17001 77TH PL W.PDF111111111111
6533
17001 77TH PL W
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: l D ZV Z424 Gf'/
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS(RECORDED)FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS : � DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: ==-- ID LOT: 49BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DX
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
110,
STREET FILE
Certi ' WWI ofOccupancy
DEPARTMENT OFBUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.,SECTION R110
AT: 17001 77th Place W ...Building Permit M 2006-0229
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units: 1
No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: VB
Owner of building: -; - Hillc�esVConstruction-CO.° '
The Single Family Residence at 17001 77 Place W '- has been.-kf pected.and."approved complying with the requirements of the
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by WdI-Cit.Vforthe group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 3rd day of July, 2007
Chief Building Official
By:
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
APPROVED AS NOTED
Zone P F-D• 04- ID CornerNO Fta&W 0
SITE PLAN, LOT # 6
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc.
4003 Nassau Place
Everett, WA 98201
Tax Parcel Number: 27040700100400
Lot #6 of Charlotte Gardens,SE1/4,NE1/4,Sec. 7,Twp.27N,Rge.4E.,W M.
Site Address: 17001 77th Place West 17�t, S 5
House SF:
1562 S.F.
:Lot SF:
5320 S.F.
35'/o Allowed:
1862 S.F.
Under/Over
-300 S.F.
Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole
0- SW corner of proiect = 191.26'
A
174.75
Impervious area
B
174.10
House SF: 1562
C
176.75
Overhangs 212
D
177.50
Drive/Walk 113
Total
703.10
Total L
Average
175.78
*wdtltcw&y 4.Sir 1Aiga
.25'Allowed
25.00
p 01D G 30,,.
H19h
Max.M.Allowed
200.78
P''1pUe t Mt
tJiain Floor Eiev.
Bldg. Height
175.75
*f-%
2.4.92 5010aEx-
Actual Height 200.70
oting Elev. 41SM
Cut Area
((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev.
1.15
((B+D)/2)-Foo0ng Elev.
3.125
((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev.
4.9
((C+A)/2)-Footing Etev.
2.925
Average Cut =
3.025
Volume
4235
Cubic Yds.1 156.85
W
j N90°E
77TH PLACE W
Front 5 . E u 21(o
Sides E I -I N 5 5 5/ I,-'t
Rear 14C 2,5 215 N
Other
Hekkw P ?�'� Z • q 7V
umP sae Ca unlls Quan Totals
athlubs
4
1
4
omb. Tub/5.•
4
1
4
"hes Wast
1
1
i
shwasher
1.5
1
1.5
ivatory
1
4
4
When sink
i.5
I
1.5
mndry sink
1.5
1
1.5
lower
2
1
2
Ater closet 1
2.5
3
7.5
Llownspouts will be connected to storm
stub. Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain fine.
If grade precludes such connection,
then a sump will be provided.
SCALE 1INCH = 20 FT
REVISION
DEC 08 2006
BUILDING D
CITY OF EDMONDS
r6E AMD A11) ADDRESS SIGN REQUIRED
SITE PLAN[, LOT A 6
Owner. Hillere<st Construction Co., 'APPROVED BY PLANNING
4003 Nassau Place 03 I I
Everett, WA S8201
Tax Parcel lumber. 27040700100400
Lot #6 of Charlotte Gardens,SE1l4,NE1/4,Sec.7,Twp.27N,Rge.4E,,W Ia.
Site Address: 17001 77th Place West 17q;
Rouse SF; 1562 S.F.
Lot SF: 5320 S-F.
35%Allowed: 1862 S.F.
j UnderlOver -300 S.F.
Top of Bawer man
_ SW comer o
A 174.75
R 174.10
C 176.75
0 177.54
Total 703.10
Average 175.78
25' Allowed 25.00
maxHtr4rimued 200,78
Main Floor Bev- 175,75
Bldg, Height 4.12
Actual Height 2or5.70
WING CALCS_
)oting Erev_
((A+I3Y2)-Fooling FJev_'
((S+D)12)-footing Elev.
((0+C)I2)-Fool na Elev.
((C+A)/22)-Footing Eiev.
Average Cut =
Volume
C u bic Yds.I
h
Lr s;v-,
I LPro
K
ject=191.2-6K
m ertvioys area
oC
House SF: 1562
Overhangs 212
DdvelWalk 520 °t
dotal 2294
�C
WATER SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D
CALL 425-771-0220 EXT.1326
. l
Out Area 61\
1.16
3.125.
49
2,925
3.026
4235
1 5
,APPROVED AS NOTED r7q, R
T BY ENGINEERING
Setbacks Reguired
Front S to,
Sides a/ Wj_N 5'
Rear Ti 7-5 1
Other
. . .. 7-G1
- Actual
25"
I
N
s7e Ga units Quan Totals
WING CALCS_
)oting Erev_
((A+I3Y2)-Fooling FJev_'
((S+D)12)-footing Elev.
((0+C)I2)-Fool na Elev.
((C+A)/22)-Footing Eiev.
Average Cut =
Volume
C u bic Yds.I
h
Lr s;v-,
I LPro
K
ject=191.2-6K
m ertvioys area
oC
House SF: 1562
Overhangs 212
DdvelWalk 520 °t
dotal 2294
�C
WATER SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D
CALL 425-771-0220 EXT.1326
. l
Out Area 61\
1.16
3.125.
49
2,925
3.026
4235
1 5
,APPROVED AS NOTED r7q, R
T BY ENGINEERING
Setbacks Reguired
Front S to,
Sides a/ Wj_N 5'
Rear Ti 7-5 1
Other
. . .. 7-G1
- Actual
25"
I
N
s7e Ga units Quan Totals
abs
4
1
s
Tubm.
4
1
4
sWRO
1
1
1
fisher
i.5
1
1.5
)ry
1
4
a
n srnk
15
1
1.5
ry 5fnk
1.5
1
1.5
w
2
1
2
doset+
2.5
S
7.5
lid. -GPM tnmrn cnart - ho
L.vrrv11apvuc,q wn, Ue connec6ed to storm
stub- Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
and connection will be no less than ,75'
below invert of footing drain line -
If -grade precludes such connection,
then G sump will be Arovided-
SCALE •CINCH = 20 FT
5a-Zrs s- 4-!p EXPOSED SURFACES TO ff.— %--30 tj
NTH PLACE W BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
MAR - 8 2006
----- -- --- --- -
Data: � � Uwlv_�tS►l.uly t r1Hv►vn i� � ���� EROSION CONTROL CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
161A
PLANNING DATA T°E�
Name: I-timxg5t GOYI5tYUc-hon GoMpan1 , InC..
Date: 17.. ZS• 2005
Site Address: I -• ()Cp I P l a u, w ( Lot IP (p )
Plan Check #: O 5• E +-_JL
Project Description: N P W G) yjZ ,
Reduced Site Plan Provided: ( ES NO)
tt G V1 a v 1 o+4- Pr
FZoning:* Pjs.p• y pp . I 0 a rc(-C. 6 "
Map Page: L- 6 (p
Corner Lot: (YES NO
Flag Lot: (YES e
Critical Areas Determination #: (, p . 2�01 • o 05 q I D+ to YIZZ 45 iro full OW -MI&
Study Required u C,0MPJ4e+4r," Iaeatecyvb I'Z(, mmewidatiUMs
❑ Waive 1741,010 5 R-01w+ 'Py1CLV lei%w
SEPA Determination: 4 RAnI p t; .
❑ Needed ffor 500 cubic yards of grading or site within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger).
❑ Fee
❑ Checklist
❑ APO List with notarized form
Exempt tp?,. D Q,G�•
Street: i
C 5 10
Side:
5
Side: �iGl�`
w 5 N 5`
Rear:
1\1 25
Actual Setbacks ..
Street: l
Side: /
Side: I I'
5
Rear: 2 1
E
W
NE
❑ Detached Structures: NbV►Z hVlovvl .
❑ Rockeries: N 1DM 42V10N/✓1 .
❑ Fences/Trellises: NOyve, 5V10WV1
M Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: wlee firepiaGz, pn3f Ct"5 1.5' lntD c2e+io4 ,t,
❑ Stairs/Deck: N M C. y Vl0 \,VVv.
Parking Required: Z
Parking Provided: Z
Lot Area: 5 3 y p IA
Lot Coverage: ufrLD+ ( 1 'L•I. Of Plzp e Q l(. •
Lot Coverage Calculations: L - 55 0 0 W y.erQ 6e M aX Per tor bf PR-D (! 5 l�Z 95shown
9Y6/dinY.Height"
Datum Point: gf,wer m a V101 P @. 5w
Datum Elevation: _ _ (q (. Z (o
Maximum Height: �5l ( J/D D. 9-43 )
Actual Height: ��{-• of Z Zpp. �-p,
ADU Created: (YES e Me, V-itch" 5Y10W1/l•
Subdivision: P. 200 4• Gj PFa�D • 2b O t-• I O C T I Dt5 e ++01_' 15t 5t 5vV
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES /(NO
Other
A.
6: 1-+ 4• 10 +0 3. t L) AN-CN-R op cin Y 1 d P,
�_
G: ►�-�. �-5 +- Zg' -Lo0. H-CA'5hf
AF-0 1/006101g57.+1 �
Plan Review By: •: i n a G 0 e Ll O,
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No:
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
Site Address/Location: ,Z,M7 Z1,5_7-(J).-
2. Property Tax Account Number: k U
3.
4.
Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
Is this site currently develope,'" '
If yes; how is site developed?
f.
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
n
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep:
Other (please describe,):
AI
grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
/O — / ,�- �1-7— -
o,010,P S
1-74" .O;s-,d
6. Site contains areas of year-round'standing water: /, Approx. Depth:
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodwayfloodplain of a water course.
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
RECE1V.Eb
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
_ Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
i„c I g90 Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Ireceived: APR 2 5 2001
City Receipt #:
Critical Areas File #: PERMIT COUNTER
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agree
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonab]
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate c
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of n.
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE V
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. ,
Owner/Applicant: Applicant Representative: .
IN
Name
Street Address
s
C' y State Zip
�(-
Telephone: L�1
Email address (optional):
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Sue Thomas Determination #:- CA-01-59 I
Project Name: Permit Number:
Site Location: 77071715` SW Property Tax Acct #: 0727 041 004 00
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain
critical areas, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area and a Stream pursuant to Chapter 20.1513 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required
satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.1513 by completing a Critical Areas Study consisting of the
following:
Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements:
To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a
Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard. Areas must be completed. Any slope of
40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-
foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is
required from the 50-foot buffer.
For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot
buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area
or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the
study:
For development proposals which will occur within the 50-foot buffer, but no closer than
10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50-foot buffer requirement maybe reduced to
10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which
clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon
the site, the public or any private party.
2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is
not identified as exempt per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and
Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C.
.. 0 •
Stream
Based on the above findings, a Critical Areas Study is required to determine the hydrology of the
area and to delineate the approximate boundaries of the stream and identify its buffers. The
required qualified critical areas consultant needed to perform the study shall be a specialist in
botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field
experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. This critical areas study shall
be performed as a three party agreement with the city selecting the consultant and the property
owner or applicant paying the fees.
The qualified critical areas consultant shall perform the following:
1. Classification of the stream pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC Section
20.15B.060(A)(4) and (5).
2. Delineate the edge of the stream on the site.
3. State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the stream.
The qualified critical areas consultant shall enter into a three party contract with the applicant and
the City of Edmonds as required in ECDC 20.15B.140(D), where the applicant pays for the
study. The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval.
After the qualified critical areas consultant has delineated the stream boundary, a surveyor
licensed by the State of Washington must perform the following:
1. Delineate the required buffer (see ECDC 20.15B.120.(A) and 20.15B.130.(C)).
2. Delineate the required building setback from the buffer (required setback is 15 feet).
3. Create a map showing the buffer and the building setback.
If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the
applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC
20.15B. I 70(A) and 20.15B.040(C)).
If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel
would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to
the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed
development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional
waiver may be issued on a project by.project basis. Please call me at (425) 771-0220 if you
have any questions.
Star Campbell -;t 9 May 10 2001
Name Signature Date
• Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds
website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
0)
�'""�.arrl�" wv•'':......�„��n:t,�,.3�'L,-.a'..�,..:iM/``v^'�.,.�.fr '"�i'Wv, vN.yii� ,""',..,.v........a`,.r-^�...,,.,.,..i-.r-'...1..A,�/y.r,' ,.-.i.--+'.., �_. �.-.. ,..
Cityof Edmonds PERMIT NO: 1n13�
•
SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES ..�
Address of Construction: 17&V 7�1 1 �Y U2 LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel No. cie 7 S60 7f1C/4%%
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved by
Owner and/or Contractor:
Contractor License #:
ingle Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units
❑ Commercial (No. of Units )
❑ Public
uilding Permit #. S
� -2
Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes, No
*RW Construction Permit #
Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes ❑
**Attach legal description and copy of recorded sement.
101
Owner or contractor signature and acknowledgement statement:
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
-Side Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein
Trunk Charge $' AwU — Date Issued:
Assessment Fee $
City Permit Surcharge Fee
1. e-1 /_2
Date .
Receipt No:
Total Fees Paid $0��
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED.
Job Site Ready YES NO Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date:
As -built to Street File: c®
`f" PERMIT- MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE t�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bldg;forms;sspertn itj lg4/00
SDR-35 SEWER
PIPE AT 2' DEEP
R PUMP
DIRECTION
/ORIENTATION IS
UNDEFINED
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT
ADDRESS: NOPERMIT 10138
17001 77TH PL W
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
HILLCREST CONST. I HILLCREST CONST. NTS
DATE INSPECTED INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
6/14/06 J. HAWKINS 6/29/06 J. BRONDER
NOTICE:
No warranty of accuracy.
The information shown on the attached
map(s) was compiled for use by the City of
Edmonds, its Employees and Consultants.
The City of Edmonds does not warrant the
accuracy of anything set forth on these
map(s). Any person or entity requesting a
copy should conduct an independent
inquiry regarding the information shown on
the map(s), including, but not limited to,
the location of any sewer stub shown. Such
sewer stubs may or may not exist and may
or may not exist at the location shown.
Neither the City of Edmonds nor its
employees or officers shall be liable for the
information given on this map(s), nor for
any one representation provided based
upon said map(s).
0 F E-Djo,_
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
ADDRESS: WATERLINE NO.
17001 77TH PL W BLD20060229
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
HILLCREST KVERNMO NTS
DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
6/15/06 1 ES 6/15/06 1 BRONDER
4
Dec 20 05 05:18P ROBERT M PRIDE INC 4z5 814 5672 P•1
_ 76(c)
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
December .18, 2005
Mr. Jon JKvc.rnmo
Hillcrr5t Construction
P. 0. Box 3121 '
Everett, WA 932.13-1121
Re: GeoLechnical hovestigation
Proposed Residences -- Lots 3 - 6
771h Place West .
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-352-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
JAN 2 4 2006
At your request I have reviewed the plans for the proposed single family residences to be
cnistructed on 13 through 6 in the Charlotte Gardens plat on T7i" Place West in
Edmonds. These• residences have been sited within the building setback limits as shown
on the drawings by Home Design.
Based on my site in.spec:lions and geotechnical evaluation as discussed in my December
,)» d and 151h reports, these structures can be constructed al their proposed locations
without any impact on the adjacent steep slope areas. Minimum slope W.tback distances
from the face of the slope to the exterior foundation walls is at least, 1,r, feet on Lot 3, 30
feet on Lot 4, 35 meet on Lot 5 and 35 feet on Lot 6. in my opinion these setback
distances are satisfactory for the site. and subsurface conditions on these properties, and
they will satisfy the requirements of ECDC #23.8o and 23.40.
Please call me if there are any questions regarding this submittal.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Prid
Principal Geot(
dist:
(2) Add
JAN 19 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
rrnp: Hi1lt:rc�lPlIIt2 �`{�` 7 ; ; a('\ �
'1a+�, � • is r- ,�� v ? ;
it
EXPIKES
_ FILE
13203 Holmes Point 'urive NE Kirkland. WA -�
Phone: 425-814-3870
Fax: 42s-814-$672
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
February 10, 20o6
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Hillcrest Construction Company
P. O. Box 3121
Everett, WA 98213
Re: Geotechnical Review
Proposed Residences
17001 to 17009 T7th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Plan Check #05-566, 67, 73, 76, T7
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
FEB 15 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
As requested by the City of Edmonds I have reviewed my prior reports prepared for the
five proposed residences on Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this subdivision located along T7th
Place West in Edmonds. Our geotechnical investigation performed on Lots 2 through 7
was summarized in the December 15th report, which will be submitted along with the
plans and specifications for obtaining residential permits on these lots.
The plans for the residential structures on each of the five lots were previously reviewed
and they were found to comply with the recommendations made in our geotechnical
report. Although Nelson Geotechnical was involved in the original platting of this
subdivision, we will be acting as the geotechnical engineer of record during construction
of the residences. Any field inspections that are required during site excavation/grading
and during foundation installations will be performed, and field memos will be
submitted for City review.
Individual Agreement Forms for each lot will be signed and submitted along with this
final review letter. -
Please call me if there are any questions.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Pride, P. E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
dist: (i) addressee
rmp: MerestRes4
EXPIRES
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 4254814-3970
Fax: 425-814-5672
STREET FILE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
EVALUATION
TALBOT PARK ESTATES
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF EDMONDS
PI
G°3EC E �MED
yaw 2 a Zoos
EECE
KREET FILE
R�CF � ED
SEP 1. i. 2003
Western Engineers,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
19 fa.V G
A ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 —135'" Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 • Fax (425) 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756
February 14, 2003
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121— 5 h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Steve Bullock
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 360902
} Dear Mr. Bullock:
We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Talbot Park Estates,
Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions on the site
and contains geotechnical recommendations for specific aspects of this development. Our services were
completed in general accordance with the contract signed by you on December 11, 2002.
It has been a pleasure 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
Senior Engineer
Five copies submitted
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...... »............»»................. »...... ...»... ».»........... ............ »».... »»........... »».........»..»......».....»......» 1
SCOPE ..»........... »»»»...... .......»».»»».»..»......»....»........».»..»»...»....»...»».»...».......»........»............. .........
....».....».» 1
SITE CONDITIONS ...» .............. ...»..».»............... »»........ ».»»...... »..».»... »... ».».................. »».... »...........
.........».» 2
SURFACECONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................................2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................3
GEOLOGY ............ ...»»........
...»»...............»..........»»...».»...».»...»....».»....»..»».........»............»»...........»........»»».3
EXPLORATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................3
HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS ................... :..................................................................................................................... 4
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION ....».»...».......».»...» ................ ..... »».......... ».»......... .»................ »»...... .......... 5
SEISMIC HAZARD................................................................................................................................ .......5
................
EROSIONHAZARD......................................................................................................................................................5
LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY..................................................................................................................... 5
SLOPESTABILITY.......................................................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIII�NDATIONS....»...»..»».»».....»».......»......».».».».....»»..».»...».»»».....»»»».»7
GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 7
.........................................
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES...................................................................................... ...8
STEEPSLOPE SETBACK..............................................................................................................................................
