17009 77TH PL W.PDF17009 77TH PL W
ADDRESS: 7 9 :77 &Z
TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER: c 2? 7-
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver�tudy Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: J
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: `(/ w u�X AV - 1 I If)bq
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED -
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: bhl—o
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LID #:
[I
BLOCK:
LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STREET=FILE
Name: I I G�/ec��--
Date:
Site Address: �(�� "] 7�f,� ��
Plan Check #: A,
Project Description:
Reduced Site Plan Provid ES NO)
Zoning: S - 7--
Map Page:
Corner Lot YES NO)
Flag Lot: (YES t90
Critical Areas Determination #: O _ ."
❑ Study Required Xpyi e- w/ pfom-
❑ Waiver
SEPA Determination:
❑ Exempt
❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form
Required Setbacks
Side: 2 /
Side: i
mow.- 'D/
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side: ' Z
Side: i
Rear:
❑ Detached Structures: Me&f-�: Se-fbk-S
❑ Rockeries:
❑ Fences/Trellises:
Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation:
tairs Deck:
Buildin Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height:
other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Area:
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
Lot Coverage Calculations: &D /� �� f - G(/ —� dGG1� ���G• P�CI �''�7 sLr�t
ADU Created: (YES / NO)
Subdivision: _ ZIt ,r 10 /P-04-,7 1, 2-
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination I sued: (YES / NO)
Comments
Plan Review By: frl
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc
SITE PLAN, LOT # ::>; I r J 6 i Vi r v ko vl// t L-- .
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. C/Q S IkALK FORM
PI
Nassau ace �IS.PECTICKS REC TRIED 1
Everett, WA 98201
Tax Parcel Number:';E#..;,..;:,,:.:
�` A
:....,.........�,.. ,,: '
..Site
dd�ess: >£ItS €€ 1+!1ce West-'
A `9.:..
,....,.......::.:.,:.,,
Lot Coverage Impervious area
A o
House SF 1T S.F. House SF:
1467
Lot SF 4 S.F. Overhangs
231
35% Allowed S.F. Drive/WaIM_/«
Under/Over -299.1 S.F. Total
2218 Lsmo
Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole cGfl SW corner of project = 191.26'�
Height Calcs edes}Yickri
PwatwNa�
T ,
AII
B l45.7 6- G�
D 99 I.? 6-
Total :786.4 8(o .6
Average 1.96.44 1 q to . (02,16
25' Allowed 25
-2,2444
Max.Ht.Allowed
Main Floor Elev .$,! 4
1gS7[,(f
Bldg, Height;:::..` Z2• CnG
Actual Height 219.32
GRADING CALCS zk`�Cy9� <
Footing ElevE Cut Area
((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.11 = Lpv i f
((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 5,735 a= 'y '
((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 7.485��
((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 2.86
Average Cut = 4.2975 >
Volume 6016.5 g ✓v i
Cubic Yds.1 222.83
Downspouts will be connected to storm
stub. Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
(and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain line.
If grade precludes such connection,
Ithen a sump will be provided. ___ _
PAMION CONTROL ANo UMAINAuz
3ytp i .
N c �4 �-r
60 APPROIE�20TED-...
v BY ENGINEERING
a. Date:
P P_P
n_nnLL .
:�.tbacks Required
l�ls1t:-:-;,,nt S ZS
:des 5.
N
-- E s-
-}.}Ti -ner W 10
k-tei9
61.19,
a
o.
. ,f AI:O Muunt-.55 SMN
Actual
25'
13'
5'
10t
z,b
a1 WATE 6 SEWER
(NSPE I NS REQ'D
CALL 425-7 220 EXT.1
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
C
-0
oti
Gti-� -S
t� u1�lothing in tHis�mt approval process all be
interpreted as allowing or permitting the
maintenance of currently g
S, any rretntly existing ill
240f nonconforming or unpernnitted building, s ructun
Zm� 5,9 or site condition which is outside the scup of the
_ , `�f permit application, regardless of whether such
p / „� building, structure or condition is shown on the
��) a^• site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or
conditionmaybe the subject of a sepatate;
io
"VISION
a �. 6r DEC 012006
� p
I I (--7 � BUILDING DEPARTMENT
/ CITY OFEDMONDS
S91REET
F-IL-E
SCALP 11 CH = in FT
. NOTICE REQ.
PO
SITE PLAN, LOT �I '.J k / vt r v to w/ t v�--
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. CDCiIALK r,-CAM
Ever Nassau Place ►, &-PECT Ws REQUIRED
Everett, WA 98201 �
Tax Parcel Number!.;,:::a. :,•.:;:<:<..::;•,>....:::.:..,:::.•:..::;: .0
Site Address:fifi•.:.3;ffice West
Coverage Impervious area
Lot
House SF `1 67' S.F. House SF: 1467 �� I
Lot SF a{}+4' S.F. Overhang: 231
35% Allowed. ;,...,. .< S.F. Drive/WaIF�//m
U d r/Over-299 1t S.F. Total 28
ne
Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26'
Height Calcs
PWQeQy
.,\ �
V_
A
't 8�.�0:
C
D :
901.7 6-
Wy
Total
--$(o .
Average
4�J6-��
19to• to2� �'{o
-
25' Allowed
25
'224
Max.Ht.Allowed
Main Floor Eiev.
;;13 1.4
Bldg. Height
-� -
22 • (eci,
Actual Height
219.32
GRADING CALCS.
Footing Elev.
; , .' Cut Area
AS NOVA 1
((A+B)/2)
((B+D)/2)-
i IEERIN
((D+ )
o g El V. 7 5
((C+A / -
ve
t - 4.2975
Cubic Yds. 222.83
Downspouts will be connected to storm
stub. Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain line.
If grade precludes such connection,
then a sump will be provided__„,,,, r
s.r,r,,.,,.... _ . -
f%nKrrory Arun MAINAGE
P R-p
. hrLr +,uurtr.5b slUN REQUIRED
^ -^ f% LL . i h _ rA
:�.tbacks Required
l �lSit: ;ant
.des N 5
E,
Q6
e.
i
Actual
115, OP
5' Q N
lot ♦O
cl�
z
AI;
I Q1 WATE & SEWER
:o, INSPE I NS REQ'D
CALL 425-7 220 EXT.1
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DA
LI�othing in tliis�approval proce-seall be
s
interpreted as allowing or permitting the
maintenance of any currtatly e:istin; ill
nonconforming or unperrmitted building, s ctur
or site condition which is outside1:-t7he?
V
e
permit application, regardless of
w building, structure or condition is shown
site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or
condition may
e rcement ati�-. � •
Owl al *1 ha E
Taft C' I'I t. 10STREET
P, I 6"
Wk... +q�p
iiLliLDING DEPARTMENTM
C'IIY OF EDMONDS
CITY Ca ".o Y
= 20 FTC 2
SITE PLAN, #
N .. .:;.:..:.
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. ur & &DE.aLK Fcc
4003 Nassau Place NS--PECTION'S 116-1tKED
Everett, WA 98201
Tax Parcel Number4(##It114 ' A�
Site Address:'1#3tl$b Ii ce West .S
Lot Coverage Impervious area o
House SF? S.F. House SF: 1467
Lot SF,46 S.F. Overhangs 231
35% Allowed':S.F. Drive/Wall, 520 a4 ,
Under/Over -299.1 S.F. Total 2218 6.
Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26'
Height Calcs Pedes}riart
Total �864&- g(p , 6 '� lobbb
Average 1.96.4* ► q (0, (a 25
25' Allowed 25
Max.Ht.Allowed 2.2 i, il :5 q-
Main Floor Elev.
Bldg. Height - Z2• Camel _
Actual Height 219.32
GRADING CALCS.
Footing Elev, 92.14 Cut Area
: '
((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev.
1.11
s,
V,, Grp¢,_
((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev.
5.735
((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev.
7.485
((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev.
2,86
'
Average Cut =
4.2975
Q? o, ,a, r
Volume
6016.5
91?1 �••'
Cubic Yds.1
222.83
i�� `AC
'Downspouts will be connected to storm
stub. Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain line.
If grade precludes such connection,
then a sump will be provided. _ _ ._._. —
�-x
APPRC AS NOTED
n RY ENGINEERING
J� t n ui PL �RE ao�'D ,
P Rp_ , ` ADDRESS SIGN REQUIRED
:obacks Required Actual
l�l : -e-nt S 25 ' 25 •
IV
l 61.19' C
� 140 i
1 l
�,c�•; ��" q1 WATE 81 SEWER
o INSPE I NS REQ'D
CALL 425-7 220 EXT.13
�- ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
J ,
,� QG
rah � � --..� ._.....�. �""' • _ t. �' / _
"Nothing in this permit approval process be
S • interpreted as allowing or permitting the
Z I(q maintenance of any currently existing
Sr nonconforming or unpermitted building, �
or site condition which is outside the sco of the
ermit application regardless of wheth ch
uilding, structure or condition is shown on the
site plan or drawing. Such building, strueNm or
dition may be the subject of a separate
( forcemeat action."
I
Tpp � 1 a 7. 7 6— APPROVED BY PLANNI
S7
P zoQ, o
!CH = 20 FT
-f3� . MNOTICE REQ.-R INS
SITE PLAN, LOT #
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc.
PQ-P i°iRE AMD AID ADDRESS SIGN REQUIRED
ch Mark- Top of sewer manhole @ SW corner of project = 191.26' .
ht Calcs T
A
€2>
P CIAVY1 Y l A h
wa t I� way tC,
.�
,
B
6-----
p `
90 1.7 6-
Total
' �glo• 5
Average
496.44-
Jq (o . (a 25 {S`
25' Allowed
Max. Ht.Allowed
25
221.44
Main Floor Elev >.
' *: ,
Bldg. Height;:
Actual Height
4�ZZ.
(C 9 —
219.32
I
If
GRADING CALCS
Footing Elev.
+B)/2)-Footing Elev.
+D)/2)-Footing Elev.
((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev.
((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev.
Average Cut =
Volume
Cubic Yds.1
r%
Cut Area
1.11
5.735
7.485
2.86
4.2975
6016.5
Downspouts will be connected to storm
stub. Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade'allows,
and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain line.
If grade precludes such connection,
N
Z 670
APPROVED BY PLANNING
Se backs
Leguired
l _-I 't Front S
Sides N
5 '
�r Other W
I O '
Heigbt
25 '
Jt'1
61.19'
La-,4
Tof
r �I
Actual
--�-?
25'}
.
10Im
iz-
I�o
7
C
I Q�
WATE SEWER
INSPEC 10 S REQ'D
CALL -
Ian 425.7, • 220 EXT.1'
SAIL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
C VERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
- . P or� ` w
����-S
P ,
APPROVED AS NOTED
BY ENGINEERING
v
?ate: / (v -2 c
RESUB
MAR - 7 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMEI
CITY OF EDMONDS
24 MR. ICE .
T. - !q . INSPECTION
EROSION CONTROL. AND DRAINAGE AND INSPECTION REQUIRED
Dec.' 2a 05 05 : 1 SR ROHE16 M PRIDE I MG
425 o1&672 P•t
Robert M. Pride, Inc.
necernLwr 28, 2005
Mr. Jon KvGr" Ino
Hillcrest Construction
P. 0. Box 3121.
Everett, WA 98213-1121
Re: GeotecluAcal )(x VCS6gation
Proposed Residences -- Lots 3 - 6
77th Place We%L
1Jclmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-3,W-01
Dear Mr. Kvcrnmo,
Consulting
Engineer
At your request ! have reviewed the plans for the proposed single family residences to be,
constructed on I/•)ts 3 through 6 in the Charlotte Gardens plat on 7711, Place West in
Edmonds. These re:.icl+ences have been sited within the building setback limits as shown
on the drawings by Home Design.
Based on my site inspcx:ticros and geotechnical evaluation as discussed in my December
2„ d and 1.51h reports, these Uructures can be constructed at their proposed location-s
without any impact on the adjacent steep slope areas. Minimum slope.setback distanc-s
from the face of the slope to the exterior foundation walls is at least 15 feet on Lot 3, 30
feet on Lot 4, 35 feet on Lot 5 and 35 feet on Lot 6. in my opinion these setback
distances are satisfactory for the site and subsurface conditions on these properties, and
they will satisfy the requirements of ECnC #23.8o and 23.4v.
Please call me if them. areany questions regarding this submittal.
W—spec:tfully,
Robert M. Pride,�� l . E.
Principal Geotechnical
dirt: (z) Addressee
rmp: Hillcte,cPlstt2
£7�MNES �'• 1�
JA N 19 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
. C11 I
Phone: 425-8'! d-3g70 COPY
13203 Holmes Point I'rive NE Krldand. WA 98034 - Fax: 42" 14_6672
/ i•
CB #2 \
--CB 02JA INSTALL 6" -AND \
/ ANO 1HRUST BLOCK \
-- r
SS FM /
! i
FD IE=174.00 I
o �,? i ti
. l- - =- (-'--5 U71 FY/SEWER EASEME
i! 90'00 00 E _ N \ 1 l
#1^A
04
/�...�d;;.; #I FM 1 I J
^ T F.Q.=180.00 1 1 1
1
~ 1 1
Ss ► I I I
ssMH 12 I 1 !
/ 5' CONC.
�• / SIDEWALK
Wm
DRIVEWAY CUB \ \ \ \\
(E226) TYP
I�
•;� •• �x� h� �0 •.�. Quo � , \ � ` \ �
OSSRH
I200
5 i
O � •
MP
OF
v " M TCH EXIST----- ;.
A SS
ALT W NEW Si"B
WALK.. ' y_ . oE`� ,� IE 19o.o0
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No:
,Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
Site Address/Location: 1J jV. Ic .
2. Property Tax Account Number:
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
1
4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed?
l
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).
I/ Other (please describe): 2g, > lu 7 - — .P
4,I . S o s e e
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: T 0 : A/ rox. Depth:
pp
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: __ff i% ; 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)
11. Obvio s wetland is present on site: % e� >a T Tc ►Z>= �'� 2\ -r `L� ti s
CA
TT TT
For City Staff Use Only y:S�
1. Plan Check Nua►lier, if applicable?
2. ':Site is.ZonedZ ( )_
3. 'SCS mapped soil type(s)? A WDF,%L\-J00o c � � n... bra► c x -► /CiS+_1Ys�
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. trap indicates Critical Area on site? I,r. ,A
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazy area?'
