18910 SOUNDVIEW PL.PDF11111111111111
13213
18910 SOUNDVIEW
PL
0
0
I
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver [] Study Required [] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
120 ROV I I &We] 0M 1qwAl A wi I low i I l& I 11 A, 111 a I
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DA
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
7
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #66fsn
SOILS REPORT DA
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR:
LATEMP\DSrs\Fomis\Street File ChecklisLdoc
BUILDING DEPA Applicant Fill
3
780408
PERMIT APPLICAVOW- jln�ide Heavy Lines
NAME I.. !.AVIE OF
ADDRESS
6xle
-;;i-- 611 �11A
FLAT NAME ASSESSOR MAP
z
t
1 J,.
0 L 1
L . lzor�%94=1 I"
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE No.
59/
EXISTING RIGHT OF AA1 S-r-->
""Co�o5c-) RIGHT OF WAY
v
DCFICHFNCV OF RIGHT OF WAY
AODR
STRCETIUTILITY WORK -roulRec, Va 5 No
A—
PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC wyes ONO
o
at CITY - —e. u 9-17n
VLEP"
UNDERGROUND WIRING "EoUIFE. (DYES 6N.o
r .
u
cd.
CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER 4F, YES ONO
NAME
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT RrOUI.CD
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO.
o
3i;
SEC MEMO DATED
TELEPHONE NUMBER
1—I—S
o
CITY LICEN
c-cc'.. BY
t;A
A Pr 1 M
2S
A
Legal Description of P,Operl, Ill.. &I.W or Attach Fo
BUILDING
CTL- I-C FFLY soze
-7
RE
z
o f
12
r,-e--F-,'J PS R�6`15W-ATOP- 1P-SQQ%Z16t,
SIGN AREA --V REVIEW ADD N*-
It
ALLOWED 1111-�TE
J
A
REMARKS
VARIANCE OR CU -[PLANNING REVIEW BY
Y A R- D--s—
LOT
N T'A L LAS
drW ILE '',I.E.TIAL El - I
:5'1PPON T Ink,
—E ZONE 01 CONSTRUCTION CODE
3
.,..EN"AL 0,:N N
E] G
ITIPC
-7G
A Go
i
L.s. RETAINING
WALL
I occU"^
ReoUIAL NSMCTOR occur^Nv�
RED
f
ALTER ATtt FENCE
r 'A' VL L rn
JA"EA
- I GROUI/,A_ I
I k K-3 LOAD
yes Z—
I
trF
'love
REPAIR �WIM
INE.— BY IS I 0C,
44)— OF EDMONDS. LOCAL bAL.Lb To,
POOL
SHOULD BE CODED 3'
NUMBER OF STORIES Nu BER o F
REMARKS
ow
U-,cTLLINr
LOT D PtN1 tj NGS MP, OP-0. I
NATURE Or WORK TO BE CONE
4
PROPOSED USE
PLAN CHECK FEE VALUATION Fee
z
2 Fd,.,,� k-05,
z
PLOT P4A - N
81ILDI-1
(INDICATE 3ITBACK5.
!t
z ABUTTING STRE—S)
u
BUILDING
3s''62-7 14S
o 0—
PLUMBING
It
MECHANICAL
f.
FENCE
"IGN
A
Pcr^INING W�LL
u
SWIMMING POOL WIN
I hereby acknowledge that I hj�c read thi�, it-, atwn: that the in.
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
2 2-10
formation gi"n is correct; and that I am the o.u, 11,e duly author.
ized agent of the owner. I talc la— rrgu.
I jrrce to c,omply Nvith ck�
lating cons-tuction; and in doing the work nutlmiritv,! �-why, no person
ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL
will be employed in viclation of the Labor Codeof the
telating to Workmen's Cr,mr�njlion In,utancr.
THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit
NOTE: IsOrMit Ufflit 0110 Y00r(r.\cep! DEMOLI I FILL
^uT.omlze, until signed by the Building 01TIcial or
-NS -d
wl,wdinl)()
ONLY j-Hat his Deputv;
. ind fees are paid, and
dJIYv._.%IOVrIMN BUILDINGS hall he complocd In t\ monthQ
wo". No", receipt Is acknowledged in space ptt7l.
SIGNATURE JOWNER OR AGENT) —
x
t"S1ItCTIOo`,T vided.
—;, - (�, 7
CHIPARTme
CITY r
0
This Permit coven wErk to 66 done on orivato property ON.
Any conxtrutnion on the public domain 1,,,b,, ldewalke, rlrlvo�
ONIONDS ;ATIE
775-2525
vs,
marque". etc.) will require "ara" permission.
ATTENTION
ORIGINAL - F-le ;ELLOW - in,vecto,
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTUIIE
PINK - OWne, GOLD A
UNtIL A F1 NAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL 011
- .......
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GFIANTCO. UBC 304. 3GI
A
t
N
L 0 T- 4- L INDSAY'S
ADDI T"10N
0
F o .1
oop
0
4-0 0.
wz
N
w
CITY OF EDMON)s
P. W. DEPT. ENGINEEF ING DIV/.
EXAMINED 41 ZZ
By t/I D A 4TE E
EMARKS
S'OUND VIEW PL. 75.0 IFLEV. ASS"E-0
L-07 oqNivi P,6r, ?E?-. o;zrx. miet
7 8 0 4038
The City of Edmonds
Side Sewer Drawing
EASEMENT NO. 4BC:-)k-4.7Zx=>-
NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS LID NO - ------------------ - ASMT. NO - ------------------
on
OWNER ----- -MFtj ... LJWED-�� Y. ---------------------------------- ---------- CONTRACTOR ----- L' ------ .--5�MK- PERMIT NO.
JOB ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. - ------------ 4 .................... BLOCK NO - ------------------------------------
r-JL.J-,f I L---W
F'L-th�j=-
NAME OF ADDITION ------ 4t4=.-4c:)j -nc=44
rt&c-
61
1,5
PWW-OWl-1 1/75 (REVA 1178) DATE ----- nZA&.-.ft=) ------ By
CITY OF EDMONDS
ItVPUBLIC WORKS DEPAR N FOR INSPECTION CALL rmit
.7.75-2525 Ext.'220 Issue Date
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
1.� Address o7w7ow'n'struction
2. Property Legal Description (include all, easements) L,7� C�, 1"
3. Single Family Residence V--"'Multi-Family No. of Units
Commercial
4. Owner and/or Builder
5. Contractor & License No.
6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way No Yes 1�e�(If Yes Right-of-
way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig (342-5344) before
excavation) . e�� ro -/ fj)
7. Cross other private property: Yes No Easement required
attach legal description and county easement number.
,,�"c
,0,
READ THE —FOLLOWING AND SIGN 0 el - V/S 'e" �v
opg/,A/z I V 44
a. Property owners must obtain a permit to -install side sewers on
their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to
construct side sewers in the public' right-of-way.
b. The side sewer contractor assumes full repIM]b0flooft each
installation for one year.
C. Commercial establishment requires a minim*FORE YOUiNG (6
side sewer line.
d. Side sewers may not be installed closer thL'h8QQ:rA2-W4s (30")
to any structure.
e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade, of 2% (1.15 0
and maximum grade of 100% (450). 0
f. No turn in side s8wer greater than 45 (1/81bend) is 0 allowed
between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/8
bend) and wye with removable cap.
g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected
to side sewer system.
h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines
through other than granular soil.
Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line
andlat minimum intervals of 1001 along sewer 'line run.
I j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original
conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure
due to poor compaction of fill.
k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved
by the City.
1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working
days notice required.
DATE:
I certify t—Fa—tI have read
and shall comply With the above
PERMIT FEE:
CONNECTION FEE:
0
PERMIT
DISAPPROVED BY: Date:
By: -Date:
APPROVED By: T_1%j Date:, 12-
T BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
CITY OF EDMONDS FOR INSPECTION CALLO ;Wrmif_ NO 061� . �d - -
PUBLIC WORKS DEPAkENT
SIDE SEWER PERMIT 775-2525 Ext. 220 Issue Date
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE * q
l.. Address �770nstruction h?710 SOVA19 111,CW A6.
2. Property Legal Description (include all, easements),�,J
941�1 4�,f A j J:�
3. Single Fami�y Resid
ence Multi -Family No. of Units
Commercial
4. Owner and/or Builder of E 06 1 C
5. Contractor & License No.
6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No/
Yes (If Yes Right-of-
way Construction Permit Required Call Dial Dig (342-5344) before
excavation).
E-4 7. Cross other private property: Yes No Easement required
U attach legal description and county easement number.
READ THE FOLLOWT,.NG AND SIGN:
P4
a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on
>4 their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to
construct side sewers in the public' right-of-way.
b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each
E-1 installation for one year.
N
4 C. Co-mnercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6")
P4
z side sewer line.
0 d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30")
U to any structure.
W 0
M e. Side sewer lines must 0 be laid at a minimum grade. of 2% (1.15
0 and maximum grade of 100% (45 ). 0
E-4 f. No turn in side s8wer greater than 45 (1/81bend) is 0 allowed
between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/8
bend) and Wye with removable cap.
g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected
to side sewer system.
h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines
through other than granular soil.
i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-6-0" from each plumbing exit line
and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer 'line run.
j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original
conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for ri I ght-of-way failure
due to poor compaction of fill.
k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved
by the City.
1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working
days notice required.
DATE: 4" 0
SMEET FILE
I certify that I have ead
and shall comply With �the above
PERMIT FEE: ��_55
CONNECTION FEE: cjS
0
If
PERMIT M1
DISAPPROVED BY: Date:
By: -Date:
APPROVED By: Date:
T BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
3� 272 1
Date
Name
Company
Phone
Email
il 07-19
u 1'14 k4
71/1-O-ZI-W
b
L
10
<)Oov
01F En4f
4 CITY OF EDMONDS
1215TH AVE�UENORTH -EDMONDS, WA 98020
,"o PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
In'. J'A')IJ
Tuesday, September 30,2014
Your request for a Development Review Conunittee meeting has been accepted by the City of Edmonds. The meeting
is scheduled for: 10/09/2014 at 3:00 PM . We Strongly suggest that all lead design professionals associated with the
project attend this meeting.
Application Number: DRC20140007
PROP OWNER. ALAN C LINDSAY
18910 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
(206) 890-8318
Project Address: 18910 SOUND VIEW PI, EDMONDS
Existing Be/ 0 pancy:
TPP I _riczl
8VRWITHIN,*THE CRITICAL AREA BUFFER
Proposed Project:
ADDITIONI REMODEL OFAN EXISTING SFR LOCA TED WITHINA CRITICAL AREA BUFFER. CONCERNED
WITH INTERPRA TA TIONS OFECDC 17.40.020.FAND23.40.220.C3
To view up to date information about yourpermit please visit the City ofEdmonds Development Services website
at http://www.ci.editwnds.wa.us.
I<UC
F--]PRE-AP
MEETING NOTIFICATION & PLANS
Date:
October 1, 2014
'To:
Shane F] Building Ej LeitQ Engineering[] Fire [:]Planning C] Steve Fisher Patrick Doherty
From:
Jana E] Linda Nr
Meeting
Date:
Thursday, OCTOBER 9,2014
Meeting
Time:
3PM
Applicant:
John Bissell, 206.498.3610 or john@johnbissell.com
Contact
Same as above
DRC #20140007
Attached are the plans for the meeting scheduled above..
4rr, Ws ba#zrs
-(vY 'eq- 4T, y4plt 'f 4-016d ve,
DMyDocurnents/Spellman/Pfire-App Meetings/Pre-App Notify to Staff
LTemp/Janw?m-App Mwing Forms/Pre-App Nofi�, to Staff
City of Edmonds
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
EI)
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 M AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, W A 98020
PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPM ENT REVIEW APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Your request for a Development Review Committee meeting has been accepted by the City of Edmonds. The meeting
is scheduled for: 10/09/2014 at 3:00 PM . We Strongly suggest that all lead design professionals associated with the
project attend this meeting.
Application Number: DRC20140007
PROP OWNER- ALAN C LINDSAY
18910 SOUND VIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WA 98020
(206) 890-8318
Project Address: 18910 SOUND VIEW P4 EDMONDS
Existing Be/ Occupancy:
SFRWITHINOTHE CRITICAL AREA BUFFER
Proposed Project:
ADDITIONI REMODEL OFAN EYISTING SFR LOCATED WITHINA CRITICAL AREA BUFFER. CONCERNE D
WITH INTERPRA TA TIONS OFECDC 17.40.020.FAND23.40.220.C.3
To view up to date information about yourpermit please visit the City of Edmonds Development Services website
at http://www.ci.ednwnds.wa.us.
OV ED&
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
1P
MEETING REQUEST FORM
Location : Development Services Department
2 nd Floor City Hall - 121 5b" Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221
TODAY'S DATE:September 30, 2014 FEE: NONE REQUIRED
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Please submit this information ONE WEEK PRIOR TO
Please submit 6 COPIES EACH of the following:
REQUESTED MEETING DATE to:
1.
Site Plan
Building Division — Permit Coordinator
2.
Vicinity Map
2 nd Floor City Hall
3.
Copies of this completed form
121 Fifth Avenue North
4.
Pertinent background information
Edmonds, WA 98020
Meetings are held on Thursday afternoons at 1:30 and 3:00 p.m. for approximately 45 minutes.
Please indicate vour r)reference below.
I DATEA&M5- C)LT q ITIMEASAP PAA I
I PLEASE FILL IN INFORMATION REQUIRED BELOW I
APPL,CANT/CONTACT: John Bissell
PROPERTY OWNER: Jeffrey and Maureen Lewis
ADDRESS:
ADDRESS: PO Box 1113 Edmonds WA 98020
CONTACT PHONE:206 498 3610
—
1 CONTAC ..206 890 8318
T PHON .
EAIL ADDRESS:john@johnbissell.com
r_M
IE-MAL ADDRESS:jlewisl8l9@gmail.com
Addition/ remodel of an existing SFR located within a Critical Area Buffer. Concerned with interprations of
ECDC 17.40.020.F and 23.40.220.C.3
Please note that the Development Review Committee is an informal opportunity for you and/or your representative to meet with staff and
discuss your preliminary ideas and concepts for your project. The intent of the meeting is to help to identify the major code requirements
that will need to be addressed and any significant site development issues that may relate to the project. The intent is for the meeting to
occur prior to considerable investment in plans and/or design work. You may wish to have your design professional (s) accompany you to
the meeting.
This meeting is an informal session to share information and does not constitute a review or tacit approval of the project.
ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS/DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
September 30, 2014
Building Division - Permit Coordinator
2nd Floor City Hall
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 '
Subject: Development Review Committee Meeting Request
Tax Account Number: 00498400000400
Site Address: 18910 Sound View Pl, Edmonds, WA 98020
Review Staff,
Jeffrey and Maureen Lewis are the property owners of the property located at 18910 Sound
View PI, Edmonds. The building is a smaller house which doesn't conform to the style or
character of the neighborhood, nor does it conform to the needs of the property owners. For
these reasons, the Lewis's would like to remodel and add to the existing house.
Fruitdale Creek is south of the south property line of the subject property. The buffer for the
creek appears to be a 75 foot buffer per ECDC 23.90.040. D. 1, and can be reduced to 37.5 feet
per ECDC 23.90.040.D.2. This reduction will still encumber a majority of the existing house
foot print.
However, ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 allows remodels of legal nonconforming buildings within the
critical area or buffer so long as the impact to the critical area or buffer is not increased. And
ECDC 17.40.020.F allows the restoration� so long as the building is not destroyed by more than
75%. VC& wr-h-, 660 ��- o� ka4,o po-K47tok, VS ese(44jl,
With these three code sections, we are hoping to A. reduce the buffer by 50%, B. remodel the
interior of the existing house, and C. add square footage to the existing house outside of the
reduced buffer and add height to the house with a new taller roof. We believe this will meet
code because A. the existing buffer is mostly lawn and invasive species giving good
opportunity for enhancement, B. the remodel of the existing building will add value, not reduce
value, and C. the taller roof will not adversely impact the critical area or buffer and the new
square footage will be outside of the reduced buffer.
We look forward to meeting with your team at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerel
/1�ohn Bissell,-ATC-F-
rincipal Planner
ohnba-LSAengineering.com
ohn(@-*ohnbissell.com
2064983610
4257751591
Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., Inc.
19217 36th Ave. W, Suite 106, Lynnwood, Wa. 98036 425-775-1591
LSAengineering.com
--�q2�-Lgo c-limm
ION
h Will [1101
®r fill oil. V, �1%11
Mom
h sWrilim 111MITIM
-7—?v2d�l 67N
^-2-TJ
C�O-rlv
C
( 9L.-
Xkk
of.
-04
117-
CK17
.Project
. Site
A
K�r : 1
ISM_
771 . Ai4l
i
n
Vicinity Map — Lewis SFR Addition / Remodel
F��]b R C
F—]PRE-AP
MEETING NOTIFICATION & PLANS
Date:
October 1, 2014
'To:
Shane E] BuildingDR'Leif Ej Engineering [:] Fire Planning E] Steve Fisher[] Patrick Doherty El
From:
Jana E] Lindae
Meeting
Date:
Thursday, OCTOBER 9,2014
Meeting
Time:
3PM
Applicant:
John Bissell, 206.498.3610 or john@johnbissell.com
Contact
Same as above
DRC #20140007
Attached are the plans for the meeting scheduled above.
D:MyDocunnents/Spc11nnan/Pfre-App Meetings/Pre-App Notify to Staff
L:Tcrnp/Jana/Pn::App Mating FornWftc-App Notif� to Staff
City of Edmonds
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
0
U
Z
0
W
V)
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RIGHT - OF - WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. *Address or vicinity of Construction
Owner:
Name
Mailing Address
City, S ta te, Zip Code
Wit No
Issue Date
Permit Issued To:
0 Type of Work to be Done: -L c
Work in Connecti on With:
El Sub or Plat D Single Family
El Comml. / Ind. El Apt. Condo.
Pavement Cut: El Yes El No
Contractor: -
Name
2,
Mailing Address State License Nurr�bW'�Q` OLC
City, State, Zip Code Telephorie Number
NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
INDEMITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless
from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made
against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal
proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit.
Upon issuance of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year
following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division.
Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed, at
which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant.
Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accordance with Traffic
Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call
775-2525, extension 220.
I understand that this permit must be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all times.
Signature: i�, Date
Owner or Agent
THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES
CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
C. Issued By:
Time Authorized: Vold after days
Special Conditions:
Ammendments:
Permit Fee: 6
Security Deposit:
Receipt No.:
Fund III Fee:
Street Cut Dimensions
X -
* * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * *
Eng. Div. December 1978
FIELD INSPECTIONIWES . Fund 111 -16ite conv to Street D I ept'. .
Comments:
Diagram:
Contractor called for inspection- Yes NO
T Bv: Date:
,AJork Disa.pproved By: Dat
Work Aporoved Bv: Date:
Inspector:
Encr. Div. December .1978
REV 12179 :pA UTILITY DISTRICT. No I of S, n9lcouhty Ar
W 0. NO
LOCAT ION I Sq I-0 r" �v - I - I#- w- D A I E
POL�.NO- WAA,/ 14 &� SEA S:� 5. T 2-7 R REVISION U. G. FILE Nr)-
REASON FOR WORK; !S�l ENGINEER C=612t50IT-� ASl:8UILT
DRAFTM SCALE
-APP.ROV ALS-
PERMIT REOUIRED E� ME�T ENVIRONMENAL ANALYSIS
OTREE TR MMING"- OWA41Z,
TYPE N
REOUI RED' SNOT REQUIRED E'
X M.P T,
�ZDIAL D�IG. SEWER
PAR I E m
DATE GRANTED 0PUD LOCATOR EIG'A S
'0. H. U: G. CON D. KV'
DATE RELEASED
t -11 . I I �.ZB I ACK HOE Ph
CT
FEES REOUIRED YE� FOREIGN CONTA -S POLE, �STENCILING
is. 00 R E MV,l F T., PH..
T1 PE G 7 N W �40. FROM :TO� CKT. F T.
DATE AMOUNT
CAT V'-N 0: JAKE OFF POLE C. E:
LOGS,POSTED- G. E:
SUBSTATION CIRCUIT' NO. TRANSF.CARDS' U-MAPS"
DATE,WORK COMFLETE-D
-PQ.LE DEPT- CIRt
BY'. FOREMAN
Cl4tE PRINTEi�
11519
v�
K T--� 19 -7 9,X
41
'J
T N
7 a
DISPATCHER POSTED.
MAP PAGE
S'51
WO. NO.
CITY OF EDMONDS
i R, NEW
Aim
ADDITION
RETIREMENT
AS*NFORMATION SHEET
ASSET NO. o a
ADDITION TO ASSET NO.
DESCRIPTION
Z- fir
SERIAL NO.
LOCATION
DEPT. NO.
PL-
?CHASE ORDER NO. -
RCHASE ORDER DATE
COST
*PROJECT NUMBER -5- -7
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE L- -
COST 2 It-5- . ;5�
B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. 3 q L7
ESTIMATED LIFE 6-2 STREET FILE
INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY
"SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST
*SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT
ACCOUNTING ONLY
DEPRECIATE
MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT
ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT
G.L. ENTRY
REFERENCE
DATE
VERIFIED 13'�
PROCESSED
BATCH NO. -
INITIAL
tvp)
U
14
C14
>4
0
U
0
Z
0
U
CITY OF EDMONDS VW
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RIGHT - OF - WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. eAddress or vic, nity of Construction
�Zo 9 C? i4.'V z;, V/,S7 A/ 7-1—
Owner: 01 6"./ IVL:;, -C,
Name
4V101 1dP134ZJ
Mailing Address
City, S ta te, Zip Code
Contractor:- T/yo
Name
Mailing Address
41-14 - a U1.4 t?,PA-36
city, " , State, Zip Code
WNo-
Issue Date
0 Permit Issued To: Co. ;�Iaz) 'o,
• Type of Work to be Done: 7-1F-1'/VCAV 4`V167
P,0106r ;e - o,,-r W.
• Work in Connection With:
El Sub or Plat X Single Family
El Comml. / Ind. 11 Apt. Condo.
• Pavement Cut: El Yes 19 No
HLE
State License Number
-7 -74 - .9 117-
Telephone Number
* * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * *
B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
INDEMITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless
from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made
against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal
proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit.
Upon issuance of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year
following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division.
Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed, at
which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant.
Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accordance with Traffic
Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call
775-2525, extension 220.
I understand that this permit mu be a
Sig nature:— 0 - ,
Owner or Agent
le at the job site for inspection purposes at all times.
I , I
te -a -PZ
* * THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES * *
CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TQ:,13EGINNING WORK
1. , lk---, I —
C. Issued By: Pej�mit Fee: -30 s
uhijc. vprlka
Time Authorized: Vold after 1,30 —cll�s- 0' P Security Deposit:
Special Conditions: Receipt No.:
Fund I I I Fee:
Ammendments: Street Cut Dimensions
* * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * *
Eng. Div. December 1978
File Copy
January 28, 1981
f��
MEMO TO: Art Housler, Director
Finance Department*
FROM: Fred F.- Herzberg
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: REIMBURSEMENT OF STREET CUT SECURITY DEPOSIT -
ORDINANCE #1935
R/W CONSTR. PERMIT NO.: 80-199
DATE ISSUED: 11-24-80
LOCATION OF WORK: � t891U �oundview-h*%
SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNT: $ TO 8 —.0 0
RECEIPT NO. & DATE:
COMPLETION DT. OF REPA1R: 1-12-81
Please prepare a Treasurer's Check in the amount of $ 6.32
made:'payable to the following:
Lynnwood Sewer Construction
P.O. Box 761
Lynnwood, Wa. 98036
The balance of ' the deposit in the amounc—of $ 101.68 is
to remain in Street Division Revenue Fund 111-000-000--383.0 0.
12--- 0�ea; -
7/31/78 STREET FILE
.......... ......
-EDMONDS' AM�L
DEPAR
i'!jjRIGHT.-'.OF WAY CO T"!t*.PERMIT V-
N S,�
,mQermit No.
.�uc Date
�'GAdd�rcss'br vicinity. of Construe 1011
ze"
Na me
I V.,
7
S
Mailiiij A'ddics'
City,� State, Zip C 6� de
0 Permit Issued To:
e Typc of Work to be Done:'
0 Work in Connection With:
0 Sub or Plat 19. Single Family
L-] Comml. / Ind. 0 Apt. Condo. -
a Pavernent Cut: Yes 0 No
Contractor.
r� xm -cr
z,
Mailing Address', State License Number
Iz/
< State, Zip Code Telephone Number
ty
"NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
0 INDEMITY: Applic�nt'understands and by his signature to this'appl [cation, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless
from any injyries, ' damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made
against the City of Edn�onds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal
proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by rcason of granting this permit.
0
U
Upon issuance'.of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year
following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division.
Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated rcstoration fec) will bc held until the final street patch is completed, at
,,A,hicli time a debit or credit will. be processed for issuance to dic appliGint.
Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in'accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accorda nce with Traffic
Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call
775-2525, extension 220.
I understand that this permit must be available at the job site for in5pCClio I n purposes at all times.
Signature: ' i ,
—Date
Owner or Agent
THIS PERM'MMUST BE POSTED ATTHEJOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES
12 CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
i, .,;V
C.. Issued By:
Time'Authorized:: Void after
7- .* Special Conditions':
V)
AmmendmcnEs:—,
ys
Pprmir F-
Sccurity Deposit:
Receipt No.:
Fund Fcc:
Sircci Cut Dimensions
x
NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PEIZMIT ISSUANCE
�7
Eng. Div. Dcccr,,j)cr 1978
00
00
ORDINANCE #1935
UTILITY CUT REPAIR, STREET DIVISION
P e r'm i t No . Zf-f
Issue Date
Date Completed
Date Received
Date Processed
Type of Repair: Asphalt Roadway Conc.S/Walk Conc. Curb
Total Area Repair F t. X F t . , T o t a I j-,,t?4 Sq.Yds./bt-ft-.
Total Cost Summary:
Sq.Yds./Ln.f,,t. Minimum Charge
@
Sq. Yds". / L�. Ft'. A'dditional
@ s—
Sq.Yds.-Additional Base Lift
@ $
Yds. Additional Base Aggreate
@ $ :Keev
Total Cost .................
A9Z
Fund
#111 Deposit Fee ..........................................
Total
Reimbursement ............................................
$
Total
Additional Expense .......................................
$
STREE`T-DIVISION SUPERIN'TENDENT
This information is to be filed with original.permi-t.
COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS ENVIROINMENTAL REV I Elvi
P R 0 J E C T N A M E T-1 �c- 'E--- � L-LA-4 L> F I L E t isci Lo :500 tj v-> Q k L:
ASSESSMENT DATED:
AN ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLETED AND THE
BEEN MADE:
REVIEW OF7HE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN
FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS HAVE
'E�= I f-a-r i A -A C =- t M L - i - r- I ME- 0-, ./-�s V ZR --rS t ) E -= F= I c- V, r--- sj- r
WAAMWOWIM
40 UP
11�11(1�[119 -lk Fg; �'--
I III,,, A TRY MAN"KIIA-A
E am.
0 M'VAvA F, k",K U, KA T. F, m M A, RT & M
PREPARED BY:
PJ)ATE
REVISED: 10/77LV
i-
Z
1�
U
::i
04
0
U
0
F-
Z
0
W
Cn
�D
U
04
0
U�
CITY OF EDMONDS WFW
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
RIGHT - OF - WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. *Address or vicinity of Construction
Owner: (a
Name
I q / 0 -5,-�
Mailing Address
= 4, 0 " q 006-10
City, ' State, Zip Code
Contractor: k^./ V".-. 4f
Name
— 12 1
Mailing Address
2tAl.,A qF07(,
State, Zip Code
RpNo. 'rip —
Issue Date &.-,P
0 Permit Issued To:
o Type of Work to be Done: 9,�-1
• Work in Connection With:
El Sub or Plat E3- Single Family
0 Comml. / Ind. El Apt. Condo.
• Pavement Cut: .9 Yes 1:1 No
I- �/Pv iv W 5 C -3 Z,5- K) (Z
State License Number
353-/V'?�-
Telephone Number
8TF-
, a a... E
* * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * *
B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
INDEMITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless
from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made
against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal
proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit.
Upon issuance of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year
following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division.
Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed, at
which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant.
Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accordance with Traffic
Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call
775-2525, extension 220.
I understand that this permit must be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all times.
I
Signature:
Owner or Agent
THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES
CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
C. Issued By:
Time Authorized: Vold after
Special Conditions:
Ammendments:
ys Security Deposit:
Receipt No.:
Fund III Fee:
Street Cut Dimensions
* * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * *
Eng. Div. December 1978
0
Z
H
U
Z
WIC I�ORKS DT:PAIM,= CHECKLO&
BUILDING PERaT REVIEW
f-4 C>IZ-./�Y
Date
.,j&3z!,VjaAjOddres
Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD c-,
Access Easements Existing REQD
Utility Easement Existing Lu C-) REQD
Lot per Subdivision Plat 2�j Assessor Map
Site Plan Checked for Accuracy 7A -2 /7 k'
Underground Wiring Reqd.
Check.Accuracy'of Legal'Description
i�h
Envirortmentally Sensitive Area
Enviromenta'l Checklist Reqd.
Flood Hazard -Zone
Shoreline Management Area
Slope, Soil, Vegetation
Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin
Existing Zoning Per Code
Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. ADB # Approval
Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd.
Review Bv: ;17A
Date:
Existing Water 'Main Size
Water Main Reqd. A,�10
Service Line Reqd.
Hydrant Size Existing E�)r
Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code )_JZ) Siz I e
Detector Check Meter Reqd.
Cross Connection Inspection A-30
Fire Department Comments
Water Meter Charge Req
Review bv: Date:
Septic Tai-k L\_.sip-i x'..pproved
Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No.
Sanitary Sewer AvailabiliLrq��_'C�_v Proi . /.,/,o /_577
Drawing No. File No.
Side Sewer Availability vf� A-) Zz'
Sanitary Se-wer Connection Fee Reqd.
Review By: Date:
UL D I N
BUILD ' ING DEPARTMENt� Applicant Fill
USE FMW"T
ZONE NUMBER
inside Heavy Lines
PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB
ADDRESS
NAME R AME OF BUSINE
(0 N SS)
FWFr.4IAILING
�:
SUBDIVISION
LAT NAME
ASSESSOR MAP NO.
z
Z
0
ILI N ADDRESS
0
CITY L/
E� E�Py 0 NUM)BER
V1q 9 FS IT 177 L &2 �7)�;.3
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE NO.
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
NAME I
�U-
Ica R�2 A49 h'z -5
DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY 40
(n
W
I-
Ir
ADDRt:9S
/jqm._/ Xo6
STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED 11YES *NO
PERM . IT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC I R/W &YES ONO
UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED 0 YES 19NO
CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER 4M YES 11 NO
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED Cl YES ONO
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO.
x
Ir
0
U
m
IL
CITY
9" Aa aa e (J-1 1?F1106-
ELEPHONE NUMBER
NAME
0
ADDFIfIrSS
U
340o
SEE MEMO DATED
?Z"
Z
0
CITY
TELEPHONE NUMBER
REMARKS
L130 Ila—
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
CITY LICENSE NUMBE
CHECKED BY
CAPP— H-M 9MM
.1w, V=D ex__
Legal Description of Property (Show Below or Attach Four Copies)
METER Z
r E
BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE
0
/_0
_I
I
W
4-1.5Q2 a2tcwed
REMARKS
SIGN AREA
ENV. REVIEW
ADB NO.
U
W
ALLOWED I PROPOSED
COMPLETE EXEMPT
.J
REMARKS
W
.J
VARIANCE OR CU
NNING REVIEW BY
DATE
GAS
NEW RESIDENTIAL LINE
EJADD NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN
RETAINING
El DEMOLISH Cl WALL
r ALTER EXCAVATE FENCE
-1 D OR FILL
r_1 REPAIR PRE -MOVE swim
INSP� EIPOOL
YARDS If
25'1FRONT SIDE .15REAR
ILOT COVERAGE,
FIRE ZONE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ICODE
I
HEIGHT
SPECIAL INSPECTOR
REQUIRED
13 YES No
AREA —70RCCUPANCY
OCCUPANT
G OUP LOAD
I
PLAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCA TED IN THE CITY
OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX
SHOULD BE CODED 31.04.
z
W
NUMBER OF STORIES
.Is, .'/�
NUMB ER OF
DWELLING
I UNITS
REMARKS
NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE
60 q
IL
W
PLAN CHECK FEE
VALUATION
FEE
PROPOSED USE
Z
0
z
It
U
0
W
PLOT PLAN (INDICATE BUILDING SETBACKS,
ABUTTING STREETS)
/45 pe,- c4l-la-1,114-1d
BUILDING
W
0
J
W
>
PLUMBING
—
MECHANICAL
m
0
W
FENCE
SIGN
RETAINING WALL
:E
0
U
7'
SWIMMING POOL
0
Z
Z
OLIC WORKS DT-7ART,-= CHERTO �VJ7 Date
BUIUING PEIMT REVIEW
-Za. L-, I a,-JC( I C) �'4 —a- Addres
V, EL
Street Right-of-44ay Existing REQD
Access Easements Existing REQD-
Utility.Easen-ent Existing LO If REQD
Lot per Subdivision Plat ?::0 Assessor Map
Site Plan Checked for Accuracy
Underground Wiring Reqd.
Check Accuracy of Legal Description
Enviro-rumtally.Sensitive Area
Environmental Checklist Reqd.
Flood Hazard Zone K)O
Shoreline Managanent Area
Slope, Soil, Vegetation
Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin
Existing Zoning Per Code
Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. ADB # Approval
Board of Adjustment Approval Reqd.
Review Bv- Date -
Existing Water 1.,lain Size
Water Main Reqd.
Service Line Reqd.
W Hydrant Size Existing
Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size
Detector Check Mleter Reqd.
Cross Connection Inspection
Fire Department Commen
ts
Water.Meter Charge Reqd.
Review by: Date:
Septic
ace:
Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No.
Sanitary Sewer Availability 4/—e-y Proj
till' Drawing No. File No.
Side Sewer Availability -;pr� oend:%er� e,
w Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. A-A&,-�
Review By:, D a te
5
go
PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT NAME: F I L;: �sct :5ou t.,j z> 0 t L
ASSESSMENT DATED:
AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF'THE PROPOSAL HAS BEE N
COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS HAVE
BEEN MADE:
llmll!lll 1 13 Sm 1! 9 W, q 3 mi'm � MR M—r., m m � 11 w im-, MARVIN a rall 1.1112
lji��qjjjr
"AMM,
VFAI�IEMIUM
40
law
PREPARED BY: PJ) ATE:
P,--V! S F D 10/771N
0 *
00
MEMO TO: Building Division
DATE. 7114
7 V 7
Community Development Department
FROM:. Engineering Division
Public Works Department
S U B J E C T c-_ zn04"-0 Illaw P
,c—
After review of the subject building permit application, we have
the following comments:
(1) Coordination of the location of any structure with resp.ect*to
utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the
responsibility of the contractor.
2) The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets clean-
ed of dirt and debris caused by the construction.
(3) A "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from the
Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within
the Public Right -of -Way or public easement.
(4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14%.
�ASMAWPIWIIIMA&!750
I �_Wol �4. d' A - —
PW 5/77
WES:S4G,'E�l
CASCADES Ll-C2375
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
SUBJECT: zeiz
DATE
- S rET. 4:11
TR�
:'E
�;7
s
s
A
G
E
1SWJED
R
E
p
L
y
DATE:
�IGNEID
CASCADEM Ll-C2375
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
ZONE
,S
SETBACKI
R 0 1"'1 T
OTHE
HEIGHT3-0-
tin
I . .
LO T 4- L INDSAY'S
APOMON
cli
LT]
Ml
5 SE
OF Doo:
11-NEF ZINQ
rrof.—
_7
DIM"
SOUND VIEW PL. 75. 0 ELEV. A 5 5 U 11
V
!kEMARKS i4v �__
;1y, .-Date
C NORKS'DEPAMaU CHE
ING PERUT REVMW
I li-Uq � 0 '�4 -Rio -'Soj&)i�,VjffiaA.AddresS
JS
0
Z
H
94
F-4
0
Z
-5�
Street Right-oD-Way,Existing
REQD* cn
Access Easements Exiisting TEQD
Utility Easement Existing
Lot per.-Subdi sion Plat Asses.sor,Map
Site Plan Checked for Accuracy 7zrl.
