The URL can be used to link to this page

17008 77TH PL W.PDF1111111111116536 17008 77TH PL W ADDRESS: 1 Ag 6V ) TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS:— tJ % DETERMINATION: []Conditional Waiver tudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: m SEWER LID FEE $: SHORT PLAT FILE: G l I SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: o / � 3 f _ 0 SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 1 / ` OTHER: LID #: LOT: BLOCK: LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc SITE PLAN, LOT # Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. 4003 Nassau Place Everett, WA 98201 Tax Parcel Number: Site Address: I p: --- Imperviou!Nrea S F House SF: 65 F, Overhangs House SF:k"','_, Lot SF: S, 45 'w. , It; 35% Allowed: 1710.45 S.F. Drive/Walk-1585 L Under/Over - 54-55S.F. ITotal 4 1 Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole _XM1V4.,[ �11 IHeight Calcs I Q(_v SW corner of project = 191.26' A B C D Total Average 25'Allowed Max.HtAlowed Main Floor Elev, Bldg. Height; Actual Height RECEIVED 745.90 186.48 SEP 14 2007 25.00 PERMIT COUNTER 211.148 (Footing Ei'ev. = FES;, IN 664175 ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. Cut Area 1.00 0 Zn M < Mm X RJR 0 z YVA/A-., 9119 / ovd- -1:11;; a (p (p 1 t Top q qd. 0 o L, I TOP so r'* I ALL EXP OH 2 DAY 116 'Y' "' A NAC Lu. W Ia. 2 Downspouts will be connected to storm tub, Footing drains will also be con- ected to storm stub if grade allows, and connection will be no less than .75' '' / ,�Q�,�� below invert of footing drain line. If grade precludes such connection, Ithen a sump will be provided. SCALE 1IN(1F99A\9_-TD AS N Er of RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PEPM -BY- *EN IN"EERtN rnko M11 AND INSPECTION REQUIRED Qk � -7 —19L I 01all PAP W Wfi ND AID ADDRESS SIGN' SITE PLAN LOT # :r A AS �-�— lc �� '� APPROVED By PLANNING. setbacks TM Leg aired qLzTt+kOwner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. I I , Ili Front �� _ p1• �! 4003 Nassau Place * Arl?""l -�Y � Everett, WA 98201 r4Lk Sides N 5' (a�idrh doc�,no-}- r� g � d e c.k. � a 1,aY► 4 0 r S � R W 10 Taxer _rT 51 Parcel µ; iw� �'. `r�Jther 1�I�I• 2 �11W, ��b4= Hei t 1-951 Site Address I r I - �• --- impervious area House SF: I< a ;� ,. ' S. F. House SF: — 1765 Lot SF; : .g S.F. Overhangs 245 35% Allowed: 1710.45 S.F. Drive/Walk 585 Under/Over 54.55 S.F. Total 2595 Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole HeightCalc @ SW corner of project = 191.26' s A v,:'s �,, x� ,PPROVED AS NOTED B $ BY ENGI EERING Total 745.90 Average 186.48 ate; �.. 1�- 25' Allowed 25.00 Max,Ht.Allowed 211.48 Main Floor Elev. Bldg. Height Actual Height 211.48 Footing Elev. _ Cut Area ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.00 ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.28 ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 6.95 ((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 3.68 Average Cut = 3.98 Volume 5565.00 Cubic Yds. FIRE f.N 3 AID ADDRESS SIGN FEW PR-o Zone'LOD't • O l b Corner NO Flag N O pedestri ctn wale-woay r uownspouts will be connected to storm tub. Footing drains will also be con- 6nected 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 j G SCALE IINCH = 20 FT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERT RECEIVE !� P 1) INSPECTION REQUIRED 0 C T 3 12006 sgvlc s STREET FLE-zw-Lc�,,OF • CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT I� c 1 gc10 Planning • Building • Engineering October 24, 2006 Jon Kvearnmo P.O. Box 3121 Everett„ WA 98213 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Kermit #bld20060184,17008 77th PI W - Driveway Slope Exceeding 20% Dear Mr. Kvernmo, This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 20% for the lower half of the driveway, dated October 15, 2006. Approvail had previously been given to exceed a driveway slope of 14%. The City's inspectors performed a form inspection, prior to pour, and found the driveway slope would be at 19'_5%, which was acceptable through the previous approval. I understand however, when the driveway was poured a Swale was created at the base of the drive which increased the slope of the lower half of the driveway to about 21-22%. The City's inspector made a subsequent site visit to witness maneuverability of a vehicle on the driveway. It was found that due to the swale in the driveway that a vehicle similar to a sedan would bottom out when entering and exiting the garage. For this:reason, your request to exceed the maximum allowed slope of 20% is being denied. .As advised by the inspector, please remove and replace the driveway to meet City cod's requirements. If you h2ive any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. SincercEy, K. GEBERT, P.E. CITY ENGINEER jm Street film /fvrw,&� Q� STREET FILE Incorporated August 11, 1890 /1:1-. L3_1.:_T -__ -- 10/15/2006 10:47 4252590799 • HILLCREST • PAGE 02/02 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 Kvemmo CC: Date: 10/15/06 Re: Charlotte Gardens, Lot 7 — Plan check #05-578 Mr. Gebert, I wrote previously to you about the driveway slope challenges facing us on Lot 7 of Charlotte Gardens. This particular lot has been very difficult to deal with. In order to stay under the ordinarily accepted (variance) maximum driveway slope of 20%, we even removed and replaced the driveway approach apron with a reverse 2% slope. Unfortunately, placement of a small catch basin immediately in front of the garage served to create a short section of slope in the center portion of the driveway that exceeds 20%. Jeanie McConnell has inspected and taken photographs of the driveway, and is very familiar with the situation. We feel that this situation does not present a safety issue, and that vehicles will have no difficulty negotiating this driveway. The slight increase in slope approaching the catch basin will not present a vehicle operator with any greater challenge. I am asking that you take these factors into consideration, and allow your inspection staff to sign off on the driveway so that we can obtain a certificate of occupancy in a timely manner. Respectfully, Jon Kvernmo 0 Page 1 Hillcrest driveway (2) 100506.JPG Hillcrest driveway 100506.JPG • i PLANNING DATA Name: �J IIGrtyt GOnStm(,Jj 1 GOImPan . In G. Date: t2 • ZS • 200 5 Site Address: 1-+DO 8 -•-."M P1 ac e Wtyt ( LOf -40F _+� Plan Check #: 05. 5 T $ Project Description: Np,H/ Reduced Site Plan Provided: YES / NO) Zoning: PRD • ZDp + • I 0 Gh a rl oti-t• Ga rol terns Map Page: 5 (p Corner Lot: (YES O) Flag Lot: (YES NO Critical Areas Determination #: Ci,+ • 2001 • DO 5q M Study Required " (,0MpJPte,u ❑ Waiver SEPA Determination: ❑ 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 7,152) C LAWiC, arG(S Of YUCUYI w Osed. Re wired Setbacks Street: -4� -n•t (sE PL- W• I O : Side i N5 Side: 10 deattI Tf 25 Actual Setbacks Street- to Side: S (W I O 1 + = t+ q ❑ Detached Structures: 1J1DYIZ, 5V10W1n M Site Plar1. ❑ Rockeries: ❑ Fences/Trellises: ❑ Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: ❑ Stairs/Deck: Parking Required: Z Parking Provided: 2 Lot Area: Lot Coverage: Lot Coverage Calculations: 41515 0 m aX P-ey 1 pt 0�- QRD Building Height . Datum Point: G. 13. aC N W yT1W Lo+ -. Datum Elevation: t Op , (� Maximum Height: ,q Actual Height: 2 Gj 'ji l I. 4 15 ADU Created: (YES / NO On,& V- ftAA<A/X• Subdivision: p•2Op �-• q /PR•p• YDO �•l0 } (pts @ �•�'0�• I �I S1" Street SW Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / NO - Other -.. A1%3• 1D -�5•q0 Ied3.g0 _ � ; I��o.41-9 Ary age (�rud� t Sol . 2 5• -r 25' - Zt (.'•I•�-5 M D► �Li 91n-r p IQ511-U16 Zl1.1+ 4 avt rago o-F Apr A V N ZOO 5 1014 5 Z49 Plan Review By: •: Gina GocC-i a Critical Areas Checklist CAFile No. Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) Site Address/Location: 7 70 %/ ,171s 7 U). , 2. Property Tax Account Number: o , / 7 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): , 4. Is this site currently developed? �es; no. If yes; how is site developed? S-- 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. 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): e A! .S d s e e 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: T1 Q ; Approx. Depth: Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: % Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway_ floodplain of a water course. 9. Site co tains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? �at time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow ;shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 1/ 11. Obviolis wetland is present on site: ^ -rT 2- For;City Staff Use Only 1., Plan`Check Number, if a hcable?° PP ' 1 Site is Zoned?, 3. SCS mapped soil-Me(s)? ala.v�loca� c �rlo bra X g c/�SA � .• 4. CriticalAreas inventory or A. map uidleates Gritical Area: on site?rr gap 5. Site within designated earthhssubsidence landslide: h area? ' .DETERMINATION . STUDY REQUIRED . WAIVER . lewed' ....;!]-�e :.. in Date:'. � % 1-G7 Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 DF ED,tj • City of Edmonds Development Services Department _ Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 /4C. 1 gqo 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). RECEIVED Date R7 eived: APR 2 5 2001 City Receipt #: Critical Areas File #: PERMIT COUNTEH 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 < incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of n knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAGENT // /� DATE 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. / - T SIGNATURE OF OWNER �1cr�-----�-c� �i1i • DATE Owner/Applicant: ,5"Gf Name //// // //// ��,, ��7L�� i/� /2 /L/ Street Address 7 S C' State Zip Telephone:, ✓'T(- 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: Permit Number: Site Location: 7707171St SW Property Tax Accf#: 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 20.15B 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 20.15B 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: 1. 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. 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. 1 70(A) and 20.15B.040(C)). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Please call me at (425) 771-0220 if you have any questions. Star C 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. F) 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). E.D t ti V 77TH PL W CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT r c:� ADDRESS, LN ERMIT 17008 77TH PL W ❑. C❑NTRACT❑Ri H❑ME❑WNERi XXXXX HILLCREST CONST DATE INSPECTEDi INSPECTED BYi DATE DRAWNi 05-10-2006 J.TRIEU 1 08-13-07 10136 NTS DRAWN BYi J.TRIEU 405 g OF Eo j, CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT r ADDRESS; 17008 77TH PL W PERMIT NO, BLD20060184 CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER; SCALEi XXXXXXX J. KVERNMO NTS DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN; DRAWN BY; 5/11/06 1 E. SIBREL 1 5/11/06 I. ABILA PP-0 — ` Zone 1,004.O t b Corner NO FIa N O s.. SITS PLAN, LOT # �7,;�sT;.`r" n as noted APPROVED BY_PLMNING Setbacks R u+red Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc.--e9..Actual 4003 Nassau Place *� rova I fcw- t . I Front Everett, WA 98201 r0L- _ _ 7 , not Sides N 5— fvr a lana%ng /de(_k-_/ oor -ii^^ W 10I 10+ Tax Parcel Number 27fl407001fl0400 � alert no r0�` r- � -Z °I t lzot7afChar�otteGarde4, ?g�� SI . ec 7, p 27N,Rge 4E S�►rM S� Site Address, i 7008 77tha RlaceWest p ` I' Lot Coverage Impervious area I Too I qtp. 0 House SF: = ^ 4_ a 1765 S.F. House SF: 1765 ACC PTABLE I l o r x Z Lot SF:,,4887S.F. Overhangs 245 I I 35%Allowed: 1710.45 S.F. Drive/Walk 585 ` ! w '�. — Under/Over 54.55 S.F. Total 2595 C ° III 1- 10'-01, pceto Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole_ I na;,s� 0 alSWcorner of project = 191.26' i �' ' ALS Height Calcs /` i � �, U A �'r:. 3 10 APPHUVED AS NOTED B 183.90 BY ENGINEERING '� - ,- _ , \ 4 C .,, -;189 25 t , g� � ALL EXP D �. ;�189:65 ��'''� � x �Ov t � . ' 4 H 2 DAY 119 Total 745.90 /,� f / Average 186.48 DMO: _____�-� . ...dL/� ' $ 5 S* 25' Allowed 25.0 � 11.4 �/ Max.HtAllowed �5uisl��li`'�rtr`i4 i11�1I �1'LD�Z®NlF A1dI�V0 EROSION CONTROL A!i�CLEc .� - Main Floor Elev.. 0 Bldg. Height°'24.98 Q or_ pedestY� ah Actual Height 211.48 �� yp� G� waIKwa.y (Q Z �P Downspouts will be connected to storm GRADING CALCS. O� ' �ti� '��q%�O stub. Footing drains will also be con - Footing Elev. = 1 Cut Area t—e,- Qc° �� 0 ected to storm stub if grade allows, ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.00 r A� �Q` and connection well be no less than .75' ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.28 '' ��,�� Nl� below invert of footing drain line. I ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 6.95 i-( (R`�Q� �Lv �Q If grade precludes such connection, ((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 3.68 then a sump will be provided. Average Cut = 3.98 Volume 5565.00 Cubic Yds. 0 - - (q . 