEM REVISION (cont.) ' DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS Site detention will discharge by a 6" pipe conveyance to a diffuser placed at the top of wall on the BNSF Railroad Right -of -Way. Stormwater accumulated in the detention system from the on -site rooftops and the existing public road surfaces will be metered to the outfall discharge structure through a welded 6" Drisco Pipe conveyance anchored to the upstream Catch Basin and to the intervening slope 60% slope with pipe anchors. 1 I Released flows will fall from the top of the wall down the face of the 4' retaining wall to the railroad drainage ditch in accordance with the railroad permit requirements. Upon reaching the ditch, surface flows will follow the flow line of the railroad drainage system to cross under the tracks and into the surf of Puget Sound. GRADING QUANTITIES WEST OF 200' LINE CUT FILL SURFACE QUANTITIES PER ACAD 3.15 CY 16.45CY PIPE INSTALLATION: 108 X 2'WX 3.5'D 28.00Y OCY 36"SS PUMP STATION: 25SF'^X 10'D=250CF 9.26CY 3CY TWO CATCH BASINS: 2X 32" X28' X5'D 1.15CY OCY NET GRADING 41.55CY 19.45CY EAST OF 200' LINE CUT FILL HOUSE FOUNDATION PER AIA CALL 213.5 CY 4.0 CY SURFACE QUANTITIES PER ACAD 44.89 CY 22.58CY PIPE INSTALLATION: 39' OF 30"CMP (ASSUME) X 5'W X 5'D=975CF 28.90CY BACKFILL 39'L X5'W X 2.5'D=487.5CF 18.06CY TWO 48" SDMH(S): 2 X 8'D X 6'W^2=576CF 21.33CY TOCY NET GRADING 308.62CY 51.64CY J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 9 ' Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 7 L ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDICES I J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 10 ' Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) ' 03/28/13 7 LIB' 1. WWHM DETENTION SIZING REPORT ' 311112013 Ll J IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 11 I Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Olson Vault Site Address: Meadowdale City Edmonds Report Date 3/l/2013 MGS Regoin Puget East Data Start 1939/10/1 Data End 2097/08/31 DOT Data Number: 02 WWHM3 Version: ' PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 ' Bypass: No GroundWater: No ' Pervious Land Use Acres Impervious Land Use Acres ' DRIVEWAYS MOD 0.092 'Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Tank 1, Tank 1, ' Name Tank 1 Tank Name: Tank 1 Dimensions Depth: 2.5ft. 'Tank Type Circular Diameter 2.5 ft. Length : 36 ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2.45 ft. Riser Diameter: 12 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.72 in. Elevation: 0 ft. I Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Tank Hydraulic Table _Stage(ft) Area(acr) Volume(acr-ft) Dschrg(c£s) Infilt(cfs) ' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.056 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.083 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.111 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.139 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.167 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.194 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.222 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.250 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.278 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.000 '0.306 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.333 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.000 n -4tii n nni n nnn n oop n nnn 1 L, C� C 0.389 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.417 0.002 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.444 0.002 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.472 0.002 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.500 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.528 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.556 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.583 0.002 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.611 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.639 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.667 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.694 0.002 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.722 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.750 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.778 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.806 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.833 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.861 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.889 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.917 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.944 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.972 0.002 0.001 0.013 0.000 1.000 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.000 1.028 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.000 1.056 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.000 1.083 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.000 1.111 0.002 0.002 0.014 0.000 1.139 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.167 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.194 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.222 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.250 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.278 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.000 1.306 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.333 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.361 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.389 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.417 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.444 0.002 0.002 0.016 0.000 1.472 0.002 0.002 0.017 0.000 1.500 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.528 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.556 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.583 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.611 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.639 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.000 1.667 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.694 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.722 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.750 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.778 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.806 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.833 0.002 0.003 0.018 0.000 1.861 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 1.889 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 1.917 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 1.944 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 1.972 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 2.000 0.002 0.003 0.019 0.000 2.028 0.002 0.004 0.019 0.000 2.056 0.002 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.083 0.002 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.111 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.139 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.167 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.194 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.222 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.250 0.001 0.004 0.020 0.000 2.278 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 2.306 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 2.333 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 9 '�tii n nni n nna n n91 n nnn 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 '2.389 2.417 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 2.444 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.000 2.472 0.000 0.004 0.054 0.000 '2.500 0.000 0.004 0.130 0.000 2.528 0.000 0.000 0.233 0.000 'Name Basin 1 Bypass: No ' Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Mod .092 ' Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ' MITIGATED LAND USE ' ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped Return Period Flow(cfs) '2 year 0.001834 5 year 0.003046 10 year 0.003733 year 0.00445 '25 50 year 0.004883 100 year 0.005244 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.014661 '10 5 year year 0.018354 0.021156 25 year 0.025107 50 year 0.028357 ' 100 year 0.031881 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. Predeveloped Mitigated 'Year 1941 0.003 0.014 1942 0.001 0.015 1943 0.002 0.017 '1944 0.001 0.012 1945 0.000 0.013 1946 0.003 0.017 '1948 1947 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.015 1949 0.003 0.017 1950 0.002 0.015 1951 0.007 0.030 1952 0.003 0.013 1953 0.001 0.029 1954 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.013 '1955 1956 0.001 0.012 1957 0.002 0.013 POC #1 POC #1 POC #1 P r� 11 �J 1958 0.001 0.012 1959 0.002 0.014 1960 0.002 0.012 1961 0.002 0.015 1962 0.002 0.014 1963 0.001 0.014 1964 0.001 0.011 1965 0.002 0.016 1966 0.002 0.014 1967 0.001 0.013 1968 0.003 0.016 1969 0.002 0.016 1970 0.002 0.013 1971 0.001 0.013 1972 0.001 0.013 1973 0.004 0.018 1974 0.001 0.013 1975 0.002 0.013 1976 0.002 0.016 1977 0.002 0.013 1976 0.000 0.014 1979 0.002 0.018 1980 0.002 0.016 1981 0.002 0.016 1982 0.001 0.016 1983 0.002 0.023 1984 0.002 0.018 1985 0.002 0.013 1986 0.001 0.014 1987 0.004 0.017 1988 0.003 0.018 1989 0.002 0.012 1990 0.002 0.015 1991 0.006 0.037 1992 0.005 0.030 1993 0.001 0.015 1994 0.001 0.013 1995 0.001 0.011 1996 0.002 0.013 1997 0.005 0.017 1998 0.003 0.014 1999 0.001 0.013 2000 0.003 0.033 2001 0.002 0.015 2002 0.001 0.011 2003 0.001 0.019 2004 0.004 0.017 2005 0.001 0.011 2006 0.001 0.013 2007 0.002 0.012 2008 0.001 0.014 2009 0.002 0.014 2010 0.004 0.019 2011 0.002 0.044 2012 0.003 0.017 2013 0.002 0.016 2014 0.005 0.026 2015 0.002 0.018 2016 0.001 0.011 2017 0.003 0.018 2018 0.001 0.014 2019 0.002 0.013 2020 0.002 0.015 2021 0.001 0.012 2022 0.003 0.015 2023 0.001 0.016 2024 0.002 0.014 2025 0.001 0.012 2026 0.003 0.015 2027 0.002 0.014 2028 0.002 0.013 9n9a n nng n ni? C 2030 0.002 0.018 2031 0.002 0.018 2032 0.002 0.017 2033 0.004 0.015 2034 0.001 0.011 2035 0.004 0.014 2036 0.002 0.012 2037 0.002 0.016 2038 0.000 0.014 2039 0.001 0.016 2040 0.001 0.014 2041 0.003 0.018 2042 0.002 0.014 2043 0.002 0.016 2044 0.003 0.020 2045 0.001 0.012 2046 0.001 0.016 2047 0.002 0.013 2048 0.001 0.014 2049 0.001 0.018 2050 0.001 0.012 2051 0.002 0.021 2052 0.001 0.014 2053 0.001 0.013 2054 0.004 0.017 2055 0.000 0.011 2056 0.003 0.020 2057 0.006 0.016 2058 0.006 0.020 2059 0.002 0.015 2060 0.002 0.017 2061 0.001 0.016 2062 0.002 0.016 2063 0.008 0.041 2064 0.002 0.013 2065 0.003 0.015 2066 0.001 0.015 2067 0.001 0.010 2068 0.002 0.014 2069 0.004 0.017 2070 0.001 0.011 2071 0.001 0.012 2072 0.001 0.011 2073 0.001 0.013 2074 0.004 0.019 2075 0.002 0.013 2076 0.000 0.014 2077 0.003 0.015 2078 0.000 0.017 2079 0.001 0.014 2080 0.001 0.015 2081 0.005 0.021 2082 0.002 0.016 2083 0.003 0.015 2084 0.002 0.013 2085 0.002 0.014 2086 0.001 0.015 2087 0.002 0.017 2088 0.002 0.017 2089 0.001 0.014 2090 0.002 0.020 2091 0.001 0.013 2092 0.002 0.014 2093 0.003 0.024 2094 0.001 0.013 2095 0.001 0.015 2096 0.001 0.013 2097 0.001 0.016 2098 0.003 0.017 P.-I-A V-1- Dcabc -F-- --A 'Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0077 0.0435 2 0.0069 0.0406 3 0.0063 0.0366 4 0.0061 0.0328 5 0.0057 0.0302 6 0.0051 0.0301 0.0050 0.0285 '7 8 0.0048 0.0256 9 0.0046 0.0240 10 0.0044 0.0235 0.0043 0.0210 '11 12 0.0043 0.0205 13 0.0041 0.0202 14 0.0040 0.0201 0.0038 0.0201 '15 16 0.0037 0.0199 17 0.0036 0.0194 18 0.0036 0.0192 19 0.0035 0.0185 20 0.0035 0.0185 21 0.0035 0.0181 22 0.0034 0.0179 23 0.0033 0.0179 24 0.0032 0.0179 25 0.0032 0.0179 0.0032 0.0178 '26 27 0.0031 0.0177 28 0.0030 0.0176 29 0.0030 0.0175 0.0029 0.0175 '30 31 0.0029 0.0174 32 0.0029 0.0172 33 0.0028 0.0171 34 0.0028 0.0171 35 0.0028 0.0171 36 0.0027 0.0169 37 0.0027 0.0168 0.0025 0.0168 '38 39 0.0025 0.0167 40 0.0025 0.0167 41 0.0024 0.0167 0.0024 0.0166 '42 43 0.0024 0.0166 44 0.0023 0.0165 45 0.0023 0.0165 46 0.0023 0.0164 47 0.0022 0.0164 48 0.0022 0.0164 0.0022 0.0163 '49 50 0.0021 0.0162 51 0.0021 0.0161 52 0.0021 0.0161 '53 54 0.0021 0.0021 0.0161 0.0160 55 0.0020 0.0160 56 0.0020 0.0160 0.0020 0.0159 '57 58 0.0020 0.0159 59 0.0019 0.0153 60 0.0019 0.0158 61 0.0019 0.0158 62 0.0019 0.0157 63 0.0019 0.0155 64 0.0019 0.0154 65 0.0019 0.0154 66 0.0019 0.0154 67 0.0019 0.0153 68 0.0018 0.0152 0.0018 0.0152 '69 70 0.0018 0.0150 71 n nnlR n nlAQ 1 1 0.0018 0.0149 0.0018 0.0149 0.0017 0.0149 0.0017 0.0149 0.0017 0.0148 0.0017 0.0148 0.0017 0.0148 0.0017 0.0146 0.0017 0.0146 0.0017 0.0146 0.0017 0.0146 0.0017 0.0145 0.0017 0.0145 0.0017 0.0145 0.0017 0.0143 0.0016 0.0142 0.0016 0.0142 0.0016 0.0142 0.0016 0.0141 0.0016 0.0141 0.0016 0.0141 0.0016 0.0141 0.0015 0.0140 0.0015 0.0139 0.0015 0.0139 0.0015 0.0139 0.0015 0.0139 0.0014 0.0138 0.0014 0.0138 0.0014 0.0137 0.0014 0.0137 0.0014 0.0136 0.0014 0.0136 0.0014 0.0136 0.0013 0.0136 0.0013 0.0136 0.0013 0.0136 0.0013 0.0135 0.0013 0.0134 0.0013 0.0134 0.0013 0.0133 0.0012 0.0133 0.0012 0.0132 0.0012 0.0132 0.0012 0.0131 0.0012 0.0131 0.0012 0.0131 0.0011 0.0131 0.0011 0.0130 0.0011 0.0130 0.0011 0.0130 0.0011 0.0129 0.0011 0.0129 0.0011 0.0129 0.0010 0.0129 0.0010 0.0128 0.0010 0.0128 0.0010 0.0128 0.0009 0.0128 0.0009 0.0127 0.0009 0.0127 0.0009 0.0127 0.0009 0.0126 0.0009 0.0126 0.0009 0.0125 0.0009 0.0124 0.0008 0.0123 0.0008 0.0122 0.0008 0.0122 0.0008 0.0121 0.0008 0.0120 n nnnR n niia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 144 0.0007 0.0118 145 0.0007 0.0118 146 0.0007 0.0117 147 0.0007 0.0116 148 0.0007 0.0115 149 0.0007 0.0115 150 0.0006 0.0115 151 0.0006 0.0114 152 0.0006 0.0113 153 0.0005 0.0112 154 0.0004 0.0107 155 0.0004 0.0107 156 0.0001 0.0107 157 0.0001 0.0106 158 0.0000 0.0100 POC #1 Facility FAILED duration standard for 1+ flows. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0009 13071 104848 802 Fail 0.0010 11900 102966 865 Fail 0.0010 10836 101138 933 Fail 0.0010 9877 99463 1007 Fail 0.0011 9049 97705 1079 Fail 0.0011 8314 96113 1156 Fail 0.0012 7643 94521 1236 Fail 0.0012 7050 92943 1318 Fail 0.0012 6505 91420 1405 Fail 0.0013 5995 89981 1500 Fail 0.0013 5485 88555 1614 Fail 0.0014 5051 87198 1726 Fail 0.0014 4655 85842 1844 Fail 0.0014 4301 84540 1965 Fail 0.0015 3965 83295 2100 Fail 0.0015 3656 82118 2246 Fail 0.0016 3389 80941 2388 Fail 0.0016 3124 79751 2552 Fail 0.0016 2893 78546 2715 Fail 0.0017 2693 77383 2873 Fail 0.0017 2519 76276 3028 Fail 0.0018 2353 75196 3195 Fail 0.0018 2184 74075 3391 Fail 0.0018 2045 72968 3568 Fail 0.0019 1921 71943 3745 Fail 0.0019 1813 70863 3906 Fail 0.0020 1701 69811 4104 Fail 0.0020 1604 68828 4291 Fail 0.0020 1526 67832 4445 Fail 0.0021 1438 66807 4645 Fail 0.0021 1366 65852 4820 Fail 0.0022 1285 64925 5052 Fail 0.0022 1212 64039 5283 Fail 0.0022 1145 63070 5508 Fail 0.0023 1086 62225 5729 Fail 0.0023 1022 61312 5999 Fail 0.0024 984 60439 6142 Fail 0.0024 931 59609 6402 Fail 0.0024 886 58723 6627 Fail 0.0025 857 57906 6756 Fail 0.0025 814 57089 7013 Fail 0.0026 788 56300 7144 Fail 0.0026 752 55511 7381 Fail 0.0026 723 54750 7572 Fail 0.0027 686 53975 7868 Fail 0.0027 658 53255 8093 Fail 0.0028 626 52493 8385 Fail 0.0028 596 51774 8686 Fail 0.0028 564 51081 9056 Fail n nn')a G"Z'7 C, n'�4a a1]0'Z U,,; 1 1 P F� 1 1 0.0029 507 49739 9810 Fail 0.0030 481 49074 10202 Fail 0.0030 461 48382 10495 Fail 0.0030 445 47759 10732 Fail 0.0031 428 47067 10996 Fail 0.0031 412 46444 11272 Fail 0.0032 389 45807 11775 Fail 0.0032 374 45170 12077 Fail 0.0032 352 44561 12659 Fail 0.0033 334 43897 13142 Fail 0.0033 322 43315 13451 Fail 0.0034 304 42706 14048 Fail 0.0034 290 42153 14535 Fail 0.0034 274 41585 15177 Fail 0.0035 256 41004 16017 Fail 0.0035 247 40422 16365 Fail 0.0036 235 39855 16959 Fail 0.0036 221 39329 17795 Fail 0.0036 207 38816 18751 Fail 0.0037 194 38263 19723 Fail 0.0037 180 37778 20987 Fail 0.0038 173 37266 21541 Fail 0.0038 161 36740 22819 Fail 0.0038 149 36269 24341 Fail 0.0039 135 35785 26507 Fail 0.0039 123 35314 28710 Fail 0.0040 115 34843 30298 Fail 0.0040 105 34387 32749 Fail 0.0040 96 33916 35329 Fail 0.0041 88 33431 37989 Fail 0.0041 83 32975 39728 Fail 0.0042 79 32532 41179 Fail 0.0042 74 32116 43400 Fail 0.0042 69 31659 45882 Fail 0.0043 63 31230 49571 Fail 0.0043 58 30843 53177 Fail 0.0044 50 30441 60882 Fail 0.0044 45 30012 66693 Fail 0.0044 42 29555 70369 Fail 0.0045 39 29168 74789 Fail 0.0045 36 28752 79866 Fail 0.0046 33 28365 85954 Fail 0.0046 31 27991 90293 Fail 0.0046 27 27617 102285 Fail 0.0047 27 27230 100851 Fail 0.0047 26 26883 103396 Fail 0.0048 21 26510 126238 Fail 0.0048 21 26136 124457 Fail 0.0048 19 25804 135810 Fail 0.0049 16 25430 158937 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations 1 from 1/2 predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. I Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Perind and Impind Changes ' No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk ' regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 1 1 1 Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) ' 03/28/13 1 p L--- j 2. SITE VICINITY AERIAL PHOTO 1 1 I 11 IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 12 1 I I.C. MGDONN£LL £NGIN££WNG, PG Consulting Givd Engineers (AP08- 210 Street SW Mountlalce Terrace, WA, g8043 (425) 714-og1t, (T£L) (42.5) 714-og4lo (FA)O £-mail: jemcdon2@frontier.com Vicinity Map Olson SFR Residence 154th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. TAX ID:00500900000103 SCALE: None DATE: SHEET: BY. JOB NUMBER: FILE NAME: Photobase 0 I Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 11 1 r it 1-1 I 3. UPSTREAM CONDITIONS 1 J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 13 1 ul 0 0 I EXISTING UPSTREAM CONDITIONS T.G. MGDDNNELL ENGINEERING PC 'Consulting ,Civil Engineers lolooS- 210 Street SW Mountla o Terrace, WA g6043 (425) Tl4-ogjlo (TI:L) (425) 114-og410 (FAA) e-mail: jcmcdon?-@frontier.com Olson SFR Residence 154th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. TAX ID: 00500900000103 SCALE: None DATE: SHEET: BY. JOB NUMBER: FILE NAME: PhotobaseI I I n I. EXISTING UPSTREAM CONDITIONS 7.G. MGDONNELL t%NG,INl:ERING PG Gonsultiny Givil Engineers Io(o0S- 21(a'h Street SW Mountlaro Terrace, WA. 98o43 (425) T14-o% (TfL) (425) -n4-o9410 (FA)C) E-mail: jcmcdon2@frontier.com Olson SFR Residence 154th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. TAX ID: 00500900000103 SCALE: None DATE: SHEET: JOB NUMBER: FILE NAME: BY: Photobase 2 Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 1 4. SITE CONDITIONS 11 J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 14 �t. ..r '' fir .F Z�y...y � �; ,�, �• �9 � � 1 1. r I , 'w-c ✓ � -. � N .r b 3. a .F _;� s f '..� rim _•. `II ; +i f tit t,! .Y 141 iA / � } . .. ♦ �t1yL ' �{ 1. K 4� � � I �. J F 1 41 _� i .; / ♦__ ^' _^�+.j tom. �. ,�.-. � �.rti .H� i • � •` _ .'\ 2004�103118., �;,.��t�,• „,, _ , T, R it ,/ - +�R'"�n' Alt.+ - 1' "'• c..•.r�"'.` ."• '�t4� r: Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/13 1 n 1 I 1 I 6. DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 15 VN' - . I All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOWNSTEAM CONDITIONS I.C. MGDDNNELL EN&1NE;6V4N6q PG ,Consulting Civil Engineers WPOS- 21(oth Street SW Mountlate Terrace, WA. gSo43 (425) T14-oV, (TeL) (425) -n4-og4co (FAY) e-mail: jcmcdon2efrontier.com Olson SFR Residence 154th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. TAX ID:00500900000103 SCALE: None DATE: SHEET: BY: JOB NUMBER: FILE NAME: Photobase 7 MOlson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) 03/28/ 13 1 7. DRISCO PIPE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. 1 a 1 t I L IJ.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC 16 DRtscaPLEX PERFORMANCE PIPE DRISCOPLEX° 4000/4100 Pipe Water and Wastewater Piping Systems Corrosion Resistant Leak Proof Fused Joints Ideal for Trenchless Applications Flexible Hydraulically Efficient ID Will Not Tuberculate Reduces Surge Pressure Outstanding Resistance to Fatigue Excellent Impact Strength Thrust Blocks Not Needed Resistant to Sewer Gas Less Maintenance Mechanical Fittings Available for Transitions and Repairs Environmentally Friendly C 1 1 n L� PFRF�OlRMAMrDEPlP1E A DIVISION OF CHFYRON PHIWPS CHIMICA1 COMPANY V ASCE Report Card The American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a "report card" on the condition of America's infrastructure about once every five years. In the 2009 report they gave water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of D minus. EPA has identified the two biggest problems facing America's infrastructure as corrosion and leakage. DriscoPlexO 4000 and 4100 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes offer a solution. HDPE pipes do not undergo galvanic corrosion and are suited for "aggressive soils." They do not rust, rot, corrode, tuberculate, or support biological growth. DriscoPlexO 4000 and 4100 pipes are joined by heat fusion which means the pipes are essentially a continuous pipe without gasket joints to leak. The heat -fused joint is as strong as the pipe itself and fully restrained requiring no thrust blocks. The Future for Water and Wastewater Piping Polyethylene pipe's wide acceptance and use for natural gas distribution is the strongest statement that can be made about polyethylene pipe's corrosion resistance and leak -tight nature. Polyethylene pipe has been used for gas distribution pipe since the early 1960's. More than 95% of new gas distribution piping is polyethylene. By 2008, over 577,000 miles of polyethylene natural gas pipe and 39.6 million polyethylene pipe services were installed in the United States. Natural gas service is the most safety critical usage of piping in a municipality. Leakage cannot be tolerated. In addition to the excellent record in gas distribution, polyethylene pipe has been used for water in Europe and North America for 50 years. Recognizing these successes, more and more water and wastewater utilities are turning to polyethylene pipe for both trenchless construction and open -cut applications. For municipal usage, DriscoPlexO pipe is manufactured to ASTM F714, AWWA C901 and AWWA C906 standards. It meets the requirements of NSF/ANSI-61 (NSF/ANSI-14 where noted) and comes in either Iron Pipe Sizes or Ductile Iron Pipe Sizes, i.e. the outside diameter (OD) matches the OD of iron pipe or ductile iron pipe, respectively. In addition to pipe, standard products such as heat -fusion and electrofusion saddles, flanges, mechanical joint adapters are available for hot tapping and connecting to pumps, hydrants or valves. Mechanical connections and hot taps requiring no fusion are available as well. , a Performance Pipe Means the Highest Quality Performance Pipe is a name you can trust in water and sewer piping. Performance Pipe has produced quality polyethylene piping products for fifty years. Our internal QA/QC requirements meet or exceed those required by industry standards. Each production line is continuously monitored throughout the manufacturing cycle to ensure that the product adheres to all internal quality control specifications and the manufacturing standard. All nine of Performance Pipe's manufacturing facilities and our headquarters are certified in accordance with the latest edition of ISO 9001:2000. Certificates of Conformance are available through our website. Performance Pipe produces all pipe and molded fittings products in the United States. These products are compliant with the Buy American requirement of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. When you select Performance Pipe DriscoPlex® 4000 and 4100 pipe and fittings, in addition to receiving quality products, you also gain access to our team of experts for technical support, sales and assistance. Our territory sales teams are dedicated to the municipal piping industry and are active Bulletin PP 501 1 February 2011 Page 2 of 18 02011 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Performance Pipe, a division of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 15085 W. Park Blvd I Suite 500 1 Plano, TX 75093 1 Phone: 800-527-0662 1 Fax: 972-599-7348 1 L I 1 a C A DIVISION OF 01YRON PNIIIWS CNFMIU! COMPANYV members of the ASTM International, Plastics Pipe Institute, American Water Works Association (AWWA) and many other industry associations. As a company we provide technical expertise and service to these organizations on an ongoing basis. The unmatched quality and performance of Performance Pipe's polyethylene piping products is further enhanced and strengthened by more than five decades of quality polyolefin plastic resin production from our parent company Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP. Polyethylene Resin Continues to Improve DriscoPlex@ pipe and fittings for M&I applications are made from polyethylene materials that are engineered for high density, extra high molecular weight, and broad molecular weight distribution. These characteristics give DriscoPlex@ products strength, flexibility, toughness and durability. Since the introduction of polyethylene piping materials in the 1950's, polyethylene resin manufacturers have worked continually to improve their resins. In 2005 "High Performance" polyethylene pipe materials were adopted in U.S. ASTM standards. The most improved of the new materials has a designation code of PE4710. Compared to PE3408 (now PE3608) materials, PE4710 resins have increased density, higher tensile strength and higher resistance to slow crack growth. These increased properties allow the pipe to meet higher performance requirements. Performance Pipe manufactures pipe and fittings of high performance PE4710. Performance Pipe's PE4710 materials are listed in PPI TR-4 with a Hydrostatic Design Stress of 1000 psi at 73°F. Where specifications and standards permit, PE4710 materials can be operated at PE3408 materials due to the higher Hydrostatic Design Stress rating at 73°F. or exceed all of the requirements of the former PE3408 resin. higher pressures than PE4710 materials meet For a more detailed explanation of PE4710 materials and information regarding temperature, design factors and calculation of pressure rating, see PP 816-TN PE3608 and PE4710 Materials Designation Codes and Pipe Pressure Ratings. All Performance Pipe documents may be found at www.performancepipe.com. Cell Classification for PE4710 Material ASTM D3350, Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Pipe and Fittings Materials, identifies ' polyethylene materials for pipe and fittings according to a cell classification system. Performance Pipe's DriscoPlee4000 and 4100 series pipe cell classification is*listed in Table 1. For specific material properties see PP101, `DriscoPlex@ 4000 (DIPS)/4100 (IPS) Water, Wastewater and Industrial". I Table 1: Cell Classifications Bulletin PP 5011 February 2011 Page 3 of 18 ©2011 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Performance Pipe, a division of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 15085 W. Park Blvd 1 Suite 500 1 Plano, TX 75093 1 Phone: 800-527-0662 1 Fax: 972-599-7348 11 1 u 1 F IERAORMANCEAPIE ADatum of Grcviou Pnaurs Owai COMPANY LP PE Durability and Disinfectants in Potable Water Applications HDPE pipes are used extensively in municipal water applications throughout Europe and the United Kingdom — boasting the lowest failure rates of any piping material. HDPE pipes contain additives which protect the pipe from the oxidizing effects of disinfectants. At Performance Pipe, our HDPE water pipes meet AWWA requirements and are evaluated to the toxicological requirements of NSF/ANSI 61. A recent study by Jana Laboratories examined the projected lifespan of polyethylene pipe under typical operating conditions at utilities in Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, and California. Findings indicate that polyethylene pipe has greater than 100 years of life expectancy. Read Jana Laboratories' report, Impact of Potable Water Disinfectants on PE Pipe. DriscoPlex@ Piping Products for Municipal Applications Performance Pipe offers pipe for municipal applications that are manufactured to both ASTM and AWWA standards simultaneously. Performance Pipe standard products are generally stocked by distributors and, for many sizes and DR's, are readily available. Specialty products are available but generally not stocked and thus have to be produced at Performance Pipe manufacturing plants. Table 2 lists the various products, applicable standards, and the pipe material designation code. DriscoPlex® pipes series are identified by a four digit number code. For example, DriscoPlex® 4000 pipe. For %" through 2" SIDR and CTS and for %" through 3" IPS for municipal potable water service lines consider 5100 Ultraline®. See PP410,'DriscoPlex@ 5100 Series Ultraline® HDPE Water Service Pipe & Tubing". DriscoPlex® Pipe is Manufactured to Both ASTM F714 and AWWA C906 DriscoPlexO 4000/4100 pipe meets or exceeds the requirements of ASTM F714 and AWWA C906. ASTM F714 designates a "Pressure Rating (PR)" whereas AWWA C906 designates a "Pressure Class, PC.' Currently these are not calculated the same way and therefore are not equal. ASTM F714 recognizes PE4710 material, whereas AWWA C906 is being updated but currently treats PE4710 material as having the same PC as the former PE3408 material. For AWWA C906 ratings, see Appendix 1. Bulletin PP 5011 February 2011 Page 4 of 18 ©2011 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Performance Pipe, a division of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 15085 W. Park Blvd I Suite 500 1 Plano, TX 75093 1 Phone: 800-527-0662 1 Fax: 972-599-7348 1 _......,,. 11111P I PERFORMMiCfPIPE A 0111SIOH or [ntvxox PMIM 001M foxvaar LP ' The pressure rating of PE pipe varies with the pipe's Dimension Ratio (DR). The DR is equal to the average pipe outside diameter (OD) divided by the minimum wall thickness. The Plastics Pipe Institute's Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe gives the method for calculating the pressure rating. The pressure ratings for DriscoPlex@ 4000/4100 pipe allowed by ASTM F714 are given in Table 3. Water and force main sewer lines have frequent and recurring surges. The designer will consider both 1 1 the pipe's working or pumping pressure and the total pressure (pumping pressure plus surge pressure) when determining an application's DR. Rating for both are given in Table 3 for easy comparison with design flow conditions. Table 3 DriscoPlex(O 4000 and 4100 Pipe Pressure Ratings per ASTM F714 at su-i- i Pipe Pressure Ratings Per ASTM F7141 Working Pressure re Dimension Ratio Rating During. .. .. .. 9y250 375 11 200 `,.; 300 13.5 160 . ' 240 ; `320 14.3 r , ' ,150 225 :'300, 17125_' 185 250 21 100 150 200 26R. 120 �80�...•,,. _��� .,, . �,�760 r__ ram____..__ l+,___ -_� Iu_..L:.--. n..---...._ I7_4:.-..... ...... AIAn A/n nnnc - - - n.........J:v 4 On4;n.. e. n.•� in.•,.,n{.-.r nnA rUr rrrsSSure �.ra55 anu vvurnniy rraSaury rcau tgo Nvr nvv vvn wvv, ovv nrronurn '. r.a &. — — — w; a,, . va=, If other fluids and temperature. Table 3 Working Pressure Ratings may be used with AWWA C901 pipe. The temperature range for polyethylene pipe is -40°F to 140OF for pressure pipe and -40OF to 180OF for non -pressurized pipe, e.g. gravity flow. When DriscoPlex@) pipe operates at a temperature above 80OF the Pressure Rating and Pressure Class of the pipe are decreased. The PR/PC for temperatures above 80OF may be determined by multiplying the PC in Table 3 by the temperature factor from Table 4. Table 4: Service Tern Service Temperature, °F Factor <80 (27) (1) 1 <90 (32) 1 <100 (38) 1 <110 (43) 1 <120 (49) 1 <130 (54) 1 <140 (60) 1.0 1 0.90 1 0.78 1 0.71 1 0.63 1 0.57 1 0.5 'Use 80°F (27°C) service factor for service temperatures below 80°F (27°C). FT for temperatures below 100'F are AWWA M-55. FT for temperatures above 100°F found by interpolation per Handbook of PE Pipe, Chp 3. PP/ Design & Engineering Calculator for PE Pipe is available on the Performance Pipe website. DriscoP1ex0400014100 Pipe Common Sizes Tables 5 and 6 give dimensions and weights for commonly used DR's in the water and wastewater industry. For other available DR's, see PP152 and PP153, Size and Dimension Sheets. All pipes of a given nominal size are made to the same OD regardless of DR. Therefore, the average inside diameter (ID) varies with the pipe wall thickness. DriscoPlex@ 4000/4100 pipe is available in 40 or 50 foot lengths and is also available in coils through 6" DIPS. Packaging and Loading information is available on our website. Bulletin PP 501 1 February 2011 Page 5 of 18 02011 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Performance Pipe, a division of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 15085 W. Park Blvd I Suite 500 1 Plano, TX 75093 1 Phone: 800-527-0662 1 Fax: 972-599-7348 r_1 I I I I I I I �l I t I I I I F I I L� M It Ln W M > cc w 0 0 0 M N 0 w 0 N N N 60 ■ CR C\! m M q-4- q CD M to r- M 0 6 06 0 r M Ct (0 M > o ■ cc • a 0 CY) r- w m P- c m r- 0 r- E m w 0 m w 0 m 0 0 0 -ffio U') r^.: C� C� OR CD N N CN L) (n N i LQ c 0 :3 o CM05. -cr) cr) c CD M, co Cc CA C' ;cc.. Lo V- -cy) N cr.) ■ cy) CD fir.; CD:a -co. rn 0.'� N- M rn N" Co lm l':ICQ:A"llCN O" 0 "CV, 140 - (D, ch M co -,to p c) "O _4 r • N CD tr R r-- r7 CN r- cq CO M 0c) CV) C:) CD C U) 4 C'S � r (:6 c) r., CL L) N cli m 't LO M m N 0 0 tl- 0 N 0 E 0 z 'a w r- cl m 'I c3) " CO O E cm CD M - N r- N N M r- M C (n a a 2 m m 0 m 0 r- -.41 CD I-t w w N c cu 00 't CM CD r- rl: N O r- q - N M cl - Cn CD cq M " r-- 1p r o E 0 C) 0 0 0 - - - - - N N M U"o sZ CL c le (00 a) 0) cu -5 CL L) mn CR N -Lp 001 a) (D a) C) LOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CS a a) N cl "'I: ui CO cq R CMLq (D E CY) LO r- (n r C%4 LO C14 C\j co CC) m "t --;r 0 En - O. (n '0- co co CD w C, N -'r C-4 C, M co N(0 .5 r a) CL 'D M I �I ;.. r O OD M- M N t0 M, to N n COO ti r h` O COf h O cn M h N co '. N N M COD O a' N z .`� 8y�' �z °.• -'.xx �C't Sa' x n- cx t �. ,�� t i f r a;: • �_ CO lV l0 O ' Cn n d• �11. M'' y a . r ',e`• O t0 Ml M O Lli ti O" �} M O .M CO r O : 10 iM Oq zN Cf?S O •CID; 05'-, r N ..:. M lq 4D �+ N • .a r �_� ` > S7 CD O CO' O Vti I� CO �M Cp O CV '� M — O CD N co t� O U M• 1� lCi Ma Mi.r r: tOCV 'h O..N tD fD CD M ' r;, M M N M r O h N Ln M O co CD CD CD I!� M(D 0. CO M CM O V O M CO t0 r Lo M N O _ U N O r N 6 OD M O N N 6 r W O M Q V*U COD C O 7 M r tC7 N (O O N l0 M M t` C� V m M N O M M M O r O I, ti lM W Cn O (D N M CO CD O w CP CND CD CAM co O N O ~ O m N M l0 CO M N N N N N C • [T • C E • • O O M N tt h M M 0 O O O N't O r- M r M f6 N • r • r O O co 1� 0 n O M r 0 co CD 1* N O M C` CL N M V: CD r- M r N CD O O 7 M C0 C- M O N E -CL O O O O O - r r N N N N N N M M 'M U (h CO Cn` siM Cn l0 Imo- t`' CO O :M •p U 0 �.'_•� G.� O, p} aM;"M: aN _Ni O (Da t` .M e-.• r O:,M CO DO O Pik O ti l0 iM tt' lC'i CD, ;O N - CO CL 7 CL • z r S d e- e-t N 1 M � T -t 7 tA� CD h' CD 01,, i r�, ?,r a E ,•y' CO • • • � e:Y • N d' d'- O N M N :.. o W w O cD r M r M.. o M ao CD r�..cD O CO ;CO ro a w+ 00 N M fD • N MC lL)�hC.A'M. 1OatC70z`CO.IFN M•'M ACV N'..t�q N'N CO • ■ ■ $O _M C CD_ v ti- lf) M i- O CO V N O M h .- _ C N CD h •CO N M uM M CD M d M M O. O M tD M r� a Oa tM O �' 0= O Jam' Oil • N �N' Y: - O' O ,O Cif.. pe- .M E U_ 7 M � CO CO M M M CD � r- CC) O M th cn O co r- ti00 CD Cn Uf M (D co M O � O O O coM CD N M O d C to O O M C1') CO N �7 Cn O f� m CD CO CO to CD CO C O 2.0V C p ■ �_ O O o M M l0 O t0 CO O h M f` O M 00 CO M CO O r O CD O_ r (D M f6 N E (O M M C0 N C) r-l0 CO N O r- N O r- O ti O Q • O O M h CO r N In ti M r CV a CD CC) M r (O CV O O O N N N N N M M � CV • • l0 CD O CO CD O M C`� O N M O M 'a N M O CO r- `7 M N M N I-- O (D N (D O O CD r I� d' N • ■ O � CL E 0 ® r N N M l0 CD C.- M M O N 0 CD ti CO O r d• CD p O C7 C;O O O C;O O N N N N a0 • ice. b'. CO n:' O' er O: •O M O CD M: O '� r•_ ,[t N . ', CD- M. Mt, 1� U C fU •�? .N 7 ' -• Ni t�^ CO N'% r N �O r> M e-: r tt dart N7 (�.i.ur OY rx.r N-;N M. fG M N `d' a[i'.' CD IC) eF' O•"N r- N W- :rr••:...;, 11') N 'co t0-. 'C0 'N C- .t- CO. r � . CA � co CD"' O � � � a coCL O OD:. l0"r�M ;CD -coCD '.00 h '� h I-- .h- .f- tCD co CO -CO ,co 'O �.- a. co L ■ O'-M h. ,(�D' ? ,,'M � h-.'(0r O. M r M 1^- M' I' N N N!Nxz,N M�oi ` • • .�O. a .. %N " O r N ' ti Imo r.