DETERNENATION
STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER;:.
Reviewed: :.. .
O
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
RECEIVED
�� OFE'D�lO�O Ci of Edmonds
�tr brie-rac' �' Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
I�� j g90 Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
DateVeceived: APR 2 5 2001
City Receipt #:
Critical Areas File #: PERMIT COUNTER
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) of
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 agre
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonal:
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 in
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applicationj,,on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT �/ /- 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.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER_ M • � DATE y_y
Owner/Applicant:
,5��
Name
Street Address
`'
s7
C' y State / Zip
Telephone: 776 �� �/
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: 77071715' SW Property Tax Acct #: 0727 041 004 00
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain
critical areas, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area and a Stream pursuant to Chapter 20.1513 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required
satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.1513 by completing a Critical Areas Study consisting of the
following:
Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements:
To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by.a
Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of
40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-
foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is
required from the 50-foot buffer.
For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot
buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area
or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the
study:
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 20.1513.040C.
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.170(A) and 20.15B.040(C)).
If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel
would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to
the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed
development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional
waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Please call me at (425) 771-0220 if you
have any questions.
Name
Signature
Date
Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds
website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
2
i
PLANNING DATA FsniiETFILE'11
Name: I-}jIIGYZraj' GOYIytjIG1"16Y1 C.oMpAV1y , IYIG.
Date: IZ• 22.2005
Site Address: 1 +0 O CI -+-•'fH P l a Gp, W e 5-r (L oJr* 2
Plan Check #: O 5. 5
Project Description: N p_W cJ F-fz_ •
Reduced Site Plan Provided: ES NO
Zonin r(
9� PRD • 20o Gvtarlo-ttt�
`�' • 10 CA a rcl-w 6
Map Page: L cj (p
Corner Lot: aNO)"' N /A
Flag Lot: (YES / NO
Critical Areas Determination #: GA. 7i00 1. 0' 0 61
® Study Required
❑ 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 V07:�.2s3 GU101'G yard 5 of grgdlhg pwpused
Re d Setbacks
Street:
25'
Side:
� N) 5 �
Side:
�� �'
s
street- ��T� P I : (W ) Id
Actual Setbacks
Street: C5
I�•15+ l 2�
Side: r N \ I
` 1
Side: 5-
�fZe€rr. 51Yeefi_�� \ 10
1
❑ Detached Structures:
❑ Rockeries: Wn-e— SVIOWVI 6V1 Sf t-e PI4rl.
❑ Fences/Trellises: p ati p ( % X I Z) o y- In 'P P-P
El I"ge-j-�
Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: q GIBS pPX Gl �Ye'e�h
❑ Stairs/Deck:
Parking Required: 2.
Parking Provided:
Lot Area:
Lot Coverage: Za •/. 0� JD- "
Lot Coverage Calculations: t{. C tj p YYI A)( PC* I of 0-rr P i -P -,j 14 (p-:� Pr-O POyL J
Building Hei ht
Datum Point: C.5 @ N E Go vYle-Y of 1.0}# -�•
Datum Elevation: 100.0 O
Maximum Height: Z E5 1 (Z y I. (p Z 5)
Actual Height:
ADU Created: (YES / NO One' l 4tt* 'e/n C-7MWV1.
Subdivision: P• 2D0'+ • L1 /QRo • 2pD L+ • 10 (-+ I of 5 @ I �'1 S W
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / NO
Other
��i`I 2oo5tol�-5zy-� �}: Igz•oo '�-Slv.5��}= l9fo.(v2S �v�ra�eUrr,�
`tlF +25=Z2-1_(o2SMaX
Iq�s.00 — neigh
D� 20l•�5
A
Plan Review By: �(/Vl 01 Gou' a/
�.T`tia+�•tiA�fiJ]tr-.y�nF^%e-�r'•"w.a'?',d'l`�/:.i�•�yy.ry,v�,,,,1„w,v.(...:�....s....�-..rri-;�r�St1`�"` ..,�.�._.,.-.,,^-�.,^°"ti..r,.. .r�,r.�k,'...". � - _ 'l� _.....,.-v'^ .�.*:P:....,
a PERMIT NO' i n i .17
ulty 01 Inumullus
SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES
Address of Construction: LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel .No.
Attach copies of all access, and utility easements' `` Verified and Approved by
Owner and/or Contractor:
Contractor License #:
Single Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units
❑ Commercial (No. of Units )
EJ Public
Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes E lvo
*RW Construction Permit #
Cross other **Private Property: : ❑ Yes _ '1 o
**Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
.' 44
A
`-, E. ,., '. Owner/Conra tctor
Owner or contractor signature and, acknowledgement statement:. IYate
By signing for this permit I certify.that I have read the City's public handout entitled.
Side Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all. City requirements outlined therein. r'
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-8004&C -5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 2
19 FOR INSPECTION.CALL 425-771-0220 extension 13a-2
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS !'•
City Permit Surcharge Feb
F
Total Fees Paid $
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY- FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED.
Job Site Ready YES NO Date:. Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
s
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: 2 z. Initial: 'e5"5 As -built to Street File:
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED; ON JOB SITE 1�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector' Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bldgforms;ssperinitj lg4/00
A of
6
INS
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT
ADDRESS. 17009 77TH PL W PERMIT
10137
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
KVERNMO HILLCREST CONST. NTS
DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
4/20/06 1 E. SIBREL 1 8/08/06 1 I. ABILA
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 mayor 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).
AOFEDP
F
171 ST SW
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
r
ADDRESS: WATERLINE NO.
17009 77TH PL W BLD20060228
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
HILLCREST KVERNMO NTS
DATE INSPECTED: INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
6/15/06 ES 6/15/06 BRONDER
Robert M. Pride, LLC
November 1, 2oo6
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Hillcrest Construction
P. O. Box 3121
Everett, WA 98213-1121
Re: Report on Wall Inspection
SFamily Residence
�ingle
009 77th Place West — Lot 2
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-125-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
RECEIVED
NOV 0 3 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Consulting
Engineer
MI�v 4 .� ILM
2�0� �aa3
STREET FILE
At your request and as requested by the City of Edmonds, this letter summarizes the
results of my field inspection of the block and rockery retaining walls recently
constructed on Lot #2 at 17009 771h Place West. It is understood that a separate permit
will be required to cover this wall construction due to its location within the Edmonds
Critical Area.
A site inspection was performed to document existing wall construction, and to confirm
the adequacy of foundation conditions for support of these retaining walls. A two -tiered
interlocking masonry block wall was constructed along north side of the existing
residence. Maximum height of each wall is 42 inches, except where the wall drops at the
east and west ends of the property. Both walls are parallel to each other, and they are
about five feet apart at the top of the lower wall. Drain gravel was placed at the base of
these walls prior to backfilling with onsite soils.
On the southerly corner of the residence is a two -tiered rockery wall that extends around
the corner of the property. The lower rockery wall is 2 to 3 feet in height, and the upper
tier is 2 to 4 feet high. There is a iH:1V setback from the lower wall to the base of the
upper wall. This wall was backfilled with drain rock and onsite soil to the adjoining
property lines. A plan is being submitted showing the wall locations with top and toe
elevations, and the attached Figure No.1 shows the construction configuration of both
two -tiered wall systems.
On the basis of my previous site inspections during excavation for the building pad and
foundation installations, these walls were placed on competent native soils. Each layer
of interlocking block is offset one inch with a total of about 5 to 6 inches of back slope
into the final compacted backfill. The rockery walls have a proper back slope if at least
5V:1H, and the base rocks were adequately embedded.
13203 Holmes Point Drive, VE rirliland;.ymA 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672
November 1, 2oo6
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Page 2
Based on my recent site inspection both the interlocking block walls and the rockery
walls are approved as constructed. A stability analysis performed for both block and
rockery wall systems showed that they have a factor of safety in excess of 1.39 against
overturning.
Please call me if there are any questions.
T
ctfully,
Robert M. Pride, P. E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
dist: (2) addressee
rmp: HillcrestWall#2
�v o WASys
®yP �•A,� C ��
16271
Fctsrt�E° ��
S7pNALG
EXPIRES /
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672
STREET FILE
Robert M. Pride, LLC dab6
October 31, 2oo6
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Hillcrest Construction
P. O. Box 3121
Everett, WA 98213-1121
Re: Report on Wall Inspection
�Single Family Residence MICROFILM
17009 771h Place West — Lot 7Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-125-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
Consulting
Engineer
REcelvED
C�- T 3 12006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
At your request and as requested by the City of Edmonds, this letter summarizes my
field inspection of the block retaining wall located on Lot * 7 at 17009 77th Place West. It
is understood that a separate permit will be required to cover this wall construction due
to its location within the Edmonds Critical Area.
A site inspection was performed to document existing wall conditions, and to confirm
the adequacy of foundation conditions for support of this interlocking block retaining
wall. The block wall was constructed along the ten foot setback line adjacent to 77th
Place for support of the higher ground surface within the utility easement. Maximum
height of this wall is 30 inches, except where the low end of the wall converges to the
sidewalk. A plan has been submitted showing the wall location with top/toe elevations.
Based on my previous site inspections during excavation for the building pad, this
portion of the wall was placed on competent native soils. Each layer of interlocking
block is offset one inch with a total of about 4 to 5 inches of backslope into the final
compacted backfill. Granular soils were used as a drainage medium behind this wall.
Based on my recent site inspection this wall is approved as constructed. Stability
calculations are not considered necessary due to the limited wall height. Please call me
if there are any questions.
spectfully, 14. "',
o
A. IPA
Robert M. Pride P. E. .
Principal Geotechnical Engin 16271
dist: (2) addressee ass''°NA1-
rmp: HillcreAwall#7
EXPIRES
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672
SITE PLAN, LOT 1 r i U1 r v w. I r�—
Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. Cho & SMOkALK F-CAU'--
4003 Nassau Place I. ff
Everett, WA 98201 tlSQECT1Co�'(;4,,iRD u
Tax Parcel Number:la#II7ta€'1 Site Address: 1#tS€fce West
Im ervious area
Lot Coverage P
House SF 'ITS.F. House SF: 1467
Lot SF 5f}46 S.F. Overhangs 231 O
35% Allowed S.F. Drive/WaIN_1/(0
W 4�
Under/Over -299.1 S.F. Total 42-1$2s
0
'1 la - :'-J AW Auurtt-.5tj,'jIUN REQUIRFD
iobacks Required Actual
mo.:;ont S 25 ' I-
4eftr• E 5 5 •
-+-+T" 'VV Io' Ion
He'i9ht".._..
4
r-
Bench Mark- Top of sewer manhole c@ SW corner Gof project = 191.26"R K', '
Helght Calcs
A
't4!
2de5►rt A` T
PW Q i wNa� Z
c'
Total
;•65-;6
-43(0,6
Average
to •
25' Allowed
25
121 111'
-s`4
Max.Ht.Allowed
Main Floor Elev :
'€8 'I4.
tqs ['(
Bldg. Height".'.
�'��-
....
22 • Ca cl
Actual Height
219.32
t
GRADING CALCS. >
Footing Elev. € 2.44. Cut Area sue` , �77, i�'kJ
((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 1.11
d - off}
((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 5.735 0.. N
((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev, 7.485
((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 2.86 d ' ; �•
� Cut = 4.2975 v o
Average .
Volume 6016.5
Cubic Yds. K 222.83 �, `•�
2�0
Downspouts will be connected to storm
stlLb, Footing drains will also be con-
nected to storm stub if grade allows,
(and connection will be no less than .75'
below invert of footing drain line.
If grade precludes such connection,
Ithen a sump will be provide(:.
3� A
u%PPROVE!, Au DOTE®.
BY ENGINEERING
A —.
I-ArAloN CONTROL AND UKAMMic 0.�'-
.%S-
XTr•�7�
Al WATE & SEWER
INSPE I NS REQ'D
CALL 425-7 220 EXT.1
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
��ti't9w�s
u1�lothing in t4.r-' ; approval process all be
interpreted as allowing or permittin the
maintenance of any currt�ntly ezisting ill
-2nonconforming or unpermitted' building, s ructun
or site condition which is outaide the stop of the
�-f permit application, regardless of whether such
building, structure or condition is shown on the
site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or
�) f4 condition maybe p
w r e rcement scrim 1
� I a �. � 5` ®tc o � zoos
T�
P BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
FitP 2oa. °
SCALE 11NCH =20 FT
1,70oq - 7 -1 ft -
Crayof�d� rkE
Cert' ' ate nfOccupancy
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE. SECTION R110
AT: 17009 77th Place W Building Permit M 2006-0228
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units: 1
No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: VB
Owner of building:
The Single Family Residence at 17009{7.j7.�h'PI W ;�.;. <hasbeen inspected and approved complying with the requirements
of the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code aa.adopted byithe Cityfor the group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 21st day of March. 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.
fhc. 1890
0-
CITY OF EDMONDS
•
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.oi.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building - Engineering
November 8, 2006
Jon Kvernmo
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, WA 98213
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Requests for 17009 77t' Pl W (bld2006O228) and 17005
771h PL W (plan check # 05-573)
Dear Mr. $vernmo,
This letter is in response to your requests dated November 3, 2006, to exceed the
maximum allowable driveway slope of 14% up to 20%. It is apparent, with the number of
letters you have submitted for driveway waiver requests within this short plat, insufficient
attention was given to the topography and finished grades of the sidewalks when
designing the homes. My question to you is why wasn't this request submitted prior to
pouring the building footing, instead of waiting until the homes were constructed and
driveways poured?
With that said, and based on Lyle Chrisman's site visit, the determination has been made
the driveways, as they exist, do not present a traffic, pedestrian, bicycle or safety hazard
nor is the public health, safety and general welfare adversely affected as required under
ECDC 18.80.060.
Because the driveways are constructed, are less than 20% and do not create a safety
hazard to the public, your request for the subject driveway waivers is hereby approved up
to 20%.