5 G� SCALE 1INCH = 20 FT ' RIGHT-OF-WAY CO NSTRUCTlO��I � RECEIVE 7 Q„ _ 1 AND INSPECTION REQUIRED sq OCT 3 12006 r - ,•� SERVICES TR, t iSi: n.�D AID ADDRESS SIGN Ili CITY OF ED ,SITE PLAN, LOT # Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. 4003 Nassau Place Everett, WA 98201 Tax Parcel Number: Site Address: House SF: -51 S F House SF: 11765 t Lo SF: S'F Overhangs 245 35% Allowed: 1710.45 S.F. Drive/Walk V5 Under/Over 54.55 S.F. Total 25N Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' A B C D N RECEIVED Total 745.90 Average 186.48 SEP 14 2007 25'Allowed 25.00 Max.1"ItAllowed 211.48 PERMIT COUNTER Main Floor Elev, Ila A Bldg. Height — Actual Height 211.48 GRADING CALCS, F Footing Elev. = Cut Area �E M ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.00 I" z QG) MI'/, ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.28 ..a ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 6,9 em J"vPLAX �POR I FEE Cyry 0F%M0ND%§W.W1NF DR M C4 019%W A 206 T Cu4 YOU 12 - - IPLANSMi PLANS - see CC PTABLE _,MATE CH 40 -12 H 2 DAY '4 Ci 10L 2Downspouts will be connected —tostorm — 1b tub. Footing drains will also be con- cted to Storm stub if grade allows, F and connection will be no less than .75' �' / elow invert of footing drain line. L no If grade precludes such connection, Ithen a sump will be provided. SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FT 8IGH'T.0F_WP.Y CONSTRUCTION PERM REQUIRED APPROVED AS-NOTEIQ 4>xv ION REQU ANO INSPECT BY ENGINEERING Date: �`9�7 APPROVWty pLM 9/1910 P&Y- 6v-c0f73 to (pz 7 ALL lhc.18913 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.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 r 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 7621171s' 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. iectfully, arie �arrison Senior Permit Coordinator Edmonds Building Department t2111974 6 104AINLINK W. & 2.3' S. PROP. CORNER �-001-048-00 90 �.-..Q' .1 AINLINK & 3' HOG 8,005 SF 9 9 4CE INTERSECTION,• OPEN SPACE A W. PROP. LINE \21 70 A. N 56' 71 ANf`154.-'5F4- . AJ TOrAl, 11,6F ON -SITE 1.374 it) v SF V. -ty 9 6 8 ti to 52' -r6 9E 74' R; 29 i ` i P V., 2,5 A Z PARKING :� 3 HOG & -OP N S r 97 .3' CHAINLINK A FENCE, 2.3' E OF PROP. LINE a 7 t A .7' 3' CHAINLINK 778- o FENCE 0. 7' E.-71 3' CHAINLINK FENCE 0. 4' W 'b tK' A 9,� 5 lKl- S 9,552 0o 61 cry offdm Ce&pi'ate ofgTVanc)rMPORA PER INT AT: Occupancy established by this certificate: No. Stories: 2 Basement: Owner of building: 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as the proposed occupancy is classified. ?iARTMENT OF BUILDINGS NAL RESIDENTIAL CODE,,' ax<'> B Dwellind Units: ECTION R110 truction: Permit #: 2006-0184 icted and approved complying with the requirements of the up and idivision of occupancy and the use for which Issued this 6th day of November 2006 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY EXPIRES JANUARY 6, 2007 Chief Building Official By: Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. STREET-FILECity W WWI DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.SECTION R110 AT: 17008 77'h Place W .-Building Permit M 2006-0184 t Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units: 1 No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A - Type of Construction: VB Owner of building: Hillcrest `Construction=Company The Single Family Residence at 17008 77th Place W has been inspected and approved complying with the requirements by of the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as _adopted Kthe CIfyafor'the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy is classified. Issued this 24'h day of October, 2007 Chief Building Official By: L Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. � ToOg - 11 PL V/ 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/23/07 ORDINANCE NO.3662 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 17, 2007; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing, the Edmonds City Council determined that: A. Certain unopened street right of way located at 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, shown on the attached Exhibit A is surplus to the needs of the City; B. That the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) represents an appropriate compensation to the public for the said right of way is approximately one-half of the fair market value and is an amount offered to buy the applicant as consideration for the vacation; C. Said sum, while in excess of one-half of the appraisal provided in the record is, in light of factors personal to the owner and the assessed valuation of the property, a better indication of the fair market value of the tract to be vacated; and D. No property will be landlocked by said vacation or otherwise deprived of access, NOW, THEREFORE, (WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - I - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Certain unopened right of way of 77th Place West, located adjacent to 17008 - 77th Place West, Edmonds, Washington, is hereby vacated. The tract to be vacated is shown on the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. In consideration for said vacation, the applicant has paid the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00) to the City, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The City Clerk is accordingly authorized to record a copy of this ordinance of vacation in the land records of Snohomish County. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYAR G AKENSON L 10 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY �5e- W. SCOTT SNYDER (WSS668831.DOC;I/00006.900000/) - 2 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3662 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 4th day of September, 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3662. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 5th day of September, 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE (WSS668831.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 4 - Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } S.S. Ll RECEIVED SEP I9 2007 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly swom on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3662 City of Edmonds a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: September 09, 2007 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swom to before me this 1 Other day of September, 2007 v NOTARY s BLIC Notary ublic and or the State of Washington, residing fty�r tsr7o�io&8 County. O �T� 61 "F WASH Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001535873 fhc.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 October 24, 2006 Jon Kvernmo P.O. Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: Permit #W20060184, 17008 77th PI W - Driveway Slope Exceeding 20% Dear Mr. Kvernmo, This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 20% for the lower half of the driveway, dated October 15, 2006. Approval had previously been given to exceed a driveway slope of 14%. The City's inspector performed a form inspection, prior to pour, and found the driveway slope would be at 19.5%, which was acceptable through the previous approval. I understand however, when the driveway was poured a Swale was created at the base of the drive which increased the slope of the lower half of the driveway to about 21-22%. The City's inspector made a subsequent site visit to witness maneuverability of a vehicle on the driveway. It was found that due to the Swale in the driveway that a vehicle similar to a sedan would bottom out when entering and exiting the garage. For this reason, your request to exceed the maximum allowed slope of 20% is being denied. As advised by the inspector, please remove and replace the driveway to meet City code requirements. If you have any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. Sincerely, K. GEBERT, P.E. CITY ENGINEER jm c: .--9treet file • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • I-!-._.. / -, if 1 • 1 10/15/2006 10:47 4252590799 HILLCREST PAGE 02/02 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 Kvemmo CC: Date: 10/15/06 Re: Charlotte Gardens, Lot 7 — Plan check #05-578 Mr. Gebert, I wrote previously to you about the driveway slope challenges facing us on Lot 7 of Charlotte Gardens. This particular lot has been very difficult to deal with. In order to stay under the ordinarily accepted (variance) maximum driveway slope of 20%, we even removed and replaced the driveway approach, apron with a reverse 2% slope. Unfortunately, placement of a small catch basin immediately in front of the garage served to create a short section of slope in the center portion of the driveway that exceeds 20%. Jeanie McConnell has inspected and taken photographs of the driveway, and is very familiar with the situation. We feel that this situation does not present a safety issue, and that vehicles will have no difficulty negotiating this driveway. The slight increase in slope approaching the catch basin will not present a vehicle operator with any greater challenge. I am asking that you take these factors into consideration, and allow your inspection staff to sign off on the driveway so that we can obtain a certificate of occupancy in a timely manner. Respectfully, Jon Kvernmo • Page 1 Rom- I 1 1� .i _ � � 'i.. a5,, F �'. +-. � .. .. �' �i. � �/ � `�,. ' � _ � � � � � , �,.. �' 's 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, FEB 15 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT C17Y OF EDMONDS As requested by the City of Edmonds I have reviewed my prior reports prepared for the five proposed residences on Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this subdivision located along 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 lot will be signed and submitted along with this final review letter. Please call me if there are any questions. Respectfully, Robert M. Pride, P. E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer dist: (i) addressee rmp: HillcrestRes4 EXPIRES 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 gee 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC Robert M. Pride, Inc. December 15, 2oo5 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Hillerest Construction P. O. BOX 3121 Everett, WA 98213-1121 Re: ' Gcoteehnicallnves-tigalion Proposed Residences — Lots 2 and 4-7 17007 77LI- Place (Nest Edmonds, Washington RMP Projcxst- No. 05-352-01 Dear Mr. Kvernmo, 425 814 5672 p.1 Consuiting Engineer FEB 15 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS This report presents the results of our site exploration and geotechnical evaluation for five single family residences in the Charlotte Garden develuprnenL i11 Edmonds. The prolx-rty is situated adjacent to 771h Place and just norL11 of 17pL 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 structures, and to provide recommendations for Lhe design and construction of the foundations. Preliminary plans for these house show that minor site grading will be required to establish building pad grades. USES mapping for this; area of Edmonds was used as a reference for this invesLigatiorl. Site Conditions Previous clearing and grading have been performed on this site. in c onnecLion with the overall six 10L development. The access street has been paved and utilities have been installed to serve the residential lots. Observations of the around conditions indicate` that fill has been placed over most of the lots to create the existing grades that slope generally toward the northeast. A steep slope descends down toward the easterly side of Lb is development and there is a designated wetland west of Lot #6. Tlu: slope on the easterly side of the plat is heavily covered with vine-s and native shrubs, and there are some mature trees located on this native 1V211:1V slope. Observations of this slope showed,no evidence of gross failures , or instability that would affect the proposed construction. According to Minard (USGS —1983) this area of Edmonds is underlain by glacial till (QvL) and advanced outwash deposits (Qva). Seven exploratory Lreuches were dug in . the area of the proposed residences to confirm I:he presence of fill soils and to classify "W-.13203 Holmes Point O ive NE Kirkland, WA M34 Fax: 425-8145B72 Phone: 42"14-3970 EET FILE.. Dec 15 05 O7:53p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 p.2 Dm ember 15, 2005 Mr. Jon Kveiiimo 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 free remnants that were buried in the fill. Below the fill were topsoil and medium dense silty sands that were categorized as weathered till. A majority of the fill material on this plat is 10cated on Lots 6 and 7 that are on the westerly sick: of the property. lip to seven feet of soft and loose. fill with organies and debris were encountered on iAl #7. Lots 2 through 6 had fill and disturbed soils that ranged from 1 to as much as 4 feet as disclosed by the test pits. Groundwater set -page was not encountered in any of the exploratory test pits. SUDImary logs of these test pits are, shown on Appendix A and their locations are shown on Drawing No. 1. C.tm')Le finical Recommendation~ on the basis of our site inspection and subscn-face 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. 