Underground Wiring Reqd..
Check Accuracy of Le al.Description
19
Environmentally Sen'sitiVeArea
Envirormental Checklist Reqd. S
Flood Hazard Zone
Shoreline Management Area
Slope, Soil, Vegetation
Stream, Creek;-Drauiiage Basin
Existing Zoning Per.,Code*-`%�_�
Amenities Design Board"Approval Reqd*
ADB # Approval
Board of Adjustment ApprovalReqd.
Review Bv: P7
Existing Water 'Mai:n Size
n Water Main Reqd. A,-'C
Service Line Reqd.
w Hydrant Size Existing E�)r-
Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire. -Code A.JZ) Size
Detector Check Meter Reqd. k)0
Cross Connection Inspection AYE)
Fire Department Comments
Water Meter.Charge Reqd.
Review by: Date: I/X-Ar/�'Ar—
iC beptic Tank Design i I �pproved AA/V
Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No.
Sanitary Sewer Availability V-&v P roi -
Drawing No. -I/, .
Wz File No.
Side Sewer Availability Vr2? A-) -0
W Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. A��er7c,,O
Review By:- W Is Date*
XK.K
OCq)en Ditcli Existing__.,�/�.��.�Reqd.
Culvert Reqd. —Size
C4 Catch Basin Reqd., Indicate on Site Plan
0 ShouldCr drainage niiintaii� co llection on s%�ale open runoff
.-Lu-diole "rcqd. Indicate on Site Plan
Soil Conditions, and Groupd Water Field% -Chocked .0 w
y ",:L
Rc,,,i c!,.,7 b DO to'.
Street Paving Rcqd.
Curb and Cutter Reqd.
Sidewalk Reqd.
Curb Cut for Driveway P,,6qd.
P� Rio -it -of -Way Construction Permit Reqd.
Bond Reqd. for Public LTpravemcnts___�j4gj&
Street Nam Sign Reqd.
Other Si in- Read.
.1
M R Pre Permit Site Inspection mde on
7�j 2_1
BY: SEI.TER
U
14ATL-R
V)
S=T
E N G I IN= PJ IN G
Special Roquira,:uits listed in me= to Comr"riity Dovelopmnt D(?partmnt,
Building Division
1� BY Date
0 All iLars filled in on Building Permit Application
C4 BY Date
PL4 Drawings Stamped and Notations �kide
BY Wte
Approved by Rblic 'Porks Departiant:
Revised: IV 10-1977
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY kESIDENTIAL
STREETIERE
Name: r 00 q jS � 0 0 0 0 0 yoo�
Date:
d , 61.
Site Address: -ew C, CC—
Plan Check e:&4 Lo L(y
Project Description:
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES /(9
Zoning:
Map Page�---
Corner Lot: (YES /19
Flag Lot: (YES
Critical Areas Determination #: -r L gZ r ?--O�r000g,
I %J
P5-6tUdy Required �/, -7/743((S-
El waiver f-P49tt
SEPA Determination: Y,
VExempt
0 Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Required Setbacks
Sptet* 5—
Side*
Tit
Rear:
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear: q-7
Detached Structures:
El Rockeries:
Fences/Trellises:
Q-Ba y ws/Pr i o [a C C,1-1 _rV )(A
10" -
J
Buildin Heigh t
Datum Point: 5b 6 Ac4 ro4aiurn
Elevation: 7-0
Maximum Height Allowed: S!�-
Actual Height: --,� Li - -7 1,16
Other
Parking Required: Z1.
Parking Provided:
Lot Area: 13, S-q� 4.
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed I
Lot Coverage Calculations: AOL'st- C
4 dd,,7 06 61K -7
ADU Created: (YES 19
Subdivision: Z -
AdS� 19dd4(,
Legal Nonconforming.Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
14 ir.-Cd! Comments
T\
wv? or,
'm6)
h/1 -7 Y"
Plan Review By:
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc
City of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
�Jud t&
Property Owner:
15
Critical Area File
f4 Z 0 1,5 000g?
PerTnit Number:
2,0
Site Location:.
�O V, du ['-ud Pf4
Larcel Number:
VqIHO OOC7()LI00
Project Descriptio n:
0
6-ete- (an 5-L, &4y_
F1 Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. Olt5—
There will be no alteration of a -Critical Area or its required buffer'. &V41�,Ctst W 11 a he
2. The proposal is an �Ilowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or
23.80,040.
The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
F_� ErosionHazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
ec,r
itical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
I The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40-.120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. The proposal is consistent with th e general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordancewith ECDC
23.40. 110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
F� Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
kFavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown ' on the
att.ached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in' ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
Reviewer
A
Signature
,�/ (7-r �c
Date' f I
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
,/)C. I S C) %J
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Pho'ne: 425.771.0220 9 Fax: 425.771.0221 o Web: www.edmondswa.go
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT e PLANNING DIVISION
0
MEMORANDUM
File
Mike Crugston, AICP, Associate Planner
October 13, 2015
Corrective actions for Lewis unpermitted tree cutting complete (BLD20150148)
The corrective actions for the above -referenced NOV have been completed. The full penalty of
$6,900 was paid on September 24, 2015. The two vine maple replacement trees were installed
on or about October 12, 2015. The vinemaples will be monitored and maintained in
accordance with the associated critical area report by Wetlands & Wildlife dated March 24,
2015.
Page I of I
�,12c. IgTj
CITY OF EDMONDS
1215 1h Avenue North, Edmonds �VA §8020
Phone: 425.771.0220 e Fax: 425.771.0221 * Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT e PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND,
MONETARYFINE
Location of Violation (Address and/or description of location): The violation occurred on and
immediately south of the property addressed as 18910 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA (tax
parcel # 00498400000400).
Issued To: Jeff Lewis and Edmonds Tree Service
Address of persons/entities This Order Is Issued To:
Jeffrey Lewis Edmonds Tree Service
18910 Soundview Place Steve Schlecht
Edmonds, WA 98020 7427 — 201s' Place SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Code Section Violated: Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.160 Review
Criteria, ECDC 23.40.220 Allowed Activities within Critical Areas, ECDC 23.80.040 Allowed
Activities within Geologically Hazardous Areas, and ECDC 23.90.040.1) Development standards,
for streams.
Description of Violation: Mr. Lewis is in the process of an extensive remodel of an existing
house at 18910 Soundview Place as part of building permit BLD20150148. As was identified
through critical area reports submitted with the building permit, Fruitclale Creek. runs across the
neighboring parcel to the south roughly parallel to the subject site at the bottom of a short
steep slope. As a condition of development, stream buffer mitigation was required near
portions of Mr. Lewis's south property line, including removal of invasive species such as
English ivy, blackberries and several Holly trees in addition to replanting with native species.
Mr. Lewis contracted with Edmonds Tree Service to perform that work. In addition to the
approved work, however, additional trees were cut or removed.
According to the arborist report submitted by Mr. Lewis from Arbor Options (dated July 29,
2015), a total of five trees were removed and eight trees were cut or pruned by Edmonds Tree
Service. Exhibit A includes a description of the species, size, and activity on each tree as
summarized from the arborist report. All of the tree cutting activity occurred within 50 feet of
Fruitclale Creek.
Since the slope near where the cutting occurred is a potential landslide hazard as defined by
the City's critical areas regulations (ECDC 23.80.020) and is also located within a stream buffer
as defined by ECDC 23.90.040.1), the area is subject to thelpr6visions of Chapter 23.40 ECDC —
Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions, Chapter 23.80 ECDC — Geologically
Hazardous Areas, and Chapter 23.90 ECDC — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
ECDC 23.40.220 details activities that are allowed in critical areas and critical area buffers in
general, ECDC 23.80.040 details activities that are allowed in geologically hazardous areas, and
ECDC 23.90.040.1) notes that no alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted
unless consistent with the provisions of the City',s critical area regulations and the specific
provisions in ECDC 23.90.040.D. The additional cutting of vegetation on the slope and the
stream buffer that was not part of the approved mitigation plan associated with BLD20150148
does not fall under any of the allowed activities identified in ECDC 23.40.220 or ECDC 23.80.040
and is not consistent with the provisions detailed in ECDC 23.90.040.D. ECDC 23.40.160
requires any alteration of a critical area to be reviewed and approved, approved with condition,
or denied based on criteria established -in ECDC 23.40.160 and the City's critical area
regulations. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320, "Alteration" means:
... any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining;
channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing
vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance;
discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface
water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing
landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
With the exception of t he four Holly trees that were to be removed as part of the previously
appro ved critical area mitigation plan associated with BLD20150148, the additional tree cutting
activity detailed in Exhibit A is an unauthorized alteration within a critical area. -
MonetarV PenaltV: ECDC 23.40.240.E — Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement
— establishes that violations of the critical area code are subject to penalties set forth in ECDC
18.45.070 and 18.45.075. ECDC 18.45.070.13 establishes a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree three inches or
more. Pursuant to ECDC 18.45.070.C, the fines established in ECDC 18.45.070.13 are tripled for
clearing which occurs within any critical area or critical area buffer, or public right-of-way.
Exhibit A details the trees that were cut and the subject of this violation as well as the monetary
penalty assessed for each tree. Mr. Lewis provided an arborist report that detailed the tree
numbers, species, diameter at breast height (dbh) from which the City then prepared Exhibit A.
Each tree was assessed a base fine under ECDC 18.45.070.13 depending on the specific activity
associated with each specific tree. All fines established pursuant to ECDC 18.45.070.B are
tripled due to their location within a critical area and/or critical area buffer. While a range of
possible monetary penalties could be appropriate in a case like this, the mid -range penalty
amount proposed is supported by: (i) the plain text of the ECDC with respect to unauthorized
alterations within a critical area, (ii) the egregiousness of the violation in that several of the
trees were not on Mr. Lewis's property, (iii) Edmonds Tree Service knowledge of tree cutting
permit requirements, (iv) Mr. Lewis's responsiveness in submitting information after the
violation, and (v) the fact that all of the trees that were cut without permit (except for the Big
Leaf Maple) have a high likelihood of survival according to the arborist report. The total civil
monetary penalty assessed for the above -referenced violation is $6,900.00.
This Notice is imposed without prejudice to any other civil, criminal, injunctive or other remedy
and/or penalty available to the City.
Corrective Action: In addition to the monetary penalty imposed above, the following corrective
actions are required:
1. The Mitigation Plan prepared by Arbor Options, dated July 14, 2015 must be
implemented by October 31, 2015. Permission must first be obtained from the adjacent
.landowner to the south and the two replacement vine maples must be installed on the
slope near where the Big Leaf Maple was removed;
2. The vine maples are subject to the monitoring and maintenance plan included with the
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan for the Lewis property by Wetlands
& Wildlife dated March 24, 2015, which is associated with building permit
BLD20150148.
Note: Mr. Lewis and/or Edmonds Tree Service must pay the monetary penalty of $6,900 by
September 28, 2015. This decision is appealable to the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner by
filing a complete appeal application including written notice of appeal with the Development
Services Director no later than September 9, 2015 at 4:00 pm. The appeal filing fee is $705.
Date Posted: Date Mailed: Date Served: August 26, 2015
Issuing Party Shane Hope Title Director, Development Services Department
Signature.
Exhibit A
Base Fine
Treble Fine
ECDC
ECDC
Tree No.
Species
Diameter
Ukelihood of Survival
Activity
18.45.070.B
18.4S.070.0
1
Willow
7.0"
High
On adjacent property;
pruned lower Yfeet,
limbed up on north side
I
oftree
$50
$150
2
Leyland cypress
5.1"
High
Topped by 3-5'and side -
limbed 34
$50
$150
3
Leyland cypress
5.9"
High
Topped by 3-5'and side -
limbed 3-4'
$50
$150
4
Leyland cypress
6.0"
High
Topped by 3-5' and side -
limbed 34
$50
$150
5
Leyland cypress
6.9"
High
Topped by 3-5'and side -
limbed 3-4'
$50
$150
6
Old stump
n/a
n/a
Smal I water sprouts
removed
$0
$0
7
Cherry
13"
High
Uncut - supported Tree 8.
Tree 8 was cut to remove
weight on Tree 7
$0
$0
8
Douglas fir
14"
High
On adjacent property;
previously fell over in
critical area. Top of Tree 8
was removed near where
it leaned on Tree 7
$0
$0
9
Holly
91,
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
$0
$0
10
Holly
11.1
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
$0
$0
11
Holly
12"
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
$0
$0
12
Holly
14"
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
so
$0
13
Bigleaf maple
8.5" &
n/a
On adjacent property;
4.3"
removed to 1.5'stump.
stems
Two stems had significant
lean to the east - may
have been considered
hazardous. Sprouts should
be allowed to regrow and
be maintained. 2 vine
maples to replace
adjacent.
$1,500
$4,500
14
Douglas fir
12"
Medium -High
On adjacent property; by
photo, topped at level
below previous top on
adjacent parcel -
additional corrective
pruning recommended
$500
$1,500
15
English laurels
n/a
High
On adjacent property;
pruned - on monitor list
of WA State noxious weed
list; King County weed of
concern
$50
$150
$6,900
-1,
Clugston, Michael
From: Jeffrey Lewis <jlewis1819@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 201S 2:30 PM
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: Information requested - Lewis, 18910 Sound View P1 (BLD20150148)
Attachments: Lewis Tree Evaluation, 18910 Sound View Place Edmonds, 7-29-15.pdf, 07-27-15 Geo
Tech letter.pdf
Good Afternoon Mr. Clugston. In accordance with your June 30 e-mail, please see the attached information.
Regarding the mitigation plan comments from the arborist, I would agree to the addition of the two new trees.
Sincerely,
Jeff Lewis
I
1
Arborist Identification & Evaluation at:
18910 Sound View Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared For:
Jeffrey Lewis
18910 Sound View Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
July 29, 2015
RECEIVED
JUL 3 12015
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
I
Prepared By:
Ryan Ringe
Certified Arborist # PN 5892-A
Certified Tree Risk Assessor # CRTA 699
1
rRBOR, OPTIONS
Arbor Options, LLC
Tree Consultants
Ryan Ringe, Principal
(206) 755-5826
Email: r-yan(iDarboroptions.com
Certified Arborist # PN 5892-A
Certified Tree Risk Assessor # CRTA 699
Table of Contents
Summary.......................................................... I
Introduction ....................................................... I
Background and History ........................................ I
Assignment ........ I ............................................. I
Limits of Assignment ........................................ 2
Methodology................................................... 2
Observation s/Di scu ssion ........................................ 2
Mitigation Plan Discussion ...................................... 8
Glossary............................................................. 9
Bibliography ............ I ........................................... 10
Appendix A — Site/ Tree Location Map ......................... I I
Appendix 13- Photographs ....................................... 12
Appendix C — Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ....... J 8
Appendix D — Waiver of Liability .............................. 19
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Summary
Jeffrey Lewis contacted me prepare an arborist report for tree removals and pruning that
occurred on the property at 18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds, WA.. The City of
Edmonds requested this information because of a possiblecode violation for tree removal
and pruning within a critical area.
Q
.1 met with Jeffrey Lewis and Steve Schlecht (owner of Edmonds Tree Service, who
performed the work) at the site and they described the work that was performed. I then
evaluated the removed trees and the remaining trees on the site. This report documents
my findings.
I do recommend additional pruning for health of Tree # 14 (Douglas Fir tree), and that 2
Vine Maples are planted in the vicinity of Tree # 13 in addition to �the 17 shrubs, 3 trees,
and 32 herbs already approved in the Mitigation Plan
i
Introduction
Background & History
Jeffrey Lewis owns the property at 18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds. He is
currently remodeling an existing single family residence at the property, and had a
Critical Areas Report and Proposed. Mitigation Plan. prepared by Wetlands and Wildlife
Environmental Consulting. The approved plan detailed removal of " all existing, non-
native, invasive vegetation in approved mitigation areas, and replacement with approved
native species.
Jeffrey contracted Edmonds Tree Service to perform tree work on the property, according
to the approved Mitigation Plan. The tree work took place on the, south portion of the
property, which is located within a riparian critical area adjacent to a stream. . .
Five trees were removed and eight trees were pruned in the area. Four of the removals
were approved in the Mitigation Plan (Holly Trees #9-12), and one of the removals was
located on the adjacent south property (Bigleaf Maple Tree #13). Six of the trees pruned
(Willow Tree # 1, Leyland Cypress Trees #2-5, and English Laurel trees # 15) were
located on the subject property, and two of the trees pruned (Douglas Fir trees #8 and 14)
were located on the adjacent south property.
Assignment
After discussing the scenario with Jeffrey Lewis, we agreed that my assignment was to:
Prepare an arborist report detailing the extent of the cutting activities that took place at
18910 Sound View Place in Edmonds containing the following:
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
1. Site plan identifying the location of all cutting activities
2. Species and diameter of all trees and vegetation that were cut/ pruned
3. Assessment of the health of the trees that were cut/ pruned
4. Likelihood of survivability of the trees that were cut/ pruned
5. Discussion of site impact and mitigations
Limits of Assignment
Unless stated otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those trees that
were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and the
inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection,
excavation, probing, climbing, or coring unless explicitly specified.
There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems,or deficiencies of
the subject trees may not arise in the future. Additional Assumptions and limiting
conditions can be found in Appendix C.
Methodology
To evaluate the trees and to prepare the report, I drew upon my 15+ years of experience
in the field of forestry, site management, and arboriculture and my formal education in
plant biology, plant identification, and plant physiology. I also followed the protocol of
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) that
includes looking at the overall health of the tree as well as the site conditions. This is a
scientifically based process to look at the entire site, surrounding landscape and soil, as
well as a complete look at the trees themselves.
In examining the trees, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage
condition, density of leaves, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health,
crown health, evidence of disease -causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and
hanging limbs.
Observations/ Discussion
Tree Descriptions
Note: Refer to Tree Location Map, Appendix A on pg. I I for locations of trees #1 - 15.
Refer to Photographs, Appendix B on pg. 12-1 7for photographs of individual trees.