8
SLOPE AND SETBACK PROTECTION............................................................................................................................9
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ........ :.................................................................................................................... 9
TEMPORARYEXCAVATIONS.....................................................................................................................................10
STRUCTURALFILL....................................................................................................................................................11
FOUNDATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................12
SLABS -ON -GRADE ....................................................................................................................................................13
SITEDRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................................13
USE OF THIS REPORT ........ »..... ».... ».»........»».....».:»».».»...».......»..»».....»...»...».......».»»»....».........».»...»..» 14
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
i
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation on Talbot Park Estates
located in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at 7707 — 171" Street SW in Edmonds as shown on
the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. A single-family residence is currently located on the site. The developer.
plans to construct an access road near the western property line and divide the site into seven residential
lots. We understand that the existing residence will remain and will occupy one of the lots.
We have been retained to explore the subsurface conditions within the site, observe and map the slope
surficial conditions, and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundations and
residence setback For the purpose of completing this study, we have been provided with a site plan
prepared by Lovell-Sauerland Associates, Inc. titled, "Preliminary Plat for Talbot Park Estates," dated
October 22, 2002. The site plan shows the planned lot layout and access road alignment, and has
topographic information. We have also been Provided with a copy of a preliminary geotechnical
evaluation report for the site, dated September 12, 2001, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. In your letter
to us dated October 17, 2002, the City stated that the pertinent sections of the Edmonds Community
Development Code for this project are 20.15B.I IO.A & D and 19.05.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the site subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions and provide
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: -
1. Review available geologic and soils maps of the area, and the provided geotechnical
report for the site.
2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions using a subcontracted
backhoe.
3. Perform field mapping and develop cross sections on the steep slope at selected locations.
4. Evaluate slope stability on the site, and complete slope stability analysis.
5. Provide a recommended setback/buffer from the top of slope for building siting.
6. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 2
7. Provide recommendations for foundations and slabs -on -grade.
8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
9. Document our explorations, findings, and conclusions and recommendations in a written
geotechnical report. The report to address the pertinent sections of the ECDC.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site is a semi -rectangular -shaped parcel covering approximately 2.1 acres. The site is bordered by
171' Street SW to the south and a residential lot to the west. A ravine borders the site on the eastern and
northern sides. A stream was flowing at the bottom of the ravine at the time of our field reconnaissance
on December 18, 2002 and February 3, 2003. The site features are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
A residence with some outbuildings is situated in the southern portion of the site. This area is vegetated
with a grass lawn and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. The northern portion of the site is
undeveloped, and is vegetated with blackberry bushes brush, and young to mature deciduous and
P � g STY � � Y g
evergreen trees.
The main portion of the site slopes gently down toward the south. The ravine on the eastern side of the
site slopes moderately to steeply down toward the east. The steep ravine. slope is covered with ferns,
blackberry bushes, and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. Old growth stumps were
observed on the slopes.
We measured Cross -Sections A -A', B-B', and C-C' using a 100-foot tape measure and a hand-held
clinometer. The cross -sections are presented as Figures 3, 4, and S. The portion of the steep slope at
Cross -Section A -A', which has an approximate east -west orientation, has a total relief of approximately
30 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes toward the east with inclinations as steep as 27 degrees. The
portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section B-B', which has an approximate southwest -northeast
orientation, has a total relief of approximately 60 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes down towardthe
northeast with inclinations as steep as 40 degrees. The portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section C-C',
which has an approximate east -west orientation, has a total relief of approximately 25 feet, and slopes
down toward the east with inclinations as steep as 38 degrees.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
11 1
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
x Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 3
Subsurface Conditions
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last period
of glaciation, the Vashon Stade, ended approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Many of the
geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During the Vashon
Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice
sheet were compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not.
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 (US Geological Survey, 1983). The site is
mapped as till, which is described as an unsorted mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. Drift is a similar unit
to till but has some sorting. Advance outwash and transitional bed materials are mapped a short distance
from the site. Advance outwash is described as sand with varying amounts of gravel. Transitional bed
material consists of bedded clay, silt, and fine sand. Our explorations encountered material consistent
with the descriptions of drift and advance outwash, and we observed transitional bed material in the
northeast section of the site, near the bottom of the ravine:
Explorations -
The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on December 18, 2002 by excavating two hand
auger explorations, and on February 3, 2003 by excavating nine test pits with a backhoe. The hand auger
explorations extended to depths of 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface, and the test pits were
excavated to depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the
explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative of Nelson Geotechnical Associates,
Inc., (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 hand augers and test pits.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
presented in Figure 7. The soil logs are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 8 through 11.
We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed
description of the subsurface conditions, the logs should be reviewed.
Our two hand auger explorations were located on the slope of the ravine feature. These explorations
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 4
encountered 0.6 to 1.5 feet of surficial topsoil material. Underlying the topsoil, we encountered silty fine
to medium sand with gravel to fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. These soils extended to the
bottom of the hand auger explorations, 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface.
Test Pit 6, located near the north end of the planned access road, encountered 1.5 feet of loose surficial fill
material composed of silty fine sand with roots and pieces of concrete. Our other eight test pit
explorations encountered a surficial layer of topsoil 1.0 to 2.8 feet thick Test Pits 3 and 4, located in the
northern portion of the site, encountered material generally consisting of sand with silt below the surficial
topsoil and extending to the bottom of the explorations. We interpret this material as outwash. The
remaining seven test pit explorations encountered silty sand with gravel beneath the topsoil and fill. This
material extended to the depth explored in these test pits, and was interpreted as glacial drift. Fine to
medium sand seams were observed within this material in Test Pits 5, 6, and 7.
We observed silt and clay material in several shallow hand excavations in the northeastem portion of the
site, on the slopes near the bottom of the ravine. We interpreted this silt and clay material as part of the
Transitional bed unit.
Hydrologic Conditions
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of our subsurface explorations or on the steep slope,
however, a perched ground water condition could possibly develop above the low -permeability soils
found underlying the site.
Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and
accumulates on top of the underlying, less permeable silts or flow into the joints found in the silt. The
more permeable soils, in this case, consist of topsoil and fill. The less permeable soils consist of the
underlying silty sand and silt. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water table within the
upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall.
We would expect the amount of ground water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase
during wetter periods. Also, ground water seepage could outcrop on the face of the steep slope during the
wetter periods of the year.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 5
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
Seismic Hazard
The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. We recommend that the
subsurface soils be considered Soil Profile Type SD, as described in the UBC.
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction and amplification of ground motion due to
soft soil. The glacially compacted soils inferred to underlie this site do not have a significant potential for
liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
Erosion Hazard
The criteria used for evaluation of erosion hazards include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover and
groundwater conditions. The surface soil types (group classification) 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 evaluate the erosion hazard of the on -site soils.
The surface soils at the site were mapped by the SCS and classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex (8
to 15 percent slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as slight. The slopes on the site have
inclinations steeper than 15 percent in some areas. The erosion hazard for the steeper areas of the site is
considered moderate to high.
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
The steeply sloping portion of the site has inclinations as steep as 40 degrees as measured in the field.
We estimate that there is a change in elevation of up to 60 feet across the steep slopes along the eastern
side of the site. The native soils that form the core of the slope are inferred to consist of competent
glacially -compacted soils. We observed small scarps on the slope that appeared to be the result of
shallow failures. A neighbor informed us that a failure occurred last year on a steep slope on the eastern
side of the creek. We observed the scarp resulting from that failure, and some of the failed material near
the bottom of the slope. This failure is interpreted to have been a shallow surface failure, and may have
been the result of saturated slope conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
-= Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 6
We did not observe seepage on the steep slopes. We did observe several bowed mature deciduous and
evergreen trees on the steep slopes. This is likely the result of soil creep. Based on the competent soils
that are believed to form the core of the slope, the absence of indications of past deep-seated slope
movement, and the absence of water seepage on the slope, we consider the slope to be stable with respect
to deep-seated movements. However, we did observe indications that the slope has experienced shallow
failures and gradual slope movement. We would expect that such events to continue in the future.
There is a significant potential for shallow sloughing events to occur within the steeper portions of the site
due to the steep inclination of the slopes. The potential for sloughing may be reduced by routing surface
water away from the top of slope, maintaining vegetation on the slope, and repairing any areas disturbed
during construction. Periodic monitoring of the site steep slopes is also recommended. With the
recommended setback, these sloughing events should not adversely impact the planned structures.
Slope Stability
We analyzed global stability of the steep slope using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2.
XSTABL is a two-dimensional, limit -equilibrium, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random
potential failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The
factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that
cause failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as
the lowest number calculated.
The geometry of Cross -Section B-B' was used for the slope stability analysis. The factor of safety against
slope failures affecting the ground surface 35 feet beyond the top of the steep slope was found to be above
1.5. The parameters and results for this analysis are shown in Figure 6. This analysis along with our field
observations is the basis for establishing the recommended building setbacks.
The shallow explorations within the upper _ portion of the cross-section B-B' encountered glacially
consolidated sandy soil. We observed transitional bed material consisting of silt and clay in the lower
section of the northern portion of the steep slope at cross-section B-B'. We did not perform laboratory
shear testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on visual evaluation and
classification of the soils and our experience with similar conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our
opinion that the soils that underlie the site and form the core of the site slopes should be stable with
respect to deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. These soils
should provide adequate support to standard shallow foundations. There is a potential for shallow
sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steeper portions of the slope. We have provided
recommendations to reduce the potential of such events and a slope setback distances to reduce the risk of
adverse impacts to the residences should such events occur. This is further discussed in the Steep Slope
Setback subsection of this report.
The residences could be supported on conventional spread footings, provided that the foundation
excavations are advanced through any surficial fill, topsoil, or loose material and extended into medium
dense or better native soils. Overexcavated material should be replaced with rock spalls or structural fill.
The downhill footing lines, however, should be cast on native material.
Surface water runoff and water from roof downspouts and yard areas should be collected and directed into
appropriate drainage systems to reduce the amount of water flowing onto the steep slopes. It will be
important to maintain the vegetation on the slope to reduce the erosion potential. The occurrence of
sloughing on the slope can be reduced by routing storm run-off into appropriate water lines away from the
slope or piping storm water to the base of the slope. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction and after construction has been
completed.
The soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb and
erode easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months, if
possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, 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 exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural elements. We
do not recommend the use of on -site soils as structural fill in wet weather. After grading, the exposed
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 8
subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface runoff.
Erosion Control Measures
The erosion hazard for the on -site soils site is considered moderate to high, depending on how the site is
graded and water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to
control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken
may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas and from flowing over the slope. Silt
fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over
the top of the slope. Disturbed areas should be planted with vegetation at the end of construction. The
vegetation should be maintained until established. The erosion potential of areas not stripped of
vegetation should be low.
Steep Slope Setback
Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building
setbacks. The purpose of a setback is to establish a buffer zone between a structure and the slope margin,
so that ample room is allowed for normal slope surface regression or a minor slope failure. This setback
also protects the slope from the impacts of the development. From a geological standpoint, a reasonable
setback is based on the slope's physical characteristics; e.g., slope height, surface angle, material
composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression and
earthwork activity along the toe of slope, are important considerations as well.
Based on our slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance
of 25 feet between the top of the steep slope and the planned residences on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The slope in
the northern portion of the site is higher and has a steeper inclination. In addition, we observed silt and
clay material in the lower portion of the slope in this area. Silt and clay usually have lower strengths than
sand and gravel. For these reasons, and also based on our numerical slope stability analysis, we
recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 35 feet between the top of the steep slope and the
planned residences on Lots 5, 6, and 7.
The 35-foot setback for Lots 5, 6, and 7 could be reduced to 25 feet if the downhill foundation lines for
these residences are suitably deepened. For these lots, we recommend that the downhill foundation lines
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 9
be advanced a minimum of 7 feet below the existing ground surface if a 25-foot setback is desired. We
should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation subgrade and setback distances prior to placing
foundation forms.
The existing residence on this site is located within 15 feet from the top of the steep slope. We do not
know the depth of this residence's foundations, and have not evaluated the suitability of the residence
setback from the steep slope.
Slope and Setback Protection
Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds.
Specifically, we recommend that the setback areas not be used for placement or storage of fill materials,
including temporary excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. Also, water should
not be allowed to pond in the setback area or flow onto the face of the slope. It should be understood that
the closer site soil disturbance and development are to the slope, the more risk there. is of decreasing slope
stability. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance to the slope and setback surficial soils and
vegetative cover both during and after construction.
Of great importance to the long-term stability of the slope is the control of surface and near -surface water,
and erosion protection. We recommend that all drains, including roof and yard drains, be directed away
from the top of slope and routed into a permanent discharge system. Surface drainage over the slope
should not be permitted.
Site Preparation and Grading
The first step of site preparation should be to strip any topsoil and loose soils to expose medium dense or
better native soils in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. The stripped material should be removed from
the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The exposed subgrade should be compacted to a
non -yielding condition. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading
techniques might. be necessary. These could include using a large excavator equipped with wide tracks
and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrades with a layer of crushed
rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered, the subgrade should not be compacted as this
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
- Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 10
could cause subgrade disturbance. The prepared subgrades should be protected from construction traffic
and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrades.
The on -site soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered highly moisture -sensitive and
will disturb easily when wet. These soils become very difficult to compact when wet of optimum
moisture content. This often results in extra excavation and the need for importing all-weather material
for fill, which could significantly raise costs. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the
drier summer months, if possible.
Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as 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 ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate
- a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
-� maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor 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 ground water
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 upper loose soils be no steeper than 2
Horizontal : 1 Vertical (2H:1 V). Cuts in the underlying medium. dense to dense native materials may
stand at an inclination as steep as 1 H:IV. If ground water seepage is encountered or construction traffic
planned near the top of the cuts, flatter inclinations may be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be
protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and
diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts
deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations
conform to WISHA/OSHA standards.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 11
Structural ]Fill
General: We do not anticipate significant amounts of structural fill for the planned development.
However, any fills placed beneath foundations, pavements, other settlement -sensitive structures, behind
retaining walls, or on steep slopes 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. Level benches should be
excavated into slopes with greater than 20 percent inclination that will receive fill to key the new fill into
the slope. These benches typically have a nominal width of approximately 4 to 8 feet, and are separated
vertically by about 1 to 4 feet.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining, granular soil, free of
organics and other deleterious material and be well -graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches.
Imported all-weather fill should contain no more than about five percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No.
200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve).
The use of the native on -site soils as structural fill would be dependent on the nature of the material
encountered and moisture content control. Some drying of the soils may be necessary in order to achieve
compaction. We expect that compaction of most of the native soils to structural fill specifications would
be difficult, if not impossible, during wet weather. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of
using the on -site soils as structural fill at the time of construction.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All
backfilling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to 10 inches thick. Each lift should be spread
evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's 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 2 percent of optimum so that a
NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 12
readily-compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate 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.
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native
soils or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils, with the exception of the
downhill footing lines which should be cast on the native material. Where less -dense soils are
encountered at footing bearing elevations, the subgrade should be overexcavated to expose suitable
bearing soil. The overexcavation may be filled with structural fill or concrete, or the footing may be
extended to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend
outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of overexcavation below the
finished subgrade.
Both perimeter and interior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of
16 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, for two-story
structures and 18 and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively, for three-story
structures. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or
disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of no
more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for designing footings founded on the native
medium dense soils or structural fill extending to the silt. The foundation bearing soil should be
evaluated by NGA at the time of construction. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are
needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines should be used when considering increased
allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation
settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than 1 inch total and
1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our
experience with similar residential projects.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 13
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base
friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot
Cucf) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This
level surface should extend horizontally a distance equal to at least three times the depth of the footing.
These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 arid 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate
values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the
foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be
used as backfill against the footing. We recommend that the upper foot of soil be neglected when
calculating the passive resistance.
Slabs -on -Grade
Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and
Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least 6 inches of
free -draining sand or gravel 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 placed over the capillary break
material. An additional 2-inch-thick sand blanket may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand
blanket is to protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed to an
appropriate storm water collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where
footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from
the residence and the steep slope. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient
of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the improvements. Under no circumstances
should surface water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the site slopes.
j Subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing drains around the residences and behind any
s� subsurface walls. Footing drains should be installed at least 1 foot below planned finished floor slabs.
The drains should consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 14
by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist
of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than 3 percent fines), granular material placed along the back of
the wall. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may be used instead. The free -
draining material should extend up the wall to 1 foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil
should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface
water or fines migration 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 wall or footing drains.
USE OF THIS REPORT
This report is the property of Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. and has been prepared for the City of
Edmonds for use in the review and permitting of this project 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.
NGA should 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.
All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a
possibility, although the likelihood that such an event will actually occur may be low. The hillside should
remain stable during normal environmental conditions; however, inherent to steep slope areas is the risk
of movement due to extreme environmental conditions such as severe earthquakes and storms. Because
of the existing sloping conditions, the area should be periodically inspected by the landowner, especially
after winter storms. If distress is evident, we should be retained to provide advice on remedial/
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 15 .
preventative measures. The probability that landslidmg will occur is substantially, reduced by the proper
maintenance of drainage measures at the site. Therefore, the homeowner should recognize the
responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report
se provided to any future homeowners of the property.
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.
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require
further information, please call.
Sincerely,
kEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
stensen, PE
Project Engineer
�yq
Q: - -•cam
z 410
a
Vo �
Qp
EXPIRES
Khaled Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
TRC:KMS:kmn
Eleven Figures
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project
Site
r S � x ri'� %.-..'.-�. F� •' .�rfl "Ea"i aQ5 S'- -. 'Ns. .;am
.�e[[r�r+•. ' '• e a + rt�wl-� Jsi%� -�+,.L �i0 g�"��� - . �p � �a�,c,•rs e v ^-"
� ` r ! ee 1r �. /UYIaIDS" .} ''�f �s may' � }'�'1 s{!-m �` : ram•'
v� + �! � � r w � ^ t� ��a'�.^J _ - .? .,•4 #-e. �r' E::+ s� °'!.� . k� � �>.i'8"� p
T
q �
�'v s SY 172NO STD SY !
tY St
tramp t � C, �T ' , �' s.
o SY R'1 i .Iiq 1�
s
µ vs
i 17iiE
57H ST SY �^ �+.. r�.' a, $
ST
{ eft
S81St rLSY o
Y ,.r■ .�. I 1■Y. ■Y M - � � li6T R - - .. if. s w,.
Iva
■ _ R +t. � •'� 7� f�. M ysk-�7� :w R - _ p,S . i . . - � pw -�
W
n
m 1641H ®' Sf SY . '■"" " �, a a "T; �a• r � r "t .�, .ag `
rtZ
IL'SY 4j x* a • �. r 5: a ? M Yd e F 'Y r4 n �n + ' J
ST
1a11N umA
►L St
1571N . ST SY 1' .� ii °�' imp= +Tmt ° rt i "�t� �r "S. �.:•?r c.
: Y.. �r a " �• '- e i .,• a�"�..'�a-.,.. .. }Jl' (rus- a„+ a a,.�et'
or
Yee a R 3Q`.t 1 y+ z'J 'ti"WailCt `• •'�-w , �' o 'fk'Y
7881H . Z.