1;ooting depths are r..xpecled to range from to as much as 5 feet to bear on the undisturbed native soils. An allowable soil bearing val tie of _->noo psf may be used in the design of these footings that should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade. '111is value may he increasedby 1./3 to account for temporary seismic or wind loadings. n passive earth pressure of 2O0 pef may be used to resist. lateral forces. Where fill soils exceed a depth of about five feet on Lot #7, it is recommended that the bearing wall footings be supported on driven pipe piles either 3 or 4 inches in diameter. These pile~ :should be Schedule 80 galvanized pipe Lbat are driven to refusal into the native till soils. Refusal is defined as less than one inch of penetration over a pet7od of 3o and 15 seconds, respectively using a 45or or 850# pneumatic: hainnier. Each pile may be loaded up to 8 and 20 tons, respectively for working capacity. Where pipe piles are used for foundation support they should be connected with concrete grade beams that also provide support for the concrete slabs. If the upper fill soils are compacted with a vibratory roller to a depth of two feet, lbe floor slabs can be poured on the compacted fill. Some,interior slab settlement. can be expected where the depth of fill exceeds three feet. Some excavation wit I be required to establish the building pad for the residence foundations. 'Excavated soils should not be used for structural fill udder the residence, but maybe placed in landscape areas or hauled offsite. Normal erosion control procedures should be in place for mriAruction of this residence in the coming winter months. site drainage improvements will i nc:l ude the installation of footing su bd ra i ns, a rea 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 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 br: into the existing storm water system installed as part of the street improvernents. Summary construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be reveolod during construction that vary frurn the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on i) our interpretation a11d evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual _ subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the as.5umption that sufficient observation and testing will be performed during the appropriate phases of the work. our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance.- with generally accepted principles of geotechnic:al etxgineering as practiced 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 discu, this report in greater detail. ` 4-pecLifully, j Robert, M. Pride, P. E. Principal Geoteehnical Engi list. (2) Addressee rMp; HilicreslPlatl Phone- 42"14-3970 ExPia�s �.� 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 9EZ34 Fax: 425-814-5672 Dec 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.4 0 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 — 6.0ft FILL: Silty sand and sandy silt; gray brown, soft, very moist; with organics and concrete debris; buried tree branch and roots; 6.0 - 7. Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense to dense; Test Pit No. 3 — Lot 7_ 0.0 -- 7.Oft 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 r 0.0 — 2.Oft FILL: Silty sand; brown, very moist, soft and loose; 2.0 — 3.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; no groundwater; Test Pit No. 6 — Lot 4 0.0 —1.0ft FILL: silty sand; brawn; 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 — 4.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; Test Pit No. 8 — Lot 6 0.0 — 4.0ft FILL: silty sand; brown, very moist, loose; 4.0 — 5.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; M� 13203 Holmes point Drive NF. f,j Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425 814-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 Dec 15 05 07:54p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 p.5 c Ref. Plat Map for Charlotte Gardens SITE PLAN Proposed Charlotte Garden / 7r Place SW and 171 6� Street Edmonds. Washington Robert M. Wide, Project No. 05-352-01 Drawing No. Deccio Engineering 17217 7th Avenue west Bother; WA. 98012 (206) 390.8370 Fax: (425) 741-8214 RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2004 pL.ANNING DEPT. Charlotte Gardens Level 1. Downstream Drainage Report =F e` it' fSTEIL 111 riXPIREB 2/22/0.-r Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill Site Location: 7707 17111 Street SW Edmonds, Washington 98026 Dated January 18, 2004 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 Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill Site Location: 7707171" Street SW _;� • `r © Edmonds, Washington 98026 25693 G.: RCS 2/22/04' 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 ITnctrpnm Drainnve Analysis .................................................. 3 iln_Qi4a (`nneit�prafinnc ..................................................... 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 r INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared at the request or. Gary Trunkhill in support of 6-lot subdivision. The subject property f Mis located at 7707 171' Street, S.W. Edmonds, Washington. This report addresses the "Level I" 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 7707 17 1 11 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 ofExistinp, 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: FIELDINSPECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITH EXISTING AND PREDICTED PROBLEMS A field inspection of the property, surrounding area and downstream conditions was performed by the engineer on January 18, 2004. The weather was overcast and dry. The total distance covered was 900 feet downstream from the site to Puget Sound. Upstream Drainage Analysis: The site is bordered by 171' Street SW to the south which intercepts any upstream runoff from the south side of the property. To the north and east is the ravine which intercepts any upstream runoff from the north and east. The site slopes from north to south which eliminates any runofffrom entering the site from the west side of the property. Therefore, there is no upstream, offsite runoff entering the site and the runoff is limited to the 2.10 acres itself.. (See Figure 4 "Downstream Drainage Analysis Map") On -site Drainage Considerations: The site is 2.10 acres in size and contains a single family dwelling and landscaping. The top half or west side of the site contains gentle slopes of approximately 6-percent, which run south to north- west. Along the east and north sides of the site are steep slopes containing a ravine which drains north-west. Along the west side of the property is a small wetland which straddles the west property line. All runoff from the site drains north east into the steep ravine. This ravine is located with in the City ofLynnwood City limits and based on the contour information there is little ifany upstream area draining onto the site. Downstream Drainage Analysis: Segment 1: Ravine; From on -site to two 12-inch culverts (0' to 400') Drainage leaves the site along the north property line where it flows down the steep slopes into the ravine containing a natural drainage channel This ravine is located just south of and follows Bertola Drive and is located in the City of Lynnwood drainage basin. The runoff flows northwest where the drainage from the stream channel is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter CMP culverts located just west of the City of Lynnwood treatment plant. ► The storm drainage on along this segment consisted of a natural drainage channel located in the ravine. The slope of the channel was approximately 2 to 4-percent. There were no indications of overtopping, or capacity problems. There were indications of scouring along this section which is typical of stream channels with super critical flows. Segment 2: Pipe Flow; From Ravine to outfall into Puget Sound. (400' to 900') Drainage from the ravine is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter cmp pipes. These pipes intercept the flow from the stream channel direct it through the ravine along the south side of the City of Lynnwood Treatment Plant where it flows under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and discharges into the Puget sound. The storm drainage from the ravine to the sound consisted of two 12-inch diameter cmp storm Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report January 18, 2004 Page 3 pipes. There were no indications of problems at the time of the inspection including; overtopping, capacity, erosion or scouring along this section. The pipes were clean and the creek channel was at the same level as the invert of the pipes. A limited inspection of the outlets of the pipes indicated no problems at the outfall. This concludes the downstream description. A total distance 900 feet was covered to Puget Sound. TASK 4: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION Level 1 Analysis Conclusions: The total distance covered was 900 feet from the site to the Puget Sound. The Level I 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 & xrrrnvrTV M A P 148-000 70' DRAINAGE LYNNWOOD lo PIPE SYS I > IE 110 A ON St 999 13,538 SF X" NOTE CITY AM J CITY DISCIa3- sys-n W17H /v. /jam,. U \\ \, ' i • °�i^ % 0, X, A '4 ",, 10 sr 6 NAf_.G.P.A,\\E 16,666 SF C emp WAL�PLCV 16 Is I ' ) A L 5,878 SF "ON 69 2.-, OAQJ 997 do \/ SF 5P. 2 ' 5A KING�! F R U) 4 OPEN SPA_ 4,075 SF F___ 65' Cs #1 SEPTIC C14 56- 7 PUMP 4.868 SF LINES 87 LF iro SDR 35 PVC:1go- - 88 68'_ !20' 7 _1957- 41- 2 eo 5,376 SF 200— SSMH a a96 .96 NEW is bis 41— - LOT 2 4_�O .o SEA -LAW 7FJ?RACE DIVA I pp 005660-000-002-00 k __o_ 0 do FIGURE 2. DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SNOHOMI ffiew%'%L 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 ---3w 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 F.luvaquents, tidal 21 Getchell silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes 22 Getchell-Oso complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 23 Getchell-Oso-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes 24 Greenwater loamy sand 25 Hartnit-Potchu b- 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-Harmit 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 60 Rober silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 61 Rober silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 62 Rober silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes 63 Skykomish gravelly loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes 64 Snohomish silt loam 65 Sulsavar gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 66 Sultan silt loam 67 Sultan Variant silt loam 68 Sumas silt loam 69 Terric Medisaprists, nearly level 70 Tokul silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 71 Tokul silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 72 Tokul gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 73 Tokul gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 74 Tokul gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 75 Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes 76 Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 77 Tokul-Winston gravelly loamy, 25 to 65 percent slopes 78 Urban land 79 Verlot mucky silt loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes 80 Winston gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 81 Winston gravelly loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes 82 Xerorthents, nearly level GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TALBOT PARK ESTATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR CITY OF EDMONDS IN STREET FILE SEP 1, 12003 Western Engineers, N 17311-135t° 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: W. Steve Bullock NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds; Washington NGA File No. 360902 j 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 SITE CONDITIONS .......................... »................. ...... »..... .....»...... »..»........... »...................... » ... .........»..........»