"All removed1pruned vegetationftom the subjectproperty and adjacent southproperty
has been removedfrom the site prior to my site visit.
2
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Tree #1: 7.0" DBH (Diameter -at -Breast -Height) Weeping Willow tree, Salix
babylonica, 20 ft. tall, good condition.
Tree # I is located 6 ft. south of the subject property at the top of the slope.
Extent of Cutting Activity:
The Willow tree's lower fringe was raised by 3 ft. on the north side of the tree by cutting
small branchlets. The cuts were all 1/4" diameter or less, except for one cut that was Y2"
diameter overhanging the subject property.
Likelihood of Survivabilitv:
The pruning had no negaiive consequences, and the tree has a very high likelihood of
longterm survivability.
Impact to Site:
The pruning of Tree #I had no negative impact to the tree, the slope stability, or the
surrounding vegetation/ stream.
Trees #2-5: 5. 1 ", 5.9", 6.0", and 6.9" DBH (respectively) Leyland Cypress tree,
Cupressus x leylandii. Trees #2-5 are now approximately 10 ft. tall after pruning, and
are in Good/ Fair condition. They are located on the south side of the subject property on
the top of the slope.
Extent of Cuttiniz Activity:
Trees #2-5 were topped at a 10 ft. level, and the main stem cuts were 1-2" diameter,
(vertical branch cuts of 1/2" to I"). The trees were side trimmed as well, with branch cuts
< V2". Steve Schlect of Edmonds Tree Service told me that the trees were reduced in
height by 3-5 ft., and side trimmed back by 3-4 ft.
Likelihood of Survivabili
Leyland Cypress trees are highly tolerant of pruning, and Trees #2-5 have a high
likelihood of long term survivability.
Impact to Site:
The pruning (topping/ side -trimming) perfon-ned on the Leyland Cypress hedge had no
negative impact to the slope stability, or the surrounding vegetation/ stream.
Leyland Cypress trees are extensively used for hedges in the Pacific Northwest because
of their rapid growth, resistance to disease, and high tolerance of pruning/ topping. It is
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
generally considered good p(ractice to top and side trim Leyland Cypress trees into hedge
form when they are located near a residence or structure. As they grow larger, closely
spaced Leyland Cypress trees can become problematic.
Tree Stump #6: Old Alder stump cut down 3+ years agojudging from cracked/ oxidized
condition of stump. The stump is 3-4 ft. tall with 3 stems of 13", 10", and 7" diameter.
The stump is located near the top of slope, south of the subject property.
Extent of Cutting Activity
It appears that one of the stems of the stump (7" diameter) was reduced in height by
approximately 6 in., and several small water sprouts were cut as well. The stem was
obviously dead already when cut, judging from the extensive cracks present.
Likelihood of Survivability: Several water sprouts continue to grow from stump and will
do so until nutrients in roots has been depleted.
Impact to Site: None
Tree #7: 13.0" Wild Cherry tree, Prunus avium, located south of the subject property
near mid slope. The tree is leaning toward the east at a 45 degree angle, and has a large
bow in the lower stem with 4-5 ft. of horizontal growth. Several stems grow vertically
from the horizontal stem. A leaning Douglas Fir tree stem (Tree #8) is leaning on the
horizontally growing portion, and Tree #7 provides full support for the leaning tree.
Extent of Cutting Activity
No cutting activity took place on Tree #7; it is included in this report as an explanation of
Tree #8's physical characteristics and pruning, as Tree #7 is supporting the weight of
Tree #8.
Likelihood of Survivability: N/A
Impact to Site: N/A
Tree #8: Approximately 14" DBH (tree trunk is located on the far side of the creek in a
dense tangle of ivy/ blackberry, which was left undisturbed because of ECA) Douglas Fir
tree, Pseudotsuga menziesii. Tree #8 fell over years ago, and rested on Tree #7
(described above). Its roots remained partially intact, and the tree continued to grow. It
currently has two vertical stems growing from the horizontal stem near the point where it
is leaning on Tree #7 (approximately 25 ft. tall stems).
4
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Extent of Cutting Activity
The top of the tree, growing horizontally toward the hill side, was cut at a diameter of 10
in. near the point of lean/ support on Tree #7.. The cut was made at the proper point back,
to a 10 in. vertically growing lateral branch.
Likelihood of Survivabili
Steve Schlect of Edmonds Tree Service explained that his reasoning for removing the end
of the tree: to prevent Tree #7 and 8 from failing as the end weight of Tree #8 grew
larger. There was a very heavy load on Cherry tree #7 from the horizontally growing Fir
tree #8, and as the Fir tree grew, the Cherry tree would eventually fail because of the
increased load. Most likely, the Douglas Fir tree would fail as well because its support
would be gone. The heading cut was made at the proper point, giving the Fir tree the
ability to grow callous tissue over the wound in the future. In my opinion, the pruning
actions taken have increased the likelihood of survivability of both Tree #7 and Tree #8.
Impact to Site:
In my opinion, the pruning positively impacted the site by reducing the chance' of tree
failure of Tree #7 and Tree #8, preventing possible erosion issues. Toppled trees may
trigger localized slope failures.
Trees #9-12: Four English Holly trees (Ilex aquifolium) located near the south edge of
the subject property near the top of slope were removed, as per the approved Mitigation
Plan. The diameters of their stumps at the cut height of I ft. were (Tree #9) 9", 6", and
5" stems attached at ground level, (Tree #10) 11" stump, (Tree #11) 12" stump, and (Tree
# 12) 14" stump. After looking at pictures taken before pruning (provided by Jeffrey
Lewis), I deten-nined that the Holly trees had been previously topped as well (see
Appendix -A, Photographs on page 15).
Extent of Cutting Activity
(See above explanation)
Likelihood of Survivability:
Holly trees grow extensive stump sprouts upon removal of the tree. Stump sprouts
should be removed upon annual monitoring, as per the Mitigation Plan.
Impact to Site:
English Holly is a non-native, invasive species, and was approved for removal and
replacement with approved native species in the Mitigation Plan. As long as the
Mitigation Plan is followed, there will be no negative impact to the site and surroundings.
5
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Tree #13: Bigleaf Maple tree, Acer macrophyllum; the tree was located near mid slope,
south of the subject property, and was removed to a 1.5 ft. high stump. The tree had two
stems attached at the ground, with diameters of 8.5" and 4.3" at the stump height of 1.5
ft. The stems appeared to have a significant lean to the east.
Property owner Jeffrey Lewis told me that he was afraid that the leaning tree would fail
in the future because of similar recent failures of two similar leaning Bigleaf Maple trees
located in different areas near the stream adjacent to his property. I was unable to
analyze the trees for hazardous status because of their removal.
Extent of Cutting Activity:
(See above explanation)
Likelihood of Survivability:
The tree has been removed, but Bigleaf Maples grow extensive stump sprouts upon
removal of tree. Stump sprouts should be allowed to regrow, and should be pruned for
selective stem growth (retaining sprouts with good attachment for future stem structural
stability, and removing sprouts with poor attachment) during annual monitoring, as per
the Mitigation Plan.
Impact to Site:
The smaller Bigleaf Maple has extensive roots helping to stabilize the hill side and
prevent erosion. As long as stump sprouts are allowed to re -grow, long-term slope
stability should be maintained. I do recommend that two additional Vine Maples be
planted in the area to help maintain slope stability (See Mitigation Plan Discussion
below).
Tree #14: Approximately 12" DBH (tree trunk is located on the far side of the creek in a
dense fangle of ivy/ blackberry, which was left undisturbed because of ECA) Douglas Fir
tree, Pseudotsuga menziesii. The tree has an approximate 30 degree lean to the north
east, and was cut at a 30 ft. height level. Owner Jeffrey Lewis and Steve Schlect of
Edmonds Tree Service told me that the tree top had an irregular shaped crown, with a
long, heavy, horizontally growing branch (extending toward the northwest) at the tree top
(see Appendix -A, Photographs, on pg. 15). They were worried that the top could fail in a
wind storm and possibly strike the house. Steve Schlect told me that the tree was topped
to an old topping point approximately 10-15 ft. below the tree top.
Extent of Cutting Activity:
The tree was topped at a level approximately 30 ft. in height, at an approximate 5 in.
diameter, to a small 1-2 in. diameter branch.
IN
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Likelihood of Survivabilitv:
From looking at the photographs of the tree before it was cut, I do agree that the top
branch had a potential to fail during a windstorm. I cannot give an opinion as to whether
the topping was the best course of action, as I did not inspect the tree before.
A topped Douglas Fir tree has an increased risk of decay at the point of attachment, and
of root decay. It is possible that if the top had broken out of the tree due to its irregular
crown, it would ha ' ve the same increased risk. If the top has a correct cut with good
lateral branches, it has a much better chance of long-term survival.
The topped portion of the Douglas Fir tree has a 12 in. long vertical crack in the stem,
and has only one branch nearby. I do recommend lowering the top by cutting another 2
ft. from the tree to 3-4 largi��r scaffold branches.
If the tree is properly cut to the proper area, it will have a medium to high chance of long
term survival.
Impact to Site:
The short term impact to the surrounding site is increased sunlight penetration to the
adjacent area. As the tree is located in the bottom of the slope, the tree roots are not as
vital to slope stability as a tree located mid to high slope, but they still contribute to slope
stability. The long term.impac't to slope stability depends upon the long term health of
the tree. .
Trees #15: Several English Laurel trees/ shrubs are located on the south portion of the
subject property as well on the adjacent south property. The trees/ shrubs have been
repeatedly topped through the years and have multiple stems.
Extent of Cutting Activity
The Laurel trees/ shrubs were reduced in height by approximately 3-6 ft. Cuts differed in
diameter from V2" to I".
Likelihood of Survivability:
English Laurel trees are extensively used for hedges in the Pacific Northwest because of
their rapid growth, resistance to disease, and high tolerance of pruning/ toppin&' The
small amount of pruning will not affect the trees/ shrubs, and they have a very high
likelihood of survivability.
Impact to Site:
None
7
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Miscellaneous Vegetation Removal
Various portions of the site had groundcover/ shrubs removed from the area. Steve
Schlect told me that Blackberry, English Ivy vines, English Holly shrubs, and Laurel
shrubs were removed. I am not certain if any native vegetation, such as some Snowberry
shrubds present on the site, were removed in the process.
Mitigation Plan Discussion
I have reviewed the Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan for the property
at 18910 Sound View Place. The plan proposes to plant 12 shrubs and 32 herbs among
Buffer Enhancement Area A, and to plant 3 trees and 5 shrubs among Buffer
Enhancement Area B.
After reviewing the situation and Edmonds Community Development Code ECDC
23.40.240.C., I believe that in addition to the approved plantings in the Mitigation Plan, 2
Vine Maples should be planted in the vicinity of removed Bigleaf Maple tree # 13 to help
maintain slope stability. The same monitoring and maintenance duration and schedule
found in the Mitigation Plan should apply.
8
I
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Glossary
Arborist ................. Professional who possesses the technical competence gained through
experience and related training to provide for or supervise the
management of trees and other woody plants in residential,
,,commercial, and public landscapes.
D.B.H ..................... Diameter -at -Breast -Height. This is the standard measurement of
trees (Di ' ameter At taken at 4.5 feet above the average ground level of the tree base.
Breast Height)
Canopy .................. The part of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs.
Callus Tissue .......... Undifferentiated tissue formed by the cambium, usually as a result
of wounding
L.C.R .................... The size of the canopy of coniferous trees relative to their overall
(Live Crown Ratio) height
Root Collar ............... Area where the main roots join the plant stem, above and below
the ground level.
Woundwood ............ Woody tissue that develops from callus, or healing tissue
I associated with wounds.
9
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Bibliography
Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants (6 Ih ed). Champaign, IL. Stipes
Publishing L.L.C. 2009.
Don Minore and John C.Zasada. BigleafMaple — USDA Forest Service.
www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/siIvics manual/volume 2/acer/macrophyllum.htm
Edmonds Community Development Code: Critical Areas, Title 23. City of Edmonds,
Washington
Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation ofHazard Trees (2nd ed). Savoy: The
International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994
10
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014 1
Appendix A — Tree Location Map
-Tipp L a r A T' I fA-J rNP
j
MAW 50J4
ViL'a pl-tu— CA"*, 6-P,
0.717-SrE STIEW.
Ar -E PAr
BUILDRIG SUMCK UNE
'or
io
40
rop or STET. SLUE
z PROMED BLFfER
ENHAIXEIZ4TARSAA
1110?11% ARM
'ED F
PROPO;ED ADMM TO
Trees iv
#15 14 1 9,'�. ME11 I
(English
Laurels)
pit rlv;.n
IV 4411 -P.V.r�
pruned
r
%
Tree #14
(Douglas
Fir) Z-
pruned
rr-Yrr
�l I: v3
KLIT U4,11:51J1.1,111
Sir
Tree #13.
X"
(Bigleaf
Maple) t
'101 0"TA
removed
Trees #9-12 Tree #8 Old stump
(Hollies) (Douglas #6
removed Fir)
pruned
Tree #7 (Cherry)
No actions
performed
1-�IIU PLE4:EALIOREFIREHCIErHEAS52Ct4TE
SKRISCA2.0u. CA3.co'
VMH 7-1H PPZJlrr PPOPOSAL. AU 17WENSA
-0113111%'11011 LCA0011t:11 I 14PPL-YROGY WY 011
M—WHO W91 111111.11111.11 PUMLAIII It
A4D I (IR rrflf
[!r:ee #1 (Willow)
pru ned
Trees #2-5 (Leyland
Cypress) pruned
W-� 7
�"i Wfwill
filll�
J.; z
Aw,
MERIT,*,
Lg
e� 1
�"i Wfwill
filll�
J.; z
Aw,
MERIT,*,
Lg
e� 1
5RIN't.
, �ji .1
a V�
97
hl�� .1.1.1
P 4 .
! X-R.
Mir.-
47
Ll
W. I
... LL,
:JA
..... . . . . .
44 e.
tf
N. 01.
Z.N
AA�
U-1
74
KA
'IM k,
Jo:;
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014 .
Appendix C - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and
that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for
legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear,
and is under responsible ownership and competent mi'anagement. Consultant assumes that
the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or
regulations.
2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been
verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant can neither guarantee nor be
responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
3. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of any report by the consultant does not
imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to
whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written consent of the consultant.
4. This report and any values or opinions expressed herein represent the opinion of the
consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a
specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any
finding to be reported.
5. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural
reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information
generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or
photographs is for the expressed purpose of coordination and ease of reference only.
Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation by the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
6. Unless stated otherwise, (1) information contained in this report covers only those trees
that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and
(2) the inspection is
limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing,
climbing, or coring. Con ' sultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that
the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the
future.
7. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report.
18
Arbor Options Consulting Arborists
Lewis Tree Evaluation
July 29, 2014
Appendix D — Waiver of Liability
There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability, which may be present
and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage,
internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in circumstances and
conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and stability. Adverse
weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short
amount of time.
While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this evaluation
represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not
guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events.
The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree's root
flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only unless otherwise specified. The inspection
may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings. for sound comparisons to aid the
evaluator in deten-nining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an
aid to the.evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated
diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree.
As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule
additional site visits by the necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success
of the project is ensured. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all
required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the
property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If
there is a homeowners association, it is the,responsibility of the property owner to
comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) that apply to tree pruning
and tree removal. *
This tree evaluation is to.be used to inform and guide the client in the management of
their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for perfonning
recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of
internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the
evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions
required to insure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client
shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the tree
examined fails for any reason or if the evaluator's recommendations are not followed or
for acts of nature beyond the evaluator's reasonable expectations, such as severe winds,
excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc.
Ell
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
18910 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Tree Removal Concerns
18910 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
13256
(425) 747-5618
JUL 3 12015
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Study, subject site, Geotech Consultants, Inc.,
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The undersigned associate visited the subject site on July 23, 2015. The purpose of tf
observe the existing site conditions related to the recent tree cutting and brush re
western steep slope, and to develop opinions regarding the vegetation trimming and I
the steep slope. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report arc
opinions based on the visual observations made during our site visit and on previous e)
similar projects. We understand that you have contacted an arborist regarding re
deciduous trees in the areas described below and he has concurred that the removal is
based on the size and condition of the trees and the proposed revegetation plan.
Edmonds has asked that we prepare a letter of opinion from a geotechnical standpoint
Removal of trees on steep hillsides is a heavily debated issue. Trees often accompany
descend the hillside, and toppled trees can also trigger localized slope failures. Proje
cause significant damage to structures and people below. The tree root systems do
surface soil stabilization benefits, but we generally recommend that any unhealthy or I.
be removed above the stump. Trees should be evaluated on the case by case basis t
Wth Street. Suite 16
Washington 98005
AX (425) 747-8561
luly 28, 2015
JN 15126
20,2015.
3 visit was to
ioval on the
e stability of
professional
ienence with
ioval of the
Dt significant
The City of
in this issue.
ides as they
le trees can
,ovide near-
dercut trees
an arborist.
Based on our experience with the site and our experience with similar local projects, it appears that
coppicing the trees in question was accomplished without sacrificing overall slope stability. The
stump and root systems have been left in place to supply soil stabilization in the area of the rootball,
and the proposed revegetation plan should be sufficient to replace the rain interceptiop supplied by
the removed trees. Similarly, the brushing of the areas of the slope to remove the upper black berries
does n&t appear to have resulted in any disturbance to the slope soils, and imp[ menting the
reveietation plan would appear to be an appropriate response. t
The recommendations presented in this report are intended to assess the recent renoval of the
subject trees without an overall reduction in the stability of the slope. We believe this can be
accomplished if the recommendations provided in this report and the arborist's recommendations are
followed. No grading has or should occur on, or near, the top of the slope. Extraneous disturbance
of the vegetation on the slope outside the construction area should be limited as much as possible.
Significant landscaping or clearing of the slope sho . uld only occur in conjunction wit�4 sequenced'
landscape plan. Water from downspouts, surface drains and footing drains should not discharged
onto the slope.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on a
,r
dicipated site
conditions. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are sign ntly different
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
July 28, 2015
from those anticipated, we should be,advised at once so that we can review these
reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions
encountered on construction sites. Such unexpected conditions frequently require m
expenditures to attain a properly constructed project.
