Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
17005 77TH PL W.PDF
17005 77TH PL W ADDRESS:�77 TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS: % DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Xstudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LOT: BLOCK: L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc PLANNING DATA I STREET FILE Name: K•i11GYeyt COY)c;,"C--HpY) I;, mpa►ny -) Inc.. Date: I2,•2,g •tiDO5 Site Address: 1-. OC) -.-. `TM p1 a GG w e 5+ l�Of • # y ) Plan Check #: 05 • Project Description: Kle,W 5e&_F. , Reduced Site Plan Provided: 6ES)NO) Zoning: pp_D• ZO t)+.1 D 4 GV) a Y11 tip' to Map Page: +6 (p Corner Lot: (YES NO Flag Lot: (YES 420 Critical Areas Determination #: CA - VV01 • D0511 ® Study Required " c vm PIt+r," ( L'dt * ►J nPeed y -tv f ul tow tv1v l El Waiver ` 6j ,V,O Vre*1G(6L 6N1' J SEPA Determination: _R) W m6t". ❑ Needed (for 500 cubic yards of grading or site within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger). ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form ® Exempt l 0(p fiVLOVU yGlVIAS 'Df 0radiv1pYb Poyt d/. Re Setbacks Street: �W ) 1 D i •� Side: N 5 Side: r 5� 5. 1 Rear: TM l ` J ActualSetbacks Street: rw\ t d Side: N Side: / S� Rear: )• ❑ Detached Structures: (JD1(1�` SV10wv1 0*Y1 C71iT., P►an ❑ Rockeries: ❑ Fences/Trellises: Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: fiYei 1 (,e. �N, C/VV a C,VLZ 5 1 • �- i ❑ Stairs/Deck: Gv✓L+17 &>t4loG1 [• - (O1�- . Parking Required: 2. Parking Provided: ?i• Lot Area: L 11 Lot Coverage: L 35 I• Of p Lot Coverage Calculations: l Lftj ?. (/1 p lU 5G Bui/din Height', Datum Point: D.13. P NE, C,0MpV Lpt Datum Elevation: 10p, Q Maximum Height: Z,C� 1 `��j. (p�jj Actual Height: 2L4 ADU Created: (YES / NO p)/►.e 1L1'tLVI �✓1 y h owvV • Subdivision: p•20OL�. of / P"•?i00L4 •10 0+e, Ga-�•'l>�- 1�-I St 5t SW �• Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / NO Other pafi a ? e N !A y MtA6t- re,Yna,�n owl -Of ca lov1 ff 21r Per 6)iCvei- •. C: 1191t • a �210. 5 : �• - 1 I . Ca �kv e vu. b► d-�- A 51014-51 Plan Review By: ., GInu,Co��iAJ' n OWN RICONTRACTtOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE Zone P P-D• SITE PLAN, LOT # :`ticks Reguired Actual Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. Front W l b--= 16 1 O 4003 Nassau Place Sides (V I Everett, WA 98201 Rear Tax Parcel Number: Site Address: Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' Lot Coverage I_ House SF: S.F. Zi 4,47� S.F. ; S. F. rCL 35% Allowed: 1 4G85' Under/Over -36.95 S.F. 05 U W Height Calcs A :. �. cna B :,•. I q.o 7 Z � F= C r 8 184•D U LU 2. 2-,5- co Totals ZG.2S' z Average 4-84-619- 11(.6 3 o 25' Allowed 25 -HER-ac.. V4. 3 , Max.Ht.Allowed Main Floor Elev. :1.8:1`$5' Bldg. Height'::-_:: 24:75 Actual Height 206.6 SEWAUt I'ulvlr lr""ll Pump size ca Units Quan Totals Bathtubs 4 1 4 Comb. Tub/S! 4 1 4 Clothes Wast 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 1 2.5 3 7.5 I 'Demand -GPM from Chart 40 Fin:.,. . 02 U J a ti APPROVED BY PLANNING a Impervious are].1432 House SF:Overhangs Drive/Walk Total 2219 APPROVED AS NOTED nV r-kit"IAIrCoMIf-% Df- 9�it��'eifillLVt�'l�Gt ll � o �' 94 HR. ?NOTICE REQ. --- FOR INSPECTION fir- OP4 1_� J WATER & SEWER INSPECTIONS REQ'D CALL 425-771-0220 EXT.1326 ZhCES c 42 ALL EXPOSED TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS Downspouts 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 than975' below invert of footing drain line. If grade precludes such connection, then a sump will be provided. I to 1,hu LIWE 17/, N • ESUB MAR —7 2p0610 BUILDING I vI Y OF Footing Elev. =' Avg.Cut ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.275 ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 2.025 ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.4. ((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 3.65 Average Cut = 2.8375 Volume 3972.5 Cubic Yds. 47. STREET FILE Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) Site Address/Location: 15 j 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes; how is site developed?ell 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. CA File No: �'i _ ()l No 4 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: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): � / s7` �-�- 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: I D ; Approx. Depth: 17. 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. 9. Site co tams a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow , shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 1/ 11. Obviolis wetland is present on site Uh YEMr llNATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER.. viewe . by: /�., . n Date:. -E / .10 / c5 ` Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 RECEIVED Cityof Edmonds Mom' Development Services Department _ Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 I'DC I $qo 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 I'McFeived: 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 reasonabl 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 rr knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE `T�� l IV l 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: ,57�f Name 7`,& Street Address > 7 s 1�2-y State Zip Telephone: Za L - Email address (optional): Applicant Representative: 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 Project Name: I Permit Number: I J 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 may be 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.I70A and 20.15B.040C. 46 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.170(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. 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. 2 A U_ La-f-4 4 - 00 R/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RW EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE Zone -1,00 4,- - 010 CarrietNO F 9&W SITE PLAN, LOT # tbacks Re wired -ActualID o��otcLvt vt I' �a t v� p o rt Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. Front W -- k 4003 Nassau Place crt 5 5 6 2$ HR. 0,110E REQ. Sides N/ - 2�r• R INSPECTION Everett, WA 98201 Rear F_ -- ---- b Tax Parcel Number: Site Address: ench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' F W+(4ot' r-CPT1 A 1'rl e- 3- ir1 G -0 P16! 7 A S •tv Lot Coverage WU A c 4 rl A 'fY1iM -tv p Df- wA(I House SF: ,w 14�3ZS.F. Ov191 NA l I^ Lot SF: 35% Allowed: `N. 4197� S.F. x 8 5'S.F. � 9 r R � • a. S Q �r Under/Over -36.95 S.F. o =j SSF I Height Calcs A are. oc 1 Z _ B (7r1.0 W z G - — 2( } Total , - � � Average a-8+-63- I B(,(v Y c� � z 25' Allowed 25 im O Max. Ht.Allowed —246- f 9"- ,W 4.0 Main Floor Elev'I%:$6 y�•� " +f' 's thing in this rml Bldg. Height2 Actual Height 2 rpreted as al owing or --I maintenance of any currently existi nonconforming or unpermined buildink, trueturn r condition which Ts outside the scope of the SEWAGE PUMP CA t application, regardless of whether such Pump size ca Units Quan ink, St]1lCGL:ie Jr condition 18 3I1C;Vri3On the Bathtubs 4 1 sitb Ian or drawing. Such buildir.+ 7! structure or Comb. Tub/S! 4 1 C0 tion may be the subject of a separate - - BY ENGINEERING V WATER & SEWER INEPECT(ONS REQ'D BALL 4 6471.0220 EXT.1s B 34 176.0 1 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS Clothes avast 1 1 ea cement action." IlDownspouts will be connected to storm Dishwasher 1.5 1 (Lavatory 1 4 4 Kitchen sink 1.5 1 1.5 'Laundry sink 1.5 1 1.5 Shower 2 1 2 ater closet ( 2.5 3 7.5 from Chart 40 Impervious area House SF: 1432 Overhangs 212 Drive/Walk 575 Total 2219 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 a sump will be provided__ (. 0 RECEwE OCT) 12006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS` . Footing.Elev. _ _ Avg.Cut ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.275 ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 2.025 ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.4 ((C+A;•/2)-Footing Elev. 3.65 Average Cut = 2.8375 Volume 3972.5 Cubic Yds. 47. FIRE OWN�RICON T RACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE FRD �7 - � o SITE PLAN, LOT #r Utbacks R -Actual 9 Qi0 LVl V1 I C.Gi r P Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. Front W---.�---�--�-- 4003 Nassau Place Sides 5 R.. 0 ICE RED. Everett, WA 98201 Rear_ 297 11 �116P CTIONi N Tax Parcel Number_ Site Address: Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' Lot Coverage House SF: 1,114111 3 S.F. Lot SF: j FS.F. t 35% Allowed: ;:: :S.F. Under/Over -36.95 S.F. Height Calcs D Total ,z2f-�fr Average 25' Allowed 25 Max.Ht.Allowed Main Floor Elev. Bldg. Height:�it7= Actual Height 206.6 SEWAGE PUMP CALG5.1 Pump size ca Units Quan Totals Bathtubs 4 1 4 Comb. Tub/Si 4 1 4 Clothes Wast 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 2 1 2 (Shower Water closet 1 2.5 3 7.5 from Chart 40 r1RE k : . . l0.o LJ o =, N G Z � U u LLo a S cc Url APPROVED BY PLANNING Impervious area House SF: 1432 Overhangs 212 Drive/Walk 575 Total 2219 APPROVED AS NOTED^ � BY ENGINEERING WATER & SEWER INIPEOTIONS REQ'D �z� G N&L 495.:17,.0224 EXT. 13 ' Ste: �� .r _� ;t B I 17(' ° >,Ir 181, 8s 7 I I 25,-0• ti ' T•Iz l `=7f1 IFS 112 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS Downspouts 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 line. If grade precludes such connection, then a sump will be provided. tf0 l7P 17r, Footing Elev. ='-- ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. ((C+A;42)-Footing Elev. Average Cut = Volume Cubic Yds.1 ( a a VENT IDS Qt1mfl n - D M ri RES MAR - 7 BUILDING DEP CITY OF EDI Avg.Cut 1.275 2.025 4.4 3.65 2.8375 3972.5 .1 O F E-D1H _ to TRACER 2' DEEP CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT ADDRESS: WATERLINE NO. Ln 17005 77TH PL W BLD20060330 CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE: HILLCREST KVERNMO NTS DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY: 6/15/06 