......2 SURFACECONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACECONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................3 GEOLOGY............ .....»........ ............ »........»......»..».».......».»............».»............ »........... »... »..... ».....»....»....»»»...» 3 EXPLORATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................3 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION .... .......... ...... ......... »... ».............................. »»......».».»..........»»»».».....».....»..5 SEISMICHAZARD.......................................................................................................................................................5 EROSIONHAZARD...................................................................................................................................................... 5 / LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY.....................................................................................................................5 SLOPESTABILITY.......................................................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... »... »...... .....»»....»...».».......»......»..».»...»»».»»...............»»..»7 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 7 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES..................................................................................................................................8 STEEPSLOPE SETBACK..............................................................................................................................................8 SLOPE AND SETBACK PROTECTION............................................................................................................................9 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING.............................................................................................................................9 TEMPORARYEXCAVATIONS....................................................... :............................................................................. 10 STRUCTURALFILL.................................................................................................................................................... I I FOUNDATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................12 SLABS -ON -GRADE ....................................................................................................................................................13 SITEDRAINAGE.............................:..........................................................................................................................13 USEOF THIS REPORT .......... »... ».... »....».....»».....»::»».........».»»..»........».»......»»..........»..»........»..... ......... ....14 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. - i e 4 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 — 17Is' 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 -� v also been provided with a co of a preliminary geotechnical topographic information. We have p copy p ary evaluation report for the site, dated September 12, 2001, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. In your letter to us dated October 17, 2002, the City stated that the pertinent sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code for this project are 20.15B.I IO.A & D and 19.05. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the site subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions and provide recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following- 1. Review available geologic and soils maps of the area, and the provided geotechnical report for the site. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions using a subcontracted backhoe. 3. Perform field mapping and develop cross sections on the steep slope at selected locations. 4. Evaluate slope stability on the site, and complete slope stability analysis. 5. Provide a recommended setback/buffer from the top of slope for building siting. 6. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill. Y Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington x 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 1715t 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 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 Geologic Mgp of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Ouadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard (US Geological Survey, 1983). The site is mapped as till, which is described as an unsorted mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. Drift is a similar unit to till but has some sorting. Advance outwash and transitional bed materials are mapped a short distance from the site. Advance outwash is described as sand with varying amounts of gravel. Transitional bed material consists of bedded clay, silt, and fine sand. Our explorations encountered material consistent with the descriptions of drift and advance outwash, and we observed transitional bed material in the northeast section of the site, near the bottom of the ravine. Explorations The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on December 18, 2002 by excavating two hand auger explorations, and on February 3, 2003 by excavating nine test pits with a backhoe. The hand auger explorations extended to depths of 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface, and the test pits were excavated to depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative of Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the hand augers and test pits. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 7. The soil logs are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 8 through 11. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the logs should be reviewed. Our two hand auger explorations were located on the slope of the ravine feature. These explorations NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation : Talbot Park Estates 3 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, groundwater seepage could outcrop on the face of the steep slope during the wetter periods of the year. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. t Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington _f 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. / b Geotecbnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 6 We did not observe seepage on the steep slopes. We did observe several bowed mature deciduous and evergreen trees on the steep slopes. This is likely the result of soil creep. Based on the competent soils that are believed to form the core of the slope, the absence of indications of past deep-seated slope movement, and the absence of water seepage on the slope, we consider the slope to be stable with respect to deep-seated movements. However, we did observe indications that the slope has experienced shallow failures and gradual slope movement. We would expect that such events to continue in the future. There is a significant potential for shallow sloughing events to occur within the steeper portions of the site due to the steep inclination of the slopes. The potential for sloughing may be reduced by routing surface water away from the top of slope, maintaining vegetation on the slope, and repairing any areas disturbed during construction. Periodic monitoring of the site steep slopes is also recommended. With the recommended setback, these sloughing events should not adversely impact the planned structures. Slope Stability We analyzed global stability of the steep slope using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2. XSTABL is a two-dimensional, limit -equilibrium, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random potential failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that cause failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as the lowest number calculated. The geometry of Cross -Section B-B' was used for the slope stability analysis. The factor of safety against slope failures affecting the ground surface 35 feet beyond the top of the steep slope was found to be above 1.5. The parameters and results for this analysis are shown in Figure 6. This analysis along with our field observations is the basis for establishing the recommended building setbacks. The shallow explorations within the upper portion of the cross-section B-B' encountered glacially consolidated sandy soil. We observed transitional bed material consisting of silt and clay in the lower section of the northern portion of the steep slope at cross-section B-B'. We did not perform laboratory shear testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on visual evaluation and classification of the soils and our experience with similar conditions. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM3MNDATIONS 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. y Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 9 be advanced a minimum of 7 feet below the existing ground surface if a 25-foot setback is desired. We should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation subgrade and setback distances prior to placing foundation forms. The existing residence on this site is located within 15 feet from the top of the steep slope. We do not know the depth of this residence's foundations, and have not evaluated the suitability of the residence setback from the steep slope. Slope and Setback Protection Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback areas not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including temporary excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. Also, water should not be allowed to pond in the setback area or flow onto the face of the slope. It should be understood that the closer site soil disturbance and development are to the slope, the more risk there. is of decreasing slope stability. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance to the slope and setback surficial soils and vegetative cover both during and after construction. Of great importance to the long-term stability of the slope is the control of surface and near -surface water, and erosion protection. We recommend that all drains, including roof and yard drains, be directed away from the top of slope and routed into a permanent discharge system. Surface drainage over the slope should not be permitted. Site Preparation and Grading The first step of site preparation should be to strip any topsoil and loose soils to expose medium dense or better native soils in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. The stripped material should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The exposed subgrade should be compacted to a non -yielding condition. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading techniques might, be necessary. These could include using a large excavator equipped with wide tracks and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrades with a layer of crushed rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered, the subgrade should not be compacted as this NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 10 could cause subgrade disturbance. The prepared subgrades should be protected from construction traffic and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrades. The on -site soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered highly moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. These soils become very difficult to compact when wet of optimum moisture content. This often results in extra excavation and the need for importing all-weather material for fill, which could significantly raise costs. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier summer months, if possible. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate - a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to a maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the upper loose soils be no steeper than 2 Horizontal : 1 Vertical (2H:1 V). Cuts in the underlying medium. dense to dense native materials may stand at an inclination as steep as 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. K 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 theexception 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 GEOTECNNICAL 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 v 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 banner 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 A Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 14 by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than 3 percent fines), granular material placed along the back of the wall. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may be used instead. The free - draining material should extend up the wall to 1 foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF THIS REPORT This report is the property of Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. and has been prepared for the City of Edmonds for use in the review and permitting of this project on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. NGA should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility, although the likelihood that such an event will actually occur may be low. The hillside should remain stable during normal environmental conditions; however, inherent to steep slope areas is the risk of movement due to extreme environmental conditions such as severe earthquakes and storms. Because of the existing sloping conditions, the area should be periodically inspected by the landowner, especially after winter storms. If distress is evident, we should be retained to provide advice on remedial/ NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 15 preventative measures. The probability. that 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 re 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, kSO EOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. stensen, PE Project Engineer O�•SN Y ofa o�N� 3 ExPi��s o3 Khaled Shawish, PE Senior Engineer TRC:KMS:krrm Eleven Figures NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Project - Site 7 P � t s v v � 72ND ` ST 5w Tel .731D Sr a �` .L psi~ Ito IL s, a sv ev . a 2 74 sr / �rAfDEg1tK 97ST11 ST / 17ErM ST f 9 vnV ,. IL � fft° N x 18D ST - a� TL SV o !L y Bi iWITH' ST SW n sv si 3 .H Or nr Uffm ST 7B81H i ST SY SY;:.. Ise�Mnq y.n,. J a `1 l rpEffffir m 11f1Y 3 ��,` y.✓-11T.l,I „<tP ' a' loci" S1 SV rl S1 nMr [� st►f / tflf:. 2rr a 1oiSt � �';r,� ��s'�`a�. <19.15• ti ` 'rar sl Not to Scale N O 1ECTNUMBER NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 360902 Talbot Park Estates ASSOCIAT -s, INc. N G A s 2P4= Ori&W AW rGL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS , Figure 1 Vicinity Map 17311-13Uh � � ,-5„ 5� may,,, ((.2s) 337 �,.eti.e.- M seon W. tch ./c wm (xf) 784-2756 5 t� m 0 N U U"" Z c W Z Oy fn z Saw I W o 1 :LEGEND Ch W O Z W i iE 1 TF-1 Number and Approximate 1 1 Location of Test Pit I HA-1 Number and Approximate i Location of Hand Auger A N Approximate Location N .� of Cross Section W (a cv °�— Property Line _ a co ----- Top of 40% Slope ~ —.W— Setback Line 0PROJECT NUMBER 360902 Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet Figure 2 uedand a 71 to O W 0) f� C WCA N � A oWest Cr 220 CDM a RL � N D ro y 200 yY4yY Z 1Y G D 180 Z a r m Z aG m 0 Z a m 160 iR n Z i� a 140 a Z P d Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) Elevations are Approximate � 70 ic w s � n East 220 200 Stream 180 160 140 Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. In o c f� 10 A m A n Southwest -190 -170 -150 X& ,' �-110 Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) Elevations are Approximate BI INortheast 190 170 150 -Stream 130 / 110 Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. West 3 Cr 0 220 m M P R o m n 6 n N 200 Z P-1 4 A G i D. 180 1, i F m Silty Sand with Trace Gravel a� = U) n 0 a c 160. to YX9; n Z 140 2 0 Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) Elevations are Approximate m a 0 P x Top of Steep Slope F East 220 200 140 )r' Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape. 180 160 (D 140 m V) X Q 120 100 W CROSS SECTION B--B' 10 most critical surfaces,. MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.505 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 aRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND ORE THAN 50 % MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND NO.200 SIEVE 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: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. the touch 2) Soil classification using labratory tests Moist -Damp, but no visible water. Is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil Is obtainedfrom consistency are based on below water table Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. IECT NUMBER NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 360902 Talbot Park Estates NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. , 2/12M on" AW eAo GEGTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOL0G STS 1 Fissure 7 Soil Classification ,,,,,-„s„, A_ ,E , W S..h.,,;,, C,,,,,,,,w1 !,--_1"9 . 2 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 12118/02 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 T 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 PR THREE 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 6.0 TEST PR 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 2/3103 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 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 2.8 TOPSOIL 2.8-4.5 SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 4.5 - 7.0 SM/Sp GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5, 4.5, AND 6.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213/03 TEST PIT SIX 0.0-1.5 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) F( ILL) 1.5-3.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 3.0-7.0 SM/Sp RUST -BROWN MOTTLED GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.0, AND 6.0 FEET MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3103 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0 -1.0 TOPSOIL 1.0 - 3.5 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 3.5-6.0 SM/SP GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0, 4.0, AND 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2/3/03 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 -1.0 TOPSOIL 1.0-4.0 SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE -FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 4.0 - 5.0 SP-SM ' BROWN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 4.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 2/3103 JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 10 '4 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 JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 11 Deccio Engineering 17217 7th Avenue West Bothell, WA. 98012 (M) 390MM Fax: (425) 741-Ml4 RECEIV ED JAN 2 3 2004 PLANNING DEPT. Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill Site Location: 7707 171" Street SW Edmonds, Washington 98026 A. Dated January 18, 2004 C�STtE��'�J` NAL l� EXPIRES 2/2210r 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 Prepared for Mr. Gary Trunkhill o A, p Site Location: .Z•QP� w�sy,FCC�, 7707 171s street SW ,,er"`� _�; • o� O Edmonds, Washington 98026 Z7—lRZ3 2/22/0s _ _1 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 DownstreamDrainage Analysis ................................................ 3 Task 4: Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation ............................... 4 Level 1 Analysis Conclusions ................................................. 4 List of Figures: Figure 1: Site Location & Vicinity Map Figure 2: Developed Site Conditions Figure 3: Soils Map Figure 4: USGS Downstream Analysis Map INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Gary Trunkhill in support of 6-lot subdivision. The subject property is located at 7707 17111 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 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW & STUDY AREA DEFINITION The subject property is located on the north side of the intersection of Sea Land Drive and 1711 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' 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 runofffrom entering the site from the west side of the property. Therefore, there is no upstream, offsite runoff entering the site and the runoff is limited to the 2.10 acres itself.. (See Figure 4 "Downstream Drainage Analysis Map") On -site Drainage Considerations: The site is 2.10 acres in size and contains a single family dwelling and landscaping. The top half or west side of the site contains gentle slopes of approximately 6-percent, which run south to north- west. Along the east and north sides of the site are steep slopes containing a ravine which drains north-west. Along the west side of the property is a small wetland which straddles the west property line. All runoff from the site drains north east into the steep ravine. This ravine is located with in the City ofLynnwood City limits and based on the contour information there is little if any upstream area draining onto the site. Downstream Drainage Analysis: Segment 1: Ravine; From on -site to two 12-inch culverts (0' to 400') Drainage leaves the site along the north property line where it flows down the steep slopes into the ravine containing a natural drainage channel This ravine is located just south of and follows Bertola Drive and is located in the City of Lynnwood drainage basin. The runoff flows northwest where the drainage from the stream channel is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter CMP culverts located just west of the City of Lynnwood treatment plant. ► The storm drainage on along this segment consisted of a natural drainage channel located in the ravine. The slope of the channel was approximately 2 to 4-percent. There were no indications of overtopping, or capacity problems. There were indications of scouring along this section which is typical of stream channels with super critical flows. Segment 2: Pipe Flow; From Ravine to outfall into Puget Sound. (400' to 900') Drainage from the ravine is intercepted by two 12-inch diameter cmp pipes. These pipes intercept the flow from the stream channel direct it through the ravine along the south side of the City of Lynnwood Treatment Plant where it flows under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and discharges into the Puget sound. The storm drainage from the ravine to the sound consisted of two 12-inch diameter cmp storm Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report January 18, 2004 Page 3 pipes. There were no indications of problems at the time of the inspection including; overtopping, capacity, erosion or scouring along this section. The pipes were clean and the creek channel was at the same level as the invert of the pipes. A limited inspection of the outlets of the pipes indicated no problems at the outfall. This concludes the downstream description. A total distance 900 feet was covered to Puget Sound. TASK 4: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION Level 1 Analysis Conclusions: The total distance covered was 900 feet from the site to the Puget Sound. The Level 1 Analysis indicates that there is little in the way of drainage capacity problems. There were some indications of scouring of the stream channel which is typical of streams with super critical flows. The proposed sub -division is only 2.10 acres in size of which only 1.4 acres will be developed. The total drainage basin, draining to this ravine is 344 acres in size, which makes the site less than 0.6 percent of the total contributing drainage area. The project proposes to mitigate the potential erosion to the steep slopes by tight -lining the un- detained drainage down the steep slopes into the ravine. In addition, the drainage discharge. point is located within the City of Lynnwood's drainage basin, where a previous agreement was reached for direct discharge into the City's drainage basin without detention. Water quality treatment will be provide through the use of a "Stormfilter" water quality vault which will treat the runoff prior to discharge from the site. Therefore, the proposed development should have little if any impact on downstream conditions. Charlotte Gardens Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report 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 & xrrd-n%rrrV M e P DRAINAGE =� �, \ =7/ "s ue % y)✓✓�,^, y ,; I LYNNWOOD 48-000 \ = :'Nti.:� 15 y`,; /,�/;�/�ll,� ,/ I PIPE SYSlI \ � �— tl k / :�/ ,1. 'C ,/%�//l: mil•%':'� I�?i� IE 110 ON St 999 73,538 SF —OPEN SPACE�� ` / '/ \\ NOTE CITY ACK CITY a E \ ;�/ DISCI SYSTI !