-I, 40 co'." m 'tt M M M ,M t}' . `O tD := C CDC N M d 1. O CD (D' CO CO I� (O M M � M Na M M . N •d• N^ Cn r 'CO r� h C f:0 CO N J-' t0- CCf „ CO C M O O O C1 O O CD O CD O O O O CD O O O tll OL -o E M N LO N co 04 CS l0 r*-: in C` O O C)O O O O O CD O O O O O O CD O O CD O C,O O O O O O O •- O E C U N M CD ao O N O N tt w M O N V CD N CO -4 Cn •- N CV N N N M M CM M 1' rf Cn N CD C N M (D M O N (O M- N CO tD O N CO N co (U to N N N N N M M M M --:rO LL Q V Olson SFR Drainage (Rev. 1) ' 03/28/13 8.0 GRADING QUANTITYDOCUMENTATION 1 1 1 P I J.C. McDonnell Engineering, PC I I I I I I I 0 Al. 2, 7- TD-M10- NOTES- WALL LFGEND UP, 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 1 of 1 Cut/Fill Report Generated: 2013-03-22 13 :21:02 By user: Jon Drawing: C:\Civi13D Projects\05936 Olson SFR\C:\Civil 3D Projects\05936 Olson SFR\05836x Survey.dwg Volume Summary Cut Fill 2d Area Cut Fill Net Name Type Factor Factor (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) VOLUME EAST OF full 1.000 1.000 5511.09 44.89 22.58 22.32<Cut> BUFFER VOLUME WEST OF full 1.000 1.000 1639.51 3.15 16.45 13.30<Fill> BUFFER Totals 2d Area Cut Fill Net (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) Total 7150.60 48.04 39.03 9.01<Cut> * Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0 file :///C:/Users/Jon/AppData/Local/Temp/CutFillReport.xml 3/22/2013 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oO N Ln v d J2 m F- wcc V UJ "' •^ � Q q �,�' " ^�3 :: l y'. �' m "i r .tom »;�' ��+ �i"•' L^ Qi l� ."�'.� . �":. tn Al 41 wQJ 3 rd. • yoo; � C, ycdo o a b o cl w m � O W ad I� CO It C�, o O. � � :• � ate+ � �..�;. d0,•f Al i r per..,. �.. w 4. 00 N y llJr, of y O 4T iye i , F.o A O •R N > A b � m 7 V � ti N T °o c U m G a N U c a o � w c� D C O 7 'a u o a p o 'D E � 3 � o 0 m a O C w o c 3 C d = U w o o d � d B •� V m y � w d m � O [ G 0 U y "� •id m E.o•� zm �. u• T cU7 � w C C to by N 2 [y a IF o c u o .o d 0 0 ; t o y > A m O C d R G O = •� N � � O R a a, � C• C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frame & Grate Elevation / Leveling Btick 6" Minimum Mm• Slope 0.59% For Detention Pipe Size -See Table 1 Id Elevation Watertight Removable Cap Ladder Rungs Control Manhole and outlet Elevation `T� Overflow Pipe to have same capacity as Outlet Pipe \ Elevation ,!— Jam' ------------------- - Elevation — Anchor Straps (2 Re q'd) Mortar entire diameter �r 4- (Mtn.) OudetPipe Header Header l' Minimum Elevation 2' Minimum /t CC Size D fo-fl ' S} � .4Elevation (No Scale) s:\engr\handouts, policies, permits, procedures\public handouts\drafts\draft detention sizing handout.doc Inlet T__1 I J. C. Mc DONNELL ENGINEERING, PC CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS P.O. Box 13199 Mill Creek, WA. 98082 SEWERAGE PUMP STATION PREDESIGN REPORT For GEORGE OLSON SFR Located at 154th & 75th Place West Edmonds, WA. DEVELOPER: Mr. George Olson 3528 102ND Place SE, Everett, WA. 98208 Issue Date: April 27, 2011 Revision Date: Mar 28, 2013 Revision Date: June 27, 2013 Prepared By: J. C. McDonnell, MS, PE rl► rr r � �/ r i I 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is an undeveloped lot located north of the intersection of 75'�' Place W. and the unopened ROW for 156`h Street SW in Edmonds, WA. 98020. The Legal Description places the property in Section 05, Township 27N, Range 03E, WM. The existing beachfront site abuts the south property line of the Meadowdale Beach County Park. It is wooded without any existing structures. The site is the most northerly residential lot on 75'h Place W. within the Meadowdale slide area. Sewer, water, telephone and power utilities are available to the south of the frontage in the street. The proposed residential structure will be constructed with the bottom floor below the street elevation and below the existing sewer main invert. Gravity sewer to the proposed residence is not feasible. Therefore, a pump system must be employed. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is the last available vacant waterfront lot at the northerly end of 75`t' Place West. The site is bordered on the north with the Meadowdale County Park, to the east by an existing paved roadway and a steep embankment two hundred to three hundred feet high. Immediately south of the Olson Lot is an existing house owned by Dr. Thomas Degan, MD. The site is bordered to the west by the Burlington Northern Railway ROW and the shoreline of Puget Sound. The proposed basement floor elevation of the house lower than the street. The westerly portion of the property drops to the railroad ROW at a 60-percent slope. The site is in reasonably good and stable condition with a few significant trees and numerous alder. At the time of inspection there was a large amount of wood debris piled along the slope on the westerly third of the lot. The Snohomish County Soil Survey lists the site soil type as Alderwood Gravely Sandy Loam with 0 to 8 percent slopes. The Gravely Sandy Loam corresponds to a type "C" soil with CN's of 81 to 85 depending upon the vegetation and cover conditions. Parcel Legal Description • LUNDS MEADOWDALE TRACTS BLK 000 D-03 - TH PTN LOT 4 LY W OF W LN EXIST RD ALSO N 10FT LOT 1 LY W OF W LN OF EXIST RD TGW VAC PTN 75TH AVE W DESC CITY OF EDM ORD 3203 REC AF9806030197 J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 2 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report A. QUALIFICATIONS J. C. McDonnell Engineering, PC is Civil Engineering Corporation with wide experience and solid credentials in Civil Engineering Design. J.C. McDonnell has provided Civil Engineering Design Services since 1983 including numerous opportunities to design pump systems for sewerage, drinking water and stormwater. The largest pump system upgrade was a municipal pump system upgrade in 2006 for an Olympia pump station serving the 150 lot plat of Evergreen Hills and the surrounding developed communities. We have recently designed small storm pump systems in the City of Edmonds and the City of Shoreline as well. B. DESIGN CRITERIA The City of Edmonds Regulations for Residential Sewage describes the detailed requirements for design of the proposed pump system. Design Standard References to be used include: REF. 1 ECOLOGY CRITERIA FOR SEWAGE WORKS; i. Guidelines for lift station location; ii. Pump sizing & selection; iii. Wet well sizing criteria; iv. Alarm systems; v. Emergency response criteria vi. Lighting & ventilation. REF 2. UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, APPENDIX A REF 3. CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER CODE Design rates for sewage pumping are based upon peak water demands. These are calculated based upon all proposed plumbing fixtures as outlined in Reference 2 above. Exterior hose bibs are not considered in the peak flow calculation. C. SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The service area for this project is limited to the proposed Olson residence, a four bedroom house proposed for the subject property. The proposed footprint with property boundaries is described in the Appendix Item I. There is no potential- for a 100-year flood plain on this parcel since it is a beachfront property sloping 80-feet down to the shoreline of Puget Sound. The nearest collection system is the municipal gravity sewer main located in the pavement of 75t' Place West. The last available gravity sewer manhole in 75t' Place W. is thirty six feet (36) southeast of the lot's SE property corner. Since the road drops in elevation from the sewer manhole to the lot frontage, there is no potential benefit to extension of the gravity sewer main. J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report D. PEAK FLOW CALCULATIONS 1. Peak Flow Estimate A fixture count for the proposed structure is provided in the Appendix. Based upon Reference 2 above the accumulated Water System Fixture Units were 26. Based upon Chart A-2, a system Estimated Demand Load was 25 GPM. 2. Sewage Peak Volume for a 4 bedroom house could be estimated to be as high as 600 GPD based upon a typical septic design criteria of 150 GPD/bedroom. However, Appendix III cites Appendix D of the Washington DOH Water System Design Manual that an assumption of an Average Daily Demand of 350 GPD/ERU is justifiable. A project fixture count Table is given in Appendix II. Estimated Demand Load for the house is 25 GPM. Average Q/day is 350 GPD and Estimated Peak Water Use = 600GPD. Estimates based upon Tables A-2. J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report E. SEWER PUMP DESIGN The proposed station must be located west of and below the house in order to serve the lowest floor. Since the house has been redesigned to replace the basement with a crawl space, the pump is moved to the south east corner of the house to address other requirements of the City of Edmonds. The pump design will require: Station Top Elevation = 88.5 FT 36" VOL (Dropped 1-foot on plan view) GAL 7.07 CF/FT 52.9Gal /FT FM OUT = 86.0 FT Sewer In = 85.25 FT Pump Alarm = 84.75 FT Pump ON Elevation = 81.5 FT Pump OFF Elevation = 80.0 FT 26.45 GAL 171.9 GAL 79.35 GAL SEPARATION= 2.4" Pump Emergency Shut Down = 79.8 FT SEPARATION= 3.6" Pump Intake Elevation = 79.5 FT Tank Bottom Elevation = 79.0 FT Static Head = Gravity IE- Pump On El 105.88 — 81.5 = 24.38 FT Force Main Length = 101 LF — 2" HDPE Welded or Equal Station Pipe out Diameter = 1.25" Alarm to Inflow Invert Distance = 0.5' 165 GAL / (7.48 * 7.07 CF/FT) IN 36" = 3.12' Elevation from Pump On to Discharge IE (out) = 3.62' ASSUMPTIONS: Assume all internal plumbing, bends & valves are steel or galvanized. Select Hf value for plastic pipe from the Pipe Figure F by Hydromatic provided in the Appendices: (VERIFIED 6/11/2013) Select Hf value for HDPE PE3408 from Table provided by HD Fowler provided in the Appendices: (VERIFIED 6/11/2013) No bronze bends will be included, 1 STEEL GV is assumed. Assume configuration per enclosed picture of typical guide rail system. J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 5 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report System Operating Velocity is to be a minimum 3.0 FPS meeting the Edmonds Specs. Estimated Design Pump Rate to be 30 GPM- 40 GPM: Friction Loss, Hf = VA2/ 2G INTERPOLATED: At 3.0 FPS, Q= 29.4 GPS 2" POLY HI-MOL @ 25 GPM; 0.55 PSI / 100 LF @ 30 GPM; 0.77 PSI/ 100 LF @ 35 GPM; 1.025 PSI / 100 LF @ 40 GPM; 1.31 PSI/ 10OLF 2" Force Main Table Head -loss for 2" Poly 3408 SDR @ 25 GPM = 0.55 PSI per 100 LF @ 25-GPM, Force Main Friction Head -loss = 0.55 FT/'* 102/100 *2.3 FT/PSI =1.290 FT Table Head -loss for 2" Poly 3408 SDR @ 30 GPM = 0.77 PSI per 100 LF @ 30-GPM, Force Main Friction Head -loss = 0.77 FT* 102/100 * 2.3 =1.806 FT Table Head -loss for 2" Poly 3408 SDR @ 35 GPM=1.025PSI per 100 LF @ 35-GPM, Force Main Friction Head -loss = 1.025* 102/100 * 2.3 = 2.405 FT Table Head -loss for 2" Poly 3408 SDR @ 40 GPM =1.31 PSI per 100 LF @ 40-GPM, Force Main Friction Head -loss = 1.31 * 102/100 * 2.3 = 3.07FT ENGINEER'S NOTE: Since the required HDPE force main pipe is shipped in 8-foot coils, we assume that the Friction Loss Table provided by the Supplier incorporates the effects of bends into the friction loss table. We assume also given the smooth bore characteristics of HDPE pipe that any bend considerations are nominal relative to the power of the pump provided. J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report F. PUMP STATION MINOR LOSSES (HYDROMATIC FIGURE C.) FOUR 90-DEGREE STEEL in EL (s) 1-1/4" ELs LF 90 degree elbow-- EQUIV L= (3.5 ft/PER) * 4-each 14' Tee, EQUIV L= 2.3 FT(Thru-Flo) 0 Tee, EQUIV L= 6.9 FT (Branch Q) 0 Check Valve L= 11.5 FT assume 1-each 11.5' Gate Valve L = 0.9 FT assume 1-each 0.9' Sub -total = 26.4' Assumed 1.25" pipe length in Station (85.5- 80.5) = 5' Total Length = 31.4' STATION HL FRICTION LOSSES HL= Pipe Losses + Minor Losses Friction Losses (Hydromatic Figure F.): Assume Steel 1.25" @ 25 GPM; 9.61'/ 100 LF @ 30 GPM; 13.0'/ 100 LF @ 35 GPM; 18.2'/ 100 LF @ 20 GPM; 6.31/100 LF * 31.4 FT = 1.98 FT @ 25 GPM; 9.61'/ 100 LF * 31.4 FT = 3.08 FT @ 30 GPM; 13.0'/ 100 LF * 31.4 FT = 4.08 FT @ 35 GPM; 18.2'/ 100 LF * 31.4 FT = 5.71 FT @ 40 GPM; 40.0'/100LF * 31.4 FT = 12.56 FT OPERATING CURVE ESTIMATE (TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD -FT) TDH = STATIC LOSS + FORCE MAIN LOSS + PUMP STA LOSS With 2" Poly Force Main @ 25 GPM, HL= 24.38 FT + 1.29 + 3.08 = 28.75 FT @ 30 GPM, HL= 24.38 FT + 1.81 + 4.08 = 30.27 FT @ 35 GPM, HL= 24.38 FT + 2.40 + 5.71 = 32.49 FT @ 40 GPM; HL= 24.38 FT + 3.07 + 12.56 = 40.01 FT (Includes all friction losses) J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 7 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report VELOCITY IN 2" FM V = Q/A = CFS/SF = FPS A (2"PIPE) = pi D^2/4 = 3.1415sq in/144 = 0.021817 SF Q = 25 GPM/ (7.48 * 60 SEC/MIN) = 0.0557 CFS V = Q/A = 0.0557 CFS/ 0.021817 SF = 2.55 FPS Q = 30 GPM/ (7.48 * 60 SEC/MIN) = 0.0668 CFS V = Q/A = 0.0668 CFS/ 0.021817 SF = 3.06 FPS Q = 35 GPM/ (7.48 * 60 SEC/MIN) = 0.078 CFS V = Q/A = 0.078 CFS/ 0.021817 SF = 3.57 FPS Q = 40 GPM/ (7.48 * 60 SEC/MIN) = 0.089 CFS V = Q/A = 0.089 CFS/ 0.021817 SF = 4.085 FPS To meet Velocity greater than 3 FPS criteria, pump must be 30 GPM or higher in a 2" Poly HDPE Force Main. We recommend a pump range from 30-40 GPM. H. PUMP SELECTION: Closest match to Operating Curve is the Hydromatic HPG/HPGX series Grinder Pump with a custom impeller fabricated by Pump Tech of Bellevue, WA. Pump impeller can be fabricated exactly to the system demand requirements. This Pump shall pump 35GPM at a TDH= 32-FT . Impeller required is estimated to be 4.0". This pump will be installed in a 36"diameter fiberglass wet well 9- feet in depth with Hydromatic Guide Rail System to be supplied by the fabricator meeting Edmonds specifications. See information provided in the Appendices. Control panel will also be supplied to Edmonds specifications via the fabricator, (Pump Tech (or other) of Bellevue, WA). J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report I. PUMP CYCLE CALCULATIONS Minimum Cycle Volume = 70 GAL (1.13 ft in 36" MH) Pump Intake Elevation = 79.5 FT Pump On Elevation = 81.5 FT Pump Off Elevation = 80.0 FT Minimum cycle volume = (81.5-80) * 52.9 GAL/FT= 79.4 GAL Minimum Cycle Time = 79.4/35 = 2.266 MIN Maximum Cycle Volume Pump Intake Elevation Pump On Elevation Alarm Elevation Volume = (84.75 — 81.5) Maximum Cycle Time = 79.5 FT = 81.5 FT = 84.75 FT = 3.25 FT (172 GAL) = 172/3 5 = 4.91 MIN Select a design Pump Rate of 35 GPM. Pump will be a Hydromatic HPG/HPGX 2HP Submersible Grinder with an impeller cut to suit (OR EQUAL). J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 9 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report J. BOUYANCY CALCULATION Assumptions: 1. Groundwater table reaches the surface. 2. Station is constructed with structure depth = 8 feet. 3. A 20% safety factor is required to protect the station from sustaining damage due to buoyancy. 36" Fiberglass Option Station Volume = PI * (DA2)/4 * Depth Let D = 9', Let DIA = 3.0 Feet Volume = 9'* (3.1416 * (3.0 A2)/4) = 63.63 CF (476 GAL) Displaced Wt of Water = 63.63 CF * 62.4 LBS/CF = 3,970.5 LBS Adding a 20% Safety Factor: The Station Weight is required to equal or exceed 4,764.6 LBS Therefore, the selected station weight plus the concrete anti -flotation base must equal or exceed 4,765 LBS. Estimated Fiberglass Station Weight = 1,230 LBS Required Concrete Wt = 4,765# —1230# = 3,535 LBS Required Concrete Volume = 3,535 LBS/145 LBS/CF = 24.38 CF Base Dimension = 12.25 SF x 1.99' feet deep Therefore, the selected station weight plus the concrete anti -flotation base must equal or exceed 4,765 #s. J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 10 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report ENGINEERING REPORT APPENDICES J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 11 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report I. Proposed Site Development a. Service Area/Lot Map b. Building footprint c. Aerial Site Photo I C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 12 NVId 210013 a3aan ,-4 N Q s Z s a K 0 0 wW6 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report II. Fixture Count Table I C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 13 OLSON FIXTURE COUNT Meadowdale SFR 5-Mar-13 FLOOR Fixture WSFU Main Kitchen sink -faucet 1 1.5 vege-sink 1 1.5 dish washer 1 1.5 hor water 1 0 Powder vanity sink 1 0 water closet 1 2.5 Laundry Washer 1 4 Utility sink 1 1.5 Upper Master bath tub 1 4 shower head 1 2 water closet 1 2.5 vanity sink 2 1.5 Guest Bath shower head 1 2 water closet 1 2.5 vanity sink 1 0 25.5 From Chart A-2 For 26 WSFU: Estimated Demand Load = 25 GPM For a 4-Bedroom House Average Water Use = 350 GPD Per DOH [PerSeptic Peak Water Use = 600 GPD Criteria Q x ' m m CD¢>a cx i N N Iti; N N cry -P In 1, w I a z � I b A 'c m_ r0ti �'3I^�In In F o1 U' jlL iNr*4 El m �o.^'[ioor%Y� _ y c > n N N 01L }6 I LL O In O In C 0 0 0 _ I� C. O i rl 7 = J> i U N R a w " a r ..�'p_ aO m i obm � 'r��oa0000crc}-+r - = ¢ .O O fcn�..o O I- Ll 11'i .O I\ C +N+ +�• ry �1 rC.3 ac au p � m 3 lu ti In m •3; c ^ o� "W f - �a rn a J 0 'o IO (n W I O b 0 .0 O In O CS .0 6 0 C L C O p Q p� T oc=m WL` i�rt 1n�: Iri I N �N == o I W W I 00 ¢ rn ix^a aNtilra�, EIn N -- w m oa? E Q I cmE �•[ y n U;<7r.w o m E I ''f In m m I �mE ,c`r„_iliNiau-�rcMrwc��aa U' :> ,-I rl -i• a r � ry C W CL Y N rl G E � '' N N M n O N � r.L m o g m I a mE N v W`o ��FE wa'ry n.sn"^'owlia >a s« rn rJ n "Z a ¢ m J � 'O m m` 3 gg ct qW� ^'tip' nip �12ad c' � � '- r• ri rti r, a i .-• ri ri nj a h `m rn G ° EE i G tr In N o o+ I 17.o a 8E N N rn y. ,n w cp n M lo ^ A`a O E 0 y ,a 90 ooin In v,000 c a - S — S— � c m a N m e+n IA O C O G p 0 4 U� O Y.! C Cr. R J .G -+ r'] ri rj T Y'i CE nj N N In u} x 3 V L Q t n ooco N In M t a 't 5Fc H •L C; y .. r+l1 `1 N _^ r` M N N N.� •`-,� ` ?, `a `3 u � a a' � W QLL H i i j n v ` L �- a a W _= c v y 1 of �F>Uw c 'o -- n =� s c = z n C .c E E ai { : r ._: It Ir '• '_ 'r,, 4 2 ?, c Q E '2 S a ` ° '� :. U n < �. 3 y '- ^ •- :m E^ ra ry p A a •n , o m 4 a i u. x U C` a ` Fs _ r n c c— •'c 'Z ': �7c G•-.c' we UU V C1U �, -o i' a `3 r 4 EL rva aI, •j o A n r` §Y .'3 j J c c Qci mUt]�Owx.gr c��1 [J ~Y-�InS c.� G,'c_ - Z co N Y X d 2 w N J o O w C9 CID w w Q a, N p Y p• w y ..J 2 Q o U Y 19 m CL S ti a) n a W v c u L E CL Y N1NNrJ a o n o � d C In E ai t t { 1 t i i i A - M 7, u u J u U n y J L z O r 7- V 8,- y 8 p E� E� Ti '+7 TJ ' O 0. u i y Tin m �G man. o. K ''•�A trj v U in E � O r l O G i ^ n CJ { vCi O j In Q i i f j ] t f i { I j ' t t • : N j i 3 a. i 'o { a°v io cn° .,cmyby i•o i u. d Al c a i C. o 0 a � c Z,-y' U a s o.� °� m •O o 0{."7 In In to y E U C Q O rrJ`,�in� In n`•r tlmcan r`rr' riF3�L^IJ�az Gaa_C OIlGnnG� �a 0 ONR nG C o -. ,- rl rI ri ri ri ri rS 1InOl K Ina GCIn G N KJ Tr+ Iry 17 h qJ C o y+�rtln .ten mari N E y E U. C rn 3EMi- In ! C ins ci 3�L _ a C � . J i 3 •� { N O 3Ic � C: t 0 [O Olt 25 p v - J Nia Q ai m m � j LU tea - 7. Al E : E t t0 w C. O O O O y N V L cyi 79 'O 9 aJ ti. E E E E Jv r a; n, q E O. p, R• Pi 0! V+ m In 6 C '' yt a � 3 � I i i i i I e r a! O � v yt< a; . .. ....1 0 N ,a � G y 2• Vb N O W W »0 ❑ O C N O. ,° v v ;4� Oo •'J ❑ r' 9 C C T %� G O 6 � m m !ate .Q tNi, T �• �_ O m N W Pi ° %j 00 Q N N O N o •. G _ cn y ,,. 1 ❑ "�• �7 S .1, I I I I 05 1 � w z r� imv =N w c II 11 I1J L 7 X z OC n V t� 00 N ! ! C 0 Qj tl n C V W O N ,a I 1 p n a q C �G D = O x x x (7 CL r' m ❑ m '� .. m "go n Demand — Liters/Second N 0) m m c in Ft t I:,, 'LL 11 { f iE. ` , II I.F. I f t II Z , t frirI� i , , 1, lal a 0 4 i � t jj1 E-H ' !tlI RkUll �11.4ii 4r1 .I Yi:.t11'1 ri il. r.Ili -��rti,{' �'j..1 (�, E,t r .�•I; :• '�..�l�i l''Ik r ti.l; �r 0 � Demand -GPM N W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O m o N N 0 v 0 0 00 I N m Z n 00 -i K 2m m Z �❑ m m c °' m O O -0 Cn jIt r 11 � Fes_ �f� 1 If.l I 1 N'i' nl 1 ll I r r I! IF 4 .1.'.Ut., 1 -UO { m It m E ,1 n o y, Nm V Ca 0 m °' 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report Ill. Washington Department of Health 2010 Water System Design Manual From Appendix D. Baseline Residential Water Demand .,116. rj,!- t in ar aspect w-hich app ears tin have gen.erat The daola (shcrvn in Figure D-I) shows an ' %:E s znpl' Xadon and credence for baseHneresidentialT water demands. With, only a few exceptions where a few data porw!.s can be seen to be [D-wer, all. data generally tied above a value of 200 gap&ERU at all rainfifli. levels, the averaise annual demands reported -were. great-er than 200 gpdfERU). This obSUN-WHon may be construed as a threshold kveb.. for residential demands which a� I. F ti i . -el ,,lpeartobeindetiEjideiitozaveraE�:eanilLialprecipi,n DI levels and may indicatp the base lev of demand associated with internal household (non..ij7gigation, etc.j uses. As such, the function w . hicb describes the: rielationshirp between ADD and a-vTage annual rainfall would be more strongly associated with external -.1immeboM .use; (irrigation, lawn watering,. etc.). Assurning this is the case, design requirennents ffir total dennands could be separated '11to hvo components - one related -.0 internal uses and The otber to external uses. For internat demands, a constant value independent of rainfiall could be prescribed and for external demands, a relational function could becstanlisjjcd wIncli was depen.dent UPD11 rainfall levels. ftcai the data, the single valued revel for average annual household demands (Internal uses), "N'bid) would appear to apply independent of rainfrall, is about 200 gT'&ERU. La sii P c dictates that this demand nnay be consistent on an averealTe annual. hasiN, but cannot be expected to be uniform. on a day to day basis. Residential. households would be expected. to experience peak dennanddays iffir hiternal uses associaAXi with a number of factors. Peak day uses could be expected with increased Nvater demands for showerimT in the SUMMC-T or wben.visitors or relatives are, entertained. The aclual levels associatedwith the peaking demand days %vmfld be dependent upon many variables. There were no kno-,xii relational studies; oranecdotal accounts, that could befound whichh would assist in developillent of de-si-11 parameters for interinal household peaking uses. Nonetheless, in order to maintain consistency will, stipulziions of ' the 't*eri'a V. who State's Group Bi,;a-,.c system designer--i- and with iihia Department of Eco og uisomL r instances provides estimates of peak- daY -internal uses for water rights issues, a reasonable level,. .6- a N-fzxirnuj-n Daily Residentia,:'Demand for internal -uses can be established at.350gp&ERIJ) (':a value which can he Seen is Marginally less th . an douhie the averapannual internal demand of 200 gPd',ERU p reviously d i scuss ed). I C.McDonnell Engineering, PC 14 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report IV. HYDROMATIC HPG/HPGX SUBMERSIBLE GRINDER PUMP DATA J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 15 Pump DatiSheet - HYDROMATIC Company. Matzke Sales, Inc. Name: John McDonnell i p L.q'F-) 0 L;'1A U Datff. 611812013 :P Sbatich' Size: HPG/HPGX Flow. 30 US gpm Head: 40 ft Type- GRINDER-SUBM Speed: 3450 rpm Synch speed: 3600 rpm Dia: 4.125 in Water Temperature: 60'F Curve: Impeller. Density- 62.37 lb[ft' Vapor pressure: 0.2563 psi a Specific Speeds: Ns: — Viscosity: 1.105 cP Atrn pressure: 14.7 psi a Nss: — NPSHa: — Dimensions: Suction: — Discharge: 125in Consult HYDROMATIC to select a motor for this pump. Temperature: 140 *F Power: Pressure- — Eye area: Sphere size: — Datafe Flow. 30 US gpm Head- 40 ft Eff: — % Power. 2 hp NPSHr — ..f� -".Design Shutoff head: 57.9 ft Shutoff dP: 25.1 psi Min flow. 0 US gpm BER — % NOL power. 2 hp @ 5 US gpm Mail Curve — Max power 2 hp @ 2.5 US gpm 5.5 in 1 120 4 5.25 in 100,5'in 80 60 40 20 0 5 10 1,5 :iii—, 25 36 35 40 45 50 55 66 65 1.5 a- z 0 5 10 15 2b 25 30 '35 40 45 50 55 60 65 US gpm ,1P6rI`qrriE'!nd6 Evaluat(Oh' a Flow Speed Head Efficiency Power NPSHr US gpm rpm ft % hp ft 36 3450 32.4 2 30 3450 40 2 24 3450 45.9 2 18 3450 50.5 2 12 3450 54.2 2 H20ptimize Hydromatic 9 Selected from catalog: Grinder Pumps 60Hz Vers: Nov 2009 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report V. GRINDER PUMP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT DATA J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 16 DWELLING PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY PUMP CONTROL PROPERTY LINE PANEL LOCKING IAMPHOLE COVER ROADWAY FINISHED GRADE 12• PVC SLEEVE N i' 6' RISER 3' MIN COVER 6' WYE AND 45' AND 1/8 BEND 5' MIN 2'� ' I TYPICAL SIDE SEWER GRAVITY SEWER MAIN =I SEE DETAIL 'A' FOR CONNECTION —� IN THIS AREA GRAVITY FLOW FROM DWELLING FORCE MAIN 2' IPS POLY HI—MOL PIPE (200 PSI) I GRINDER PUMP ASSEMBLY PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY GLUED 2' FORCE 6' SDR 35 PIPE MAIN GRINDER PUMP SERVICE LINE NOTES 6' SDR 35 SPIGOT (W/ 6' GASKET) 1. WRAP AND TAPE 12 GAUGE TRACER WIRE EVERY 10' TO THE FORCE MAIN. X 4' SCH 40 HUB 4' X 2' SCH 80 SLIP X THREAD' BUSHING 2. THE LOCATION OF THE STUB SERVICE TERMINATION SHALL BE MARKED BY 2' BRASS MIP X IPS COMPRESSION THE CONTRACTOR WITH 2' X 4' TIMBER EXTENDED VERTICALLY FROM THE FITTING WITH STAINLESS STEEL INSERT PLUG END TO A MINIMUM OF 3' ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE, A 12—GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE TIMBER FROM END TO END. NEITHER THE WIRE NOR THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE SEWER DETAIL 'A' PIPE OR PLUG. THE EXPOSED PORTION OF THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE PRE —PAINTED TRAFFIC WHITE WITH THE WORDS 'GRINDER PUMP SEWER CONNECTION' STENCILED ON WITH BLACK PAINT. THE END OF THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE PRE —MARKED IN PERMANENT INK WITH THE LENGTH OF THE CITY INSPECTION TIMBER INSTALLED. REQUIRED PRIOR 3, GRINDER PUMP VENTILATION SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE T❑ BACKFILL SEWER VENTING SYSTEM, PER NFPA CODE. 1 ;. • I I O y• D. L✓ •. REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL wmavED BY DATE A GCHMT 6/16/03 GRINDER PUMP SERVICE CONNECTION TO GRAVITY SEWER MAIN IL �� 6/Z3/03 1 0 890-199 DATE 5/9/02 SCALE NTS DING NO. E6.9 06/27/2013 Olson SFR Pump Revised Report VI. FRICTION LOSS TABLES FOR STEEL AND HDPE PIPE AND VALVES J. C .McDonnell Engineering, PC 17 C H � •� 9 C � c�=e c a •� R' 85 ss b 0� �g� B A u GI Rj M5 ESA y eo tiaF� O .9 0 oN w� Q'z w .5 mo'S Qa� �+�3Cc VO �4 J � 0�P6 N> ai 3L1NIY/ Had SN091WO AlIOVdV3 W31SAS a $Q S 3 � � ng 9 !jai j a j � gg` gg mJq RMN L° S E N �c I °_° D Y1Z 9 NNNN Ul>> 33• 7J>> > 3 N q S ae a �a �rFb yy C � � U.N. •� O O � N 1Ul m �� � � 3 U.p� •5— � m pp aO .!^. GrJ' al qQq o T dpap Q a o� SS�T, � T 64 •oo C�j � � � iY� jU •r"n ri u -• O pU0` o U � � N N Nl _� 9 jf 0. yd' "gvOj' !A '���cn1 ��+ o 9 U tl u � ~� � 9 w Fi A H O O C, .s �.a 0.W0.0.� �•�m apj •a5 °[7a 'i� o C °C coal* s deco �r`S qq qq a W e A O .may. g0.qa �i L ^a 2 a .n W IqC G° b � y •J •Rp1 .q cf •° 6 •� .w � .�s� 9 u � ss •�a 0 - w:dy,��33�q NnM'7. 5 K w q v•O G�.y �4�^� r A G a ��a`�3a 'a^A•^°as jm.' k6a,o b"" 4a aoo &mhol boa AV, urn 'd�aao n°>a W 4Pe .S a E°p rn a C O F bum b .-NI10 bm �'-N o d`?�• njNN m 1C m ' W d i � b b b dN b O)� 1DpPn r-NNCJ Nm NtC J w �m �b c�ninm m.-ovmi 'U a W NCJdN Iv(�1 m�i9mm6�mnm aD Cl t�t� 4 tp Iv, 0��� chin_ - N U 7 F a 6 �ivm nm.emimv ^. ?��#m��1d W IJ do b0b°mj V " 6,6C5 O�o W aObi0 Nm 041E a {?NtU�1A Ni Nlp W [�INNr.pN��M bON �lhn^m V NNNYr?OIi� a adbmo^db moue NNmdowbrm ob o m000000ni coin M Avg ja'� T 00 G � � �p!� 'KF° 8 °G p � J73a SF ^ A �° Z`m' 20 >i 2a u�'aq Fr�u •5� 4yo " y •'' 3u QO � m °°° Cao a BE 9 L°� '7 s�•- �S,curr oof v� Eq? W Its M H 0A cmn 40 32m oE.pp QU $wu &I A V P o �vagqi FF .- II c�1 q v e`� C N 6 •o a� '� 'u' .'L` y o y o rJ' O. u z'b z a •I• � Ho ... O Eli 0. i � a ^ V �"' � u a.o :+� � ii » " "•e � 0. v a e u� 9m v I s E a 0 J a ;y� u � zo. �.Ga H� [a cm•Sg � E Ll Co !u�Q.$m, .. ,cl, con mGri -S.. 2.5 p N N D3v S �u 1 oAG aA, > a w « 3 'w tl tJ' > c '=b•S a c •6^''n cwi u ,° .� 8 3 Ann ?n 4 y f o 0 o v o o $ o �9 '�'ca•� !0 II rn$�g 40. .I-Im II �p,�j m� y.S 'J U °i8 y g X—.� S g ' c ° Ao � ON a I o v � b p� .N age �m Off y'$ X��a. �p':2 •� �N a mqy •S '3 ••��5 � >-2'm�`� �a`� �g�'y�� e• �� I� w p�o,`�G oo `. `rr � C �I q ❑'°CC g:� oY �F c epi Fo N W ,1�,,� 3�e 3 m o m U 3 30 lTti U W' 9 .-h h m S �� Ep L"r_"�o °.� p,t� fa .`3_'a �'.� •oivi� p� u �o �¢om.�� _ w'� � Hro .�W �+QA E � rv�aa� `p� s t �'1 6 ti a G 2 '� saQOFF. y Uy �p tl C Q 9,G 41 E 3 4 oN •q •rJ- m 3 po �-�. O iS = T� a n .. o EEO x O Cp C Gt G r d-b�m;u �0 0o y o > � � u4n n y�'• 'o G a b ��`� •�E �� "3 4 J '3 o coo a A^ryry• 01, c E �vh i i r n �•�Pa uo ���sp� n F�PIR. �o�Q 5� �aa Aga ., � as •3 E .5 F+ � �d � y � A � u � •='g � 0.� o E `i '� N � I ,•`o ;� a, �y1 m .� 2 o �g 1 � � � '" 3.5 � a� o � � � a a 'n c. a •5 .$ F al � �' �[ _ � °i u a d� .� •S W���;, s .� 5.p •52� ry Gn g N1 @ � ��T, a��. •a ? r II C Q p.p V zr a as �cs a Wig" z15 z L. •p �Bo N aw t�� o p� V•� y a �a J ¢a d� Q� i6� a� 0 O d 5 LL H 1 REV � cf 19 s 1a1i --n Assaciaiiion Ncfioil Loss Chaylt 2008 POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC PIPE ID CONTROLLED PE 3408 ASTM D 2239 C=140 PSI LOSS PER 100 FEET OF PIPE 71 I I I , I! { zb ._� - �-._.-... . - �_ .-_ . Nominal Size 1/2" 3/4" 1" 1-1/4" 1-1/2" 2" 2-1/2" T. 4" Avg. ID 0.622. 0.824 1.049 1.380 1.610 2,667 2.469 3.068 4.026 Flow Velocity PSI' Velocity PSI Velocity PSI Velocity PSI Velocity PSI Velocity PSI Velocity Psi Velocity PSI Velocity PSI GPM FPS LOSS FPS LOSS -FPS LOSS FPS LOSS FPS LOSS FPS LOSS FPS LOSS FPS LASS FPS LASS 1 1.05 0.40 0.60 0.12 0.37 0.04 0.21 0.01 0,16 0.00 2 2.11 1.76 1.2D 0,45 0,74 0.14 0.43 0.04 0.31 0,02 0.19 0.01 3 3.16 3.73 1.80 0.95 1.11 0.29 0.64 0,08 0.47 0.04 0.29 0.01 4 4.22 6.135 2.40 1.62 1.48 0.50 0.86 0,13 0.63 0.06 0.38 0.02 0.27 0.01 ?;,.v;c0 3.00 2!14 1.85 0.76 1.07 0,20 0.79 0.09 0.48 0.03 0.33 0.01 6 ;i':b}33': >%;i3:'';5 3.61 3.43 2.22 1.06 1.29 0.28 0.94 0,13 0.57 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.26 0,01 71,7,t:1; 4.21 4.54 2.60 1.41 1.50 0.37 1.10 0.18 0.67 0.05 0.47 0.02 0.30 0.01 8 (8;441%•'2<�3 4.81 5.84 2.97 1.80 1.71 0.47 1.26 0.22 0.76 0.07 0.54 0.03 0.35 0.01 9 <;`9iQ9;', L8.51 r 5:41;='';r'C'e 334 2.24 1.93 0.59 1.42 0.28 0.86 0.05 0,60 0.03 0.39 0.01 10 s10:55. ;34(y .::'i:6:01 :.J.62 3.71 2.71 2.14 0.721 1.57 0.14 0.95 0.10 0.67 0.04 0.43 0.01 12 4.45 3.82 2.57 1.01 1A9 0.48 1.15 0.14 0.80 0.06 0.52 0.02 14 :; `; 8cA1,':::: 7{� *!c; ' i 5 7.9;::w^ S,fiS.' 3.00 1.34 2.20 0.63 1.34 0.19 0.94 0.08 0.61 G.03 16 .9.61„';'21_Q7 ;593,,.: 6-51- 3.43 1,71 2.52 0.61 1.53 0.24 1.07 0.10 0.69 0.04 0.40 0.01 18 ..1D82;i,„2o�?�:`67....3�(.Di; 3[86 2.13 2.83 1.01 1.72 0.30 1.20 0.13 0.78 O.C4 0.45 0.01 20 4.28 2.59 3.15 1.22 1:91 0,36 1.34 0.1.5 0.87 0.05 0.50 0.01 22 16:-,i�i1:11.-.7i4 3.09 3.46 1.46 2.10 0.43 1.47 0,18 0.95 0.06 0.55 0.02 24 .,l90 7 7a: ,.,.4.71 , 'S14- -3(+3`, 3.78 1.72 2.29 0.51 1.61 0,21 1.04 0.07 0.60 0,02 26 ! y9yb4`a':::1'y :.5;57.: -.;-n?;I; 4.09 1.99 2.48 0.59 1.74 0.25 1.13 0.09 0.65 002 28 10;38 }n , 6 6 00 w 0.3 4.41 2.28 2.67 0.68 1.87 0.28 1.21 0.10 0.70 0,03 30 4.72 2.59 2.86 037 2.01 0.32 1.30 0.11 0.76 0.02 32 1; 862&?11 6 8b. `"ci 14 :- 5043 . -'7 9�� 3.06 0.8-1 2.14 0.36 1.39 0.13 0.81 0.03 34 1261 Z� 9 728 692 533 2i;. 3.25 0.97 2.28 0.41 1.47 0.14 0.86 0.01 36 7 71 :7 bo 5'67 " 3,G3 3.44 1.08 2.41 0.45 1.56 0.16 0.91 0,04 38 .. 8,14 . f8,50 „ 5:98 ,. �4.U3 3.63 9.14 2.54 0.50 1.65 0.17 0.96 0.05 40 85'Z{'`ii`4.35:�i`:�6:30.`�-:ii':C:4^: 3.82 1.31 2.68 0.55 1.73 0.19 1.01 0.Q5 42 :>:%9`.00",.',.,'>102s;,,6:51�`.c��d:03; 4.01 1.43 2.81 0.60 1.82 0.21 1.06 0.06 44 ; .9 ;43;.: 11.16 , .:6i93..., ; 5;2?; 4,20 1.56 2.94 0.66 1.91 0.23 1.11 0.06 4b , ,9,8b::. 1:2� K,;7245r 4.39 1.70 3.08 0.71 1.99 025 1.16 0.07 48 :„1028:::1�,11. ii.7f56.,6�r�1„ 4.58 1.84 3.21 0.77 2.08 0.27 1.21 0.07 50 , 4.77 1.98 3.35 0.63 2.17 0.29 1.26 0.08 55 1178 1'S 8? 8 66 7'97 S 2s 2 96 3.68 0.99 2.38 0.35 1.38 0.09 60 ` 1Z 85 j19 82 944 9 36 578 �`'i% 4.02 1.17 2.60 0.41 1.51 0,111 65 ,10;23.. 1tl.86',<!.1621 .,3,;22% 4.35 1.36 2.82 0.47 1.64 0.93 70 ti o? 17 4S ' 6 6 3 3i39 4.69 1,55 3.03 0.54 1.76 0.14 75 11�91t:.14,15"-`716-...ti:1s..,-,Si02�`.;:F�tJ7- 3.25 0.61 1.89 0.16 80 12:59 � 95 :? 764 I�%3. 535t ti9. 3.47 0.69 2.01 0.iB 85 1338 17- 4 ei2.bq:° 569`> :7:23. 3.68 0.77 2.14 0.21 90 '-r 8:595;;(.. Yd 6:02;i 'Grit' 3.90 0,86 2.27 0.23 959�0T;`.C-b;SC//.":��<::"6:36't;.;i/4 4.12 0.95 2.39 0.25 100">•:9.55'>'%ISi:4 .i-3A` 4.33 1.05 2.52 0.28 110 ? 1Q.5,0,,".. ,£ Sa ;:; 7.3G:'?a,5.V 4.77 1.25 2.77 - 0.33 120 1146 -1UO2 r 8:03c;'4l� . _520i 47 3.02 0.39 130 ;1241,.11L' 970` 4�o j563 1' �.,.: 3.27 0.45 140 %j:13,37 -1 ^`3a 9 37y S`d1 ii 07 r?5: 3.52 0.52 750 10 04 : 0 38- 6°SD - �i2 3.78 0.59 160;`:";„7,::7?i-:s•'6:9,A, ., 7,nQ' 4.03 0.67 170 11 38 8D4 7 37 7? 4.28 0.74 180 12D5 R94 T80 a'71 4.53 0.83 190 ,1272„ Q��,x;8_Z4 3,134.78 0,92, 200.<867 - 220?(1. 240 ;. . 260 1;11 27 : s i�4 280 300 ..13.00' 320 .. -;'. 13 8Z:;::-r.'i9;0p*;; %8;05' £;....... 340 360 380 Si9i57°' 3;3 400 Shaded areas represent velocities over 5 fps. Use with caution where water hammer is a concern. ":ilo:oz , 3;.>:3: 420 <ros ; ; 3a9 440 460 480 500 SIMPLEX JUNCTION BOX, STRUCT, PLASTIC 1 1/2' C❑NDUIT FLANGE EY CONDUIT SEAL (REQ'D BY OTHERS) 18" MIN. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AIR VENT. CONNECT TO DWELLING PLUMBING VENTILATION. INLET FITTING, TYP, (FIELD INSTALLED) - - �_ 4' INLET ;GLASS OR HIGH -� [TY POLYETHYLENE BASIN 2' MIN 24' BASIN COVER, STRUCT, PLASTIC ASSEMBLIES SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN AREAS SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, IF LOCATED IN TRAFFIC AREAS, THE LID SHALL BE TRAFFIC RATED AND SHALL BE INSTALLED STAINLESS STEEL FLUSH IN ASPHALT VALVE EXTENSION ' OR CONCRETE. ' HANDLE SST FASTENERS fr 2' /-FINISHED GRADE RAIL MOUNTING FLANGE LIFTOUT CHAIN -ANTI-SIPHON VALVE, PVC (IF REQ'D.> TOP HOLDDOWN RISER PIPE 2' HI-MOL POLY FORCE MAIN 2' BRASS MIP X IPS COMPRESSION FITTING WITH STAINLESS STEEL STIFFENER -HIGH WATER 'ALARM' LEVEL SHALL BE A MIN, OF 6' BELOW INVERT OF 4' SEWER INLET ILS 'ON' LEVEL GUIDE PLATE J DISCHARGE PIPE I PUMP 'OFF_' LEVEL SWING CHECK VALVE O-A: & DISCONNECT ASSY •' •' DISCHARGE CASE GRINDER PUMP CONCRETE ANTI -FLOTATION BASE ANTI -FLOATATION PLATE OR FLANGE CITY INSPECTI❑N REQUIRED REFER TO CITY HANDOUT i PRIOR R T❑ B A C K F I L L #74 FOR DESIGN AND PERMIT - - I -REQUIREMENTS 'd90-199" -D M 0' N 'D REvisIONS STANDARD DETAIL PROVED BY DATE D. GEBERT 6/16/03 X' SIMPLEX GRINDER PUMP WITH REMOTE MOUNTED CONTROL PANEL D. GEBERT 6/23/03 DATE `J/9/�2 SCALE N� S DWG NO. E6.7 D, GEBERT 10/6/03 f NC�A Main Office 17311 — 135" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County DATE: July 1, 2013 TO: George Olson CC FROM: NELSON G EOTECH N ICAL ASSOCIATES9 INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS MEMORANDUM Jim Thomas — Architectural Design Associates, Inc. Khaled Shawish, PE RE: Olson Property Existing Block Retaining Wall Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 13 Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 InEaU clz JUL - 9 2013 SUIL®INO DEPARWENI a fl`�Y OF [MEONDS, This memo provides our opinions regarding the existing block retaining wall located within the City of Edmond's 75a' Place West Right -of -Way, adjacent to your property. We previously provided a geotechnical evaluation report for your future single-family residence project title "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report" dated July .15, 2011. In that report we concluded that this existing block wall was in a deteriorating condition and posed risk to your development plans. That opinion was based on your plans at the time the report was prepared, which included a permanent cut near this wall and improvements within a close proximity to the wall. We recommended at that time that a soldier pile wall be constructed along the property line to buttress the deteriorating wall and provide permanent support for the planned grading. You have since revised your development plans which omitted alterations to the area adjacent to the existing wall and all improvements in that area. The soldier pile wall is no longer part of the plans. We have provided a more recent plan review letter for the current plans dated April 3, 2013 in which we stated that since no structures or grading were planned adjacent to the block wall, there was no need for replacing the wall for the benefit of your project. We stated that periodic monitoring of the wall with the STREET FLE t Memorandum Existing Block Retaining Wall Olson Property Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 13 July 1, 2013 Page 2 understanding that the City may have to repair/replace the wall in the future should be sufficient at this time. We have been provided with a copy of a technical memorandum by Landau Associates, Inc. dated June 7, 2013 in which they expressed concern that the block wall is not being sufficiently addressed by current development plans, or by any plans by the City for dealing with the wall. This memo recommended that you and the City collaborate to assess the degree of hazard this wall poses to your property and/or the right-of-way and evaluate whether additional actions beyond monitoring the wall are needed. As mentioned in our previous review letter, with the alteration of your development plans to avoid any disturbance to the wall or vicinity, it is our opinion the wall will continue to perform as it has for many years, and therefore periodic monitoring of the wall should be sufficient to allow ample time for decisions to be made regarding repairs/replacement of the wall, long before a total collapse of the wall. Even if the wall were to abruptly fail, such failure should not impact the improvements planned on your property or hinder access of emergency vehicles. It is important to keep in mind that this wall is located entirely within the City right-of-way and thus any future alterations to the wall should be planned and carried out by the City. The City should make such assessment as, unlike your property, failure of this wall could impact the road and access to properties located beyond the location of this wall. If the City elects to further evaluate the need for repairing/replacing the wall, we would be happy to consult directly with the City regarding such plans. We trust this memorandum should satisfy your needs at this time. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional services. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM e&Vorn. MI"OWW_4IHnnanMarM TO: Leif Bjorback, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. dl /Ir DATE: June 7, 2013 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW y3� EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA - BLD20120858 '' LL OLSON SFR-15500 75TH PLACE WEST Wl- P D��RSr�� EDMONDS, WASHINGTON t� ''►V C� � This technical memorandum provides our supplemental geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. Landau Associates previously completed a peer review for this project and summarized our observations and recommendations in a Technical Memorandum dated November 19, 2012. Several submittal packets pertain to this project. The submittal reviewed for our previous peer review in 2012 consisted of two document packets —one stamped "Received August 23, 2012" and one stamped "Received October 1, 2012." The former packet was submitted for completeness review by the City; the latter packet contained a replacement set of architectural -structural drawings, an updated structural calculations packet, and an executed agreement with BNSF for stonnwater tightline construction and discharge onto the railroad's right-of-way. The City completed their review of the submittal package and provided review comments to the applicant in November, 2012. The applicant revised the design and resubmitted the documents for review.with a letter dated April 4, 2013; the submittal was suspended shortly after that date so that additional revisions could be made. Revisions to the amended design, primarily relocating the structure to provide for adjusted building setbacks from the property lines were made, along with changes to grading to reduce or eliminate the need for walls, and to support the lower floor as a structural floor on grade beams instead of slab -on -grade. Other changes were made to the storm drainage configuration. These changes were documented in transmittal letters dated April 4 and May 2, 2013. The current review focuses on the most recent of the revised documents from either April 4 or May 2, 2013. The purpose of the current supplemental geotechnical peer review is to review revised portions of the submittal package and assess its compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and .23.80, and our previous review comments from our Technical Memorandum dated November 19, 2012. This 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 778-0907 - fax (425) 778.6409 - www.landauine.com geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 13-08 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received and reviewed the following new or resubmitted information forwarded by the City for review: • Resubmittal of selected plans for 777e Proposed Olson Residence, 15500 75/1' Pl. SW, BLD20120858, letter from Architectural Design Associates, PS. to City of Edmonds, dated May 2, 2013. • Olson Residence, 15500 75"' Pl. SW, Plan Check No, 2012-0858, letter from Architectural Design Associates, PS. to City of Edmonds, dated April 4, 2013. • Site Plan (Sheet SPLO) listed in sheet index of Architectural Plan Set (above) but not bound; encountered loose in submittal packet. Updated for revised setback, but still dated July 11, 2011. • Architectural Plan Sheets Al.0 and A1.1, prepared by Architectural Design Associates, dated August 20, 2012, but stamped by City of Edmonds as Resubmittal on May 3, 2013. • Architectural/Structural Plan Set (14 Sheets, including architectural and structural plans, elevations, and details) prepared by Architectural Design Associates, resubmittal dated April 4, 2013. • Landscape Plan Set and Tree Hazard Evaluation packet, including Re -vegetation and Tree Mitigation Plan (drawing L1.0), Significant Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan (drawing L2.0). Harmsen & Associates. Plans dated August 13, 2012; revision 1 dated March 29, 2013. • Resubmittal for Olson Residence, 15500 75"' Place West, Landscape Architecture response to November 2012 comments, letter prepared by Harmsen & Associates, dated March 29, 2013. • Civil Plan Set (5 Sheets, Cl through C5, including Winter TESC & Grading Plan, Grading and TESC Details, Detailed Drainage Plan, Notes & Details, and Utility Plan W. Pump. • Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter, Olson Residence, Edmonds, Washington. Letter prepared for Mr. George Olson by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated April 3, 2013. The following sections provide our specific geotechnical peer review comments. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT The geotechnical plan review and comment letter addresses Landau Associates' previous review comments. We understand that our previous review comments on the structural plans regarding the location and details of a proposed soldier pile and lagging wall no longer apply, as the proposed wall has been excluded from the project. However, the Revised Geotechnical Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates (7/15/2011) describes a "failed" or "failing" approximate 6 ft high block retaining wall that the proposed soldier pile and lagging wall was intended to replace. The report also states "it is our opinion 6/7/13 P:10741171%03M IeRoomtRkOlsonSuppl mentalPeerRoAew tmdom LANDAU ASSOCIATES that this wall is unstable and could cause problems on the property in the future. " By contrast, the Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates (4/3/2013) states that the wall is a deteriorating block wall located within City of Edmonds right-of-way and recommends that the wall be monitored and repaired/replaced at a later date as needed. We are concerned that the wall has been described as unstable, failing, or failed and it appears that this wall could potentially present either a hazard to the property or to the public on the public right-of-way (or both) if the wall was to suddenly fail. Monitoring may not be effective in alleviating this hazard. We recommend that the integrity of this wall and consequences offailure be further evaluated by either the applicant, the City, or the two parties in a collaborative approach to assess the degree of hazard to the property or to the public and to evaluate whether monitoring is sufficient, or whether mitigation, repair, or replacement alternatives should be implemented Iv�v CIVIL PLANS AND STORM DRAINAGE STUDY The revised civil and storm drainage plans appear to have addressed the previous review comments, including appropriate reference to the current geotechnical engineer, clarification of a drawing symbol, and prohibiting temporary soil stockpiles on site. We notice that the reference to no stockpiling on the site and removing excess excavated material from the site on Sheet Cl also contains the note: "Any soil removed from the site must be hauled to a City approved site. " We would expect that the City does not really care where the excess soil is taken, as long as it is taken to a site that is legally allowed to accept the soil in accordance with any applicable requirements and regulations regarding disposal, or filling and grading. We recommend that the City not approve any specific disposal site. LANDSCAPE DESIGN Harmsen & Associates has updated the plans and indicated a total of 23 replacement trees in order to conform to the required 2:1 replacement ratio, rather than the 21 replacement trees indicated on previous plans. It appears that one of our earlier review comments may have been misinterpreted. In our review letter we commented that "Automatic sprinklers or other irrigation systems are not specified on the landscaping plans." What was meant by that comment was that the absence of automatic or irrigation systems is highly desirable, since such systems are not allowed by the City in the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area as stated in ECDC 19.10.070. The design team may have misinterpreted our comment and attempted to add the provision that automatic sprinklers or irrigation systems could be added. Note 12 on Drawing L1.0 states in part that "The Owner may install automatic 6J7113 P.1074N171MOVileRoorMRR10IsonSupplermnta[PWRWew tm.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 sprinklers or irrigation systems." The note regarding automatic sprinkler or irrigation systems should be removed SE5 i This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of resubmitted permit submittal documents related to the proposed Olson single family residence at 15500 75`h Place West. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 23.80 and ECDC 19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to. prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/CTWrgm &7/13 P:10741171103MBROwAR%013onSupplementWPewReview tM,d= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STREET FILE Name:(Q S D /1 f Y:'D0 Iv 3 Date- (I 1 Z Site Address: I Y 0c) 1� ( (� Plan Check Project Description- ft&V Reduced Site Plan Provided: (f / NO) (Zoning: !f S749 Map Pager Corner Lot: (YES /�j Flag Lot: (YES Critical Areas Determination f : C- SI &I (V_X � ( 6V A Required Study / El Waiver �e& re- CoMiYt, 4 S 0 rQM r f e S- S SEPA Determination: Exempt ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form e aired Setbacks S� et: >) side: i zj /\l Side: l 6 Reaf- ZS !N Actual Setbacks Street: ZS © Side: 1 -� _ Side: _t ®O Rear: ❑ Detached Structures: ( (Cl �vay6 (1 5� �- 5 rC,A pyj (�' ❑ Rockeries: ( <Pr!-I(nV� I 0 ((7) l - ❑ Fences/Trellises: ❑ Bay Windows/Projecting Modulati n: ,1 Stairs/Deck: Gtli` Bui/din Height Datum Point: M _ �� o ��U* Datum Elevation: io r Maximum Height Allowed: Z S ( (%_ g S Actual Height: / - 2 S Other Parking Required.- 2 Parking Provided: Lot Area: 2nfo37.G o �C��� Maximum lot Covera e: 35 /o Pro g (7-qe v Lot Coverage Calculations: A (,u �(4�Lc�) �m �r707�p a f,�lsed1: ��y`- c�NP—/ 544,?T We ADU Created: (YES / O Jr ye 6 y Subdivision: LrfJ,,S G oW �A Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / O Comments Z Of7- v 31 �. I � 7t 3 Z s ► ��. �Z� M�K� Plan Review By: Planning Data form 04-11-06.doc City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant:—Sa Ivk� /yIA,S Property Owner: Crt"e—y Critical Area File #: /� l 00� Permit Number: Site Location: i -B- 1'' Parcel Number: poi Ova? d j�o3 Project Description: //&V S PZ ❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. N 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50,220, and/or / �p� 23.80.040. d l �o �'e" ' VA `" 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. d 7/1SItt/ u 1113 o•.c.� ❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and '71, /13 sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. [Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. ✓ The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.401120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. / The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. / Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or'does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria ih ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). f' l;lio C f o4n 7 2 Z 1,3 Reviewer Signature Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 JoNEs LANG LASALLE,. August 22, 2012 Mr, George Olson George Olson & Virginia A. Olson P.O. Box 13199 Mill Creek, WA 98082 Dear Mr. Olson: Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. 4300 Amon Carter Blvd_, Suite 100 Fort Worth, Texas 76155 tel +1 817-230-2600, fax +1 817 306-8255 Tracking # 11-42789 Enclosed please find one (1) fully executed Agreement for your file. A copy of the executed Agreement must be available upon request at the job site allowing authorization to do the work. Please contact Mr. Jason Winans, Roadmaster, at telephone (206) 625-6462 or cell (928) 220-1196 five (5) days in advance of entry and BEFORE YOU DIG, CALL 1-800-533-2891. If you need additional information please contact me at (817) 230-2631. Sincerely, Tanita Thomas Associate Contract Specialist Enclosure cc: Jason Winans, BNSF 2454 Occidental Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 OCT -12012 DEVE GI1Y OF EDMONDS ci 8. STREET K:* r Law Department Approved Tracking #1142789 PIPELINE LICENSE THIS LICENSE ("License"), made as of the 22nd day of August, 2012 ("Effective Date") by and between BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("Licensor") and GEORGE OLSON $ VIRGINIA A. OLSON, ("Licensee"). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to the following: GENERAL Licensor hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive license, subject to all rights, interests, and estates of third parties, including, without limitation, any leases, use rights, easements, liens, or other encumbrances, and upon the terms and conditions set forth below, to construct and maintain, in strict accordance with the drawings and specifications approved by Licensor as part of Licensee's application process (the "Drawings and Specifications"), One (1) Pipeline(s), 6.203 inches in diameter ("PIPELINE"), across or along the rail corridor of Licensor at or near the station of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of WA, Line Segment 0050, Mile Post 21.70, as shown on the attached Drawing No. 1-51765, dated May 12, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof ("Premises"). Licensee must also adhere to the stipulations as set forth on the attached Exhibit "B". 2. Licensee shall not disturb any improvements of Licensor or Licensor's existing lessees, Licensees, easement beneficiaries or lien holders, if any, or interfere with the use of such improvements. 3. Licensee shall use the Premises solely for construction and maintenance of a PIPELINE in accordance with the Drawings and Specifications carrying STORMWATER. Licensee shall not use the PIPELINE to carry any other commodity or use the Premises for any other purpose. Licensee covenants that it will not handle or transport "hazardous. waste" or "hazardous substances", as "hazardous waste" and "hazardous substances" may now or in the future be defined by any federal, state, or local governmental agency or body through the PIPELINE on Licensors property. Licensee agrees periodically to furnish Licensor with proof, satisfactory to Licensor that Licensee is in such compliance. Should Licensee not comply fully with the above -stated obligations of this Section, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision hereof, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice of termination upon Licensee. Upon termination, Licensee shall remove the PIPELINE and restore Licensors property as herein elsewhere provided. 4. In case of the eviction of Licensee by anyone owning or claiming title to or any interest in the Premises, or by the abandonment by Licensor of the affected rail corridor, Licensor shall not be liable to refund Licensee any compensation paid hereunder, except for the pro-rata part of any recurring charge paid in advance, or for any damage Licensee sustains in connection therewith. Form 424; Rev, 04/26/05 Law Department Approved Tracking 911-42789 5. Any contractors or subcontractors performing work on the PIPELINE or entering the Premises on behalf of Licensee shall be deemed servants and agents of Licensee for purposes of this License. TERM 6. This License shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of twenty-five (25) years, subject to prior termination as hereinafter described. COMPENSATION 7. (a) Licensee shall pay Licensor, prior to the Effective Date, the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2500) as compensation for the use of the Premises. (b) Licensee agrees to reimburse Licensor (within thirty (30) days after receipt of bills therefor) for all costs and expenses incurred by Licensor in connection with Licensee's use of the Premises or the presence, construction and maintenance of the PIPELINE, including but not limited to the furnishing of Licensor's Flagman and any vehicle rental costs incurred. The cost of flagger services provided by the Railway, when deemed necessary by the Railway's representative, will be borne by the Licensee. The estimated cost for one (1) flagger is $800.00 for an eight (8) hour basic day with time and one-half or double time for overtime, rest days and holidays. The estimated cost for each flagger includes vacation allowance, paid holidays, Railway and unemployment insurance, public liability and property damage insurance, health and welfare benefits, transportation, meals, lodging and supervision. Negotiations for Railway labor or collective bargaining agreements and rate changes authorized by appropriate Federal authorities may increase actual or estimated flagging rates. The flagging rate in effect at the time of performance by the Contractor hereunder will be used to calculate the actual costs of flagging pursuant to this paragraph. (c) All invoices are due thirty (30) days after the date of invoice. In the event that Licensee shall fail to pay any monies due to Licensor within thirty (30) days after the invoice date, then Licensee shall pay interest on such unpaid sum from thirty (30) days after its invoice date to the date of payment by Licensee at an annual rate equal to (i) the greater of (a) for the period January 1 through June 30, the prime rate last published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding December plus two and one-half percent (2 1/2%), and for the period July 1 through December 31, the prime rate last published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding June plus two and one-half percent (2 1/2%), or (b) twelve percent (12%), or (ii) the maximum rate permitted. by law, whichever is less. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 8. (a) Licensee shall observe and comply with any and all laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, orders, covenants, restrictions, or decisions of any court of competent jurisdiction ("Legal Requirements") relating to the construction, maintenance, and use of the PIPELINE and the use of the Premises. (b) Prior to entering the Premises, Licensee shall and shall cause its contractor to Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -2- Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 comply with all Licensor's applicable safety rules and regulations. Prior to commencing any work on the Premises, Licensee shall complete and shall require its contractor to complete the safety -training program at the following Internet Website"http://www.contractororientation.com". This training must be completed no more than one year in advance of Licensee's entry on the Premises. DEFINITION OF COST AND EXPENSE 9. For the purpose of this License, "cost' or "costs" "expense" or "expenses" includes, but is not limited to, actual labor and material costs including all assignable additives, and material and supply costs at current value where used. RIGHT OF LICENSOR TO USE 10. Licensor excepts and reserves the right, to be exercised by Licensor and any other parties who may obtain written permission or authority from Licensor: (a) to maintain, renew, use, operate, change, modify and relocate any existing pipe, power, communication lines and, appurtenances and other facilities or structures of like character upon, over, under or across the Premises; (b) to construct, maintain, renew, use, operate, change, modify and relocate any tracks or additional facilities or structures upon, over, under or across the Premises; or (c) to use the Premises in any manner as the Licensor in its sole discretion deems appropriate, provided Licensor uses all commercially reasonable efforts to avoid material interference with the use of the Premises by Licensee for the purpose specified in Section 3 above. LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS 11. (a) Licensee shall notify Licensor's Roadmaster at 2454 Occidental Ave S Seattle, WA 98134, telephone (206) 625-6462, at least ten (10) business days prior to installation of the PIPELINE and prior to entering the Premises for any subsequent maintenance thereon. (b) In performing the work described in Section 3, Licensee shall use only public roadways to cross from one side of Licensor's tracks to the other, 12. (a) Under no conditions shall Licensee be permitted to conduct any tests, investigations or any other activity using mechanized equipment and/or machinery, or place or store any mechanized equipment, tools or other materials, within twenty-five (25) feet of the centerline of any railroad track on the Premises unless Licensee has obtained prior written approval from Licensor. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform all activities on and about the Premises in such a manner as not at any time to be a source of danger to or interference with the existence or use of present or future tracks, roadbed or property of Licensor, or the safe operation and activities of Licensor. If ordered to cease using the Premises at any time by Licensor's personnel due to any Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -3- Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 hazardous condition, Licensee shall immediately do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing right of Licensor, the parties agree that Licensor has no duty or obligation to monitor Licensee's use of the Premises to determine the safe nature thereof, it being solely Licensee's responsibility to ensure that Licensee's use of the Premises is safe. Neither the exercise nor the failure by Licensor to exercise any rights granted in this Section will alter the liability allocation provided by this License. (b) Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, construct and maintain the PIPELINE in such a manner and of such material that it will not at any time be a source of danger to or interference with the existence or use of present or future tracks, roadbed or property of Licensor, or the safe operation and activities of Licensor. Licensor may direct one of its field engineers to observe or inspect the construction and/or maintenance of the PIPELINE at any time for compliance with the Drawings and Specifications. If ordered at any time to halt construction or maintenance of the PIPELINE by Licensor's personnel due to non-compliance with the same or any other hazardous condition, Licensee shall immediately do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing right of Licensor, the parties agree that Licensor has no duty or obligation to observe or inspect, or to halt work on, the PIPELINE, it being solely Licensee's responsibility to ensure that the PIPELINE is constructed in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and in a safe and workmanlike manner in compliance with all terms hereof. Neither the exercise nor the failure by Licensor to exercise any right granted by this Section will alter in any way the liability allocation provided by this License. If at any time Licensee shall, in the sole judgment of Licensor, fail to properly perform its obligations under this Section, Licensor may, at its option and at Licensee's sole expense, arrange for the performance of such work as it deems necessary for the safety of its operations and activities. Licensee shall promptly reimburse Licensor for all costs and expenses of such work, upon receipt of an invoice for the same. Licensors failure to perform any obligations of Licensee shall not alter the liability allocation hereunder. 13. During the construction and any subsequent maintenance performed on the PIPELINE, Licensee shall perform such work in a manner to preclude damage to the property of Licensor, and preclude interference with the operation of its railroad. The construction of the PIPELINE shall be completed within one (1) year of the Effective Date. Upon completion of the construction of the PIPELINE and after performing any subsequent maintenance thereon, Licensee shall, at Licensee's own cost and expense, restore Licensor's Premises to their former state as of the Effective Date of this License. 14. If at any time during the term of this License, Licensor shall desire the use of its rail corridor in such a manner as would, in Licensor's reasonable opinion, be interfered with by the PIPELINE, Licensee shall, at its sole expense, within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from Licensor to such effect, make such changes in the PIPELINE as in the sole discretion of Licensor may be necessary to avoid interference with the proposed use of Licensors rail corridor, including, without limitation, the relocation of the existing or the construction of a new PIPELINE(s). 15. (a) Prior to Licensee conducting any boring work on or about any portion of the Premises, Licensee shall explore the proposed location for such work with hand tools to a depth of at least three (3) feet below the surface of the ground Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -4- Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 to determine whether pipelines or other structures exist below the surface, provided, however, that in lieu of the foregoing, the Licensee shall have the right to use suitable detection equipment or other generally accepted industry practice (e.g , consulting with the Underground Services Association) to determine the existence or location of pipelines and other subsurface structures prior to drilling or excavating with mechanized equipment. Upon Licensee's written request, which shall be made thirty (30) business days in advance of Licensee's requested construction of the PIPELINE, Licensor will provide Licensee any information that Licensor has in the possession of its Engineering Department concerning the existence and approximate location of Licensor's underground utilities and pipelines at or near the vicinity of the proposed PIPELINE. Prior to conducting any such boring work, the Licensee will review all such material. Licensor does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information relating to subsurface conditions and Licensee's operations will be subject at all times to the liability provisions herein. (b) For all bores greater than 26-inch diameter and at a depth less than 10.0 feet below bottom of rail, a soil investigation will need to be performed by the Licensee and reviewed by Licensor prior to construction. This study is to determine if granular material is present, and to prevent subsidence during the installation process. If the investigation determines in Licensor's reasonable opinion that granular material is present, Licensor may select a new location for Licensee's use, or may require Licensee to furnish for Licensor's review and approval, in its sole discretion a remedial plan to deal with the granular material. Once Licensor has approved any such remedial plan in writing, Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, carry out the approved plan in accordance with all terms thereof and hereof. 16. Any open hole, boring or well constructed on the Premises by Licensee shall be safely covered and secured at all times when Licensee is not worSnohomish in the actual vicinity thereof. Following completion of that portion of the work, all holes or borings constructed on the Premises by Licensee shall be: (a) filled in to surrounding ground level with compacted bentonite grout; or (b) otherwise secured or retired in accordance with any applicable Legal Requirement. No excavated materials may remain on Licensor's property for more than ten (10) days, but must be properly disposed of by Licensee in accordance with applicable Legal Requirements. 17. Upon termination of this License, Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense: (a) remove the PIPELINE and all appurtenances thereto, or, at the sole discretion of the Licensor, fill and cap or otherwise appropriately decommission the PIPELINE with a method satisfactory to Licensor, (b) report and restore any damage to the Premises arising from, growing out of, or connected with Licensee's use of the Premises; (c) remedy any unsafe conditions on the Premises created or aggravated by Licensee; and Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -5 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 (d) leave the Premises in the condition which existed as of the Effective Date of this License. 18. Licensee's on -site supervisions shall retain/maintain a fully executed copy of this License at all times while on the Premises. LIABILITY 19. (a) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LICENSEE SHALL, AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO, RELEASE, INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS LICENSOR AND LICENSOR'S AFFILIATED COMPANIES, PARTNERS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS (COLLECTIVELY, "INDEMNITEES") FOR, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, LIABILITIES, FINES, PENALTIES, COSTS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, LIENS, CAUSES OF ACTION, SUITS, DEMANDS, JUDGMENTS AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, COURT COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS OF INVESTIGATION, REMOVAL AND REMEDIATION AND GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT COSTS) ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHERWISE (COLLECTIVELY "LIABILITIES") OF ANY NATURE, KIND OR DESCRIPTION OF ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM OR RELATED TO (IN WHOLE OR IN PART); (i) THIS LICENSE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ITS ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS, (ii) ANY RIGHTS OR INTERESTS GRANTED PURSUANT TO THIS LICENSE, (iii) LICENSEE'S OCCUPATION AND USE OF THE PREMISES, (iv) THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION AND STATUS OF THE PREMISES CAUSED BY OR CONTRIBUTED BY LICENSEE, OR (v) ANY ACT OR OMISSION OF LICENSEE OR LICENSEE'S OFFICERS, AGENTS, INVITEES, EMPLOYEES, OR CONTRACTORS, OR ANYONE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY ANY OF THEM, OR ANYONE THEY CONTROL OR EXERCISE CONTROL OVER, EVEN IF SUCH LIABILITIES ARISE FROM OR ARE ATTRIBUTED TO, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE. THE ONLY LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH LICENSEE'S OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY THE INDEMNITEES DOES NOT APPLY ARE LIABILITIES TO THE EXTENT PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF AN INDEMNITEE. (b) FURTHER, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITATION IN SECTION 19(a), LICENSEE Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -6 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 SHALL, AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO, NOW AND FOREVER WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, REGARDLESS WHETHER BASED ON THE STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE, THAT RAILROAD IS AN "OWNER", "OPERATOR", "ARRANGER", OR "TRANSPORTER" WITH RESPECT TO THE PIPELINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CERCLA OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. LICENSEE WILL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD THE INDEMNITEES HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL SUCH CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE INDEMNITEES. LICENSEE FURTHER AGREES THAT THE USE OF THE PREMISES AS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS LICENSE SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY SUBJECT LICENSOR TO CLAIMS THAT LICENSOR IS OTHER THAN A COMMON CARRIER FOR PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND EXPRESSLY AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND HOLD THE INDEMNITEES HARMLESS FOR ANY AND ALL SUCH CLAIMS. IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PREMISES. (c) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LICENSEE FURTHER AGREES, AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO AGREE, REGARDLESS OF ANY NEGLIGENCE OR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE, TO INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD HARMLESS THE INDEMNITEES AGAINST AND ASSUME THE DEFENSE OF ANY LIABILITIES ASSERTED AGAINST OR SUFFERED BY ANY INDEMNITEE UNDER OR RELATED TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ("FELA") WHENEVER EMPLOYEES OF LICENSEE OR ANY OF ITS AGENTS, INVITEES, OR CONTRACTORS CLAIM OR ALLEGE THAT THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF ANY INDEMNITEE OR OTHERWISE. THIS INDEMNITY SHALL ALSO EXTEND, ON THE SAME BASIS, TO FELA CLAIMS BASED ON ACTUAL OR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AND ANY SIMILAR STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE. (d) Upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume the defense of any lawsuit or other proceeding brought against any Indemnitee by any entity, relating to any matter covered by this License for which Licensee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or save and hold harmless any Indemnitee. Licensee shall pay all costs incident to such defense, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, investigators' fees, litigation and appeal expenses, settlement payments, and amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments. PERSONAL PROPERTY WAIVER 20. ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT, OR RELATED MATERIALS UPON THE PREMISES WILL BE AT THE RISK OF LICENSEE ONLY, AND NO INDEMNITEE WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE THERETO OR THEFT THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE. Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -7 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 INSURANCE 21. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following insurance coverage: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance. This insurance shall contain broad form contractual liability with a combined single limit of a minimum of $5,000,000 each occurrence and an aggregate limit of at least $10,000,000, Coverage must be purchased on a post 1998 ISO occurrence or equivalent and include coverage for, but not limited to, the following: ♦ Bodily Injury and Property Damage. ♦ Personal Injury and Advertising Injury ♦ Fire legal liability ♦ Products and completed operations This policy shall also contain the following endorsements, which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: ♦ The employee and workers compensation related exclusions in the above policy shall not apply with respect to claims related to railroad employees. ♦ The definition of insured contract shall be amended to remove any exclusion or other limitation for any work being done within 50 feet of railroad property. ♦ Any exclusions related to the explosion, collapse and underground hazards shall be removed. No other endorsements limiting coverage may be included on the policy. B. Business Automobile Insurance. This insurance shall contain a combined single limit of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence, and include coverage for, but not limited to the following: ♦ Bodily injury and property damage ♦ Any and all vehicles owned, used or hired C. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance. This insurance shall include coverage for, but not limited to:. ♦ Licensee's statutory liability under the worker's compensation laws of the state(s) in which the work is to be performed. If optional under State law, the insurance must cover all employees anyway. ♦ Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 by disease policy limit, $500,000 by disease each employee. D. Railroad Protective Liability Insurance. This insurance shall name only the Licensor as the Insured with coverage of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 in the aggregate. The coverage obtained under this policy shall only be effective during the initial installation and/or construction of the PIPELINE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE. If further maintenance of the PIPELINE is needed at a later date, an additional Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy shall be required. The policy shall be issued on a standard ISO form CG 00 35 10 93 and include the following: ♦ Endorsed to include the Pollution Exclusion Amendment (ISO form CG 28 31 10 93) Forth 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -8 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 ♦ Endorsed to include the Limited Seepage and Pollution Endorsement. ♦ Endorsed to include Evacuation Expense Coverage Endorsement. ♦ No other endorsements restricting coverage may be added. ♦ The original policy must be provided to the Licensor prior to performing any work or services under this Agreement. In lieu of providing a Railroad Protective Liability Policy, Licensee may participate in Licensor's Blanket Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy available to Licensee or its contractor. The limits of coverage are the same as above. The cost is $1000. XI elect to participate in Licensor's Blanket Policy; El I elect not to participate in Licensor's Blanket Policy. Other Requirements: Where allowable by law, all policies (applying to coverage listed above) shall contain no exclusion for punitive damages and certificates of insurance shall reflect that no exclusion exists. Licensee agrees to waive its right of recovery against Licensor for all claims and suits against Licensor. In addition, its insurers, through policy endorsement, waive their right of subrogation against Licensor for all claims and suits. The certificate of insurance must reflect waiver of subrogation endorsement. Licensee further waives its right of recovery, and its insurers also waive their right of subrogation against Licensor for loss of its owned or leased property or property under its care, custody, or control. Licensee's insurance policies through policy endorsement must include wording which states that the policy shall be primary and non-contributing with respect to any insurance carried by Licensor. The certificate of insurance must reflect that the above wording is included in evidenced policies. All policy(ies) required above (excluding Workers Compensation, Contractor's Pollution Legal Liability and if applicable, Railroad Protective) shall include a severability of interest endorsement and shall name Licensor and Jones Lang LaSalle Global Services - RR, Inc. as an additional insured with respect to work performed under this agreement. Severability of interest and naming Licensor and Jones Lang LaSalle Global Services - RR, Inc. as additional insureds shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Licensee is not allowed to self -insure without the prior written consent of Licensor. If granted by Licensor, any deductible, self -insured retention or other financial responsibility for claims shall be covered directly by Licensee in lieu of insurance. Any and all Licensor liabilities that would otherwise, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, be covered by Licensee's insurance will be covered as if Licensee elected not to include a deductible, self -insured retention, or other financial responsibility for claims. Prior to commencing the Work, Licensee shall furnish to Licensor an acceptable certificate(s) of insurance including an original signature of the authorized representative evidencing the required coverage, endorsements, and amendments. The policy(ies) shall contain a provision that obligates the insurance company(ies) issuing such Form 424; Rev. 04126/05 -9 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 policy(ies) to notify Licensor in writing at least 30 days prior to any cancellation, non - renewal, substitution or material alteration. This cancellation provision shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance_ In the event of a claim or lawsuit involving Railroad arising out of this agreement, Licensee will make available any required policy covering such claim or lawsuit. Any insurance policy shall be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to Licensor or with a current Best's Guide Rating of A- and Class VII or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the service is to be provided. Licensee represents that this License has been thoroughly reviewed by Licensee's insurance agent(s)/broker(s), who have been instructed by Licensee to procure the insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Allocated Loss Expense shall be in addition to all policy limits for coverages referenced above. Not more frequently than once every five years, Licensor may reasonably modify the required insurance coverage to reflect then -current risk management practices in the railroad industry and underwriting practices in the insurance industry. If any portion of the operation is to be subcontracted by Licensee, Licensee shall require that the subcontractor shall provide and maintain insurance coverages as set forth herein, naming Licensor as an additional insured, and shall require that the subcontractor shall release, defend and indemnify Licensor to the same extent and under the same terms and conditions as Licensee is required to release, defend and indemnify Licensor herein. Failure to provide evidence as required by this section shall entitle, but not require, Licensor to terminate this License immediately. Acceptance of a certificate that does not comply with this section shall not operate as a waiver of Licensee's obligations hereunder. The fact that insurance (including, without limitation, self. -insurance) is obtained by Licensee shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Licensee including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this License. Damages recoverable by Licensor shall not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. For purposes of this section, Licensor shall mean "Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation", "BNSF Railway Company" and the subsidiaries, successors, assigns and affiliates of each. ENVIRONMENTAL 22. (a) Licensee shall strictly comply with all federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations in its use of the Premises, including, but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, CERCLA (collectively referred to as the "Environmental Laws"). Licensee shall not maintain a treatment, storage, transfer or disposal facility, or underground storage tank, as defined by Environmental Laws on the Premises. Licensee shall Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 not release or suffer the release of oil or hazardous substances, as defined by Environmental Laws on or about the Premises. (b) Licensee shall give Licensor immediate notice to Licensor's Resource Operations Center at (800) 832-5452 of any release of hazardous substances on or from the Premises, violation of Environmental Laws, or inspection or inquiry by governmental authorities charged with enforcing Environmental Laws with respect to Licensee's use of the Premises. Licensee shall use the best efforts to promptly respond to any release on or from the Premises. Licensee also shall give Licensor immediate notice of all measures undertaken on behalf of Licensee to investigate, remediate, respond to or otherwise cure such release or violation. (c) In the event that Licensor has notice from Licensee or otherwise of a release or violation of Environmental Laws arising in any way with respect to the PIPELINE which occurred or may occur during the term of this License, Licensor may require Licensee, at Licensee's sole risk and expense, to take timely measures to investigate, remediate, respond to or otherwise cure such release or violation affecting the Premises or Licensor's right-of-way. (d) Licensee shall promptly report to Licensor in writing any conditions or activities upon the Premises known to Licensee which create a risk of harm to persons, property or the environment and shall take whatever action is necessary to prevent injury to persons or property arising out of such conditions or activities; provided, however, that Licensee's reporting to Licensor shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation whatsoever imposed on it by this License. Licensee shall promptly respond to Licensor's request for information. regarding said conditions or activities. ALTERATIONS 23. Licensee may not make any alterations to the Premises or permanently affix anything to the Premises or any buildings or other structures adjacent to the Premises without Licensor's prior written consent. NO WARRANTIES 24. LICENSOR'S DUTIES AND WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED TO THOSE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY IMPLIED DUTIES OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY LICENSOR OTHER THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE. LICENSEE HEREBY WAIVES ANY AND. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMISES OR WHICH MAY EXIST BY OPERATION OF LAW OR IN EQUITY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. QUIET ENJOYMENT 25. LICENSOR DOES NOT WARRANT ITS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY NOR UNDERTAKE TO DEFEND LICENSEE IN THE PEACEABLE POSSESSION OR USE THEREOF. NO COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT IS MADE. Form 424; Rev. 04/26/05 Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 DEFAULT 26. If default shall be made in any of the covenants or agreements of Licensee contained in this document, or in case of any assignment or transfer of this License by operation of law, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice in writing upon Licensee. Any waiver by Licensor of any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this License for any subsequent default or defaults, nor shall any such waiver in any way affect Licensor's ability to enforce any Section of this License. The remedy set forth in this Section 26 shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other remedies that Licensor may have at law or in equity. LIENS AND CHARGES 27. Licensee shall promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any construction, alterations or repairs done, suffered or permitted to be done by Licensee on Premises. Licensor is hereby authorized to post any notices or take any other action upon or with respect to Premises that is or may be permitted by law to prevent the attachment of any such liens to Premises; provided, however, that failure of Licensor to take any such action shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation or liability under this Section 27 or any other Section of this License. Licensee shall pay when due any taxes, assessments or other charges (collectively, "Taxes") levied or assessed upon the Improvements by any governmental or quasi -governmental body or any Taxes levied or assessed against Licensor or the Premises that are attributable to the Improvements. TERMINATION 28. This License may be terminated by Licensor, at any time, by serving thirty (30) days' written notice of termination upon Licensee. This License may be terminated by Licensee upon execution of Licensor's Mutual Termination Letter Agreement then in effect. Upon expiration of the time specified in such notice, this License and all rights of Licensee shall absolutely cease. 29. If Licensee fails to surrender to Licensor the Premises, upon any termination of this License, all liabilities and obligations of Licensee hereunder shall continue in effect until the Premises are surrendered. Termination shall not release Licensee from any liability or obligation, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any events happening prior to the date of termination. ASSIGNMENT 30. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives, successors, or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent assignee, shall assign or transfer this License or any interest herein, without the prior written consent and approval of Licensor, which may be withheld in Licensor's sole discretion. NOTICES 31. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder by one party to the other shall be in writing and the same shall be given and shall be deemed to have been served and given if (i) placed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, or (ii) Forth 424; Rev. 04/26/05 -12 - Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 deposited into the custody of a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, addressed to the party to be notified at the address for such party specified below, or to such other address as the party to be notified may designate by giving the other party no less than thirty (30) days' advance written notice of such change in address. If to Licensor: Jones Lang LaSalle Global Services - RR, Inc. 3017 Lou Menk Drive, Suite 100 Fort Worth, TX 76131-2800 Attn: Licenses/Permits with a copy to: BNSF Railway Company 2500 Lou Menk Dr. — AOB3 Fort Worth, TX 76131 Attn: Manager — Land Revenue Management If to Licensee: George Olson & Virginia A. Olson P.O. Box 13199 Mill Creek, WA 98082 SURVIVAL 32. Neither termination nor expiration will release either party from any liability or obligation under this License, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination or expiration, or, if later, the date when the PIPELINE and improvements are removed and the Premises are restored to its condition as of the Effective Date. RECORDATION 33. It is understood and agreed that this License shall not be placed on public record. APPLICABLE LAW 34. All questions conceming the interpretation or application of provisions of this License shall be decided according to the substantive laws of the State of Texas without regard to conflicts of law provisions. SEVERABILITY 35. To the maximum extent possible, each provision of this License shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this License shall be prohibited by, or held to be invalid under, applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective solely to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, and this shall not invalidate the remainder of such provision or any other provision of this License. INTEGRATION -13 - Forth 424; Rev_ 04/26/05 Law Department Approved Tracking #11-42789 36. This License is the full and complete agreement between Licensor and Licensee with respect to all matters relating to Licensee's use of the Premises, and supersedes any and all other agreements between the parties hereto relating to Licensee's use of the Premises as described herein. However, nothing herein is intended to terminate any surviving obligation of Licensee or Licensee's obligation to defend and hold Licensor harmless in any prior written agreement between the parties. MISCELLANEOUS 37. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such parties. 38. The waiver by Licensor of the breach of any provision herein by Licensee shall in no way impair the right of Licensor to enforce that provision for any subsequent breach thereof. Jones Lang LaSalle Global Services — RR, Inc. is acting as representative for BNSI= Railway Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this License has been duly executed, in duplicate, by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY Jones Lang LaSalle Global Services - RR, Inc., its Attomey in Fact 3017 Lou Menk Drive, Suite 100 Fort Wq1th, TX 76131-2800 By: Ed Darter Title: Vice President - National Accounts GEORGE OLSON & VIRGINIA A. OLSON P.O. Box 13199 III Creek, WA 8082 By, 2 / Tile: a..L Forth 424; Rev. 0412WO5 -14 - TRACKING NO. 11-42789 EXHIBIT "Ar ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY AND GEORGE OLSON & VIRGINIA A. OLSON SECTION: 32 GN R Y SCALE: 1 IN.= 100 FT. TOWNSHIP: 32N rWA-15� NORTHWEST DIV. RANGE: 05E 12 SCENIC SUBDIV. L.S. Q�.`LQ MERIDIAN: WILLM DATE 05/12/2011 1 , - r � p � � —1�PROM'ERTY LINE .1lb Qa CARRIER PIPE SIZE: CONTENTS: PIPE MATERIAL: HOPE SPECIFICATION/GRADE: WALL THICKNESS: COATING: - DESCRIPTION OF PIPELINE PIPELINE SHOWN BOLO f ES 1�9• 5 �14c W CASING CARRIER CASING PIPE PIPE PIPE LENGTH ON R/W: ___54 WORKING PflESSURE: BURY: BASE/RAIL TO TOP OF CASING BURY: NATURAL GRAND �- BURY: ROADWAY DITCHES CATHODIC PROTECTION - VENTS: NUMBER - SIZE - HEIGHT OF VENT ABOVE GROUND — NOTE: CASING TO BE JACKED OR DRY BORED ONLY AT EDMONDS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH STATE OF WA JWD DRAWING NO. 1-51765 EXHIBIT B 1. The Pipeline must be fuse welded HDPE end -to -end including diffuser. 2. The Diffuser cannot lie in the ditch, it may come over the wall but BNSF will need the ability to maintain and clean our ditch without obstruction with on track equipment. 3. BNSF is not responsible for upkeep, maintenance or damage caused by BNSF. 4. The pipeline must be staked in slope in a manner to make sure it will not slide down hill. No soil disturbing activities during construction on slope, no tree falling on slope, or on BNSF property. 5. No men beyond wall, no equipment on slope during construction. 6. No modifications to the wall can take place 7. There cannot be any riprap in the ditch. BNSF uses clamshell buckets or on track excavator to scoop out ditches. 8. No personnel between the wall and the tracks. 9. See A-10 in the below link. hftp:/Avww.bnsf.com/communities/faqs/pdf/utility.pdf RECEIVED AUG 23 2012 DEyELDiMOM�� DS CTR. STREET FLE-Z NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. � GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS &GEOLOGISTS REVISED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT OLSON RESIDENCE 15500 - 75" PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MR. GEORGE OLSON NELSON G EOTECH N ICAL �,., A ASSOCIATES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Main Office 17311 —135'" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County July 15, 2011 Mr. George Olson 3528 — lVd Place SE Everett, WA 98208 Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75a' Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 11 Dear Mr. Olson: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report — Olson Residence — 15500-75th Place West — Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the project site, and provides geotechnical recommendations for - design and construction of the proposed site improvements based on updated plans. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on March 23, 2011. We previously conducted a preliminary assessment of the property in October 2010 and provided you with verbal opinions regarding the site and potential development, as part of your feasibility evaluation. At that time, we explored the site with two geotechnical borings. Our explorations indicated that the site is generally underlain by silty fine to medium sand near the surface, and silt with sand at depth. We interpreted that the majority of the deposits underlyingthe sit consist of landslide debris with Whidbey Formation silts at depth. We provided you a preliminary report dated April 27, 2011 based on previous development plans. The current plans have been revised to reduce impacts to the site. This revised report addresses the most recent plans. The site is situated on gently to steeply sloping ground that descends to the right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and the shore of Puget Sound. Current project plans consist of constructing a two-story single-family residence with a daylight basement on the eastern portion of the property. Retaining walls up to nine feet in height are planned. The lower floor slab will be designed as a structural slab and will be entirely supported on auger cast piles. A small soldier pile retaining wall is planned near the northeastern corner of the site to replace a failed ' ecology block retaining wall. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report _ Olson Residence 15500 — 75t' Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Summary - Page 2 Stormwater handling plans have not been finalized at this time, but we understand that they will include _ tightlining the runoff down to the bottom of the slope. The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide complex and is located - in the designated "Zone A" within the lower portion of the slide complex. This report provides information and discussion to fulfill the requirements of the City of Edmonds for construction within this area of Edmonds. It is important to recognize that the site and overall vicinity is part of this ancient landslide, and that development plans and fixture activity on this property should take that into consideration. It is our opinion that the site is generally compatible with the planned development of a single family residence. It is also our opinion that the slope on the eastern side of 75 h Place West, also know as Lunds Gulch Road, is relatively stable. Based on the slide debris encountered in our explorations, and close proximity of the planned residence to the steep slopes, we recommend supporting the planned residence on a deep foundation system ( it i rs) extending to the more competent cohesive soils encountered at depth. The piers are intended to provide support for the residence and also provide an effective setback from the steep slopes. Specific recommendations for foundation design and installation are provided in the attached report. A steep slope is located on the uphill side of the property on the other side of 75th Place West. This slope appears to be relatively stable and does not appear to pose serious risks to the planned improvements. Some debris/mudflow events may occur on this slope from time to time, especially during significant rainfall; however, with the presence of the road below this slope and the distance planned between the residence and the edge of the road, we are of the opinion that debris protection systems are not needed at this time. - During our most recent site reconnaissance on March 30, 2011, we observed that a shallow landslide had occurred on the steep portion of the site slopes above the railroad tracks. The slide was located along the southern property line, and seems to have been triggered by water flow off of 75`s Place West which made its way towards the steep slope. This water flow appears to have been occurring fairly frequently as evident by the channeling of sediment deposition along the southern property line starting at the road edge. This water flow should be collected and handled within any future drainage system planned as part of this development. Also, the recent landslide should be stabilized to reduce potential adverse impacts on the remainder of the site, and/or the railroad tracks below. We have provided general recommendations for stabilizing the landslide in the attached report. We strongly recommend that all runoff generated within this site, including roof downspouts, driveways, yard and footing drains, and all runoff entering the property from the road, be collected in a tightline and routed to the bottom of the slope. If this alternative is not feasible, the collected water should be pumped into the existing system in the roadway. No water should be infiltrated or dispersed on or near the site slopes. Such activity may cause further sliding within the steep slopes. We should be retained to review final grading and drainage plans prior to construction. We also recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Summary - Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. _ Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Two Copies Submitted cc: James Thomas — Architectural Design Associates John McDonnell — JC McDonnell Engineering PC (via e-mail) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 SCOPE.........................................................................................................................................................2 SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................................2 SurfaceConditions.....................................................................................................................................2 Subsurface Conditions...............................................................................................................................3 HydrologicConditions...............................................................................................................................4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION.........................................................................................................5 SeismicHazard.........................................................................................................................................:5 ErosionHazard ..........................................................................................................................................5 Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability..............................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................7 General....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures.....................................................................................10 -- Structure Setbacks...................................................................................................................................10 SitePreparation and Grading...................................................................................................................11 Temporaryand Permanent Slopes...........................................................................................................12 FoundationSupport .................................................................................................................................13 StructuralFill...........................................................................................................................................13 RetainingWalls.......................................................................................................................................14 _ Structural Slab.........................................................................................................................................15 SoldierPile Wall......................................................................................................................................16 PavementSubgrade.................................................................................................................................17 Repairsof Recent Landslide....................................................................................................................18 SiteDrainage...........................................................................................................................................18 USEOF THIS REPORT..........................................................................................................................20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross Sections A -A' Figure 4 — Soil Classification Chart Figures 5 and 6 — Boring Logs Figure 7 — Hand Auger Logs NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. _ Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75"' Place West — Edmonds, Washington _ INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the most recent plans for the Olson Residence project. The site is located at 15500 — 75t' Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. We previously prepared a report dated April 27, 2011 for a prior site layout. The purpose of the study is to explore and characterize the surface and subsurface conditions at the site and provide general geotechnical recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this revised report, we were provided with an undated site plan titled "Foundation Plan," prepared by Architectural Design Associates, PS, dated July 11, 2011. Along with other foundation notes, this plan shows the building layout and pile support configurations. We were also provided with an undated Plan Sheet SP1.0 titled "Site Plan." The plan shows the site topography, property lines, and the planned residence footprint. The site is situated on sloping ground that descends to the right-of-way of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad and the shore of Puget Sound. Project plans consist of constructing a two-story, single-family, daylight basement residence on the eastern portion of the property. Retaining walls up to nine feet in height are planned. Auger cast piles will be used to support the entire structure, as well as an elevated driveway for garage access which will be entered on the upper floor elevation of the residence. The lower floor slab will be designed as a structural slab and will be entirely supported on auger cast piles. A small soldier pile retaining_ wall is_planned near the northeastern corner of the site to replace a failed ecology block retaining wall. Stormwater plans have not been finalized at this time, but we understand they may include tightlining runoff down to the bottom of the slope. The current site layout is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide area. Slide movement from the large-scale slide complex and small slides within the complex can both affect this property. The residence design has taken this into consideration. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75tb Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and provide opinions and recommendations for the proposed site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review available soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with two approximately 25-foot deep geotechnical borings using a portable drill rig. The drill rig was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Meet with you and your representatives and discuss our findings and options for site development. 4. Conduct explorations on the site slopes using hand tools. 5. Map the conditions on the slope and evaluate current slope stability conditions. 6. Perform laboratory classification and analysis of soil samples, as necessary. 7. Provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation support, and slabs -on -grade in accordance with the City of Edmonds standards for development in the North Edmonds ESLHA. 8. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation. 9. Provide recommendations for retaining walls and shoring. 10. Provide recommendations for debris walls/fences, as needed. 11. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. 12. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site is situated on a gentle to steep west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The central portion of the property consists of a gently sloping bench. To the east of the gently sloping bench, a steep but short, slope extends up to 75th Place West. Below the gently sloping bench, the ground surface slopes steeply down to the existing railroad tracks and Puget Sound. There is a very steep slope above 75t' Place West directly above this lot, with silt exposures and signs of soil creep and erosion. A cut along the road has experienced sloughing, but the steep slope above the road appears to be relatively stable. The site is vegetated with brush and deciduous trees. We observed evidence of surface water flow from the road NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 756 Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 3 onto the property near the southern property line during our most recent visit on March 30, 2011. An approximate 6-foot tall block retaining wall that is failing is located just to the east of the eastern property line, directly below the road. It appears that this wall was constructed to support the 75`h Place West. A steep west -facing slope is located along the western portion of the property. This steep slope descends to the BNSF railroad tracks at about 28 to 35 degrees (53 to 70 percent). The slope inclinations are shown on Cross -Section A -A' in Figure 3. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard (USGS, 1983). The site is mapped as Olympia Gravel — Qog, and Whidbey Formation — Qw. The Olympia Gravel deposit generally consists of stratified, fluvial sand and gravel. The Whidbey Formation generally consists of compact, medium to coarse grained sands. Our explorations encountered silty sand and silt material, considered mostly as slide debris. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on October 28, 2010 by drilling two borings using a limited -access drill rig to depths of approximately 21.5 to 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface. We also explored the steep slopes on March 30, 2011 with hand augers to depths of approximately 3.5 to 4.0 feet. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the borings and hand augers. A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed on each of the samples during drilling to document soil density at depth. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outer -diameter, split -spoon sampler 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer with a drop of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and is presented on the boring logs. The N value is used to evaluate the strength and density of the deposit. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 - 75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 4 The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 4. The logs of our borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 5 and 6. The logs of our hand augers are attached and are presented as Figure 7. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the boring and hand auger logs should be reviewed. Borings: At the surface of the explorations, we encountered approximately„eiuht tot feet of loose to medium dense gray -brown to gray, fine to medium sand with silv fine tom _'um sand. This material was underlain by approximately two to five feet of stiff to very stiff, gray silt mottled with iron - oxide staining, and contained possible slickensides which could indicate previous soil movement. The gray silt was underlain by blue -gray and some tan, very stiff to hard, silt to sandy silt. We interpreted the - soil encountered in the borings to be mostly landslide debris with the Whidbey Formation silts at the bottom of the slide debris. Borings 1 and 2 were terminated at depths of 26.5 feet and 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. Hand Augers: Below a surficial topsoil layer, we encountered approximately two feet of soft, brown -gray sandy silt with organics. We interpreted this soil as possible older landslide debris. Below this material, _ we encountered soft to very stiff, blue -gray toffy, sandy silt. We interpreted this soil to be part of the upper portion of the WAugers 1, 2, and 3 were terminated in the sandy silt material at depths of 3.5 feet to 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. Hydrologic Conditions Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the explorations, although it is our opinion that deep groundwater regimes likely exist below the site. If shallow ground water is encountered on this site, we would expect it to be a perched groundwater condition. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of precipitation. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 5 Evidence of surface water was observed from 75t' Place West onto the property near the southern property line. This water appears to flow on the ground surface along that side of the property and then disappears into the ground. This water flow was likely the cause of the most recent landslide above the railroad tracks. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard Undocumented fill and medium stiff to hard cohesive soils were encountered underlying the site. Based on the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), the site conditions best fit the description for Site Class ED] -- Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft or loose geologic deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the groundwater table. It is our opinion that the medium dense/stiff or better native soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground — motion; however these materials could experience instability as a result of seismic activity. Shallow sloughing failures may occur in the loose surficial soils on the slopes during seismic events. Erosion Hazard The criteria used for determining the erosion hazard for the site soils includes soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to the vegeiauve cover _ and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes. These soils are listed as having a moderate hazard of water erosion, and on the steeper portions of the slope the erosion hazard is considered high. These soils should have a low to moderate hazard for erosion in areas that are not disturbed and where the vegetation cover is not removed. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 6 Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for the evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater conditions. The site slopes moderately to steeply down to the west. Groundwater seepage was not observed on the slopes; however, evidence of water flow was observed along the southern property line from 75`s Place West. This site and the overall site vicinity lies within an ancient landslide area. The site and vicinity have been relatively stable for a very long period of time, and development in the area has taken place in the form of single-family residences and roadways. Although the likelihood of the ancient slide to become active in the forseable future is very low, extreme environmental conditions coupled with inadequate human practices could re -activate the ancient landslide. Such external factors could include severe and elongated weather events and/or significant seismic activity. The site falls within "Zone A" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This designation requires that certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include the restriction of cuts and fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design foundations and retaining walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath parts of the foundation, and the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and the elimination of any and all irrigation systems. We have addressed all of the requirements in the remainder of this report. We encountered evidence of a potential slope movement as evident by the slickensides in the silt at depths of about 15 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Hard, competent silt was encountered below this material and we interpret the core of the slope to consist primarily of relatively stable material. We should note, however, that potential deep-seated slide planes were reported to be up to 100 feet deep below this site. We observed a recent landslide on the southwestern portion of the property during our most recent visit. _ A small wall is located at the toe of the slope along the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. It appears that the slide debris partially filled up the area behind the wall. In general, localized areas of surface instability and surface sliding can occur on steep slopes. Backwasting (movement of near -surface soil) through soil NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence — 15500 — 75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 7 erosion processes and local surface slides is common to steep slopes, particularly where the soils are exposed to weathering. Normal surface erosion and shallow sloughing failures should be expected to occur on the steep slope to the west from time to time. The Puget Sound area has experienced significant rainfall throughout the fall, winter, and early spring. It appears that this recent landslide is related to the rainfall and the water runoff onto the property from 75s' Place West. We recommend that the landslide be repaired, and that the water runoff be diverted to an appropriate system and not be allowed to flow uncontrollably onto the property. We discuss these topics further in the Repairs of Recent Landslide and Drainage subsections of this report, respectively. In this report, we have also provided geotechnical recommendations for deep -foundation support, erosion control, and other development considerations that should reduce the potential impact of site development on the site slopes and the steep slope to the west. _._ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is compatible with the proposed improvements, provided that the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project plans and followed during construction. Also, long-term human activity within the site can adversely or positively impact site stability. The proposed development area appears to be marginally stable under current conditions. It is also our opinion that the slope above the site is currently generally stable. However, the site is mapped within a geologic hazard area, and recent slope instability has occurred on the steep slopes above the railroad track. We also encountered evidence of potential past landsliding within the upper portion of the on -site material in the form of slickensides and low shear strength. To alleviate potential site instability concerns, project plans indicate that the entire residence will be supported on drilled piers extending down into the competent material at depth. This is further described in the Deep Foundations subsection of this report. In this report, we have also provided recommendations for drainage, erosion control, and other development considerations intended to reduce the potential impact of development on the site and the steep slope to the west. We should be retained to review final project plans prior to construction and to monitor earthwork and foundation system installation during construction. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence - 15500 — 75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 8 The residence is planned to be about 64 feet away from the steep slope, and the deck is planned to be about 58 feet from the slope. Based on our interpretation of the site, it is our opinion that these setback distances are adequate provided that the recommendations for deep foundations and erosion control management are followed. We further discuss the setbacks in the Structure Setbacks subsection of this report. We understand that the lower floor slab will be designed as a structural slab and will be entirely supported on deep foundation. For slabs -on -grade and other hard surfaces, such as paved areas or walkways that are supported on the existing soil, some risk of future settlement, cracking, and maintenance should be expected. To reduce this risk, we recommend over -excavating a minimum of two feet of the upper soil from the slab and pavement areas and replacing this material with compacted pit run or crushed rock structural fill. This recommendations is only for hard surfaces to be supported on grade and does not apply for the lower floor structural slab. Even with the recommended treatment, some settlement of the underlying loose material should be anticipated. The control of surface and near -surface water is very important for the long-term stability of the site and steep slopes. We highly recommend that temporary and final site grading be designed to direct surface water away from the structures and away from the steep slope. Final drainage plans have not been developed at this time, but we understand that all stormwater generated on the site will be collected in tightlines and transported to the bottom of the slope to the west of the property via a pipe anchored to the slope. No water should be infiltrated or dispersed within the site. We discuss general site drainage in the Site Drainage subsection of this report. An approximate 6-foot tall block retaining wall is located just to the east of the eastern property line, directly below the road. It appears that this wall was constructed to support the fill embankment associated with 75t' Place West. It is our opinion that this wall is unstable and could cause problems on the property in the future. We recommend that the City of Edmonds be contacted and the removal of this wall and the replacement with a soldier pile wall be implemented. If this wall cannot be removed, we recommend that a soldier pile wall be placed to the west of the existing wall. This is discussed further in _ the Soldier Pile subsection of this report. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 _. NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 9 A surficial landslide occurred on the steep slope. It is our opinion that this slide is shallow and should not affect the residence. However, the landslide should be stabilized as soon as possible to prevent further damage to the slope. We recommend that erosion control matting be secured to the slope and vegetation replanted. We provide specific recommendations in the Repairs of Recent Landslide subsection of this report. -' Though a surficial slide recently occurred on the steep slope, in general, the site currently appears generally stable with respect to deep-seated movement. However, the site vicinity is mapped within an - older landslide complex and our explorations encountered evidence of past ground movement. The potential for landslide and erosion hazards will depend on how the site is graded and how surface water and near surface water are controlled. We recommend that grading and site drainage plans be subjected to geotechnical engineering review prior to construction. The soils encountered within our explorations are considered extremely moisture sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If construction takes place during wet weather, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to export on - site soil, the import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket of rock spalls or crushed rock in the construction traffic areas and on exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural elements. - We recommend that NGA be retained to review final project plans. We also recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the - conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those -- anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 10 _ Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is considered moderate to high, but the actual hazard will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the site slopes and the steep slope to the west of the property. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low to moderate. Also, irrigation systems should not be installed on or near the slope. Protection of the slopes should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the slopes not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or future structures outside the planned development areas. No additional material of any kind should be placed on the steep slope or any portion of sloping ground, such as excavation spoils and soil stockpiles. Trees may be cut down and removed from the slopes as long as a mitigation plan is developed for maintaining slope stability, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. A vegetation cover should be _ preserved on the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. Any sloping areas disturbed during construction should be planted with vegetation as soon as practical to reduce the potential for erosion. Structure Setbacks _ Uncertainties related -to building along the top of steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and the top of the slope so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during,.aeale life span of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the lower the risk of slope failures to impact the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, slope gradient, soil type, and groundwater conditions. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 - 75 h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 11 Based upon the conditions described above, it is our opinion that the potential for shallow sloughing -type failures and small-scale landslides exist on the steep slopes, as seen with the recent landslide on the site. This condition is exacerbated where water is present or where the slopes become locally very steep. Backwasting through sloughing of steep slopes can occur up the slope, such that a loss of ground could occur. The planned residence will be setback approximately 64 feet from the top of the slope, and the planned deck will be about 58 feet from the top of slope. These setback distances are adequate; however, due to the potentially unstable debris found on the site and the history of the area, we have recommended that the residence be supported on deep foundations in the form of drilled piers. We have recommended - that the piers advance a minimum of 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Loose material should not be stockpiled in any area between the top of the slope and the residence footprint. Site Preparation and Grading Plans for site grading should be devised such that cuts and fills are kept to a minimum. Site preparation should consist of excavating the residence footprint and driveway areas down to planned elevations. Site - preparation should also consist of stripping any organic topsoil and/or loose/soft soils in areas that will support foundations, slabs -on -grade, pavement, or structural fill. The stripped material should not be — stockpiled in any area between the top of the slope and the residence footprint. If the exposed soils are loose/soft, they should be compacted to a non -yielding condition. Areas observed to pump or weave during compaction should be over -excavated and replaced with rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition. In wet conditions, the exposed subgrade should not be compacted, as compaction of a wet subgrade may result in further disturbance of the soils. A layer of crushed rock may be placed over the prepared areas to protect them from further disturbance. The site soils are considered extremely moisture sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. We recommend that earthwork construction take place during periods of extended dry weather, and suspended during periods of precipitation if possible. If work is to take place during periods of wet weather, care should be taken during site preparation not to disturb the site soils. This can be accomplished by utilizing large excavators equipped with smooth buckets and wide tracks to complete earthwork, and diverting surface and groundwater flow away from the prepared subgrades. Also, NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 12 construction traffic should not be allowed on the exposed subgrade. A blanket of rock spalls should be used in construction access areas if wet conditions are prevalent. The thickness of this rock spall layer should be based on subgrade performance at the time of construction. For planning purposes, we recommend a minimum one -foot thick layer of rock spalls. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open and the presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate — a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the on -site material be no steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical (2H:1 V). If groundwater seepage is encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. Steeper cuts may be feasible if dense soils are exposed. We should be retained to specifically review proposed geometry for significant cuts planned on this site. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface water runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 3H:1V. However, flatter inclinations may be required in areas where loose soils are encountered. Permanent slopes should be covered with erosion control matting and vegetated. The vegetative cover maintained until established. We should specifically NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence - 15500 - 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 _ NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 13 review all plans for grading on this project. We do not recommend grading on steep slopes, or placing irrigation systems near the slopes. Foundation Support Current plans indicate that the entire residence will be supported on 16- to 24-inch reinforced concrete piers, extending a minimum of 25 feet below existing ground surface. An o'od will likely be feasible based on our field observations, however, if caving rpen ho�P �rii�;ne n,P*' conditions are encountered, pile casing will be required. The holes should be cleaned of any slough or water prior to pouring concrete. We recommend that the concrete be readily available on site at the time of drilling. The holes should not be left open for any extended period of time, as sloughing debris and/or groundwater seepage into the excavations may hamper pier installation. For piers installed successfully as described above, we recommend using a design axial compression capacity of 25 and 40 tons for 16- and 24-inch piers, respectively. Lateral resistance on the piers could be _ calculated based on an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied to two pile diameters. The upper 15 feet should be neglected for the purpose of calculating the lateral resistance. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundations, pavements, and other settlement -sensitive structures, or behind retaining walls should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. Sloping areas to receive fill should be benched prior to fill placement. The benches should be o,,, a - level and at least four feet wide. 3` C0�`�kS Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granglar soil, free of or anics and other deleterious material and be well graded to a maximum size of about ee inche . All-weather 1 should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 20 sieve, based ion passing NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence - 15500 — 75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 14 the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). We do not anticipate placement of significant volumes of structural fill for this project. The on -site soils consist of moisture -sensitive silty materials and slide debris. We recommend that the on -site material not be used as structural fill. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of proposed structural fill materials at the time of construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas _ and pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over - excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Retaining Walls "— We understand that retaining walls up to nine feet high will be incorporated into project plans. We recommend that retaining walls be kept as short as possible. The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, the inclination of the backfill, and other possible surcharge loads. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a densi of 40 pc for yielding (active condition) walls, and 60 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75 h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 15 These recommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained granular backfill and are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharge loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab and foundation loads, slopes, or other surface loads. Also, hydrostatic and buoyant forces should be included if the walls could not be drained. We could consult with the structural engineer regarding - additional loads on retaining walls during final design, if needed. All wall backfill should be well compacted; however, care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in thin loose lifts and compacting it with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one-half the height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be reduced to accommodate the lower compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. Retaining wall foundations should be supported on_a rtin;mum of two feet of rock spalls to reduce� potential for differential settlement of the walls. The active pressure on the wall can be resisted by friction on the bottom of the wall footing and passive resistance on the below -grade portion of the footing. We recommend using a design soil bearing pressure of no more than 2 000 pounder square foot (psf) along with a friction coefficient and passive resistance of 0.35 and 200 pcf, respectively. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and drainage system installation. Structural Slab As mentioned earlier, the lower floor slab will be designed as a structural slab fully supported on deep foundations. We recommend that slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining gravel with less than three percent by weight passing the Sieve #200 for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75`a Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 16 placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch-thick moist sand layer may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer may be used to protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete; however, this sand layer is optional and is intended to protect the vapor barrier membrane during construction. Soldier Pile Wall As mentioned previously, an approximate 6-foot tall block retaining wall is located just to the east of the eastern property line, but not on the project site. It appears that this wall was constructed to support the Lunds Gulch Road. It is our opinion that this wall is unstable and could cause problems on the property in the future. We recommend that this wall be removed or stabilized using a soldier pile wall. We recommend that the new soldier pile wall be placed to the west of the existing wall to protect the Olson property against potential failure of the block wall. The soldier pile wall should extend roughly from the northern property line to the southern extent of the existing block wall. A solider pile wall typically consists of a series of steel H-beams placed vertically at a certain distance from one another (typically six to ten feet). The beams are usually placed in drilled shafts that are filled with concrete or grout. The concrete shafts are typically embedded below the bottom of the planned excavation a distance equals one to two times the height of the cut to be shored, if tie- backs are not used. The steel beams are extended above finished ground surface to provide shoring capabilities for the cut. The beams are typically spanned by pressure treated timber lagging. The H-beam size, shaft diameter, shaft embedment, and pile spacing are dependent on the nature of the soils anticipated in the cut and at depth, cut height, drainage conditions, the need for tie -backs, and the final geometry. — The soldier pile wall should be designed by an experienced structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The wall should be designed for an active pressure acting on the piles and lagging for — design of the soldier piles and should be calculated based on a triangular pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 50 pcf. The above loads should be applied on the full center -to -center pile spacing above the base of the exposed _._ portion of the wall. These loads could be resisted by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75`b Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 17 of the piles. A 50 percent reduction of this value can be applied for the purpose of designing the wall lagging. The passive resistance could be calculated based on a 100 pcf equivalent fluid density acting on two effective pile diameters below the base of the exposed portion of the wall. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 2. The below -grade portion of the wall should not be shorter than twice the wall stick- up height. The soldier pile wall should be installed by a shoring contractor experienced with this type of system. Although we anticipate that an open -hole drilling method will be adequate for installing the soldier piles in the on -site soils, the shoring contractor should be capable of casing the holes as sloughing and/or water -- seepage may be encountered. It might be prudent to perform one or more "test" holes to confirm installation conditions prior to finalizing work plans. Any sloughing or water that may collect in the drilled holes should be removed prior to pouring grout. Grout should be readily available on site at the time the holes are drilled. The holes should not be left open for any length of time, as that may increase the potential for caving and water seepage to impact wall installation. If groundwater seepage is encountered, we recommend that the concrete be tremied from the bottom of the excavations to displace the groundwater to the surface. Extra Portland Cement may also be placed in the bottom of the excavations to reduce the effects of seepage. The spoils from the soldier pile excavations are expected to be moisture -sensitive materials and should be removed from the site. We should be retained to monitor on site activities during the soldier pile wall installation on a full-time basis. The wall should be lagged using pressure -treated timber or concrete panels. Adequate gaps should be maintained between the lagging elements to allow water flow through the face of the wall. Also, all wall backfill should consist of 2-inch clean drain rock. It is imperative that water not be allowed to pool behind the wall, therefore extreme care should be taken not to contaminate the drain rock with silt or organics. In wet conditions, it might be necessary to use a filter fabric along the back of the drainage layer. Pavement Subgrade Pavement subgrade preparation should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading and Structural Fill subsections of this report. Depending on the tolerance to pavement NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence ' 15500 — 75`' Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 _ NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 18 cracking, we recommend that the upper two feet of the existing material be removed and replaced with structural fill. The pavement subgrade should be .proof -rolled with a heavy, rubber -tired piece of equipment, to identify soft or yielding areas that may require repair prior to placing any structural fill and prior to placing the pavement base course. We should be retained to observe the proof -rolling and recommend repairs prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces. If the existing soil is left in place, the pavement section should be thickened to further reduce the effects of settlement. Repairs of Recent Landslide For the landslide that was recently experienced on the steep slope on the property, we recommended that the exposed soil be covered with heavy duty erosion control matting such as Tensar C350 Turf Reinforcement Mat, or equivalent. Prior to placing the matting, any areas of loose soils should be - removed to expose dense native soil. The matting should be staked at the top of the slope with two to three rows of two- to three-foot long metal rebar that is either bent at the end or has a metal "T" -. welded to the end. The mat should be laid flush to the slope and staked to the exposed soil on the slope a minimum of every five feet. The slide debris that accumulated behind the small retaining wall _ should be cleaned out. After the matting netting is placed, we recommended that deep-rooted vegetation be planted on the slope and grass seed be planted to re-establish vegetation growth. All surface water flow should be permanently directed away from the slide area. We should be retained to monitor the repairs of the landslide. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that stormwater is directed to an appropriate stormwater collection system. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area wnere footings, slabs, or retaining walls are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structure and away from the steep slopes. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent, for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the structure and slopes. - Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into an appropriate discharge system. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over -- the site slopes or excavation walls. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 19 We recommend that stormwater generated on the site, including roof downspouts, footing drains, pavement and yard drains, and water flow from the road, be tightlined to the bottom of the slope to the west. This should entail directing all collected runoff into a main catch basin placed about 15 feet away from the top of the steep slope, from which a 6- to 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe should be extended to the back of the existing wall along the BNSF right-of-way. A concrete collar should be placed around the pipe between the catch basin and top of the slope to help anchor the pipe. The pipe should be laid on the slope surface but should be anchored using T-posts and metal straps. The pipe should end with a perforated Tee section approximately eight feet long that is capped on both ends and embedded in the crushed rock found behind the existing wall. Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the - contractor slope the bottom of the excavations and collect water into ditches and small sump pits where the water can be pumped out of the excavations and routed into an appropriate outlet. We recommend the use of footing drains around the planned structure and behind retaining walls. Footing drains should be installed at least one -foot below nlannPd Euis ed floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum fob -inch-diameter rigid, slotted or perfoMted, PVCR_pe surrounded by free -draining material, such as washed rock, wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that an 18-inch- w_ide zone of clean (less than three -percent fines granular material be placed along the back of the walls above the drain. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or drainage composite may be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one -foot below the finished surface. The top foot of backfill should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to footing drains. - Roof drains should also be installed around the site structures. The roof drains should consist of gutters and downspouts collecting stormwater runoff from the roof. The downspouts should discharge to catch basins and 4-inch minimum diameter, rigid, PVC tightline pipes. The drains should be directed into catch basins and then into the controlled drainage system. The footing and roof drains should discharge via independent (separate) tightlines into catch basins/cleanouts leading to the stormwater system. Surface NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence - 15500 — 75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 20 water from the driveway and yard areas should also be collected in a catch basin and tightlined separately to the stormwater system. USE OF THIS REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Mr. George Olson and his agents, for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations - and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We recommend that we be retained to review final project plans and provide consultation regarding specific structure placement, site grading, foundation support, and drainage. We also recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. All people who own or occupy homes on or near hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. _. If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures as soon as possible. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the impervious surfaces should be led to an approved discharge point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence - 15500 — 75`� Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B11 Page 21 Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. MOM NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report Olson Residence 15500 — 751 Place West Edmonds, Washington July 15, 2011 NGA File No. 8342B 11 Page 22 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Bala Dodoy e-Alali - Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:bd Seven Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. '1 VICINITY MAP N Not to Scale ti I+G-1�C iJ JA .7iCe 1 400 m 1200 It " Norma a ..... _ . __. .._ 1 Fisher Project Site ._� _ Mesd'awo(efe Gaon Par t 15�th St 9w r F +tea ._....... MleadoWdale -: .., 1 MEADODAr .'' 164th St &v N _ 1 168th Beverly Acreso PUGET St S%v _ SOUND 1 y: Y ACRES 1 TL nd PI S%v 'vai"Uest 9Q011 MapQuest'.Portions 02011NAVTf%Intermap 1 Project Number 8342B11 Figure 1 Lynnwood, WA NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK Olson Residence IYGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 3/25/11 Original DPN BD Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311.1351h Ave. NE, A -SSW Snohomish County (425) 339.1669 W.dinAlle. WA 98072 WenetClee/Chelan (509) 665-7696 (425) 466.16691 F. 451-2510 vnnw.n.1r geotwh. L) ca 2 2 m rn Z � �c c � y x a) LU Q= Q P-1 uolnJ spunl .mom • ■ �L U e ° C Q d ma 9a�in9� o "d°zemmura to c �I e A w CO y ° U) O Oa Q0.0 ~ a N 1 � cv S.iCc (Q d _ Q 4 ''^^ AA`` a' < O � X O O «. O cC O O O O O Z"C o o U E ca cis N c O W -tf a>c 0 a)c o _ xN -o rn O Q V OL v � V Q V cc W o_ z z 2 Q o J n Q 0) • _ �_ �• m G �a c a- Q b V� N Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK In 8342B11 Olson Residence �N ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 3/25111 Original DPN BD c Site Plan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 2 17311.1351h Aw. NE,ArM W-dim0b, WA 98M 9noh•mi C—y(425)3374M W—tchWCWan (509) 895S7M Q (425) 4WI5691 FM W5 510 wvw.nNun9wutll_wm 0 Z so N O O w O O T_ CO O c a� a� > y m 16 E O 0 ac CO o N C O Cy O U � N 10 E C 3 x O V O a a N f0 O C O N U C O C 0 .@ w d d Ob m m zcn6w C)N rn O N to Q c rn Nl (V I ts o I Q Q cam• C c T T T a CU `s o a p1 J f0 C d !O d Lj is d �4 k 0.9 d N '30 lJJ p O ui rn Q �. c n 'v � C cc :C - C f0 _ 0 C1 N L 0 � z W � vai I CI' II c c c �L o � m N N N N N to � T C'. TO _N � O d N r Of O � O (OD V .. CO N to x g E U of v W 0 0 p N G C (1991) UOIIBA913 alewixaddy c� o Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date I ReVISIOn By CK 83421311 Olson Residence NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 4/13/11 Original DPN BD Cross -Section A -A' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 3 17311.15N 9M•a.NE,A,6W 487 Ead P.My Read W.edimdl.• WA 98072 Wen ... WA 98801 ''..,,,..I (425) 4W1669I Fu 461.2510 (509) 66s7696 _I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND SAND MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO.4 SIEVE SAND SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND WITH FINES - FINE - SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 % CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT — MORE THAN 50 % PASSES N0.200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT 50 % OR MORE CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Moist - Damp, but no visible water. is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, _ 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil is obtained from consistency are based on below water table interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 83421311 Olson Residence NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 325/11 Original DPN BD Soil Classification Chart GEOTECKNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure A 17311-135T A., NE. AZW SmMmiah County(425) 337-1660 Y JWsnaOchw/C(SW) 665-7696 hbnam (426) 48dmWA8072 , , 6 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: —96 feet Soil Profile Description 3rown-gray fine to medium sand with silt and trace gravel (very loose,moist) 3ray, silty fine to medium sand with silt and trace gravel medium dense, moist) 1_ 3ray, silt with fine sand, (very stiff, moist to wet) nottled and contains slickensides (Slide Plane???) Slue -gray silt with trace fine sand (very stiff, moist) Contains some slickensides 1 �!1 l 1 -with interbedded coarse sand / 1 1Boring terminated below existing grade t 26.5 et on 10128/10. Groundwater seepage was not untered BORING LOG B-1 Penetration Resistance Sample Data (Blows/foot - 40) 10 20 30 40 g d Q g Moisture Content R J Q o c o c m_ (Percent - 0) O C7y C°v CnJo 10 20 30 40 I I rn Piezometer IT Installation - z Ground Water Data A a (Depth in Feet) to J ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content LEGEND A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered ❑ Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite G Grain -size Analysis 1 with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear I' to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit Silica Sand P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial 1 NOTE: Sub surface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests. analysis and judgement. They are not necessariy for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. representative of other times and locations. we cannot accept responsibility Revision By CK Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Olson Residence N G A ASSOCIATES, INC. t 3125111 odyma) use laps 83421311 Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 5 17311.1351h Aw Nr; A-600 S.I.,j h Cwntr (425) 339.1669 W, dinv0ls. WA 98M v4—th r-Mbn (509) 685.7698 Page 1 of 1 (425)488.1889IF.481.7510 .n.m�..