E. SIBREL 6/15/06 1 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). Mar-08-06 08:34A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P.02 PRE -DESIGN REPORT SANITARY SEWER GRINDER PUMP CHARLOTTE GARDENS EDMONDS, WA FOR JON KVERNMO HILLCREST CONSTRUCTION CO., INC P.O. BOX 3121 EVERETT, WA 98123 425 259-2775 l BY ROBERT N. PARNELL., PE RN PARNELL CO 4422187T" PLACE SE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 (425) 643-3560 MARCH 7, 2006 -ECEIVED MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT. e �./o-7 . . STREET FILE Mar-08-06 08:35A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE .425/641-5095 P.03 PRE DESIGN REPORT CHECK LIST SINGLE FAMILY Qualifications of Enaineer: 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 Experience includes design for domestic and fire water, sanitary sewer, and storm water systems for single family, multifamily, commercial, and industrial use. Topographic Services Area Map: 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 2" HDPE force mains that discharge into the 8" gravity sanitary sewer. Length of force main varies from 36 feet to 155 feet. Property boundaries. Each lot with property boundary is shown on the map. 160 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 SSMH#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 18' when crossing. RECEIVE® MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT. Mar-08-06 08:35A ROBERT N_ PARNELL, PE 42.5/641-5095 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 qpm. 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 - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT, -Mar-08-06 08:35A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE f 425/641.-5095 P..05 Ap A)YAP ,10 •7,o 7-7 r _ .�/� .�' • _� i�ic'- `'D /A /�1�rSG r � .Li z"' N�►P rigsC- �T-3 Lo r 4- /cgs% /7-5 _qp i t r _. I��, /77 i�.►o� Gist rF�� �° %vA-- U�1�n� /� �` oN . C ' :4i ECEIVE® MAR _ S'9 9, �7�.: ,? �;� BUILDING DEPT • w !! (��l �' !� jr �5Y f 114rV V�411��7 41F?149 CoC9 r�iCG��' 'a0 TlJnJ s to 1 UY rro4r, Mar-08-06� 08 :35A �.yROBfE.RT � N . PARNELL , PE � 425/641 -5095 ^� P.06 V/ � V Jv � ♦�� 1.- i INSTALL SPUT RAIL \ \ `~ ` • FENCE (2 PAILS) FUi -,fir I..! C8 2 _ 67 -� - 121A stall. 6" P *4Q THRUST BLOCK \ T« \1 I l s _ FM 1 r r 1 FO IE-174.000. 1 1 I g 1 I I r t,90100'00"E r 1 i ?62.1 o \ / IN FM .D.�180.ti0 1 + 55MhI 02 / aCONC. -t I _WPM DRIVEWAY CtJy (E226) TYP 11 1 \ \ 1 \ \ SSMN_IL oo MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT. Mar-08-06 08:36A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P_07 PME 03/13 8111.512ma 15;50 az57g392aa WITED PIPE Secdon Page 10? bated AU SOD k9eresdes 1N 19" pas 1� -Moo=* emrs MV 3300 Ck�ttta►gc 1�R/4" 0 A4 pu"s town o2@AAM p,kW of i �f>p4a6W� � gro bolnldls ArsO w ► ( �� MOW 1hra Pnrtb"ng t curves srs OeseO orf mCAB) Siltg Wig dear water at TO' F. entl tq si0g t ++ RECEIVED E® 1 NYdp �T� • Can05ma of Samoa: MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT.. b d 905! —g95 (08E1 BH ett=ti 90 Gi uer Mar-08-06�08:,36A ROBERT,N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P.08 01/17/2006 09*34 42574392d4 UNITED PIPE P46 82/08 AKINDUSTRIeSzo Pr�c�r� ,v r�►;as�c� �nr�raN,� .4� sic 24 FIBBRG" SS BASINS f Gi.A flkBRf fN011 LM"m pg+��.pp►i��4aY��A�Ni�.�Q+ar M44X&VQW B BABTli` ����IaLN�AA�ir�e.�rL G&24 X 0DA= om 47 GAL NOW 12 Les e�un R� a" X(N-lob 0" Xwo-laa Mao X 0*1= GO -Ma 0300 59 [SAL 16 LBS GB�Xtt3&100 41 G8'84X09ft2o0 C�2axQlfl�ob 71 OAL 18L8.9 GB-24XO42-100 G13-24X•002 = 0"X042A Q 82 Qi L M !BG G&Z4X0411.100 C844XO484W 0 samX048-m 94GAL X4Lg8 3B-7AX094100 smXo80-900 0924X08 " _ 106 GAL 2rLFS GS-24XCS&100 GB-24X0M= * 0Pl.24 wDmo 118 m 39LOS G8 24X 088-tOb asluxamm G8$d x 0opm 12B w 3318S Cs8,24X07Z10C aIF ss-74X072,20D * G94tXora- D 141 GAt 36m W24xo76-f0o GftZ4Xo782AO W84X07saao 1s8Ck, 39LBS CaEL¢4 x 0Ei1�11NOr :. __QBe/ XCtld xDO M4 x Oe 'm 106 GAL woi;- sous f�i+IX09Dm as-z$X090= 178GAL Was 0"AX0esam 4 9"Xa98l3a0 188Wx 121% gONN X 1024!m 044 x io2-00 ED G& 77LOS 09,2010af!00 GD44x ta"m 212 GAL 81 Lee OW4X1t4-= Wd 24x114-SW 223OAL asLas 09 X1204w 0a4zax120300 P38OAL Saw 00-24 X IM 22a4 ase4 X 12B-= 247 QAL Mas GO-24X 1324M G" X 121,300 en GAL 99LOS 13024x 1304= 00-20 136-M 2M CAL 104LBE am x 1"4 = 0844 X 144%= 2Q? a& 108LB$ G&24X 1904m 0044X 160400 294 GAL Isom GB-24X 1S11 M GM X 158.w We G64L 158Las (�-mx1f12,200 GO-e4X1B4-4 317W 162LO 0&24x 19p-m 08,Q4x 188.900 = GAL "slag GB44X17440 M24X17+W0 3e1 Q& 174tBg 084"X180-s400 OB,241C18D0f10 333COAL (fmas GB24XISS- 0D GS-24X1I&M 364GAL login 09,4XI%L= . Q9+84Xt92-300 YM GAL Mtn G"X19&M ob."X1884300 =a GAL ma Gm4x76&m0 QB2/x2D&m 400 GAL M4LOS GW24x210-m G82axft-s C 411 QA1. MuLas GWM21820o 0"X216900 423GAL 216LBS M24x29B.M Gboxamax 4390AL. Z2LSS awaxga)' a ca"X2ZB+800 40 GAI- 228LBS amodx294-m &"Xasfm 1 4max 234EDS 08-24X240-M Gf3'A4X?eam 470RAL 21 m Or ETC= clgµs CAN BE SmoMo wpMN 48 HOVAS ppoM p4tOPY oprof cm GASH iN1A08%XAfa'S AWD-Ft T FIANW ADO 15 LOS To V}A amr 8AAW WOMD. RZI-FL RANW AOD 35 LOS70 V4Xpff [.'d SOSG-gas (09E1 a MAR — 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT. UN eft : T t .90 L I ue f w Mar-08-06 08:36A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 _ P.09 01/26f2006 15.50 4257439244, Section 6 30 Supfesaet W- me L141TED PIPE E a1! MODEL• WO-5tandord Opimkr Pumps PAGE 82/13 R.P.M. ?45D MOTOR TYPE ENCLOSM, OIL COOLED IIvDUCft N CAPSTART , MOTOR DESIGN NEMATYPE A(10) G&C- 4l R*K& CnON CLASS e STATOR VAMING CLASS F 1mr, MAXIA M STATOR TEMP'ERATl1RE VOLTAGE TOLERANCE 31076 . /4/7,/7t/ f P/sr as I 1 I d 1 1. 119 3z �� M"NONATIQ Zd sasL-Piss [09Ei 00 ..920wr RH RECEIVED MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT. 0 41T;1T so Li Uar Mar-08-06 08:36A ROBERT N. PARNELL, PE 425/641-5095 P . 10 ollrlG12w 15-158 c75743$249 d E'd Section Pic& 4i1 Dabee W 2M SuInftW2W MTED PIPE J ML- Hp" — wan d Ghind w pumps Ph"k l Does: OFSCHARGE SEM 1'/.' WT IMPELLER TYK SEA1 N 6 VANE CABLE LEr16I 15` 91ANfAFtD PAINT PAINTED AFTER ASSEMBLY. DARK GREEN. CNAkltzL, GNE co11T, An oRmv. MAXIMUM LIOLIIO 14" MAXIMUM STATOR $pg-F a& n" F owr :Iwp ►+EAT SENSOR OPom 257T MAXJ23IrPr WN. Chmed igirF MAX.l14B'F LIN. Tedrilise+ll solo: POWER CORD TYPE t'011190W-A WATER RESISTANT MV, 00-C MOTORHOUSING CAST IRM ASTM IM8 CLASS 30 CASUVO CAST FROM ATM A49 CLrASS ac - T. o�SE BRASS 99Cr5 6-S ASIt<i R99¢A36A/ALOX a20 $gyp yy�{ g 5 CUTTER-5 3181i y 4soc STAKESS STE&I, NARDENBD 7,o SW AOC,KWILL C UPI)W (A"X "W STAINLEM BTI;)rL HARDENED To 4-640 ROCKWELL C Lo"r (Radials 44M STAgdLESS STEEL HAROENM TO Sec Aocw Irw61_I. C PA=R SPRY 478STAWLM STE&[, HARDWARE 300 SERI6S $7AIN!-gSTEFt 0` RJNW RL1NA N MECHAN)CAL $FbALS S1>3rfderd SRJ R9 0ARFjpNrlRAMICJBtINAA. rMii 21 R SEARING 4PMIAL) W41-r= ROOF BALL SAD$ LOV*R WiARM (iTIFtU- T) SNGL& ROW BALL 890Fi MMI.-R-14 I3r�lc3 LFFI� 80 o0ff t�ni !� iSYITiAl0�1�11?�R: ° 90SL--@3S 109fi) PAW 06/13 RECEIVED MAR - 9 2006 BUILDING DEPT, oa a2;)aer $H e T t= t T 90 / T ueC DWELLING / PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PUMP CONTROL PANEL PROPERTY LINE FINISHED LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVER ROADWAY GRADE \ I I I I 12" PVC SLEEVE 6" RISER 3' MIN COVER 6' WYE AND 45' AND 1/8 BEND 5' MIN I TYPICAL SIDE SEWER GRAVITY SEWER MAIN -I SEE DETAIL 'A' FOR CONNECTION GRAVITY FLOW IN THIS AREA FROM DWELLING FORCE MAIN 2' IPS POLY HI-MOL PIPE (200 PSI) I GRINDER PUMP ASSEMBLY PROPERTY OWNER PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY t ED 2' FORCE 6' SDR 35 PIPE MAIN GRINDER PUMP SERVICE LINE NOTES 6' SDR 35 SPIGOT (W/ 6' GASKET) I. WRAP AND TAPE 12 GAUGE TRACER WIRE EVERY 10' TO THE FORCE MAIN. X 4' SCH 40 HUB 4' X 2' SCH 80 SLIP X THREAD BUSHING 2. THE LOCATION OF THE STUB SERVICE TERMINATION SHALL BE MARKED BY THE CONTRACTOR WITH 2' X 4' TIMBER EXTENDED VERTICALLY FROM THE BRASS MIP X IPS COMPRESSION PLUG END TO A MINIMUM OF 3' ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE. A 12-GAUGE FITTING WITH STAINLESS STEEL INSERT GALVANIZED WIRE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE TIMBER FROM END TO END. NEITHER THE WIRE NOR THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE SEWER DETAIL 'A' PIPE OR PLUG, THE EXPOSED PORTION OF THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE PRE -PAINTED TRAFFIC WHITE WITH THE WORDS 'GRINDER PUMP SEWER CONNECTION' STENCILED ON WITH BLACK PAINT. THE END OF THE 2' X 4' SHALL BE PRE -MARKED IN PERMANENT INK WITH THE LENGTH OF THE TIMBER INSTALLED. CITY INSPECTION 3. GRINDER PUMP VENTILATION SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE REQUIRED PRIOR SEWER VENTING SYSTEM, PER NFPA CODE. TO B A C K F I L L 'ef90-199v M*:(D-' N."D REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL iwr�twEn ar Hatt D. GENMT 6/16/03 GRINDER PUMP SERVICE CONNECTION TO GRAVITY SEWER MAIN D. GESM 64!3/03 DATE SCALE DWG NO. 5/9/02 NTS E6.9 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 77th Place West Edmonds, Washington Plan Check #05-566, 67, 73, 76, 77 Dear Mr. Kvernmo, p��Mfr v ?006 C04j FR 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 77th 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 ;ot 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: 0) addressee rmp: HillcrestRes4 S�' E ET F � L EXPIRES 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 'Dee 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE IMC 425 814 5672 p.l Consulting Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer December i5, 2005 Mr. Jon Kvcrnmo Hillcrest Construction P. Q.' Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213-1121 Re: GeotechnicalInvestigalion Proposed Residences — Lots 2 and 4-7 17007 77u- Place West Edmonds, Washington RMP Projcxst No. 05-352-01 Dear Mr. Kvernmo, FEB 15 2006 PERMIT COUNTER FEB 15 2006 BUILDING CITY OF EDMO DSO This report presents the resulLs of our site exploration and geotechnical evaluation for five single family residences in the Charlotte Garden developmenL in Edmonds. The propYrty is situated adjacent to 771h Place and just north of 171' Street SW. It is understood that single family residences will be constructed on these lots. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the nature of the subsurface soil conditions that will provide support to the stnletures, and to provide recommendations for the design and construction of the foundations. Preliminary plans for these house show that minor site grading will be requited to establish building pad grades. USGS mapping for this area of Edmonds was used asa, reference for this investigation. Site Conditions Previous clearing and grading have been performed on this site: in conneclio n with the overall six loL 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 mostlof the lots to create the existing grades that slop. generally toward the nodheasL. A .steep slope descends down toward the easterly side or this development and there is a designated wetland west of Lot #6. The slope on the easterly side of the plat is heavily covered with vine-ti and native shrubs, and there are some mature trees located on this native 11/211:.1V slope. Observations of this slope showed no evidence of gross fail uies 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 trenches were dug in the area of the proposed residences to confirm Lhe presence of fill soils and to classify 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE KniclatvJ, WA W34 Fax_ 425.814-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 STREET FILE .Dee 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5G72 p.2 December 1,5, 2005 Mr. Jon Kvermno Page 2 the underlying native soils. The Lest pits encountered soft fill soils and organics to depths of two feet and there was obvious construction debris and Lree 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 thaL are on the westerly side of the property. Up to seven feet of soft and loose fill with organics and debris were encountered on TAA #7. Lots 2 through 6 had rill and disturbed soils that ranged from 1 to as much as 4 feel as disclosed by the test pits. Groundwater seepage was not encountered in any of the exploratory test pits-. -Summary logs of these test pits are shown on Appendix A and their locations are shown on Drawing No.1. GtN-Aechnical lLecommendatians On the basis of our site inspection and subsurface exploration, the proposed residence foundations for Lots 2 through 6 must extend through the fill and bear on the medium dense to dense native silty sands. Pooliug depths are expelled to range from 2 to as much as 5 feet to bear'on the undisturbed native soils. An allowable soil bearing value of 2000 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 1/3 to account for temporary seismic: or wind loadings. A passive earth pressure of 20o pef may be used to retiisl lateral forces. Where fill soils exceed a depth of aabout five feet on T.ot #7, it is recommended that the bearing wall footing.~ lye sdpported on driven pipe piles eiihe.r 3 or 4. inches in diameter. These piles- should be Schedule 80 galvanized pile. that are driven to refusal into the native till soils. Refusal is defined ws less than one inch of penetration over a period of 30 and 15 seconds, respectively using a 450it or 850# pneumatic: lialnnler. Each pile may be loaded up to 8 and 20 Lons, respectively for working capacity. Where pipe piles are used for foundation support they shou ld be connected with c:cinerete 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 [lour slabs can be poured on the compacted fill. Some interior slab settlement can be expected where the depth of fill exceeds Lhree feet. Some excavation wit 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 uz landscape areas or hauled off5ite. Normal erosion control procedures should be in place for mnAruction of this residence in the coming winter months. Site drainage improvements will'include the installation of footing subdrtains, :area 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 9ff034 Fax: 425-814-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 'Dec 15 05 07:53p ROHERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.3 December 15, 2005 Mr_ .Ton 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. Summary Construction monitoring and consultation servicxs should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be reveolvA during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate Lhose conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. 'rho conclusions and recommendations prescnt(,.d 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 construction, and 3) the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be performed during the appropriate phases of the work. our -findings and recommendations in Lltis report were prepared in accordance; with generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as pracsti(xsil in the Puget Sound area at the time our work was performed. We 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. peclluIly, Rol)erL M. Pride, P. E. Principal Geotechnical Eni dirt: (2) Addressee rMp• 14011:n`slPlat: EXPInES /� 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE: Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 4'15-814-5672 Phone- 42"14-3970 'Dec 15 05 07:53p ROHERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 APPENDIX A Summary Logs of Test Pits Test Pit No. 1 —Lot 7 0.0 — 4.Oft 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 — 5.0ft 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.Oft 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 — 3.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense, no groundwater; Test Pit No. 6 — Lot 4 0.0 —1.0ft 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.Oft FILL: Silty sand, gray brown, very moist, loose; 3.0 — 4.01ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; Test Pit No. 8 — Lot 6 0.0 — 4.0{t FILL: silty sand; brown, very moist, loose; 4.0 — 5.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; -13203 Holmes Point Drive NF.. Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 p.4 Dec 15 05 07:54p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 B14 5672 _ 2"AW CAW 0 go f ,A• �T 11'�'r• T ` _ _6 .� Ref: Plat Map for Charlotte Gardens L SITE PLAN E Charlotte Garden SWand 171 St Street . Washington a pride Inc. p.5 Project No. OS-352-01 Drawing No. 1 J GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TALBOT PARK ESTATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR CITY OF EDMONDS as7gC�) RECHWED ,API Z 4 20� EECE ' STREET FILE FLCEIN'ED SEP ]. i. 2003 Western Engineers.' NGA 17311-13r Avenue NE. A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 9 Fax (425) 481-2510 February 14, 2003 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 — 5 h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Mr. Steve Bullock NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 360902 Dear Mr. Bullock: Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........».......».»...»....».»».»............................... .............. ».... »».... »..... ».... »... ........... »»..... »....» 1 SCOPE.._-..... . ....... . .......... . ...... . . . .... . . ......... . ........... . ... . .. . 1 SITECONDITIONS ...»....»....»...»...»..... .... »........ .... »... ».»»»..... ...... »..... ............................... ».»...»....».».»»....2 SURFACECONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACECONDITIONS.................................................................................................. .......................................3 GEOLOGY............ .....»..... »............. ».......... .......».»»......»».»............ ».»........ »»................. . ...... »..... ........ »..... »».»3 EXPLORATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................3 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION .... .......... .»........».....................»..»»...».»»..........».»........».»»..»»........»».»....5 SEISMIC HAZARD .................................. EROSION HAZARD ................................. LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY SLOPE STABILITY .................................. .................................................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIlI�NDATIONS...».».»»»».......»...»....».».....»...»...»»».»..»»....»»..»....»» »7 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 7 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES....................................................................................................:............................. 8 STEEPSLOPE SETBACK.............................................................................................................................................. 8 SLOPE AND SETBACK PROTECTION........................................................ 9 .................................................................... SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING.............................................................................................................................9 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS.....................................................................................................................................10 STRUCTURALFILL.................................................................................................................................................... I I FOUNDATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................12 SLABS -ON -GRADE ..............................................:.....................................................................................................13 SITEDRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................................13 USEOF THIS REPORT ........ »..... ......»......... ...»................. ».... »....... »... ».»».»... »... »...... »»»..».... ».....................14 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 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 _y M- 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. j 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. f � f 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 g �T)' h, 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 5. 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 toward the 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. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates 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 Geolo ig c 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 a 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 northeastern 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. f � 1 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 I.S. 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 theslope, 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:1V). Cuts in the underlying mediumdense to dense native materials may stand at an inclination as steep as 1H: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. F. 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 GEOTECHNICAL 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 (pcf) 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 and 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. Subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing drains around the residences and behind any 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 remainstable 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 landsliding 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 be 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, N LSO EOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. or Christensen, PE Project Engineer Khaled Shawish, PE Senior Engineer TRC:KMS:kmn Eleven Figures log NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Project Site T sv 172HO ST sw 5 ?L 1732D if 11 P W1 .1 SV I A., sr ji Ora ST Sw poll 161s1 IFIL MET rL URD C aWW 0 !84TH�00 ST Sw a ltitw 1EM ST toL riM m ta? TH ST Sw V r Sr Slf— Pt T PL S94, i-f xw ST - Z,.— Thomas Bros. Not to Scale JECT NUMBER Tlbt Pk Esttes NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK aoara 360902 -000NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. i W4103 orlonal ADJ JGL Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS& GEoLoGisrs Figure I 17311-133a ,t... NE. A-5W Sloho. Cm ty J;:J 337-16" WA 98072 W—th-/Od- 754-2756 NGA Dmftlna 2002\AutotrAD\360902 Talbot I Y C� e 0 N ` a 6 " U =Z c� ... C �. 0 F '- 0 N Z 94 W a o 8 I LEGEND Cz w TP-1 Number and Approximate I Location of Test Pit I HA-1 Number and Approximate -- Location of Hand Auger rn A N Approximate Location. N \\` of Cross Section W L ^ Property Line p 0. C0 o .a ----- Top of 40% Slope ---- Setback Line PROJECT NUMBER 360902 Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet usdanda Figure 2 n —i West oCA Q T to - 220 CD M D ai D 200 a _ 180 �> y r Z � I£ m Z rn rn o A 4�> �& 140 N . Z 0 d Scale: 1 inch a 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) m Elevations are Approximate 0 AV East 220 200 Stream 180 160 140 Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. A n -- Southwest aCr 190 o m M ao CO v — ao y 170 M z z D 11 m z gi � _ U' o z 0 G) ampm° 5 n Z e 0 � m � s w -150 -130 L-110 Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) Elevations are Approximate B, Northeast 190 170 150 -Stream 130 110 Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. C n West g N 220 <D N a RL o m n � n � 200 y Z o P-1 A Y 1 i D. 180 �9 m Silty Sand witt = a� =�oz n0 a o 160. Z ' a F 140 z 0 Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) m Elevations are Approximate m w -r-- —S 04--- 01, r%e East 220 200 Stream 180 160 140 Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. 160 a 140 (D 4- V) X Q 120 I 100 w CROSS SECTION B--13 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.505 w — www Val 10 30 50 70 90 110 X—AXIS (feet) 130 150 170 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 Rio 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 NO.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 CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 % ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLA SOILS SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC ORE THAN 50 % PASSES CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLATCLAY LIQUID LIMIT NO.200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: t ) 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 il Is fined from consistency are based on below water ter table interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. iECT NUMBER WN NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 360902 Talbot Park Estates NGA Assocmms, INC. , y,yro 060nw noI enn GWMCHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLMMIS Fissure 7 Soil Classification 17331-135a A..'t w soo Nts DEPTH (FEET) HAND AUGER ONE 0.0 - 0.6 0.6 -1.6 1.6 - 2.8 HAND AUGER TWO 0.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 3.4 LOG OF EXPLORATION USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 TOPSOIL SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 � a DEPTH (FEET) TEST PIT ONE 0.0 -1.0 1.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 7.0 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 7.0 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 6.0 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 -1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 7.0 LOG OF EXPLORATION USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 213103 TOPSOIL SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 2/3/03 TOPSOIL SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH) 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 TOPSOIL SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH) 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 DEPTH (FEET) USC TEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 2.8 2.8 - 4.5 4.5 - 7.0 TEST PIT SIX 0.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 3.0 3.0-7.0 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 6.0 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0 LOG OF EXPLORATION SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SWSP 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 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) F( ILL1 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 2/3103 TOPSOIL SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 213103 TOPSOIL SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 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 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 2/3/03 a JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 11 1 Deccio.Engineering RECEIVED J AN 2 3 2004 pL.NNING DEPT. 17217 7th Avenue West BotheO, WA. 98012 (206) 3W-8370 Fax: (425) 741-8214 Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report 5 A. Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill Site Location: 7707 171" Street SW Edmonds, Washington 98026 Dated January 18, 2004 10 0 1 ^. , 2MONAL e; MES 2/22/0.S By Richard Deccio PE STREET FILE Deccio Engineering 17217 7th Avenue West Bothell, WA. 98012 (206) 390.8370 Fax: (425) 741-8214 Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report PD A- ,U3Q'�w� ,`r. L 25693 O �", Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill Site Location: 7707 171" Street SW Edmonds, Washington 98026 c lr,Zs 2/22/0s I. 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 UpstreamDrainage Analysis .................................................. 3 On -Site Considerations...................................................... 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis ................................................ 3 Task 4: Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation ............................... 4 Level1 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 1" 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 7107 17 1 d 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. ■ 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 ofLynnwood'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 runoff from 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 CUP 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 January 18, 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 1 SITE LOCATION & xrr! ywrrV M A P 70 1 DRAINA GE PIPE SYSTI LYNNWOOD148-000 \ �; vj' l/ j n,n- .•✓ / •i.^ %/J if;'/ /n,/1/� ,�i/�,�I I IE 110 ON SL \ 999 538 SF -OP.-EN SPACE yM\' ` �)} 'C/� i%�'x/' \ NOTE aTy '.i�'�/ % /x //' o\ aTY ,� �/��, a �'E '• ��' , f�" �� ;��`'� �? //� i�� \ DISC► 1MTH VIM a t�/ //!/n. \ \ 1y so\ \ \ n / V It( G.P.A,\E 16,666 SFCBR W/STORMAL IMCV\\cAU Ilk 5,878 SF o Y II pp9 �12+ ,. /QQ\� 2 595 SF`` II' / Y /\ \ )� PENKSPAIt ' 1 F R 4 ( \ 1 4,015 SF ' -- 65 7 PPUUMP 5 6 LINES t / 4.868 SF `� I / y � � f0 L.