In the future, verification of driveway slopes must be accomplished prior to pouring the
building footings and substantiated by the engineering inspector.
Sincerely,
,r'
D K. Sincerely,
P.E.
CITY ENGINEER
alc
c: Street file
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
•
•
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, Washington 98213=1121
Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178
Fax: (425)259-0799
E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net
Fax
To: Dave Gebert, Engineering
From: Jon Kvernmo
CC:
Date: 11 /3/06
Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 4 — Plan check #05-573
17005 77ti' Place West
Mr. Gebert,
RECEIVED
NOV 0 3.2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens
plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the
utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when
calculating the placement of these homes.
In spite of our careful calculations, the right hand side of the driveway on lot 5 will exceed the
normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%.
We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum.
Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
dm .
Jon Kvernmo
0 Page 1
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, Washington 98213=1121
Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178
Fax: (425)259-0799
E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net
Fax
To: Dave Gebert, Engineering
From: Jon Kvernmo
CC:
Date: 11 /3/06
Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 4 — Plan check #05-573
17005 77t' Place West
Mr. Gebert,
'z r
Am
RFcE�vED
NOV 0 3 2006
DEVF.LOPJ ENT SERVICES
CITY OF EDMONDS CTFI'
We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens
plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the
utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when
calculating the placement of these homes.
In spite of our careful calculations, the right hand side of the driveway on lot 5 will exceed the
normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%.
We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum.
Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
Jon Kvernmo
0 Page 1
•
•
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, Washington 98213=1121
Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178
Fax: (425)259-0799
E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net
Fax
To: Dave Gebert, Engineering
From: Jon Kvernmo
CC:
Date: 11 /3/06
Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 2 — Permit #2006-0228
17009 77th Place West
Mr. Gebert,
RACE/ VE'®
NOV 0 3 � 6
DEVELOPMENT SERVIC
CITY OF EDMONDSS CTR.
We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens
plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the
utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when
calculating the placement of these homes.
In spite of our careful calculations, the left hand side of the driveway on lot 2 will exceed the
normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%.
We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum.
Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
Jon Kvernmo
0 Page 1
Ca
W
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, Washington 98213=1121
Office: (425)259-2775 Mobile: (425)870-1178
Fax: (425)259-0799
E-mail: jonkvernmo@verizon.net
Fax
To: Dave Gebert, Engineering
From: Jon Kvernmo
CC:
CITY COPY
Date: 11 /3/06
Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 2 — Permit #2006-0228
17009 77th Place West
Mr. Gebert,
T)a,q,Lf
J
Nov 0 3 2006 pp�
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONOS
We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens
plat for several months. In preparing for permit application and construction, we used the
utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when
calculating the placement of these homes.
In spite of our careful calculations, the left hand side of the driveway on lot 2 will exceed the
normal 15% grade maximum. It will in fact be just under 20%.
We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum.
Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
C/c'�
Jon Kvernmo
�P
t
) L�e��5
• Page 1
Ipc.189v
CITY OF EDMONDS .
121 5THAVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
November 9, 2005
MEMO TO:
Puget Sound Energy
Verizon Northwest
SNOCOM Police and Fire Dispatch
SNOPAC
Snohomish County E911
U.S. Post Office
Snohomish County Assessor's Office
Snohomish County Information Services
Snohomish County P.U.D.
Edmonds Fire Department
Edmonds Police Department
Edmonds Utility Billing
Edmonds Public Works
Edmonds Building/Street File
Edmonds Address Files
Lynnwood Disposal
Comcast Cable
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Please be advised that the following addresses have been added to the Edmonds
address system:
Occupancy: Residential
Subdivision: PO4-09
Lot 1 is 7621171st 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.
Res ectfully,
a ,
i
rie 7larrisori
Senior Permit Coordinator
Edmonds Building Department
spa �'mo,. � 12111974
lF 6' CHAINLINK •),•1
4' W. & 2.3' S.
PROP. CORNER \ � �'�'� s I _ l 1\, { _ `. 1 {, l {
—001 —048-00
90,
4AINLINK & 3' HOG j C-s' s'�,1``' 8, 005 SF 9 9\ . I \ \
:NCE INTERSECTION, .} OPEN SPACE \ \ \ \
W. OF PROP. LINE
P A. \ \
y y y y y y 998
y y V/E l
ON -SITE 1.374
kqa'
P' 1 F \
5,320 S .. � �
{ t�
ri
IV1 .n
; 984=SF , 11 Y4.;
i
o
5 i.�
%Q d f\a.e'vR 74 ego (TYP) - - r \ ' -
o
q'� ��� I,'l 1 • �� is Q
1 Z PAR)JNG
Q 3 HOG &pp�EN SP ' �''- I 119 7 :::S :: I
! 0�` 3' CHAINLINK �.. F ^ i
64
FENCE, 2.3 E. ^� --- OF PROP. LINE
9
4778 �V `
\3' CHAINLINK ' t"''4. �� 1 I: I•',':.I I .t /�
FENCE 0.7' E.
4O 578
if \ X .
o, 3' CHAINLINK /' '` - - - - 63' - - 7'
41- FENCE 0.4' W
70
Y
a�xzoz.
] 00 A
\
9,552 SF
\ J/
�. ``((.
A .i .
.��' ���'P c Via;
►a Zb A� 1-
.w�a..:��h
- fl
16320
16330
.. / 16340
16414
1s4oa ,�
16414
16420 1
16508
t6510
�+ o
1661
LU
�&@ a
Brook 71
Acres • t 6616/t �16621
�za
SlIdge:
\ 40K Lb 1
U-1
16711
�3t
1' 16717
+' n3s •�z�
IF®r ®r I�r t®r ®Ir goal ,
nll
16721
10 r ;r
A�
®� •' Lynnwood 17000 1W52 0
Treatment Plant
Is ® 1 16854 16827
® 168.38 \\ 16801 16856\ t♦
16900 16905 16858 4 16833
1g90Z
1 16907
16900
+ \ 1 16917
17015
/ 16931 16925
17003
1791
7921 \� +i+�' % 170 ;\ems s 1�1 17024 0 Q, (70
\ 5r
A,yy min ��
. \\ BWS \� 7931\ / ! ,� ! t`V 7818 817 n1
17107 \ f`\,t'IST STS 17
8015
�\ \ sot? \ 4Q' \ ' ntul 7824 14 17114 .
OW7
\ 800t \ \\ // 1717t \� �/° .P °
\ d \ Y \ \ / �! y'O 2 \ +Og 130 17128
\ 8119 8725 � !^.ti'� 17201 < y�, 17170 """��� _ \\\ 210 \ ,7 _ :I •
1 8209
\g211 17161 S W \
/ 17202 17214 > 17215 17218
' \t5 \ $ 17232 n 17217
7805 ^ 7709 17217
�7 8219 \ PD \ + \ 17212 17222 ^ ^ 17228 7507
` a WOO "" C'y �eozs 7925 7 Ro 17231
8229 Y�ZS
g 7529 7515
^
m
1
Snohomish County, WA Assessor Parcel Data . Page 1 of 2
SnolhomishOnlino Government information & Services
County4*
Washington
* R E AL * Property Information
County home Assessor Home Treasurer Home Information on which Department to contact
Please view Disclaimer If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please Contact Us.
Date/Time:11/9/2005 11:53:13 AM Answers to Frequently. Asked Questions about Parcel Data (opens as new window)
Return to Property Information Entry page
Parcel Number 27040700100400 Prev Parcel Reference 07270410040002
View Map of this parcel (opens as new window)
Links to property information below
• General Information Names & Addresses, Property Legal Description
• Treasurer's Tax Information Total Current Year's Taxes and other information
• Assessor's Property Values Market Values, Current Use Values (if any)
• Assessor's Property Characteristics Tax Code Area, Use Code, Parcel Size
• Assessor's Structure(s) Data Data related to the structures on a parcel
• Assessor's Property Sales Sales recorded since 7/31/1999
• Assessor's Mapping Information Traditional and Interactive maps, Neighborhood
General :Information
Taxpayer Name 11 Address (contact the Treasurer if you have questions)
TRUNKILL GARY R 11 7707171ST PL S W - - - EDMONDS„ WA 98020
If the above mailing address is incorrect and you want to make a change, see the information on Name and
Address Changes
Owner Name 11 Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions)
TRUNKILL GARY R 117707 171 ST PL S W - - - EDMONDS„ WA 98020
Street (Situs) Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions)
7707 171 ST ST SW - - - EDMONDS, WA 98026
Parcel Legal Description
SEC 07 TWP 27 RGE 04 PROP PLAT OF CHARLOTTE GARDENS
Go to top of page
Treasurer's Tax Information
Taxes For answers to questions about Taxes, please contact the Treasurer's office (opens as
new window)
2005 Taxes for this parcel $4,276.35
(Taxes may include Surface Water Management and/or State Forest Fire Patrol fees. LID charges, if any, are.not
included.)
To obtain a duplicate tax statement, either download our Tax Statement Request form or call 425-388-3366 to
http ://web 5.co. snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinglPrpIngO2-ParcelData. asp?PN=270... 11 /9/2005
Snohomish County, WA Assessor Parcel Data
Page 2 of 2
request it by phone.
Go to top of page
Assessor's Property Data Characteristics and Value Data below are for 2005 tax year.
Please contact the Treasurer's office for answers to questions about Taxes (opens as new window)
For questions ONLY about property characteristics or property values (NOT taxes),
please contact the Assessor's Office (opens as new window)
Property Values do not reflect adjustments made due to an exemption, such as a senior or disabled persons
Values exemption.
Reductions for exemptions are made on the property tax bill.
Tax Year 2005 Market Land $295,100 Market Improvement $97,2001 Market Total $392,300
Tax Year 2006 Market Land $386,1001 Market Improvement $101,2001 Market Total $487,300
Go to top of page
Property Characteristics
Tax Code Area (TCA) 00217 View Taxing Districts for this Parcel (opens as new window)
use code 111 Single Family Residence -Detached
Size Basis ACRE Size 2.01 (Size may include undivided interest in common tracts and road parcels)
Go to top of page
Property Structures
Type Yr.Built Structure Description
Dwelling 1949 2 Story View Structure Data (opens as new window)
Go to top of page
Property Sales since 7/31/1999
Explanation of Sales Information (opens as new window)
Sales data is based solely upon excise affidavits processed by the Assessor.
Transfer Receipt Sales Price Excise Deed Grantor (Seller) Grantee (Buyer) Other
Date Date Number Type Parcels
12/29/2003 12/31/2003 $500,000 183402 W THOMAS SUSAN M TRUNKILL GARY R No
7/20/2001 7/25/2001 $92,160 266066 X STEIN CHARLOTTE M THOMAS SUSAN M No
Go to top of page
Property Maps Township/Range/Section/Quarter, links to maps
Neighborhood 1504000 Explanation of Neighborhood Code (opens as new window)
Township 27 Range 04 Section 07 Quarter NE Find parcel maps for this Township/Range/Section
jJ View Map of this parcel (opens as new window)
http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/PrpIngO2-ParcelData.asp?PN=270... 11 /9/2005
9
PLANNER/PROJECT CONTACT
LAND RESOLUTIONS
3605 COLBY AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201
(425) 258-4438 FAX (425) 258-1616
CONTACT PERSON. RY MCDUFFY
E-MAIL LANDUSEOIKINK. COM
SURVEYOR
ORCA SURVEYING AND PLANNING
3605 COLBY AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON .98201
(425) 259-3400 ' FAX (425) 258-1616
CONTACT PERSON: KERRY GONZALES
ENGINEER
DECCIO ENGINEERING
17217 7TH AVENUE WEST
BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98012
(206) 390-8374 FAX (425) 741-8214
CONTACT PERSON. RICHARD DECCIO
* GE07ECHNI CAL
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
17311 135TH AVENUE NE, A-500
WOODINWLLE, WASHINGTON, 98072
(425) 486-1669
CONTACT PERSON KHALED SHAWISH
APPLICANT/OWNER
GARY TRUNKHILL/TONY STEIN
7707 171 ST STREET S. W.
EDMONDS, WA. 98026
(206) 396-9451
PARTIES OF INTEREST
AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER
4500 PARK GRANADA
CALABASAS, CA. 91302
* WETLAND
AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
115 NORTH . 49TH STREET
SEA TTLE, WASHINGTON, 98103
(206) 784-4755
CONTACT PERSON: ANTHONY ROTH
TITLE COMPANY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY
3224 WETMORE AVENUE
EVERETT, WASHINGTON, 98201
(425) 258-6450
CONTACT PERSON: SUSAN MACDONALD
* TRAMC
LOVELL-SAUERLAND AND ASSOCIATES
19400 33RD . AVENUE W. SUITE 200
LYNNW00D, WASHINGTON 98036
(425) 775-1591
CONTACT PERSON: ROBERT LONG
f GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS, WETLAND REPORTS, . TRAFFIC STUDIES AND
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THIS PROJECT WERE USED FROM CITY
OF EDMON0 FILE (P-2002=11 AND PRD-2002-12). *
DETENTION/DRAINAGE BASIN NOTE:
CITY OF LYNNWOOD DRAINAGE BASIN.' AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED WITH
THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR DIRECT DISCHARGE TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD'S
SYSTEM WITHOUT A DETENTION FACILITY WITHIN THE PRD PROJECT.
1 /12/06
REED & ASSOCIATES, PS
Civil & Structural Engineering
8311 212th St. SW, Edmonds, WA 98026
Office (425) 778-2793 Fax (425) 775-2073
1 /12/06
Home Design
Dennis Smiley
8717 — 68th Ave NE
Marysville, WA 98270
Re: R&A Job#05-573
Plan Review #05-566
EEEC#ED 05-77
Sahalee Plan Lot #2
To Whom It May Concern:
The following is in response to the undated plan review comments by Eagle Eye Consulting
Engineers in reference to the above plan:
2. The City of Edmonds does not require such a detail.
7. The suggestion shown regarding upgraded connectors at pressure treated lumber is a
good suggestion and the contractor should be informed. However, these things are.not
required by the IBC.