The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward maintaining the ex
slope stability. Predicting the future behavior of steep slopes and'the potential effects of
on their stability is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly
behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. Landslides and soil movement can oc
slopes before, during, or after the activities at the property. At additional cost, we
recommendations for reducing the risk of future movement on the steep slopes, which
regrading the slopes or installing subsurface drains or costly retaining structures. Howev
must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope movement could occur, resultir
loss of ground.
We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for the proposed development
us if we can be of further service.
JHS:jhs
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CON�ULTANTS, INC.
0!�'3-6 ION
4P-1-1-1.---W1-1
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Associate
'71Z,
11-�-
JN 15126
Page 2
litions and
commonly
additional
,ig level of
on the past
,ur on steep
ca ' n provide
*Uld involve
�r, the owner
I in possible
contact
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Clugston, Michael. I
From: Clugston, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:22 AM
To: 'Jeffrey Lewis'
Cc: Lien, Kernen
Subject: RE: 18910 Sound View Place (BLD20150148)
Attachments: Approved mitigation plan BLD20150148.pdf, IMG_1650.JPG; IMG_1641.JPG
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your response of June 27. To the points in your letter, the stream report mentioned removal of invasives
only within the defined mitigation areas on your parcel as shown on the attached plan. No cutting or removal was
permitted outside the enhancement areas. The report emphasizes this on page 6: "All existing non-native invasive
vegetation among the proposed mitigation areas will be removed prior to planting the native vegetation, and the non-
native, invasive vegetation will be disposed of at an approved off- , site location." Further, page 6 also includes a
statement about native vegetation: "Please note that the southern fringe of the proposed enhancement areas currently
contain some native vegetation. Therefore, the proposed mitigation plan includes avoiding disturbance to a// native
vegetation." The attached photos indicate that the cutting activity went beyond the enhancement areas to include
topping of several evergreens along your south property line as well as vegetation topping and removal on the parcel to
the south.
As my letter of June 16 indicated, we'll need to see the following materials in order to determine the extent of the
unpermitted cutting and next steps:
1. A report from an arborist certified in tree risk assessment detailing the extent of the cutting activity. The report must
include a site plan identifying the location of all cutting activity, the species of the trees and other vegetation that was
cut, the diameter of the vegetation that was cut, an assessment of the health of the trees that were trimmed and
likelihood of survivability.
2. A geotechnical report assessing the impact of the tree cutting on the slope and recommendations regarding any
debris that was left on the slope.
- 3. A mitigation plan consistent with the minimum performance standards for restoration detailed in ECDC 23.40.240.C.
Best,
Mike Clugston, AICP
City of Edmonds I Associate Planner
425-771-0220
michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
Development Services Hours:
Monday & Tuesday 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM
AS OF JUNE 3 RD _ WEDNESDAY — CLOSED
Thursday & Friday 8:00 AM — 430 PM
A
From: Jeffrey Lewis rmailto:jlewisl8l9(�bcimail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:41 AM
To: Clugston, Michael
Subject: Fwd: 18910 Sound View Place (BLD20150148)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffrey Lewis <jlewis I 819@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:47 AM
Subject: 18910 Sound View Place (BLD20150148)
To: michaelclugston2edmondswa.gov
Good Morning Mr. Clugston. Please see the attached regarding your letter of June 16.
Sincerely,
Jeff Lewis
2
June 27, 2015
Mr. Michael D. Clugston
Associate Planner
City of Edmonds
1215 th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: 18910 Sound View Place
Dear Mr. Clugston:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 16. 1 phoned you immediately for clarification but missed you due
to your vacation plans. I received a call back a few days later and brief voice mail from Mr. Kernen Lien
but ' am still unclear about the nature of your request for additional information. In anticipation of our
chance to.speak directly, I offer the following points:
1) The critical area report and mitigation plan approved by your offices as part of the permit
process included the removal and disposal of trees and brush. Species such as hollyJaurel,
blackberry and ivy were noted to be removed.
2) All debris left on the slope will soon be removed when there is sufficient room on the north
portion of the site to allow for better access and safe disposal.
3) A geotechnical report was submitted to the City prior to the work commencing and was
determined by the City to be acceptable.
4) The mitigation plan, which. is an important part of the critical area report, involves the planting
of replacement trees, shrubs, herbs and grass seed. This is to occur over time as weather
conditions allow. The plan appears to be consistent -with the performance standards you cite in
ECDC 23.40.24O.C.
I look forward to discussing the matter and getting clarification so that I may further address your,
concerns.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey P. Lewis
206-890-8318
Jlewisl8l9@gmail.com
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 * Fax: 425.771.0221 * Web: www.edmondswa.pov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
) - June 16, 2015
Sigve Helleren
Pacific Emerald Homes
PO Box 822
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Request for information regarding tree cutting south of 18910 Soundview Place in
n I association with Lewis remodel permit (BLD20150148)
Dear Mr. Helleren:
It has come to the City's attention that unpermitted tree cutting has occurred on and south of
the parcel referenced above. The slope and stream to the south are critical areas as was
identified during the review of the remodel'permit for the Lewis residence. Since the site of the
tree cutting activity was located within and adjacent to critical areas, a tree cutting permit and
critical area review would have been required pursuant to ECDC 18.45.020 and ECDC 23.40 and
no such review was requested prior to the tree cutting in question. As a result, this action
constitutes a code violation which may be subject to treble penalties due to the location within
critical areas and their associated buffers in accordance with ECDC 19.45.070.
In order to rectify the situation, mitigate impacts to the critical area, and inform enforcement
actions including potential. fines, please provide the following information:
1. A report from an arborist certified in tree risk assessment detailing the extent of the
cutting activity. The report must include a site plan identifying the location of all cutting
activity, the species of the trees and other vegetation that was cut, the diameter of the
vegetation that was cut, an assessment of the health of the trees that were trimmed
and likelihood of survivability.
2. A geotechnical report assessing the impact of the tree cutting on the slope and
recommendations regarding any debris, that was left on the slope.
3. A mitigation plan consistent with the minimum performance standards for restoration
detailed in ECDC 23.40.240.C.
Please submit the requested information to the City of Edmonds by June 30, 2015. If you have
any questions, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or michaelclugston@edmondswa.gov.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Clugsto
n, AIC
Associate Planner
Encl.: Reconnaissance photos
Cc: Ron McNurlen
402 Ave. A
Snohomish, WA 98290
Jeffrey and Maureen Lewis
18910 Soundview Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
AID(- I
./,4:6/ 2015 15 soo
, 06
i 5 M
VFsz
11 'jw* .0
06 —11"
e�vo I
. od.,M,
kk,
IaN
)f
5M
06/ In
-WI
..OE;1-1'6/2015 15 02,
45
hq
;K
47
06/1619915'o, 05
06/1612015 IO�YgR�Cl
-&tz' Q-6 15� -0 ' Y8
Drainage Report
Lewis Addition
For
Jeff & Maureen Lewis
18910 Sound View PI,
Edmonds, WA 98020
SITE LOCATION:
18910 Sound View PI,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Parcel: 004984-000-004-00
kl/ ff
IV ff
r
Prepared by:
Philip D. Mann, E.I.T.
Checked by:
Joseph M. Smeby, P.E.
Job No: 14-1111
January, 2015
REVISED: March, 2015
REVISED: April, 2015
COMP H APPLICAB . LE
C1 WATER CODE
S0" r% P.. ,
# "tk
n , T FILE
RESUB
APR 2 0 2015
,,UgrD.E.P.MrNlr
Of 0 DS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 1
LISTOF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. 2
1. INTRODUCTION & SITE CLASSIFICATION .............................................................. 3
2. STORMWATER SITE PLAN ....................................................................................... 4
3. SWPPP NARRATIVE .............................................................................................. .... 5
A. SITE GRADING/EROSION CONTROL RISK ASSESSMENT .................................... 5
B. SWPPP MINIMUM ELEMENTS ................................................................................. 6
4. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL ............................................................... 8
5. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM ......................... .................... 8
6. ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 9
7. RUN-OFF TREATMENT ........................................................................................... 10
8. FLOW CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 10
9. WETLANDS PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 10
10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ......................................................... 11
11. OFFSITE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION .................................................................... 11
12. FINANCIAL LIABILITY ............................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A - BIOLOGIST REPORT (WETLANDS & WILDLIFE, INC.)
APPENDIX B - TEST PIT, SOIL LOGS (BRENT HACKNEY DESIGNS, INC.)
APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.)
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 1
LIST OF FIGURES
ITEM PAGE
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN MAP ...................................................... 13
FIGURE 3 DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BASIN MAP ................................................. 14
FIGURE 4 SNOHOMISH COUNTY SOILS MAP ..................................................... 15
FIGURE 5 U PSTREAM/DOWN STREAM TRIBUTARY AREA MAP ........................ 16
Lewis Addition
REVISED: April, 2015
14-1111
Page 2
1. INTRODUCTION & SITE CLASSIFICATION
This document is intended to provide engineering information necessary to support the
building permit application submittal to the City of Edmonds for the SFR addition and new
driveway proposed on this site. The site is located at 18910 Sound View Place, and the
parcel area is approximately 0.312 acres. Refer to Figure I for a Vicinity Map. There is
the possibility of the entire site being disturbed for this project. The site currently consists
of a SFR and landscaping. There is no driveway on -site serving the project site. Access
to the site is along the frontage road, Sound View Place, to the south east.
This project is categorized as a Category 1 Small Site Project. This classification was
determined using Figure B of handout #E72, and can be found on the next page.. The
house was built after July 7, 1977. The existing roof downspouts were at one point
draining to underground pipes. There is no record Were these pipes lead and how the
�runoff was mitigated. The connection of the pipes to the downspouts is in poor condition
and during the site visit it was observed that the underground pipes did not convey runoff
efficiently. Therefore, all of the proposed and existing impervious surfaces will be
infiltrated by -new infiltration facilities located on -site. This project site is located within both
Fruitdale and Puget Sound water sheds. There are a couple critical areas found on or
near the project site. Fruitdale on the Sound Creek can be found parallel to, but off -site of
the southwestern property line. This stream flows through a well established, densely
vegetated channel with steep slopes. These steep slopes can be found on -site.
Scott Spooner, a licensed biologist, from Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc., has prepared a critical
areas report and proposed mitigation plan. Scott has determined that the off -site stream is
a7ype F, Fish Bearing Stream. Refer to the Appendix A for a copy of the biologists
report. A 37.5 ft reduced stream buffer has been applied to the off -site stream. Also, a 50
ft setback has been applied to the top of the steep slopes along the southwestern property
line.
Brent Hackney, a licensed drainfield designer ' from Brent Hackney Designs, Inc., has
performed 2 test pits and soil logs on -site, in the areas where runoff will be infiltrated.
Refer to the Appendix B to view detailed test pit and soil log information. The test pit in the
'back yard showed the soils to be loamy fine sand to fine sand, with the water table
�approximately 48" below grade. The test pit in the front yard showed the soils to be fill
,material on top of loamy sand with evidence of a water table approximately 45 inches
:below grade. Using the USDA Textural Classification a long term infiltration rate of 0.5
'in/hr has been determined for both the front and back
yards.
The,proposed SFR addition and new driveway will create approximately 3,175 sf of new
�impervious surfaces. Due to the downstream critical areas and existing soil conditions,
ton -site infiltration shall be used to mitigate for the proposed and existing impervious
surfaces for this project. Since this project is categorized as a Category 2 Small site
,project only minimum requirements 1-5, 7-9, and 11 will be required to be reviewed and
,addressed if applicable.
This project proposes to create approximately 3,175 sf of new impervious surfaces. All of
the new impervious surfaces, will be mitigated using on -site stormwater management
BMPs including infiltration and amended soils; both LID techniques.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 3
2. STORMWATER SITE PLAN
As noted in Section 1 of this report, this project is classified as a Category 1 Small Site
Project. Therefore, this drainage design has been prepared to address the requirements
contained in the City of Edmonds Stormwater Supplement and applicable handouts. The
engineering plan set submitted to the City for review,along with this report contains the
required information. This document is intended to provide the supporting information to
justify the sizing of the BMPs and LID techniques and detail how the design of the selected
BMPs and LID techniques meet the intended standards of the current code.
'For this project some LID techniques were used to aid in minimizing the projects impacts
to the on/off-site critical areas, disturbance area, and downstream system(s). The existing
-and proposed impervious surfaces will be infiltrated on -site. As per the 2005 DOE
-Manual, by infiltrating all runoff from all proposed and existing impervious surfaces the
.surfaces will be considered non -effective impervious surfaces. Since all runoff generated
�on-site will be infiltrated the developed flows are expected to be less than in the existing
conditions. This will in turn protect the on/off-site critical areas a downstream system(s).
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 4
3. SWPPP NARRATIVE
Clearing, grading, and temporary erosion and sediment control plans have been prepared
as part of the drainage plan drawings. However, since a construction site is dynamic it will
be necessary to reassess the erosion control BMP's during construction and install
additional measures when necessary.
Proposed temporary measures possible for this project will include the following BMP's:
Installation of stabilized construction entrance.
Retention of Existing Vegetation
Straw mulch, hydroseed or other mulching and planting method to stabilized
unworked areas.
Silt fencing if necessary
Permanent measures to reduce or eliminate erosion or wafer quality degradation will
include the following BMP's:
Paving all traffic areas (concrete/asphalt)
Permanent landscaping in pervious areas.
Limiting cut and fill slopes to 2:1 maximum and 3:1 maximum where exposed to
standing water.
Routine maintenance and inspection of the grounds and response to developing
problems.
The listed erosion control BMP's will be engineered for anticipated conditions in
compliance with City of Edmonds and DOE guidelines. With proper installation,
maintenance and inspection the proposed BMP's should result in minimal impact to the
surrounding environment. The City retains the -authority by code to require additional
measures should.the existing measures prove insufficient.
A. SITE GRADING/EROSION CONTROL RISK ASSESSMENT
Area.proposed to be cleared/worked:
0.312 acres
Average slope for the site:
8%
Erosion Hazard of Soil
Low
Critical Areas downslope
Yes
.Site is upstream of an ESA Stream
Yes
Based on the above information and the fact that the site will retain so much existing
vegetation and construction site runoff will filter through the soil, and that if site conditions
warrant, additional BMP.'s can be implemented as corrective measures the Risk Category
for this site is Low -Moderate Risk.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 5
V, V
B. SWPPP MINIMUM ELEMENTS
1: Mark Clearing Limits
The first step in the "Construction Sequence" included on the clearing and grading plan
sheets is for the limits of clearing to be flagged and to have construction fencing placed
along the limits prior to any other construction activity.
2: Establish Construction Access
The SWPPP calls for the proposed construction entrance to be installed as the second
,step after the staking of clearing limits. A detail is provided on the plans.
3: Control Flow Rates
This.project is below the thresholds requiring flow control for the project.
4: Install Sediment Controls
This site and SWPPP proposes to construct/maintain a construction entrance, retained
vegetation and silt fencing. These features are intended to minimize the opportunity for
sediment to leave the site via stormwater or on vehicles. The construction of these
features is one of the first items required in the "Construction Sequence". Mulch will also
be used on the exposed soil as necessary to limit erosion.
5: Stabilize Soils
The "Construction Sequence" calls for the stabilization of soils that remain unworked for
certain lengths of time based on the time of year. Stabilization techniques may include but
not limited to mulching, plastic sheeting or hydroseeding, notes have been added to the
plan regarding protection for the stock pile area if necessary. A stockpile'area has been
identified on the SWPPP and is setback a minimum of 100-feet from any down slope
property line.
6: Protect Slopes
All disturbed slopes on site during construction are required to be protected with mulch or
other means as specified in the construction sequence. No concentrated runoff or
significant amounts of sheet flow will be directed to new cut or fill slopes during
construction.
7: Protect Drain Inlets
-No new or existing culverts are proposed or affected by this project.
,8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets
No new channels or outlets are proposed for this site.
9: Control Pollutants
.No outside chemicals are expected to be necessary for the construction of this project. All
vehicles working on and around the site would need to meet the State requirements for
emissions.
10: Control DeWatering
DeWatering will not be necessary for this project. However, the existing vegetation
retained on site would be available to spread any water from construction for disposal.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 6
W
11: Maintain BMPs
The construction supervisor will be responsible for maintaining all BMPs during
construction and working with the City to relocate or add BMPs as necessary as site
conditions change.
12: Manage the Project
It will be the responsibility of the Contractor and Developer to manage this project and
coordinate with the City Inspector and Engineer.
Inspection and Monitoring:
Site inspections shall be done by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and
practices of erosion and sediment control. The person must have skills to first assess the
site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and
second assess.the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to
control the quality of stormwater discharges.
Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveal s that the BMPs identified in the
'Construction SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to
discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall
'be implemented as soon as possible.
Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP:
The construction SWPPP shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site.
.The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction,
operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant
effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state.
The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the
owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that
the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater
discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include
additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the
SWPPP shall be completed within seven days following inspection..
Lewis Addition
REVISED: April, 2015
14-1111
Page 7
N
4. WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL
The City of Edmonds Stormwater Supplement and DOE Drainage manual were reviewed
to determine if the proposed land -use for this project or construction activities required any
site specific source control BMPs to be constructed. SFR projects are not listed as a
proposed use that requires source control. Therefore, no site/development specific source
control BIVIPs are required for this project.
5. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The runoff from the on -site basin drains to the steep slopes along the northwest property
-line. It has been determined that the site is suitable to infiltrate the runoff from all
-proposed and existing impervious surfaces. However, by not grading or compacting the
majority of the pervious surfaces to remain after construction in the area of disturbance a
maximum amount of site runoff from the existing/restored landscape areas will be
absorbed and infiltrated into the existing on -site soils.
Lewis Addition
REVISED: April, 2015
14-1111
Page 8
W
6. ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The test pits and soil logs were performed by Brent Hackney, of Brent Hackney Designs,
Inc. Refer to the Appendix B to view detailed test pit and soil log information. The test pit
in the back yard showed the soils to be loamy fine sand to fine sand, with the water table
approximately 48" below grade. The test pit in the front yard showed the soils to be fill
material on top of loamy sand with evidence of a water table approximately 45 inches
below grade. Using the USDA Textural Classification a long term infiltration rate of 0.5
in/hr has been determined for both the front and back yards.