2 ST SY �■e�x n q i ;s �}BX x �L .SY t 8 i 9� t> 3 G, y w�
a IOOmN Sm SY rl SY ��+'. ='"'� '�sy ''.. 5 t rr191i7}iq"^ '. ra; y6Y ��,• - �r }�+�'__..
a ro - �� � a -� .�' ' : SI SY - e � r' . s 'iST �-"•� ; v?s;�� 5i ,T l�ji�q 1t
AW
v:. #y� r _egac.790T}i Thomas Bros.
nat a 1D15m --
Y
a
Not to Scale
t-
1� N
O
IECTNUMBER NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK
360902 Talbot Park Estates NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 y� o,0nal AD.1 JGL
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Figure 1 Vicinity Map -125■, xt..-boo C.,,,tsw j 337
.,.r,.■.. ■u ■eon w—tda•ro� 784-2736 5
NGA Drafting 2002\AutoCAD1360902 Talbot PWOMMsp.du
Y
V
m
C
.O
N
z°
J ��
N
U H
U t
0
-- o y�
-1
W S
� V.
W.
V H
�I
>�
o ,5 0'A Z_
t1I
�i
f
Wa
Z j
4
2 8
:LEGEND
W
z 6 7i
W
TP-1
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
t
HA-1
Number and Approximate
i
Location of Hand Auger
CA
m
A N
Approximate Location
N
�♦
of Cross Section
u.l C
n.
cv
Property Line
a C0
0
J,
-----
_ Top of 40% Slope
~
—••— Setback Line
100 PROJECT NUMBER
360902
Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet
uedanda Figure 2
T_
t0
O
CO
O
C
f�
W
N
�
A
n
West
a
y
A.
CDM
220
ON
D �
CO)200
I
Y Z
180
o M
m
m o0 Z
m
a
160
Z
140
N
Z
O
d
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
m
Elevations are Approximate
fn
O
7
o
a
191
A®
East
220
200
Stream 180
160
140
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
v
rn
c o
243
A m
Southwest
r 190
-170
y
f yy1
M
1, Z
>
-00
A
z D
150
?�r
> Z
M m
Z
a 0o
Mgo
�>�
130
_g NA
n n
L110
.,
z
0
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
Qm
m
Elevations are Approximate
ICXI
Be
Northeast
190
170
150
Stream
130
/
110
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
n
West
0
`" g
220
rn -0
(D a)
0 F�L
o m
:3 v,
n E
n E
200
y Z50
P-1
z D. 180
m Silty Sand with Trace Gravel
Z D
`-' 00
= to z
�
�a�
160.
o n
a
r
L 140
..
z
0
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
m
Elevations are Approximate
m
a_
R
x
Top of Steep Slope
m
:'
East
220
MIX
160
140
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and too foot tape.
180
MR
a 140
aD
4-
X
Q 120
I
100
:R
CROSS SECTION B—®'
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.505
W. w ram.
10 30 50 70 90 110
X—AXIS (feet)
130 150
170
R A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
CLEAN
GW
WELL —GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY —GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50 %
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
OF COARSE FRACTION
SOILS
RETAINED ON
NO.4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND-
CLEAN
SW
WELL —GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SAND
SP
POORLY GRADED SAND
ORE THAN 50 %
MORE THAN 50 %
RETAINED ON
N0.200 SIEVE
OF COARSE FRACTION
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
PASSES NO.4 SIEVE
Sc
CLAYEY SAND
WITH FINES
FINE-
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
INORGANIC
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
CL
CLAY
LESS THAN 50 %
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CIA
SOILS
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
INORGANIC
ORE THAN 50 %
PASSES
LIQUID LIMIT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLATCLAY
NO.200 SIEVE
50 % OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
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 labratory 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.
IECT NUMBER
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
360902
Talbot Park Estates
NGA AssoclATEs, INC.,
I
2ji2m
o
AW
W
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEot.OGMS
Figure 7
Soil Classification
,n„-,� A_ ,��, c•ut' ;r.° .
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER ONE
0.0 - 0.6 TOPSOIL
0.6 -1.6 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
1.6-2.8 SM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5, 1.8, AND 2.8 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.8 FEET ON 12/18/02
HAND AUGER TWO
0.0 -1.5 TOPSOIL
1.5 - 2.0 SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
2.0 - 3.4 SM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE
GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.0. 2.8, AND 3.4 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.4 FEET ON 12/18/02
JGL:MDR NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 8
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT ONE
0.0 -1.0 TOPSOIL
1.0 - 3.5 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5 - 7.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0. 5.0, AND 6.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213/03
TEST PIT TWO
0.0 -1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0 - 4.0
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
4.0 - 7.0
SM
GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0, 5.0, AND 7.0 FEET
MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET
SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3103
TEST PIT THREE
0.0 - 1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0 - 3.0
SP
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, .
MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
3.0 - 6.0
SP-SM
GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT (_MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.5 AND 4.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2/3/03
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0 -1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.0
SP
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED
OUTWASH)
3.0-7.0
SP/SM
RUST -BROWN MOTTLED BROWN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND AND SILT SEAMS
(DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0. 4.0. AND 7.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3/03
JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 9
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET)
USC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT FIVE
0.0 - 2.8
TOPSOIL
2.8 - 4.5
SM
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
4.5-7.0
SM/Sp
GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND SEAMS (DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5, 4.5, AND 6.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3/03
TEST PIT SIX
0.0-1.5
SM
DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST TO WET) ELL
1.5 - 3.0
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.0-7.0
SM/SP
RUST -BROWN MOTTLED GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO
COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0. 2.0. AND 6.0 FEET
MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET
SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213103
TEST PIT SEVEN
0.0 -1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0 - 3.5
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5-6.0
SM/SP
GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO
MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0, 4.0, AND 6.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 213/03
TEST PIT EIGHT
0.0 -1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-4.0
SP-SM
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
4.0-5.0
SP-SM
BROWN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 4.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 2/3/03
3
JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 10
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT NINE
0.0 -1.0 TOPSOIL
1.0 - 3.5 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5 - 4.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 4.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 213/03
JGL NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 11
1. Dec 15 05 07: 53p ROBERT M PRIDE I,NC
425 814 5672
P. I
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
December 15, 2005
Mr. Jon Kvcrnmo
Hillcrest ConsLruction
RESUB
P. (). Box 3121
Everett, WA o8,,,)13-1121
FEB 15 2006
Re: Gcotechnical Invesligalion
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Proposed Residences — Lots 2 and 4-7
CITY OF EDMONDS
17007 77d- Place West
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. A5-3,2-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
This report presents the results of our site exploration and geotechnical evaluation for
five single fainily residences in the Charlotte. Garden development in Edmonds. The
props-r'ty is situated adjacent to 771h Place and just north of 17V' Street SW. It is
understood that single family residences will be consu licted on these lots.
The purpose of,this investigation was to establish the nature: of the. subsurface soil
conditions that will provide. support to the stnietures, and to provide recommendations
for the design and construction'of the foundations. Preliminary plans for these houses
show that minor site grading will be required to establish building pad grades. USGS
mapping for this area of Edinonds was used as a reference for this investigation.
'Site Conditions
Prcvivus cleari rig and grading have been performed on this site. in c;c,nnc c:tii,n with flue
overall six lot development. The access street has been paved and utilities have been
installed to serve the residential lots. Observations of the ground conditions indicate
that fill has been. placed over most of the lots to create the existing grades that slope
generally toward the northeasL.
A steep slope descends down toward the easterly side of Lbis development and there is a
designated wetland west of Lot *6. Ilie slope on the easterly side of the plat is heavily
covered with vine:.~ and native shrubs, and there are some mature trees located on this
native 11/2 11:1V slope. Observations of this slope showed no evidence of gross failures
or instability that would affect the proposed construction.
According to Minard (USGS —1983) this area of Edmonds is underlain by glacial till
(QvL) and advanced outwash deposits (Qva). Seven exploratory Lrenclies were dug in
the area of the proposed residences to confirm the presence of fill soils and to classify
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE KA19nd, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672
Phone: 425.814-3970 STREET
FILE
Dec,15 05 07:53p ROBERT.M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.2
December 15, 2005
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
page 2
the underlying nativC soils. The Lest pits encountered soft fill soils zinc] O%anics to
depths of two feet and there was obvious construction debris and free remnants that
were buried in the fill. Below the fill were topsoil and medium dense silty sands that
were categorized as weathered till.
A majority of the fill material on this plat is located on Lots 6 and 7 that are on the
westerly sick: of the property. Up to seven feet of soft and loose fill with organics and
debris were encountered on iAA #7. Lots 2 through 6 had fill and disturbed soils that
ranged from i to as much as 4 feet as disclosed by the test pits. Groundwater s epage
was not encountered in any of the exploratory test pits. Summary logs of these test pits
are shown on Appendix A and their loentions are shown on Drawing No. 1.
GeoLe hnical lteeommendations
On the basis of our site inspection and subsurface exploration, the proposed residence
foundations for Lots through 6 rrtust extend through the fi.f I and bear on the medium
dense to dense native silty sands. 1,00tiug depths are expected to range from to as
much as 5 feet to bear on the undisturbed native soils. An allowable soil bearing value
of 200o psf may be used in the design of these footings that should have a minimum
depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade. This value may he increased by 1/g to
recount for temporary seismic or wind loadings. A passive earth pressure of 2O0 pef
may be used to resist lateral forces.
Where fill soils exceed a depth of about five feet on T.ot #7, it is recommended that the
bearing wall footings by supported on driven pipe piles either 3 or q. inches in diameter.
These pile-5 should be Schedule 8o galvanized pila' that are driven to refusal into the
native till soils. Refusal is defined a.s less than one inch of penetration over a period of
3o and 15 seconds, respectively using a 4.50# or 850# pneumatic hammer. Each pile
may be loaded up to 8 and 20 tons, respectively for working capacity.
Where pipe piles are used for foundation support they should be connected with
concrete grade beams that also provide support for the concrete slabs. If the upper fill
soils are compacted with a vibratory roller to a depth of two feet, the floor slabs can be
poured on the compacted fill. Some interior slab settlement can be expected where the
depth of fill exceeds three feet.
Some excavation +aril l be required to establish the building pad for the residence
foundations. Excavated soils should not be used for structural fill under the residence,
but may be placed in landscape amzs or hauled offsite. Normal erosion Control
procedures should be in place for construction of this residence in the coming winter
months.
Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing subdrAns, area
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 90034 Fax: 425-814-5672
Phone: 42."14-3970' 1
Dec 15 05 07:53p
ROHERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.3
December 1.5, 2005
Mr_ .ion Kvernmo
Page 3
drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be into the existing
storm water'system installed as part of the street improvements.
$ummar�
Construction monitoring a rid co11sultation services should also be provided to verify that
subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be
reveArA during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will
evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate.
'rho conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on 1) our
interpretation and evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual
subsurface conditions encountered during constrvetion, and 3) the as.Sumption that
sufficient observation and testing will be performed during the appropriate phases of
the work.
our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordancA; with
generally accepted principles of geotechnieal engineering as practiced in the Puget
Sound area at the time our work was performed. Wo make no warranty, either express
or implied.
Please call me if there are any questions or you wish to discuss this report in greater
detail.
•pectfully,
i
Robert M. Pride, P. E.
Principal Gcotechnical Engi
(list: (2) Addressee
rmp: 14 illrresl Plati
EXPIs1ES /'O
13203 Holmes Point Drive NI: Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672
Phone* 425-814-3970 j
Dec 15 05 07:53p ROBERT,M PRIDE INC
APPENDIX A
Summary Logs of Test Pits
Test Pit No. 1 -Lot 7
425 814 5672 p.4
0.0 — 4.0ft . FILL: Silty sand; 'gray brown, soft, very moist; with organics;
4.0 - 5.0 ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No_ 2 -Lot 7
0.0 - 6.0ft FILL: Silty sand and sandy silt; gray brown, soft, very moist; with
organics and concrete debris; buried tree branch and roots;
6.0 - 7. Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand: brown, moist, medium dense to dense;
Test Pit No. 3 - Lot 7
0.0 -- 7.0ft FILL: Silty sand and Sandy silt; gray brown, very'moist, soft; with
organics and roots;
7.0 - 7.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; no
groundwater;
Test Pit No. 4 - Lot 2
0.0 -1.0ft FILL: Topsoil; Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, very moist, soft;
1.0 - 4.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown moist, medium dense; no groundwater;
Test Pit No 5 - Lot 3
0.0 - 2.0ft FILL: Silty sand: brown, very moist, soft and loose;
2.0 - 3.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; no
groundwater;
Test Pit No. 6 - Lot 4
0.0 -1-Oft FILL: silty sand; brown, moist, loose;
1.0 - 2.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No. 7 - Lot 6
0.0 - 3.0ft FILL: Silty sand; gray brown, very moist, loose;
3.0 - 4.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No., 8 - Lot 6
0.0 - 4.0ft FILL: silty sand; brown, very moist, loose;
4.0 - 5.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
— 13203 Holmes Point Drive NF Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 42"14-5672
Phone: 425.814-3970
• Dec 15 05 07:54p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.5
..enn.eroe�r 2"AT CdWG
Ref. Plat Map for Charlotte Gardens
SITE PLAN
Proposed Charlotte Garden
Tla' place SW and 1716' Street
Edmonds, Washington
,&.a, 14 cur_ pride. Inc.
Project No. 05-352-01
Dr"ng No. '�
Sewer Grinder Pump Design Calculations
To: Jaime Hawkins, Engineering
From: Jon Kvemmo
CC:
Date: 2/14/06
Re: Plan review comments — Charlotte Gardens
Mr. Hawkins, -)
This is in reference to the requested design calculations as outlined in the City of Edmonds
grinder pump checklist.
Design Calculations
1. Fixture count — Item Units
Quantity
Totals
Bathtub 4
1
4
Combined Tub/Shower4
1
4
Clothes Washer 1
1
1
Dishwasher 1.5
1
1.5
Lavatory 1
4
4
Kitchen sink 1.5
1
1.5
Laundry sink 1.5
1
1.5
Shower 2
1
2
Water closet 2.5
3
7.5
Total units
27
GPM
40
2. Grinder pump and system curve — see attached chart
3. Hydraulic computations
. Pump cycling time — assuming a 75 gallon functional capacity (on -float and
off -float switches activation distance 38.25" apart), the net elapsed time from pump
"on" to pump 'on" is approximately 9.76 minutes, resulting in 6.14 cycles per hour at
40 GPM inflow (from the house) and 49.5 GPM system capacity. See attached chart.
Wet well capacity —175 Gal. E S V
Flushing velocity — 4.1 feet per second
Force main hydraulic losses — 5.2 ft. of head FEB 14 2006
BUILDING
Page STREET FILE
Minor hydraulic losses due to valves and fittings — negligible
Net positive suction head - none
4. Sump basin anti flotation — Maximum possible flotation 1278 lbs. Equivalent to 1/3
cubic yard of concrete. Provide cast -in -place concrete counterweight' minimum 1'
deep x 3.5' wide x 3.5' long around base of sump, insuring that sump flange is at or
near bottom of concrete slab.
5. Soil bearing pressure — soil bearing capacity greater than 2000 PSF. Total assembly
load less than 500 PSF.
6.- Electrical power requirements — 230v. single phase
7. Other applicable calculations — N/A
Respectfully,
Jon Kvernmo
r
0 Page 2
E
01/16/2006 15:50 4257439244 UNITED PIPE
Section GRINDER Page 102
Dared MAY 2W
Superesdes X NE 79"
Per�orl�1*aw�s 1
Curve
a>� . 330E Discharge: 1-1 /4^
PACE 03/13
(_U
r
I ne curves refted maxUnum Performance characteristics without exceeding full toad (Nameplate) horsepower,
All PUFTS have a Myice factor of 1.2. Operation is recommended in the bounded area with operational Point WNW the
curve limit. Performance curves are based on actual tests widl clear water at 700 F: and 1280 f9e1 site elevation.
I� HYDROMATIC- ConditionsDH.- of Service;
GPM: `/!�S TDH: / 6 °.
E-d 909L-899 (09E)
03 J02aer HH dSO:2T 90 OT qaA
10105 Airport Way Suite #A
Snohomish, WA. 98296
Phone#: (425) 4W59581(360) 568-5958Jae•
Fp&: (360) 568-7506
FaX
TO: Jon @ Hillcrest Const From: John Soatt
Fax: 425-25"799 Pages: 12 (INCLUDING COVER)
Phone: Date: 1-17-06
Re: Edmonds grinder e-mail johns c@hbjaeger.oDm
❑ Urgent X For Review D Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Jon,
Here are the "spec sheets- for the Hydromatic grinder pump. There is probably more than they need but
it is everything they faxed to me.
The local authored repair facility is:
PUMP Tech
Bellevue, WA
425-644 M
Mike Dunn
I°l 909G-699 (09E)
03 .+a�ae� gH eTT:TT 90 GI Uer
01/16/2006 15:50 4257439244
Section GRDI M Page 302
Dated OCI M 2000
Superesdes Nlff- =0
UNITED PIPE PAGE 02/13
Elee�iee�l � �
Deft
MODEL HPGR—Standard Grinder Pumps
R.P.M.
35D
MOTOR TYPE
ENCLOSED, OIL COOLED INDUCTION, CAP START
MOTOR DESIGN NEMATYPIE
A(to)
GENERAL INSULATION CLASS
g
STATOR WINDING CLASS
F
MAXIMUM STATOR TEMPERATURE
130°C
VOLTAGE TOLERANCE
t1096
2 230 1 1 . J 1.0 15. - 11.9 12
In HYDROMATIC
0
909G-89S 109E)
00e T T= T T 90 LT UeC
01/16/2006 15:50 4257439244
UNITED PIPE
PAGE 06/13
Section GRIMM Page 402
Dated 110 2W
Superesdes MAY 200
Tm6nieal
MODEL HPGR -- Standard Grinder Pumps
Pkyskol Data:
DISCHARGE SIZE
1%' NPT
IMPELLER TYPE
SEMI -OPEN 5 VANE
CABLE LENGTH
15' STANDARD
PAINT
PAINTED AFTER ASSEMBLY. DARK GREEN,
ENAMEL, ONE COAT, AR DRIED.
Temperature:
MAXIMUM LIQUID
140OF
MAXIMUM STATDR
OIL FLASK POINT
390°F
HEAT SENSOR Open:
257-F MAX_12WF MIN.
Closed:
194-F MAX.1149-F MIN.
Tedcai Dora:
POWER CORD TYPE
SOWlSOW-A WATER RESISTANT 60OV, 64°C
MOTOR HOUSING
CAST IRON ASTM A-40 CLASS 30
CASING
CAST IRON ASTM A-48 CLASS 30
U_ Z IMPELLER
RED BRASS SWS-5-5 ASTM B584-MNALOX 420 SEO WITH BRONZE
O
INSERT
5 CUTTERS
a Slalionery:
440C STAINLESS STEEL HARDENED TO 55.60 ROCKWELLC
rn Upper (Anal):
tc Lower
440C STAINLESS STEEL HARDEENM TO SS-60 ROCKWELL C
(Radial
440C STAINLESS STEEL HARDENED TO 55-60 ROCKWELL C
MOTOR SHAFT
416 STAINLESS STEEL
HARDWARE
300 SERIES STAINLESS ST1:EL
"0- RINGS
BUNA N
MECHANICAL SEALS
_ Standard:
SINGLE CARBOMICERAMIC/BONA-N, TYP_E_21
UPPER BEARING
(RADIAL) SINGLE ROW BALL 6203
LOWED BEARING
(THRUST) SINGLE ROW BALL 6306
MIN. 8-10 BEARING LIFE
50,000 HM
�Ir HYDRONAT"BO
C-d 90SG-899 (09C)
00 .aa2aer HH
L" T: 1 1 90 G I uer
01/17/2006 09:34 4257439244 UNITED PIPE PAGE 02/08
AVKUNDUS I arc r�r � c�u �nr• r,��,*� ., iq
24" F1BERGLr4SS BASINS
1M HAS PAMM
FIBLWGe.m @ W
flam 3#J18B L9mw
BMQJWffM9L
GLASS T
- EL ANT1 A.( T
PART[.