13. The City of Edmonds does not require lateral bracing for a deck this size.
16. This office accepts double 2x plates and members in place of 3x plates and members
where required.
17. This office accepts double 2x plates and members in place of 3x plates and members
where required.
Should there be any questions or comments please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gahan, El
Yam.
JAN 19 ZOOS
BUILDING DEPARIMEN7
CIIY OF EDMONDS
STREET FILE
05-573 (amg) Letter 060112
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
CITY OF EDMONDS
As requested by the City of Edmonds I have reviewed my prior reports prepared for the
five proposed residences on Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this subdivision located along 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: (1) addressee
rmp: HillcrestReM
EXPIRES
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland WA 980
Phone: 425 8143970 T R E T FILE IA
S Fax:-425-814-5672
O
Dee 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC
425 814 5672
p.1
11
Robert M. Pride, Inc.
December 15, 2005
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Hillerest Construction
P. O. Box 3121
Everett, WA 98')13-1121
Re: GcotiechnienlInvesligalion
Proposed Residences — Lots 2 and 4-7
17007 77u` Place West
.Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-352-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
Consulting
Engineer
FEB 15 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
This report presents the resulLs of our site exploration and geotechnical evaluation for
five single family 1tsidences in the Charlotte Carden development in Edmonds. The
prolx-rty is situated adjacent to 77th Place and just north of 171"" Street SW. It is
understood that single family residences will be constructed on these lots.
The purpose, of this investigation was to establish the nature: of the subsurface soil
conditions LhaL will provide support to the stnletures, and to provide recommendations
for L11e design and construction of the foundations. Yrelimivaly plans for these: houses
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 invesLigation.
site Conditions
Previous eic wring and grading have been performed on this site: in c;cmnec Gon with the
overall six loL development. The access strcct has been paved and utilities have been
installed to serve the residential lots. Observations of the ground conditions indicate
that fill has been placed over most of the lots to create the existing grades that slope
generally toward the nurtheasL.
A steep slope descends down toward the easterly side of Lb is development and there is a
designated wetland west of Lot #6. "1 lie slope on the easterly side of the plat is heavily
covered with vines and native shrubs, and there are some mature trees located on this
native 11/211:1V slope. Observations of this slope showed no evidence of gross failures
or instability that would affect the proposed construction.
According to Minas (USGS —1983) this area of Edmonds is underlain by glacial till
(QvL) and advanced outwash deposits (Qv.'). Seven exploratory Lrenches were dug in
the area of the proposed residences to confirm Elie presence of fill soils and to classify
— 13203 Holmes Point 06ve NE Kis-kiand, WA 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 ^Mr pc11E
y
.r
Dec 15 05.07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.2
December 15, 2005
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Page 2
the underlying native soils. The lest pits encounLered soft fill soils and organics to
depths of two feet and there was obvious construction debris and Lree remnants that
were buried in the fill. Below the fill were topsoil and medium dense silty sands that
were categorized as weathered till.
A majority of the fill material on this plat is located on Lots 6 and 7 thaL are on the
westerly side: of the property. Up to seven feet of soft and loose fill with organics and
debris were encountered on iAA #7. Lots 2 through 6 had fill and disturbed soils that
ranked 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. Summary logs of these test pits
are shown on Appendix A and their locations are shown on Drawing No. 1.
Gec,lechnical Recommendations
on the basis of our site inspection and subsurface exploration, the proposed residence
foundations for Lots 2 through 6 must extend through the fill and bear on the medium
dense to dense native silty sands. looting depths are, c.xpeded to range from to as
1nuch as 5 feet to bear on Lhe undisturbed native soils. An allowable soil bearing val tie
of '>000 psf maybe used in the design of these footings that should have a minimum
depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade. This value may he increased by 1/3 to
account for temporary seismic or wind loadings. n passive earth pressure of 200 pcf
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 footing~ be supported on driven pipe piles dither 3 or I. inches in diameter.
Thesc pile-s should be Schedule 8o galvanized pine that are driven to refusal into the
native till soils. Refusal is defined as less than one inch of penetration over Vi period of
3o and 15 seconds, respectively using a 450it or 85o# pneumatic: hirnmer. teach pile
may be loaded up to 8 and 20 Logs, respectively for working capacity.
Where pipe piles are used for foundation support they should be connected with
ex,ncrete 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, Lhe floor slabs can be
poured on the:-c:ornpacted fill. Some interior slab settlement can be expected where the
depth of fill exceeds Lhree feet.
Some excavation M] l be required to establish the building pad for the residence
foundations. Excavated soils should not be used for structural fill Under the residence,
but may be placed in landscape areas or hauled offske. Normal erosion control
procedures should be in place for construction of this residence in the coming winter
months.
Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing subdrjins, area
- 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-014-5672
Phone: 42."14-3970
Dee 15 05 O7:53p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 p.3
'f l
December 15, 2005
Mr_ .lon Kvernmo
Page 3
drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be into the existing
storm water system installed as part of the street improvements.
Summary
Construction monitoring and c:omsultation services should also be provided to verify that
subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be
revealyd during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will
evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate.
`rbe conclusions and re0jainlendations presented in this report are based on 1) our
interpretation and evaluation of Soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual
subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the assumption that
sufficient observation and testing will be performed during the appropriate phases of
the work,
our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordanm. with
generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget
Sound'Irca at the time our work was performed. We make no warranty, either express
or implied.
please call me if there are any questions or you wish to discuss this report in greater
detail.
Pspectfully,ert M. Pride, P. E.
!'rincipal Geotechnical Engi
disc: (2) Addressee ,
rMP: Nilicrumplatr
ExPinrs f
4
13203 Holmes Point Chive Nt Kirkland, WA 98034,Fax: 425.8145672
Phone'. 425-814-3970
l
Dec 15 05 07:53p ROBERT M PRIDE ING
APPENDIX A
Summary Logs of Test Pits
Test Pit No. 1 —Lot 7
425 814 5672
0.0 — 4.0ft FILL: Silty sand; gray brown, soft, very moist; with organics;
4.0 — 5.0 ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No_ 2 —Lot 7
0.0 — 6.0ft FILL: Silty sand and sandy silt; gray brown,soft, very moist; with
organics and concrete debris- buried tree branch and roots;
6,0 — 7.0tt NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense to dense;
Test Pit No. 3 — Lot 7
0.0 -- 7.0ft FILL: Silty sand and Sandy silt; gray brown, very moist, soft; with
organics and roots;
7.0 — 7.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense, no
groundwater;
Test Pit No. 4 — Lot 2
0,0 —1.0ft FILL: Topsoil; Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, very moist, soft;
1.0 -- 4.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown moist, medium dense; no groundwater,
Test Pit No 5 — Lot 3
0.0 — 2.0ft FILL: Silty sand.- brown, very moist, soft and loose;
2.0 — 3.Oft , NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense; no
groundwater;
Test Pit No. 6 — Lot 4
0.0—1..0ft FILL: silty sand; brown, moist, loose;
1-0 — 2.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No. 7 — Lot 6
0.0 — 3_0ft FILL: Silty sand; gray brown, very moist, loose;
3.0 — 4.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty,sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No. 8 — Lot 6
0.0 — 4;pft FILL: silty sand; brown, very moist, loose;
4.0 — 5-Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Phone: 425-814-3970
13203 Holmes Point Drive NF Kirkland, wR 98034 Fax. 42"14-5672
p.4
Dec 15 05 07:54p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 p.5
2"AW CMZ
Ref: Plat Map for Charlotte Gardens
SITE PLAN
Proposed Charlotte Garden
774,A place SW and 171 St Street
Edmonds, Washington
Robert P4. Pride, Inc.
Project No. 05-352-01
Drawing No. I
Deccio Engineering
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2004
PLANNING DEPT.
17217 7th Avenue West
BotheO, WA. 98012
(206) 390-8370
Fax:(425)741-8214
Charlotte Gardens
Level 1 Downstream Drainage Report
U1•p' o� ivASs�o�'"�`
/ hKiD Y7.
25693 n
¢' CISTE�
f�'ONAL
EXPIRES 2122/O.� y
Prepared for
Mr. Gary Trunkhill
Site Location:
7707 171" 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:
7707 171 " Street SW
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Dated January 18, 2004
CHARLOTTE GARDENS
LEVEL 1 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction........................................... 1
Task 1: Project Overview & Study Area Definition ........................... 1
Task 2: Review of Available Information on Study Area ....................... 1
Task 3: Field Inspection & Description of Drainage System .................... 3
UpstreamDrainage Analysis .................................................. 3
On -Site Considerations...................................................... 3
Downstream Drainage Analysis ................................................ 3
Task 4: Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation ............................... 4
Level1 Analysis Conclusions ................................................. 4
a
List of Figures:
Figure li
Site Location & Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
Developed Site Conditions
Figure 3:
Soils Map
Figure 4:
USGS Downstream Analysis Map
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Gary Trunkhill in support of 6-lot subdivision.
The subject property is located at 7707 171' Street, S.W. Edmonds, Washington.
This report addresses the "Level V Downstream Analysis submittal requirements of the City's
adopted Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (SWM) of the Washington
State Department of Ecology per the City of Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter
18.30. We have prepared this report using Chapters I through lIl 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 ' 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 l 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 i 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.
i 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 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 ofthe 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 l: 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 &
tli!'T%agrV MAP
70' i"I I F-� , i /.•i; %(/, #4:/I/j '''/ DRAINAGE
\ u \ ��j� �% >/jY �y/P"/' j /� i i'�y/� //yi :✓/I / . "! /il. I LYNNWOOD
48-000 \.;j'X ,i i / ✓/�/.� / �// / j v j^ j / / :� I�i/y I PIPE SYSTI
/ ' I IE 110
ON St
999
, \
13,538 SF / /� \ NOTE
-0EDN SPACE
CITY
ACRE
A
DISO
/>sr
\
xxx A,
10
/��\ " 'OT.i: a:nS .iF !• // / 1��2C/ �/� / /rYS \ \
/ \ \ \
V tt- PA,\E. 16,666 SF r .\\ \�!T �� \ \1 \
/ \ I
W ORNvfjl
Aw,�1lflt \ 4 _ Iv�2•? ' ' / ,b�F" E�
L — J 5,878 SF
6°\ 69 18
O
i 99g%
'PARKING`' /i i R 4 �\
)I OPEN SPA_ 4,015 SF � I\ to 1
I 65C14
SEPMC
7 PUMP
LINES
4.868 SF ` ell
-i-195---- tyrool
o/ CyyD219 S
87 LF 8'0 H /2
\ SOR 35 PYO_ 1190--�� � � �--- 88'�6-dam 1
/ 0 R,
8*0 5,376 SF
17
SFR
a96�4Fj
siv le.I e ? \O \ fir• _
\ \ I I s '
LOT 2 40'
� _ _ —
SEA -LAWN TERRACE DIV A \ �cr J I pp
005660-000-002-00%
FIGURE 2•
DEVELOPED SITE
CONDITIONS
r
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
SNOHOMI
SOIL LEGEND
SYMBOL NAME
1
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
2
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
3
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
4
Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes
—y 5
Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
---)w 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, 16 to 30 percent slopes
23
Getchell-Oso-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
24
Greenwater loamy sand
25
Hartnit-Potchub-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
26
Indianola loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes
27
Kitsap silt loam 0 to 8 percent slopes
28
Kitsap silt loam; 8 to 25 percent slopes
29
Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
30
Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
31
Lynnwood-Nargar complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
32
McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
33
Menzel silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
34
Mukilteo muck
35
Nargar fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
36
Nargar fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
37
Nargar-Lynnwood complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
38
Nargar Variant sandy loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
39
Norma loam
40
Norma Variant loam
41
Ogarty-Tokul-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
42
Olomount gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
43
Olomount-Elwell-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
44
Orcas peat
45
Oso gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
46
Oso-Getchell-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
47
Pastik silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
48
Pastik silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes
49
Pastik silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
50
Pilchuck loamy sand
51
Pits
52
Potchub silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
53
Potchub-Hartnit complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
54
Potchub•Hartnit-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes
55
Puget silty clay loam
56
Puyallup fine sandy loam
57
Ragnar fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
58
Ragnar fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
59
Riverwash `
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
Sulsever gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
66
Sultan silt loam
67
Sultan Variant silt loam
68
Sumas silt loam
69
Terric Medisaprists, nearly level
70
Tokul silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
71
Tokul silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
72
Tokul gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
73
Tokul gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
74
Tokul gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
75
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes
76
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes
77
Tokul-Winston gravelly loams, 25 to 65 percent slopes
78
Urban land
79
Verlot mucky silt loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes
80
Winston gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
81
Winston gravelly loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
82
Xerorthents, nearly level
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
EVALUATION
TALBOT PARK ESTATES
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF EDMONDS
JAN 2 4 2006
STREET FILE
R13CEIVED
SEP 1, i 2003
Wastorn Engir mmf
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
N A ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 —13e Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 • Fax (425) 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756
February 14, 2003
City of Edmonds
Development Service's Department
121 — 5d' Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Steve Bullock
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 360902
Dear Mr. Bullock:
We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Talbot Park Estates,
Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions on the site
and contains geotechnical recommendations for specific aspects of this development. Our services were
completed in general accordance with the contract signed by you on December 11, 2002.
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions
regarding this report or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC
%� 7 A��
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
Five copies submitted
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
SCOPE..».»....................... ».... »..... »».»........ ».».»... »..».».»............ ...»........»............».».....»..»......... ......... ».....»..»...1
SITECONDITIONS ......... »............... ».................. »............... ..».... »..».»... »......»....».............. ........ ......... ......»»..»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....................................................................................................................................................11
FOUNDATIONS.............................................................................:............................................................................12
SLABS-0N=GRADE....................................................................................................................................................13
SITEDRAINAGE....................................:.........................:.........................................................................................13
USEOF THIS REPORT ................... »»....»....... »........... »... ».... »..... »»... »... ».»......»».......».»»»....».................... .14
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
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 — 171' Street SW in Edmonds as shown on
the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. A single-family residence is currently located on the site. The developer.
plans to construct an access road near the western property line and divide the site into seven residential
lots. We understand that the existing residence will remain and will occupy one of the lots.
