The URL can be used to link to this page

209 CASPERS ST.PDF14188 209 CASPERS ST NOD Nov 09 2n,165 IVY r"' Washington Tree Experts 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 wtetree�bLahooxom Client name: Kurt Campbell Street: 209 Caspers St City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Building permit and existing trees Discussion: Client requested a site visit to identify trees on the property related to a building project. As per the city of Edmonds requirements a site plan was drawn and a hazard tree evaluation form was provided for each tree in question. Procedure: To evaluate and to prepare the report we drew upon our 15 plus years of experience in the field and our formal education in Forestry and Horticulture. We also followed the protocol of the international Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for hazardous tree assessment while looking at the overall health of the tree and site conditions. Prepared by �enniler We Certified Arborist #PN6209A Waiver of Liability This information represents the tree health assessment at this point in time. My findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they Predictions of future event. Information contained in this report covers onty those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time Of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. Washington Tree Experts,--,,--__,.,,,,: 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 UV 09 ZU111145 CY1 206-362-3380 wtetree@vahoo.com Client name: Kurt Campbell Street: 209 Caspers St City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Building permit and existing trees Discussion: Client requested a site visit to identify trees on the property related to a building project. As per the city of Edmonds requirements a site plan was drawn and a hazard tree evaluation form was provided for each tree in question. Procedure: To evaluate and to prepare the report we drew upon our 15 plus years of experience in the field and our formal education in Forestry and Horticulture. We also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for hazardous tree assessment while looking at the overall health of the tree and site conditions. Prepared by Jennifer WeTs Certified Arborist #PN6209A Waiver of Liability This information represents the tree health assessment at this point in time. my findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future event. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing; or coring. IWAVashington Tree Experts 9792) Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020-5940 Vrtov C9 2/1`1]��5 206-362-3380 425-771-4430 wash i ngtontreeexperts. net wtetree@yahoo.com FED 1D # 27-2358696 l)RT ff 60?-PQ7-4q! t,) nnn nnn I TARTI T-rVrr)X/PDAr-P Propsal Submitted To: Estimator Estimate Date Esstii ate time Reference # Kurt Campbell 209 Caspers St Edmonds, WA 98020 LES 15-1140 BID: We hereby propose to furnish material and labor to complete the work outlined here. Price subject to sales tax Phone 206-349-8310 Added Info Email kurtc@campbellnelson.com Trees to be removed as part ofconsiruculion project see attached photos. Proposed construction is in tree location or falls within the critical root zone of the below mentioned trees. 2 Doug Fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii) I at 32" dbh and I at 46" dbh 5 Blue Port Orford Cedar trees (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Glauca') varying dbh from 11 "-22" V Nhite P-Ine (Pinus; strobus) 40" dbyl-L ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL: We accept all major credit cards CUSTOMERS SIGNATURE UPON ACCEPTANCE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE The above prices plus sales tax specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined below. TERMS: PAYMENT DUE UPON JOB COMPLETION. IF BALANCE IS NOT PAID WITHIN 15 DAYS OF JOB COMPLETION OR RECEIPT OF INVOICE THERE WILL BE A LATE CHARGE OF 55% APPLIED EVERY 31) DAYS. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delay. beyond our control. Our workers are fully covered by Workman Compensation Insurance, Necessary permits are property owner's responsibility, NOTE: A 24 HOUR CANCELIATION NOTICE IS REQUIRED OR 25% OF THE APPROVED JOB WILL BE BILLED AND DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE AGREED UPON SCHEDULED JOB DATE. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: CCLS12f.,E S S Map/Locafion: Owner: public private unknown other Date: q 1 U4 Inspector: Jenr�, 4;?,v V\IeLtS PN Ul-OctA Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERIMCS Tree t A Species. LA rA f�- V- u�a C) sh'Li q Lp # of trunks: -3 Ight 1 , OBH: . He 010 Spread: 15 Form: 0 generally symmetric ).qminor asymmetry 0 major asymmetry HAZARD RATING' 21 141 14 Failure + Size + Target Potential of part Rating Hazard Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree 0 slump sprout 0 stag -headed NOV 0 9 2S1.57 Crown class: 0 dominant �Lco-dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown ratio: % Age class. 