�/ WITH \ O� \ \ '0 \ \ 1 ///�lt $ jN G P.Av\E.1 i 6,666 SFCBP \•\ QUAl,pviVAf7/ / \i'� I A / l L —J/ 5,878 SF I E /� /4 / 1'�. -70 a � 0009 �y2+ o. R�\3, I j 997 9R \\III n ' OPENKAIt '/� I FR h 4 4,015 SF \ i 65 SEPTIC I 7 PUMP ' gf, ah�-- 7�'� �► ' i LINES EM4 4.868 SF \ 87 LF 8'0 / / % H #2 SDR 35 PVC_ j6 (l / 20 / /a\\ 2 -7 5,376 SF \1 +j SIR A96 SF `mayWsiv LOT 2 SEA —LAWN TERRACE DIV A \ ¢T� ► pp 005660-000-002-00H�c�` t� \ \= I FIGURE 2. DEVELOPED SITE / a f CONDITIONS i V. �S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SNOHOMI SOIL LEGEND SYMBOL NAME 1 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 2 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 3 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 4 Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy foams, 25 to 70 percent slopes —y 5 Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 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 Ragner fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 58 Ragner fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 59 Riverwash ` 60 Rober silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 61 Rober silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 62 Rober silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes 63 Skykomish gravelly loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes 64 Snohomish silt loam 65 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 Urbanland 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 May 2003 STREET FILE AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 115 NORTH 45' STREET 0 SEATfLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.784.4755 Table of Contents Table of Contents Preface.................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction...................................................................................... I 2., Water Resources Evaluation............................:...............................3 2.1 Introduction............................................................................. 3 2.2 Wetlands.................................................................................3 2.2.1 Methodology.......................:...........................................3 2.2.2 Investigation Results ........................ :............................. 6 2.3 Stream...................................................................................11 3. Bibliography ...................... ........................12 ...............:.................... 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 L . USFWS Plant Indicator Status..........................................................6 2. Wetland Functions and Values.........................................................7 Critical Areas Study i Talbot Paris Estates Preface { Preface At the request of the City of Edmonds (City), this report has been prepared as a third -party wetlands and creek evaluation of the subject property, the proposed plat of Talbot Park Estates. In preparing this report, AC Roth Environmental Consultants (RES) has used site information and survey mapping of RES wetland flag locations provided by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates; as referenced herein. Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field at the time of investigation by RES, RES's understanding of 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), and RES's understanding of federal, state and.local regulations governing wetland and stream areas. Prior to preliminary and final design or any construction, all appropriate regulatory agencies should be contacted to verify the findings of this report, and to obtain appropriate approvals and permits. The wetland boundary, wetland, and stream classification and recommended buffers are RES's best professional opinion based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of its study. The final wetland boundary determination, classification of wetlands and streams, and the required buffers and setbacks are subject to change by the appropriate federal, state, and local jurisdiction. Critical Areas Study Talbot Park Estates Introduction 1. Introduction The subject property is an approximate 2 acre site located at 7701 171" Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, near the intersection of 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 reportentitled 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 2 Introduction 2. Water Resources Evaluation 2.1 Introduction On April 2, 2003, RES staff performed on -site investigations to determine the presence, type and extent of water resources on the subject property. The primary objectives of the site evaluations were: 1) the identification of any streams and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); and 2) the delineation of all water resources subject. to land use review and regulation by EMC § 20.15B. On -site water resources include approximately 1,374 SF of scrub -shrub and emergent wetlands located in the northwest corner of the Taylor Park site and extending to the west (Figure 3). The total size of the wetland is. approximately 4,485 SF. A stream enters the site at its southeast corner and flows in a northerly direction near the east property boundary. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE has jurisdiction over the waters of the United States, including streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. If no fill of water resources is anticipated, direct contact with ACOE is not required and the City of Edmonds would be the lead regulatory agency for site permitting. 2.2 Wetlands 2.2.1. Methodology Prior to conducting field evaluation, a number of sources were consulted. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) has evaluated wetlands throughout the Stanwood area, using the system described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979). The NWI mapping, as portrayed at http://www.nwi.fws.gov/.fails to identify any wetlands or streams on or in the vicinity of the subject site. Soils on the site have been mapped as the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam and Alderwood-Urban land series by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Neither of these is listed as a hydric soil on the Official Hydric Soils List for Snohomish County (SCS, 1994). To perform the wetland delineation for the site, the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) was used. Critical Areas Study 3 Talbot Park Estates Introduction SLUr"m 1"am 072M4-1-02I-0001 ftm ROOM a ww" 072704-1-00-000 ANORM GAMD J 072706-1-060-OM NL moo 000-m-4m LASOOL Las aSOO-000-002-4,OS Figure 2. Site Map ffm Om mm wk7m UNQ --CAIEOWY 0 SIREM ULM ARIM 072704-1-008-000/ =_—Top w swm wm (OUNARY NO# TOTTER two �-CAIEGM a STREAM STREAM OLFFER DKE Room a a am 072704-1-070-OM —10 SrMA(X PER REDOMMENDATM OF GEDIEMOWAL m Hm sm 072704-1-033-0007 Critical Areas Study 4 Talbot Park Estates Water Resources Evaluation The methodology in this manual recognizes that the three parameters .of hydrology and wetland plants are generally found in wetlands and that these parameters are important in the establishment and maintenance of wetland communities. Within the methodology, indicators are evaluated in the field to determine satisfaction of each of the three parameters for establishment of wetland boundaries: 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 Water Resources Evaluation Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status Plan�'indjca 0 status Indtca(or status, , .:Abrev�attbri: < < Defuution (Probability of flccurrenee)' 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 absence of a positive indicator of wetland hydrology, use of professional judgement. At several locations which supported uniform or homogeneous plant cover within the delineated wetland areas, sample plots (Appendix A) were established for recording of wetland characteristics and for an assessment of wetland functions; including those described in Table 2. 2.2.2 Investigation Results RES conducted a site visit in 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 1=�n#lon pq 17eitnitinit K ' s Highest Value x Lnwest 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 gpg 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 uptakelconversion are related to presence.of water velocity containing vigorous plant growth = of mineral soils, with minimal plant nutrient uptake or conversion and macrophytes in the subject waters for biofiltration; pollution sediment retention and nutrient uptake/conversion; growth and no pollutant inputs pollution reduction reduction is related to the opportunity for pollutant inflow to . point or non -point sources of pollution = pollutant the wetland . removal opportunity Storm/floodwater management based on the location and of the wetland within the basin wetland with impermeable or slowly permeable less than 5 acres and the wetland's physical features soils comprising <5 percent of the upslope watershed and either no permanent outlet or constricted outlet with unconstricted inlet or evidence of floodplain or expansive flooding within one year; wetland of more than ten acres Groundwater recharge variables include periodicity and rate of flow, wetland size year-round, open water wetlands greater in size small, topographic low areas which and depth, surface topography and underlying soils and than 10 acres with water depths greater than 10 are only seasonally inundated geology feet Wildlife habitat and biological based on habitat characteristics and biological process high community diversity, valuable species support, absence of or limited manifestation functions values, including: habitat type, diversity, size and value can provide relatively equal proportions of open of community diversity, valuable within wetlands and adjacent uplands; food quality and water and vegetative cover and have refuge species support, relatively equal diversity; biological community diversity and structure; plant potential proportions of open water and productivity and support for and presence of game; vegetative cover and refuge commercially important or unique species; and potential opportunities for refuge and provision of surrounding vegetation with potential to reduce visual and noise disturbance Critical Areas Study Talbot Park Estates Water Resources Evaluation occurring species) was recorded for each vegetation layer and the soil type/soil color and depth of soil saturation recorded (See representative data sheets in Appendix A). The on -site water resource is a 0.032 acre portion (Figures 3, 4, and 5) of a larger (0.10 acre) scrub -shrub and emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated wetland, as classified by Cowardin, et al. (1979). The wetland is found in a shallow depression on the northeast corner of the subject property and extends to the west, onto an adjacent property. Figure 3. Emergent Wetland at west boundary, looking into the property from the west. Note emergent zone and standing water. The wetland on the site has no overstory and the shrub layer is principally comprised of Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), and red alder (Alnus rubra, FAQ, with some Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) cover entering the wetland area. Other than sparse creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW) and occasional (Juncus effusus, FACW), the herb layer throughout the majority of the fringing scrub -shrub zone is absent. The vegetation in the more central emergent area, in which standing water was 1 to 2 inches ;deep at the time of evaluation, was dominated by Pacific water parsley Critical Areas Study Talbot Park Estates \ t l \ R r�,r t t I ;' L♦ -, ♦ l � T.`x �, �'�' � � 1 -\�; � rt i. `./ ' z N .:i? 4 • ,tip;: _{.; . , Figure 4. Another view looking east into the property. i Upland , Y lt ,,s.4 � � � 1tr u, �, � Y 1 / lrr � s �� , .� (� � •� t f :� , 1� Wetland t • . • �,-- �1i K '� e,a„•.c...C'�•"tl`w.