UNO
BMW-'
G&24 XO24-100
GB-24 X 024-200
GS-24 X0242a0
47 GAL
12 LBS
G8 24 X 030-100
GS-24 X 03D-2W
CO-24X 090-300
59 GAL
15 LBS
G&24XO3S-100 A
G8-24X036-200
GB-24XO36-30U
71 GAL-,
t&LBS
0&24 X042-100
GB-24 X O42-200
G8-24 X 042-300
82 GAL
21 LOS
G8-24 X 04&100 4t
GS-24 X 048-800 *
GB-24 X 048-300
94 GAL,
24 LBS
GB-24 X O54-100
W- X 05"00
GB-24 X D54.90D
106 GAL
27 LOS
G8-24 X D60.100 *
GS-24 X OBO-200 X
0&24 X 060-900
118 GAL
30 LBS
GS•24XO66-100
GO-24X0WrM
GB24X086-300
129COAL
33LBS
GB-24 X O72-100 *
GB-24 XO72 200 *
GB-24 X07-)- Q0
_
141 GAL.
36 LBS
GB24XO78-100
GW24X078-200
0&24X078,vo
'lag GX
39LBS
GB-24 X 0844eB:��
G824 X 084-200 .* _
G&24 X 0&13pp
165 GAL
"'�
GB 24 X090200
68-24 X09D-300
` 176 GAL
68 L.BS
C&24XOW2D0
GB-24XOW300
188 GAL
72LOS
GW24 X 102-M
GS-74 X 102-300
200 GAL
77 LBS
GB-24 X 10E,2D0
68-24 X 108-3W
212 GAL
81 L ss
GB-24 X 1142W
48-24 X 114-300
223 GAL
86 LaS
GO-24 X 120 200
G13-24 X 120-300
235 GAL
g0 Lg+S
GB-24 X 128-200
GS-24 X 12s-aw
247 GAL.
95 LOSS
GB-24 X 132-200
GB-24 X 132-WO
259 GAL
99 L8S
GB-24X 13B-200
68-24X 138.300
270 GAL
104L.BS
GB-24 X 144 M
GB24X 144-M
282 GAL
10g Las
GS-24X IW200
GIB-24X 150-3W
294 GAL
1 W LBS
GB 24X 1S8.200
GB-24X IW300
306 GAL
156LBS
GS-24 X 162-200
GR-24X 162-3W
317 GAL
162LBS
GB-24X 198.200
GB 24X 168.3W
329 GAL
MOM
GB-24 X 174-200
GB-24X180.200
G&24 X 174200
GB-24X180aW
341 GAL
174 LA$
'
GB-24X186r200
GB-24XIW300
353 GAL
364 GAL
18oL.8S
186LBS
G -24 X 192-2M '
GD-24X I M-Wo
376 GAL
192 L.BS
G -24 X 198.200
08-24X 198-M
388 GAL
198 L DS
GB-24 X 204-2M
GB.24X 204�=
400 GAL
204 L.SS
GL)-24X210-200
G"4X210.3W
411 GAL
21OLES
G9.24 X 218200
0B-24X21640D
423 GAL
21S LOS
GB-24X222-200
GS-20,2?2300
435 GAL.
222LBS
G&24X228-200
G1344X234-aW
G8-24X228-=
447 GAL
228LBS
GS-24 X 240-200
GS-24X234,500
GB.24X240•3W
458 GAL
234LOS
470GAL
240LBS
OPTVNS
Wl
* STOCK ITEMS CAN BE SHIPPM WMiIN 48 HoLh"S FROM RECEM OF ORDER
BASINS WMBERGLASS ANTI-FLAAT R-ANGE ADD 15 LSS TO VUEK'HT
BASINS W1r EE AMI-FLOAT FLANCZ ADD 55 LEIS TO VVEGW
-°l 90SL-99S (09C)
09 .�a�aec HH
e21=TT 90 LT Uer
Mar-08-06 08:34A ROBERT N. PARNELL', PE 425/641-5095 P.02
t
1
PRE -DESIGN REPORT
SANITARY SEWER GRINDER PUMP
CHARLOTTE GARDENS
EDMONDS, WA
FOR RECEIVED
JON KVERNMO
HILLCREST CONSTRUCTION CO., INC MAR - 9 2006
P.O., BOX 3121
EVERETT, WA 98123 BUILDING DEPT,
425 259-2776
BY -
ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE
RN PARNELL CO
44221877H PLACE SE
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
(425) 643-3560
MARCH 7, 2006
l
Mar-08-06 08:35A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P.03
PRE DESIGN REPORT
CHECK LIST
SINGLE FAMILY
Qualifications of Engineer: Robert N. Parnell, PE is a civil engineer registered
in the State of Washington, license # 19775. He has designed simplex and duplex
sanitary sewer pump stations with force main conveyances as well as gravity sanitary
systems.
Designs include a duplex sanitary sewer and force main for an office building serving
100 people for Weyerhaeuser Company, Enumclaw; several individual single family
residences serviced by a 2" PVC force main collector line discharging into a gravity
line within the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District; an EPA grant design
for simplex grinder pump and force main collector serving multiple single family
residences due to failed septic systems along Puget Sound within the Ronald Sewer
District; and a duplex grinder pump 2" PVC force main system that discharged into a
8" DIP main line sanitary sewer force main for the Washington State Patrol Station,
Marysville, WA
Lxperience includes design for domestic and fire water, sanitary sewer, and storm
water systems for single family, multifamily, commercial, and industrial use_
Topographic Services Area May:
Topographical limits of pump station service area. The attached map provided by
Hillcrest Construction Company, Inc. illustrates the residential lots to be served by the
grinder pumps, force mains to serve lots, and the location of the gravity system. Each
grinder pump lot, Lots #3, 4, 5, & 6 have individual Z' HDPE force mains that
discharge into the 8" gravity sanitary sewer. Length of force main varies from 36 feet
to 165 feet.
Property boundaries. Each lot with property boundary is shown on the map.
100 Year Flood Plain line. The site is outside the 100-year flood plain line
Location of nearest sewage collection system piping. Location of 8° gravity
sewer main is shown on the map and is the manhole located within the 5-foot wide
utility sewer easement on lot #3.
Location of sewer stub that the force main will connect to. This location is the
manhole located within the 5-foot wide utility sewer easement on lot #3 and then
discharges into SS1MH#2.
Location of water service to the house(s). Water meter locations are shown on the
map. Sanitary sewer force mains (2" dia_ HDPE) will be under the water meters and
home service lines. Location of house(s) with water service lines and side sewers to
be provided by contractor:. Separation of water and sanitary sewer lines to meet
health department codes such as 10-foot horizontal separation and sanitary sewer
line to be under the water line by at least 18D when crossing_
MAR - 9 2006
BUILDING DEP`I°.
Mar-08-.06 08:35A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P.04
Design Calculations
Present, design, and ultimate water fixture counts and their associated flows.
Each new single family home is assumed to have three bathrooms totaling three
toilets, four bathroom sinks, three showers/tubs; kitchen with sink, dishwasher,
garbage disposal, and laundry room with clothes washer. Outside hose .bibs will not
be connected to sanitary sewer system. Associated flows indicate bathroom units are
8 gpm, kitchen sink with food grinder is 3 gpm, dishwasher is 2 gpm, cloth washer 2
gpm. Maximum peak sanitary sewer flow is estimated at 3 x 8+3+2+2 = 31 gpm.
Average daily flow from a typical residential dwelling is about+50 gals/capita/day` For
a family of four, an estimate of volume is 200 gallons/day per residence.
Proposed grinder pump curve and system curve. Hydromatic curve for HPGR is
attached.
Pump station hydraulic computations: (see attached calculations)
Pump cycle time ( minimum twice daily)
Wet well capacity (165 gallons)
Flushing velocity (2.5 ft/sec min)
Force main hydraulic losses (various based on static head and FM losses)
Minor Hydraulic losses due to valve and fittings (Assume 2 foot head loss)
Net positive suction head (Yes vacuum not created)
Sump basin anti -flotation calculations Provided by manufacture
Soil Bearing pressure: Assume 2000 psf
Electrical Power Requirements 230 volt single phase 15 Amp dedicated circuit
Other applicable calculations (Provided as requested)
Additional Submittal Requirements checklist
Manufactures data, drawings and details for preassembled grinder pump
station and instrumentation clearly indicating compliance with all specked
requirements. (Catalog cut sheet attached)
Documentation of source of supply and or repair located within 24 hour
delivery time. ( Supplier name)
Drawing showing location of pump station, discharge line, connection to sewer
main, cleanouts, fittings, and alarm panel (audio and visual) etc. (see attached
site map. provided by developer/contractor) Grinder pump to be located at least 5 feet
away from structure and within 15 feet of a home hose bib. Alarm panel to be located
outside of home along side of home visible from street. Power from home electrical
box on dedicated 120 volt 20 amp circuit with buried line located in' non-metallic
casing. There will be a 4" clean out between home sewer line and the grinder pump.
The 2" HDPE force main is already in place and is shown on the site map adjacent to
the road within a 5 foot sanitary sewer easement.
RECEIVED
MAR - s 2006
BUILDING DEPT,
Mar-08-06 08:35A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P_05
A1)C�l
/Yl���n•�,or�r_ .�1/��-s,� - � iru' `'DMA /ali°rSGr�Li.�
.Z-,7,7 i
OLIO
�inP
5 Rew
o �A/j7 L y'
i
,
1,0VO& (.n5rf.I 6IMP .
14tli = �•2//arcs"
_ MAR - 9 2006
BUILDING DEPT.
Mar-08-06�08:35A ROBERT�N. PARNELL, PE425/641-5095 ^Y� P.06
INSTALLSFUt RAIL \ ♦ `.
1 " •� FENCE (2 RAILS)
!•rlj�nn .. �`
• r
oe
C8 2 _
->12A STALL 6"
E. l? THRUST BLOCK , Is
� J 1
1 FD IE-174.00 1 J
lop
x !' ��_ig0'UO'OU"E r•' 01--A 1 1 1
:.. ?62.14'
{r_i #I �I FM 11 I J
RM
r.zr.a!$O.QD � 1 1 1 1 ti 1 f
1
.D.;m180
S i 9.�
ssmH #7 / aCONC.
?, /newt S WALK
wm
DRIVEWAY CUy
(E226)
—zQo .•; J �
O 'y_ {t
MAR - 9 2006
BUILDING DEPT
Mar-08-06�08:36A ROBERT�N. PARNELL,
81/1.51WAS 15:98 4257439244
PEv `J 425/641-5095 ,..� P.07
UNITED PIPE PAS 93/L3
Seckm Pace 102
bated JRU =0
-Superesdes AM 19"
l '
pia
CA"*
RPM.3SW C> rrge lei/4"
2
Al pur"m ftwm o sewer CkW 9f1 �o r► eioa "n. i no<savoww
P- b"Woe cum sm D,,AIA&slO on mctim0 tis� eft U991 wslgr a1 TO' F. MN fi80 Ibet s� e1ev .
RECEIVED
cawnren, of se,.,ww,
MAR - 9 2006
BUILDING DEPT..
b-d 9QS�-g95
t09B1 0� ..a�®er BH e
tT=ti SO Gi uer
J
Mar-08-06�08:"36A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P_08
01/17/2896 09:39 4257439244
UNITED PIPE
AKINDIe zv55 P1�C:in.rV n� Y,4fi�uf r�DlAiva -�sr,
24p 1-7BERGLASS BASINS
PAGE 92/08
p6i459Bm
mmumamm
amffm
ae-UX024-10o
m16ROLlN4 AHM4
m
MNM
09.24Xa244OD
BummmERME
ME+4 AlnsaO1Ct
C4&24xoai- 0
47GAL
12M
AU M-100
Ci" X 000+200
GEl-a x osD- 00
59 GAL
15 LBS
05444X0W100 44
GO-W s s-Im
Ga4axoXmD
71 GAL
19La
00-24X00-100
GB-04XO4249D
mmxoe4m
62 UAL
21 Los
G844XD4tl-100
CEw4xag8 A00
asaxo4s-0w
94COAL
a4L8$
(3&�tXGW00
GD-24XD542D0
G6+24X0644W
#W GAL
24L89
GB-MOW10D
138-24X0606 o t
01.24x060m0
118 m
30ta6
GB 24X CWtO0
se-a4X0E4 Im
(*V 9 Carr i00
12D ak
3SUM
G9,24xa*v 0 #t
0 AaX072-m
GQUX072-=
w GAL
as=
Qs44 X 078.100
GB4,4 x07E►20o
as-24=8400
Ise OAL
MRS
as-pfi x ffix � >
w4m
Q"4 x01M-MD
M6 a& wa-
mum
OB,I X090em
as-Z4x090mo
178GAL
Was
OBOX090M +r
usaax090400
1e8 any
7121s
G9,914 x 10200
004 x i02-04
20D G&
MIS
09-24X I OD-FDO
SNUX 100-.100
212 GAL
81 i86
Gw4xtt44w
6844XI14-SM
229"
eat
0"X1204P00
G946X120300
ma (CAI.
0Dlm
G9-4 X 1ISM
oae4 X 12H =
P47 GAL
MOS
G9.24X 1ffi2W
t39-N X 132-MD
es9 GAL
%LW
G8-24X I3R4-=
QE604)( 138-300
2M CAL
104LES
GEt-sa X 14'r1-200
08-24 X 1444M
202 Q&
1081BS
G11-20190-am
00-24X 1604W
204 GAL
Iseuml
69.24X 19Pr7A0
Gffi-2+4 X 15e-3m
900 06AL
ISMS
QS-24 x 162-=
oe-e4X 162 300
317 G&
162LAS
0"4x1e6-M
004%xiss-m
MGAL
WLAS
G84M X 174-2W
M24X 17+3A0
341 G&
174LGS
0847aXIM 00
G5?AtC180-=
333GAL
1Q01.9s
G 24X186-M
GEl"*10&3W
364GAL
issue
00,24xTSLL 0
awX192,300
:msa&
s92m
G"X1984M
0"X19e-200
MB OAL
WA
aw4X2Dfr�00
(3 e4=43DD
4W 0AL
Muss
00-24X210-m
GMX210-SM
411 QAL
210L"s
GO.74x21e-2DD _.
t X216.9DD
423 GAL
276LBS
GW24X22S-M
W4'4Xa3aM
435 GAL
922L63
aB-24x99aeon
C.S"Xzawm
491 GAL
m1w
8"X2941m
0"XaS4ao0
496k
236LBS
eWAR
ur
c�-�axz4a2oD
SN64" sruoa
a xasoaoo
OPTOW
470aAL
mm
: sTc)GK rt-94s CA'y w- s►4vFtv %mn*4 48 HDVft MCM F*CVPr 0� opCFA
MAW6 W"MXASSAwrkgMT FlANQF ADO I S Las To Ubgamr
RAMS WOMEL tMAOAr RANW AUD 3S LESS 70 VAXW
f "d sasc.-ass loses
07 'Je9err BH
e
EIVED
MAR — 9 2006
BUILDING DEPT.
e2i=Ti $0 LI uef
Mar-08-06 08:36A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P.09
91/26/2006 1S'50 4257439244, UNITED PIPE PAGE 82/13
21dbE�hl1R��lq�
UWfesdes
0
MMM, HM—5fandard Grinder Pump$
R.P.M.r
Morm TYPE
ENCLOSM. OIL COOLED WDlIUMV CAA START
A to)
MOTOR DESON NEMATYPE
01VOM W&AnON CLASS
B
STATOR WILDING CLASS )
F
L+IAXWM SWbR TEMPfRATME
VOLTAOC TOLERANCE
f1096
12 eo V 1 I d 1 1, t19 3z
ILpa
MAR — 9 2006
MXDROMAT1e •
WILDING DEPT.
zd 9oSL-H9s [D9E1
90 LT uer
Mar-08-06 08:36A ROBERT N_ PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095
.., .� P„l 0
@11312M it -so o25743124a
swionomm pageoz
0aWd SILT 2M
ftMU2W
UNITED PIPE
HM — Srae+d Wider Pumps
ph"led DOW
DISCHARGE SIZE
lv," NPT .•�
tAAPMER TYPE
SE " 6 VANE
CABLE LEN rl
iS 27ANpg90
PARNT
PAINTED AFTER ASWWRLY. DARK GREEN,
ENAMEL, ONE COAT. AIR OFMI).
MAXIMUM L)OLM
140"F
MAXIMUM STATOR
$66•F
OIL FLASH PONT
3Q0°l�
NEAT SEId$pR Op on
257T MAX./23a-Pr INN.
Closed
794'F MAXJ 14irF MNd.
TeChf&wl D4b:
POW>=R CORD TYPE
90WISOW-A WATER RESWTMRT 900N, 006C
MOT" Hoasa,>r3
CAST RRON ASTM A-4e CIA= 30
CAST SON A$1'A1 A-49 CRASS 30 - T.
o UMMLLM
BRASS SWS-&s ASIV &%4 XNALOX e20 $1:D WITH
CtR MRS
SlaNplb►yr.
I."
440C STWNMS $TEFL HARDEN$p Tb 5W P4CRMrELL C
or (A"
"W STAINLMS SlIML HARDpCo To 5540 ROCKWELL C
g lower (RRadiaiy
44M STAINLESS STEEL HAROGNM TO 55-AO Rdcw&rmLL C
Np1�DR SHAFT
4* STAM M ST�
►InRDVMRf;
acro s REs srAlrnFss $1 ENE
�Q' RZRVR39
B11NA N
MEO")CAL SEALS
�ndsrd
SM41.E CoMNI MWlCIBLWA TYPE 21
� R BLARING
(:CARNAL) SRRVGLE ROW D&L8203
LOWr:R BEMM
(THRUST) SIN= Rt7W BALL BaORi
MMI, R•10 BwAftwo LWw
90.0OQ}NRg
I� MMIRONA710°
Ed SD$L-B95.(09E)
PAGE 06/13
RECEIVED
MAR - 9 2006
BUILDING DEPT.
o, aaXaeL RH e T L: i T so / T ueC
Dec 28 05 05:18P ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 P•1
Robert M. Pride, Inc.
December 'i8, 2005
Mr. Jon Vvcrnmo
H71c:rest Construction
P. (). BOX 312I
Everett, WA 932.13-1121
Re: Geolechmical Xaivestigation
Proposed Residences -- Lots 3 - 6
77th Place West
Edmonds; Washington
RMP Project No. 05-352-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
Consulting
Engineer
At your request 1 have reviewed the plans for the propose single family residences to be
constructed on in. is 3 through 6 in the Charlotte Gardens plat on 77`I' Place West in
Edmonds. These residences have been sited within the building setback limits as shown
on the drawings by Home Design.