Due site conditions including the water table, setbacks from critical areas and
proposed/existing structures it is not feasible to infiltrate the runoff from the proposed and
existing surfaces using a traditional infiltration facility preapproved by the City of Edmonds.
Rather, we incorporated the City's sizing method of sizing a typical 1.5 ft deep, 2 ft wide
infiltration trench and applied the required bottom square footage to an infiltration gallery.
Refer to the plan sheets to view plan and section details of the proposed infiltration
galleries.
Table 5 out of the City of Edmonds handout, #E72 B, was used to size the infiltration
galleries.
Approximately 2,100 sf of impervious surfaces will be tributary to the backyard 1.5 ft deep
infiltration gallery. This would result in a traditional infiltration trench being a minimum of
126.5 feet long with a minimum bottom area of 260 sf. In order to remain conservative
with the drainage design, an infiltration gallery has been designed to have a bottom area
of 300 sf. Said gallery will be 20 ft long and 15 ft wide. Within this gallery 3 — 6 inch
perforated pipes will be interconnected, as to ensure equal water distribution throughout
the gallery. Runoff generated by the roof surfaces will be tight lined via a 4"-6" pipe to one
of the cleanouts connected to the infiltration gallery.
An infiltration gallery has been designed for the front yard. This Infiltration. gallery was
initially designed to infiltrate runoff from approximately 3,704 sf. With two site plan
revisions, only 3,390 sf of impervious surfaces will be directed to the front yard infiltration
gallery. However, the gallery is still sized to infiltrate runoff from 3,704 sf of impervious
surfaces. An infiltration trench sized to infiltrate 3,704 sf of impervious surfaces would
need to be a minimum of 202.2 feet long with a minimum bottom area of 404.4 sf. In order
to remain conservative with the drainage, design, an infiltration gallery has been designed
to have a bottom area of 464 sf. Said gallery will be 29 ft long and 16 ft wide. Within this
gallery 3 — 6 inch perforated pipes will be interconnected, as to ensure equal water
distribution throughout the gallery. Runoff generated by the roof surfaces will be tight lined
via a 4"-6" pipe to one of the cleanouts or area drains, which are directly connected to the
infiltration gallery. All of the proposed pavement surfaces will be graded in such a way as
to drain directly into one of the three traffic rated yard drains located within the driveway
Refer to Figure 3 to view the locations of the two proposed infiltration galleries.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 9
7. RUN-OFF TREATMENT
This project proposes to construct less than 5,000 sf of new PGIS and is therefore exempt
from this requirement.
8. FLOW CONTROL
For this project an LID method will be used to address the runoff impa ' cts from the
proposed improvements. In order to protect the critical areas to the west it is necessary to
use an LID method specially designed for this site, using the City of Edmonds Stormwater
Supplement as guidance. Infiltration of all of the existing and proposed impervious
surfaces totaling approximately 5,490 sf has been accomplished using infiltration galleries.
The proposed design protects the downstream system(s) to the maximum extent feasible
by maximizing the amount of on -site impervious surfaces tributary to the infiltration
facilities. With this design, NO existing or proposed impervious surfaces will be considered
effective impervious surfaces and the runoff from the site will be reduced. In all storm
events, thus, protecting -the critical areas and downstream system(s) more than they are in
the existing conditions.
9. WETLANDS PROTECTION
This project will not negatively impact any wetland on or directly downstream of the site.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 10
10. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
The Property Owner will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater and landscaping
facilities within this development. Included in this manual are checklists for each feature
specific to this project. Copies should be made of the checklists as necessary during
routine inspections and required maintenance. Specific problems can be recorded along
with the appropriate action taken.
These checklists are a guide for inspections and maintenance. The frequency of the
inspections/maintenance is identified in the left hand column with the following
abbreviations:
A = Annual (March or April preferred)
M = Monthly
S = After Major Storms (Use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline)
Routine inspections and maintenance will. improve the long-term performance of the
stormwater facilities. If at any time you are unsure if a problem exists or how to address a
specific problem contact a Professional Engineer.
Refer to Appendix C for a list of each facility to be maintained and the appropriate
maintenance checklist.
11. OFFSITE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
Runofffrom. the proposed disturbance area of the existing site sheet flows to the northwest
and - northwest and leaves the site over the southwestern property line, over steep
vegetated slopes. The runoff then drains into Fruitdale on the Sound Creek, a fish bearing
stream. Runoff continues northwest to the Puget Sound. See Figure 5 for a depiction of
the project basin and downstream path.
12. FINANCIAL LIABILITY
Due to the fact that there are multiple critical areas on or near the site, with associated
buffers/setbacks, a performance bond will be required. The amount of the performance
bond will be determined by the City of Edmonds.
Lewis Addition 14-1111
REVISED: April, 2015 Page 11
SITE
Was
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" 2,000'
FIG. 1
OMIEGA VICINITY MAP
ENGINEERINGy INC. LEWIS ADDITION
2707 WETMORE AVLOPEN DATE JOB NO. SCALE SHEET
Evere ' WA 98201
(0)425N87.3820 M 425.259.1958 11/28/2015 14-1111 1 2000' 1 OF 1
A
3
EX. FLOW 27031300412300 498400000300
ARROWS
(TYP-)
APPROMATE
STEEP SLOPE
LOCAT'ON 8ASED
ON SURVEY DATA .
270 260Qk
4\
sr
B
Az 46
C2 0
"e C2
4~
1�49 00000 0
ko
All
ss
D
SSMH PJM=W.47
IE-52.03 CL
IE-46.44-36. CON
SDMH RIM-57.71 N
IE-47.26-36 ' 0 SA
IC-47.06-36: rONO 1469,
[E-52..34-24 COMN W 01
/�[E
g54.78-12*
No
IE-4Z.93-36" CONC
FIG. 2
0MIECA EXISTING BASIN MAP
ENGINEERING, INC. LEWIS ADDITION
2707 WETMORE "E.OPEN DATE JOB NO. SCALE SHEET
Everett WA 98201
(o)425.387.3820(f)425.259.1958 1/28/20151 14-1111 1 30' 1 OF 1
SSCO
SEE SM. DET." E6.2
CONTRACTOR TO POT HOLE AND
VERIFY SEWER SERVICE DEPTH
CONTRACTOR TO PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
CONNECT NEW SIDE 300 SF, SEE BACK INFILTRATION
SEWER TO EX. SIDE GALLERY SECTION DETAIL
SEWER. //6,-' DIAMETER
SEE SM. DET. E6.3 PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (TYP.)
SDCO (TYP.) SEE NOTE.
RIMS = 50.0
IE - 47.5 CONTRACTOR TO
INSTALL NEW 6" PVC
27031300412300 1$- IN, SIDE SEWER -
EX. FLOW S = 0.0100 ft/ft MIN.
ARROWS 00498400000300
cli SSCO
(TYP-) 4" SEE SM. DET. E6.2
0;16,"PPUVTC RIM = 53.5
APPROXIMATE D WS, 0 IE 48.8
STEEP SLOPE CONNECTION
LOCATIO BASED SDCO TYP.
0 3URVE�
Y D
N ��TA. RIM 50.5 4"-6" PVC
IE 47.5 W% DOWNSPOUT
CONNECTI ON 464 SF SEE FRONT
INf"L RATIO �LLERY
2703�10(�426K SECTTION DENTAGI
CONTRA OR \DCO/YARD
0
Lo 0
0
CATE_%A
REMOVE E
E D NS (TYP.)
SIDE SEWER. R ; 59.0
1 .25
;p Ei 7
All
(b 0,
4� 6" DIAMETER
PERFORATED PVC
PIPE (
SEE N
.4D
1
C2
C.1
4~�
A% �)0498JO00004 0
2N3i.306404690 c'2
SDCO/AREA DRAINS W/
TRAFFIC RATED LIDS,
RIMS = 59.0
SEEE;,V57.25 66�
0 EWAY lv�
DRAINAGE NOTE. ss
SSMH RIM-59,47
IE-46.44- 36 CON IE-52.03 CL
SOMH RIM-57.71 N
[E-47.26-36'
!E- +7.06-M' Co C
IE=5Z34-24' CON SW
IE-54'.78-12'
CONC
3
IE-4&9--35' CONIC
FIG. 3
OMECmA DEVELOPED BASIN MAP
ENGINEERINGo INC. LEWIS ADDITION ,
2707 WETMORE AVE.OPEN DATE JOB NO. SCALE SHEET
Everett WA 98201
(0)425387.3820 (f) 425.259.1958 1/28/2015 14-1111 1 30' 1 OF 1
47' 4941F N
4r 4T3rH
SoU Map—Znohomish County Area. Washington
(LevAs,Add!Uon)
3: 5U5M S47SM 547!M
Map -%zL-- L-509 Ifpfirited on A kndscape (Ir x BS) djeet 18=0 Cvellelf- 61-welly Sa OWY
Meters
N o 5 20
0 20 40 80
ftV*di=WebMercab3r Cbneramr&et=WGS54 ftedcmUTMZDmMNViGS84
ISDA Natural Resources
2�1_
Conservation Service Web Soff Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/28/2015
Page I of 3
41* 41140"N
4P 473rN
APPENDIX A
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
WETLANDS & WILDLIFE, INC.
W n.
PREPARED FOR:
Jeff and Maureen Lewis
P.O. box 1133
Edmonds, WA 98020
PREPARED BY:
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
7721-153rd Street SE
Snohomish, Washington 98296
(425) 337-6450
Revision Date: March 24, 2015
)LIFE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
ExISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS
PROPOSED IMPACTS WITHIN STANDARD CRITICAL AREA BUFFER
PROPOSED STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION WITH ENHANCEMENT
PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS
PROPOSED GRASS SEED
'MITIGATION PLAN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY
DISCUSSION REGARD PERFORMANCE BOND
PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION AND POST -PROJECT FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CRITICAL AREAS & MITIGATION PLAN MAP
2. CRITICAL AREAS MITIGATION PLAN (SCHEMATIC)
3. CRITICAL AREAS MITIGATIONPLAN (PLANTING GUIDELINES)
4. CRITICAL AREAS MITIGATION PLAN (INSTALLATION DETAILS)
2
2
3
4
5
5
6
8
8
10
11
11
13
MAP SHEET CA1.00
MAP SHEET CA2.00
MAP SHEET CA3.00
MAP SHEET CA4.00
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 18910 Sound View Place in the incorporated City of Edmonds, Washington
(located in the NW Quarter of Section 13, Township 27N, Range 03E, W.M.). The tax parcel number for the
project site follows: 00498400000400. According to the Snohomish County Assessors Office, the subject
property encompasses approximately 0.31 acres and is currently owned by Jeff and Maureen Lewis.
Vehicular site access is gained from travelling west from Sound View Place, a public asphalt roadway. As
shown on the attached Critical Areas & Mitigation Plan Map (Map Sheet CA1.00) and other project maps,
existing site development includes a single-family residence with an attached garage and daylight basement
surrounded by maintained lawn and landscaping. As depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00, a non-anadromous
fish -bearing stream (Fruitdale On The Sound),is located off -site along the southern property line, flowing from
east to west toward the Puget Sound. The vegetation among the stream corridor contains dense vegetation,
much of which is non-native, invasive vegetation. Please see the RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS
EVALUATION section of this report for further information regarding the findings of our Critical Areas
evaluation.
The property owners retained Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. to evaluate the site features and.determine the extent
of CriticalArea impacts and appropriate mitigation measures as required by the City of Edmonds Critical
Areas Regulations outlined in Chapter 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) of the Edmonds
City Code and Community Development Code (ECDC). Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted a site visit on
'December 15, 2014 to perform detailed Critical Areas evaluations on the project site, pursuant to the ECDC
and professional industry standards. Please see the report sections below for further information regarding
our evaluations.
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
The following provides . a brief overview of my experience and credentials to. conduct the detailed
evaluations on the subject property. I am the Founder, Owner, and Principal Wetland and Wildlife Ecologist
of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. I attended the University of Montana where I graduated cum laude with a
degree in Wildlife Biology. As of 2015, 1 have 14 years of direct experience as a professional
Biologist/Ecologist in western Washington and 18 years of overall experience completing natural resource
assessments among many different ecosystems across the western United States. I have worked as a
professional Biologist/Ecologist for federal, state, and county environmental agencies, as well as several
private environmental consulting firms with specialties in wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife
habitat. In my 18 years of experience, I have specialized in review of proposed land use and building
development permit applications as they pertain to Critical Areas (wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, and
habitats of protected fish and wildlife species). Much of that experience came as a Senior'R6viewing
Ecologist for King County DDES and a Regulatory Biologist for Snohomish County PDS.
I am listed on several Preferred / Qualified Consultant Rosters throughout western Washington. I am highly
experienced with the required. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State wetland delineation
methods. In addition to the wetland delineation certification, I am trained by the Washington Department of
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page I
Ecology and have 10 years of experience in the use of the required Wetland Rating Form for western
Washington (since its inception). I am trained by the Washington Departmen ' t of Ecology to determine
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) locations for rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to my expertise
related to wetlands and streams, I have many years of experience conducting surveys of special status
wildlife species in the western U.S. I received certifications from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife for terrestrial wildlife habitat assessments and wildlife surveys of special status wildlife species in
Washington.
Over the past 18 years, I have conducted literally over 1,400 biological / ecological assessments in different
capacities on properties with many habitat types and zoning designations, from small, urban properties
(0.25 acres) to large, rural properties (up to 2,000 acres in size). I have been selected by several local city
jurisdictions to provide on -call 3rd-party environmental reviews of proposed development projects for
compliance with local Critical Areas Ordinances and the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and
Mitigation document.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Please see the attached Map Sheet CA1,00 and other project maps for a depiction of the location of
proposed project activities on the subject property. Based on the survey data, the existing residence
encompasses approximately 2,314 square feet. The applicant is proposing a new garage addition
attached to the northeast corner of the existing house, a new nook attached to the northwest corner of
the existing house, a new deck located west of the northwestern portion of the house, and an interior
remodel. Please review the project site plan for further information regarding the proposed project
parameters.
The proposed additions and proposed deck will be located among areas which are currently legally
established and maintained as lawn. Due to the location of the existing house in proximity to the off -site
-stream -the proposed additions to the house described above will occur within the outer limits of the
standa�d 75-foot stream buffer. Although the proposed additions are located as far away from the stream
as possible given the site constraints and property line setbacks, there is no opportunity to avoid impacts
within the standard Critical Area buffer when completing this proposed project. However, the project has
been specifically designed to minimize impacts to ecological functions and the applicant will provide
compensatory mitigation as described in detail later in this report.
The vast majority of the on -site buffer is currently comprised of maintained lawn, landscaping, or existing
impervious surfaces. The applicant is proposing to continue'these legally established uses unless
otherwise outlined in this report.
METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
Per industry standards, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the entire subject property and areas off -
site within close proximity to the proposed project's limits of disturbance, to the maximum extent
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 2
possible without entering adjacent private properties due to a lack of legal access. This evaluation of
off -site properties is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist outside of the property
boundaries which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property,
In addition to on -site field reviews, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined aerial photographs and topographical
data (elevation contours) on Snohomish County SnoScape system. Soil survey maps produced by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFM, StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps produced by
WDFW and Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS) maps produced by Washington
Department of Natural Resources were also evaluated as pad of this project review.
The subject stream was not delineated by Wetlands and Wildlife, Inc. due to its off -site location. However,
the location of the off -site stream shown -on Map Sheet CA1.00 was provided to Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. by
Alpha Subdivision Pros, Inc.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION
As depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00, no regulated wetlands or streams are located on the subject property.
However, a non-anadromous fish -bearing stream is located off -site to the south of the property's southern
property boundary, flowing from east to west. Please see further discussion below.
Cowardin Classification:
According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, the classification for the off -site stream follows:
Off -site Stream: Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble -Gravel (R2UB1)
City of Edmonds Code Classifications:
Pursuant to the City of Edmonds Cri al Areas Regulations outlined in Chapter 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas), the off -site stream is classified as follows:
The off -site stream appears to originate upslope and east of the subject property. Based on review of
several map resources, the off -site stream is a perennial non-anadromous fish -bearing stream at the
location south of the subject property. Therefore, the off -site stream appears to meet the definition of a
Type F stream per the ECDC section 23.90.010.A.I.b. Per the ECDC section 23.90.040.D.l.d, the
standard buffer width required for a Type F non-anadromous fish -bearing stream equals 75 feet. Based on
this information, the standard, 75-foot buffer from the off -site stream extends onto the'subject property as
shown on Map Sheet CA1.00. '
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigatiorf Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 3
Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Description:
Based on review of the Web Soil Survey produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), the NRCS maps the subject property as being underlain by Everett gravelly sandy loam soils (8 to
15 percent slopes).
According to the NRCS, the Everett gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent slopes) soils are typically formed
on terraces and plains with a parent material of glacial outwash. The depth to restrictive feature is typically
between 14 to 20 inches below the* surface. This soil type is somewhat excessively drained, and the
frequency of flooding and ponding is none. Available water capacity is high. The typical soil profile is
gravelly ashy sandy loam from 0 to 6 inches below the surface, very gravelly ashy sandy loam from 6 to 18
inches below the surface, and extremely gravelly sand from 18 to 60 inches below the surface. This soil
series does not contain any listed minor inclusions.
ExiSTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS
The methodologies for this functions and values analysis are based on professional opinion developed
through past field analyses and interpretations. This analysis pertains specifically to the on -site
characteristics, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout the Puget Sound region of
western Washington. Regulated Critical Areas and associated buffers in western Washington often provide
very valuable functions including water quality, hydrologic control / transport,. and wildlife habitat functions.
These functions become extremely important in an increasingly urbanizing environment such as the project
site and surrounding vicinity.
The portions of the site adjacent to the stream (vegetated areas, associated buffers, etc.) are increasingly
important to manage appropriately as these areas aid in water quality and hydrologic control, resulting in
:cleaner water entering the stream's channel. The dense vegetation among the subject riparian corridor
provides very important ecological functions. In addition to providing direct habitat for wildlife species, the
Aense vegetation location among the riparian corridor provides very valuable shade, and the' shade
provided by the vegetation aids in cooler water temperature for the species that use the stream as habitat..