+e*.arl'�"" .. �., k ti� �/ f" �, ./ `,+ J \ � 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 (IOYR 2/1) very organic loam in the interior of the wetland. Similar to the findings of Pentec, distinct change in soil color and change in topography separated wetlands from uplands, with soil colors of dark yellowish brown IOYR 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 below, largely based on size and location of the wetland. Since the wetland is greater than 2,500 square feet in area, it is regulated by the City (EMC §20.15B.020.TT). The wetland is classified as a Category 3 wetland (EMC §20.15B.060), since it is equal to or legs 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 20.15B.060. Due to barriers, this stream is not used.by salmonids and would therefore be buffered on either side by 25 foot buffers (EMC 20.15B.120). In April 2003, RES measured the width of the stream at various locations along its course, and is in agreement with Pentec's estimate that the average width is 30 inches, yielding an average width west of centerline of 15 inches. Critical Areas. Study 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. J 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 siiigle- 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 • terraQterra-associates_com Mr. Tom Sullivan. May 31, 2002 All of the test pits contained a gravelly sandy soil with a topsoil layer between five to eight inches deep. The topsoil layer was highly organic in nature with a matrix. color of lOYR 2/1. Soils below the topsoil were mostly lacking in organic material. Matrix colors ranged from 10YR 3/1 (Test Pit TP-1) to 15 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 6ydric. . Redoxymorphic features (iron masses, nodules, reductions, or depletions) were present in Test Pits.TP-1, TP-2, and TP 3, and absent in Test Pit TP4. Redoxymorphic features develop when soils are saturated long enough during the growing. season for iron and manganese to biologically transform from an oxidized form to a reduced form. Soils in Test Pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3 satisfied the hydric soils criteria. Surface water was not present at the time of our site. visit. However, there was ample evidence of recent standing water. Organic topsoil was exposed over part of subject site. No evidence of leaf litter existed in the area of exposed topsoil. We observed watermarks on a downed big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) tree and brightly colored rust on the bottom two inches of the wire 'fence and fence posts that delineate the eastern border of the subject property. We also observed free water in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3, but not in Test Pits TP-2 or 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 (Oemleria cerasiformis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), English holly (Ilex aquifolium); 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 subject property is 1,600 square feet:: The determination of wetland conditions was based on patterns of vegetation,soil conditions, and field hydrology. The. size of this wetland was estimated by plotting distance and_beanng 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 Approximate Location . of Property Line -- Wetland. Area Wetland off -site not Approximate Location • surveyed. Datep Int 2 of Property Line -- --_- Wetland Area 1,600 square feet_ 2__,,�_� on property. Daapoint4 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. . NOT TO SCALE Terra WETLAND LOCATION SKETCH MAP TALBOT ROAD PROPERTY Associates, Inc. EDMONDS,WASHINGTON RMG.otechnical and Pro).No. T-5149 Oate MAY 2602 Fig.. 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 *Alnus rubra Red alder T FAC *Acer macrophyllum Big -leaf maple T FACU *Crataegus monogyna Common hawthorn S FAC- Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry S FACU Prunus laurocerasus English laurel S NI Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry S. FAC Ilex aquifolium English holly S FACU Polystichum munitum Sword fern H FACU *Galium aparine Cleavers H FACU 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 Is the soil on hydric soils list? ❑ Histic epipedon present? ❑ SOILS Is the soil a Histosol? ❑ Mottled? (Redox). ❑ Gleyed? n %Cover 20% 10% 15% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 15% Depth Matrix Soil Texture Color" Redox Color Redox Features , Redox Size and Abundance Pore Linin S. 0-5" 1OYR 2/1 Sand loam 5"-10" 7.5YR 4/6 Sandy gravellyloam 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 list 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: 4o evidence of wetland vegetation, soils, or field hydrology. 4 FIELD DATA SHEET WETLANDS DELINEATION Field Investigators: David R. Teesdale' Date: May 24, 2002 Site IDc Talbot Road Property State: WA County: Snohomish Applicant/Owner: Sample Plot ID: # 2 . Normal environmental conditions at plant Community? Normal conditions exist Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology.significantly disturbed? No VEGETATION DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES: Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Indicator %Cover *Crataegus monogyna Common hawthorn S FAC- 50%. *Prunus laurocerasus English laurel S NI 10% *Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum S FACU 10% flex aguafolium English holly S FACU 2% Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry S FACU 2% Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or- FAC: T-0°lo, 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" 10YR 3/2 Sand avell loam 3"-17" 10YR N4 Sandy gravellyloam 10YR 415 Iron masses few fine 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 9- Wala#dResoyrces, /nG 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 (Jr' `l r, Pam, !UN 0 4 2002 --------- """-- 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425)337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE REPORT TALBOT PARK ESTATES CITY OF EDMONDS - SNOHOMISH COUNTY,' WA PER FV T r.r Cftati+itip:i1 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 171" 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 20.1513 Critical Areas. Site Description The subject property is bounded to the south by 171" St. SW, to the west and north by single family residences and on the east by a forested slope. The south one -quarter of the property contains an existing single family residence with associated out buildings. The central portion -of the property is a mix of grassland and forest. The north end of the property is forested with immature red alder. The topography of the site is sloping to the north and east. Wetlands One small forested and scrub/shrub wetland was located along the western property boundary. The on -site portion of the wetland is approximately 500 square feet in size. The off -site portion of the wetland is approximately 1,200 square feet in size. The total area of the entire wetland is approximately 1,700 square feet. Wetlands less than 2,500 square feet in size are not regulated in the city of Edmonds (EMC 20.15B.020 TT). Wetland boundaries were reasonably distinct based on soil color and dominance of wetland vegetation. The off -site portion of the wetland was estimated by observation done while looking over the existing property fence. The off -site portion of the wetland boundary appears to have been flagged in the recent past. Dominant wetland vegetation contained in this wetland includes twinberry, creeping buttercup, and salmonberry. Wetland Resources, Inc. Talbot Park Estates June 3, 2002 EXH �i3 .`. G WRI 02118 FILE NO. '6/ .�1y i ' / / / % CC't91• - _ _ _ HllION -155- /// 75— CREEK Cr ♦/ // // , '� / /� by /' '� \ �=� '' v ♦ / \ i�d= ° I WU pu v-__��,_�' / ,�, ,/ ( - ® ��j 1 /; j!I 11 uN t ( � I � ��•�•. ., i. �1 r ! � o ♦ ♦ v < o �� l o/ 2 SS 1 � � \ 1 d'' �• /' I / rx cl 41 \r �---- - --r—�� - • — - — � — - —•�—• - � _ I \ 'Ili. /' / �' x 33N3d 3dM b I J 9N! '141 'HO ,9 3ON3! 3 ,98.09 H1NON -j 71 -1!,) 1 W �l1 5 O Z N CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE MAP For: trl ` Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Site Location: 171" St. SW HEdmonds, WA 98294 v� ICE By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 — 19"' Ave. NE #►106 Everett, WA 98208 WRI #i02118 425-337-3174 June 3, 2002 / x \ V / / PLAT MAP FOR TALBOT PARK ES TA TES IN SEt/4,NEt/4 OF SECTION 7,7.27 N.,R.4 E.,W. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON LERlorell-Swerlend k Aetoctetae, Inc. � ew r� r. er � . y.,,,e o s •'la>n►iM • lslnl-w� m � >��6-3-0:1 tE 1 ATTACHMENT C PENTEC REPORT A www.pentecenv.com PENTEC EWRONMENT/I L Delivering smarter solutions February 28, 2003 Anchorage Mr. Steve Bullock Senior Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department Boston 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 - 171s1 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 spectabils), Sitka willow (Sa/ixsitchenis), red alder (Alms rubra), ladyfern (Athyrium fi/ix-femina), and creeping buttercup (Ranuncu/us.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 Cromer, Inc. 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Fax 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682 Seattle fN City of Edmonds February 28, 2003 2130-15 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 20.1513.060 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 (20.15B.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 oo t 3=t 5\tWbo0adve%d ew.d- 3 � � {-9jii y� it OR APPENDIX A DATA SHEETS yV'VVG I LP%l,4W LJCLIIVCM 1 IVIv 6JM I M rt.Jr11V. r1ut I -AV. ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Transact ID Weather: Cowardin Project/Site: Dater-=- Field Inves!i for Size(ac): <0.�c1 1-2 2-5 >5 r-- Normal Conds Y' Disturbance?. e __._......_ - - .Cover CIA" 1. 0.54 2.5 2.5.25415 3. 25-.50437.5 4. 50.75462.5 S. 75.95485 S. >954 97.5 WA Dominant Plant Spp Cw CIS Indicator, ,.,; Stahis .. Stratum WA UP Dominant Plant Species Cw Cie Indicator Status Stratum z LJ rag n r Knowr u m6 F-I rwr u W,jr—F..u.y,, n•u�p..u.0 u ...w• • u .... yw,,, .......-.. %OSL, FACW of FAC 1 a:' herb ♦ _ shrub a _tree . _ total Hydrophytlo Vag, Y. N Raticnslle: O>50% 13<50%(OSL. FACW or FAC (no FAC-)) O ether HYDROLOO ;. Inund7 Y urf H2O depth: ' SetAl2: (S' in sandy solla)7 ' N .'t)optth1h'�o'�f'� free H2O In Poole: Other 1• I tors: O water marks O drift Imes O sediment deposit e(,w/L drainage patterns Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root channelsAl2' O water -stained leaves O local soil survey data OFAC-Neutral Test (In vague hydrot) O other Recorded Oats: O r em, lake or tide gauge O aerial photo ❑ other O none Growing Season? seed on: "Oats O obev rowth O soil 1 mp O 19.7' >411F O G 0 hydrology Rettonals: o.n K -.SOILS to at least 16' Ssrfea/Phase: Taxonomy Drainage Class Confirm Mapg Y N Depth Matrix Color' Mottle?/Color Glev7 Texture Y N �' Y N �m:P/A Y .N..) Y N Y N Y N YN YN 'below A "on or 10' lehaver shallower) ..�H ydric Soil indicators: I&Hlstosol-Hlstlo splpedon O SuMk1k Odor LS'AQuk Moisture Regime 1C' Reducing condhions O OleyedlLow Chrome O High Surface Organic Conlon: In Sandy Soils O Congestions O Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Hydrk Soils List: OLocal ONq al Other hydric soil Indicators: Hydrfc So9?f,_Y)N Rallonsis: //�� uR NAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wetland? ail' Rational. all pars o'eq no Bolls no hydrol Sample point within wetland? Y N Other Momtatlon/Remerki. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT Groundwater recharge (H M L • Groundwater discharge (H Stream baseflow contributiN;A) M N/A) Floodwater attenuation (H N/A) Floodwater detention (H _M/A) • Floodwater retention (H M - Floodwater desynchronization (H M L /Al WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS Sediment'shoreline stabilization (H M L A . Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants L' AL_ Transformation of nutrients or toxi R(s (H MI1/ Wastewater treatment (H M L y NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FU TI S, • Primary productivity (H M /A) • Organic accumulation ( /A) Organic export(H M L Decomposition (H M© N/ Detrital transport (H lug L-, 1�/AD Nutilent.cycling and utilizatlo (H. M A) Food chain support (H M'Cyl/Al HABITAT FUNCTIONS Invertebrates (H M ' A) Amphlbians.(H M N/A) Fisheries (H M L Mammals (H A) Birds (H M(TUA • Sanctuary and refuge (H M L At SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCT10 S • Non -consumptive valu Recreational (H . L / Aesthetic (H M Historical (H M L / Archeological (H M L A • Consumptive vat Fisheries (H M L N/ Renewable resources HH M L Agricultural (H M L A. AD Wildlife Data Plot Location Sketch PlRSWETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No.,, 7_ ROUTINE ONSITUETE INATION METHOD Transect ID Weather: Cowar in Project/Site:Date:- Z. o Field Investigato Size(ac): <A <1 1-2 2-5 >5. r,:D, Normal.Conds? Disturbance? Problem Area? !a. Cover Class 1. 0. 5+ 2.8 2.5. 25•►15 3. 25.50+37.5 i• 50. 75+02.5 5. 75-95+85 e. >95+ 97.5 . WA. IDeminanl Plant Spp Cvr Cis Indicator I Status Stratum W/L UP Dominant Plant Species Cvr CIS Indicator Statue Stratum 10 t3 rac'n'I know) ❑ W/L pint list O chva/reor adaot O moroh adapt O tech lit O W/L plant data base %OSL• FACW or FAC herb ♦.X>shrub'a free. _total Hydrophyllo Vogl 11 Rationatlb: 0>50% 0<50%(OBL• FACW or FAC (no FAC-)) O other HYDto.LOfi Inund? Y N Surf H2O depth: SatAl2' (8' In sandy eoils)7(yy�� Depth of free H2O in pftole: Other 11 Indicators: O wooer marks O drift Knee. O sedlmarll'QsposNPIL drainage patterns Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root channeieAl2' O water -stained leaves O local soli surrey data OFAC-Neutral Test On vague hydrol) O other Recorded Data: am• lake or tide gauge .O aerial photo O other O none avowing Seseon Based on: O date O obsv rorhh O soil t mp O 9.7' sit•F O Weiland hydrofol Rationale: olLs to m rem te• Series/Phase: Taxonomy Dralnsge Class_,_Confirm Mapg Y N Death_ Matrix Color' Mottle?/Color 21pa Texture t"- #?