- I / � 87 IF B-+P / #2 SDR 35 PVC_ 190- - 7 - / -- 88,16 1 20' fs / ] -1957 / 5,376 SF j -zoo- / SSMH /1 \( y SFR A96 SFj�/ V OD e- all N LOT 2 _ I 40" _ SEA -LAWN TERRACE D1V A \ n k - ( I pp 005660-000-002-00-O- \ \ / FIGURE 2• DEVELOPED SITE �1 f CONDITIONS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SNOHOMI f 0 1 offimr4- a 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 loamy, 25 to 70 percent slopes —y 5 Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes ---7- 6 Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 7 Bellingham silty clay loam 8 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-Olomount complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16 Elwell-Olomount-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 Fluvaquents, 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 Kitsap 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 Olomount gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 43 Olomount-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-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes 55 Puget silty clay loam 56 Puyallup fine sandy loam 57 Ragnar fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 58 Ragnar fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 59 Riverwash 1 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 v 64 Snohomish silt loam 65 Sulsevar 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 loams, 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 of tet Ion Sc �.bpPY C �' O 4 f. ��-.-I 00� ado No • � 5. albette?'a� May ''°°' STREET FILE AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 115 NORTH 4r SrREEr • SEarnE, WAsFaNGToN 98103 206.784.4755 Table of Contents Table of Contents Preface.................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction......................................................................................1 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. 2. Wetland Functions and Values Critical Areas Study Talbot Parts Estates ....................................................6 ....................................................7 H Y .t Preface Preface Critical Areas Study Talbot Park Estates 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. Introduction 1. Introduction The subject property is an approximate 2 acre site located at 7701 171" Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, near the intersection of 171S, 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 Introduction Figure 1 Vicinity Map Critical Areas Study. Talbot Park Estates f 1 r 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 r Introduction CM aF Lr1NOM e7z7oF-+ Tom" E orno+_,-m&_Om i y �:::?::. y.TOP OF / ii 51` �,••;;: _:ii..� ',•'�� � \ (anduRr,aan atQ litEi TOP RSia'C� ,a H _ / + V GCS PER OF ' '•1:-i:', -Ui a� a 01 j a a GEOIECHO L ENGHM la-0 ' �` --CATEGORY B STREAM �a �� J Yam, ��'��y`.•- � t i f ILIL 0.0 4� 40 NUVE DAMD 4ttt ::--TOP OF SIWM ONK (aCwwer ,w, ramt iaiq —GIEOM B SVSM1 r / amaROOM,Its AM o ``5 072704-1-•070-OOM SMANiiMAN lY0'111Y ``\ '` :/ •; �:• 51ds' a Figure 2. Site Map Critical Areas Study Talbot Park Estates 10at MAE 8 �\ W2727 01-,-O.0- 5� 4 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: l: 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 °F); 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. ' Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland Critical Areas Study 5 Talbot Park Estates a 0 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 (1 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 absenmof 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 April 2003, 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 f=rinction Definer► Y Highest Values' - L`owest Value 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 .lu either of the following: connected either high recharge rate, without surface water connection with a stream wetland or with permanent outlet to stream MW 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 upsiope 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 sods 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, FAC), 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 r. 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 (IOYR 4/6) mottles in the upper 12 to 18 inches at the wetland boundary, to black (lOYR 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 1 OYR 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/utilization, 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 be low, 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 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 20.1513.060. 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. Critical Areas. Study 11 Talbot Park Estates 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 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology And Environmental Earth Sciences 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 17015 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 this 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 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates_cnm 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 TP-4. Redoxymorphic features develop when soils are saturated long enough during the growing season for iron and manganese to biologically trAnsforrn 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 TP-4. 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 present in the area include Indian plum (0emleria 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 fern (Athyrium filix 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 subjecC property is 1,600 square feet.: The detemunationy 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 r 1 RIVER R 2 FRATM l 6RIRI1f 4 f1ElDST s 6' I41M 181 STD 782ND 1831m . lsonl PL SM 185T PLC r _ Q� 18974 ST ' s: Ref: The Thomas Guide, King County, 2001 Edition, Page 455. Terra VICINITY MAP TALBOT ROAD PROPERTY Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G won ent and Proj. No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 Figure 1 Environmental Consultants Approximate Location of Property Line -- Wetland -Area Wetland off -site not Approximate Location • surveyed. Datap int 2 of Property Line --- --_- Wetland Area - 1,600 square feet on property. Datapoint 4 — — — — - at — _�.- 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. . ✓V' NOT TO SCALE g#G.otechnical Terra WETLANDTA BOTOROADPROPERTYCATION SKETCH MAP Associates, Inc. EDMONDS,WASHINGTON wonetand Proj.No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 . Fi una 3 Environmental Consultants 9 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% *Acer macrophyllum Big -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% Ilex 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 SERIES/PHASE: Alderwood-Urban Complex [s the soil on hydric soils list? ❑ Histic epipedon present? ❑ SOILS . Is the.soil a Histosol? ❑ Mottled? (Redox). ❑ Gleyed? 0 . Depth Matrix Color - Soil Texture Redox Color Redox Features . Redox Size and Abundance Pore Linin s. 0-5" AOYR 2/1 Sand loam 5"-10" 7.5YR 4/6 Sandy gravellyloam 'Is 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 or soil saturation: None s wetland hydrology criterion met? NO ,JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION s the plant community a wetland? NO 'OMMENTS: to 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 cerasifonnis Indian plum S FACU 10% 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-001o, S-0%,.H-O% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? NO SOILS SERIES/PHASE: Alderwood-Urban Complex Is 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 Linings 0-3" IOYR 3/2 Sandy gravellyloam 3"-17" IOYR 3/4 Sandy gravellyloam IOYR 4/5 Iron masses few fine El Is hydric soil criterion met? NO HYDROLOGY; Is ground surface inundated? ❑ 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 B WETLAND RESOURCES REPORT w2t�lli/C�%�P. �061/C� �l1G ux o a tart Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance June 3, 2002 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Attn: Mike Smith 19400 — 33rd Ave. W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 -- -------, 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 fax (425) 337-3045 ECEIV C (S �..• iI �.�! L f f' R CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE REPORT TALBOT PARK ESTATES CITY OF EDMONDS - SNOHOMISH COUNTY; WA Wetland 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, WM. 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 20.15B 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. June .3, 2002 FILE NO. Talbot Park Estates WRI 02118 \1�/ // / %� /•. ? % �� ` Lt"SBf --- 77 —165 1 H,I 1 d01% \95 I CREEK /1\0" W /� / /' �°� / _�\ ''g�� •� / / = :� 6/ \ m °d Z m / I / • a / U 1 \6... . ... .. i........ . . .. 41( / /10 l 41 lb— ®� I / ON! 111 'MD ,9 3ON33 x x ,Be'09 H1110N 1 ' CN W 5 < CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE MAP I to) � Z - Ill For: `J ` V1 Lovell-Snuerland & Associates, Inc. z Site Location: 171"St. SW cy H Edmonds, WA 98294 V� 3 By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 — 19"' Ave. NE # 106 Everett, WA 98208 WRI #021 I8 425-337-3174 June 3, 2002 / PLAT MAP FOR TALBOT PARK ES TA TES IN SE1/4,NEt/4 OF SECTION 7,7.27 N.A.4 E.,W. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON L�� lo•ell-ssuerland & Associates, Inc. �' e—AM _ 1 Min M Y� e. aY a • ILK a rl • ."N�M • IdQ M M /n >����� 1 uw1 e-ro: �� r• :94_0 ATTACHMENT C PENTEC REPORT A PEJ1sTLC ENWRONl E 11 T/1 L Delivering smarter solutions February 28, 2003 Anchorage Mr. Steve Bullock Senior Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department aoston 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 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 -. 171" 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. I 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 (Salixsitchenis), red alder (A/nus rubra), ladyfern (Athyrium fi/ix-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. 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Fax 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682 Seattle f' ALAF 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 20:45B.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 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 (20.1513.120) 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 00130101 StalboWrkreview.d- APPENDIX A DATA SHEETS jT-JVVC 1 LMIVU UCLIIVGM I IVIV UM I M r-%aM1VI rlUt IVV. + ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Transact ID Weather: - Cowardin Project/Site: Field Invesfi for Size(ac):#OJ S c1 1-2 2-5 >5 �-- Normal Conds Y' Disturbance?. o...wL,... A—') -- - - Cover Class 1 e 0. 