Based on my site in.spc:cticros and geotechnical evaluation .as discussed in my December
`„ d and 15rh reports, these structures can be constructed aL their proposed locations
without any impact on the adjacent steep slope areas. Minimum slope setback distances
from the face of the slope to the exterior foundation walls is at le ist 15 feet on Lol 3, 30
feet on Lot 4, 35 feet on Lot 5 and 35 feet on Lot G. in my opinion these setback
distances are satisfactory for the site and subsurface conditions on these properties, and
they will satisfy the requirements of ECDC #23.80 and 23.4v.
Please call me if there .tree .any questions regarding this subrnhwl.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Pride, ! ��
..�;.
Principal Geotectinical
disc:
(2) Addres,
rmp: Hi11c:1estP1at2
EXPINE' ��
JAN 19 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
13203 Holmes Paint i]rive NE Kiraklnd, WA 98034 —
Phone: 425-814-3870
Fax: 426-814-5672
Deccio Engineering
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 Z004
PLANNING DEPT.
17217 7th Avenue West
Bothell, WA. 98012
(206) 39OM70
Fax (425)741-8214
Charlotte Gardens.
Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report
Prepared for
Mr. Gary TrunkhIII
Site Location:
7707 171g Street SW
Edmonds, Washington 98026
A.
Dated January 18, 2004
258M. rE93
�;•
—EXPIRES 2/22/0.5' � By Richard Deccio PE
STREET FILE
Deccio Engineering
17217 7th Avenue West
Bothell, WA. 98012
(206) 390-W70
Fax: (425) 741-8214
Charlotte Gardens
Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report
Prepared for
Mr. Gary Trunkhill
o A. o Site Location:
wasy���'C� 7707 17? Street SW
Edmonds, Washington 98026
_ 25s1 e
���ctS��E����
L• XPIRc9 2/22/0S Dated January 18, 2004
CHARLOTTE GARDENS
LEVEL 1 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction............................................................... 1
Task 1: Project Overview & Study Area Definition ........................... 1
Task 2: Review of Available Information on Study Area ....................... 1
Task 3: Field Inspection & Description of Drainage System ....... ............ 3
1Tnctrpam Drainage Analvsis.................................................. 3
(l.._Ci4n !`nneitlbr�tinnc.................................................... 3
Downstream Drainage Analysis ................................................. 3
Task 4: Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation ............................... 4
Level 1 Analysis Conclusions .................................................. 4
List of Figures:
Figure 1:
Site Location & Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
Developed Site Conditions
Figure 3:
Soils Map
Figure 4:
USGS Downstream Analysis Map
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Gary Trunkhill in support of 6-lot subdivision.
The subject property is located at 7707 171" Street, S.W. Edmonds, Washington.
This report addresses the "Level V Downstream Analysis submittal requirements of the City's
adopted Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (SWM) of the Washington
State Department of Ecology per the City of Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter
18.30. We have prepared this report using Chapters I through III of the Puget Sound SWM Manual.
TASK I: PROJECT OVERVIEW & STUDY AREA DEFINITION
The subject property is located on the north side of the intersection of Sea Land Drive and 171'
Street SW. in the City of Edmonds. The site is also adjacent to the City of Lynnwood City limits,
which is located on the north side of the property. The current site is 2.10 acres in size, contains an
existing single family dwelling and landscaping. The site is bordered by a steep ravine located on the
north and east sides of the property. The discharge point of this drainage course is located within the
Lynnwood City limits. The site address is 7707171' Street, S.W. Edmonds, Washington, (Parcel No:
27040700100400). The site and surrounding area is zoned RS-12. (Figure 1: Site Location &
Vicinity Map)
A Level 1 drainage analysis was preformed for the site on January 18, 2004, the weather was overcast
and dry.
The on -site soils have been identified as Alderwood Series, Everett Series, Kitsap Series and Vashon
Series according to SCS Soil Survey for Snohomish County, which is Type "C" in SCS hydrologic
soil groups.
TASK 2: REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON STUDY AREA
Resource Review:
The following is a description of the resources that were reviewed for the preparation of this Level
1 Drainage Study:
A. Basin Recognizance Summary Reports: Enclosed within are downstream and.upstream
basin area map which clearly define the flow pass and the drainage basins related to this
project. (Figure 4 "USGS Downstream Analysis Map")
Evidence of Existing and Predicted Problems
Lack of capacity or constrictions in the existing drainage system.
■ On -site: No evidence of any problem.
■ Off -site: Ravine Section; None Noted.
■ Off -site: 12-inch culvert Sections; None Noted.
Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report
January 18, 2004 Page 1
Overtopping, Scouring, Bank, Sloughing of Sedimentation
■ On -site: No evidence of any problem.
■ Off -site: Ravine section. Some erosion/scouring of steam channel noted.
Flooding etc.
■ On -site: No evidence of any problem.
■ Off -site: Ravine section. None noted.
Significant Destruction of Aquatic Habitat or Organisms
■ On -site: No evidence of any problem.
IS Off -site: None noted.
B. Adopted Basin Plans: None Known
C. Critical Drainage Map: Not Known
D. Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA Maps): None on upper part of site. East side of site
contains a steep ravine with natural drainage channel.
E. Other Off -Site Analysis Reports: None Known
F. Sensitive Area Folio: Each one of the sensitive area folio associated with this area was
reviewed.
Sensitive Areas Folio
■ Wetlands Property: Property is affected on west property line.
■ 100-Year Floodplain and Streams: Property contains stream channel on east side.
■ Erosion Hazard Areas: Property contains steep slopes.
■ Landslide Hazard Areas: Property contains steep slopes.
■ Seismic Hazard Area: Property not affected.
G. City Division Drainage Investigation Problems: The drainage discharge. point is located
within the City of Lynnwood's drainage basin, where a previous agreement was reached for
direct discharge into the City's drainage basin without detention.
H. Soils Survey: Included Alderwood Series, Everett Series, Kitsap Series and Vashon Series
per SCS Soils Survey for Snohomish County which is a type C soils.
Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report
January 18, 2004 Page 2
TASK 3: FIELD INSPECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITH
EXISTING AND PREDICTED PROBLEMS
A field inspection of the property, surrounding area and downstream conditions was performed by
the engineer on January 18, 2004. The weather was overcast and dry. The total distance covered was
900 feet downstream from the site to Puget Sound.
Upstream Drainage Analysis:
The site is bordered by 171 ' Street SW to the south which intercepts any upstream runoff from the
south side of the property. To the north and east is the ravine which intercepts any upstream runoff
from the north and east. The site slopes from north to south which eliminates any runofffrom entering
the site from the west side of the property. Therefore, there is no upstream, offsite runoff entering
the site and the runoff is limited to the 2.10 acres itself.. (See Figure 4 "Downstream Drainage
Analysis Map')
On -site Drainage Considerations:
The site is 2.10 acres in size and contains a single family dwelling and landscaping. The top half or
west side of the site contains gentle slopes of approximately 6-percent, which run south to north-
west. Along the east and north sides of the site are steep slopes containing a ravine which drains
north-west. Along the west side of the property is a small wetland which straddles the west property
line. All runoff from the site drains north east into the steep ravine. This ravine is located with in the
City ofLynnwood City limits and based on the contour information there is little if any upstream area
draining onto the site.
Downstream Drainage Analysis:
Segment 1: Ravine; From on -site to two 12-inch culverts (0' to 400)
Drainage leaves the site along the north property line where it flows down the steep slopes into the
ravine containing a natural drainage channel This ravine is located just south of and follows Bertola
Drive and is located in the City of Lynnwood drainage basin. The runoff flows northwest where the
drainage from the stream channel is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter CMP culverts located just
west of the City of Lynnwood treatment plant.
The storm drainage on along this segment consisted of a natural drainage channel located in the
ravine. The slope of the channel was approximately 2 to 4-percent. There were no indications
of overtopping, or capacity problems. There were indications of scouring along this section
which is typical of stream channels with super critical flows.
Segment 2: Pipe Flow; From Ravine to outfall into Puget Sound. (400' to 900)
Drainage from the ravine is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter cmp pipes. These pipes intercept the
flow from the stream channel direct it through the ravine along the south side of the City of
Lynnwood Treatment Plant where it flows under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and
discharges into the Puget sound.
The storm drainage from the ravine to the sound consisted of two 12-inch diameter cmp storm
Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report
January 18, 2004 Page 3
pipes. There were no indications of problems at the time of the inspection including; overtopping,
capacity, erosion or scouring along this section. The pipes were clean and the creek channel was
at the same level as the invert of the pipes. A limited inspection of the outlets of the pipes
indicated no problems at the outfall.
This concludes the downstream description. A total distance 900 feet was covered to Puget Sound.
TASK 4: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Level 1 Analysis Conclusions:
The total distance covered was 900 feet from the site to the Puget Sound. The Level 1 Analysis
indicates that there is little in the way of drainage capacity problems. There were some indications
of scouring of the stream channel which is typical of streams with super critical flows. The proposed
sub -division is only 2.10 acres in size of which only 1.4 acres will be developed. The total drainage
basin, draining to this ravine is 344 acres in size, which makes the site less than 0.6 percent of the
total contributing drainage area.
The project proposes to mitigate the potential erosion to the steep slopes by tight -lining the un-
detained drainage down the steep slopes into the ravine. In addition, the drainage discharge point
is located within the City of Lynnwood's drainage basin, where a .previous agreement was reached
for direct discharge into the City's drainage basin without detention.
Water quality treatment will be provide through the use of a "Stormfilter" water quality vault which
will treat the runoff prior to discharge from the site. Therefore, the proposed development should
have little if any impact on downstream conditions.
Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report
January18, 2004 Page 4
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Site Location & Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Developed Site Plan.
Figure 3: Soils Map
Figure 4: USGS Downstream Drainage Analysis Map
Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report
January 18, 2004 Page 5
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION &
�rrrnviTV M A P
I e,,i ..:.. .. 1 1 1- -
70'
t� ' �• ! �,; aa,, ll/� /%I//:/'1 / /� "/r /i.-' I DRAINAGE
~%� LYNNWOOD
48-000 C .1/j ✓/✓/ ���/✓/ { ,1� ! I PIPE SYSTI
� �J�_ � / ••
ON SL
999
13,538 SF ' , �/�.� / \\ \ NOTE
\ - / / ' /� OPEN SPACE �:f ♦ / i� \ ' y \ CITY
ACRE
CITY
DW
La
a. NTH
w / h
l
/ I P( G. P. \E. 6,666 SF
�/
\! i - \ \ % 1
e''
L —J / 5,878 SF
Bo 69 I 1
000 12+ 73OPEN SPA
-�
PA KING
4,015 SF \
C8 /1
N
7 PUMP
LINES
4,868 SF j�
--,a5---- iA ry5012
to /
219
\ 97 LF Wo / % N /2 \ 1 \
\ SOR 35 PVC- 1t9o-� 0` %� — — 88'6�'� 1
x
\ 0 ,' , -- 68'--�Vo. fs Apt
r 2
5,376 SF
S$MH Zoo —.%ix
\t y :sa
/bed i 8.96 SF
\ \ 1 NEW
LOT 2
SEA —LAWN TERRACE DIV A �c _ I PP
005660-000-002-00 7rya�
. \ \'A 41 \; 1 FIGURE 2•
DEVELOPED SITE
a. f CONDITIONS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SNOHOMI
SOIL LEGEND
SYMBOL NAME
1
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
2
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
3
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
4
Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes
—� 5
Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
---il' 6
Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
7
Bellingham silty clay loam
B
Bellingham Variant mucky silty clay loam
9
Cathcart loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
10
Cathcart loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
11
Cathcart loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
12
Cryohemists, nearly level
13
Custer fine sandy loam
14
Elwell silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
15
Elwell-0lomount complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
16
Elwell-0lomount-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes
17
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
18
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
19
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
20
F.luvaquents, tidal
21
Getchell silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
22
Getchell-Oso complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
23
Getchell-Oso-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
24
Greenwater loamy sand .
25
Hartnit-Potchub-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
26
Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes
27
Kitsap silt loam 0 to 8 percent slopes
28
Kitsap silt loam; 8 to 25 percent slopes
29
Kitsep silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
30
Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
31
Lynnwood-Nargar complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
32
McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes.
33
Menzel silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
34
Mukilteo muck
35
Nargar fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
36
Nargar fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
37
Nargar-Lynnwood complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
38
Nargar Variant sandy loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
39
Norma loam
40
Norma Variant loam
41
Ogarty-Tokul-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
42
0lomount gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
43
0lomount-Elwell-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
44
Orcas peat
45
Oso gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
46
Oso-Getchell-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
47
Pastik silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
48
Pastik silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes
49
Pastik silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
50
Pilchuck loamy sand
51
Pits
52
Potchub silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
53
Potchub-Hartnit complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
54
Potchub-Hartnit-Rack outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
55
Puget silty clay loam
56
Puyallup fine sandy loam
57
Ragner fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
58
Ragner fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
59
Riverwash
60
Rober silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
61
Rober silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
62
Rober silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes
63
Skykomish gravelly loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes
64
Snohomish silt loam
65
Sulsavar gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
66
Sultan silt loam
67
Sultan Variant silt loam
68
Sumas silt loam
69
Terric Medisaprists, nearly level
70
Tokul silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
71
Tokul silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
72
Tokul gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
73
Tokul gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
74
Tokul gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
75
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes
76
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes
77
Tokul-Winston gravelly loamy, 25 to 65 percent slopes
78
Urban land
79
Verlot mucky silt loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes
80
Winston gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
81
Winston gravelly loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
82
Xerorthents, nearly level
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for:
The City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Anthony Roth
C.
o r
i
� c
0
oJ,� f�•d. Ar° ppU9 �ti
°Dad betI
Y 200' STREET FILE
AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
115 NORTH 49'" STREET • SEATTLE, WASHINMN 98103 206.784.4755
Table of
Table of Contents
Preface.................................................................................:................
1. Introduction...................................................................................... I
2.. Water Resources Evaluation............................:...............................3
2.1 Introduction............................................................................. 3
2.2 Wetlands ....................... .................3
.........................................
2.2.1 Methodology.......................:..........................................3
2.2.2 Investigation Results ........................ :............................. 6
2.3 Stream...................................................................................11
3. Bibliography ....................:.
List of Figures
1. Vicinity Map......................................................................................2
2. Site Map............................................................................................4
3. Emergent Wetland at west boundary, looking into the property
fromthe west...........................................................................8
4. Another view looking east into the property ....................................9
5. Looking northwest on the adjacent property ....................................9
List of Tables
1.. USFWS Plant Indicator Status..........................................................6
2. Wetland Functions and Values.........................................................7
Critical Areas Study i
Tatbat Park Estates
Preface
Preface
At the request of the City of Edmonds (City), this report has been
prepared as a third -party wetlands and creek evaluation of the subject
property, the proposed plat of Talbot Park Estates. In preparing this
report,' AC Roth Environmental Consultants (RES) has used site
information and survey mapping of RES wetland flag locations
provided by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, as referenced herein.
Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field
at the time of investigation by RES, RES's understanding of 1997
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
(Ecology 1997), and RES's understanding of federal, state and local
regulations governing wetland and stream areas. Prior to preliminary
and final design or any construction, all appropriate regulatory
agencies should be contacted to verify the findings of this report, and
to obtain appropriate approvals and permits.
The wetland boundary, wetland, and stream classification and
recommended buffers are RES's best professional opinion based on
the circumstances and site conditions at the time of its study. The
final wetland boundary determination, classification of wetlands and
streams, and the required buffers and setbacks are subject to change by
the appropriate federal, state, and local jurisdiction.
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Paris Estates
Introduction
1. Introduction
The subject property is an approximate 2 acre site located at 7701
171" Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, near the intersection of 171"
Street and Sea Lawn Drive. From discussion with the City, the
applicant proposes to develop the site for a single family residential
development.
The purpose of this report is to present a third -party analysis of site
water resources, consistent with the requirements of the City of
Edmonds Critical Areas (Edmonds Municipal Code [EMC] §20.15B).
A series of consultants have evaluated this and a property to the west.
A May 31, 2002 Wetland Evaluation was prepared by Terra Associates
for a property located at 17015 Talbot Road (Attachment A). This
property's easterly boundary forms the westerly segment of the subject
property's northwestern corner. Terra Associates found a wetland
which was indicated to extend easterly onto the subject property, but
the offsite wetland area was unsurveyed.
A June 3, 2002 Critical Area Reconnaissance Report (Attachment B)
was prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. evaluated the "potential
presence of jurisdictional wetlands" on the subject property. This
"forested and scrub -shrub wetland" was sketched as approximately
1800 square feet in area. It does not appear that a survey of this
evaluation was performed.
In February of 2003, Pentec Environmental prepared a report entitled
Third -Party Review of Critical Areas Study of the Talbot Park Estates
(Attachment C), on behalf of the City. In the absence of a prior formal
delineation of wetlands on the subject property, Pentec Environmental
conducted a "preliminary wetland delineation of the onsite portion of
the wetland". Using GPS survey methods to establish approximate
location of delineated wetland boundaries, the conclusion of this last
report was that the onsite and offsite portions of the wetland appear to
total 2,700 square feet, but that more careful delineation and complete
survey of the wetland boundary would need to be conducted.
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
i
Introduction
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
2
Introduction
2. Water Resources Evaluation
2.1 Introduction
On April 2, 2003, RES staff performed on -site investigations to determine
the presence, type and extent of water resources on the subject property.
The primary objectives of the site evaluations were: 1) the identification
of any streams and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps); and 2) the delineation of all water resources subject.
to land use review and regulation by EMC § 20.15B.
On -site water resources include approximately 1,374 SF of scrub -shrub
and emergent wetlands located in the northwest corner of the Taylor Park
site and extending to the west (Figure 3). The total size of the wetland is
approximately 4,485 SF. A stream enters the site at its southeast corner
and flows in a northerly direction near the east property boundary.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE has jurisdiction
over the waters of the United States, including streams, lakes, ponds and
wetlands. If no fill of water resources is anticipated, direct contact with
ACOE is not required and the City of Edmonds would be the lead
regulatory agency for site permitting.
2.2 Wetlands
2.2.1 Methodology
Prior to conducting field evaluation, a number of sources were consulted.
The National Wetland Inventory,(NWI) has evaluated wetlands
throughout the Stanwood area, using the system described in
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
(Cowardin 1979). The NWI mapping, as portrayed at
http://www.nwi.fws.gov/,,fails to identify any wetlands or streams on or in
the vicinity of the subject site.
Soils on the site have been mapped as the Alderwood-Everett gravelly
sandy loam and Alderwood-Urban land series by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Neither of these is listed as a hydric soil on
the Official Hydric Soils List for Snohomish County (SCS, 1994).
To perform the wetland delineation for the site, the 1997 Washington
State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997)
was used.
Critical Areas Study 3
Talbot Park Estates
Introduction
alY a: Lrmtw m \
09ALN t VKKO 072704-7-018-OM
r
awe MBExt
/ '(� +1 `i::.:. .:. •• >> } UP OF SIWAM BANK
CMM�RY Hm WAFER
�1 .,ka � G��iYi"ram• ..