We have been retained to explore the subsurface conditions within the site, observe and map the slope
surficial conditions, and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundations and
residence setback For the purpose of completing this study, we have been provided with a site plan
prepared by Lovell-Sauerland Associates, Inc. titled, "Preliminary Plat for Talbot Park Estates," dated
October 22, 2002. The site plan shows the planned lot layout and access road alignment, and has
- topographic information. We have also been provided with a copy of a preliminary geotechnical
evaluation report for the site, dated September 12, 2001, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. In your letter
to us dated October 17, 2002, the City stated that the pertinent sections of the Edmonds Community
Development Code for this project are 20.15B.I IO.A & D and 19.05. .
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the site subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions and provide
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following:
1. Review available geologic and soils maps of the area, and the provided geotechnical
report for the site.
2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions using a subcontracted
backhoe.
3. Perform field mapping and develop cross sections on the steep slope at selected locations.
4. Evaluate slope stability on the site, and complete slope stability analysis.
5. Provide a recommended setback/buffer from the top of slope for building siting.
6. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill.
1,
i
1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
`4 Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 2
7. Provide recommendations for foundations and slabs -on -grade.
8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
9. Document our explorations, findings, and conclusions and recommendations in a written
geotechnical report. The report to address the pertinent sections of the ECDC.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site is a semi -rectangular -shaped parcel covering approximately 2.1 acres. The site is bordered by
1715` 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
p g 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
q February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 3
Subsurface Conditions
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last period
of glaciation, the Vashon Stade, ended approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Many of the
geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During the Vashon
Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice
sheet were compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not.
The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geolo imp of the Edmonds East and Part of the
Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard (US Geological Survey, 1983). The site is
mapped as till, which is described as an unsorted mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. Drift is a similar unit
to till but has some sorting. Advance outwash and transitional bed materials are mapped a short distance
from the site. Advance outwash is described as sand with varying amounts of gravel. Transitional bed
material consists of bedded clay, silt, and fine sand. Our explorations encountered material consistent
with the descriptions of drift and advance outwash, and we observed transitional bed material in the
northeast section of the site, near the bottom of the ravine.
Explorations
The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on December 18, 2002 by excavating two hand
auger explorations, and on February 3, 2003 by excavating nine test pits with a backhoe. The hand auger
explorations extended to depths of 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface, and the test pits were
excavated to depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the
explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative of Nelson Geotechnical Associates,
Inc., (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditimns encountered,
obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the hand augers and test pits.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
presented in Figure 7. The soil logs are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 8 through 11.
We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed
description of the subsurface conditions, the logs should be reviewed.
Our two hand auger explorations were located on the slope of the ravine feature. These explorations
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 4
encountered 0.6 to 1.5 feet of surficial topsoil material. Underlying the topsoil, we encountered silty fine
to medium sand with gravel to fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. These soils extended to the
bottom of the hand auger explorations, 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface.
Test Pit 6, located near the north end of the planned access road, encountered 1.5 feet of loose surficial fill
material composed of silty fine sand with roots and pieces of concrete. Our other eight test pit
explorations encountered a surficial layer of topsoil .1.0 to 2.8feet thick Test Pits 3 and 4, located in the
northern portion of the site, encountered material generally consisting of sand with silt below the surficial
topsoil and extending to the bottom of the explorations. We interpret this material as outwash. The
remaining seven test pit explorations encountered silty sand with gravel beneath the topsoil and fill. This
material extended to the depth explored in these test pits, and was interpreted as glacial drift. Fine to
medium sand seams were observed within this material in Test Pits 5, 6, and 7.
We observed silt and clay material in several shallow hand excavations in the northeastern portion of the
site, on the slopes near the bottom of the ravine. We interpreted this silt and clay material as part of the
Transitional bed unit.
Hydrologic Conditions
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of our subsurface explorations or on the steep slope,
however, a perched ground water condition could possibly develop above the low permeability soils
found underlying the site.
Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, . more permeable soils and
accumulates on top of the underlying, less permeable silts or flow into the joints found in the silt. The
more permeable soils, in this case, consist of topsoil and fill. The less permeable soils consist of the
underlying silty sand and silt. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water table within the
upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall.
We would expect the amount of ground water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase
during wetter periods. Also, ground water seepage could outcrop on the face of the steep slope during the
wetter periods of the year.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
._ February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 5
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
Seismic Hazard
The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. We recommend that the
subsurface soils be considered Soil Profile Type SD, as described in the UBC.
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction and amplification of ground motion due to
soft soil. The glacially compacted soils inferred to underlie this site do not have a significant potential for
liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
Erosion Hazard
The criteria used for evaluation of erosion hazards include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover and
groundwater conditions. The surface soil types (group classification) are related to the underlying
geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), was reviewed to evaluate the erosion hazard of the on -site soils.
The surface soils at the site were mapped by the SCS and classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex (8
to 15 percent slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as slight. The slopes on the site have
inclinations steeper than 15 percent in some areas. The erosion hazard for the steeper areas of the site is
considered moderate to high.
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
The steeply sloping portion of the site has inclinations as steep as 40 degrees as measured in the field.
We estimate that there is a change in elevation of up to 60 feet across the steep slopes along the eastern
side of the site. The native soils that form the core of the slope are inferred to consist of competent
glacially -compacted soils. We observed small scarps on the slope that appeared to be the result of
shallow failures. A neighbor informed us that a failure occurred last year on a steep slope on the eastern
side of the creek. We observed the scarp resulting from that failure, and some of the failed material near
the bottom of the slope. This failure is interpreted to have been a shallow surface failure, and may have
been the result of saturated slope conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 6
We did not observe seepage on the steep slopes. We did observe several bowed mature deciduous and
evergreen trees on the steep slopes. This is likely the result of soil creep. Based on the competent soils
that are believed to form the core of the slope, the absence of indications of past deep-seated slope
movement, and the absence of water seepage on the slope, we consider the slope to be stable with respect
to deep-seated movements. However, we did observe indications that the slope has experienced shallow
failures and gradual slope movement. We would expect that such events to continue in the future.
There is a significant potential for shallow sloughing events to occur within the steeper portions of the site
due to the steep inclination of the slopes. The potential for sloughing may be reduced by routing surface
water away from the top of slope', maintaining vegetation on the slope, and repairing any areas disturbed
during construction. Periodic monitoring of the site steep slopes is also recommended. With the
recommended setback, these sloughing events should not adversely impact the planned structures.
Slope Stability
We analyzed global stability of the steep slope using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2.
XSTABL is a two-dimensional, limit -equilibrium, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random
potential failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The
factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that
cause failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as
the lowest number calculated.
The geometry of Cross -Section B-B' was used for the slope stability analysis. The factor of safety against
slope failures affecting the ground surface 35 feet beyond the top of the steep slope was found to be above
1.5. The parameters and results for this analysis are shown in Figure 6. This analysis along with our field
observations is the basis for establishing the recommended building setbacks.
The shallow explorations within the upper _ portion of the cross-section B-B' encountered glacially
consolidated sandy soil. We observed transitional bed material consisting of silt and clay in the lower
section of the northern portion of the steep slope at cross-section B-B'. We did not perform laboratory
shear testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on visual evaluation and
classification of the soils and our experience with similar conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our
opinion that the soils that underlie the site and form the core of the site slopes should be stable with
respect to deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. These soils
should provide adequate support to standard shallow foundations. There is a potential for shallow
sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steeper portions of the slope. We have provided
recommendations to reduce the potential of such events and a slope setback distances to reduce the risk of
adverse impacts to the residences should such events occur. This is further discussed in the Steep Slope
Setback subsection of this report.
The residences could be supported on conventional spread footings, provided that the foundation
excavations are advanced through any surficial fill, topsoil, or loose material and extended into medium
dense or better native soils. Overexcavated material should be replaced with rock spalls or structural fill.
The downhill footing lines, however, should be cast on native material.
Surface water runoff and water from roof downspouts and yard areas should be collected and directed into
appropriate drainage systems to reduce the amount of water flowing onto the steep slopes. It will be
important to maintain the vegetation on the slope to reduce the erosion potential. The occurrence of
sloughing on the slope can be reduced by routing storm run-off into appropriate water lines away from the
slope or piping storm water to the base of the slope. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction and after construction has been
completed.
The soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb and
erode easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months, if
possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be
expected.due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to export on -site soil, the
import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket of rock spalls or crushed rock in the
construction traffic areas and exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural elements. We
do not recommend the use of on -site soils as structural fill in wet weather. After grading, the exposed
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL .ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 8
subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface runoff.
Erosion Control Measures
The erosion hazard for the on -site soils site is considered moderate to high, depending on how the site is
graded and water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to
control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken
may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas and from flowing over the slope. Silt
fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over
the top of the slope. Disturbed areas should be planted with vegetation at the end of construction. The
vegetation should. be maintained until established. The erosion potential of areas not stripped of
vegetation should be low.
Steep Slope Setback
Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building
setbacks. The purpose of a setback is to establish a buffer zone between a structure and the slope margin,
so that ample room is allowed for normal slope surface regression or a minor slope failure. This setback
also protects the slope from the impacts of the development. From a geological standpoint, a reasonable
setback is based on the slope's physical characteristics; e.g., slope height, surface angle, material
composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression and
earthwork activity along the toe of slope, are important considerations as well.
Based on our slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance
of 25 feet between the top of the steep slope and the planned residences on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The slope in
the northern portion of the site is higher and has a steeper inclination. In addition, we observed silt and
clay material in the lower portion of the slope in this area. Silt and clay usually have lower strengths than
sand and gravel. For these reasons, and also based on our numerical slope stability analysis, we
recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 35 feet between the top of the steep slope and the
planned residences on Lots 5, 6, and 7.
The 35-foot setback for Lots 5, 6, and 7 could be reduced to 25 feet if the downhill foundation lines for
these residences are suitably deepened. For these lots, we recommend that the downhill foundation lines
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
5
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
t a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the
nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water
conditions encountered.
The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and
should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., assumes responsibility for job
site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the upper loose soils be no steeper than 2
Horizontal : 1 Vertical (2H:1 V). Cuts in the underlying medium dense to dense native materials may
stand at an inclination as steep as 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.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 11
Structural Fail
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 fi-action 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 -compactible condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in cases
where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by
equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native
soils or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils, with the exception of the
downhill footing lines which should be cast on the native material. Where less -dense soils are
encountered at footing bearing elevations, the subgrade should be overexcavated to expose suitable
bearing soil. The overexcavation may be filled with structural fill or concrete, or the footing may be
extended to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend
outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of overexcavation below the
finished subgmde.
Both perimeter and interior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of
16 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, for two-story
structures and 18 and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively, for three-story
structures. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or
disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of no
more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for designing footings founded on the native
medium dense soils or structural fill extending to the silt. The foundation bearing soil should be
evaluated by NGA at the time of construction. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are
needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines should be used when considering increased
allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation
settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than 1 inch total and
1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our
experience with similar residential projects.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 13
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base
fiction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This
level surface should extend horizontally a distance equal to at least three times the depth of the footing.
These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate
values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the
foundations should be poured "neat' against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be
used as backfill against the footing. We recommend that the upper foot of soil be neglected when
calculating the passive resistance.
Slabs -on -Grade
Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and
Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least 6 inches of
free -draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be
hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable
vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break
material. An additional 2-inch-thick sand blanket may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand
blanket is to protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed to an
appropriate storm water collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where
footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from
the residence and the steep slope. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient
of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the improvements. Under no circumstances
should surface water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the site slopes.
Subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing drains around the residences and behind any
subsurface walls. Footing drains should be installed at least 1 foot below planned finished floor slabs.
The drains should consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
v, 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 1 &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 GEOTECHN/CAL 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
oe provided to any future homeowners of the property.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are
a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require
further information, please call.
Sincerely,
kEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
stensen, PE
Project Engineer
o� N2 3
vo
z Flo
EXPIRES O3
Khaled Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
TRC:KMS:kmn
Eleven Figures
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
0
Project
.. Site 'tea)•—r lam-
. s-------
=e T.`'.s - a
4F� Z � pp
I
i
sY
►. 172N0 5T SY L
• 4Ti s
♦ e E
•
e s e
fT a4 IryD sr
a! o
e
p0
S ►l t
\'pri►� a� o �
♦
e ty o
SY a
! >s sr
- en
275r8 ST
178TH - ns
ST L Y
s
IT sw a '
m
STq
� LfSTs
Niy,1
'
�$r
. ST
.•r ,`�. N .Y_.._
led a
■Y n "- JOIST ISO 4
tsarFL
C + �•
s IV ...
;4 ..ems j sm _
m
`� i�� ,� ?�'
t■ti 11 j
"] 4KTH: Y9t fY1
�' J�
_ m
ti • _
a
II ISBN if
••
um ST I
1677a ST Y
rL SI .
PL
zi
'< lome st Sv
S1
IL
Not to Scale
N
b
JECT NUMBER NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK
360902 Talbot Park Estates NGA AssOCIATES, INC. I 2MM3 OVM AD,I .IGL
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 17311-13om„ NE.._399 ,
S14h~C ,Y(a2S 337-1
wmeY..a- Yu 99072 w..t&.../Clwm (309) 6
7M-2756 g
t�
m
e.
0
N
o
M�
U
z a
.. o
�
}`
W
W
} '
.o
z
W
(AZ
9a
z
W
�
LEGEND
U W
b
z t
i
TP-1 Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
HA-1 Number and Approximate
i
Location of Hand Auger
a�
A A' Approximate Location
N
•�—?
of Cross Section
W
coo
.``
4.
Property Line
C' `-
cf)
o
----- Top of 40% Slope
- 00- Setback Line
0 50 100 PROJECT NUMBER
360902
Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet
uedand a Figure 2
T
t0
0
O C�
C
N
W
p
A
West
o
y o
220
-
M N
DCA
200
4 m Z
O
D
180
j Z
a r m
o aG
Z w°z
a to
160
M
a 0 z
ii>
a
140
Z
Q
d
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
m
Elevations are Approximate
w
0
I -
East
220
200
Stream 180
160
140
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
n
--1
Southwest
aCr
to
v
190
cD
M
W
y
W
N
170
f
Z
.ram
A Y,
i n
150
��.