�. BORING LOG B-2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: —79 feet Soil Profile Sample Penetration Data Resistance (Blows/foot - 9) Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 � Installation - 50 Ground Water c o Moisture Content ° Data Description .9 aD 3c m ° E m V c:.c o o (Percent - E) t� c (Depth in Feet) I C9 y .0 o 10 20 30 40 50 50+ j 3rown-gray silty, fine to medium sand with silt and trace 2 gravel (medium dense, moist) 16 ' 1 -.. ..: • SM —. 22 5......................................... ' 5 --becomes with silt lenses, and moist to wet 4 ","` 16 Gray silt with trace fine sand (stiff, moist) Plane???) 14 , 10 iottled and contains slickensides (Slide ML l Iran fine sandy silt (very hard, moist) 58 ............... ........ 15 1Clean fine sand on top of sample ML 1 becomes gray, laminated, with interbedded fine sand 87A 1" la ers -.1-Boring terminated below existing grade at 21.5 feet on 10/28/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered. 25 1 25................................................... 1 0 I—', Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content LEGEND A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered [� Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite G Grain -size Analysis 1 with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler ® Monument/ Ca iw p ,� to Piezometer Native Soil DS Direct Shear PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit Silica Sand P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit 1 Water Level T Triaxial 1 NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK Olson Property NGA ASSOCIATES INC. 1 30111 Original LSB IPAS 8342B11 Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 6 17311-13501 Aw. NE, w000imuw.wneao72n srohemsn cwmy(425) 339-1669 ­an...Cti.mn(soa)sss7sa Paae 1 of 1 t.25> 4661559 r Fax 481.2510 „mw.n.I-n so%�. LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION HAND AUGER ONE 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 3.5 ML BROWN -GRAY, SANDY SILT WITH TRACE ORGANICS AND SILT LAYERS (SOFT, MOIST TO WET) 3.5-4.0 CL BLUE -GRAY CLAY WITH SLICKENSIDES AND MOTTLED (SOFT, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0, 3.5, AND 4.0 FEET LIGHT GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 3/30/11 HAND AUGER TWO 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 2.5 ML BROWN -GRAY, SANDY SILT WITH SILT LAYERS AND ORGANICS (SOFT, MOIST TO WET) _. 2.5 - 3.5 ML GRAY, SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF, MOIST) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 3.5 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET ON 3/30/11 HAND AUGER THREE -- 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 2.5 ML BROWN -GRAY, SANDY SILT WITH SILT LAYERS AND ORGANICS (SOFT, MOIST TO WET) 2.5 - 3.5 ML GRAY, SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER MET REFUSAL ON A ROOT AT 3.5 FEET ON 3/30/11 LSB:DPN NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO: 83421311 FIGURE 7 Main Office 17311 — 135'" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County April 3, 2013 Mr. George Olson 3528 — 102"d Place SE Everett, Washington 98208 NELSON G EOTECH N ICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter I I a% Olson Residence Q� U ��� Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B11 0(F)ARUE Y W EOV11 010) Dear Mr. Olson: This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review and our responses to City of Edmonds comments regarding the plans for your residence project located at 15500 — 75`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION Project plans consist of constructing a new two-story, single-family residence within the eastern portion of the property. The site is situated on sloping ground that descends to the right-of-way of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad and the shores of Puget Sound. The eastern portion of the property where the residence is planned is gently sloping down to the west. The remainder of the site consists of a moderate to steep, west -facing slope. We previously prepared a geotechnical report for the project titled "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Report — Olson Residence — 15500-751h Place West — Edmonds, Washington," dated July 15, 2011. We also prepared memoranda titled "Olson Property — Tree Management," dated July 13, 2011 and "Olson Residence — Temporary Drainage Recommendations," dated December 7, 2011. For our use in preparing this letter, we were provided with the following documents: Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter Olson Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 11 April 3, 2013 Page 2 • Plan Review Comments - Plan Check #2012-0585 — Project: Olson SFR — Project Address: 15500 75" Place W, prepared by the City of Edmonds Building Division, dated November 14, 2012. • Geotechnical Peer Review — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area — PRE2012-0032 — Olson SFR-15500 75"' Place West — Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Landau Associates, dated November 19, 2012. • Plan Review Comments for Plan Check #2012-0858 — New SFR at 15500 75"' Place West, prepared by the City of Edmonds, dated November 20, 2012. • Plan Review Corrections, prepared by the City of Edmonds, dated November 20, 2012. • Memo: Olson Residential Construction Proposal — 15500 75"' PI W, prepared by the City of Edmonds, dated November 21, 2012. We were also provided with the following Plan Sheets: A1.0, A3.0, A3.2, S 1.0, and S 1.1 of the plans titled "George & Ginger Olson — Olson Residence," prepared by Architectural Design Associates, dated August 20, 2012; Sheets C 1 through C5 of the plans titled "George Olson SFR," prepared by JC McDonnell Engineering dated March 29, 2013; Undated, untitled Plan Sheet SP1.0; and Sheets L1.0 and L2.0. The site falls within "Zone A" of the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Report prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds. This designation requires that certain features be included (or excluded) in the design. Such features include the restriction of cuts and fills, the need for tightlining runoff into an approved system, the need to design foundations and retaining walls to withstand high lateral earth pressures and potential loss of soil beneath parts of the foundation, and the need to vegetate slopes with deeply rooted drought -tolerant vegetation, and the elimination of any and all irrigation systems. PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the most recent plans and found the plans to be in general compliance with our recommendations as presented in our previous geotechnical report. The residence is NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter Olson Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 11 April 3, 2013 Page 3 set -back roughly 55 feet from the existing steep slope which is in line with the recommendations of the report. The entire structure, as well as an elevated driveway for garage access, will be supported on 21, 18-inch diameter, 25-foot deep auger cast piles as recommended in our report. Originally, the lower floor was to be supported on a slab -on -grade, but the current plans show that there will be a crawl space underneath the entire structure. Slabs -on -grades are not planned for this project. Cuts up to approximately nine feet were previously planned, but current plans indicate that only minor grading will be made on this site. There is currently a deteriorating block retaining wall located within the City of Edmonds Right -of -Way along the eastern side of the property. We previously recommended that this wall be removed and replaced with a soldier pile wall. Current plans show no grading, structures, or retaining walls are planned near this wall. As long as this area is not disturbed during construction, in the forseeable future, this wall should not need to be replaced. It should be monitored and repaired/replaced at a later date as needed. Depending on the time of the year, temporary drainage and erosion control during construction will consist of a level spreader and/or straw wattles located no closer than 10 feet from the top of the slope. Silt fences are not planned to be used for this project. Permanent drainage will consist of all footing drains, downspouts, and the channel drain for the driveway being directed to a detention pipe which will be located directly to the west of the new residence. The detention pipe will be connected to a Drisco pipe which will be directed down the slope towards the existing retaining wall along the railroad tracks. The pipe will be secured at the top of the slope with a deadman anchor, and will be anchored to the slope every five feet. The drain outlet will be installed according to Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Company specifications as shown on Plan Sheet C4. In the past, water from the existing road has flowed onto this site. To help prevent this condition, a new drainage system including a catch basin in the road will be installed along the property line to the south of the residence. The pipes carrying runoff from the road will be connected to the main drainage system below the planned detention pipe. A shallow landslide, as documented in the geotechnical report, was cause by the runoff from the road reaching the slide area. Specific recommendations for repairing the slide were provided in the report. The current plans call for repairing the slide in accordance with the report under the supervision of NGA. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter NGA File No. 8342B 11 Olson Residence April 3, 2013 Edmonds, Washington Page 4 CITY REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSES In general, most of the review comments made by the City of Edmonds in the above mentioned documents centered around discrepancies between the project descriptions found in the geotechnical report and the plans that were submitted for review, such as the soldier pile wall that was mentioned in the report by not shown on the plans; previous substantial grading; previous slab -on -grade; drainage plans; and temporary erosion control plans. All these issues have since been resolved and clearly addressed by the most recent plans. LANDU ASSOCIATES REVIEW COMMENTS LETTER In their November 19, 2012 review memorandum, Landau Associates made several review comments regarding our geotechnical report and some geotechnical aspects of the plans. The Landau Associates comments are listed below along with our responses to each comment: 1. We recommend that NGA revisit the landslide risk conditions at this site and also provide a clear statement of risk and their assessment of the stability of the site and whether it is in their professional opinion that the site meets the criteria for "Stable" as defined in ECDC 19.10.020.0. (including the estimated probability of earth movement). Response: With the studies of the ESLHA and the drainage improvements to reduce the risk of landsliding, the City of Edmonds is allowing cautious and appropriate development within this area. The landslide hazard for this site is mitigated by the house design and drainage and erosion control plans for this project in the form of minimal grading and deep foundation support, as well as, drainage and grading improvements, to reduce the potential for landslides on this property. The drainage improvements are designed to collect surface water runoff and near surface groundwater and remove it from the site. Minimal grading will be carried out on this site, and the entire residence will be supported on a deep foundation system. Most of the surface water flowing onto the site, as well as the water collected in downspouts, footing drains, and on other hard surfaces, will be collected into a drainage system that will direct the runoff down to the toe of the slope near the railroad tracks. The residence will be founded on piers that extend 25 feet below the ground surface and therefore will not be supported on the near surface soils. By incorporating all of the above in the project plans, the Olson residence has been designed to reduce the potential for landsliding on this specific site, and to resist landslides if they were to NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter NGA File No. 8342B 11 Olson Residence April 3, 2013 Edmonds, Washington Page 5 occur. By following similar methods as required by the City of Edmonds, other development in the overall ESLHA zone is also reducing the risk of landsliding, and thus, the overall risk of a catastrophic landslide that would impact a large portion of this area is being reduced as more sites are developed. However, if deep-seated large-scale landsliding were to occur within the overall site vicinity due to extreme environmental factors outside the control of any one homeowner, such as prolonged extreme wet weather and/or significant earthquakes, many residences in this area could be damaged or destroyed. It is not practical for an individual property owner to eliminate the potential for deep-seated large-scale landsliding in this historic slide area. In our opinion, the local community and the City of Edmonds acting together have significantly reduced the potential for landslides in this area. In our opinion, based on the site conditions found in our explorations and the large-scale studies of the ESLHA by others, we consider this site stable and estimate that there is currently no more than 30 percent probability of a slope failure in a 25-year period within the Olson property. This probability should be further reduced after the residence has been constructed in accordance with the plans and the recommendations in our report. We should emphasize that the shallow landslide that took place along the western edge of the site was largely caused by uncontrolled runoff that originated on the road above the site. This condition has been addressed by the plans. 2. We recommend that the notes be revised appropriately [to reflect the current geotechnical engineer of record]. Response: Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. is listed as the geotechnical engineer of record in the Engineers Notes section on Sheet C 1. 3. The stockpile location does not satisfy the recommendations for the geotechnical report. The location of stockpiling should be modified to accommodate the geotechnical recommendations. Response: Stock piles have been removed from Sheet C 1. Grading should be minimum, and any excavated soils will be removed promptly from the site. No significant stockpiles of soils are planned. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. W Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter Olson Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8342B 11 April 3, 2013 Page 6 4. We recommend that the plans include the location and structural details for the soldier pile retaining wall. Response: The soldier pile retaining wall is no longer part of the current plans and has been removed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is our opinion that the provided plans have addressed all of the geotechnical issues that were raised in our geotechnical report and by the City of Edmonds. The plans have been revised to reduce the impacts to the site and steep slope. It is also our opinion that the site will be more stable after the residence and anticipated design and erosion control systems are implemented. The site soils are considered extremely moisture sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. We recommend that earthwork construction take place during periods of extended dry weather, and suspended during periods of precipitation if possible. If work is to take place during periods of wet weather, care should be taken during site preparation not to disturb the site soils. This can be accomplished by utilizing large excavators equipped with smooth buckets and wide tracks to complete earthwork, and diverting surface and groundwater flow away from the prepared subgrades. Also, construction traffic should not be allowed on the exposed subgrade. A blanket of rock spalls should be used in construction access areas if wet conditions are prevalent. The thickness of this rock spall layer should be based on subgrade performance at the time of construction. For planning purposes, we recommend a minimum one -foot thick layer of rock spalls. We recommend that all erosion control and drainage systems be monitored on a regular basis, especially during periods of heavy precipitation, and maintained as warranted to ensure continued functionality. We should be promptly contacted should any signs of distress to the slope or the drainage system be observed. MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT Provided that the recommendations in this letter and the geotechnical report dated July 15, 2011 are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties form soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Plan Review and Comment Letter Olson Residence Edmonds, Washington CLOSURE NGA File No. 8342B 11 April 3, 2013 Page 7 We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. B a D2doye-Alli roject Geologist J Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Three Copies Submitted BD:KMS:kms NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Ll CHAMPION TREE CARE Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-238-3946 Page 1 of 7 RECEIVED Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com NOY 12 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICE October 23, 2013 COUNTER City of Edmonds, Washington Michael Clugston, Associate Planner Development Services Department 425-771-0220 Michael.clusston@edmondswa.eov RE: Arborist Review for Olson Douglas -fir Tree #320 at 15500 75t' PI W. Edmonds DECISION: Do not allow the removal of Tree #320; the tree needs to be preserved as a Native Growth Protection Area. Rather than remove, retain, and underplant with a mixture of low native shrubs. Do allow pruning and regular maintenance, including view pruning but no topping. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: For every inch of diameter, preserve one foot of circumference around the tree. • Install a protective barrier in a 40-ft circumference around the critical root zone (CRZ) of Tree #320. Do not allow dumping or storage of materials, or any compaction activities. Limit any necessary construction activities to less than 15% total disturbance within that CRZ. • However, even within the 15% disturbed area impacts are to be minimized as much as possible. Roots over 6" in diameter are not to be cut, especially on the upslope side, instead bore/tunnel underneath the roots or find an alternative path. • If less than 6", then roots are to receive a straight, clean cut that minimizes cut surface area. FINAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES: Remove all English Ivy (Hedera helix). In the final landscape, replant underneath this tree with a combination of Salal (Gaultheria shallon), and Sword Ferns (Polystichum munitum) within the 40-ft critical root zone circumference. These are low growing native plant associates for Douglas -fir. Install the plants in the fall/winter to avoid the need for supplemental watering. No lawn and no supplemental irrigation under this Douglas -fir. Allow pruning and regular maintenance to Tree #320 but it needs to be performed by an experienced professional tree climber that will not use climbing spurs to gain access to the tree. DECISION BASED ON: I have reviewed the available documents and visited the tree for an inspection. I do not support the removal of Tree #320. 1. All the critical area mandates and ordinances call for maximum retention of existing vegetation on steep slopes unless the tree is an invasive species, imminent threat to life and/or property, or unless retaining the tree will inhibit use of the property. These mandates were in place on August 4, 2012 when Kevin Teague did his Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. • 0 Page 2 of 7 2. Best.available science indicates that mature native trees, especially conifers, are the most desirable trees to retain for long-term slope stability, water remediation, oxygen production, and wildlife habitat. 3. Mr. Teague overestimated the hazardous nature of Tree #320 to get his recommendation and his rating of 10 out of 12 does not warrant removal because pruning and maintenance should sufficiently mitigate the risk rating. Tree #320 is not an imminent hazard and reasonable practices duripg construction can protect this tree. (See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the 3-12 rating and whatthe'10' means) 4. The Geotechnical Reports indicate great concern over the flow and percolation of water through this site. No automatic sprinklers or irrigation are to be allowed and all water has to be routed off the property into the Railroad right of way below. Because of the very real possibility of a large mass wasting event, this necessitates the protection of the maximum amount of existing vegetation. Matpre native trees should be retained to the maximum amount possible on this site for water remediation and slope stability. 5. The neighbors have shown their willingness to live with the potential hazards associated with Tree #320 by hiring an arborist to question the removal. DOCUMENTS: My decision is based on the following documents and information. • A site visit and tree inspection (Please see Appendix 2) • Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, for Tree #320 submitted by ISA Certified Arborist Kevin Teague of Harmsen & Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2012 • Tree Removal and Tree Replanting Plan Site Maps prepared by Kevin Teague of Harmsen & Associates, Inc. dated August 13, 2012 • A letter expressing concern written by Scott Baker ISA Board Certified Master Arborist on behalf of Tom Degan, neighbor to the proposed development • Arboriculture & The Law, 1992. Merullo, V.D & M.J. Valentine. International Society of Arboriculture Books, Champaign Illinois. 105p. • City of Edmonds Municipal Code, Chapters 18 and 23 • Snohomish County Municipal Code regarding geologically sensitive critical areas • State of Washington Growth Management Act regarding mandates to protect steep slopes and critical areas • Technical Memorandums, Geotechnical Reports, Plan Reviews, and the many documents associated with this single-family residence development permit available online under permit number BLD20120858 at https://permits.edmonds.wo.us/Citizen/Permitlnfo/PermitSearch.aspx SITUATION: Other homes exist adjacent to the property of Mr. Olson, and a new home has been successfully built across the street. Retention of Tree #320 will not keep Mr. Olson from developing his property. However, the possibility of mass wasting on this site is of documented importance with clear risks. It is described as low to moderate even in areas that do not have vegetation removed or disturbed. The numerous reports and memos associated with this application document that Mr. Olson knows his site is geologically sensitive. He is described as wanting to build a successful retirement home for himself and his wife with a small foot print while maintaining the integrity of his slope. I also wish for him to be successful and secure for years on his property. I believe retention of Tree #320 is important for the integrity of the slope. Kevin Teague, ISA Certified Arborist working for Harmsen & Associates, Inc. developed the tree removal and retention plan for Mr. Olson as part of the building permit application. The lack of Page 3 of 7 explanation on Mr. Teague's Tree Hazard Form for Tree #320 about how a Douglas -fir can handle the flaws noted leads me to think Mr. Teague exaggerated the hazard rating he assigned Tree #320. He also failed to offer any hazard reduction mitigation options, which is a known standard of Best Management Practices among ISA Certified Arborists. But primarily he failed his client when he didn't consider the impact of the tree removals in relation to the slope and geology of this site. He did not use his expertise to protect his client's property by retaining trees and native vegetation to the maximum amount possible as outlined by ordinances and the State of Washington Growth Management Act for geologically sensitive critical areas. Please make sure reasonable care and best management practices are employed in retaining Tree #320 during any and all construction activities. Thank you very much, Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. Urban Forest Ecologist ISA Certified Arborist (PN-1583) ISA Tree Risk Assessment Certified (expires June 2017) 425-353-5434 (Office) 425-238-3946 (Cell) Justina.champtreecare@smail.com www.champtreecare@)Rmaii.com • • Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX 1: Reproduced from the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface ISA Course Manual. 1 RISK CATEGORIES WITHIN THE TWELVE POINT RATING SCHEME n*ViyWI Risk 14* edArda DraskeW Gt-#2p#W 06 " "CA" a LGWI In gnifkrit-notw=vSatea, 4 LW 2 I r cant• rrer Ima�mr tss . 6 OsgvD irffitgr�%cacrt-minottssrrQs�a$err�{�taiariryeetet�, $ A1o*ftl SQ<Weissua9bntteatlunpdui¢dlOelytoca any�j � rlQyaaRstu n ? MDder*2 VVhkA �wes•r�iat Note recc�Qt::bar�rcL9�m dat tsna�a6�I0yeaa a s Vigo dedmOWS.rNaiflardra maxpecM tDD§aP"dblanformidga wwt-s um 9 POO9 Fbaasaessed s sh�enpVsi vatye Tnatr calaa reasQr dyboiai eadga�Qt ndcmaraa3t m sas cSSW �tnpisofd�a�satidpragare �'I(3in14i�18 rBaC+�rd�ffiq�RQtahaer_�eiieeA�ttSIdB ID wo aifae esar sf area ire nQm hmeort�eti�ery tint $tie otts�we r 9r as or dae4uy+st�binparsdtarsiteccrrt:x�Qavda suthtipt�±�arionsu�#sl+o�Bdrron�t6eare -WedtkVAtdscleedYdefinedtiaMfiaehArSCUM ihs1$aasq " betime�kiEof�atltBDQbIIcelthe K+ef�beiagplErM�d,Butr)�ceiaauaE tfllfet4p�Rt#c�N{diP�1�8i�febDYlttYli�klataTtlOtt�ft Qtiliaft9 bYai�@, 1b a • ?iretre�z.are�acsafiahasteae�'�edas�t++�te�ta�i���ry;f�te.Acsiarlee�M�Mtialt it nBrT reI wi�in wf ntMt �e E+s etas his i8 npttitto tlp?d pulC.to dcs�,�,iat�i t�tt3ae�lNdd�B�eu�dtlaw,�e�►�drm E!•$pl�GCidtI3C)fllnnEdA'Ot� itfW{Qgi�QflW�ldl1��IQt�N1yE9rifiq�lr�5i11{�hM is E�meme �t�$E8�9iJl�iQ��IfIrSi�Q�i'e#���.�e�iMeif�MieAt�'ef.Allt>1lleGlfkRalpIYGCRK MVMA tmidtY VW roads orVA(t6?rT�Ci�ell,llRl�ufi5t[1�7teva b�tmbpabrd.Tltia bea9ae�Iaa�rslmatOat�LarasuciAYPf�'�6iNratlljtNt R�6Ardak+n9d�t�eedarmeodtorduniraptd(dteamwafwClow uNgrcm 4fxmmaedcv beau fished,Tiro+u!ie��a�teyured��ttratxsftatadecJeedy�4e[diedfiskaft�mtis dMifti€crarasshdbQ at�mssere manpesrgkxies can �ti�dtas4c p9 ar���Ibreecen��s��6b�1>� rt+�,FA.he ensce�Iad�a t#��grtri di�tradk hct;•ort,'fhefllistac�+etot�araspet�4rwncsya6autpufi'ttrat2.mlydefx�eda�y iesrrea preckade tdlara�mt. TtleTetita eb�satdGnas�e irrietpt�im�ssl�tiCeu`�s Qt�rslJt saFatgs�z+D flSs9L�ad risk �agofi�dirisnQre is psavid� tDujlrnmthe rpdn fDaE dt � � �9odasstt tlUt d11y can �6C6t taf datstattd �'� a6 ma�D i� die tislc a i egatt, WE RECOMMENDTNAT YOU PLACE THIS TABLE IN ALL OF YOUR RISK REPORTS. This table formally categorizes the Risk Rating used on the Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. The Tree Hazard Form was developed to assist managers of large tree inventories with prioritizing work schedules. It was never intended to stand alone but rather it is a data collection sheet. The form should be interpreted in a report that explains the limitations, features and targets of the particular site, known species characteristics and ability to handle defects. The report should also propose mitigation options to reduce the hazard potential of a tree. This form is not intended to be used to condemn trees and doing so goes against the agreed to Code of Ethics for an ISA Certified Arborist. • • APPENDIX 2: Tree #320 Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Page 5 of 7 Picture 1. This is Tree #320. It is located less than 20-ft from the property of Tom Degan. The tree is about 40-inches in Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The trunk leans downslope but has normal taper. All sides of the root crown are well rooted in the slope (top picture is looking up the slope, while the bottom picture is looking downslope) with no broken, cracked or heaving roots. There is no evidence of wood decay, decay cavities, or root disease fruiting bodies in the root crown or lower 25-ft of the tree. L� Page 6 of 7 Picture 2. There are two flaws in the canopy that are outside the known 'perfect' shape of Douglas -fir trees. The top arrow indicates the split into two codominant leaders at about 55-ft. This codominant leader is within the range of normal for the form of this Douglas -fir. The failure potential for this codominant leader is low. The bottom arrow points to an irregular growth pattern of distorted bark, at about 40-ft, lacking branches or dead stubs. This growth pattern is outside the range of normal and is likely a response to wounding that occurred externally (as opposed to pathogen related). It does not girdle the circumference but it is an area of increased uncertainty regarding wood flexibility and integrity. This defect would benefit from annual monitoring but currently I estimate this defect is low - medium because Douglas -fir trees are long-lived, dense strong wooded, native trees known to be decay resistant and this tree has experienced many annual wind storms. • 0 Page 7 of 7 Picture 3. Tree #320 is located within one tree length of Mr. Degan's house but leans an estimated 20° away from Mr. Degan's aimed downslope. This tree is not located in the area Mr. Olson is proposing to . build his home, and it will not fall on his proposed house if retained because it is leaning downslope, and away. I believe Mr. Degan has indicated his willingness to live with above average risk associated with this tree because he hired an arborist to question its removal. This tree appears to be a boundary tree and has been maintained by Mr. Degan with appropriate pruning and building clearance maintenance. .r • CHAMPION TREE CARE Date: November 4, 2013 Name: George Olson, Owner of Tree #320 Edmonds WA RE: Follow -Up to City of Edmonds/Olson Douglas -fir Decision to Retain RE: Response to three page letter by Mr. Olson dated November 4, 2013 E Page 1 of 4 Mr. Olson, Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed letter in response to my decision to require retention of your Tree #320. My responses begin on page 3, at the end of your comments and questions. From your letter: Three issues you would like to have addressed: 1. Some factual issues that need to be corrected or addressed. 1.0 Statements that mayor may not be true. Accuracy is important and verification of facts is essential, yet neither of us, my wife and I, nor Harmsen & assc were contacted. Were Degan and/or his agents contacted? How does Ms Kraus validate her statements? 1.1 The last paragraph on page 3 asserts that tree 320 is a boundary tree, but provides no working definition of a boundary tree for reference. In my simplistic view a boundary tree is a tree whose trunk is theoretically split by the property line. A good example is tree 253, a Leyland Cypress. Most of the tree is on Mr Degan property, but a minor section of trunk is on my side of the property line. If Ms Kraus's work is based on a different definition I need to know what it is and how it applies. But, by my definition, tree 320 has never been and, unless it grows exponentially, will never be on the property line. The property line as documented in her references is a good 9 feet from the center of this tree. This is well beyond the 6.5 foot radius in her 40 foot circumference stay out area. She should be pleased to learn that the barrier fence at it's closest point is currently at 12 feet. But again, how is this a boundary tree? 1.2 Same paragraph "Mr Degan has kept the tree pruned and maintained it, as if it was his. Mr. Olson has slated the tree for removal as though it were his". Let us call a spade a spade. It is my tree, but I did not slate it for removal. It was a recommendation from Harmsen and Assc. Mr Degan committed criminal trespass and destroyed private property. But, If, he truly maintained 320 as his own, why did he not maintain it like he does tree 253? On 253 everything over his roof line is sheared off, but on my side of the tree not a branch was touched- above or below the roof. Yet on 320 everything below his roof line is cut off a full 360 degrees around the tree. I suspect there was little if any building maintenance, only scenic view management. Finally if he treated it and truly maintained as his own, why is there any ivy on the tree at all? It was only removed from the base in the last few weeks. Higher up it shows up quite well on Picture 320 as does the branch view clearing. Obviously, I am bias and I know it, but I do feel these statements are inaccurate and are repugnant to my ethics and to me in general. Please have her enlighten me as to their value in this discussion. 2. Some comments that lead me to suspect that there was additional communications, verbal or written, that are not listed in the reference section - leads to bias and independence. 2.0 Communications/interactions not recorded: I believe that verification and validation are essential to any study and or analysis. From any written document there are always questions about what was said or left unsaid, so personally I was surprised we were never contacted. But if there is contact established Licensed, Bonded and Insured. Contractor's #ECOTRN*891P8 �r Page 2 of 4 with one side, there should be an appropriate counter balance so there is no appearance of collusion or impropriety. 