LNO
n \
las, f ia� Up Q
a �• y ��
~ y! a tr4mommimmm a r •t
OEOIECHN" FRO�\ \--GIEOORY 0 SWAM
jaw
.40
onNIMM , °"o�a0000
i # \
•
_"mi FOP of sl w(aRaKNer NNiI MFR loq
J a
'—tAiEOORY R SD7EAF,
SYWJM BUFFER
Art* OWC&AW
`y
r- l"`��. /:::•:i: —1RFna1RBIDA710N OF
GEffgDSVJL
_.
is
SNANANAN iKomr ///� \`� '+,`J� '•:;•• KP,
CIO
/ 71
r w
Figure 2. Side Map
Critical Areas Study 4
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
The methodology in this manual recognizes that the three parameters of
hydrology and wetland plants are generally found in wetlands and that
these parameters are important in the establishment and maintenance of
wetland.communities. Within the methodology, indicators are evaluated in
the field to determine satisfaction of each of the three parameters for
establishment of wetland boundaries:
1. Hydrophytic Plants - The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed, 1988
and 1993) has established a rating system which has been applied to
commonly occurring plant species on the basis of their frequency of
occurrence in wetlands. Species indicator status expresses the range
that plants may occur in wetlands and non -wetlands (uplands). Within
the State and federal methodology, satisfaction of the hydrophytic
plant community criterion occurs when the plant community is
comprised of 50 percent or more of the dominant species which are
adapted to or tolerant of saturated soil conditions: an indicator status
of facultative (FAQ, facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate (OBL)
wetland (Table 1).
Modifiers are used with the indicator categories to more specifically
define the frequency of occurrence. A positive (+) sign indicates
plants are more frequently found in wetlands than the category
indicates, whereas a negative (-) sign indicates plants are less
frequently found in wetlands than the indicator signifies. A status of
FAC- does not meet the hydrophytic plant community criterion.
2. Hydrology - Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation, or (at least)
soil saturation to within 12 inches of the surface for one week or more
during the growing season (soil temperatures above 41 OF); indicators
other than standing water or soil saturation include stained leaves, soil
surficial cracking or water -borne litter.
3. Hydric soils - Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper soil horizons, or to the depth of 12 to 18 inches; indicators
include high organic content, low soil chroma (Munsell' matrix
chroma of 2 with mottles or less than 2 without mottles) or gleying.
1 Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status
Obligate Upland UPL Occur rarely in wetlands (less than 99 percent)
and almost always in uplands (greater than 99
percent)
.Facultative Upland FACU Occur rarely in.wetlands (less than 99 percent)
and almost always in uplands (greater than 99
percent)
Facultative FAC Equal likelihood in uplands and wetlands (33 to
67 percent) .
Facultative Wetland FACW Occur sometimes in wetlands (I to <33 percent),
but more likely in uplands (>67 to 99 percent)
Obligate Wetland OBL Occur rarely in uplands (less than 99 percent)
and almost always in wetlands (greater than 99
percent)
Not Listed NL Not listed in USFWS National List of Plant
Species that Occur. in Wetlands
For the analysis of this site, the presence of dominant hydrophytic
vegetation was used for the principal delineator of the boundary between
wetland and upland areas, supplemented on a case -by -case basis, with
organic content or soil color evaluation to verify presence of hydric soils
and.in the absence of a positive indicator of wetland hydrology, use of
professional judgement.
At several locations which supported uniform or homogeneous plant cover
within the delineated wetland areas, sample plots (Appendix A) were
established for recording of wetland characteristics and for an assessment
of wetland. functions, including those described in Table 2.
2.2.2 Investigation Results
RES conducted a site. visit in April2003, concurrent with surveyors
from Lovell:Sauerland and Associates, to determine the presence, type
and extent of critical areas (wetlands and streams) on the subject
property. Sample plots were established in areas of homogeneous
vegetation within the wetland areas evaluated. For each habitat type,
the dominant vegetation (in addition to the common and infrequently -
Critical Areas Study 6
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
Table 2
Wetland Functions and Values
Wetland P�nction
Y}effindion -
Highest Ua)ue
Lowes£Vatue
Hydrologic support
provision of water for biological productivity and
permanently saturated or inundated systems
groundwater recharge
temporarily inundated or saturated hydrologically
Isolated depressions
Streambase flow contribution potential
the wetland's potential and ability to contribute to stream
location in the upper segment of the basin and low
located in the lower basin and
and ability
base flow based on its location within the basin and its
recharge rate 2C either of the following: connected
either high recharge rate, without
surface water connection with a stream
wetland or with permanent outlet to stream and
permanent outlet or not connected
one of the following: permanently flooded, outflow
to a stream
greater than inflow or topography favoring
discharge
Shoreline stabilization
presence of wetland plants along the stream shoreline in a
Woody vegetation at least 200 yards in width
submergent vegetation less than
configuration which serves to dissipate periodic increased
100 yards wide
flow or current
Water quality improvement, Including
toxicant retention is related to soil type; sediment retention
organic soils = toxicant retention; areas of reduced
fast -flowing streambed composed
sediment and toxicant retention,
and nutrient uptake/conversion are related to presence of
water velocity containing vigorous plant growth =
of mineral soils, with minimal plant
nutrient uptake or conversion and
macrophytes In the subject waters for biofiltration; pollution
sediment retention and nutrient uptake/conversion;
growth and no pollutant Inputs
pollution reduction
reduction Is related to the opportunity for pollutant inflow to
point or non -point sources of pollution = pollutant
the wetland .
removal opportunity
Storm/floodwater management
based on the location and of the wetland within the basin
wetland with impermeable or slowly permeable
less than 5 acres
and the wetland's physical features
soils comprising <5 percent of the upslope
watershed. and either no permanent outlet or
constricted outlet with unconstricted inlet or
evidence of floodplain or expansive flooding within
one year; wetland of more than ten acres
Groundwater recharge
variables Include periodicity and rate of flow, wetland size
year-round, open water wetlands greater in size
small, topographic low areas which
and depth, surface topography and underlying soils and
than 10 acres with water depths greater than 10
are only seasonally inundated
geology
feet
Wildlife habitat and biological based on habitat characteristics and biological process high community diversity, valuable species support, absence of or limited manifestation
functions values, Including: habitat type, diversity, size and value can provide relatively equal proportions of. open of community diversity, valuable
within wetlands and adjacent uplands; food quality and water and vegetative cover and have refuge species support, relatively equal
diversity; biological community diversity and structure; plant potential proportions of open water and
productivity and support for and presence of game; vegetative cover and refuge
commercially important or unique species; and potential
opportunities for refuge and provision of surrounding
vegetation with potential to reduce visual and noise
disturbance
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
occurring species) was recorded for each vegetation layer and the soil
type/soil color and depth of soil saturation recorded (See representative
data sheets in Appendix A).
The on -site water resource is a 0.032 acre portion (Figures 3, 4, and 5) of a
larger (0.10 acre) scrub -shrub and emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated
wetland, as classified by Cowardin, et al. (1979). The wetland is found in
a shallow depression on the northeast corner of the subject property and
extends to the west, onto an adjacent property.
Figure 3. Emergent Wetland at west boundary, looking into the
property from the west. Note emergent zone and standing water.
The wetland on the site has no overstory and the shrub layer is principally
comprised of Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW), salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis, FAC+), and red alder (Alnus rubra, FAQ, with some
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) cover entering the wetland
area. Other than sparse creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW)
and occasional (Juncus effusus, FACW), the herb layer throughout the
majority of the fringing scrub -shrub zone is absent. The vegetation in the
more central emergent area, in which standing water was 1 to 2 inches
deep at the time of evaluation, was dominated by Pacific water parsley
Critical Areas Study g
Talbot Park Estates
_ S {` � 1 `I
k JI +, ���•grw'Ri �rt`3 �\ ��T �.ifiS \ � `�
Water Resources Evaluation
(Oenanthe sarmentosa, OBL). The predominance of the vegetation
supports the hydric vegetation criterion.
Surface soils range from very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt to silt
loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottles in the upper 12 to 18
inches at the wetland boundary, to black (IOYR 2/1) very organic loam in
the interior of the wetland. Similar to the findings of Pentec, distinct
change in soil color and change in topography separated wetlands from
uplands, with soil colors of dark yellowish brown 10YR 3/3 and 10YR
3/4. Soil colors support satisfaction of the hydric soils criterion.
Hydrologic support for the wetland are shallow subsurface flows. At the
time of April 2003 sampling, the soil saturation at the wetland boundary
was at a depth of 8 inches; standing water in the more central portions of
the wetland was between 2 and 3 inches. Satisfaction of the hydrology
criterion for these locations was based on soil saturation and presence of
standing water.
Therefore; all criteria are met for consideration of the delineated area as a
wetland, satisfying the conditions of EDC §20.15B.130B.
No wildlife associated with this resource, other than typical songbirds,
was noted at the time of site investigation.
Due to its small size and location in an urbanized area, the wetland area
on the site serves limited functions for hydrologic, water quality, and
wildlife support, including habitat. Limited hydrologic support functions
include stream baseflow contribution. In terms of water quality functions,
values are low for sediment/shoreline stabilization and low for
retention/transformation of sediments, nutrients, or toxicants. Natural
biological functions are similarly low in value, including primary
productivity, detrital transport, nutrient cycling/utdization, and food. chain
support. Habitat functions are low for all species but amphibians and
insects. Socioeconomic functions are limited to aesthetic, which are
judged to below, largely based on size and location of the wetland.
Since the wetland is greater than 2,500 square feet in area, it is regulated
by the City (EMC §20.15B.020.TT). The wetland is classified as a
Category 3 wetland (EMC §20.15B.060), since it is equal to or less than 1
acre and greater than 2,500 square feet and that has one wetland class.
Under EMC §20.15B.130C, 25 foot buffers are required.
Critical Areas Study 10
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
2.3 Stream
Critical Areas. Study
Talbot Park Estates
A stream locally referred to as Outfall Creek (Terra Associates 2002)
enters the site at its southeast corner and flows in a northerly direction
near the east property boundary. The approximate stream bank
boundaries and the centerline are found in Figure 2 and documents
submitted by LSA in May 2002. In agreement with Pentec's findings, the
stream should be classified as a Category 2 stream under EMC
20.15B.060. Due to barriers, this stream is not used by salmonids and
would therefore be buffered on either side by 25 foot buffers (EMC
20.15B.120).
In April 2003, RES measured the width of the stream at various locations
along its course, and is in agreement with Pentec's estimate that the
average width is 30 inches, yielding an average width west of centerline of
15 inches.
11
Bibliography
3. Bibliography
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9).
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.9).
Reed, P., Jr., et al. 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Dept. Interior Fish Wild]. Serv. December 1993
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of
Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. March 1997.
Critical Areas Study 12
Talbot Park Estates
ATTACHMENT A -
TERRA ASSOCIATES REPORT
May 31, 2002.
Project No. T-5149
Mr. Tom Sullivan
17041 Talbot Road
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Wetland Evaluation
Talbot Road Property
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have conducted an evaluation .of the Talbot Road Property located at 17.015 Talbot Road in Edmonds,
Washington (Figure 1). The property is located in the northeast* quarter of Section 7, Township 27 North, and
Range 4 East. The site is roughly rectangular and approximately 0.21 acres (Figure 2). Talbot Road borders the
site to the west. Properties to the north and south, as well as most of the neighborhood, are developed with single-
family residences. The property to the east is undeveloped and forested.
The subject property is. developed with a single-family residence. The house, driveway, and residential
landscaping are located on the northern half of the property. The southern half is undeveloped. The southern area
appears to be a tributary drainage that likely flows towards an unnamed creek to the east (this creek is unofficially
named "Outfall Creek" on the Snohomish County orthophotographs for this section). -
METHODS
For the purpose of Ihis study, we used the wetland definition adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)' and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for administering Section 404. of the 1977 Clean Water Act.
According to this definition, wetlands are:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps;
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (33 CFR 328.3(b); 1984)
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98W4
Phone (425) 821-7777 9 Fax (425) 821-4334 9 terra@terra-associates.com
•
Mr. Tom Sullivan.
! May 31, 2002
All of the test pits contained a gravelly sandy soil with a topsoil layer between five to eight inches deep. The
topsoil layer was highly organic in nature with a matrix: color of IOYR'2/1. Soils below the topsoil were mostly
lacking in organic material. Matrix colors ranged from 10YR 3/1 (Test Pit TP-1) to 7.5 YR 4/6 (Test. Pit TP-4).
Soils with a low chroma value (/1 or /2 if redoxymorphic features are :present) are generally considered to be
hydric. .
Redoxymorphic features (iron masses, nodules, reductions, or depletions) were present in Test Pits.TP-1, TP-2,
and TP 3, and absent in Test Pit TP4. Redoxymorphic features develop when soils _are saturated long enough
during the growing season for iron and manganese to biologically transform from an oxidized form to a reduced
form. Soils in Test Pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3 satisfied the hydric soils criteria.
Surface water was not present at the time of our site.visit. However, there was ample evidence of recent standing
water. Organic topsoil was exposed over part of subject site.. No evidence of leaf litter existed in the area of
exposed topsoil. We observed watermarks on a downed big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) tree and brightly
colored rust on the bottom two inches of the wire fence and fence posts that delineate the eastern border of the
subject property. We also observed free water in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3, but not in Test Pits TP-2 or TP4.
Primary and secondary evidence indicates the presence of wetland hydrology at Test. Pits TP-1 and TP-3.
VEGETATION
Vegetation on the subject property forms three distinct communities. The vegetation community on the northern
half of the property is urban landscape. The southern half of the property is mostly second -growth forest and
scrub -shrub. This forested portion is dominated by big -leaf maple, red alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa), suggesting an upland habitat. The third community in the southeast corner of the property
is -dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), Pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra), and red,alder; suggesting a'wetland habitat. Other common shrub species presentin the area include
Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), common hawthorn (Crataegus
monogyna), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), English holly (Ilex aguifolium);. and English laurel (Prunus
laurocerasus). Herb species included cleavers (Gallium appraise), lady fem (Athyrium filiz femina), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), 'creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), and herb
Robert (Geranium robertianum).
WETLAND DETERMINATION
An area of wetland conditions exists in the southeast corner of the subject .property (Figure 3). Wetland
conditions continue off -site to the east.. The approximate area of this wetland on the subject' property is 1,600
square feet., The determination of wetland conditions was based on patterns of vegetation,. soil conditions, and
field hydrology. The. size of this wetland was estimated by plotting distance and bearing measurements taken in
the field. Property boundaries were estimated based on in -field. measurements. The flagged wetland boundary
and property boundary should be professionally surveyed for accuracy.
Project No. T-5149
.Page No. 3
,,
i Jl
i ►
PL 17J�L
7 1s7 s
� 74TH
175
I TAVIIln:,:t
n S.
� I
' I n BI A q i
Ib n +Law 3
q = S.
18
1 RIVER R f
2 GRATSM
3 GRANITE
4 FIELDST
IF
i+ S
f+ 1lOIN
e R.q
181_ STD
182ND
MUD.;
o I <1 S7J' - - . u _y - -
m _ .2 ICIPAL k CEKfER `0= SW a o 3 = _ < N
201ST ST SW `•r tST2n
DR
SM
> 202ND S�aq Y *CA"MU=lp+ n 3 '3 PAINI
RK .
< 202ND :r -� I ::fCRIST
BER
> , 202
PL SW �K
4' 203RD ST SN 1f �- . o - PARTi
a .
q c = d '`` {r'• o ASH :f aQ'
19 = _xocsE �20 3 203Ro a 20
204TH ST S SN _ < .PL
o > !
TH + ^ MID COLLEGE PUCE. .= i �.• . > I ► e. a 2 s : - DRIVING BARGE - Qp' �. 207TH. D1 cu ST Sw 3 '
Ref: The Thomas Guide, King County, 2001 Edition, Page 455.
Terra VICINITY MAP
TALBOT ROAD PROPERTY.
Associates, .Inc..
EDMONDS,_WASHINGTON
Geotechnical and Proj. No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 Figure 1
Environmental Consultants
Wetland off -site not
'�'_Approximate Location Dataint
. surveyed2 .
of Property Line -- --_-
�-
Wetland Area -
1,600 square feet_
on property.
- Datapoint 4
Approximate Location •
of Property Line
Wetland. Area
DISCLAIMER:
Wetland boundary mapped by distance and bearing measurements taken
in -field. Property boundary is estimated based upon on -site measurements.
Site needs to be professionally surveyed for accuracy. .
X.
NOT TO SCALE
OTerra WET ALSO OCATION ROAPROPERTY SKETCH
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
.otechnicalend
GEnvironmronmental Consultants 9 ProI.No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 Figure 3
FIELD DATA SHEET
WETLANDS DELINEATION
Field Investigators: David R. Teesdale Date: May 24, 2002
Site ID: , Talbot Road Property State: WA County:, Snohomish
Applicant/Owner: Sample Plot ID: # 4
Normal environmental conditions at plant Community? Normal conditions exist:
Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed? No.
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Scientific Name Common Name
Stratum
Indicator
%.Cover
*Alnus rubra Red alder
T
FAC
20%'
*Ater macrophyllum Bit leaf maple
T
FACU
10% .
*Crataegus monogyna Common hawthorn
S
FAC-
15%
Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry
S
FACU
2%
Prunus laurocerasus English laurel
S
NI
2%
Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry
S,
FAC
2%
flex aquifolium English holly
S
FACU
2%
Polystichum munitum Sword fern
H
FACU
5%
*Galium aparine Cleavers
H
FACU
15%
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: T-50%, S-0%,H-0%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? NO
SOILS
SERIES/PHASE: Alderwood-Urban Complex
[s the soil on hydric soils list? ❑
Is the.soil a Histosol?
❑
Histic epipedon present? ❑
Mottled? (Redox). ❑
Gleyed? ❑ .
Depth
Matrix
Color •
Soil Texture
Redox
Color
Redox Features :
Redox Size and
Abundance
Pore
Linin s.
0-5"
1OYR 2/1
Sand loam
5"-10"
7.5YR 4/6
(Sandy gravellyloam
EY
's hydric soil criterion met? NO
HYDROLOGY
:s ground surface inundated? ❑ Surface. Water depth:
s the soil saturated? ❑ Depth, to free-standing water in soil probe hole: >20-inches
Ast other field evidence of surface inundation br soil saturation: None.
s wetland hydrology criterion met? NO
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
s the plant community a wetland? NO-
:OMMENTS:
4o evidence of wetland vegetation, soils, or field hydrology.
FIELD DATA SHEET
WETLANDS DELINEATION
Field Investigators:
David R. Teesdale Date: May 24, 2002
Site ID:
Talbot Road Property State: WA County:
Snohomish
Applicant/Owner:
Sample Plot ID: # 2
Normal environmental
conditions at plant Community.? Normal conditions exist
Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed?,No
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Scientific Name
Common Name Stratum Indicator
%Cover
*Crataegus monogyna
Common hawthorn S FAC-
50%
*Prunus laurocerasus
English laurel S NI
10%
*Oemleria cerasiformis
Indian plum S FACU
LO%
Ilex aquafolium
English holly S FACU
2%
Rubus discolor
Himalayan blackberry S FACU
2%
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or- FAC: T-0%, S-0%, H-O% -
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? NO
SERIES/PHASE: Alderwood-Urban Complex
Is the soil on hydric soils list? ❑.