Z
Z
Z U, o
z
0
130
n Z
a
r
L110
z
0
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
Elevations are Approximate
w
, _ -L CIL--- n1---
B'
INortheast
190
170
150
-Stream
130
110
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
O
v
C
VI
C
(D Z
N
.
C
n
West
0
g
Cn -0
220
(D N
nL.,.. RL
o m
ni
n �
ti
200
Z
�-- P-1
_
-180
F m
Silty Sand witt
Z
=�z
Op
a o
Ma -�
160
140
z
0
Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
Elevations are Approximate
w
0
Stream
M
East
220
200-
180
160
140
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
0
T W m
i � N
m
180
i.1
a 140
m
N
X
Q 120
100
�-l
CROSS SECTION B--B'
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.505
.. - .,..., r"j,
10 30 50 70 90 110
X—AXIS (feet)
130 150
170
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
CLEAN
GW
WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50 %
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 %
RETAINED
ED ON
MORE THAN 50 %
NO. 200 SIEVE
OF COARSE FRACTION
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
PASSES NO.4 SIEVE
SC
CLAYEY SAND
WITH FINES
FINE-
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
INORGANIC
CL
CLAY
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50 %
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLA
SOILS
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
INORGANIC
ORE THAN 50 %
PASSES
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLATCLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
NO.200 SIEVE
50 % OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
examination of sal 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 sal density or fined from
consistency are based on beu� weer mole
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
'ECTNUMBER
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
360902
Talbot Park Estates
NGA AssoclATEs, INC.
1
2112M1
cep,
nw
BAD
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Figure 7
Soil Classification
1ri,1-1� Pw /E ,� sw ae �, c. 51 !-.'=
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
USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5. 1.8, AND 2.8 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.8 FEET ON 12/18/02
TOPSOIL
SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE
GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.0, 2.8, AND 3.4 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.4 FEET ON 12/18/02
JGL:MDR
NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 8.
DEPTH (FEET)
TEST PIT ONE
0.0 -1.0
1.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 7.0
TEST PIT TWO
0.0 -1.0
1.0 - 4.0
4.0 - 7.0
TEST PIT THREE
0.0 - 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 6.0
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0 -1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 7.0
LOG OF EXPLORATION
USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0, 5.0, AND 6.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213/03
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 GEOTECHN/CAL 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 213103
TEST PIT SIX
0.0 -1.5
SM
DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST TO WET) F( ILL1
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 213/03
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 2/3/03
JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 10
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT NINE
0.0 -1.0
1.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
TOPSOIL
SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(WEATHERED DRIFT)
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
,ROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 2/3103
JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 11
i
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
0
h
May
2003 STREET FILE
AC ROTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
115 NoR-rH 4P STREET + SEAT TLE, WAsFuNGfON 98103 206.784.4755
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface.................................................................................................. ii
1. Introduction......................................................................................1
2.. Water Resources Evaluation............................................................3
2.1 Introduction .................. 3
..........................................................
2.2 Wetlands ............................
2.2.1 Methodology..................................................................3
2.2.2 Investigation Results ........................ :............................. 6
2.3 Stream................................................................................... I I
3. Bibliography ....................:.
List of Figures
1. Vicinity Map.....................................................................................2
2. Site Map............................................................................................4
3. Emergent Wetland at west boundary, looking into the property
fromthe west...........................................................................8
4. Another view looking east into the property................... ........9
5. Looking northwest on the adjacent properly....................................9
List of Tables
L . USFWS Plant Indicator Status ................................................ :......... 6
2. Wetland Functions and Values.........................................................7
Critical Areas Study i
TaUxA Park Estates
r �•
Preface
Preface
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
At the request of the City of Edmonds (City), this report has been
prepared as a third -party wetlands and creek evaluation of the subject .
property, the proposed plat of Talbot Park Estates. In preparing this
report, AC Roth Environmental Consultants (RES) has used site
information and survey mapping of RES wetland flag locations
provided by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, as referenced herein.
Findings reported herein are based on information gathered in the field
at the time of investigation by RES, RES's understanding of 1997
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
(Ecology 1997), and RES's understanding of federal, state and local
regulations governing wetland and stream areas. Prior to preliminary
and final design or any construction, all appropriate regulatory
agencies should be contacted to verify the findings of this report, and
to obtain appropriate approvals and pen -nits.
The wetland boundary, wetland, and stream classification and
recommended buffers are RES's best professional opinion based on
the circumstances and site conditions at the time of its study. The
final wetland boundary determination, classification of wetlands and
streams, and the required buffers and setbacks are subject to change by
the appropriate federal, state, and .local jurisdiction.
Introduction
1. Introduction
The subject property is an approximate 2 acre site located at 7701
171" Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, near the intersection of 171
Street and Sea Lawn Drive. From discussion with the City, the
applicant proposes to develop the site.for a single family residential
development.
The purpose of this report is to present a third -party analysis of site
water resources, consistent with the requirements of the City of
Edmonds Critical Areas (Edmonds Municipal Code [EMC] §20.15B).
A series of consultants have evaluated this and.a property to the west.
A May 31, 2002 Wetland Evaluation was prepared by Terra Associates
for a property located at 17015 Talbot Road (Attachment A). This
property's easterly boundary forms the westerly .segment of the subject
property's northwestern corner. Terra Associates found a wetland
which was indicated to extend easterly onto the subject property, but
the offsite wetland area was unsurveyed.
A June 3, 2002 Critical Area Reconnaissance Report (Attachment B)
was prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. evaluated the "potential
.presence of jurisdictional wetlands" on the subject property. This
"forested and scrub -shrub wetland" was sketched as approximately
1800 square feet in area. It does not appear that a survey of this
evaluation was performed.
In February of 2003, Pentec Environmental prepared a report entitled
Third -Party Review of Critical Areas Study of the Talbot Park Estates
(Attachment C), on behalf of the City. In the absence of a prior formal
delineation of wetlands on the subject property, Pentec Environmental
conducted a "preliminary wetland delineation of the onsite portion of
the wetland". Using GPS survey methods to establish approximate
location of delineated wetland boundaries, the conclusion of this last
report was that the onsite and offsite portions of the wetland appear to
total 2,700 square feet, but that more careful delineation and complete
survey of the wetland boundary would need to be conducted.
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Introduction
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Critical Areas Study 2
Talbot Park Estates
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
ROUVAM Tomma
omo~-�-aa-coa Y
BIl W ROWT i WWU
07YfOh1-011-000
t`
SKA WUM YNOW /
-000-OD1-0000 7 ,
1016
DE60-000-�0-000-002-0008
Figure 2. Site Map
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
a LVWIW O
N-t-08-OM
Introduction
RY ISM WAATM UNQ
-CATEOM 0 spa
-_- 7OP OF SWAM BANG
�OWNUM NOR WER LNO
-CAIEOOW O SMEAM
ORER ROBWT E ! AM
072704-1—OM- om
mm RK sm
07=4-1-033Ow
4
Water Resources Evaluation
The methodology in this manual recognizes that the three parameters.of
hydrology and wetland plants are generally found in wetlands and that
these parameters are important in the establishment and maintenance of
wetland communities. Within the methodology, indicators are evaluated in
the field to determine satisfaction of each of the three parameters for
establishment of wetland boundaries:
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 (N4unsell' 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
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status
' Plane Ind�catpr Status ` ^Tn�cator Status r '' �.
tPrnl!ihtv:n£cnrtetfcel '
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 t=ynctian be%►rtior►,
Highest Value
Lowes4 Varue
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 Q( either of the following: connected
either high recharge rate, without
surface water connection with a stream
wetland or with permanent outlet to stream and
permanent outlet or not connected
one of the following: permanently flooded, outflow
to a stream
greater than inflow or topography favoring
discharge
Shoreline stabilization
presence of wetland plants along the stream shoreline in a
Woody vegetation at least 200 yards in width
submergent vegetation less than
configuration which serves to dissipate periodic increased
100 yards wide
flow or current .
Water quality improvement, including
toxicant retention is related to soil type; sediment retention
organic soils = toxicant retention; areas of reduced
fast -flowing streambed composed
sediment and toxicant retention,
and nutrient uptake/conversion are related to presence.of
water velocity containing vigorous plant growth =
of mineral soils, with minimal plant
nutrient uptake or conversion and
macrophytes In the subject waters for biofiltration; pollution
sediment retention and nutrient uptake/conversion;
growth and no pollutant inputs
pollution reduction
reduction is related to the opportunity for pollutant inflow to
point or non -point sources of pollution = pollutant
the wetland .
removal opportunity
Storm/floodwater management
based on the location and of the wetland within the basin
wetland with impermeable or slowly permeable
less than 5 acres
and the wetland's physical features
soils comprising <5 percent of the upslope
watershed and either no permanent outlet or
constricted outlet with unconstricted inlet or
evidence of floodplain or expansive flooding within
one year; wetland of more than ten acres
Groundwater recharge
variables include periodicity and rate of flow, wetland size
year-round, open water wetlands greater in size
small, topographic low areas which
and depth, surface topography and underlying soils and
than .10 acres with water depths greater than 10
are only seasonally inundated
geology
feet
Wildlife habitat and biological based on habitat characteristics and biological process
high community diversity, valuable species support,
absence of or limited manifestation
functions values, Including: habitat type, diversity, size and value
can provide relatively equal proportions of open
of community diversity, valuable
within wetlands and adjacent uplands; food quality and
water and vegetative cover and have refuge
species support, relatively equal
diversity; biological community diversity and structure; plant
potential
proportions of open water and
productivity and support for and presence of game;
vegetative cover and refuge
commercially important or unique species; and
potential
opportunities for refuge and provision of surrounding
vegetation with potential to reduce visual and noise
disturbance
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
occurring species) was recorded for each vegetation layer and the soil
type/soil color and depth of soil saturation recorded (See representative
data sheets in Appendix A).
The on -site water resource is a 0.032 acre portion (Figures 3, 4, and 5) of a
larger (0.10 acre) scrub -shrub and emergent, seasonally flooded/saturated
wetland, as classified by Cowardin, et al. (1979). The wetland is found in
a shallow depression on the northeast corner of the subject property and
extends to the west, onto an adjacent property.
Figure 3. Emergent Wetland at west boundary, looking into the
property from the west. Note emergent zone and standing water.
The wetland on the site has no overstory and the shrub layer is principally
comprised of Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, FACW), salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis, FAC+), and red alder (Alnus rubra, FAQ, with some
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) cover entering the wetland
area. Other than sparse creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW)
and occasional (Juncus effusus, FACW), the herb layer throughout the
majority of the fringing scrub -shrub zone is absent. The vegetation in the
more central emergent area, in which standing water was 1 to 2 inches
deep at the time of evaluation, was dominated by Pacific water parsley
Critical Areas Study
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
(Oenanthe sarmentosa, OBL). The predominance of the vegetation
supports the hydric vegetation criterion.
Surface soils range from very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt to silt
loam with dark yellowish brown (I OYR 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 10YR
3/4. Soil colors support satisfaction of the hydric soils criterion.
Hydrologic support for the wetland are shallow subsurface flows. At the
time of April 2003 sampling, the soil saturation at the wetland boundary
was at a depth of 8 inches; standing water in the more central portions of
the wetland was between 2 and 3 inches. Satisfaction of the hydrology
criterion for these locations was based on soil saturation and presence of
standing water.
Therefore; all criteria are met for consideration of the delineated area as a
wetland, satisfying the conditions of EDC §20.15B.130B.
No wildlife associated with this resource, other than typical songbirds, .
was noted at the time of site investigation.
Due to its small size and location in an urbanized area, the wetland area
on the site serves limited functions for hydrologic, water quality, and
wildlife support, including habitat. Limited hydrologic support functions
include stream baseflow contribution. In terms of water quality functions,
values are low for sediment/shoreline stabilization and low for
retention/transformation of sediments, nutrients, or toxicants. Natural
biological functions are similarly low in value, including primary
productivity, detrital transport, nutrient cycling/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 City (EMC §20.15B.020.TT). The wetland is. classified as a
Category 3 wetland (EMC §20.15B.060), since it is equal to or less than 1
acre and greater than 2,500 square feet and that has one wetland class.
Under EMC §20.15B.130C, 25 foot buffers are required.
Critical Areas Study 10
Talbot Park Estates
Water Resources Evaluation
2.3 Stream
A stream locally referred to as Outfall Creek (Terra Associates 2002)
enters the site at its southeast corner and flows in a northerly direction
near the east property boundary. The approximate stream bank
boundaries and the centerline are found in Figure 2 and documents
submitted by LSA in May 2002. In agreement with Pentec's findings, the
stream should.be classified as a Category 2 stream under EMC
20.1513.060. Due to barriers, this stream is not used_by salmonids and
would therefore be buffered on either side by 25 foot buffers (EMC
20.15B.120).
In April 2003, RES measured the width of the stream at various locations
along its course, and is in agreement with Pentec's estimate that the
average width is 30 inches, yielding an average width west of centerline of
15 inches.
Critical Areas. Study
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 Wildl. Serv. December 1993
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of
Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. March 1997.
Critical Areas Study 12
Talbot Park Estates
ATTACHMENT A
TERRA ASSOCIATES REPORT
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
May 31, 2002.
Project No. T-5149
Mr. Tom Sullivan
17041 Talbot Road
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Wetland Evaluation
Talbot Road Property
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
We have conducted an evaluation .of the Talbot Road Property located at 17015 Talbot Road in Edmonds,
Washington (Figure 1). The property is located in the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 27 North, and
Range 4 East. The site is roughly rectangular and approximately 0.21 acres (Figure 2). Talbot Road borders the
site to the west. Properties to the north and south, as well as most of the neighborhood, are developed with single-
family residences. The property to the east is undeveloped and forested.
The subject property is. developed with a single-family residence. The house, driveway, and residential
landscaping are located on the northern half of the property. The southern half is undeveloped. The southern area
appears to be a tributary drainage that likely flows towards an unnamed creek to the east (this creek is unofficially
named "Outfall Creek" on the Snohomish County orthophotographs for this section). -
METHODS
For the purpose of this study, we used the wetland definition adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)" and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for administering Section 404. of the 1977 Clean Water Act.