54 2.5 2-5.2541 S 3e 25.50•11037.5 4. 50.75462.5 5= 75 - 95495 5■ >954 97.5 WA. Dominant Plant Spp Cyr Cle Indicator.. >,•; $tptlia .. Stratum WA. UP Dominant Plant Species Cvr CIS Indicator Statue Stratum O reg'n'I know) O W/L pint list O phys/repr adapt. O morph adapt O tech nil O WA. plant data base %O8L FACW or FAC r herb +_ shrub +_Iree■ _total Hydrophylle Vag Y.N Ratbnane: 'O>50% O<50%(OBL FACW or FAC (no FAD-)) O other HYOROLOO � ;. , Inund? Y� urf H2O depth: ' SatAl2' (5' In sandy solls)W. N.'Depth'of free H2O In pool$: Other 1 • InQrcatcrs: O water marks O drift Imes O sediment deposit tth�ti drainage Panama Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root chamolsAl2• O water•stained leaves O local soil survey data OFAC•Neutral Test (In vague hydrol) O other Recorded Data: O r am, lake or tide gauge O serial photo _ ❑ other O none Growing Season? lead on: all, O ob; rowth O soil 1 mp O 19.7' a41•7 O Welland hydrology Rationale: *IQs•^ K OILS to at least 15' Series/Phase: Taxonomy Drainage Class Confirm Mapg Y N Matrix Color* Mottle?/Colo Glev? Taidure Y N Y N Y N_) Y N YN YN a.(: YN YN 'below A "an or 10' lehewr shallower) SON indicators: (� Hlstosol Hlstic eplpeCon O SuMldle Odor MrAqulc Moisture Regime ~) P• Reducing conditions O Gleye ow Chroma O High Surface Organic Content In Sandy Soils / O Concretions O Organic Streaking In Sandy Solis Hydro Soils List: OLocal CNittial Omar hydric soil indicators: Hydrfc Soll?f_YN Rallonsis: UR NAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wetland? cl J •Rallonal all pare o veg no lolls no hydro) Sample point within welland? Y N Other IMornatl rAemtAt-- - tt y FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT Groundwater recharge (H M L Groundwater discharge (H I / Stream baseflow contribution LH M N/Al Floodwater attenuation (H M(L)NIA) Floodwater detention (H M /A) Floodwater retention (H M IA) Floodwater desynchronization (H M L /A) WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS ..Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants L• A]__ Transformation of nutrients or toxi 4a (H MILL V/ Wastewater treatment (H M tL / NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FU TI S. Primary productivity (H �W/AA Organic accumulation (l Organic export (H M L Decomposition (H M(T) W Detrital transport (H Lc' ( Nutrient.cycling and utilizatio (Ii..M /Al Food chain support (H Ml/Al` HABITAT FUNCTIONS Invertebrates (H M' Al Amphiblans .(H M2. N/A) Fisheries (H M Mammals (H A) Birds (H MI/A Sanctuary and refuge (H M L I/A) SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIO-11S Non•consumptive valu Recreational (H. L / Aesthetic (H M Hlstbdcal (H M L / Archeological (H M L A • Consumptive val Fisheries (H M L N/ Renewable resources.HH M L 1 Agricultural (H M L A. AD Wildlife Data Plot Locatltxn Sketch 'i SWETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No. ROUTINE ONSIT�DETERIMINATION METHOD Transact ID Weather: Cowan in Project/Site:. Date: q-?/'ol Field Investigato Size(ac): 06<1 1.2 2-5 >5. Normal .Conds? Disturbance? Problem Areal Cover Class f s 0.5-► 2.5 2.5.2541S 3e 25.50437.5 4- 50.75482.5 Ss 75 • 95465 8s >954' 97.5 ` WA. IDominanl Plant Spp Cvr Cis 'Indicator I Status Stratum WA. UP Dominant Plant Species Cv► Cis Indicator Status Stratum Li raa'n'I know) O WA. olnt list O Dhvs/reor adsot O morph adapt O tech lit O WA. plant data -base %OeL. FACW or FAC herb * shrub'. _tree . _ total Hy&ophytle V" r Ratbnatte: 0>50% O<50%(OBL. FACW or FAC (no FAC•)) O i:ther HYDROL00 Inund? Y N Surf H2O depth: • SatAl2' (r In sandy voila) Depth of free H2O In plVhole: Other 1• Indlostors: O water marks D drift lines. O sedim . epo IIPA. drainage patterns Other field evidence of surface Inundation or $on saturation. Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root channele^12' O water -stained leaves O local soil survey data . OFAC-Neutral Test on vague hydrol) O other Recorded Data: ern, lake or We gauge .O serial photo O other O none Qrowknp Season seed on: O date O obsv rowth O soil t mp O 19.7• >41•F O Wetland hydrol Rationale: i. or• OILS to of least 161 serleamhase: Tszorwmy Drslnsge Class Confirm Mapg Y N Dealh_ Matrix Color* Mottle?/Color Qlav? Tegurs I Q �0z-%/ Y N Y N 0qQ 3 1i 1 1 O 1417 4L9 Y N 9 r Y N Y. N YN YN 'below A horizon or 10' Icnever shallower) yR� SaN Indicators: O Histosol �Isllo eplpedon O Supldle Odo.r� nb Mol quaturo Regime . VMReducing conditions Pl@y0tow Chrome O High Surface oJenic Content In Sandy Soils: C010 tions O Orgsrr o Streaking In Sandy Soils Hydrk Soils Llst: bLocal ONst al Othei hydro loll ineicalors: Hydrle son! Rallonais: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wet!snd? Y N Rational r:.. m o veg no soils no hydrol Sample point within welland? Y N .�, Other Inf stbnfiigtnsrks: FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ! HYDROLOGIC SUPPORTe.�tt,c ! , Groundwater recharge (H M L N/A) ' -Groundwater discharge (H M L WA) hscgeow contribution (H M L N/A) Floodwater utten.cs tt n (H M L N/Al Floodwater detention (H. M L N/A) Floodwater retention (H M L N/Al Floodwater attenuation (H M L N/Al Floodwater desynchronizadbn (H M L N/Al WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L N/A) 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/Al Decomposition (H M L .WA) Detrital transport (H M L .WA) _ Nutrient cycling and utilization (H M L WA) Food chain support (H M L N/A) HABITAT FUNCTIONS Invertebrates (H M L N/A) Amphibians (H M L N/A) Fisheries (H M L N/A) . Mammals (H M L WA) • Birds (H M L N/AI Sanctuary and refuge (H M L WA) SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS Non -consumptive value Recreational (H M L N/A) Aesthetic (H M L N/A) Historical (H M L N/A) Archeological (H M L N/A) • Consumptive value Fisheries (H M L WA) Renewable resources (H M L WA) Agricultural (H M L N/Al WUdIIfe Data Plot LocaLllorn Sketch „af ,.,,.,.,,,a.._. ' ^ _-'�..r.�y . r .. ...-..� .. ,h�v n..,-r•.- `j��.�..,- �.��.- .-� ..�- .. .. -a_ _ c�� of Edito-nds PERMIT NO: 1o140 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES_���� Property Tax Account Parcel No. dq% a4d 2 ZW Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved by, Owner and/or Contra Contractor License # Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes No *RW Construction Permit # Cross other. **Private Property: ❑ Yes �No� Public . , **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. 0 ♦�V Owner/Contractor Owner or contractor signature and acknowledgement statement: Date 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. W ,.CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION W W .FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension” 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS ............. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Permit Fee $ Repair Fee $ Issued By:��� Trunk Charge ..�... Date Issued: Assessment Fee $ Receipt No: City Permit Surcharge Fee 9.00 Total Fees Paid $ 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: 6 4 Inal: As -built to Street File: `M PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE t- White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg;forms;sspermitj l g4/00 3"0 ABS 2' E GRINDE PUM ., 0 F' ED.dr_ E ti TRACER WIRE AT 3' DEEP 77TH PL W CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT r O ADDRESS: PERMIT t" 17005 77TH PL W NO: 10140 CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE: HILLCREST CONST. I HILLCREST CONST. I NTS ATE INSPECTED 6/14/06 INSPECTED BY: J. HAWKINS DATE DRAWN: 6/29/06 DRAWN BY: J. BRONDER f17c.is) 13 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering November 8, 2006 Jon Kvernmo P.O. Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Requests for 17009 77" PI W (bld2006O228) and 17005 77th PL W (plan check # 05-573) Dear Mr. Kvernmo, This letter is in response to your requests dated November 3, 2006, to exceed the maximum allowable driveway slope of 14% up to 20%. It is apparent, with the number of letters you have submitted for driveway waiver requests within this short plat, insufficient attention was given to the topography and finished grades of the sidewalks when designing the homes. My question to you is why wasn't this request submitted prior to pouring the building footing, instead of waiting until the homes were constructed and driveways poured? With that said, and based on Lyle Chrisman's site visit, the determination has been made the driveways, as they exist, do not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard nor is the public health, safety and general welfare adversely affected as required under ECDC 18.80.060. Because the driveways are constructed, are less than 20% and do not create a safety hazard to the public, your request for the subject driveway waivers is hereby approved up to 20%. In the future, verification of driveway slopes must be accomplished prior to pouring the building footings and substantiated by the engineering inspector. Sincerely, D K. GEBERT, P.E. CITY ENGINEER alc c: Street file • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • ro_, . --, 11 1 . • • P.O. Box 3121 Everett, Washington 98213=1121 Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178 Fax: (425)259-0799 E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net Fax To: From: CC: Date: Re: Dave Gebert, Engineering Jon Kvernmo 11 /3/06 Charlotte Gardens Lot 4 — Plan check #05-573 17005 77th Place West Mr. Gebert, /6 r aw (Y CITY Co RECEIVED NOV 0 3 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when calculating the placement of these homes. In spite of our careful calculations, the right hand side of the driveway on lot 5 will exceed the normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%. We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum. Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, dm� Jon Kvernmo 0 Page 1 • P.O. Box 3121 Everett, Washington 98213=1121 Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178 Fax: (425)259-0799 E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net Fax a To: Dave Gebert, Engineering From: Jon Kvernmo CC: Date: 11 /3/06 Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 4 — Plan check #05-573 17005 77"' Place West Mr. Gebert, RECErvzD Nov 0 3 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF EDMONDS CTR' We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when calculating the placement of these homes. In spite of our careful calculations, the right hand side of the driveway on lot 5 will exceed the normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%. We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum. Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, Jon Kvernmo 0 Page 1 P.O. Box 3121 Everett, Washington 98213=1121 Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178 Fax: (425)259-0799 E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net Fax To: Dave Gebert, Engineering From: Jon Kvernmo CC: Date: 11 /3/06 Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 2 — Permit #2006-0228 17009 77t" Place West Mr. Gebert, NOV 0 3 ZE% OEVELOPME CITY OF pMON S CTR. We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when calculating the placement of these homes. In spite of our careful calculations, the left hand side of the driveway on lot 2 will exceed the normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%. We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum. Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, Jon Kvernmo 0 Page 1 P.O. Box 3121 Everett, Washington 98213=1121 Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178 Fax: (425)259-0799 E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net Fax To: Dave Gebert, Engineering From: Jon Kvernmo CC: Date: 11 /3/06 Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 2 — Permit #2006-0228 17009 77th Place West Mr. Gebert, T)a'q16-1 RECE►VED ��� NOV 0 31006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES cTR. CITY OF EDMONDS We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when calculating the placement of these homes. In spite of our careful calculations, the left hand side of the driveway on lot 2 will exceed the normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%. We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum. Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully, d�� Jon Kvernmo 0 Page 1 OWNR/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE WALL Lo-t -# q 1-766 s -17W PL w )rnallo FIAAIJ0 KUGli :hl lOw r2wmley1w d atfi( SITE PLAN, LOT # Re wired Actyal LT 9P�01-GLV, Vl I' r t P o Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. Front W --.-�= 4003 Nassau Place c..z_. 5 5 S^ 4 0 ICE REG. Sides ICI / -- — 2 mac. p IINS ECTION Everett, WA 98201 Rear -- a Tax Parcel Number: Site Address: /Zio mainly& PRD 17.0n 4- • 01 O ench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' * IMLA4& MvKci(rl 43' fn S-C+1v4 e—k'a.e-Cq Lot Coverage ao rru a su rrd tea-' fv P o f- wu 11 10 House SF: S.F. .1� a Lot SF:` p :S,F. A I$I 35% Allowed: `., '-S.F. CL Pu Under/Over -36.95 S.F. o, =3 V Height Calcs B 175.0 z G U C �S`t,D pP Q °- F 'z s- a a Total -6,- ?2 z tS CIO Average 4� zLL 25' Allowed 25 0 r � Max.Ht,Allowed 4 1 Main Floor Elev. '^3, Bldg. Height ° ;g in this permit approval" Actual Height edasallowing orpermittingthe maintenance of any currently existing illegal, nonconforming or un ermitted building, structure SEWAGE PUM �. dition which is outside the scope of the i Pump site ca Units S#6plication, regardless of whether such Bathtubs 4 wilding, tructure or condition is shown on the -.... Comb, Tub/Si L site plah r drawing. Such building, 8tru APPROVED BY PLANNING WATER & SEWER 11.1 V -ID 6 INIPE-CT(ONS REQ'D o v,'g i n a l 6r o We.. CALL 4,28-774220 EXT.13 G -7 w coil 1 N90°E Ipf Utz ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO -.E COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS Clothes Wast 1 coh itidn ay be the subject of a Se ownspouts will be connected to storm Dishwasher 1.5 oho t » ub, Footing drains will also be con - Tnected Lavatory Kitchen sink i 5 1 1,5 Impervious area to storm stub if grade allows, House SF: 1432 sink 1.5 1 1.5 and connection will be no less than .75' ILaundry Shower Water closet , 2 1 2 2.5 3 7.5 Overhangs Al2 Drive/Walk below invert of footing drain line. If grade precludes such connection, Demand•GPM from Chart40 Total 2 then a sump will be provided. SIGN REQUIRED If0 17f 17r, 49 �21111 Tt &t -17f, 0 RECEIVED OCT 3 12006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. , CITY OF EDMONDS GRADING CALCS. :u Footing Elev. = , ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. ((C+A)42)-Footing Elev. Average Cut = am Volume NOW is Yds. Avg.Cut 1,275 2.025 4.4 3.65 2.8375 3972.5 a AT: CityofEd� s� Cert' ' ate ofOccupancy 9FF�,,� Th ja Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A J Owner of building: The Single Family Residence at 1700577inpfl 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as the proposed occupancy is classified. By: DEPARTMENT OF - BUILD INGS PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL C&E.SECTION R110 BuiIdingPermit #: 2006-0330 V Dwelling Units:,, Type of Constrtiction: V13 A. Z-d and approved complying with the requirements of the and division of occupancy and the use for which Issued this 11 th day of December, 2006 Chief Building Official Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. it, c.1890 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering 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 7621 171s' Street SW Lot 2 is 17009 771h Place W Lot 3 is 17007 771h Place W Lot 4 is 17005 771h Place W Lot 5 is 17003 771h Place W Lot 6 is 17001771h 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, f, f urie ��rrrison Senior Permit Coordinator Edmonds Building Department QoLi9emo" 1 12111974Aft 1- :TH 6• CHAINLINK_I+1W & 2.3' S20P. CORNE_ 1)01-048-00 991 NLINK & 38,005 SFtK A- SFX ;E INTERSECPEN SPACE \ OF PROP. LINE i \ P;A 56• \� '. 9,98 /� y a- y y wE T(allo N. 'P_ A ni. ({/)► X \ y y y f0TA/, 4.4855f J ON -SITE 1.374 r / .00 „ 964 SFti - t4 52 74' / 0 o o / o� 3' HOGANKISP 4' 97.53 5. 3' CHAINLINK 1€.: = f, • :• i �� \ 1 FENCE, 2.3' E. 64' OF PROP. LINE 3' CHAINLINK �; .. , p o FENCE 0.7' E. „' Qh "°j sin` ,578. o 3' CHAINLINK 63' roJ FENCE a 4 • W. • a \ 9,552 SF \ U 0 PLANNERAERNECT CONTACT LAND RESOLUTIONS J605 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201 (425) 258-4438 FAX (425) 258-1616 CONTACT PERSON. RY MCOUFFY E-MAIL LANDUSEONKINK.COM SURVEYOR ORCA SURVEYING AND PLANNING 3605 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201 (425) 259-3400 FAX (425) 258-1616 CONTACT PERSON: KERRY GONZALES �;�VGINEER DECCIO ENGINEERING 17217 7TH AVENUE WEST BOTHELL. WASHINGTON 98012 (206) 390-8374 FAX (425) 741-8214 CONTACT PERSON: RICHARD DECCIO * (:Fn7l7rl4AlIrAl * NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 17311 135TH AVENUE" NE, A-500 WOODINWLLE, WASHINGTON, 98072 (425) 486-1669 CONTACT PERSON: KHALED SHAMSH 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 rI' /.:►� AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 115 NORTH 49TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98103 (206) 784-4755 CONTACT PERSON: ANTHONY ROTH 71TLE COMPANY PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY 3224 WETMORE AVENUE EVERETT, WASHINGTON, 98201 (425) 258-6450 CONTACT PERSON: SUSAN MACDONALD Lw- li:aji LOVELL-SAUERLANO AND ASSOCIATES 19400 33RO . AVENUE W. SUI TF 200 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (425) 775-1591 CONTACT PERSON: ROBERT LONG GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS, WETLAND REPORTS,. TRAMC STUDIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THIS PROJECT WERE USED FROM CITY OF EDMONDS FILE (P-2002-11 AND PRD-2002-12). • DETEN710N/DRAINAGE BASIN NOM, CITY OF LYNNWOOD DRAINAGE BASIN. AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD'S SYSTEM WITHOUT A DETENTION FACILITY WTHIN THE PRO PROJECT. f/ City of Edmonds Permit No RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 1 i A. Address or Vicinitv of Construction: 17005 -77Ii F, w` C. ' Contractor�r'�.f� ,(/� �(„%Matz J. Mailing Address,7�%��fX�7/ / State License #: TI/GL L��F i /�%AL. City Business License #:�e ,.. D. .Building Permit # (if applicable - E. ' 0 Commercial ❑ Multi -Family INSPECTOR: Contact: (. evzx_j /��Q�*�� Liability Insurance: / Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): MA 3. ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD) Single Family ❑ Other S F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. ❑. Mail Approved Permit ❑ Call for Pickup APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN 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 ofgrdnting this permit. Qtt•�P 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 THU ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE,, THAT I MUST MLKTHE PI COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: Date:.q (Contractor or Agent) u a REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line. FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: it —I' I ' t` DATE: nspector's Signature CADocuments and Settings\CurtisNy Documents\Forms\Engnrng\ROWpc7it_ doc tc' Revised 10/01/03 i ;:DATE RECEIVED `. a• PERMIT EXPIRES 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PERMIT NUMBER-� CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB ^ SUITE/APT# 'f'wy ADDR SS ''/VV> 7 {� OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS I ` ((' t?i'i 41�IlC to l_CtM Yt�' �✓ll PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. �� � LOT NO. LID NO. ;( t w MAILING ADDRESS r �� �� rVI5 LID FEE $ (� 66 �j l) _- I PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved O RW Permit Required 0 Street Use Permit Required E3 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required 0 Ili 3 r F �< p 6iJ^'"1 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Required 13 Underground underground O Wiring required � NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE r NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES 13 NO 13 0 , 3 ADDRESS - Qf j.l� r ` /4tn t REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAtNAGE Lu W iYT11 ��. % ✓%l%d� S' l�� f'' .