Histic epipedon present?. ❑
SOILS
Is the soil a Histosol? ❑
Mottled? (Redox) ® Gleyed?• ❑
Depth,
Matrix
Color
Soil Texture
1 Redox
Color
Redox Features
Redox Size and
Abundance
Pore
Linings
0-3"
10YR 3/2
Sandy gravellyloam
Y-17"
IOYR N4
Sandy gravelly_!Slam
10YR 4/5
Iron masses
few fine
Is hydric soil criterion met? NO
. HYDROLOGY -
Is ground surface inundated? El Surface Water depth:
Is the soil saturated? ❑ Depth to free-standing water in soil probe hole:
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:. No other signs of field wetland hydrology.
is wetland hydrology criterion met? NO
,JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Is the plant community a wetland? NO
COMMENTS:
Soils at datapoint were very dry and sandy. No evidence of wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrology.
ATTACHMENT R
WETLAND RESOURCES REPORT
,�
WetlalfdRe.gowreo 11foo0 4 2002---_- -_-_-- ------
Delineation /Mitigation / Restoration Habitat Creation Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E.
Suite 106
June 3, 2002 Everett, Washington 98208
(425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 337-3045
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. R E e-I ,:
Attn: Mike Smith
19400 - 33rd Ave. W., Suite 200'? Q°y
Lynnwood, WA 98036 P
CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
TALBOT PARK ESTATES
CITY OF EDMONDS - SNOHOMISH COUNTY,' WA
Welland Resources, Inc., completed a site investigation on June 3, 2002 to evaluate the
potential presence of jurisdictional wetlands on an approximate 2 acre site located
immediately north of the intersection of Sea Lawn Drive and 17 V St. SW in the city of
Edmonds, WA. The site lies as a portion of Sec. 7, Twp. 27N, Rae. 4E, W.M. The
Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual (March 1997) was used to evaluate site conditions. Critical area protection
regulations were obtained using the City of Edmonds Ordinance Chapter 20.1513 Critical
Areas.
Site Description
The subject property is bounded to the south by 171" St. SW, to the west and north by
single family residences and on the'east by a forested slope. The south one -quarter of the
property contains an existing single family residence with associated out buildings. The
central portion of the property is a mix of grassland and forest. The north end of the
property is forested with immature red alder. The topography of the site is sloping to the
north and east.
Wetlands
One small forested and scrub/shrub wetland was located along the western property
boundary. The on -site portion of the wetland is approximately 500 square feet in size.
The off -site portion of the wetland is approximately 1,200 square feet in size. The total
area of the entire wetland is approximately 1,700 square feet. Wetlands less than 2,500
square feet in size are not regulated in the city of Edmonds (EMC 20.15B.020 TT).
Wetland boundaries were reasonably distinct based on soil color and dominance of
wetland vegetation. The off -site portion of the wetland was estimated by observation
done while looking over the existing property fence. The off -site portion of the wetland
boundary appears to have been flagged in the recent past. Dominant wetland vegetation
contained in this wetland includes twinberry, creeping buttercup, and salmonberry.
Wetland Resources, Inc. Talbot Park Estates
June 3, 2002 EMU,' � G WR102118
FILE NO.
160� 165� 1
/0� . n �y \9y�.•j /'
H1tlON�s'/ /
9-_—_ �� �\\ .\ /
-160
CA
o<A M310 838001 9
CREEK � \a" � � Q / / / ,g_ - -_ •e3 � \
0y � u 17YH I
d
oe
00
A
J <
IN I •' N ?• \O ter/,'/ //
f
C'..
\ _ / A\
T 1 , r
4-
-XIx x x 39N3! 3NtM
\ ON! 'HO ,9 3ON3! 3 �� ,96'09� HINON
\ st 71
1
A
Q 12
1a- vi 3 H
ICE
1r
/
CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE MAP \/
For: PLAT MAP
Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, Inc. FOR
Site Location: 171"' St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98294 TALBOT PARK ESTATES
IN SE1/4,NE1/4 OF SECTION 7,T.27 N.,R.4 E.,W.
CITY OF DS
By: SNOHOMIISH COUNTY,OWASHINGTON
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9505 — 19"' Ave. NE # 106 Lovell-Sauerland t Anoelatea, Ine.
Everett, WA 98208 WRI #021 18 LEFT a�•.•�e-.. 1
425-337-3174 June 3, 2002 710:� ""' """""' warw4 -
s
wu a-s-o: II I. :94-0'
ATTACHMENT C
PENTEC REPORT
MrN
PENTECOMRONMENTA. L
Delivering smarter solutions
February 28, 2003
Mr. Steve Bullock
Senior Planner
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
V.
Anchorage
Boston
Re: Third -Party Review of Critical Areas Study of the Talbot Park Estates
Pentec #12130-15 Chicago
Dear Steve:
At the request of the City of Edmonds, Pentec conducted a third -party review of the Critical
Denver
Areas Study of the proposed Talbot Park Estates.at 7707 - 17151 Street SW, Edmonds,
Washington. This review includes a review of wetland boundaries and the measurement of
the width of the stream along the east property boundary..) reviewed the Critical Area
Reconnaissance report (CAR) prepared for the property by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated
June 3, 2002, and a wetland report for the adjacent property to the west. I also reviewed a Fairbanks
Wetland Evaluation (WE) report dated May 31, 2002, prepared for the adjacent property to
the northwest by Terra Associates, Inc. also In addition, I conducted a site inspection on
January 29, 2003.
WETLAND
Jersey City
The 2-acre site contains a portion of a small wetland toward the northwest corner. The
wetland is bisected by the site's west property boundary. Although there are a few small
trees in the wetland it classifies as a palustrine scrub -shrub wetland following the U.S. Fish
Juneau
and Wildlife Services' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States (Cowardin et al 1979).. Dominant plants in the wetland include salmonberry (Rubus
spectabi/is), Sitka willow (Sa/ixsitchenis), red alder (Alms rubra), ladyfern (Athyrium
Alix-femina), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). See attached photos of wetland.
Long Beach
WETLAND BOUNDARY
On the day of the site inspection only a single piece of pink "wetland delineation" flagging
was located. The flagging was toward.the center of the wetland and did not have anything
written on it. Two pieces of orange flagging (also without writing) were located on the west Portland
property fence. These two flags .were close to the wetland edge, and it is assumed that they
were tied by Wetland Resources during the site reconnaissance. A large maple tree had
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc. Sea tile
110 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, Washington 98010-8411
Fax 425.778.9417
Tel 425.775.4682
_� a.
A
City of Edmonds 12130-15
February 28, 2003 Page 3
: Based on -the 2,700-sf estimate, this wetland is larger than the 2,500-sf threshold in Section
20.4513.20 of the Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and would be a regulated
feature. Based on Section 20.15B.060 of the CAO the wetland is classified as a Category 3
wetland because it is less than 1 acre and has only one vegetation class.
STREAM
A stream runs through the northeast corner of the site and near the east property boundary.
The centerline of the stream is shown on the CAR map and the Preliminary Plat drawing
(Lovell-Sauerland & Associates 4294-0-01 May 29, 2002). Based on Pentec's site visit it is
i
assumed the stream is perennial and would therefore be classified as a.Category 2 stream
by the CAO (20.15B.060).. A 25-foot buffer is required on both sides of Category 2 streams
without salmonids and a 50-foot buffer is required on both sides of a Category 2 stream
with salmonids. The CAO (20.1 5B.1 20) specifies stream buffers to be measured outward
from the top of bank.
Pentec measured the width of the stream (between stream banks) at five locations along the
stream. These measurements were made to provide the City with a means of evaluating the .
stream setback requirements relative to the stream centerline shown on the Preliminary Plat
drawing. On the reach of the stream east of the site the width between the banks is on
average 30 inches. Based on this estimate the west bank of the stream is on average 15
inches from the stream centerline.
We hope this report meets your needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to
call me.
Sincerely,
PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL
MICHAEL MUSCARI
Wetland Ecologist
michael.muscari@pentecenv.com
Attachments:
Wetland Boundary Sketch
Photographs of Wetland
00130/01 Wbotparlveview.doc
APPENDIX A
DATA SHEETS
rV-->vVC i L imiij VGLIIVCM i rVrV t✓/'1 i /1 rvnrvr rwt nvu.
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Transact ID
Weather: Cowardin
Project/Site:
Field Invesfi for Size(ac): <0. 1 1-2 2-5 >5
�- Normal Conds Y'
Disturbance?.
-- - .Cover Class
1- 0.54 2.S 2.5. 25415 3e 25.50437.5 4. 50. 75462.5 5=. 75.95485 6- >954 97.5
W/L
Dominant Plant Spp
Cvr
Cla:
Indiaor
,.,; $.IatGa .
Stratum
WA. UP
Dominant Plant Speclea
Cvr
Cis
Indicator
Statue
Stratum
�
y110
LJ rag n, Known u mr. P.m aa, Li pnym„ry, soap,, u n,u,p, way, u ,..:.. , u "" y.o............
%OSL• FACW or FAC I '+' herb + _ shrub + ' tree - _ total Hydrophyllo Vag Y. N
Ratbnalle: 'O>50% O<50%IOBL. FACW or FAC (no FAC-)l O other
HYDROLOO
Inund7 Y ud H2O depth: ' SeIA12' (W In sandy soits)7N."Oeptthh'of free H2O In Poole:
0" t• I ton: O water marks O drlh 8rnss O sediment deposit a y/L drainage patterns
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation
Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root charmelsAl2' O water-alalned leaves O local soil survey data
OFAC-Neutral Test On vague hydrol) O other
Recorded Data: O ' em, lake or tide gauge O aerial photo . O other O none
Growing Seeson7 aced on: av ate O obrowlh O soil 1 mp O t9.T >41•F O
Wetland hydrology Ratbnaie:
o^ K
-.SOILS19, to at least 16•
Serlea/Phass: Taxonomy Drainage Class Confirm Mapg Y N
Depth Matrix Color' Mottle?/Color GIev7
Y N Y N
Y N Y N
Y N Y N
*below A Mrton or 10' Ovhichww shallower)
..0 Fydrlc Soil indicators: IIA,HbMsof PHIslic eplpedon O SuVkk Odor VAquic Moisture Regime
) 1P'Reducing cordillons 0G1sy&&1owChrcmm O High Surface Organic Content In Sandy Soils
/ O Concretions O Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Hydro Soils List: OLOoaI ONg al
Other hydro soil indicators: Hydrlc 90871, VN
Rationsie:
//)) )) R NAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Wetland?6national ill pars veg no soils no hydrol Semple point within wetland? Y N
Other Infomnation/Rerntdts.
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES '
� -4
HYDRO
LOt31C SUPPORT
Groundwater recharge (H M L
• Groundwater discharge (H
Stream basellow contributi1;/Al
M N/Al
Floodwater attenuation (H N/A)
Floodwater detention (H M/Al
• Floodwater retention (H M
lumoen
• Floodwater desynchronization (H M
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS
..Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L
Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants L' A�_
Transformation of nutrients or toil R (H Mt/
Wastewater treatment (H M L WAV_
NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FU TI S.
- Primary productivity (H M Al
Organic accumulation ( Al
Organic export (H M L
Decomposition (H M(D N/Al
Detrital transport (H M i<' Qwk-
Nutdrit.cycling and utilizatio (Fi. Al
Food chain support (H M'Cl/A)
HABITAT FUNCTIONS
Invertebrates (HA,NIAI
)
Amphibians .(H Fisheries (H M Mammals (H
Birds (H O� A
• Sanctuary and refuge (H M(L A)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FC!NCTIO IS
Non-consumptivo valu
Recreational (H . L / 1
Aesthetic (H M
Historical (H M L /
Archeological (H M L
Consumptive val
Fished s.(H M L N/
Renewable resources.HH M L f
Agricultural (H M L AD '
Wildlife
Data Plot Location Sketch
'L SWETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No. 7
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Transact ID
Weather: S ten..r Cowar in
Project/Site: Date: 4 - o
Field Investigato Size(ac): <0 <1 1.2 2-5 >5.
Normal .Conds?
! Disturbance?
Problem Area?,
Cover Class
1. 0.5-► 2.5 2.5.25415 3- 25.50437.5 4- 50.75462.5 5- 75.95465 8- >95-W'97.5
11 WA.Cvr'
IDeminanl Plant Spp
Cis
indicator
Status
Stratum
W/L UP
Dominant Plant Species
Cvr
CIS
Indicator
Status '
Stratum
Ei rac'n'I know) O W/L pint
list
O ohWfew
adapt
O morph adapt O tech lit
O
WIL plant data
kese
%OBL• FACW or FAC harp * Mrub _tree - __ 10181 Nyaropilrit V" T M
Retlona5e: 0>50% 0<50%(OBL, FACW or FAC (no FAC-)) O other �/
HYDRO.L00
Inund? Y N Surf H2O depth: • SetAl2- (8' In sandy soup) Depth of free H2O k1 pltlhole: �'
Other 11 Indicators: O water marks O drift ones. O sedim a 11 IL drainage pettems
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation
Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root charnelsAl2' O water-stalned leaves O local soil survey data .
OFAC•Neutral Test on vague hydrol) O other
Recorded Data: am, lake or tide gauge .O aerial photo O other O none
Grown Season seed on: O date O ob,v rowM 3 soil 1 mp O 19.r >i1'F O
Wet d hydrolo l Ratlonale:
OILS to of least 18'
Series/Phase: Taxonomy Drainage Claps Confirm Mapg Y N
_ Matrix Color- Monie7/Colrn BIav7if
N Y N S/ . ..
0q Q-�j 10 Vl >Z I Y N 5 r
Y N Y.N
YN YN
'below A horizon o► IV ionever shallower)
Soo Indicators: O Histosol istlo eplpedon O Sugldic Odoi� Aqub Moisture Regime
CM'jyRRe�ducing condhlons �0�ow Chtoma O High Surface Ofgenic Content In Sandy Soils
O Conoretlons O Orgarxo Streaking In Sandy Soils Hydric Soils Llst: 'bLocel OlkialLeal
Other hydrlc soil Intl ators: Hydrfc Bo117C1 1
Rational*:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Wet!andN Ratlona0:. V psr0r� no veg no sous no hydro) Sample point within wetland? Y N
.� aOther inn slion/iimarks:
i
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
! HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT �p
• Groundwater recharge (H M L N/Al
-Groundwater discharge (H M L WA
S!: a :"_..124.Q Rflow contribution (H M L N/Al
• Floodwater Gtt6n.;L.1 )1H M L N/A)
Floodwater detention. (H, M L N/A)
Floodwater retention (H M 1. N/Al
Floodwater attenuation (H M L N/A)
Floodwater desynchronizadon (H M L N/Al
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS
Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L N/Al
Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants (H. M L N/AL_
Transformation of nutrients or toxicants (H M L N/A)
Wastewater treatment (H M L N/Al '
NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
Primary productivity (H M L WA)
• Organic accumulation (H M L N/A)
-Organic export (H M L N/A)
Decomposition (H M L .N/Al
Detrital transport (H M L .N/A) _
Nutrient cycling and utilization (H M L N/Al
Food chain support (H M L N/A)
HABITAT FUNCTIONS
Invertebrates (H M L N/A)
Amphibians (H M L N/Al
Fisheries (H M L WA)
Mammals (H M L N/Al
• Birds (H, M L N/Al
• Sanctuary and refuge (H M L N/A)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS
Non -consumptive value
Recreational (H M L N/A)
Aesthetic (H M L N/A)
Historical (H M L N/Al
Archeological (H M L NIA)
• Consumptive value
Fisheries (H M L N/Al
Renewable resources (H M L N/A)
Agricultural (H M L N/A)
Wildlife
Data Plot Location Sketch
After Recording Return To:
HILLCREST CONSTRUCTION
4003 NASSAU PL
EVERETT WA 98201
DECLARATION OF PRIVATE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
For and in consideration of the mutual benefits derived herein and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the following party
Hillcrest Construction Company, INC., being the owner of lots 5, 6 and Tract 997,
Charlotte Gardens, according to the plat recorded under Snohomish County Auditor's file
number 200510145249, hereby conveys and quit claims to the current and future owners,
successors and or assigns of said lot 5, of the above described property, a non-exclusive
easement for private drainage facilities, including the right of reasonable ingress and
egress to maintain and repair said drainage facilities over under and across the following
described land of said parties herein:
The northeasterly 25 feet of lot 6 and Tract 997, running parallel with the
southwest boundary of Tract 999, and lying southeasterly of the catch basin as currently
located and depicted within Tract 997, Charlotte Gardens, according to the plat thereof
recorded under Snohomish County Auditor's file number 200510145249, records of
Snohomish County Washington.
Tax Parcel: 010372-000-005-00; 010372-000-006-00; 010372-000-996-00
This easement is appurtenant to the following described land owned by said parties
herein and the easement and covenants contained herein shall run with and burden the
property described herein. Said parties herein their successors and or assigns shall have
the right to maintain and repair said drainage pipe line, provided however that the parties
and their successors shall use reasonable care to restore the surface of the land and to
replace the landscaping, plantings, lawn, personal property, and any other improvements,
to original or better condition.
The doctrine of merger shall not apply with regard to the extinguishing of said easement
herein.
In W'tness Whereof, this easement is executed this 7 day of A�5-2006.
Hillcrest Construction Company, Inc.
9
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF .5d b4 ;r,..,, - `5 4
On this z- day of �y,,P/-- 2006, before me the undersigned, a notary public
In and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
Personally appeared-0 6X' the 2✓-15;J--
Of Hillcrest Construction Company, Inc., to me proved with satisfactory evidence to be
The of Hillcrest Construction Company, Inc., who executed the within
instrument
Acknowledged that k e signed and sealed the same as their free and voluntary act and
Deed, for the uses and purposes n mentioned,
$ A• � gill .
( _ .�`A 1,
Printed name of notary _ �cti,-�cel P _ �P �\s$1ON 44Aa,,F
y My appointment expires: % —2 y - • N�\
-
q
Residingat: ��•����'B
2704D7-00>-02>-00
12
11
--001-049-00
1.2'W_
INLINK FENCE
CITY OFnr4ED 1�5�' WASH1Nt�`TON
F12D. 1 /2' REBAR do CAP ,' -
Up
D RM17672 25.32'E X32'N OF' NW PROP. COR..21-05 2119T SEED
N90'00'00'W 211.9Y 4P►LC
-----
61.00' 4' HOGWfRE =. A50.9T::, ,
ti
c N FENCE - En �'� END: 4•1 HOdWRE '
FENCE _81.3'E.'X .16%
ci+ o OF NW;PROP CORNER_ —
TRACT 997 10'.a STORM DRAIN EAS_I�EN7
8,006 S.F. -- Ngf,�3g'37"E g114.29'
OPEN SPACE
04
i 9 I o�'- . ;�,, ,::'• ZO S.F.
1.1E z, ` pscPA
No—
�� Ig ` 5.320 S.F �o
o cr) WETLAND aa°' •� . ^ p
ci
z 2.5'E ,iv •� OHO
14
►_
.5 E 7,1/53 N06'49
1'Q
�o0 5 i : - STREAM
_ 98 00'TOTAEL.i .