2.1 Same paragraph as in 1.1 and 1.2. The content and tenor of this paragraph and other comments sprinkled through the report lead me to think there were supplemental conversations or communications with Mr Degan or his agents. If this statement is wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to Ms Kraus in person. But if she has communicated with one side and not the other then I have issues. In relation to this assessment, excluding you, I would like to know who she has communicated with and to the best of her recollection, list by date each interaction, the nature of that interaction and generally what was discussed/communicated. Being an ethical person, I expect she would provide a full disclosure. Your conversations with her may be relevant as to what she knows about the polarization of the situation. But, with her confirmation of noncontact, the issue is mute. (is) one area in her assessment that I feel is incomplete and would like her to expand on it. Quality of the Assessment: I was impressed by the quality and detail of the technical assessment as a whole; particularly about how, why, and which way the tree is likely to fall. That was reassuring. But if the tree is now in a more exposed solitary position, does that increase the risk? 3.1 The discussion on the Co -Dominate Leads (CDLs) I found wanting. There was no discussion on how, why and direction they might be likely to fall or for the long term stability of the tree in general if one of them does fail. With the CDL's starting at about 50 to 55 feet, I gauge the height of the tree at 110 feet to a 120 feet tall. That is equivalent to an 18" diameter tree falling from a height of 55 feet and landing on object up to 55 feet away. Granted the top is a lot smaller than the base, but I guesstimate the corner of our bedroom to be approximately 35 feet away. If the storm winds come out of the south like it did this weekend, what kind of damage is that likely to do? A CDL failure by her assessment is unlikely to happen but if it did it would only have minor consequences. What is unlikely and minor? If it is low risk, why are annual inspections required. Per the Risk categories sheet annual inspections are not required until a Risk Rating of 9 (out of 12). The Degans may be cavalier with their lives, but I am partial to sustaining my own and that of my family. If Mr Teague was at one end of the pendulum, I am concerned that Ms Kraus may have swung to the other side. Regardless of their respective personal views, they are making an assessment of how likely or my wife will die in our home. This is of specific earnest interest to me. I would like her perspective on the CDL's, as it will be more definitive than my musings. Then if she would, I would like her to translate the sum and the detail of those risks of a tree or its components failure into an example I can relate to. If she were able to reproduce our physical situation 100 times (or a thousand times whatever) then take range of 20 years, (we should last that long) how failures of each type are likely to experienced and how many might actually hit a house and or a neighbors house. I realize this is not an exact science, so I expect she would be talking in generalities and ranges, but take a stab at it. I would assume storms of an historical nature (no 100 year storms etc). I would also appreciate her comments on the top of this tree. (see attached photo) Finally, even with her findings, I would expect at least a cursory discussion of alternative plans/actions were the tree to be removed. Are there no viable alternatives? Licensed, Bonded and Insured. Contractor's #ECOTRN*891P8 i 0 • E Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-238-3946 Cell 425-353-5434 Office Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com www.champtreecare.com Page 3 of 4 1. My decision was based on review of documents available online associated with your permit or were provided by Mike Clugston (listed in the report), and my site visit. I have not spoken to Mr. Degan or any representative of his. I did speak to Dave, the Excavator hired by your (Mr. Olson's) General Contractor during my site visit. I did have your General Contractor hollerto me as he drove away, that "the tree needs to go". I did check Arborist Kevin Teague's certification which was valid but did not include Tree Risk Assessment Qualifications. I did read the letter prepared by Consulting Arborist Scott Baker for Mr. Degan. Please note that my intent was not to attack the character of Kevin Teague and Harmsen Associates (or you Mr. Olson) but to point out all he did was collect data. He did not interpret it in relation to known species characteristics or offer hazard mitigation. Review of his work, additional documents and my site visit were the basis for my decision to require retention because the tree is not high or imminent hazard rating, and the site is a critical area. 2. Because you submitted the site plans prepared by Harmsen & Associates, I referred to you as 'slating the tree for removal'. Please accept my apology for my coarse phrase as it seems to have offended you. No offense was intended. It is a phrase used in my industry and doesn't imply requesting to remove a tree is automatically an unreasonable request or'bod'. 3. 1 agree Mr. Degan pruned the tree to clear his property and enhance his view but did not clear or maintain the ivy. 4. 1 am not a lawyer or surveyor. And though the location of this tree within 12-ft of the property line is part of the reason I assumed that this tree has been called for review, reference to its location as a 'Boundary Tree' was outside the scope of this review (as noted in the review). The definition of Boundary Tree I used but did not define is from Arboriculture & the Law: "Boundary line tree -A tree owned in common by two adjoining land- owners either through course of conduct or proximity to property lines." It would have been better to not include reference to the tree as a boundary tree because it was not pertinent to the situation. Please accept my apology for any distress and irritation including it brought you. 5. Regarding Douglas -fir trees and codominant stems. Trees are not created equal, either in wood strength or life - span. Douglas -firs are strong wooded and long-lived native species adapted to surviving gusty -annual -strong - windstorms while living for centuries. Douglas -fir is used as an important building material. Douglas -firs achieve this because of flexible but strong, decay -resistant wood. The 'norm al/perfect/ideal' form for Douglas -firs is a single trunk. But insects or frost damage can injure and damage the apical buds of Douglas -firs. When this happens, the 'perfect' form associated with strong apical control is lost and two or more branches may become the new apical, or top -dominants. Your tree was not topped; the act of topping or cutting the top out of a tree results in a candelabra of branches with bends. Codominant stems are defined as stems that are about the same size that begin at about the same position on a trunk. Codominant stems are not immediately or inherently dangerous, it is usually when one begins to grow or extend horizontally that the branch union may crack or fail. Even in the picture you sent in your email, your tree has two balanced upright growing leaders about 18" each in diameter and the split is at about 55-ft. The event that caused the codominants to split began years ago back when the tree was about 50-55-ft tall. The tree is now twice that tall. That means that the two codominant leaders have been successfully growing and swaying in the wind for decades. Cabling and bracing and proper Licensed, Bonded and Insured. Contractor's #ECOTRN*891P8 E • 0 Page 4 of 4 height reduction pruning could further lower the already relatively low risks associated with the balanced, equal sized codominant leaders. 6. 1 do not take my job lightly. If I thought you and your wife would be injured, much less die, while in your home due to retaining this tree then I would not retain it. Please be aware that the tree does not present this risk but more importantly, your home is not built yet. You still have the ability to make changes as needed to protect yourself all the while maintaining the health of this tree. Actions taken during logging your site and during construction DO have the potential to increase the risk of your tree. However, known industry standards of tree protection during construction should be enough to protect your tree without increasing the potential risks to imminent or about -to -occur risk probability. I recommended 1-2 year inspection periods because you are logging and changing this property. If it makes you feel better then think of them more as wellness check-ups than anything. Every 1-2 years might be similar to a view pruning schedule and inspections and regular maintenance could occur together. This tree is being retained because it is located on a geologically critical area and because the tree does not pose high potential risk for damage to property or human life even with proposed logging and construction because known standards of tree protection can be used. 7. Your Douglas -fir is holding your slope in place and Douglas -fir trees can live to be over 500 years old. Your tree is young for the species and it is in healthy condition. It should continue to stabilize the slope, remediate hundreds of gallons of water per day, and continue to grow provided there is care during construction and re -landscaping for the next 20 years. Could a branch puncture your roof, knock off a gutter or at the worst crack a window, yes it is possible. Your house may be struck by a branch during your 20 year period but the size of the part that the wind could carry to strike your house would require extremely unusual circumstances in order to result in a human death. I will not produce a statistical model predicting your safety for 20 years or representing 100s of outcomes. A typical human is 3-times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be struck by a falling tree. 8. 1 was asked to review Tree #320 to determine whether the tree should be removed. I reviewed the available evidence and came to my decision. To imply that I "...may have swung to the other side [of the pendulum compared to Kevin Teague]" is extremely insulting to me. Kevin Teague has requested 30 trees to be removed for you project. I reviewed available documents and made a decision regarding one tree. Perhaps if I had called for a review of all the Kevin Teague Hazard Assessment forms associated with your project then this comment could apply or be considered justified. Though I am offended, I do not require clarification or explanation of your comment. Certainly I have some inherent bias in my view of the world but my philosophy is to preserve trees unless the tree(s) poses a hazard or threat in a way that can't be mitigated or tolerated. After reading the Geotechnical reports and visiting Tree #320, 1 believe you are more at risk from your slope creeping and underlying geology failing to process heavy rain events than from Tree #320 falling on your house. 9. 1 am available to talk to directly by phone 425-238-3946 or by email Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com Thank you Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Qualified 425-238-3946 Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com Licensed, Bonded and Insured. Contractor's #EC0TRN*891P8 November 4, 2013 Dear Mr Clugston This letter is for you and Ms Kraus only. I assume you will share it with her. Thank you for your letter dated October 31, 3013 that contained the independent arborist report by Ms Kraus on the subject Doulas Fir, tree # 320. The arborist's objective was to provide an open, even independent assessment. There are elements in this report that cause me to question whether that objective was met. Unlike Ms Kraus's direct accusation that Mr. Teague failed his client, I would like to give Ms Kraus the opportunity to provide some explanation/additional information before rushing to judgement myself. Background: 1) To give you and her some context, I do not believe or trust Mr Degan. If he were to tell me it is sunny, I would look up and then confirm it with the person standing next to me. But that is me and it does make me suspicious. 2) My expectations from this analysis are three fold; (1) it complies with current laws and regs, (2) it provides us with a safe living environment, (3) it secures the land (slope) (With or without the Douglas Fir). With regard to the assessment, I likewise have three issues that need to be resolved/addressed: 1. Some factual issues that need to be corrected or addressed. 2. Some comments that lead me to suspect that there was additional communications, verbal or written, that are not listed in the reference section - leads to bias and independence. 3. (is) one area in her assessment that I feel is incomplete and would like her to expand on it. That being said lets dive into the detail: 1.0 Statements that may or may not be true. Accuracy is important and verification of facts is essential, yet neither of us, my wife and I, nor Harmsen & assc were contacted. Were Degan and/or his agents contacted? How does Ms Kraus validate her statements? 1.1 The last paragraph on page 3 asserts that tree 320 is a boundary tree, but provides no working definition of a boundary tree for reference. In my simplistic view a boundary tree is a tree whose trunk is theoretically split by the property line. A good example is tree 253, a Leyland Cypress. Most of the tree is on Mr Degan property, but a minor section of trunk is on my side of the property line. If Ms Kraus's work is based on a different definition I need to know what it is and how it applies. But, by my definition, tree 320 has never been and, unless it grows exponentially, will never be on the property line. The property line as documented in her references is a good 9 feet from the center of this tree. This is well beyond the 6.5 foot radius in her 40 foot circumference stay out area. She should be pleased to learn that the barrier fence at it's closest point is currently at 12 feet. But again, how is this a boundary tree? 1.2 Same paragraph "Mr Degan has kept the tree pruned and maintained it, as if it was his. Mr. Olson has slated the tree for removal as though it were his". Let us call a spade a spade. It is my tree, but I did not slate it for removal. It was a recommendation from Harmsen and Assc. Mr Degan committed criminal trespass and destroyed private property. But, If, he truly maintained 320 as his own, why did he not maintain it like he does tree 253? On 253 everything over his roof line is sheared off, but on my side of the tree not a branch was touched- above or below the roof. Yet on 320 everything below his roof line is cut off a full 360 degrees around the tree. I suspect there was little if any building maintenance, only scenic view management. Finally if he treated it and truly maintained as his own, why is there any ivy on the tree at all? It was only removed from the base in the last few weeks. Higher up it shows up quite well on Picture 320 as does the branch view clearing. Obviously, I am bias and I know it, but I do feel these statements are inaccurate and are repugnant to my ethics and to me in general. Please have her enlighten me as to their value in this discussion. 2.0 Communications/interactions not recorded: I believe that verification and validation are essential to any study and or analysis. From any written document there are always questions about what was said or left unsaid, so personally I was surprised we were never contacted. But if there is contact established with one side, there should be an appropriate counter balance so there is no appearance of collusion or impropriety. 2.1 Same paragraph as in 1.1 and 1.2. The content and tenor of this paragraph and other comments sprinkled through the report lead me to think there were supplemental conversations or communications with Mr Degan or his agents. If this statement is wrong I will be more than happy to apologize to Ms Kraus in person. But if she has communicated with one side and not the other then I have issues. In relation to this assessment, excluding you, I would like to know who she has communicated with and to the best of her recollection, list by date each interaction, the nature of that interaction and generally what was discussed/communicated. Being an ethical person, I expect she would provide a full disclosure. Your conversations with her may be relevant as to what she knows about the polarization of the situation. But, with her confirmation of noncontact, the issue is mute. 3.0 Quality of the Assessment: I was impressed by the quality and detail of the technical assessment as a whole; particularly about how, why, and which way the tree is likely to fall. That was reassuring. But if the tree is now in a more exposed solitary position, does that increase the risk? 3.1 The discussion on the Co -Dominate Leads (CDLs) I found wanting. There was no discussion on how, why and direction they might be likely to fall or for the long term stability of the tree in general if one of them does fail. With the CDL's starting at about 50 to 55 feet, I gauge the height of the tree at 110 feet to a 120 feet tall. That is equivalent to an 18" diameter tree falling from a height of 55 feet and landing on object up to 55 feet away. Granted the top is a lot smaller than the base, but I guesstimate the corner of our bedroom to be approximately 35 feet away. If the storm winds come out of the south like it did this weekend, what kind of damage is that likely to do? A CDL failure by her assessment is unlikely to happen but if it did it would only have minor • 0 consequences. What is unlikely and minor? If it is low risk, why are annual inspections required. Per the Risk categories sheet annual inspections are not required until a Risk Rating of 9 (out of 12). The Degans may be cavalier with their lives, but I am partial to sustaining my own and that of my family. If Mr Teague was at one end of the pendulum, I am concerned that Ms Kraus may have swung to the other side. Regardless of their respective personal views, they are making an assessment of how likely I or my wife will die in our home. This is of specific earnest interest to me. I would like her perspective on the CDL's, as it will be more definitive than my musings. Then if she would, I would like her to translate the sum and the detail of those risks of a tree or its components failure into an example I can relate to. If she were able to reproduce our physical situation 100 times (or a thousand times whatever) then take range of 20 years, (we should last that long) how failures of each type are likely to experienced and how many might actually hit a house and or a neighbors house. I realize this is not an exact science, so I expect she would be talking in generalities and ranges, but take a stab at it. I would assume storms of an historical nature (no 100 year storms etc). I would also appreciate her comments on the top of this tree. (see attached photo) Finally, even with her findings, I would expect at least a cursory discussion of alternative plans/actions were the tree to be removed. Are there no viable alternatives? If I am out of line, I would expect either or both of you to let me know. Whether I am or not, I am interested in hearing from you soon. I would appreciate an ECD. George M. Olson 425-337-5046 Cell 425-328-9090 • Y CITY OF EDMONDS • 1215" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • BUILDING October 31, 2013 George and Ginger Olson 3528 102"d Place SE Everett, WA 98208 RE: PERMIT CONDITION REGARDING TREE #320 - DOUGLAS FIR NEW SFR AT 15500 75TH PLACE WEST (BLD20120858) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Olson, As you know, the building permit for your new single family residence contained the following condition regarding the Douglas fir tree near your southern property boundary with Mr. Degan: 2. Tree #320, as shown on the landscaping plan from Harmsen & Associates approved July 22, 2013, shall be retained and protected until such time that an independent certified arborist selected by the City determines whether or not the tree is hazardous. This independent review shall be paid for by the applicant. Tree #320 shall be protected in accordance with the tree conservation notes on the approved landscaping plan. If the tree is found to be hazardous by the independent arborist, it may be removed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If the tree is to be retained, the landscaping plan shall be updated to note the retention of Tree #320 and, as applicable, the elimination of Vine Maple and Excelsa Cedar from the replanting plan. The City of Edmonds retained Justina Kraus, an ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor, to evaluate the Douglas fir tree. In a report dated October 23, 2013 (a copy of which is enclosed), Ms. Kraus found that the tree was not hazardous and should therefore be retained. Because the tree will be retained, it will also need to be maintained as indicated in Ms. Kraus' report. Specifically, any existing English Ivy must be removed within the critical root zone area of the tree and then that area shall be replanted with a combination of Salal and Sword Ferns. Finally, the existing landscape plans must be updated. The submission of new plan sheets is not required; rather, each of the three existing plan sets could be redlined (updated with handwritten notes). On Sheet L1.0 (Re -vegetation and Tree Mitigation Plan), the two proposed replacement trees — Vine Maple and Exclesa Cedar — can be removed. In their place, show the removal English Ivy and replanting of Salal and Sword Ferns within the critical root zone area. On Sheet L2.0, Tree #320 must be shown to be retained and protected by fencing. • If you will be redlining the plans yourself, let me know and I can work with you on what needs to be shown. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Enclosure • Page 1 of 7 CHAMPION TREE CARE Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-238-3946 Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com October 23, 2013 City of Edmonds, Washington Michael Clugston, Associate Planner Development Services Department 425-771-0220 Michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov RE: Arborist Review for Olson Douglas -fir Tree #320 at 15500 75" PI W. Edmonds DECISION: Do not allow the removal of Tree #320; the tree needs to be preserved as a Native Growth Protection Area. Rather than remove, retain, and underplant with a mixture of low native shrubs. Do allow pruning and regular maintenance, including view pruning but no topping. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: For every inch of diameter, preserve one foot of circumference around the tree. • Install a protective barrier in a 40-ft circumference around the critical root zone (CRZ) of Tree #320. Do not allow dumping or storage of materials, or any compaction activities. Limit any necessary construction activities to less than 15% total disturbance within that CRZ. • However, even within the 15% disturbed area impacts are to be minimized as much as possible. Roots over 6" in diameter are not to be cut, especially on the upslope side, instead bore/tunnel underneath the roots or find an alternative path. • If less than 6", then roots are to receive a straight, clean cut that minimizes cut surface area. FINAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES: Remove all English Ivy (Hedera helix). In the final landscape, replant underneath this tree with a combination of Salal (Goultheria shallon), and Sword Ferns (Polystichum munitum) within the 40-ft critical root zone circumference. These are low growing native plant associates for Douglas -fir. Install the plants in the fall/winter to avoid the need for supplemental watering. No lawn and no supplemental irrigation under this Douglas -fir. Allow pruning and regular maintenance to Tree #320 but it needs to be performed by an experienced professional tree climber that will not use climbing spurs to gain access to the tree. DECISION BASED ON: I have reviewed the available documents and visited the tree for an inspection. I do not support the removal of Tree #320. 1. All the critical area mandates and ordinances call for maximum retention of existing vegetation on steep slopes unless the tree is an invasive species, imminent threat to life and/or property, or unless retaining the tree will inhibit use of the property. These mandates were in place on August 4, 2012 when Kevin Teague did his Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. r: • Page 2 of 7 2. Best available science indicates that mature native trees, especially conifers, are the most desirable trees to retain for long-term slope stability, water remediation, oxygen production, and wildlife habitat. 3. Mr. Teague overestimated the hazardous nature of Tree #320 to get his recommendation and his rating of 10 out of 12 does not warrant removal because pruning and maintenance should sufficiently mitigate the risk rating. Tree #320 is not an imminent hazard and reasonable practices during construction can protect this tree. (See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the 3-12 rating and what the '10' means) 4. The Geotechnical Reports indicate great concern over the flow and percolation of water through this site. No automatic sprinklers or irrigation are to be allowed and all water has to be routed off the property into the Railroad right of way below. Because of the very real possibility of a large mass wasting event, this necessitates the protection of the maximum amount of existing vegetation. Mature native trees should be retained to the maximum amount possible on this site for water remediation and slope stability. 5. The neighbors have shown their willingness to live with the potential hazards associated with Tree #320 by hiring an arborist to question the removal. DOCUMENTS: My decision is based on the following documents and information. • A site visit and tree inspection (Please see Appendix 2) • Tree Hazard Evaluation Form, for Tree #320 submitted by ISA Certified Arborist Kevin Teague of Harmsen & Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2012 • Tree Removal and Tree Replanting Plan Site Maps prepared by Kevin Teague of Harmsen & Associates, Inc. dated August 13, 2012 • A letter expressing concern written by Scott Baker ISA Board Certified Master Arborist on behalf of Tom Degan, neighbor to the proposed development • Arboriculture & The Law, 1992. Merullo, V.D & M.J. Valentine. International Society of Arboriculture Books, Champaign Illinois. 105p. • City of Edmonds Municipal Code, Chapters 18 and 23 • Snohomish County Municipal Code regarding geologically sensitive critical areas • State of Washington Growth Management Act regarding mandates to protect steep slopes and critical areas • Technical Memorandums, Geotechnical Reports, Plan Reviews, and the many documents associated with this single-family residence development permit available online under permit number BLD20120858 at httmWpermits.edmonds.wa.us/Citizen/PermitInfo/PermitSearch.aspx SITUATION: Other homes exist adjacent to the property of Mr. Olson, and a new home has been successfully built across the street. Retention of Tree #320 will not keep Mr. Olson from developing his property. However, the possibility of mass wasting on this site is of documented importance with clear risks. It is described as low to moderate even in areas that do not have vegetation removed or disturbed. The numerous reports and memos associated with this application document that Mr. Olson knows his site is geologically sensitive. He is described as wanting to build a successful retirement home for himself and his wife with a small foot print while maintaining the integrity of his slope. I also wish for him to be successful and secure for years on his property. I believe retention of Tree #320 is important for the integrity of the slope. Kevin Teague, ISA Certified Arborist working for Harmsen & Associates, Inc. developed the tree removal and retention plan for Mr. Olson as part of the building permit application. The lack of • • Page 3 of 7 explanation on Mr. Teague's Tree Hazard Form for Tree #320 about how a Douglas -fir can handle the flaws noted leads me to think Mr. Teague exaggerated the hazard rating he assigned Tree #320. He also failed to offer any hazard reduction mitigation options, which is a known standard of Best Management Practices among ISA Certified Arborists. But primarily he failed his client when he didn't consider the impact of the tree removals in relation to the slope and geology of this site. He did not use his expertise to protect his client's property by retaining trees and native vegetation to the maximum amount possible as outlined by ordinances and the State of Washington Growth Management Act for geologically sensitive critical areas. Tree #320 is a boundary tree shared between the two properties of Mr. Olson and Mr. Degan. Mr. Degan has kept the tree pruned and maintained it, as if it were his. Mr. Olson has slated the tree for removal, as if it is his. While the civil relationship is outside the scope of this ruling, it should be noted that there is case law associated with boundary trees. Case law sets precedent that both property owners own this tree, and therefore each requires the permission of the other when performing major activities that could impact the health and vigor of this tree. The courts have ruled that each owner has less individual rights because the ownership is shared by both parties and has to be cared for and maintained in a way that will not damage the rights of the other property owner. Please make sure reasonable care and best management practices are employed in retaining Tree #320 during any and all construction activities. Thank you very much, Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. Urban Forest Ecologist ISA Certified Arborist (PN-1583) ISA Tree Risk Assessment Certified (expires June 2017) 425-353-5434 (Office) 425-238-3946 (Cell) Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com www.champtreecare@gmaii.com Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX 1: Reproduced from the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface ISA Course Manual. M FJSK CATEGORIES WITH -IN `" THE TWELVE POINT RATING SCHEME r The Avtrstl R;s t AWAg arrd Arian Thresholds (342 pelts) &A" i!eACole" t:tnprctrrinnand AVPrq,&cm 3 LIMI trr ,tirx iid no cinrcrn in , 4 LOW2 t iotii zrd - vtry cr.-7ar'rssces. S %s9 ImigK4cant-n4rrrs.;;asno itm'icetn{csrsaryyjar�k<t. & Szrni- bulRL'.ttinThats!ii•..tytotamera-TyproLe=taranotherSOYaarsorriryre.. T tip? ",ade6neiinu. -rc:aJrid mv.'^r.N-qz yr,dntti)FIew"rnf(-rattrwtxu.t'^t5-tnvf:a . $ tufr'!e'atrs° l;i�li9nfr.29i5t.ES•ttlarctar;+;m�nls• t:c;cxx'.ct_9toba�Gn:3lcrri*:i6ilc�<_".z•�n'tri't,5�+tst3. i t Tiarrsr=rVmt-sha:anvvlitc:ne-otlyctrorn-:?t>eecar, 3.1a P% R.Cytofall op-Ifi!-fi:rr:gtnrm:t orvuMy. ,*6n=pit:roybt%na:0^stte bri"')ns:tmaaU:flttl'ttC,hpI* terC;a:al9elGa; qur`.UtttCrrt7Poecotorr-wre f+cmt,f;N)teal y9ralpa,101,ithert rot�taha:;t;i2cur�a-n+ d. 0 IFP2 Ptcr^sc:.;:e1mr,bet-inrtvyc`car:T>hE,;Ttte `yaiWwmiirnwgvlrgscrarAC.T 1110targ%ratin3ar,JTrt,ntwttcri112vor!r-.e nt±'I:tt": a Son nrasmssha5ldnow baana se' eCe arth a Uea•'y erf ned t-t<line F-,r aci nn. There .r5y Oil b,- ti.r.s Lt h-4x"n M*p �- dilic of &d votkLaing p':brncd,tothroCIZJV�L•^tetbC.cyaronabcr trr tetra ;t�=.rtt irr nitr7r5!1va, aG+sart av�iLte, 11 Ni L3 riut=.tiTa«artc�ltha:rE3Ct5dai� ?v.' ri#:YGi:1 3fa7�3a TY 1 3,AoipsftGYlGtgaello e is VgFirod widift Walls rstbat than minalm BY eL;: sta50 -'-'re 15 t:-n-1 to hold vftL , rnrVir g�� d:e :>;treta r "ff�i�rduvir°rtsaciaatlydel •dis_mondstittrj�`then+murnayei t in rn itet9tie V a or. -A ;�T -k hcr.resn:ardpiOPttf,hinz:uacutlyfcroucteotiab� u a> tJ e '�ri�Ca„ ri b pu.'t G? $ iS e) t_wb p':r:t;". o$ t.i�ii ;; krmueeiatc ostimo u • t.'_ mtrcr: te=c, >7ttr% treewnrk'sticatdte%. ,Er:t•c;Ott,irr,JW2n t:ts r✓fia } .)mit'l :iTh't' r3mtie3tt.I-'e5:r-Emovm;tfeCh:::.ittStt,vavi.$;ve.Ca"tijf 'alllxtt# Ni5)it +.tr10:�pthPttgOwn yn!-trdar:'r"!q"t3-7aartlfnaic_ar,-rpereor�t rrrnraftan beaced:&.e( he 336Ct:nMgUT434 C-0cnstr.Otis;trxCltYlViCE-10jejri:ofhwr,ts Omlrstipd l:'"Tdlia hdbysr.raMari erfemeetAL:ocJnc°Gi;dr.- evurl 'q draartattt#crAntra_gf:XMvgdt-ibon� 0ctiltatfi.raie„cuttjbaan.0(3.M'W3 fa-aa t7 t rAieaur'53mT�,tant"ot:#i"tojCttlt9ipsrp'oin-Anv7ab-0pa;:rConCetri;Cexrlyft (ttEt153f�'d a..�scx �rs� �rihr�iscrA�, 't:'4TeU2 2't.'»ltt et lvt! End ir:�ica irns rths) t.a r7`.,r.,3s P•,ri i Apr, j:i j ti:di (�'.;y'r-+v f h -ie tc nru mft I Ct;�CT Ci":� S`t�"1 ['� ^.."'.:� 7Y{C �'"�D f}7 a �1Cy C.`,t: tSC3".'. itrdIIl�t;ft4� GY'�' �3t 4t•+3'Ltf ft fEt C"iLT3J _'cl3f 5 C".;..�.„ 4� it�' � i1 ii�t*.afi�'1`i �x Afl. WE RECOMMENDTNAT YOU PLACE THIS TABLE fN ALt OF YOUR RISK REPORTS This table formally categorizes the Risk Rating used on the Tree Hazard Evaluation Form. The Tree Hazard Form was developed to assist managers of large tree inventories with prioritizing work schedules. It was never intended to stand alone but rather it is a data collection sheet. The form should be interpreted in a report that explains the limitations, features and targets of the particular site, known species characteristics and ability to handle defects. The report should also propose mitigation options to reduce the hazard potential of a tree. This form is not intended to be used to condemn trees and doing so goes against the agreed to Code of Ethics for an ISA Certified Arborist. • • APPENDIX 2: Tree #320 Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Page 5 of 7 Picture 1. This is Tree #320. It is located less than 20-ft from the property of Tom Degan. The tree is about 40-inches in Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The trunk leans downslope but has normal taper. All sides of the root crown are well rooted in the slope (top picture is looking up the slope, while the bottom picture is looking downslope) with no broken, cracked or heaving roots. There is no evidence of wood decay, decay cavities, or root disease fruiting bodies in the root crown or lower 25-ft of the tree. Page 6 of 7 Picture 2. There are two flaws in the canopy that are outside the known 'perfect' shape of Douglas -fir trees. The top arrow indicates the split into two codominant leaders at about 55-ft. This codominant leader is within the range of normal for the form of this Douglas -fir. The failure potential for this codominant leader is low. The bottom arrow points to an irregular growth pattern of distorted bark, at about 40-ft, lacking branches or dead stubs. This growth pattern is outside the range of normal and is likely a response to wounding that occurred externally (as opposed to pathogen related). It does not girdle the circumference but it is an area of increased uncertainty regarding wood flexibility and integrity. This defect would benefit from annual monitoring but currently I estimate this defect is low - medium because Douglas -fir trees are long-lived, dense strong wooded, native trees known to be decay resistant and this tree has experienced many annual wind storms. 0 Page 7 of 7 Picture 3. Tree #320 is located within one tree length of Mr. Degan's house but leans an estimated 200 away from Mr. Degan's aimed downslope. This tree is not located in the area Mr. Olson is proposing to build his home, and it will not fall on his proposed house if retained because it is leaning downslope, and away. I believe Mr. Degan has indicated his willingness to live with above average risk associated with this tree because he hired an arborist to question its removal. This tree appears to be a boundary tree and has been maintained by Mr. Degan with appropriate pruning and building clearance maintenance. • i I Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form "NILClient 't ,�IYa ` „. Ae Dated tt 11),70)15 Time % P Address/Tree location I S0i Tree no. 3; T-) Sheet _L of _L Tree species Height f # D Crown spread dia Assessor(s) ` t Time frame--�� Tools used (AIM 'A t�_�� I� i �3 w; �{ Target Assessment . Target zone Occupancy y _ a E. = = d N rate I —rare. Q„ v u c u- t— : c Target description t :c -occasional 3-frequent+ 3 4 n E s a 1 llti : r`(L (F� /f� L7N' / 3 — i '� ( wi 1 -::F4 Site Factors'. History of failures r\,O Topography Flat❑ lope 1 - f _9. Aspect Site changes None Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changedsoil hydrology ❑ Root tuts ❑ Describe� n , .. k,. Soil conditions Limited volume ❑Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots % Describe�5:­'-vt Cy Prevailing wind direction_) —w Common weather Strong wincisgice ❑ Snow Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal` High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic S- % Necrotic % Pests Abiiotic Species failure profile Branc &Trunk ❑ Roots ❑ Describe Q n i&t-, k 5 , i ' Sk a A. l A 4 tk _t,AK-.t? -v-- t "« Load i=actors Wind exposure Protected[] Partial[] Full,windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large' Crown density Sparse ❑ Normax Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normalg Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑tlt� tom'• `i i ley , Recent or planned change in load factors TreeDefects�and ConditionsAfEechrig'the,Likelihood of -Failure — Crown and Branches -- Unbalanced crown,LCR- Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max, dia. Codomina?ments � r ` (of?jr+" 113ok.� Included bark ❑? Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Over -extended branches ❑ weak attac ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other satl�"" i�� �04€� Response growth Main cancem(s)A f -,4��-..� l2rAP.. v AC cs t f t Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate, Significant❑ L!kelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible& Probable ❑ .Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems D> Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead :❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %clrc. Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole _% circ. Depth _ Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Lean -ZQ" Corrected? .,t. t,,17. ` ; t Response growth Response growth -- Main concem(s) -�Y .r l ^� Jr1--1 17li�' Main concern(s) �'±' f'- `i` It P'. Z 4t ®t 4:!L � .-�, x a.. Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ ModerateW Significant ❑ Load on defect N/9V Minor ❑ Moderate 0 Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible Probable Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Conditions of concern Target Risk rating of part (from iii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii�iiiiiiii�iiiiiii� �.-iii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� ��-iii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix Likelihood of Failure Likelihood,of impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely! Somewhat likely. Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely I Improbablel Unlikely 1' Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely y MotrixZ Risk rating matrix 7- Likelihood of Failure & Impact - - Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor .1 Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme, Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat,likely Law LOW moderate Moderate,, Unlikely Low --;T Lo - 7 Low Law Notes, explanations, descriptions 41,44-&' n " wi Q 42 .041 W1 rivb n K-irtl� 1,0 yv. Valor-)t �-'3'prrlp North Mitigation options 't4�1i�. Aj f'PQ-* Z,4jSn ,_A Residual risk Residual risk i N?^-) Residual risk Residual risk �Z-/\) Overall tree risk rating LowModerate 0 High 0 Extreme D Work priority 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 X el- N Overall residual risk Low Moderate 0 High 0 Extreme 0 Recommended inspection interval ? Oat-k.kFinal 0 Preliminary Advanced assessment neededgNo OYes-Type/Reason Inspection limitati6nsXNone OVisibility 0Access OVines ORoot collar buried Describe This datasbeevuras produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and if, intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 Page 2 of 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Justina Kraus, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of the Consultant to provide arborist services with respect to the Olson Douglas fir hazard tree review tree #320 at 15500 75U' Place West; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $ 520.13 . B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant and shall not be considered public records; provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of .default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the Consultant's negligence or breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; provided that nothing herein shall require a Consultant to indemnify the City against and hold harmless the City from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the conduct of the City, its agents, officers and employees; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the Consultant's agents or employees, and (b) the City, its agents, officers and employees, this indemnity provision with respect to (1) claims or suits based upon such negligence (2) the costs to the City of defending such claims and suits shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence or the negligence of the Consultant's agents or employees. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics law, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51, RCW. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. 2 Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1 ,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. K3 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Consultant's proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Consultant's fee schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound industry practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including 4 0 0 regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Justina Kraus, M.S, B.S ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor Champion Tree Care 10912 6th Ave. W Everett, WA 98204 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS _15th DAY OF _October , 2013 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT By B y la �1 13 _ Ro Chave, Interim Director Development Services Dept. Its 5 • Clugston, Michael From: Luttrell, Megan Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:40 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: RE: contracting/billing Q Hi Mike, Here is my suggestion... the dollar amount is low, however, I do suggest that you put together a professional services agreement. Because the dollar amount is so low, Rob could likely sign it if he feels comfortable with that. That way you don't have to go through the process of getting the Mayor's signature and the City Clerk's. As far as the process of getting the payment, when we do reimbursements like this (applicant is essentially paying for the services provided), I think it's best to collect the funds upfront. That way once we receive the invoice we can pay it immediately rather than waiting on the applicant to come in and pay their leisure. Maintains a better working relationship with the consultant, in my opinion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Megan Luttrell Administrative Assistant Engineering Division ( City of Edmonds 121-5th Ave N I Edmonds, WA 98020 425.771.0220 1 FAX 425.672.5750 megan.1uttrelI@edmondswo.gov From: Clugston, Michael Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:57 PM To: Luttrell, Megan Subject: contracting/billing Q I'm working on a 3rd party contract for services from a certified arborist to essentially judge a dispute between two other arborists about a possible hazard tree. Yeah. Anyway, as far as payments and billing and stuff, do I get an amount up front from the applicant or bill him afterward? I have two bids, one not to exceed $750 and the other approximately $525. Would I even need to do a contract for professional services since the money is so small - hire the arborist, get a bill, and transfer the money from the applicant to the arborist? Any help would be most appreciated. Mike • Clugston, Michael From: Justina Kraus <justina.champtreecare@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 4:57 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: Certified Arborist/Hazard Assessor Attachments: CityofEdmondsOct12013.pdf Hello Michael Clugston- Yesterday I received your inquiry. I would be interested in working with the City of Edmonds to reach a decision regarding the dispute over the level of hazardousness of a Douglas -fir. Please look over my attached letter, which presents my background and my cost estimate. Let me know if I can answer any questions or be of further assistance in any way. Thank you very much Justina Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-353-5434 Office 425-23873946 Cell www.chamj2treecare.com C� J • CHAMPION TREE CARE Date: October 1, 2013 Michael D. Clugston, AICP Associate Planner City of Edmonds RE: Certified Arborist/Tree Risk Assessor Mr. Clugston, Thank you for this opportunity to introduce myself. I received your email regarding the Douglas -fir dispute yesterday. I have been involved in Arboriculture for 15 years. I am an ISA Certified Arborist (PN-1583A) and ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor (CTRA 1719). In 1997, 1 earned an Associate of Science in Urban Horticulture and that is when I became an Arborist. I was struck by a large falling branch while working for a full -service Tree Care Company in 1999 and that's when I decided more education was needed. I earned an Associate of Arts and transferred to the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources in 2002. 1 left the University in 2009 with a Bachelor Degree in Wildlife Science, Conservation Forestry, Statistics and Urban Forestry, and a Master Degree in Urban Forest Ecology and Hydrology. Since graduating in 2009,1 have worked both independently as an Urban Forestry Consultant, Hazard Assessor and Arborist for Property Managers and Homeowners, as well as an estimator and consultant for two tree care companies. I co-own Champion Tree Care with my husband Dan Kraus; we are a full -service Tree Care company. Dan was the ISA 2005 World Tree Climbing Champion and has more than 25 years' experience working in trees; climbing, pruning, cabling/bracing and technical removals. We also focus on replanting options and getting the right plant for the right place installed. Our philosophy is preservation whenever possible, but our ultimate goal is safety for people and property in their Urban Forest. We have two small children, both girls ages 3 and S. This summer, I took my girls to City Park and I was shocked at the poor health and number of hazards over the playground in many of the mature Douglas -fir trees. At the time, I meant to contact someone at the City of Edmonds and offer my services, but I never did. Receiving your email brought it to my mind again. Your City is at a disadvantage to not have the eyes of a qualified and caring Certified Arborist looking after yourtrees, identifying the potential hazards and helping you preserve them. Please note, I use primarily non-invasive, visual protocols though I do occasionally take root and/or increment cores. I do not use electronic or digital equipment to measure or map wood strength using sonography or resistance. In my experience, most situations do not require such detailed data. It was not clear based solely on the email whether this particular case will require that level of detail or not. A. I would need to read the two reports and have a discussion with the Associate Planner in charge, Site Visit to Collect Data and Assess, Detailed Report with Mitigation Options if Necessary, Available for All Follow -Up Questions, Comments and Emails: $475 +tax Justina Kraus, M.S., B.S. ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor 425-238-3946 Cell 425-353-5434 Office Justina.champtreecare@gmail.com / www.champtre,Ca�,traG� 10 fibf- + Gl�I��l 6/1�j�o /i /'0 % License , Bonded and Insured. Contractor's #ECOTRN*891P8 cql6k Ct# lv (s L nil C ghtt A,, C 2 (0 It LIV� col (&-d & (c e— to (I I L M • • Clugston, Michael From: Tony Shoffner <tony@tonyshoffner.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:59 AM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: Re: independent review of hazard tree determination Attachments: Tony Shoffner CV.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mike. Thank you for including me in your request. My CV is attached. Cost for conducting a tree risk assessment and preparing a detailed report on my findings would not exceed a total of 750.00. Be well, Tony Shoffner Shoffner Consulting On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Clugston, Michael wrote: Good morning, The City of Edmonds requires the services of a certified arborist/tree risk assessor to resolve a dispute regarding a Douglas fir tree. The tree, on a vacant parcel soon to be developed with a single family residence, was identified as hazardous and recommended for removal by the applicant's certified arborist as part of the building permit review process. Late in that review process, a second certified arborist hired by a neighbor indicated the fir was not hazardous and therefore should be retained. The City of Edmonds does not have a certified arborist on staff or on retainer so at this point I am reaching out to certified tree risk assessors in the area who may be able to provide independent assistance with this situation. A three -party contract arrangement will be set up where the City will select the arborist and disburse monies from an account funded by the applicant. A scope of work has not been created for this review but a site visit to assess the tree and submission of a detailed findings report would be a minimum. If this is a job you would be interested in, please send along a cost estimate and CV. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you and have a good day. M Lkel Michael D. Clugston, AICP Associate Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department P: 425-771-0220 1 F: 425-771-0221 michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov ANTHONY V. SHOFFNER 21529 4t' AVE W. #C31 Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: (206) 755-2871 14�11L41_1106H University of Master of Science, 1996: Horticulture and Restoration Ecology Washington Seattle, WA Western Bachelor of Science,1993: Environmental Policy and Assessment Washington University Bellingham, WA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Consulting Shoffner Consulting/Arboricultural Consulting - Principal Arborist and Bothell, WA Horticulturist Professional arboricultural, horticultural and ecological consultation. Specialties include 1999 tree preservation and replacement plans for site development, forest impact evaluations, to Present tree hazard evaluations and risk assessments, failure assessments, tree appraisals, view corridor and vegetation management plans, site restoration, forest function and value assessments, landscape designs and consultation. Senior Wetland Wetland Resources, Inc. Ecologist, Everett, WA Consulting Provided professional biological, arboricultural and horticultural consultation services. Arborist Biological services included wetland and stream evaluations, habitat function and value June, 1997 to assessments, mitigation and restoration plans. Arboricultural and horticultural services July, 1999 included hazard tree assessments, tree retention and preservation plans, landscape plans and on -site consultation. Natural City of Bellevue, Resource Management Division Resource Bellevue, WA Assistant Assisted in the management of Bellevue's Natural Resources including greenbelts, parks January, 1997 to and street trees. Performed hazard tree assessments, developed greenbelt management June, 1997 plans, designed forest enhancement plantings and volunteer recruitment projects. Botanical City of Bellevue Botanical Garden Garden Intern Bellevue, WA September, 1996 Garden maintenance including tree and shrub pruning, plant installations and perennial to January, 1997 bed preparation and clean-up. Designed garden improvement projects and conducted volunteer work parties. Research Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington Assistant Seattle, WA September, 1994 Conducted habitat and native species restoration research project. Constructed and to August, 1996 maintained research nursery facility including drip -irrigation system design, construction and maintenance. Nursery Sales Portland Ave. Nursery and Operations Tacoma, WA February, 1994 to Utilized plant and landscape design knowledge in providing excellent customer service. August, 1994 Maintained container and bed nursery stock including watering, pruning, transplanting, pest and disease identification and balled and burlap wrapping. Urban Forest City of Everett, Urban Forestry Division Maintenance Everett, WA Assistant Served the public in responding to citizen requests for hazard tree assessments, insect May, 1989 to and disease damage diagnosis, tree pruning and removal, and emergency storm clean-up. September, 1992 Developed a Street Tree Stewardship Program designed to utilize citizen involvement in (Summers Only) the care and growth of Everett's urban forest. Landscaping Design 360 Landscaping Assistant Everett, WA June 1988, to Assisted in large and small-scale landscape installation, renovation and maintenance. August 1988 Duties included bed and landscape preparation, tree and shrub planting, sod laying and maintenance. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AND MEMBERSHIPS Certified International Society of Arboriculture Arborist Certification Number PN-0909 October, 1996 to Present Certified Tree Pacific Northwest ISA Risk Assessor/ #1759 Tree Risk Assessment Qualification International Society of Arboriculture November 2013 to Present PUBLICATIONS Shoffner, Tony and Gonzalez, Rico. Pacific Madrone Production Techniques. Hortus West, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp. 93-97, 1998. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Site Development and Tree Preservation Over the past 14 plus years, I have served as a consultant on thousands of projects in the Pacific Northwest. As the consulting arborist, I am responsible for tree condition evaluations, assessing projected impacts from the development proposal and specifying impact remediation, preservation specifications and replanting mitigation. Jurisdictions in which I have worked and am familiar with include the cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Edmonds, Everett, Kirkland, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Newcastle, Redmond, Seattle, Shoreline, and Woodinville, and Island, Snohomish and King counties. Representative clients include developers, builders, architects and homeowners for projects, both small and large. View Corridor Creation Plans/Vegetation Management Plans Recent work involving view corridor creation and vegetation management plans for the creation and maintenance of view corridors through regulated forested areas in situations where steep slopes are a major issue have been approved by King County and the City of Newcastle. Involvement in these projects included tree condition evaluations, forest inventories, habitat and function and value assessments, treatment specifications to benefit the slopes (removal or pruning recommendations), restoration and replacement mitigation plans and continued maintenance practices. Representative clients include homeowner's groups and neighborhood associations. Expert Witness I have served as an expert witness, provided depositions and court testimony on cases involving arboricultural concerns. My involvement includes conducting appraisals as specified by the International Society of Arboriculture in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2000, interpreting pre-existing conditions, compiling appraisal and mitigation information into report form and providing expert witness and testimonials of findings. Tree Condition Evaluations and Hazard and Failure Assessments I have conducted tree condition evaluations and hazard and failure assessments for numerous clients over the past four years in various jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest, some for property claims and legal disputes. Site Restoration/Replanting Plans and Landscape Designs As a consulting arborist, I have prepared numerous site restoration and replanting plans for a variety of ecological systems, habitats and residential landscapes. Preparation involved assessments of existing site conditions, recommendations for improvement and specifications for replanting and tree replacement. I have also prepared landscape designs for new developments which have been approved by the jurisdictions of Snohomish County and the City of Lynnwood. Wetland Delineations and Habitat Assessments As a wetland ecologist, I conducted numerous wetland delineations and drafted reports classifying the wetlands, the associated habitats and the functions and values. The assessments also covered stream and terrestrial habitats. Wetland Mitigation and Restoration Plans In addition to delineations and habitat assessments, I drafted restoration/mitigation plans. for certain projects, such as site development plans, where wetland, stream and/or the associated upland habitat would be disturbed. Updated July, 2013 Tree Solutions nc Consulting Arborists Memorandum TO: Tom Degan JOB SITE: 15520 75th PI W, Edmonds, WA REGARDING: Tree on critical slope near property line of site under development FROM: Scott D. Baker, Registered Consulting Arborist 414, Board Certified Master Arborist PN067013, ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor DATE: September 13, 2013 At your request, I spoke with your friend and former Certified Arborist, Terry Russeff, regarding a tree of concern to you. This tree is located on a critical slope near your home, but I understand that the base is on the adjacent vacant property ( also a critical slope) which is about to be developed with a new house. The tree is protected by the City of Edmonds due its location. The tree is reported by you to be an eagle perch and other raptors are reported to use it as a perch. I have not researched to see if the tree is a documented perch tree. You asked Mr. Russeff to give his opinion on the tree, which had been declared hazardous and recommended for removal by a Certified Arborist, Mr. Teague. No information is available to me regarding Mr. Teague's qualifications as a tree risk assessor, business affiliation, insurance coverage or his status as a licensed contractor. Mr. Teague used the form from the following publication; Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas Second Edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. This form was developed for use with large populations of street trees. It has been misused in many cases as jurisdictions adopted it not knowing how it was developed. This method then changed to the Tree Risk Assessors Certification (TRACE), which became the standard of practice for several years. More recently the TRACE method was revised due to concern about the approach. With input from the international arborist community a new Risk Assessment Qualification was developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. The new method uses a quantitative approach. All TRACE credential holders automatically became TRAQ qualified however they will all have to take a course and pass an assessment showing understanding of the new method. I have taken and passed this class and I am in the process of becoming one of the instructors for this Qualification. The references for the TRAQ are; Dunster, J. A. E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny & Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, and the ISA Best Management Practices (BMP) Companion publication to ANSI A300 Tree Risk Assessment - Part 9. 1058 North 391h Street - Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206.528.4670 , Fax 206.547.5873 www.treesoIutions. net September 13, 2013 p.2 of 3 Mr. Russeff is well known to me as he was a practicing arborist for many years and I worked on projects with him. I value his opinion about the tree which he developed, based on my observations, experience and training, on a visual inspection form your property. Mr. Russeff did not see a high risk tree and stated that he thought branch loss would be the most likely risk. He thought that this would be more likely to fall on your property. He was not able to view the base of the tree as it was covered with ivy. He took photos which lreviewpd hat show the crown of the tree and site clearly. I used Google Earth Pro to familiarize myself with the site and tree location. I also reviewed photos of the base of the tree with the ivy removed revealing the basal anatomy of Vi—etree. I reviewed the Tree Hazard Form completed by Mr. Teague. It is my opinion based on my o servations ,experience and training that the risk from the tree is overstated. The tree has stood in this very exposed location for decades a sign that the tree is stable. The co - dominant union that is described as a defect by Teague does not appear to be of immediate concern and the two trunks are oriented parallel to the properties and thus unlikely to strike either property should one fail at the union. Pruning and a cable, if needed, would be sufficient to mitigate this concern however Teague recommends none of the basic work commonly used to manage a large coniferous tree. I also question how an evaluation was done without clearing the base of the tree of ivy? Failure of the entire tree is unlikely, in my opinion. The basal form is typical of a successful tree growing on a slope. The form of the tree indicates that some slope creep has occurred and the tree has adapted successfully. Tree Solutions inspects vegetation steep slopes often. I would consider this tree important to the slope. If it is managed, I think it will continue to help with slope stability and add value to both properties. Branch loss is the most common failure from this species and is considered normal. Without seeing the tree and inspecting it more closely, this branch loss is the likely risk from this tree at present. As I mentioned above, this risk may be successfully managed by pruning the crown of the tree. I have not seen any plans for development of the adjacent lot. If the building is sited and constructed with the tree in mind, it should be able to be retained with a reasonable risk. Using the new TRAQ method I believe that this tree would be rated low risk. I hope that this information is helpful to you in resolving this matter. Respectfully, Scott Baker 1058 North 39th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873 www.treesoIutions. net • • ►' September 13, 2013 Appendix A — Assumptions & Limiting Conditions p.3 of 3 ].Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 2.Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3.Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4.Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement. 5.Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant. 6.Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant's prior express written consent. 7.This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 8.Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 9.Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 10. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. 1058 North 391h Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873 www.treesolutions.net • Cluqston, Michael From: Machuga, Jen Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 8:47 AM To: Taraday, Jeff, Clugston, Michael; Bjorback, Leif, Miller, Chuck; Zulauf, JoAnne; McConnell, Jeanie Subject: FW: Planning and Permitting. (BLD20120858) Attachments: Memo re review of Hazard from and review of photo's 9-13-13.pdf FYI ... I received this additional information from Mr. and Mrs. Degan, including a memo from their arborist (Tree Solutions Inc.) regarding the tree that they have concerns over. I will reply and let them know that I forwarded their email along, but please let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks, Jen Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1224 ]en.Mach ugaOedmondswa.gov From: Marilyn Degan [mailto:t.mdegan@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:46 PM To: Machuga, Jen Subject: Re: Planning and Permitting. Tom & Marilyn Degan 15520 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Department C/O Jen Machuga 121 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 1 Greetings: Thank you very much for responding to our email. We are enclosing a letter written to us by Mr. Scott Baker, arborist and principle of Tree Solutions, who we asked for an opinion for your consideration. Last week we sent you a letter regarding a protected tree located on a disputed northern property line of our lot. The owner of the lot directly to our north, previously submitted the opinion of an arborist named Kevin Teague. Mr. Teague claims the tree qualifies as a "hazardous" tree, and should be removed. As you know, our lot is on a steep slope. The slope is stabilized, in part, by the vegetation and trees that have sunk roots into the slope and absorb water. On the one hand, we are concerned that removing a century old tree will destabilize the slope and increase the risks of a landslide, and on the other hand we certainly do not want a hazardous tree within five feet of our home. After reviewing the opinion of Mr. Teague, we were surprised by his conclusion. His report, the facts recited in his report are not consistent with our observations or experiences. The tree in question has survived numerous wind, rain and snow storms during the two decades we have been in our home. It has never caused us any concern. Accordingly, we hired two arborists to evaluate the tree. Enclosed is the opinion of the second arborist we engaged, Scott D. Baker. The opinions of the two arborists that we engaged are very different from the opinion of Mr. Teague. Part of the reason for the divergent opinions is due to the fact that the report prepared by Mr. Teague utilized and outdated and inappropriate evaluation form. It is unclear if Mr. Teague's use of an antiquated evaluation methodology is due to his incompetence, or was utilized in order to produce the report consistent with the desire of his client. Regardless, we thought that it was important for the City to have valid and current information regarding this tree. We hope the enclosed information is useful to the City in determining how to proceed. Should the City need any additional information from us or either Mr. Russeff or Mr. Baker, we would be happy to facilitate such a meeting. Thank you. Tom & Marilyn Degan On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Machuga, Jen <Jen.Machuga2edmondswa.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Degan, I wanted to let you know that I received your email and have passed it along to the folks who worked on the review of the Olson's building permit application (File No. BLD20120858). Sincerely, Jen Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1224 ]en.MachuQa@edmondswa.00v From: Marilyn Degan [mailto:t.mdecian gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:18 PM To: Machuga, Jen; Marilyn Degan Subject: Planning and Permitting. Tom & Marilyn Degan 15520 75`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 September 12, 2013 Edmonds Planning Department C/O Jen Machuga 121 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 To Whom It May Concern: We are contacting you regarding a tree located on a lot which is apparently about to be developed. We had written you regarding this property when plans were being reviewed regarding the slope and encouraged requirement of a solder wall on the west side. As we understand it this is not being,required of the developer despite the fact there has been a slide on this piece of property. We also have had a slide as have numerous others on our block, the last triggered our putting in a solder wall west of railroad. It is interesting to note that the property south of us, again from what we understand, was going to be developed but was postponed by the owners, but a solder wall was being required by you. The difference is a little difficult for us to understand, directly adjacent north vs south, one lot needing a solder wall and the other not. We however also have a concern regarding a Douglas fir tree on the proposed lot to be developed north of us. This tree is somewhere between 80-100 years old. The new owners want to cut the tree, as well as all the others, so they had an arborist look at it and give an opinion. This opinion is documented on an outdated tree form and notes predominant winds being west winds! Anyone who lives on the water knows this is just not so. He also noted this is of a critically dangerous nature. Critical, really when it has been standing without a problem for almost 100 years of which we have been here 20. After reading his report with our concern for the slope, and our personal history of spending $200,000.00 to correct for the previous slide, prompted us to seek another arborist opinion. We have had an arborist out to look at the tree and another who has international experience has reviewed pictures. Both of these arborists say this is a substantial tree, that the root ball is huge and literally critical in holding the slope. Since it is right adjacent to our home and actually partially within a boundary line disputed area, we are seriously concerned. Therefore we are asking what you do with these differing opinions. If you permit cutting of this substantial tree we need to be on record letting you know that we take that cutting permitting permission as assumption of the fiscal damages of the slope sliding resulting in any person or property damages, that litigation would be initiated at that time. We cannot fathom spending hundreds of thousands of dollars again when leaving the 100 year old tree and root ball along to assist in holding the 'clay' in place could be of substantial help. We are writing this letter to not only let you know we see you as also assuming these potential financial risks to us and our property, but also to let you know all relevant information as you review this permitting. Sincerely, Tom Degan 425 478 5260 CITY OFL EDMONDS NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ RETIREMENT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET. ASSET NO. / ADDITION TO ASSET NO. DESCRIPTION " SERIAL NO. LOCATION _�� � � j DEP/Y. NO. ` * * PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST * PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COSTl/' li B.A.R:S. ACCOUNT NO. �� V DU — D ESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY **SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY 10 . DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT _ G.L. ENTRY' REFERENCE b P INITIAL VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. �, i:., � ��`�� 1�✓3LtlLS €���$� �X= ',, uo16 '6 R1 sPuowR3 M Id 415E 09555 ! I i tO \� am� Ntf"IddlIS DJNDQISD?1NOS10 � $ '" O _-q gam-. R ucs10 �s6u.'J9a6waJ m °y�3 N -'�' waS%�', GC5585 _s:. xu aauaprsaN ,uau pasodo�d n. Im gg �x ¢a Eat °eke T "h. x a xgy NI a _ 'y �a S in N wa 901 3 1 .hWblq ikt ]Fill ! \\ _� AVMO"Oy 1',tlii SY .n IF�ES�` / J f 11 q n63 � s c+ oit �'-- a-e , E-- —� � J le t T � �' �� � �� a: Mtn ° R o � �' •! � a v 1 AP ti Q I i �. �--- ...,'" J"" - �-, -__ I —rs.- �°s,. � mil, o `"•3 $ N `$N w 3 !Q \ le til iL gi Lu � 114 � u I Ed 8 Mll "- - a�trn•. - - - - '- awn d a z N _ —�MLLJ it i i li i =11 Mr-1 Is fi �Wj� --eM �P—Pa kf 415, 00_Si ��N�QIS�?3 NOS1O m _ � f <� a �w �u z off. 0 g oo 0 LW ��oo�o� N8 On N ujuj W o O a a (G N W- 8 i�,0z A U w =g w��� o �$�S $" =owooma s �� 8 w �jMR z o �i �-g$4aLL w z w wg a J Z o 9 0 'il AS g ~ ..awl a3i��{ g' z "�39; oN' j� `,^:; ���`•�n CL O�m � 4 rvwa G£�W�� SSi 3u W3'c' Onnaa.£nw' _.Yi Y�2 5 o 00o'Cs£� $o�gw a fOU £ N. 6 iOp� El— � £ w g w ar mo3zo"'oiu ^w:- � rtw z �g n zQ yw aWog�W, O na.� a 9 2 33 0 3m h'OO�a¢ Nw�O¢� Zw �33 0 F.rvime'�n .. s m8 m Is EP.�� w� OR 8or- "��wn< c�'�-LLoo s�Ssj�aon U w =g w��� o �$�S $" =owooma s �� 8 w �jMR z o �i �-g$4aLL w z w wg a J Z o 9 0 'il AS g ~ ..awl a3i��{ g' z "�39; oN' j� `,^:; ���`•�n CL O�m � 4 rvwa G£�W�� SSi 3u W3'c' Onnaa.£nw' _.Yi Y�2 5 o 00o'Cs£� $o�gw a fOU £ N. 6 iOp� El— � £ w g w ar mo3zo"'oiu ^w:- � rtw z �g n zQ yw aWog�W, O na.� a 9 2 33 0 3m h'OO�a¢ Nw�O¢� Zw �33 0 F.rvime'�n .. s m8 m Is EP.�� w� OR 8or- "��wn< c�'�-LLoo s�Ssj�aon w z w wg a J Z o 9 0 'il AS g ~ ..awl a3i��{ g' z "�39; oN' j� `,^:; ���`•�n CL O�m � 4 rvwa G£�W�� SSi 3u W3'c' Onnaa.£nw' _.Yi Y�2 5 o 00o'Cs£� $o�gw a fOU £ N. 6 iOp� El— � £ w g w ar mo3zo"'oiu ^w:- � rtw z �g n zQ yw aWog�W, O na.� a 9 2 33 0 3m h'OO�a¢ Nw�O¢� Zw �33 0 F.rvime'�n .. s m8 m Is EP.�� w� OR 8or- "��wn< c�'�-LLoo s�Ssj�aon a 9 2 33 0 3m h'OO�a¢ Nw�O¢� Zw �33 0 F.rvime'�n .. s m8 m Is EP.�� w� OR 8or- "��wn< c�'�-LLoo s�Ssj�aon -A p ga Al , NnN 'A izn R 60� HA a —Mna VIA M UznH� ,q wHare00, QR ajp ng� a % V r4 Zo ciaM5 .1 942 Mr � K P; n Cc; X 3� HZ w:, iiI -H , I ffi 0 T Um E UPH g w tE i7 R's Ev UP Ro 57' m I tz� t-4 all (3 gg Sa All ll s� h 31a a H z O i` ii o - INS p Aso I r MPH �U a M Rg a 9Q� Ins � N -6 N_ "I 0 OR IN up. V 4 a F stlg o �� �' �. Yam./ e f•�� � �6 r���°� d w i" F Bs—e a�s�sg4� Bjj $°s 3r ,+/✓'�) z Cs. 3 o8a 9 yg§ i �" x �'cam.". x N 'z •a 8g D�asgE vB�Ek �s. I t cK (= F o in o p g p'k� 3 { 043 -- � [ -� Z£L 6-SP8 (09£} :XY! ZLZB6 YM '3PkNOtY 6u 'ori 3inJtiLLa3J Nd7d NOtl �Ou IN 3381.� ald £OSSON7 NOIIV13O3A-38 =[Ar�16- eo904'S6 a�8ana xNJ 9 4NU ItBG:a SN3NAe S1J38NOAM � ^ YM 'SQNONVO3 3.7V7Cj �-{.(ty'L (lQS�j( NOL'JN NSnM 30N3f7ts3N Nnsin v eg NP No a�W ma iEW 5a g o 0 a zs s 5 z e W o gIHHHHEN w1' zq a� Q �a - _ x zorygaowwa gm< m. a a ¢ g a il o4 soap "a p _a z oo 9 a x =z ��wawa�w (- s a ceR olR - _ u� OUR 8�`'g� tonoa w'viP.sgNns3 M ' n rus< w 90.1 — �1 a - a � t6i1A i %Y �` .��```-. �`_- t t ¢ gip g� `� .g hu a�wqa'v h �'`-;•___ '""�'- ti�zi� °ra g Q `� y fizz<� Tr a�'p�o ^oapw�a oo ¢wag a� W ? g "<r Z 'xuaIN �ro� -aw�`��i �yzc 9 z O `ogm �nNL; 'ggN ag$�Wa � Qz`<a"3 gRK�ti a <izsk":a gg�ax ..'w M o O z4 gn4w��o�<c:s�aaa<q � aa�*w"zH aka uj sxr,l nai ovoa,,aa r), .�; NVId N011YOUIR 33di O ZZTS6 VAA '30mon X�U� 919 x0s GNV —38 "Z-'t (09 ,.:909 m (900 Ano 31 �3m NOliVI303A �Isz-�U (09.) Y01 31i73 3s inyls 1419*1 RZZ91 SONNYM 631 •SSV 7 9OZ26 'VM 'SGNOPV03 510311H,18V 3dVnD-SQN-V1 'A4 3JV7d Hi9Z 00991 SNOAJAVDS SH33NI9N3 30N3GIS38 NOSIO N xu.�wun a3a a3suw r�-za-ro�Z �-1.�6 Z£L 6-508 (D8£}ZG Z86 VA `308NOW bLt 'oN 3tvDtana3J O _ alZ £D6£-£fi£ (90Z) 91S -- '0'd 3t1Dtl3L Y` NN3M Ul 1,BL->61 (09£) i01 311R5 '3S 133X1S Hl9Yl 81LBi cn-Z[.g floe ,d3NNVldM7905SB' zs9z-et-e�szvq e� - W S1J31fHDmY 3dV050NVi �t �' to3uxaav 3dtl�9NY'i sMoA3N4fls sdnmJN3 ax5i�d �i w�6am � mvLs 'o n Ll 44 z z x q 1-",N ¢ ¢K n wz oar C2- EI'la z <w `qa woc sM�z uj q q N N 4J��zso�zajm°z4q Q o „Gk�rv�ria+nwo ¢ata�mm wwm���:.�zy J a ° e C sxDvax oroaxrva IV7d N011 VA83S38d 3381 0NV AHO1N3AN1 33di 1NVOI3IN%S^ m 90Z86 YM `SONONd03 g H 3aV�d N16L 0059d �?� sm 3ON301S38 NOS70 W ^oE _3B FE`b M I �ry �w �p XX10 o^,, �mAAatHAsmmmmg.mmmnainO'WAAm§'nmsm,mmRa F,:§gaa fn Z,t'-=� x 5 3 * xz � 4 U � I - s o oW s O t$ 21ME14H 8 LL z gE -# i 4 _ i� x V I z a x v �2 y Wg r ga ,�mi i waaa�w am O N' J I: O i NOfl z � Cs, � is ti Ji to 7VE e 0 It