According to this definition, wetlands are:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps;
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (33 CFR 328.3(b); 1984)
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@)terra-associates.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 10YR 2/1. Soils below the topsoil were. mostly
lacking in organic material. Matrix colors ranged from 10YR 3/1 (Test Pit TP-1) to 7.5 YR 4/6 (Test Pit TP-4).
Soils with a low chroma value (/1 or /2 if redoxymorphic features are .present) are generally considered to be
hydric. .
Redoxymorphic features (iron masses, nodules, reductions, or depletions) were present in Test Pits.TP-I, 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 TPA, 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 macophyllum) tree and brightly
! colored rust on the bottom two inches of the wire fence and fence posts that delineate the eastern border of the
subject property. We also observed free water in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3, but not in Test Pits TP-2 or TP4.
Primary and secondary evidence indicates the presence of wetland hydrology at Test_Pits TP-1 and TP-3.
VEGETATION
Vegetation on the subject property forms three distinct communities. The vegetation community on the northern
half of the property is urban landscape. The southern half of the property is mostly second -growth forest and
scrub -shrub. This forested portion is dominated by big -leaf maple, red alder (Alnus rubra), and black cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa), suggesting an upland habitat. The third community in the southeast comer 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 aguifolium); and English laurel (Prunus
laurocerasus). Herb species included cleavers (Gallium appraise), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), and herb
Robert (Geranium robertianum).
WETLAND DETERMINATION
An area of wetland conditions exists in the southeast corner of the subject property (Figure 3). Wetland
conditions continue off -site to the east.. The approximate area of this wetland on the subject property is 1,600
square feet. - The determination- of wetland conditions was based on patterns of vegetation,soil conditions, and
field hydrology. The: size of this wetland was estimated by plotting distance and bearing measurements taken in
the field. Property boundaries were estimated based on in -field. measurements. The flagged wetland boundary
and property boundary should be professionally surveyed for accuracy.
Project No. T-5149
.Page No. 3
i
P
'\�_PL ui15
7 5
j 6 ;_ i 5TH
SPA_ RI
SST:
i
nq
� i37 !Ij IL q
IpiX
sr 3
I- - r 18
�� ` aIB57N r
IBHIN ": sT S11
3 e^ mp
IIWM it q
o� ql. mla.
m
1B PL
S
191ST
I% S4
n r ^ 19IND PL
c^
193RD PL
torn 191Tx S I
' 19�1N
PL Sw 195 I.
i
196IN PL w
3 a � f■.
TW 1
1 TH ST .gtSy,
s ''201ST ST SW
202
<-202ND ND
PL SW
pl 203RD ST SM
q
19-
M N
p € h S. t
e ,L S.
1
n6Tn
nq t
I RIVER R
z GRAYSTo
3 ERAl1ITE
4 FIELDST
7,
UCIN
v R q
181ST�
182ND
183RD.;
I" �
Pl SM
18ST
r,F PL
189n- ST
Ref: The Thomas Guide, King County, 2001 Edition, Page 455.
Terra VICINITY MAP
TALBOT ROAD PROPERTY
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS,.WASHINGTON
G won ent and Proj. No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 Figure 1
Environmental Consultants
Approximate Location
of Property Line
-- Wetland. Area
Wetland off -site not
Approximate Location • surveyed. /t1
Data int2
of Property Line
Wetland Area -
1,600 square feet
on property. - — - ==-
oatapoint4 -„-- ----- NOT TO SCALE
, atjpoinl
zft
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.
Terra WETLAND LOCATION SKETCH MAP
TALBOT ROAD PROPERTY
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical and
Environmental Consultants Proj.No. T-5149 Date MAY 2002 Figure 3
FIELD DATA SHEET
WETLANDS DELINEATION
Field Investigators: David R. Teesdale Date: May 24, 2002
Site ID: Talbot Road Property State: WA County: Snohomish
Applicant/Owner: Sample Plot ID: # 4
Normal environmental conditions at plant Community? Normal conditions'. exist.
Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed? No
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES:
Scientific Name
Common Name Stratum
Indicator
%Cover
*Alnus rubra
Red alder T
FAC
20%
*Acer macrophyllum
Bit leaf maple T
FACU
10%
*Crataegus monogyna
Common hawthorn S
FAC-
15%
Rubus ursinus
Trailing blackberry S
FACU
2%
Prunus laurocerasus
English laurel S
NI
2%
Rubus spectabilis
Salmonberry S
FAC
2%
Ilex aquifolium
English holly S
FACU
2%
Polystichum munitum
Sword fern H
FACU
5%
*Galium aparine
Cleavers H
FACU
15%
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: T-50%, S-0%,H-0%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? NO
SOILS
SERIES/PHASE: Alderwood-Urban Complex
Is the soil on hydric soils. list? El Is the.soil a Histosol? ElHistic epipedon present? ❑ Mottled? (Redox
❑ Gleyed . [�
Depth
Matrix
Color -
Soil Texture
Redox
Color
Redox Features :
Redox Size and
Abundance
Pore
Linin s.
0-5"
10YR 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
. ist 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.
FIELDDATA SHEET
WETLANDS DELINEATION
Field Investigators:
David R. Teesdale Date: May.24, 2002
Site ID:
Talbot Road Property State: WA County:
Snohomish
Applicant/Owner:
Sample Plot ID: # 2 .
Normal environmental -conditions at plant Community? Normal conditions exist
Vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology significantly disturbed? No
VEGETATION
DOMINANT PLANT.SPECIES:
Scientific Name
Common Name Stratum Indicator
%Cover
*Crataegus monogyny
Common hawthorn St FAC-
500k
*Prunus laurocerasus
English laurel S NI
10%
*Oemleria cerasiformis
Indian plum S FACU
10%
Ilex aquafolium
English holly S FACU
2%
Rubus discolor
Himalayan blackberry S FACU
2%
Percent of.dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: T-0%, S-0%, H-0%
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"
1OYR 3/2
Sandy gravellyloam
❑
3"-17"
10YR N4
Sandy gravell loam
10YR 4/5
Iron masses
few fine
Is hydric soil criterion met? NO
HYDROLOGY'
Is ground surface inundated? 0 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
Wetla#dge..3- ow'c 11foo
1� 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
i
YEt: wN 0 4 2n02
f'
-- -- --------- 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
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 17151 St. SW in the city of
Edmonds, WA. The site lies as a portion of Sec. 7, Twp. 27N, Rge. 4E, ViWM. The
Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation
Manual (March 1997) was used to evaluate site conditions. Critical area protection
regulations were obtained using the City of Edmonds Ordinance Chapter 20.15B Critical
Areas.
Site Description
The subject property is bounded to the south by 171 ". St. SW, to the west and north by
single family residences and on the east by a forested slope. The south one -quarter of the
property contains an existing single family residence with associated out buildings. The
central portion of the property is a mix of grassland and forest. The north end of the
property is forested with immature red alder. The topography of the site is sloping to the
north and east.
Wetlands
One small forested and scrub/shrub wetland was located along the western property
boundary. The on -site portion of the wetland is approximately 500 square feet in size.
The off -site portion of the wetland is approximately 1,200 square feet in size. The total
area of the entire wetland is approximately 1,700 square feet. Wetlands less than 2,500
square feet in size are not regulated in the city of Edmonds (EMC 20.1513.020 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. 1 % Talbot Park Estates
June 3, 2002 `' " r ` V WR! 02118
FILE N0.
\IP' _ _ _ ._ _ _ 160\ \J6S\ /,>0\
rt'i9f--1•- - - - - - HLtlON---159- -�
M38
y�j llVHd�1{: \95
` CREEK /\\� /' ,.m[tj
4/ // °°d / \ /
—/ / / Y•Q// // / •J / / may/ , H�
Ac
k
vell 4
p1
----`//'�J� ' /'/ i/ /' I 11 'n i I ; I myy I .t\.'. �ol
pn
b \ �\ i I EI 4 �� j I � /i /\ / •/
f
`I
�h /
�1 - - x X X X 30N3J 313yn
\ ON! 'Itl 'NO ,9 3303 3 �� .96.091 HIMON
71
/ X \
1 `EN 5 Q �O u, CRITICAL AREA RECONNAISSANCE MAP \/
F N For: � Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, Inc. PLAT MAP
FOR /
`J -a K Site Location: 171"' St. SW
a y j�A-+ Edmonds, WA 98294 TALBOT PARK ES TA TES
v� H IN SE1/4,NE1 4 OF SECTION 7,T.27 N.,R.4 E.,W.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By: SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9101- 19"' Ave. NE 11101 Lovell-9euerlend k Auocletee, Inc.
Everett, WA 98208 WRI #t021 18 LER ��1-./b-ow �r--�w 1
425-337-3174 June 3, 2002 """'�'' •
>aa�ss�
www a2-o: n r. ;94-0•
ATTACHMENT C
PENTEC REPORT
M=
AW www-pentecenv.com
PE N EWR0NMENTA. 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 - 171" Street SW, Edmonds,
Washington. This review includes a review of wetland boundaries and the measurement of
the width of the stream along the east property boundary. I reviewed the Critical Area
Reconnaissance report (CAR) prepared for the property by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated
June 3, 2002, and a wetland report for the adjacent property to the west. I also reviewed a Fairbanks
Wetland Evaluation (WE) report dated May 31, 2002, prepared for the adjacent property to
the northwest by Terra Associates, Inc. also In addition, I conducted a site inspection on
January 29, 2003.
WETLAND
Jersey City
The 2-acre site contains a portion of a small wetland toward the northwest corner. The
wetland is bisected by the site's west property boundary. Although there are a few small
trees in the wetland it classifies, as a palustrine scrub -shrub wetland following the U.S. Fish
Juneau
and Wildlife Services' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States (Cowardin et al 1979). Dominant plants in the wetland include salmonberry (Rubus
spectabi/is), Sitka willow (Sa/ixsitchenis), red alder (Alms rubra), ladyfern (Athyrium
fi/ix-femina), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). See attached photos of wetland.
Long Beach
WETLAND BOUNDARY
On the day of the site inspection only a single piece of pink "wetland delineation" flagging
was located. The flagging was toward the center of the wetland and did not have anything
written on it. Two pieces of orange flagging (also without writing) were located -on the west Portland
property fence. These two flags were close to the wetland edge, and it is assumed that they
were tied by Wetland Resources during the site reconnaissance. A large maple tree had
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc.
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110
Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411
Fax 425.778.9417
Tel 425.775.4682
Seattle
City of Edmonds 12130-15
February 28, 2003 Page 3
Based on the 2,700-sf estimate, this wetland is larger than the 2,500-sf threshold in Section
20.4513.20 of the Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and would be a regulated
feature. Based on Section 20.1513.060 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 (betweenstream.banks) at five locations along the
stream. These measurements were made to provide the City with a means of evaluating the
stream setback requirements relative to the stream centerline shown on the Preliminary Plat
drawing. On the reach of the stream east of the site the width between the banks is on
average 30 inches. Based on this estimate the west bank of the stream is on average 15
inches from the stream centerline.
We hope this report meets your needs. If you have any questions, please feel free to
call me.
Sincerely,
PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL
MICHAEL MUSCARI
Wetland Ecologist
michael.muscari@pentecenv.com
Attachments:
Wetland Boundary Sketch
Photographs of Wetland
00130\015Vafttpadveview.doc
77 1
1^
�. :..ef ♦
s A I
APPENDIX A
DATA SHEETS
)V..7vvr- I LMIVV VGLol vGN1I two,@ Lip%1 P% rVnivj rout ivu. •
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Transect ID
Weather: Cowardin
Project/Site: Date: nz-
Field Irvesti for Size(acy, .,ti. l 1.2 2-5 >5
�-- Normal Conds Y'
Disturbance?.
C...�.1..... •.ww9 A '
e—
-- Cover Class
1 e 0. 54 2.5 2-5.25415 3- 25-.50.137.5 4. 50. 75462.5 5= 75 -95485 S. >954 97.5
WA.
Dominant Plant Spp
Cvr
Cis
Indicator..
>..; $1_pttie ...
Stratum
W/L UP
Dominant Plant Species
Cvr
Cis
Indicator
Statue
Stratum
u reg"ni Know u wn. pit raftu pnyarrepr,cape u morpn aoapi u recn m u mL Plum Uwe uasr
%081. FACW orFAC -' herb ♦ _ shrub ♦ __tree . _ total Hydrophyllo Vag Y N
Raticnatle: '0>50% 0<50%108t, FACW or FAC (no FAC•)) O other
HYDROLOGY ;..,
Inund? Y urf H2O depth: ' SatAl2' (8' In sandy Bolls) JI 'Deptlh'of Ines H2O In pNhols: ,a_'
Other 1 • ( tors: O water marks O drift Unes 0 sediment deposh is w/L drainage Panama
Other field evidsnee of surface Inundation or Boll saturation
Secondary Indicators: O oxidized root chamel*Al2' O water -stained leaves O local soil survey data
OFAC-Neutral Test (In vague hydrol) O other
Recorded Data: O r am, lake or tide gauge O aerial photo ❑ other O none
Growing Season? seed on: plus• O obsv rowM O Boil 1 mp O 19.7' >4117 O
Wattand hydrology Rsllonals:
ti tin Q •K
80118 to at least If'
Series/Phase: Taxonomy Drainage Class Confirm Mapg Y N
Dip_ Matrix Color* Monle7/Color sjlgyjTaidure
�•� Y N Y N
YN_) YN
Y N Y N
Y N Y N
'below A "on or to' ichever shallower)
..� Soll indicators; M,Hlstosot -Hblb splpedon O SuMidle Odor MrAquic Moisture Regime
)R !P' sduoIng condMlons O Gleyedllow Chrome O High Surface Organic Conten, In Sandy Soils
/ O Conaetlona O Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Hydro Soils flat: OLoeal ONgel
Other hydro soil Indicators: Hydde 6o1171, Y N
Raticnaie:
UR NAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
W etland7 e . Aationel. all pars o veg no soils no hydrol Sample point within wetland? Y N
Other infortnalicNRemerki
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
IV
HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT
Groundwater recharge (H M L
• Groundwater discharge (H AW
Stream basellow contributi1;/A)
M ' N/A)
Floodwater attenuation (H N/A)
Floodwater detention (H M/A)
Floodwater retention (H M
Floodwater desynchronlzation (H M L /A)
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS
'.Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L
Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants L A]-__
Transformation of nutrients or toxi A (H M(LP
Wastewater treatment (H M I. /
NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNTIONS,
Primary productivity (H M Al J
Organic accumulation ( AI
Organic export (H M L
Decomposition (H MM W
• Detrital transport (H M L _
NufriBnt cycling and utilizat10 (Fi. M Al
Food chain support (H M',C�l/Al
HABITAT FUNCTIONS
Invertebrates (H
Amphibians (H M N/A)
•Fisheries (H M L _
Mammals NAA Al
Birds (H A
Sanctuary and refuge (H M L Al
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS
Non -consumptive valu
Recreational (H. L / +
.Aesthetic (H M
Historical (H M L
Archeological (H M L A
• Consumptive val
Fisheries (H M L N/
Renewable resources,HH M L eA,
Agricultural (H M L iWAD
WVdlife
Data Plot Location Sketch
FfSWETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No..` 7
ROUTINE ONSITE DETE INATION METHOD Transect ID
Weather: S Cowargin
Project/Site:.Date: - z- q-4-
Field Investigato Size(ac)! <0 <1 1-2 2-5 >5
Normal .Conde?