/ Y N Y N S/ Y N Y. N Y N _ Y N 'below, A horizon or IV ignaver shallower) Solt Indicators: O Hlosol istlo epipedon O SuMldle Odoi cAqub Moisture Regime Redueln ewWRions 9Y'. ,'o ow Chroma O High SuAea O attic Content In Sandy Solis Conaetions O Orgarao Streaking le Sandy Soils Hydric Solis List: 'bLocal ONat al Other hydro soil Inelcators: Hydrlc Son?a 1 Rational*: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wet!and?j Y/ N RMIonaF3:..gll�no veg no soils no hydro) Sample point within wetland? Y N Other lnt atlonlnefnarke: FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ! HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT ! , Groundwater recharge (H M L N/A) ' Groundwater discharge (H M L N/A) • e::P;,."l hsaQeow oontdbution (H M L N/AI - Floodwater ctten"tcn (H M L N/Al • Floodwater detention (H , M L N/A) Floodwater retention (H M L N/A) Floodwater attenuation (H M L N/Al • Floodwater desynchronization (H M L N/A) WATER 0UALITY FUNCTIONS Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L N/AI Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants (H M L WAj_ 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 N/Al Organic accumulation (H M L N/Al • Organic export (H M L N/Al Decomposition (H M L .WA) Detrital transport (H M L N/A) _ Nutrient cycling and utilization (H M L WAl Food chain support (H M L N/A) HABITAT FUNCTIONS . Invertebrates (H M L N/A) Amphibians (H M L N/Al Fisheries (H M L WA) Mammals (H M L WA) • Birds (H. M L WA) • Sanctuary and refuge (H M L N/Al SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS Non -consumptive value Recreational (H M L N/Al Aesthetic (H M L N/Al Historical (H M L N/A) Archeological (H M L N/A) • Consumptive value Fisheries (H M L N/Al Renewable resources (H M L N/Al Agricultural (H M L N/A) ' Wildlife Date Plot Location Sketch i f11 City of Edmonds RIGHT;,TOF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT A. Address or,Vicinity of Co: B. Type of Work (be specific C. Contractor: rl UT1 . R' 4L -.� Permit No: 6; WO n'i Issue Date: g!/ Mailing Address: a�clnc �(1 j- [l _ � 12 II % F _ 14 t 0 � � � Phone: _ _ 14 2•!S - F 70 - 1179 State License (7 #: I L L CCC _ ` p 7o DL Liability Insurance: Bond: $ - City Business License #: r D', Building Permit # (if applicable): ,0 (o ' l Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): h. :4 r E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ; ` ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD) ❑ Multi -Family Single Fariiily ❑ Other INSPECTOR: NA vV in 11%4 15% �f 1 a rZ rr/ / /(i1C ct-)J I r �_ F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. ❑ Mail Approved Permit ❑ Call for Pickup APPLICANT INDEMNITY: Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF' ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. s ♦ 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. 4 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 THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST M KE THE P COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: i7'1 Date: 69 ©(o (Contractor or Agent) REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: If � r,, 12J Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line. FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: 54C )_—AM rnufe,4 DATE:111/17/01p NO O.SHALL BEGINPRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE CADocuments and SettingsTurtis\My Documents\Forms\Engnrng\ROWpermit_ doe Revised 10/01/03 DATE RECEIVED � 2-L . [PERMIT EXPIRES IIMIT CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT# \ A / ADDRESS ( D O (� 7I jj j VV OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ce PLAT NAM /SUB'DIVISIIION NO. }{ �eqs LOT NO. � % LID NO. MAILING ADDRESS ' 1 v / LID FEE $ Z //�-� y� •� o �• V l� O� I o< 1 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved ❑ RW Permit Required ❑ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Street Use Permit Requiretl ❑ Inspection Required ❑ C_ �C J 1 �� REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Sidewalk Required ❑ underground ❑ Wiring required ❑ NAME METER SIZE LINE METER SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES NO 0 2 ~ • \O rY\ �e s r/ ='. ' W U ADDRESS / n� i gill n. �- REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE W WZ 0 W a • //,�11y�y�yy l� t7�1) Si�Ti.J �Z//�dc>//nit L�e^71.� /� /N.S7/'7r✓nJ� : Gi CITY ZIP TELEPHONE p 0 � - 65Ovv " 330Z a,^-,r/:o NAME CBL# ;-'. _I 11 C_re S VA -ODgA6 - i, f -"`" , DATE , %AGI-.0 n , GINEERING REVIEW BY ;, ny,,,' IY ADDRESS �... t'� al� ... h►`� IRE REVIEWED,BY ? `' DATE Z Z CITY ZIP;; O TTELEPHONE �s �7 75 4 U. STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIR TIOIN DATEr HECK D BY. VARIANCE OR CU - SHORELINE OR ADP# '' INSPECTION REQ'D SEPA COMPLETED EX�E/MPT ' 1 t� 10-C C O L 3y.i.3./O1 r( YES I� NO J PROPER AXACCO NT A CELNO •' a �'T�Jc,J�7--/7//U� 7 ///� / /j/�///J /V't�L n CA# iQD 1 D5�1 `{ - WAIVERO - ZONE •:. PP-F �i I R A S GN A E .ALLOWED PROPOSED' IG HEIGHT ALLOWED PROPOSED �" / L' / G� l:!' .STUDY,A V �LOO ZSI �1 NEW {L_l� RESIDENTIAL . -PLUMBING MECH LOT COVERAGE : �LLQYVED 'PROPOSED' , REQUIRE D,SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED ERIT $IDS 'RE'Fi FRONT_ t1 SETBACKS (FT.) �SID �2E 6 ❑ ADDITION COMMERCIAL 0 ... COMPLIANCE OR ❑., 455fl .1 -105`�' bC IJ (W 1 > 1_� 1 _;10 y1/ 1 1 , `I 1 Z i ❑ REMODEL ❑ MIXED USE ` GHANGEOF U$E ❑ SIGN PARKING REO'D. PROVIDED LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE a ❑ MULTIFAMILY,, ,.; 2 '.: ii ��g l• ��:.:-"' �3IOI OCO ❑ REPAIR G D N FENCE ❑ CYDS ( X•'. FT --),,,REMARKS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑. TANK ❑ OTHER' GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER' - ' ❑ ' = AIRPORT❑ ROCKERY FIRE ALARM' P (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN ,. . a TYPE OF C NS R N ?'' % OCCUPA GROUP J w NUMBER NUMBER OF O OF - p STORIES . '.,_ '_ - DWELLING- UNITS; ' : - I .SPECIAL INSP CTION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT LOAD , . . , REQUIRED. YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS i O z I) h LAC:L T 1 ✓� o m GEOT&dH R ORT... . BY::.. �� I STR CT RAL G " .r ` 9 2 - �� 1 3 : BY �. �� o VALUATION iWrp, Ly_'a ',� Description ,. 'i FEE Description FEE Y r Plan Check P, State Surcharge HEAT UR E LOTSLOP° ">.VESTED�ATE s to j BuildinPermit � City Surcharge "—' g PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing .a — Base Fee29 . Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC Grading f DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE J SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review W PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) o• PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection 4-150 SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION ryit 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit j IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND s Fire Inspection Receipt # Q ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 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 ,/ / ;q 7 = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt # J I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I 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 This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt pt is acknowledged in space provided. rece WORK EN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 16:27. OF IALSSIGN URE D,TE SIGN UR NE t GENT): DATE 1GNEDD' (425) W `�' 771-0220--'• +� LEA BY DA 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 NSPECTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 270407-001-021-00 fl FND. 1/2" REBAR & CAP 7 FND. 1" O.D. IRON LS# RM 17672 25.32'E X 270407-001-018--00 PIPE 1.28'S X 1.24'W 12 0.32'N OF NW PROP. COR. OF SW PROP. COR. 2-21-05 211.97' DEED 2-21-05 N90'00'00"W 211.97' CALC 150.97----------- 2 S. END 3' CHAINLINF' 61.00' } 4' FENCE REf y� -� FENCE 0.6'S X 0.4'W 11 b �; E. END 4 HOGWIRE OF SW PROP. CORNER o FENCE 81.3E X 26'S O3 3' CHAINLINK FENCE LEGEND 270407-001-049-00 'O o �, OF NW PROP. CORNER r - - - CROSSES PROPERTY 1.2'W 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 r114.29 O N. END 3' CHAINUNK SEC. SECTION OPEN SPACE I FENCE 49.1'N X 00W SE,NE, SOUTHEAST, NORTHEAST, �I OF SW PROP. CORNER NW,SW NORTHWEST, SOUTHWEST ---------- ---�---------- s?y I C-4I_ � S.,N.,E.,W.. SOUTH, NORTH, EAST, WEST 44 , o ,o� O S. END 3 CHAINUNK S.F. SQUARE FEET 10 gs4,,8 w I �I N s y TRACT 999 FENCE 56.6'N X 0.7'E TWP. TOWNSHIP + I M Qs gyp. 21,710 S.F. OF SW PROP. CORNER 9 oI `�' ss• NCPA UE UTILITY EASEMENT r i.1'E I zI " OS, 6O EDGE OF ASPHALT W.M. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN + cA N90'00 00 E CROSSES PROPERTY 56.24 ,\ "C" SUBDIVISION CORNER /FOUND _ II \\ �8� LINE 78.8 N OF SW r. Io I s• PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING MONUMENT AS NOTED ► WOO 1.4'E o it \ O N. END 3' CHAINUNK FENCE ® EXISTING REBAR OR IRON PIPE AS NOTED + o ci �' ' Io 1 6 l� 7 & S. END 4' HOGWIRE FENCE SET STANDARD CITY OF EDMONDS I + 000 �, o I 5 320 S.F. r in co o WETLAND 'v i1 > G+ 99. r j 0 105.3'N X 2.3'E OF SW PROP. ® MONUMENT/CASE &BRASS CAP W/ \ i o + d Ii 80 h CORNER PUNCH MARK LS NO. 30450 o• I SET 1 /2" X 24' REBAR WITH h ztDSD 1' 8 EDGE OF ASPHALT O 2.5'E '� 9$ `� I1 h V O CROSSES PROPERTY PLASTIC CAP, LS NO. 30450 d' I1 �� a LINE 115.6'N OF SW (P) PLAT OF SEA LAWN TERRACE DIV. A 5E "A ,��• �3 (1 O`V PROPERTY CORNER CALC. CALCULATED DISTANCE 7,153 No �i N06'49'49"W I N , + \ 2 ro 1 1912-./ r CATEGOf7Y // ; 0 4 HOGWIRE FENCE 270407-001-047-00 + "' h r ` 3.1E +c�, Io I � � 5 i STREAM CROSSES PROPERTY ; 0 '00'E ham. z 1 6,964 S.F. a, LINE 70.1 S OF NW N90 r 98.00 �TOTAL�'h ,ho ` co / PROPERTY CORNER .0'E �� - -� co n M c� 0 10 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N. & 39.00'-- �= 31.00' 28.00' co ¢ w W. & 4' HOGWIRE FENCE RUNS S. 3.1'E 81.00 17.00, 'oo ; rn 00 CORNER 0.8'W OF NW PROPERTY + 4' HOGWIRE FENCE 6.68y 'o col --- ._ - �r =hj ui Id 11 6' CHAINUNK FENCE RUNS N., + o N90 oo 00 n a o , r p0 3.0E MIM -----79.34'-� co �� 40 RUSE 1c8'S XOG�W OFNCE i n� 'tl0'00_E Do I - 10' VE ;r c`yPROPERTY CORNCR . _- v 12 62.14' b i ` o 4' HOGWIRE FENCE r pp 8 I w c �, ( o CROSSES PROPERT'! p1� 1.8'E o La 4,197 S.F. Q LINE 1.7'S OF NW + N90'00'WE 4- c I N o PROPERTY CORNER 7 64.00' _ ri 'ao ; 3 z 13 ANGLE POINT HOUSE .y r ASPHALT M oio ___ M _ IS 1.61' WEST OF---------- '1� t N90'0O'00'W------------- \�Ssg3k2l �OJ 13 I 1.5'E,E a _____78.02_ Q,tOn PROPERTY LINE ro 6 4,887 S.F. _b r Z iA I A O 3 4 `\ J 1.0E "� % 5 ,. /0, /i�N -coo hN c°�� 4.553 S.F. W 3' CHAINUNK c GF Oj�v / �/� ��M i o LOT 2 FND. 1 /2" REBAR & CAP \ FENCE 4 . i / �j 0 v Q r r SIC 5-27-86 LS# MEYRING 2621 DN. I '00. L__ I = N 270407-001-070-0L 0.3' IN ASPHALT HOLE ® ` i .4'E , N90.00'00"E---90.19' 2 INT. TALBOT RD. & 171ST \ I �h.� �•00, Q\ �____61.19'__� n 29.00' ST 2-14-05 \ � F i ��1kaKq). gyp• i' ,' � No:O, \ ` 4�• +<v �� ------------------------------------- 5,046 S.F. ��\ P M �� \STREAM LOT A SP S-41-•76 o W 270407-001-033--00 9,668 S.F. z 4MtiQ \ J 1 mujD. FND. 40X4" CONC. MON. WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/ "X" DN. DO IN CASE 2-14-05 mi 001 ad N I t FND. 4"X4" CONC. MON. WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/ "X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE I 0.24' EAST OF SECTION I LINE 2-14-05 I 10 Nl I oi rI Una o t aMW 00 a� 26 ss�' - o.0' 4 29. 4=8 07'1 0" I �P 60� , %' \ • lgL=36.89' N 90'00'00" E 312.90' DEED ------ v o n uj <\\ oo\�-v �/\`\\ \ R- 9�290"r� p� a nw t` � O r`,3 a; 0.615ao r N w Z s pi _ _ - 312.28' TO BOUNDARY _ aoo o N o\000� \`----- ------ 94.�2' P) - N89'51'26"E 312.96' CALC TO PC �'I o () N 00'00'00" E 312.91(P) i w w z a o SEE DETAIL "A" rn �_ J \ /A to �- \ \\\ co o) ---�- -- I I o Z w �O z 270407-001-00,3--00 I 1270407-001-002-00 I DETAIL "N' OI 0.68' 0 M 312.28' TO BOUNDARY N89.51'26'E 312.96' CALC TO PC N 00'00'00" E 312.91(P) 0 M INSTRUMENT DATA: LEICA TCR 703. AUTO ---- -DIRECT READING -THEODOLITE WITH E.D:M) - , DOC-4CIOKI nC'_ r,nl.l-TPni TRA%117=7_I_C._AT WIr_u;rQ A Iof FND. 4"X4" CONC. MON. N1 WITH 2" BRASS DISK W' i "X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE 2-14-05 i CHARLOTTE.- GARDENS A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SE1/4, NE1/41 SEC. 7, TWPs 27 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. P-2004-9 & PRD 2004-10 CITY OF EDMONDS, iNASHINGTON 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 CONDU.ITS, 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 Pl.AT 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 vt=STED UNDER THE PRD/FORMAL PLAT. NO aU I LD I :YC5 WILL !;- ALLOWED IN THE I 1:0 1 CATEO SETBACK AREAS WITHOUT 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 ROUE �o Uri, 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.: I � =�lmml W-1 r