The tree and shrub roots among this riparian corridor aid with soil / bank stabilization, thus reducing e * rosion
and sedimentation *among the stream channel. In addition, the vegetation among this corridor provide for
future recruitment of large woody debris (LWD) to the stream channel, and LWD is known to increase the
functions among stream channels (aids in reducing water velocity, aid in blocking sediment transport,
provides local shade for aquatic species, and provides habitat for terrestrial species). In addition to the
LWD recruitment, the dense vegetation among the riparian corridor also aids in the recruitment of organic
matter to the stream.
As previously described. in this report, the on -site buffer contains an existing single-family residence and
associated infrastructure, with the remainder of the property being dominated by maintained lawn. The
maintained lawn provides some water quality benefits by filtering sediment from overland flow, taking up
and binding nutrients through biological action, and reducing erosion by binding the soil, On -site wildlife
habitat is currently limited due to the lack of established native vegetation and sufficient vegetative
structure. The slope along the southern property currently contains several non-native species including
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 4
English ivy (Hedera helix finnaeus), holly (flex aquifolium), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and
California laurel (Umbellularia califomica). Based on our detailed ecological functions assessment, the on -
site buffer provides relatively low -quality functions and protection to the stream. The ecological functions
among the project site will be improved through implementation of the proposed compensatory mitigation
measures described below in this report.
In addition to the functions mentioned above, riparian corridors often provide aesthetic value, recreational
opportunities, and educational opportunities.
PROPOSED IMPACTS WITHIN STANDARD CRITICAL AREA BUFFER
As previously described, the -proposed additions to the house will occur in the outer limits of the standard
75-foot stream buffer. Due to site constraints on the subject property, it is not possible to accomplish the
entire proposed project outside of the standard stream buffer because the standard 75-foot buffer extends
,across a vast majority of the site and the proposed development also needs to be located outside of the
property line setbacks. The proposed garage and nook will be located entirely outside of the standard 75-foot
buffer. However, a small portion of the proposed deck will be partially located within the outer limits of the
standard 75-foot stream buffer. As previously. mentioned, the City requires property line setbacks which
further constrain the subject property for the proposed project. Based on these factors, it is the professional
opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that the project has been specifically designed to avoid and
minimize impacts to Critical Areas and associated buffers in accordance with industry standards and the
ECDC outlined in Chapter 23.90 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas). The project is proposed
to be located among legally established disturbed areas, and is also proposed to be located further from
the stream than the existing house,
PROPOSED STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION WITH ENHANCEMENT
In order to accomplish the proposed project described above, the applicant is proposing to reduce the
standard 75-foot stream buffer width with enhancement to facilitate construction of the proposed additions
in the location depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00. The reduced stream buffer Width with enhancement
proposal adheres to all of the code requirements set forth in the Edmonds City Code and Community
Development Code section 23.90.040,D.2. Per requirements set forth in ECDC 23.90.40.D.2, the proposed
stream buffer enhancement plan for this project will "conclusively demonstrate that enhancement of the
reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area
in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat.", meeting the specific
requirements of ECDC 23,40.110, 23.40.120 and 23.40.130. The proposed stream buffer reduction with
enhancement as detailed below offers significantly better protection to the on -site ecological functions and
values than what currently exists by enhancing areas denude of native vegetation or disturbed by non-
native, invasive plant species.
The ECDC section 23,90.040.D.2.a. allows applicants to reduce the standard buffer by up to 50% when the
applicant can "Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide functions and
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 5
values in terms of stream and wildlife protections equivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without
enhancement." The applicant is proposing to reduce the standard buffer of the off -site stream from 75 feet
to the minimum of 37.5 feet (as allowed per Edmonds City Code). The proposed reduced stream buffer
width with enhancement will result in a total of 1,167 square feet of significantly enhanced stream buffer
(Buffer Enhancement Area A equals 715 square feet and Buffer Enhancement Area A equals 452 square
feet). The steam buffer area proposed for enhancement currently contains significant amounts of non-
native, invasive vegetation such as English ivy, holly, Himalayan blackberry, California laurel. The vast
majority of the remaining buffer area to be enhanced is dominated by maintained lawn. The standard
stream buffer areas outside of the proposed enhancement areas contain the single-family residence,
associated infrastructure, maintained lawn, and maintained landscaping. Therefore, the proposed stream
buffer enhancement will create a significant ecological lift among the remaining on -site buffer by removing
all non-native, invasive species and then planting the, stream buffer enhancement areas with nabve
vegetation as outlined in the PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS section below.
PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS
In order to off -set the proposed reduction of the standard stream buffer from 75 feet to 37.5 feet, the
applicant is proposing to provide buffer enhancement of all areas within the remaining 37.5 feet -buffer that
are dominated by non-native, invasive species and / or dominated by lawn. Please see Map Sheet CA1.00
for a depiction of the proposed buffer enhancement area locations associated with the proposed project on.
the,subject site.
All existing non-native, invasive vegetation among the proposed mitigation area's will be removed prior to
planting the native vegetation, and the non-native, invasive vegetation will be disposed of at,an approved
off -site location. After the non-native, invasive vegetation has been removed, the applicants are
proposing to plant native vegetation among the reduced stream buffer. Any work performed within the
reduced stream buffer shall be completed using hand tools only. As described in further detail below,
the proposed stream buffer enhancement will result in planting 3 trees, 17 shrubs and 32 herbs among
the buffer enhancement areas. Please note that the southern fringe of the proposed enhancement areas,
,currently contain some native vegetation. Therefore, the proposed mitigation plan includes avoiding
,disturbance to all native vegetation. All vegetation planted as*part of this mitigation proposal among areas
currently vegetated with native species will maintain appropriate spacing from existing native vegetation.
The proposed buffer enhancement areas shown on Map Sheet CA1.00 total 1, 167 square feet (715 square
feet for Buffer Enhancement Area A and 452 square feet for Buffer Enhancement Area B) and specifically
account for theexisting vegetation to the south of the proposed enhancement areas. Please see Map
Sheet CA1.00 for a depiction of the 2 proposed enhancement areas, labeled as Area A and Area B
respectively. Please see below for a description of the proposed mitigation plantings among each
mitigation area.
As depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00 and described previously in this report, Buffer Enhancement Area A
equals 715 square feet. This mitigation area currently contains non-native, invasive vegetation such as
English ivy, holly, and Himalayan blackberry. Therefore, all non-native, invasive species will be removed
prior to the proposed enhancement plantings among Buffer Enhancement Area A. This mitigation proposal
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Cdtical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 6
includes calculating required plant quantities by planting 60% of the mitigation area with native shrubs and
planting 40% of the mitigation area with native herbs. The native shrubs are proposed to be planted on 6-
foot centers and the native herbs are proposed to be planted on 3-foot centers (thereby meeting industry
standards and City requirements). Using these calculations, the applicant is proposing to plant 12 shrubs
and 32 herbs among Buffer Enhancement Area A. Please see the table below for the proposed plant
schedule among Buffer Enhancement Area A on the project site, and please view Map Sheets CA1.00 and
CA2.00 attached to this report for further information regarding the location of the proposed native
enhancement plantings. Please note that the extreme southern edges of the proposed Buffer
Enhancement Area A currently contain native vegetation. Therefore, the proposed mitigation plan includes
avoiding disturbance to all native vegetation during the vegetative planting enhancement efforts. The
mitigation area planting boundaries shown on Map Sheet CA1.00 and individual plant locations shown on
Map Sheet CA2.00 may be modified slightly in order to avoid impacts to native vegetation and to ensure
that all planted vegetation among areas currently vegetated with native species will maintain appropriate
spacing from existing native vegetation..
Proposed Buffer Enhancement Plantings Among Buffer Enhancement Area A (approx. 715 SF)
Common Name
Latin Name
Size
Spacinq
QuanflIt
1. Beaked hazelnut
Corylus cornuta
1-gallon
6'o.c. min.
3
2. Snowberry
Symphoricarpos albus
1-gallon
6'o.c. min.
3
3. Sala]
Gaultheria shallon
1-gallon
6'o.c. min.
6
4. Sword Fem
Polystichum munitum
4" pot
3'o.c. min.
10
5. False lily -of -the -valley
Maianthemum dilitatum
4" pot
3'o.c. min.
10
6. Pacific bleeding head
Dicentra formosa
4" pot
3'o.c. min.
8
7. Goatsbeard
Aruncus dibicus
4" pot
3'o.c. min.
4
As depicted on Map Sheet CA1.00, Buffer Enhancement Area B equals approximately 452 square feet.
This mitigation area also contains non-native, invasive vegetation -such as English ivy, holly, and Himalayan
blackberry. Therefore, all non-native, invasive species will be removed prior to the proposed enhancement
plantings among Buffer Enhancement Area B. The mitigation proposal among Buffer ' Enhancement Area B
includes calculating required plant quantities by planting 60% trees and 40% shrubs. The native trees are
proposed to be planted on 10-foot centers and the shrubs are proposed to be planted on 6-foot centers
(thereby meeting industry standards and City requirements). Using these calculations, the applicant.is
proposing to plant 3 trees and 5 shrubs among Buffer Enhancement Area B. Please see the table
below for the proposed plant schedule among Buffer Enhancement Area B on the project site, and please
view Map Sheets CA1.00 and CA2.00 attached to this report for further information regarding the location
of the proposed plantings. Please note that the extreme southern edges of the proposed Buffer
Enhancement Area A currently contain native vegetation. Therefore, the proposed mitigation plan includes
avoiding disturbance to all native vegetation during the vegetative planting enhancement efforts. The
mitigation area planting boundaries shown on Map Sheet CA1.00 and individual plant locations shown on
Map Sheet CA2.00 may be modified slightly in order to avoid impacts to native vegetation and to ensure
that all planted vegetation among areas currently vegetated with native species will maintain appropriate
spacing from existing native vegetation.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Cdtical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 7
Proposed Buffer Enhancement Plantings Among Buffer Enhancement Area B (approx. 452 SP)
Common Name
Latin Name
Size
§pgcIn
2
_Quantitv
1. Western red cedar
Thuja plicata
2-gallon
10'o,c. min,
2
2. Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesfi
2-gallon
10'o.c. min.
1
3. Beaked hazelnut
Coiy1us comuta
1-gallon
6'o.c. min.
2
4. Sala]
Gaultheria shallon
1-gallon
6'o.c. min,
3
PROPOSED GRASS SEED
The applicant is proposing to seed any bare ground areas among the remaining stream buffer area which
are temporarily disturbed as part of this project. To aid.in soils stabilization, any bare ground areas within
the remaining buffer areas shall be seeded to the native grass seed mixtures below, or a similar native
seed mixture:
Common Name
Latin Name
lbs./1,000 s.f.
Colonial bentgrass
Agrostis tenuis
0.6
Red fescue
Festuca rubra
0.3
White clover
Tfifolium repens
0.2
Following the grass seeding, weed -free straw shall be placed on top of the grass seed to aid in soil
stabi ' lization and erosion reduction while the grass seed germina tes and begins root growth. Any erosion
and sediment control measures (best management practices) will remain in place until the soil is sufficiently
stabilized to prevent erosion of soil in close proximity to the off -site stream.
MITIGATION PLAN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY
Goals and Oblectives of the Proiect Proposal and Mitigation Plan
The primary goals of the mitigation plan described above follow:
1 . Allow for responsible residential development and associated infrastructure, while also
increasing the ecological functions provided by the on -site portion of the stream buffer,
2. Off -set the proposed buffer reduction associated with the proposed development through
compensatory mitigation and restoration activities described above;
3. Remove the non-native, invasive vegetation among the mitigation areas;
4. Increase the quantity and diversity of native vegetation within the on -site wetland and buffer
areas;
5. Provide additional BMP's as previously outlined in order to reduce the environmental footprint of
the proposed single-family residence on the project site;
6. Ensure that the proposed compensatory mitigation efforts and BMP's are successful by
maintaining and monitoring these items as described below.
Wetlands & Krildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 8
Success Criteria / Performance Standards:
The applicant proposes to meet the following plant cover and survival standards among the on -site
mitigation areas in an attempt to measure success of the proposed mitigation planting plan and
compensate for project impacts among the on -site stream buffers:
Performance Standards
Monitoring Year after installation
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Shrub and Sapling Tree Cover"
>20%
>30%
>40%
,Shrub and Sapling Tree Survival"
100%
>90%
>80%
JPercent Non-native, Invasive Species 1<20%
1<20%
1<20%
"NOTE: The performance standards above include beneficial native plants in that naturally pioneer in the
planted area. Also note that the percent cover performance standards shown above are related to bare
ground areas that are planted with the full cover requirements, and these percentages do not apply to those
areas where vegetation is planted among existing vegetation (underplanted / interplanted).
Monitoring and Maintenance Duration and Schedule:
Pursuant to City of Edmonds standards and requirements, approved / installed mitigation projects shall be
monitored for -a minimum of- three (3) years from the date of plant installation to ensure that the
performance standards outlined in the approved mitigation plan have been met. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
or another qualified professional will conduct one (1) annual monitoring visit to examine the status and
determine success among the mitigation areas. During the first annual monitoring site visit, representative
photo points shall be established among the mitigation areas. The photographs taken at these photo points
shall provide a general overview of the mitigation areas. Photographs shall be taken from the same photo
points during each subsequent monitoring visit to provide visual information from known locations. The
qualified professional will submit one (1) annual progress report to City of Edmonds for the first two (2)
years of the monitoring period. These annual monitoring reports shall assess both achievement of yearly
goals and progress towards overall achievement of the project goals. Monitoring reports will be prepared in
accordance with ecological industry standards and will include an assessment of the approximate percent
cover of native vegetation, presence of invasive vegetation, any other ecological concerns or
recommendations among the mitigation areas, and overall effectiveness of the mitigation site. A final
monitoring report will be submitted to City of Edmonds at the end of the third (3rd) year to ensure that the
performance standards outlined in the mitigation plan have been met.
During the 3-year monitoring period, the applicant or retained professionals shall also perform maintenance
of the mitigation area(s) in accordance with industry standards and guidelines. Maintenance will include
but may not be limited to the following: regular watering, weeding around the base of installed plants,
pruning, replacement plantings as necessary to achieve performance standards, removal of all noxious and
invasive vegetation species, and any other measures needed to ensure performance standards are met
throughout the mitigation areas as outlined above.
If the project meets all of the criteria for success at the end of the three-year monitoring period, no further
action will be required by the applicant and the required financial guarantee amount described below will be
returned to the applicant(s) in full. If the definition of success is not met for any reason at the end of the
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 9
three-year monitoring period, the maintenance and monitoring period will be extended for one year at a
time until the site meets the performance standards outlined. This mitigation plan and the accompanying
maintenance / monitoring will not be considered complete until final approval is received from the City.
Contingency Plan Related to Plant Success:
If it is determined at any time during the monitoring period that the performance standards or goals of the
mitigation plan are not being met, a contingency plan will be devised to improve or alter those elements that
are deficient, If measures beyond standard maintenance of the mitigation areas are required, a plan
containing these measures shall be submitted to City of Edmonds for their review prior to implementation.
Contingency Plan Related to Property Ownership:
If the subject property changes ownership at any time during implementation of the proposed mitigation
plan described above, or during the 3-year monitoring and maintenance period associated with the
proposed mitigation plan, the current property owner(s) shall * inform the prospective real property
purchaser(s) of the mitigation requirements. The proposed mitigation plan shall run with the land (in
perpetuity), and the current property owner(s) shall ensure that the approved mitigation components are
implemented as stated, monitore'Vor compliance with the performance standards outlined in this plan, and
maintained in accordance with this plan and ecological industry standards. If the property changes
ownership at any time during the monitoring phase, the current property owner(s) shall also inform any new
property owners of any requirements related to the monitoring and maintenance schedule. If any questions
arise regarding these contingencies related to property ownership, the current property owner should
contact City of Edmonds at the appropriate time.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PERFORMANCE BOND
Per the City of Edmonds standards and requirements,'a performance bond (financial guarantee) shall be
provided to the City of Edmonds. As. stated in the ECDC section 23.40,290.13. "The bond shall be in the
amount of 120 percent of the estimated cos . tof the uncomp . leted actions . or the estimated cost of restoring
the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater." The purpose of this
performance bond is to ensure that the proposed mitigation efforts meet the performance standards
outlined in this report. This bond shall be released at the end of three years upon a successful
determination by the City for all portions of this Critical Areas mitigation project. This project shall be
considered successful if it meets the performance standards listed in this plan, Please see below for a
discussion regarding the proposed financial guarantee related to this mitigation plan.
Install 3 2-gallon trees @ approximately $15.00 each (installed price): $45.00
Install 17 1 -gallon shrubs @ approximately $9.50 EACH (installed price): $161.50
Install 32 herbs in 4" pots @ approximately $6.00 EACH (installed price): $192.00
Total Estimated Cost of Plant Material and Installation Labor
$398.50
TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE:
(120% of Estimated Cost of Plant Material and Installation Labor Shown Above) $478.20
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 10
PROJECT'S IMPACT DETERMINATION AND POST -PROJECT FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
The proposed additions to the existing house are located among legally established disturbed, areas that
are currently maintained as lawn and landscaping. As described in detail within this report, the applicant is
proposing to reduce the standard stream buffer with enhancement in order to accommodate the proposed
additions to the existing residence. The compensatory mitigation efforts associated with the proposed
stream buffer reduction with enhancement will significantly increase the ecological functions on the site by
removing all non-native, invasive plant species within the on -site stream buffer and then planting the
remaining buffer areas with dense native vegetation.
Due to the location of the proposed additions to the house and implementation of the proposed temporary
erosion and sediment control measures, no impacts to water quality are expected. Planting additional
native tees, shrubs and herbs among the mitigation areas will further increase the ability of the riparian
corridor associated with the off -site stream to perform important water -holding capacity and hydrologic
control. and filtration functions. The wildlife habitat functions on -site will also be significantly improved
through implementation of the proposed mitigation plantings. The mitigation proposal to remove all non-
native, invasive vegetation on the project s.1te and plant dense native vegetation will significantly increase
the vegetative species quantity and diversity. The proposed mitigation plan will provide significantly higher
wildlife habitat functions -for many terrestrial wildlife species as the planted vegetation matures, especially
when compared to the vegetative condition of the proposed reduction area (lawn).