Disturbance?
Problem Area?
' Cover Class
—I-0 • 5-02.5 2�5.25•i 1S 3. 25 • SO.1/37.5 <- 50.75-1082.5 S= 75 •'95485 Be >95 1' 97.5
W/L
IDeminant Plant Spp
Cvr,
Cis
Indicator
Status
Stratum
WA. UP
Dominant Plant Species
Cvr
CIS
Indicator
Status
Stratum
if
U roa'n'l knowl O W/L pint
list
O ohvaltaDr
adapt
O morph adept O tech ill
O
W/L plant datatase
%OBL, FACW or FAC herb * a;>ehrU0 +free - _ total MyOroprlyllo vat 1' M
Rallonaas: O>SO% O<30%(OBL FACW or FAC (no FAC•)) O ether \J
HYDROLoa ;
Inund? Y N Surf H2O depth: ' SajAl2• (S..' In sandy Solis)? Depth of free H2O 1n plVhole:
Other 11 Indicators: O waisr marks O drift lines. O sedim . epostiAWIL drainage patterns
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation
Seoondary Indicators: O oxidized root chanrtelsAl2' O water -stained leaves O local soil survey data
OFAC•Neutral Tool,on vague hydrol) O other
Recorded Date: em, lake or tide gauge .O aerial photo O other O none
Growing Season used on: O dale O obsv rorvth 3 soil t mp a 19.7' "11F O
Wetland hydrWol Rationale:
k t%, sw
011.8lo et Iesst lI V
Serles/Phase: Taxonomy Drainage Class Confirm Mspg Y N
gam_ Matrix Color* Mottle?!Color 2W j� _
N f Y N -Sl
f ? SS —(- Qq e-3 Z&N (O Vi,1Z- `1 �_ Y N `.31 1,
Y N Y. N
Y N Y N
'below A horizon or 10' Ic lever shanower)
SON Indicators: O MOM, !ilia eplpedon O SuMkrb Odc` rAqulo Moisture Regime
Reducing condMions 6ow Chroma O Nlgh Surfaa O gl ionic Content In Sandy Solls
'Coo* tions O Organ�O Streaking InSandy SoUe Hydro SoNs List: tiLocal ONat al
tic Othei hydric loll ktetors: Hydrle Soo?<1
Rationals:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Wetland? Y N 9m0ona4:.. m o veg no soils no hydrol Semple point within wetland? Y N
Other Ini allonlRefnarks:
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
! HYDROLOGIC SUPPORTP
�. ..Groundwater recharge (H M L N/A)
Groundwater discharge (H M L N/Al
hgao8ow contribution (H M L N/Al
Floodwater auin. t=). ;H M L N/Al
Floodwater detention (H. M L N/Al
Floodwater retention (H M L N/Al
Floodwater attenuation (H M L N/Al
• Floodwater desynchronization (H M L N/Al
WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS
Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L N/Al
Retention of sediments, nutrients or toxicants (H. M L WAS_
Transformation of nutrients or toxicants (H M L N/Al
Wastewater treatment (H M L WAl
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 .WAI
Detrital transport (H M L .WAI _
Nutrient cycling and utilization (H M L WAI
Food chain support (H M L N/Al
HABITAT FUNCTIONS
Invertebrates (H M L N/Al
Amphibians (H M L N/AI
Fisheries (H M L N/A)
Mammals (H M L N/Al
• Birds (H M L N/Al
• Sanctuary and refuge (H M L N/Al
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS
Non -consumptive value
Recreational (H M L N/A)
Aesthetic (H M L N/Al
Historical (H M L N/Al
Archeological (H M L N/A)
• Consumptive value
Fisheries (H M L N/AI
Renewable resources (H M L N/Al
Agricultural (H M L N/Al
Wildlife
Data Plot Location Sketch
.. ' l•. � � c ..(ao 1..h�. .u47�1c, .✓� ra A cn.M'S...y�,-.i"�.« µ p'\r i l-`•....� r.r�g" �. ,,.�.• _.,•vi`
h
City of Edmonds Permit No: o �!
RIGHT -OF --WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 1ti2 0 �P
A. Address or Vicinit of Construe4on:"UT Al C
I7D� 17iH l
ff ,/
B. Type of Work;(be sp /fic): LJ Tl Lrn �, L3
" . 1 _.._-J
C. Contractor: ` Contact:
Mailing Address: 3)21. Yl Phone:
- State License #:U-LCC r `" ✓ Liability Insurance: Bond: $
City Business License #:Ibi d
Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PLID, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD)
❑ Multi -Family SingleFamily ❑ Other I)A
�_ �/
INSPECTOR: / r CW/�,` ►'WL �• � tL. i 4/r C r; �
F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF UT 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 anv kind or description whatsoever,. foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the Citv of
Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs and attorneyfees by reason of granting this permit.' w
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 i
required training in their possession.
♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS.
♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
t
I HAVE READ THE BOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT I MUST MA THE PINK O OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECT/IONS
Signature: Date:
(Contractor or Agent)
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS:zdLn
r1�•
Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line.
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: 1✓rG Fri/Y i j�tptl( DATE:.3/711U1
SettingsTurtisNy Documents\Forms\Engnrng\ROWpermit_ doc
I
,4!
Revised 10/01/03
u
I
I
270407-001-021-00 fl
FND. 1/2' REBAR & CAP D 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 _----__-_-_ O S. END 3' CHAINLINK
---------------------11 150.97' FENCE 0.6'S X 0.4'W
61.00' } 4' HOGWIRE� y
b FENCE �s END 4' HOGWIRE OF SW PROP. CORNER
O OF NW PROP. CORNER FENCE 81.3'E X 2.6'S O3 3' CHAINLINK FENCE
Lo �, _ _ CROSSES PROPERTY
270407-001-048-00 1.2'W od' �_ - - - - - - - LINE 19.2'N OF SW
TRACT 997 1- 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT_ PROPERTY CORNER
6' CHAINLINK FENCE------- 8,006 S.F. r - - '- N8638'37"E 114.29 - O N. END 3' CHAINLINK
OPEN SPACE I FENCE 49.1'N X DOW
�I OF SW PROP. CORNER
--------------,---------- H62y 041 o
44 , a 5 S. END 3 CHAINLINK
10 s �I TRACT 999 �.
�i 4r• N S /L FENCE 56.6'N X O.TE
o� T o6�, �4Ss� 21.710 N�PAF• OF SW PROP. CORNER
1 Ss I z, Ng WE OS• O6 EDGE OF ASPHALT
1 �•I. Zy c�2�v'4 I 56.24' �k CROSSES PROPERTY
LINE 78.8 NCOF S
t s PROPERTY
►' Z �o II �.\ o '.
ER
w< w 1.41E o I 6 I O N. END 3' CHAINLINK FENCE
aw \ �I ��S \ & S. END 4' HOGWIRE FENCE
o0 0 c 1 I 5.320 S.F. `
\ ; c �� ci WETLAND �'vs �; % ��o ,y. I o 105.3'N X 2.3'E OF SW PROP.
1 0 ri o ( n` O, CORNER
z "in 2.5'E I .� i `. 14 �j 8 EDGE OF ASPHALT
\ I TR T 98 .� ' �'`
.� N O CROSSESPROPERTY
6'N OF SW
A 13 1 o o LINE 115.
2.51E 7,153 F.
^o �I ti` oc� PROPERTY CORNER
1 .5 N06'49'49"W
I / 2 ro � 19.12' / i I CATE'00R,e O 4' HOGWIRE FENCE
270407-001-047-00 \ 3.1'E �t�, �c II 5 STREAM CROSSES PROPERTY
� o i 6.964 S.F. I M LINE 70.1 S OF NW
I N90'0 '00'E h . Iz Q,
98.00' TOTAL "� o L I co PROPERTY CORNER
"� i I rn
.0 E "� hj"y --' I 0 M M 0 10 6' CHAINLINK FENCE RUNS N. &
1 39.00'� r• 31.00' 28.00' i cd ¢ w W. & 4 HOGWIRE FENCE RUNS S.
1 3.1'E 81.00' 1 1.00. 'a 11 O 0 / CORNER 0.8'W OF NW PROPERTY
1 4' HOGWIRE FENCE 6.68'o N --- , •� �,r� 11 6' CHAINLINK FENCE RUNS N.,
I
0 3.01E ml M N90 00 OO�.r: - a ra
-----79.34'_'c� S. & W. & 4 HOGWIRE FENCE
1 /0 o Mai. -r coM RUNS EI.8'SX1.7'WOFNW
N90'00.00_E� m 10' UE �' cy 2 w PROPERTY CORNER
Ito62.14 0 c / 12 4 HOGWIRE FENCE
pp 8 Iw C �, I o CROSSES PROPERTY
/ o 'n 7 o LINE 1.7'S OF NW
1 1.8E o 0 4,19. S.F. I Q
I �0 N90'00'00"E ,;�� o N c PROPERTY CORNER
i0 7 64.00• _ ri i 3 z _--_-----13 ANGLE POINT HOUSE
,y 1 ASPHALT M ol0p _-- "� N _ _ _ IS 1.61' WEST OF-----------
'1/ sr. I z N9U•00 00 W
AS S, I J 13 :I 6.71E o +'s m PROPERTY LINE
`i S��� 1 �� 1.51E M-----78.02 _, ro-. %.
•s• , 1 I 7 "' I m O
S�jIr yR4, I 6 i 4.887 S.F. AcVO N ro N Z
I 1.01E , `'` •cvo o)h 3
I %
\ 5 co 170. /�/�� o/� •^ 4,553 S.F. ! Y.-
3' CHAINLINK °'o GF v /� �� /� �i p I c zo LOT 2
FND. 1/2' REBAR & CAP \ FENCE 4 0 T ^ SP S-27-95
LS# MEYRWG 2621 DN. I •00. N 1 = 270407-001-070-00
0.3' IN ASPHALT HOLE 0 ` .41E �j N90'00'00"E---90.19' 2
INT. TALBOT RD. & 171ST \ I hhry •00 Q /-____61.19'__ 29.00'
ST 2-14-05 l ,^ • ,� �N�. . // //n�\ N '�
3 �/� •9
Q ry sr cap
' \ 2 F
-------------------
5 046 S F. ''`�� ' \�
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
P
0� �0
0� �RPpo 1�
V opo
/yP66p/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
LEGEND
RGE
RANGE
SP
SHORT PLAT
SEC.
SECTION
SE,NE,
SOUTHEAST, NORTHEAST,
NW,SW
NORTHWEST. SOUTHWEST
S.,N..E..W.,
SOUTH, NORTH. EAST, WEST
S.F.
SQUARE FEET
TWP.
TOWNSHIP
UE
UTILITY EASEMENT
W.M.
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN
+ "a"
SUBDIVISION CORNER / FOUND
®
EXISTING MONUMENT AS NOTED
EXISTING REBAR OR IRON PIPE AS NOTED
®
®
SET STANDARD CITY OF EDMONDS
MONUMENT/CASE & BRASS CAP W/
PUNCH MARK LS NO. 30450
O
SET 1 /2" X 24' REBAR WITH
PLASTIC CAP, LS NO. 30450
(P)
PLAT OF SEA LAWN TERRACE DIV. A
CALC.
CALCULATED DISTANCE
FND. 4'X4' CONC. MON.
rWITH 2" BRASS DISK W/
"X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE
2-14-05
co l
of
cd
N
I
FEND. 4'X4" CONC. MON.
WITH 2" BRASS DISK W/
"X" DN. 0.6' IN CASE
I 0.24' EAST OF SECTION
I LINE 2-14-05
STREAM LOT A N
N cd
o - W% 270407-001-0.33--00 I
� 9,668 S.F. Z
0clid.
y �.� \ \
o
o F.�� I
G"2o 0 29 a" A=8i�7'10- I
�• 18• L=36.89' N 90'00'00" E 312.90' DEED ______ ' ..
4�q4 o f ¢ p
R- 7'0 " �n w cr z W
La 290 29 . (�� o o ^ In r" �`� o
224 (p' "� °� I F
r(P� - 0.68' i M 312.28' TO BOUNDARY _ _ _ on V m c6 in �4j
_ 03--- -----_ - - - - o >
o`o ��. `-------------
9s•.32'(P) -• N89'51'26"E 312.96' CALC TO PC M - o Q
�. N 00*00*00" E 312.91(P) I W w Z
Q
e v us
$2 SEE DETAIL "A" to
-4ZOrn oo T o
10 IOo w (0
� 0,2� I I Zz �
� I I
270407-001-00.3--00 1 270407-001-002-00
I I
DETAIL "A"
_1
I �
0
CONC. MON. N
2" BRASS DISK W/ I
)N. .6' I i CASE