.O
964 S�:
.E ` I ito
r .o
3XE 7 81.00 17.00
4' HOGWIRE FENCE 6.68' _ o ui Id
• gj l fW. " o
9.34 'W
'QWOOI
m _
�� a 62.14 N
p0 8 x
1b 7 N9B400�� N o..
cl
z
OJ 13r 6.7'E : z 90 0' o -
'� 1.5E
' $N i Z
5 n 70, yry ; ro• 4.553' S.F: ) ew
�o
3' CHAINUNK of
FENCE
4
.40E •��` N90'00.'00'E---90.19' 2
2
- - - - ----------
Inc. 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5THAVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS• WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
November 9, 2005
MEMO TO:
Puget Sound Energy
Verizon Northwest
SNOCOM Police and Fire Dispatch
SNOPAC
Snohomish County E911
U.S. Post Office
Snohomish County Assessor's Office
Snohomish County Information Services
Snohomish County P.U.D.
Edmonds Fire Department
Edmonds Police Department
Edmonds Utility Billing
Edmonds Public Works
Edmonds Building/Street File
Edmonds Address Files
Lynnwood Disposal
Comcast Cable
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Please be advised that the following addresses have been added to the Edmonds
address system:
Occupancy: Residential
Subdivision: PO4-09
Lot 1 is 7621171s1 Street SW
Lot 2 is 17009 771h Place W
Lot 3 is 17007 771h Place W
Lot 4 is i7005 771h Place W
Lot 5 is 17003 771h Place W
Lot 6 is 17001 771h Place W
Lot 7 is 17008 771h Place W
Tax ID Number: 27040700100400
Lot #: 1 through 7
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or
Harrison@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Please contact me if you wish to be removed from this list.
Respectfully,
r�
urie �arrison
Senior Permit Coordinator
Edmonds Building Department
i 1 N' oa'b' b'' 1211 !
•' L1 •�:._, ��; _:-�!,;>'a.{: .�,��� � ��.1 L j ,I� i I f �I ,I. I 1 �'f !
6' CHAINLINK I _
W. & 2.3, S.
?OP. CORNER
)01 —048-00 f `s
1 �
MINK & 3 HOG 8, 005 SF \ \ \
;E INTERSECIION, OPEN SPACE ` \ 9 9
70 �,
OF PROP. LINE
}
56'
y y�� 998 1(
A-1.54 SF`:'
ON-SrE 1.374OD
41 to
rn 8'
r6 ee ,
—+
o
2.53PAR_
Q� 3' HOG &LI
Z lfpr
KIN
/,3' CHAINLINK • :: ; , : r. Fri r;
FENCE. 2.3' E. .i 64'
OF PROP. LINE
CHAINLINK `
FENCE 0.7' E. ; '`� "� .5 78 ► \ I /
'
K 0 3' CHAINLINK .) ,' 0'` - - - - 63' - -
`yroJ FENCE 0.4' YV ''� - ''
SFR
V.
/9,552 S`.
! \ -.... � - l` � 1 •--�✓,/. / �. _ ..tom \ i ` \ ,\ .
•
•
u
PLANNER/PROJECT CONTACT'
LAND RESOLUTIONS
3605 COLBY AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201
(425) 258-4438 FAX (425) 258-1616
CONTACT PERSON. RY MCOUFFY
E-MAIL LANDUSEO NWLINK.COM
SURVEYOR
ORCA SURVEWNG AND PLANNING
J605 COLBY AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201
(425) 259-3400 FAX (425) 258-1616
CONTACT PERSON: KERRY GONZALES
-EN
DECCIO ENGINEERING
17217 71H AVENUE WEST
BOTHELL. WASHINGTON 98012
(206) 390-8374 FAX (425) 741-8214
CONTACT PERSON: RICHARD DECCIO
* (,Fn77:7Pl4AlIPAI *
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
17311 135TH AVENUE NE, A-500
WOOOINWLLE, WASHINGTON, 98072
(425) 48671669
CONTACT PERSON. KHALED SHAWISH
APPLICANT/OWNER
GARY TRUNKHILL/TONY STEIN
7707 171ST STREET S.W.
EDMONDS. WA. 98026
(206) 396-9451
PARTIES OF INTEREST
AMERICA S WHOLESALE LENDER
4500 PARK GRANADA
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
115 NORTH 49TH STREET
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98103
(206) 784-4755
CONTACT PERSON: ANTHONY ROTH
TITLE COMPANY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY
3224 WETMORE AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON, 98201
(425) 258-6450
CONTACT PERSON: SUSAN MACDONALD
LOVELL-SAUERLAND AND ASSOCIATES
19400 33RD AVENUE W. SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036
(425) 775-1591
CONTACT PERSON: ROBERT LONG
• GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS, WETLAND REPORTS,. TRAFFIC STUDIES AND
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THIS PROJECT WERE USED FROM CITY
OF EDMONDS FILE (P-2002-11 AND PRD-2002-12). -
DETENTION/DRAINAGE BASIN NOTE•
CITY OF LYNNWOOD DRAINAGE BASIN. AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED W/TN
THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE TO THE CITY OF LYNNW00D'S
SYSTEM WITHOUT A DETENTION FACILITY WITHIN THE PRD PROJECT.
CHARLOTTE GAR[
270407-001-021-00
270407-001-04B-00
1.
6' CHAINLINK FENCE
10
1
1
I � �
r
1 WJW —
I C)UC3
1 o'a; co,
\ Qo ao a,
cs
1
t
r
001-047-00 ,NNI
\ _
1
1
1
r
1 .
1
1 _
r
4' HOGWIRE FENCE -
i 0�
r 9�
1 0' - \
ko
tit `J -
AV
i p_Z1 13 -
3' CHAINLINK
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVE
SE1/4, NE1/4, SEC. 7, TWP. ,27 N., Fi
P-2004-9 & PRD 2004-10
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGI
t
FND. 1 /2" REBAR & CAP
i LS# RM 17672 25.326E X 270407-001-018--00
0.32'N OF NW PROP. COR.
2-21-05 211.97' DEED
N90 00'00"W 211.97' CALC
' 4' HOGWIRE' .
FENCE N
TRACT 997 r —\
8,006 S.F. I
OPEN SPACEI r
V64s 44S• I of ►o
gcp iy I rhl cam;
I oIM
1.16E c�3'� I ZI
(I o
1 04-
150.97' '
-E. END 4' HOGWIRE
FENCE 81.3'E X 2.6'S
OF NW PROP. CORNER
10' STORM .DRAIN EASEMENT
- - N86'38'37"E 114.29'
o TRACT 999 �.
116e'i ass• 2NG0 S.F.
19000'00"E sly
r____56.24'
to
. \ 8�s•
Z
--1.4'E \ I o li
�.
�`�
n 5,3200
S.F. &A,
.o WETLAND 11
> s
2.5'E
WA
2.5E 7.153 o
.F. ,.� No N06'49'49"W =� "
2 M Ib 19.12' i i
3.16E .w to
N90 0 '00"E h`�, z
98.00' (TOTAL�'h�o
i r r 5
i 6,964 S.F. r
; r
.O'E --�
39.00'�_ ��' 31.00. 28.00'
3.16E 81.00' 17.00'
o i
V
6.68' O
c r
N ---
N90'00 00 r r
3.06E �t M
b t7
-----79.34'_�
of N9000'00_E�
10' UE r
� 62.14'
b i
I tW
1 _1.8'E o
O
4,19 S.F.
N9000'000E
O
ASPHALT__
I
6.76E o
N90'00'00"W
1.56E , . M
--78.02 _
--- ,1
4.887 S.F. AAlb
e� �o
1.svo
. II
�, 0 3
�r0Wo• �p N
S.F.
G V v v�Ap
CN
k
c
I
City of Edmonds PermitzN°'`°°. 111
RIGHT—OF—WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT -Issue-Date:_r 0
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 100 11-Pt A_'1- L'J
B. Type of Wdrk (be specific): UT((,(T N W
RTRFF
A A
G: Confr ctor: t ('� A6.1 l%A � (� Contact: 6N Kv 643, M1T1�.� '
Mailing Address: F D- 944 3' 2'4 1y V t3 Phone: T 2 6- - ;1 70 ` 117
X ~
State License #: I L L C CC —f 7,,? L Liability Insurance: Bond: $
City Business License #: Q ( JY
D. BuildirigTPerinit # (inapplicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. ❑ Commercial Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD)
❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other
INSPECTOR: xl 1 k1 k G
F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES � G. SIZE OF CUT X
CONCRETE CUT: [IYES R NO
G. ❑ Mail Approved Permit ❑ Call for Pickup
INDEMNITY. • Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from
injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of
Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs. and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit.
THE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS
COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT.
♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required.by the City Engineer. Every
flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession:
♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end'of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS.
♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
I HAVE READ E ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT I MUST AKE THE PI K COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS
;�;. _ _ 2 2 /
St nattrrer � . rL1.r-- :� ':-Date: Jfo
..g .
2-
.(Contractor or Agent)"1 .
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Approved by: Right-of-way Fee
Time Authorized: Void After Disruption, Fee/.Fund.41I:
Special Conditions: !a- l tal ty Inspection Fee: (ram
/S*us t,.�,v��x: .w ...: :.` - Total Fee:. � �•7S, _ ..
Receipt No
Issued `by
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS:
Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line.
r
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: S/1 k Family ►-irlah4- DATE: 3/'S 0-1
Inspector's Signature
NO .SHALL BEGINPRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
C:\Documents and SettingsTuilisNy Documents\Fomts\Engnrng\ROWpermit_ doc Revised 10/01/03
EASEMENT PROVISIONS
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO ALL UTILITIES SERVING
SUBJECT PLAT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, UNDER AND UPON
THE EXTERIOR 10 FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE STREET FRONTAGE OF ALL
LOTS, TRACTS AND COMMON AREAS IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW,
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, CABLES, PIPE, AND WIRES WITH
NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EQUIPMEN'i FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS
SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, TELEVISION
CABLE AND OTHER UTILITY SERVICES TOGETHER WITH THE -RIGHT TO ENTER.UPON THE
LOTS, TRACTS AND COMMON AREAS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED.
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT ARE HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND
GRANTED TO CITY OF EDMONDS, EXCEPT THOSE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT AS PRIVATE
EASEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE RIGHT TO
EXCAVATE, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, REPAIR AND/OR REBUILD AN ENCLOSED
OR OPEN CHANNEL STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM- AND/OR OTHER DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, UNDER, UPON OR THROUGH THE -DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
PRIVATE EASEMENT PROVISIONS
RESTRICTIONS
I. NO FURTHER DIVISION OF ANY LOT IS ALLOWED WITHOUT SUBMITTING FOR NEW
SUBDIVISION.
2. ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE ACTIVITY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
APPROVED PRD OFFICIAL SITE PLAN ON'.FILE _ WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND'DEVELPlMENT SERVICES OR THEIR SUCCESSOR
AGENCY.
3.
C0
5.
THE SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PLAT ARE WASTED UNDER THE PRD/FORMAL PLAT. NO
BUILDINGS WILL BE ALLOWED IN 'i ri!= ;`t:: t C:;:TEu S�- i Gf,CK Ai^ci=l�S ;'JI TNOUT A
VARIANCE BEING APPROVED.
SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 968364
SUBJECT TO COVENANTS,
AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER
CONDITIONS .AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER
c
os
61 GA-L FOUR, Inc.
SURVEYING • ENGINEERING • PLANNING • MANAGEMENT
16030 JUANITA-WOODINVILLE WAY NE
JOB NO.: 05 - 8007 DATE: 08/24/05 SHEET: 2 OF 3
AUDITOR'S FILE NO.:
1
41 , Seen
�4
a�
t
270407-001-021-00
270407-001-048--00
6' CHAINLINK FENCE
------------- --------
Woo
I
ovc
\ • ccgcD
i tih z " M -
270407-001-047-00
i
I
I
1 -
I
4' HOGWIRE FENCE-
00 -
I �
I p9
I 0 8
\ 0
I ��0
� I
-
�
0, 6
\�V �ql� �roJ
0.
3' CHAINLINK
FND. 1 /2" REBAR & CAP \ FENCE
LS# MEYRING 2621 DN.
0.3' IN ASPHALT HOLE ® �\ -
INT. TALBOT RD. & 171ST
ST 2-14-05
�P
n
4ti
_ Itt1lr e
a
_i
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SE1/4, NE1/4, SEC. 7, TWP. 27 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M.
P-2004-9 & PRD 2004-10
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
I
FND. 1 /2" REBAR & CAP 1O FND. 1" O.D. IRON
LS# RM 17672 25.32'E X 270407-001-018-00 PIPE 1.28'S X 1.24VW
0.32'N OF NW PROP. COR. OF SW PROP. COR.
2-21-05 211.97' DEED 2-21-05
fl
5
N90-00-00"W 211.97' CALC
_----------- O2 S. END 3' CHAINUNK '
61.00' } 4' HOGWIRE f y 150.97' FENCE 0.6'S X 0.4VW
N FENCE is END 4' HOGWIRE OF SW PROP. CORNER
FENCE 81.3'E X 2.6'S
O3 3' CHAINUNK FENCE LEGEND
OF NW PROP. CORNER
- - - - - -. - - - CROSSES PROPERTY
_ LINE 19.2'N OF SW RGE RANGE
_
TRACT 997 - 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT _ PROPERTY CORNER SP SHORT PLAT
8.006 S.F. r - - - N86.38'37"E ;14.29 O N. END 3' CHAINUNK SEC. SEC71ON
OPEN SPACE FENCE 49.1'N X 0.6'W SE,NE SOUTHEAST, NORTHEAST,
OF SW PROP. CORNER NW,SW NORTHWEST, SOUTHWEST
S..N.,E..W.. SOUTH, NORTH. EAST, WEST
s�s4r 8~K' fnI N s TRACT 999 \• O FENCE 56.6'NAX 0.7'E INLINK TWPS.F. TOWNSHIP
SQUARE ��
M .0 ��p. 21,710 S.F. OF SW PROP. CORNER
of �• Ss, UE UTILITY EASEMENT
z, " Os, NGPA WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN
6O EDGE OF ASPHALT W.M.
y. N9 56. ,V E fy CROSSES PROPERTY
' •\ Z I_ li 56.24 Z& `\ �'" �" SUBDIVISION CORNER /FOUND
LINE 78.8 N OF SW
PROPERTY CORNER ® EXISTING MONUMENT AS NOTED
1.4VE \ �0 6 Is
7 N. END 3' CHAINUNK FENCE ® EXISTING REBAR OR IRON PIPE AS N
iv 1 N �i ` ! O SET STANDARD CITY OF EDMONDS
5,320 S.F. �� `b & S. END 4 HOGWIRE FENCE
c WETLAND ��' II > � 4 105.3'N X 2.3'E OF SW PROP. MONUMENT/CASE &BRASS CAP W/
'i I s8 `�. N I CORNER PUNCH MARK LS NO. 30450
II � SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR WITH
--2.5 E tv II �� i v I O8 EDGE OF ASPHALT o
I h , i PLASTIC CAP LS NO. 30450
TR '�' 98 N CROSSES PROPERTY '
r ��I o`v ��� h v� LINE 115.6'N OF SW (P) PLAT OF SEA LAWN TERRACE DIV. A
2.5'E 7,153A .F. ^o I1 a o`ti �`� PROPERTY CORNER CALC. CALCULATED DISTANCE
'� No � N06-49'49"W =`� '; ,
/ Z ,^� rQ 19.12' i CATEGORY // ; O 4 HOGWIRE FENCE
3.1 Ems/ +tIo I rj STREAdf CROSSES PROPERTY
h o i 6,964 S.F. M LINE 70.1 S OF NW
N90'0 '00'E .h . z
98.00 E �TOTAL�"� "p I I 0) _\ PROPERTY CORNER
�"� ��. - J �� co M 0 10 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N. &
31.00' 28.00' co ¢ W W. & 4 HOGWIRE FENCE RUNS S.
3.1'E 81.0017.00' 'oo °' v o / 60.VS X 0.8'W OF NW PROPERTY
oo M CORNER
co 6.68' b N ___ _ i .w ai Sri 11 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N..
N90'Ci0 00- V
3.0'E cat r) o �t `� S. & W. & 4 HOGWIRE FENCE
o M ai -----79'34 -� RUNS E 1.8'S X 1.7'W OF NW
co cn N90.0o'OO;E_ o' UE cl N PROPERTY CORNER
'n 62.14V b i o / 12 4' HOGWIRE FENCE
Iw o 4, o CROSSES PROPERTY
oo to 4,197 S.F. Q LINE 1.7'S OF NW
N90'00'00"E c PROPERTY CORNER
ASPHAC T0• t oo `, N 3 Z 13 ANGLE POINT HOUSE
r� --- _ - -------------IS 1.61 WEST OF -----------
:.I 6�7'E M z N9 78 02 Mo o PROPERTY UNE
1.5E 7 : M r -- , w j,
co
4.887 S.F. �ppN I --- a z
3
1.0'E _70. �i�N A o yry o:h 4,553 S.F. cu
4
-"ol is LOT 2
17 0 I r^ SP S-27-66
Z w 270407-001-070-00
+0.4'E /, N90'00'00"E___9.0.19' Z
.00 4----61.19'-- 29.00'
/ Q fo '`921>i4
/01
-------------------------------------
5,046 S.F. Aso' J rn '` `�' �\ ` 2& LOTA
\ ti 'S2,IN, �\��/ /// b \I. ---
STREAM SPS41-76
or W270407-001-0,3.3--00
�jrr �. 9,668 S.F. z Q>ftiQ \
FND. 4"X4" CONC. MON.
%WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/
"X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE
2-14-05
co 1
w!
co
I
I
I
FEND. 4"X4" CONC. MON.
WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/
"X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE
I 0.24' EAST OF SECTION
I LINE 2-14-05
I
c�
ai
N
�t
U� o
_ aMW
oo j a, F- a c
2s 4
0 s 12o ss1" - 0.76'
LP 600 ,� L-2p10,2g . &=8'07V10' I
0� ,� s%' �\ • 18' L=36.89' N 90'00'00" E 312.90' DEED _---_
29��s�d roil c ^w Nz F
]�� 8 `js'r� 0.68' i M row �I"�Nn U Z
31_2.28 TO BOUNDARY _ r _COO
94.32'(P) N89'S1'26"E 31296' CALC TO PC v/ M - o
N 00'00'00" E 312.91(P) I'-w w Q
� W � _Z
Ja SEE DETAIL "A" "� b -'
e- I-
rtn
z 1�
270407-001-003-00 1270407-001-002-00 1
DETAIL "A"
_1
1 V 0.68' M
O
;n
S CALE 1 = 40' N8'9.51''26EB R 12. 6'CALC TO PC
::0 N '00 00" E 312.91(P)
40, 0 40' 80' O
old+h
INSTRUMENT DATA: LE1CA .'CR 703. AUTO
BAS I S OF BEARINGS AND SuBD IV I _S 1 ON: (T"-DIRECT READING -THEODOLITE -WITH- E.D.M)- ---
PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER
_ . n c cn_c -rno � c_c_i c_c nco_oc c ��Qann I .__o�rncnC_ -_._ DDCCICI(lnl _(1t __CnnITRl11 T'C7e1JC[7CF_I_C_e�'f I-iIC_u1=R
I �
o�
FND. 4"X4" CONC. MON. N
WITH 2" BRASS DISK W'
SE I
"X" DN. 0.6' IN CA�
2-14-05 1