�'ei frwl3 r+ l A g. zELEPHONE / W CITY ZIP I V I �7 �7D UC " :� 0 r3) �.�.�e✓y. Sre�� ' +- ; E u.ar r Gvr",Y > tc i NAME `= Lb oCm CBL# � � ~� �r���`( / 0 5� A n. I� . r L, i E GINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE t ¢ ADDRESS t t ` 3i-,�_I rFIRE REVIEWED BY DATE Z CITY V :_ //' ZIP/ e � Y� 3 TELEPHONE A! �� - )S �J w.. - �.JT K LL V 1 r f (STATE / VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADS# INSPECTION REQ'D SEPA LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY 0 SJ � � l f0 7 / 1 ,l 1b:YES O COMPLETED NO I EXEMPT / + PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. s v LJ CA#'2,0D 1 WAIVER O �t�"g%' ZONE ""� SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED HEIGHT ALLOWED PROPOSED, © STUDY ❑.. NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH �t'LOT COVERAGET. ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REA FRONT SETBACKS (FT.) REAR ❑ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ �d0� i I ''Le ®), t 5 P I erL�"/�yRAA=SIDE r t "' i 0 i ❑ REMODEL ❑ MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE ❑ SIGN PARKING RErQ'D PROVIDED LOTAREAq PLANNING REVIEWED BY' DATE g ❑ MULTIFAMILY I .9A"l4/�-/ -�f4 ❑ REPAIR ® GRADIN CYDS ❑ FENCE d ( X FT.) ��KKpp �( (��µp s. �u �ry ��' S d R%A t/tl ri tf Y%W Ft [r `�'V' [ [A AA fJ[ r'�,% ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER WALL ❑ LER ®"GARAGE CARPORT ❑ z ROCKERY FIRE ALARM O H (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: a f - /} c J J TYPE OF CON{/3TRU • TAN CODEOCCUPANT GROUP V /J 4/ Jj�/fy tlL..✓ cn NUMBER NUMBER OF OF O STORIES, -+ DWELLING P UNITS SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED h YES CONSULTANT �) OCCUPANT LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS 0 z Y Yr ;� i N 1,4 Res. o m GEOT�E/CH REPORT q� g� ] } BY: © /S�(a tl% i K { V R 1 CM BYRUCTURAL DESIGN �. 2 11 r ff�� �/y i i l / o Vt.n vw VALUATION $ ttj Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check + e State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPE% in ' :' r VESTED DATE ,' Building Permit / "� City Surcharge j f PLAN CHECK: Plumbing &~ 1 Base Fee Mechanical gg "" !..5JCiw/I THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC f DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE J Grading ... % Yl'.rir J �17. 7A SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review w PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) a PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION r. Ins En9 p UIection y , w 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit I IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, ANDGENTS FROM ANY AND A Fire Inspection Receipt # _ J a ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY �V = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due y� ,✓15 I A-% = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee I Receipt # t I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT 1 AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL TION; AND W DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. a� OFFICIA+LS SIGNATUREDATE SIGNrURE (OWNER OR AGENT): DATE SIGNED (425) :,,) n ot� l k k L ! Fr+ I / V 771 -0220 RELEASED BY DATE' ` ATTENTION EXT. 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE • YELLOW - INSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 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 EOUIPMEN'r 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 DEVELPPMENT SERVICES OR THEIR SUCCESSOR AGENCY. 3. THE SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PLAT ARE V;:STED UNDER THE PRD/FORMAL PLAT. NO ' R-[J ! LD I NGS W I LL BE -=ALLOWED I N_;_THE I ::L I.CATED SETBACK ___AREAS WI-THOUT A VARIANCE BEING APPROVED. 4. SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 968364 5. SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER olGROUP r u 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.: 0 i f .e A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SE1/4, NE1/4, SEC. 7, TWP. 27 N., RCE. 4 E., W.M. P-2004-9 & PRD 2004-10 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 270407-001-021-00 A . 1/2" REBAR & CAP D FND. 1" O.D. IRON RM 17672 25.32'E X 270407-001-019--00 PIPE 1.28'S X 1.24'W 12 'N OF NW PROP. COR. OF SW PROP. COR. 1-05 211.97' DEED 2-21-05 N9000'00"W 211.97' CALC O S. END 3 CHAINUNK -----------------------------------61.OGWIREJ y 150.97' FENCE 0.6'S X O.4'W NCE � F's END 4' HOGWIRE OF SW PROP. CORNER o �'� FENCE 81.3'E X 26'S 03 3' CHAINUNK FENCE LEGEND �►' ors OF NW PROP. CORNER - CROSSES PROPERTY 270407-001-048-00 1.VW - LINE 19.2'N OF SW RGE RANGE TRACT 997 r 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PROPERTY CORNER SP SHORT PLAT 6' CHAINUNK FENCE 8.006 S.F. I r - - - N86'36'37"E 114.29' O N. END 3' CHAINUNK SEC. SECTION OPEN SPACE I FENCE 49.1'N X 0.6'W SE,NE, SOUTHEAST. NORTHEAST, -_ Hs I �I OF SW PROP. CORNER NW.SW NORTHWEST, SOUTHWEST ---------------------- 2y C. S..N..E..W.. SOUTH, NORTH. EAST. WEST oI „O S. END 3' CHAINUNK S.F. SQUARE FEET r 10 `+�1• h' �2 c• s .y TRACT 999 FENCE 56.6'N X 0.7'E I o ) OF SW PROP. CORNER n O 21,710 S.F. TWP. TOWNSHIP 9 1.1'E o.s�• DSO• NCPA UE UTILITY EASEMENT zI ' "00 E OS, 6O EDG N900 E OF ASPHALT W.M. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN r s '0!y Zy �2oc>'4 I 56.24' •\ CROSSES PROPERTY ��.. t.a• SUBDIVISION CORNER / FOUND \� LINE 78.8'N OF SW 1 Z Ioo II 6s. PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING MONUMENT AS NOTED w_jw 1.4'E II ® EXISTING REBAR OR IRON PIPE AS NOTED r o¢w �_C-4 \ NIo Ii 6 j 0 \ O N. END 3' CHAINUNK FENCE ® SET STANDARD CITY OF EDMONDS c 1 0 t 5,320 S.F. �6 4j & S. END 4 HOGWIRE FENCE r o- i to II > �, �9, ^ 105.3'N X 2.3'E OF SW PROP. MONUMENT/CASE & BRASS CAP W/ a,o o WETLAND CORNER PUNCH MARK LS N0. 30450 ZM 2.5'E / II .�+ ins`. O• 8 EDGE OF ASPHALT o SET 1/2" X 24' REBAR WITH \ I '� O CROSSES PROPERTY PLASTIC CAP, LS N0. 30450 : 1 Ny TR T 98� II ;d` N LINE 115.6'N OF SW (P) PLAT OF SEA LAWN TERRACE DIV. A 5� 7, A ;v �3 II p� PROPERTY CORNER CALC. CALCULATED DISTANCE r 2 7.153 F. F No N06'49'49"W 2ry '� �' r \ / 2 ^ ro 1 19.12' 9O 4' HOGWIRE FENCE 270407-001-047-00 ` 3.1'E *�, Ic Ii i rj S AM Y // ; CROSSES PROPERTY h 0 � i i 6 964 S.F. M LINE 70.1 S OF NW r N90'0 '00'E a, 98.00' �TOTAL�^� ,yo I ; ; ca \ PROPERTY CORNER •� E "� w"�' -� r r� n J o \ 10 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N. & r 39.00'._�� 31.00' 28.00' 1 aw W. & 4' HOGWIRE FENCE RUNS S. r 3.1'E 81.00' 17.00' o Q a 60.VS X 0.8'W OF NW PROPERTY i o r m M / CORNER r 4' HOGWIRE FENCE 6.68y 'o 04 ___ r �W ui,ri 11 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N., r o :� N90 GO 00 o? O S. & W. & 4' HOGWIRE FENCE r 00 3.0E cr;I►� , "� --- __79.34 _ � RUNS E 1.8 S X 1.7 W OF NW r 9' � m r �o -^� PROPERTY CORNER 0� 0; N90'0O'00_E 10' UE rr N Z 8 `c� 62.14' -� o I b / 12 4 HOGWIRE FENCE FND. 4'X4' CONC. MOH. r p I w o 4I o CROSSES PROPERTY WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/ i Obi 1.8'E oo 4,197 S.F. Q LINE 1.7S OF NW "X" ON. 0.6' IN CASE Ok N90'00'00"E MI o I N c PROPERTY CORNER 2-14-05 7 64.00' 13 ANGLE POINT HOUSE .4SPHAL T of N m 1 �<v n---N9U'00'00"W - -------------IS 1.61 WEST OF----------- o ` �SSir of 13 :.I 6;7'E M __ 78.02 _ w PROPERTY LINE coo 31.sS�.S� I 1 1.5E 7 r co M --- 1 N r N Sj Xr 6 i 4,887 S.F. �o N �o : ,I o 1t• •9 1 Z / ro I "„� a No , 0 3 `" I \ J 5 to 1.0 E �o, / ���� o 4.553 S.F. ; o h 3' CHAINUNK c G� v // �� �'�� i I N 8o LOT 2 1 FND. 1/2' REBAR & CAP \ FENCE „ a^ SP 5--27-66 LS# MEYRING 2621 DN. 1 •O0, = N 270407-001-070-00 0.3' IN ASPHALT HOLE ® ` i ,¢'E �j--N90'00'00"E---90.19, Z INT. TALBOT RD. & 171ST \ I '�`I' .� •p0, 4 �____61.19'__ 29.00' ST 2-14-05 ` '1�• +� j n�\ N , FND. 4'X4" CONC. MON. WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/ ,�� / Q �`L� 92�• ,' ,' �� a, o "X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE ,� \ �•o, h`1' Ir ,� ,' `� i•N W I 0.24' EAST OF SECTION � ' \ LINE 2-105 2 \� �ti 2 4- 'b• + � 1 5.046 S.F. 3� p 8 `• ,� ,' o" ? O LOT A N ,�� \ �`1' ?• 4\\ `�``�� �'� Q M ttJ \STREAM SP S-41-76 1-1 "�• �9 i o 270407-001-0.3.3--00 \Ir S\ `9,668 S.F. z Q�jtiQ ir w =a. \ g 12� 3s1" - .7s' �• I G�20 . ' ©=8'07'101 _'S • 182g• L=36.89' N 90'00'00" E 312.90' DEED o �.. uj CD $ 36,�P� 0.68' ' M � r � n w Z .2 �� _ _ 312.28 TO BOUNDARY =% co ------------------- - - - - - - - /�i 94.32 (P) N89'51'26"E 312.96' CALC TO PC VV 0,03 o Q N 00'00'00" E 312.91(P) I Du Z SEE DETAIL A. M . T en /!J c) 1- �qI o w (Q z Z I� \ o� `� Q i 270407-001-00.3--00 1270407-001-002-00I j \ I ` (L I v/ � I I DETAIL "A" O O FND. 4"X4" CONC. MON. N I O WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/ I 0. 68 ' M 2-14-05 .6' IN CASE i O BASIS OF BEARINGS AND SUBDIVISION.: PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER A or%-1 TAD ! C._GI_t_C �In_DQ 1 �]OQ�l1/11 __DC!`I1DI1C 10 312.28' TO BOUNDARY N89'51'260E 312.96' CALC TO PC N 00'00'00" E 312.91(P)1�L1 AR�Ir INSTRUMENT DATA: LEICA :TCR 70.3. AUTO -DIRECT-READING-THEODOLITE WITH-E.D-.M) � , 45 __ Docr�lclnnl _.n�_rnnl-ranl Tue�i�pc�_1c_n-r ulr_ur=R Nor T A'L��