Based on the detailed site evaluation and review of the proposed project on the subject property, no
significant adverse impacts are expected to occur among the stream buffer as a result of this project if the
compensatory mitigation efforts are implemented as stated in this plan. Although impacts within the
standard stream buffer are required to accommodate the proposed additions, no net loss of ecological
functions is expected to occur. The applicant's. development proposal has been specifically designed for
the proposed development components to occur within the footprint of the existing disturbed areas (lawn)
and as far away from the off -site stream as pracfical in order to avoid impacts to native vegetation and
native soils wherever possible. All assessed ecological functions will be increased through implementation
of the proposed project when combined with the proposed stream buffer enhancement described in this
report. Based on the information contained in this report, it is the professional opinion of Wetlands &
Wildlife, Inc. that the prop osed project will result in an increase (lift) in ecological functions provided by the
on -site stream buffer.
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT
This Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan is supplied to the City of Edmonds on behalf of Jeff
and Maureen Lewis as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat
conservation areas regulated by the City of Edmonds exist on the site, to determine the extent of Critical
Area impacts, and to provide mitigation for potential impacts.- This report is intended to provide information
deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. Wetlands &
Wildlife, Inc. did not provide analysis of other permitting requirements (i.e. structural, drainage,
geotechnical, or engineering) not discussed in this report.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 11
The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the
Puget Sound region. No other representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made concerning the
work or this report. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on
readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions.
If hidden or concealed conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon
those conditions.
The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
upheld professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report
does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, the work
associated with this proposal shall not commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable
agencies.
If any questions arise regarding this review, please contact me directly at (425) 337-6450.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc.
Scott Spooner
Owner / Principal Wetland & Wildlife Ecologist
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 12
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED
Edmonds Community Development Code: Critical Areas, Title 23. City of Edmonds, Washington.
FPARS. Forest Practices Application Review System. Administered by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources. http://fo�ress.wa.gov/dnr/ar)pl/fpars/viewer.htm.
Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Welland Plant List: 2014
Update Of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.
hftp://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpLstatic/data/docs/lists-2014/Regions/pdf/reg�WMVC-2014vl.pdf.
PHS on the Web. Web -based interactive map administered by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/P��hs/.
SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. http://wdfw.v�a,gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html.
Snohomish County Landscape Imaging Interactive Map (SnoScape). Snohomish County GIS Center in
conjunction with Snohomish County Planning and Development Services.
http://qis.snoco.o�g/mar)s/Snoscape/l`ndex.htm.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDCIEL TR-10-3
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
http://107.20.228.18MetlandsMetlandsMapper.html#.
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of
Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997.
Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.
Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Revision Date: March 24, 2015
Critical Areas ' Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan
Tax Parcel Number 00498400000400 (Incorporated City of Edmonds) Page 13
APPENDIX B
TEST PITS AND SOIL LOGS
BRENT HACKNEY DESIGNS, INC.
N '�r
FOUND K -IL t No)&
-TRIAD 1� 490
LINE 2. 0 NE 0
COR
27o31300412-300
N, I
P
-b
UND RZEBARN
e W
Soil Report For:
Jeffery Lewis
189 10 Soundview Palce
Edmonds, WA 98020
A I
APPROMATE
STEEP SLOPE
LOCATION BASED
IN SURVEY��
1;k,
1"= 30'Scale
PROP * DRY
WELL LOCATIoNs
ot,
kige
11
CONC LID
�OVER VERT
12' CULVEF
Soflloq DescriDtions
SL-I= 0-300 Fill (Dark Brown Sandy Loam w1chunks of brick and concrete)
30-45" Brown Loamy Sand
45-72"+ Gray Fine Sand w1heavy mottfing
Water encountered at 68R
SL-2= 0-7" Dark Brown Sandy Loam
7-26" Brown Loamy Fine Sand
26-440 Gray Fine Sand
44-72"+ Brown Medium Sand
Water encountered at 48"
SoH Logs Recorded On 1114115
IA
AL %
Ar
oo496400CIO0400
46,
r,2-
004984-000-004-00
18910 Soundview Place
Edmonds 98020
Lot 4
Lindsay's Addition
of. VMS"
y
CA ��\
51001
BRE S.H KNEY
............. ..........
LICENSED D IGNER
Soil log location and descriptions as per Brent Hackney Designs, Inc. all remaining features provided by others. I EXPIRES: ��
Fl*p dual survey, Inthnna ir,
,=s not an a takm ftn Brent Hackney DesL%n
P. f=n
f
Date: 1114115 Wdd by dhers ..d dep 0 odentadon -s, Inc.
Lot Size: 13,507 sqft± PurPoses only. It she# not be reffed on 1br anyth0g. P.O. Box 246
Lake Stevens, We. 98258
Reference Tax Account Number 004984-000-004-00 (360) 654-3445
www.brL-nthackneydesigns.com
APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Report
Geotech Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
13256 Northeast 20di Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 747-5618 FAx (425) 747-8561
March 20, 2015
JN 15126
Jeffrey Lewis
18910 Sound View Place, Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study - Proposed House Addition
18910 Sound View Place, Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Lewis: via email
The undersigned associate visited the subject site on March 12, 2015. The purpose of this visit was to
observe the existing site conditions, excavate a shallow hand auger test hole, and to develop opinions
regarding the steep slope and the additions to be made onto the northern and southwestern side of the
residence. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based
on the visual observations made during our site visit and on previous experience with similar projects. Only
shallow subsurface explorations were conducted for our work, no deep explorations were completed.
We were provided with architectural plans by your architect, Rod McNurlen. Based on these plans and
discussions with you, we understand that a new, single -story addition (garage) will be made onto the
northeastern side of the existing residence, that a two story addition and deck will be made onto the
northwestern side of the residence, and that a two story (infill) addition will be made onto the southwestern
corner of the residence. The northern additions will be located 40 to over 50 feet from the steep slope area
and the southwestern addition Will be located about 8 to 10 feet from the edge of the steep slope area. We
generally agree with the steep slope delineafion as indicated on site plan included below. The additions will be
constructed over a shallow crawlspaces or as slab on grades. No changes to the area to the south of the
addition and on the slope are proposed.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised
plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are
warranted.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is bordered to ' the east by Sound View Place and by Frultdale on the Sound Creek to the
south. Neighboring properties are developed With residences. The subject property.is developed with a single*
family residence.
The existing structure consists of one- to two -stories over slab on grade. The existing house is located about
8 to 10 . feet from the steep southern slope that leads down to the creek. No evidence of settlement of the
house foundation on the southern side of the house was observed during our visit. We do not know how deep
the existing foundation extends, but the foundation performance appears good.
The eastern side of the site is level with the street, and the site grades drop gradually along the side of the
house to the west The slope down to the creek runs along the southern property line and along the southern
side of the house. The slope is about 14 feet tall and is inclined at about 77 percent. The slope is very well
vegetated with bushes and undergrowth. We did not observe any indication of slope instability at the site
during our visit. There is no evidence or history of large-scale slope instability at the site.
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on the observations made during our
recent site visit, test pits excavated at the site by others, and on experience gained from other projects in the
site vicinity. During our visit, we excavated one shallow hand auger test hole in the area of the addition near
the slope. The approximate location of the test hole is shown in the site exploration sketch below. HA-1
revealed 1.5 feet of loose, silty sand fill and disturbed soils. Underlying the fill soils to a ' depth of 3 feet, we
observed native, medium -dense, brown, slightly silty sand that was fine- to medium -grained, and moist
[SP/SM]. From 3 feet to 4.5 feet we encountered gray, interbedded silty sand and sands that were medium -
dense to dense, and very moist to wet. From 4.5 feet to the bottom of our hole at 5 feet, we observed dense,
gray sandy silt that was moist. No groundwater was encountered In our exploration.
Jeffrey Lewis
-.March 20, 2015
JN 15126
Page 2
The approximate locations of oUr hand auger and the soil logs (by others) is shown in the sketch below.
1"= 30'Scale
Soft Loa Desqdgions
'TPJAD 144SO
SL-1- 0-3TRIp"em-
vM Sandy Loam 19Munkr oftfek and mnarate)
UKE lir NZ
cm.
30-45' Brown Loamy Send
45-72+ Gmy Fine Sand w1heavy moffling
Mr. MY
Water encountered at 68'
V031.3004=0
%rLL LOCAITM
SL-2- 0-7DarkBrown SendyLogm,
7-261 Brown LOWYFIna Sand
26-44'Gray Pro Sand
44-721+ Brown Medlum Sand
Water
go
r
WRT
encountered at 48'
Soil L098 Recorded On 1114115
A
#1
X-Section
X$
, RIVZ
C) = Approximate Hand Auger Location
X-Section A -A'
F
11,
J1,
T - 71
, ij'.1 J
VA;
L
val t
f7
-41 - �-
+
-I-- T77_1
i f
437.
�1_
4.
f
r
7,-
4.1 f
L
J_
T
f
r
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
Yarch 20, 2015
JN 15126
Page 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our explorations near the steep slope found a minor depth of loose fill soils over medium dense to dense native
sands and dense silts. Based on our explorations and the performance of the structure, it appears that the house
foundations are bearing on the medium -dense to dense, native silty sands. The steep slope is not very tall and we
anticipate that the medium -dense to dense native sands that form the core of the slope are stable (FS static > 1.5 /
FS dynamic > 1.2) at their current inclination. Any slope instability at the site would be related to the loose surficial
soils.
Due to the steep slope, we recommend that all of the new footings on the southern end of the site be excavated to
bear directly on the medium -dense to dense native soils at least 3 feet below the existing grade. The existing
house footprint on the southern side is not being changed, but the deck area on the southwest corner i,s being
enclosed. The setback from the steep slope to the structure in this area is 8 to 10 feet, but given the
recommended footing embedment of 3 feet, the effective slope setback will be at least 11.5 feet (see section
above).. In our opinion, this foundation embedment will be sufficient to protect the structure from potential slope
creep or any anticipated slope instability. The lowered footings would also avoid surcharging the slope with any
loads from the structure. The remaining foundations on the northern end of the addition will be located 40 or more
feet from the slope and may be supported on the medium -dense native soils or on structural fill placed above the
medium -dense native soils.
The onsite slope section to the south of the proposed additions shows no indications of large-scale instability. The
dense native soils will not be subject to any instability and transferring the proximal building loads to the dense
so . ils would avoid adding any building loads to the existing slope soils. Based on these conditions, we do not
anticipate any impact of the proposed development on the slope, and reciprocally, we would not anticipate slope
movements.td impact the proposed additions. The proposed I 0-foot+ effective setback is appropriate for the site
conditions as long as the recommendations in this report are applied.
Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage
to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as
soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slopes, and this may require the off -site
disposal of any surplus soil. Due to its detrimental effects on the slope stability, water from roof, storm water,
surface runoff, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a. suitable
outfall located away from any slopes. The proposed 50-foot setbacks of the infiltration bays is acceptable from a
slope stability standpoint.
In accordance with EMC 23.80.060, provided our geotechnical recommendations are followed, the proposed
house additions:
1 . Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment
conditions;
2. Willnot adversely impact other critical areas;
3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than
predevelopment conditions; and
4.- Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist,
licensed in the state of Washington.
And in accordance with EIVIC 23.80.070
a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond
predevelopment conditions;
b. The development will not decrease slope -stability on adjacent properties; and
c. Such alterations will not adversely Impact other critical areas;
The on -site sand soils are silty, and thus are moisture -sensitive. The silty sand soils can be reused as structural
fill, provided that they are placed in dry weather and are at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The silty sand
soils should not be placed in direct contact with foundation walls.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions
that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is
relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the
downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing catch basins in, and immediately downslope of, the planned work
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
March 20, 2015
JN 15126
Page 4
areas should be protected with pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with
plastic during wet weather. Any disturb ' arice to the existing slope. outside of the building limits may reduce the
stability of the slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas
should be revegetated as soon as possible. Any disturbance of the vegetation on the steep slope should only be
completed In small areas as part of an approved revegetation plan that incorporates drought -tolerant plantings with
deep root systems. No irrigabon systems should be placed on or directly above the steep slope.
We recommend that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be afforded the opportunity to review the development plans, to
amend our recommendations as necessary, and to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are
adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of
work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and
geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be
provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
In accordance with the International Building Code (SBC) (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground
surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type D (Stiff Soil). As required by the SBC, the design criteria
presented in this report consider the effects of a one-in-1 00-years seismic event for slope stability.
The site soils in the area of the proposed structures are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their
dense nature. This statement regarding liquefaction includes the knowledge of the determined peak ground
acceleration noted above.
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
As discussed in the General section, special requirements are in order for the southern foundations of the
addition. The remaining proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous, and/or spread
footings bearing on undisturbed, medium -dense to dense nabve soil, or on structural fill placed above this
competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations
regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural
fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath
foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing
soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of
16 and 24 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or
embedment depths.are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring
concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pso is appropriate for footings supported on
competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-
term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction
settlement of footings founded on competent native soil will be less than one inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may -be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing
soil, or by passive eart ' h pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter
condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded
by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral
loading:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
V'arch 20, 2015
JN 15126
Page 5
Parameter ULTIMATE
Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.45
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
Where: (1) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii)
passive earth pressure Is computed using the
equivalent fluid density.
If the ground in front of a foundation is. loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given -above will not be
appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral
loading, when using the above ultimate values. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level
structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only, or if the foundation is poured directly against the
native cut soils.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop existing non -organic soils, or on structural fill. The
subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement.
Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural- fill. -
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the
new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a capillary break or drainage
layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing
the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10
percent. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the.Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures,
proper*moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood,
carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor
retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a
permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (pso per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. it is possible
that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be
consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed
with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend ' to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no
potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in
accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable
granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor
retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blofter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab.
Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is
controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material. can
become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab
placement, Which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up
through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if thereis
a potential that the protection/blofter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends
that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for
slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete
mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for
Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally
agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and
review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the
protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to
reduce water vapor transmission.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
March 20, 2015
JN 15126
Page 6
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety
regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are
no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing
utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the unsaturated, dense
native soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater
than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontai:Vertical), extending
continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut.
The above recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and
on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and
groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand.
Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of
founda ' tions, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be. protected with plastic sheeting during wet
weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The cut slopes
should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that
sand and/or loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors
should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if
the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive
utilities are located nearby.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (HY). Water should not be allowed to
flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. AJI permanently exposed slopes should be
seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer
of soil.
Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage
to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as
soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slope, and this may require the off -site
disposal of any surplus soil.
GENERAL EARTHINORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other
deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site development. The stripped
or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in
non-structural areas, such as landscape beds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas w " here the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill
should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The
optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The
moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used,
and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We
recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before
another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The
following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffrey Lewis
-March 20, 2015
,.A
JN 15126
Page 7
Beneath footings, 95%
slabs or walkways
Filled slopes and 90%
behind retaining walls I
Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio,
expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density
to the maximum dry density, as determined In
accordance with ASTM Test Designation,l) 1557-91
(Modified Proctor).
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils. Structural fill that
will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5
percent The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES .
In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical
consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that. subsurface conditions
are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction
activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide
suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of
construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor
and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of
the contractor.
During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by
you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still
the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being
followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they
existed at the time of our site visit If the subsurface conditions encountered durin g construction are significantly
different from those anticipated, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and
reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on
construction sites. Such. unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a
properly constructed project.
The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the proposed additions
from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the future behavior of steep slopes and the potential effects of
development on their stability is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly on the past
behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. Landslides and.soil movement can occur on steep slopes before,
during, or after the development of property. At additional cost, we can provide recommendations for reducing the
risk of future movement on the steep,slopes, which could involve regrading the slopes or installing subsurface
drains or costly retaining structures. However, the owner must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope
movement could occur, resulting in possible loss of ground on the site or damage to the onsite facilities and
structures.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jeffrey Lewis, and his representatives for specific
application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials
observed and on previous experience with sites that have similar observed conditions. The conclusions and
recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the
limited scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jeffety Lewis
March 2.0, 2015
JN 15126
Page-. -8
We trust. that this report meets your Immediate needs for the proposed development. Please contact us if we can
be offurther service.
Respectfully SubmItt.ed,,
GEOTECH'CON5ULTANTS,. INC.
James H: Stronge, Jr., PA
-Associate
JHS':.Jhs
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,, INC.
0 i's
APPENDIX D
TLJ F. -1 uk
. /3
No. 2 — Infiltration
Ddejof
fc
Co"d] �ti t
M
ke pecte
Noeded
P06
General
Trash & Debris
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No, 1).
Polsonous/Noxious
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Vegetation
(No. 1).
Contaminants and
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pollution
(No. 1).
Rodent Holes
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1)
Storage Area
Sediment
Water ponding In infiltration pond after
Sediment Is removed
rainfall ceases and appropriate time
and/or facility Is cleaned
allowed for Infiltration.
so that Infiltraton system
works according to
(A percolation test pit or test of facility
design.
Indicates facility Is only working at 90% of
Its designed capabilities. If two Inches or
more sediment Is present, remove).
Filter Bags (if
Filled with
Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2
Filter bag is replaced or
applicable)
Sediment and
full.
system Is redesigned.
Debris
Rock Filters
Sediment and
By visual Inspection, little or no water flows
Gravel In rock filter Is
Debris
through filter during heavy rain storms.
!eplaced.
Side Slopes of
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pond
.(No. 1).
Emergency
Tree Growth
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1).
and Berms over 4
feet In height.
Piping
See "Detenton Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Emergency
Rock Missing
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Petention Ponds7
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1).
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1),.
Pre -settling
Facility or sump
6" or designed sediment trap depth of
Sediment Is removed.
Ponds and Vaults
filled with Sediment
sediment
I
and/or debris
Febfuaiy 2005 Volume V — Runoff 'Treatment BMPs 4-33
View of the existing SIFIR as seen from Sound View Place.
View of the frontaae road as seen from the existinq qaraqe.
Oil --S-
a
U,
64 M.,
A-Ki
z
Z
View of the landscape conditions on the northeast side of the existing SFR.
40'
,Y,w
"00
.7.
0 a
14 7.
tIzzATM
i, r f I
j 1, _rv, ,,;j
. . . . . . . . . .
Nkg
IN
-1,9W 7