0 young 0 semi -mature Xmature 0 over-maturelsenescent Pruninghistory: Ocrowncleaned 0 excessively thinned Otopped *rownralsed Opollarded Ocrovinreduced 0 flush cuts cabled/braced C3 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: M I fk Special Value: El specimen 0 heritagelhistoric 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen 0 shade *digenous 171 protected by gov. agency TEE HEALTH Foliage color &iormal 0 chlorotic C3 necrotic Epicormics? Y Growth obstructions: Foliagedenstty: 14normai osparse Leaf size: 0 normal El small 0 stakes 0 wireMes 0 signs 0 cables k-% Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent laverage 0 poor Twig Oleback? Y 0 curb/pavemerit 0 guards Woundwood development: 0 excellent b(average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent Vaverage 0 fair El poor Major pests/dIseases. WE C(MOMONS . Site Character Xresidence Landscape type: 0 parlovay Irrigation: Y none Recent site dIsturbance? • dripline paved: • dripline w/ fill soil: El commercial n industrial 11 park 0 open space 0 natural 13 woodlan&orest ID raised bed 0 container 0 mound 0 lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break 0 adequate 0 inadequate C) excessive 0 trunk wettled Y 8 0 construction 171 soil disturbance 0 grade change 0% 10-25% 25-5(Pl. (� 75-100% IWO 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% 11 line clearing 13 site clearing Pavement lifted? Y N % dripline grade lowered: 00/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-1000/6 Soil problems: 11 drainage 0 shiallow )� compacted C1 droughty 0 saline 0 alkalino 0 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail r] clay 0 expansive 0 slope -0 aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-of-sight Oview Doverheadlines El underground utilities 0traffic Dadjaceniveg, 0_ Exposurelowind: *ingletree Elbelowcanopy Dabovecanopy Orecentlyexposed 0 windward, canopy edge C3 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence of snowfice storms 0 never �kseldom E3 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: *building '�parking Eltraffic Opedestrian Elrecreation Olandscape Dhardsc;ipe 0smallfeatures Outilitylines Can target he moved? Y R Can use be restricted? Y ON Occupancy: 13 occasional use 0 intermittent use 0 frequent use 4 constant use The Intemadonall Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. NOV 09 233 T TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS.' Suspect mot rot Y 'i) Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y @ to: Exposed roots: 0 severe 0 moderate �4 low Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate 14low Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y When: Restricted mot area: 11 severe '11411moderate D low Potential for root failure: 0 severe *moderate 17 low LEAN., - deg. from vertical 13 natural 0 unnatural El self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in plans of lean: Y Roots broken Y No Soil cracking: Y @ Compounding factors: Lean severitf. 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS.* Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poortaper Bow, sweep ................................. Codominanistforks (Y'N Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Woundstseam Decay Gavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/Gracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borersftermites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: tyvxnK ak- 5014 Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual - biannual - other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + larget Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) 112- Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use', H + 3 - frequent use: 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: D remove defective part 0 reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy D crown reduce 0 restructure 0 shape Cable/Brace: lospectfurther Crootcrown Odecay 13aeriall 3monitor Removetree: Y N Replace? Y N Move target: Y 6 Other Effect on adjacent trew. 0 none Ei- evaluate Notificallon: Downer Omanager )kgoveming agency Date: COMMENTS m 4 116 A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD E VA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: Q—C)q co'sper's S� Map/Location: , - Owner public private unknown other Date: Ot I Inspector: )enyl% �� N ttl S PN Va)q A - Date of Iasi inspection: TREE CHARACTERIS71CS HAZARD RATING: '& + -�) Failure + Size Potential of part + Ll = + Target = Rating Hazard Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead free )�\ _1_r Tree Species: 00" �71 iir / J 7 7� 7, DOW # of trunks: I Height SOD Spread: I VIN 9 2"J 15 Form: 0 generally symmetric )6, minor asymmetry Omajorasymmetry 0slumpsprout 0 sUg-headed Crown class: )( dominant 0 co -dominant [I intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown ratio: % Ageclasr. Oyoung *semi -mature 0 mature 0 over-maturetsenescent Pruning history: 0 crown cWned 0 excessively thinned CJ topped Ycrown raised 0 pollarded 0 crovin reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced C3 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 0 specimen 0 heritage/historic 11 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen 0 shade 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency THE HEALTH Foliage color 0 normal *hlorotic 0 necrotic Epicormics? Y Foliage density: 0 normal rAsparse Leaf size: o normal �Ksmali Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent 0 average koor Tvdg Ifieback? (2) N Woundwood development D excellent $ average 0 poor 0 none Vigor class: 0 excellent EJ average 0 fair "Pq poor Major pests/dIseases. Growth obstructions: 0 stakes 0 wiretties 0 signs 0 curb/pavement 0 guards 0 other __ 0 cables SITE CONDMONS Site Character �residence 0 commercial 0 industrial 0 park 0 open space 0 natural 0 woodland\forest Landscape type: 0 parkway 0 raised bed 11 container 0 mound 0 lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: Anone 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk welded Recent site disturbance? Y @ 0 construction 0 soil disturbance 0 grade change D line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50 75 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: "D 10-25% 25-50 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: F1 drainage 0 shallow Compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline C3 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail FIclay Dexpansive Dslope-0 aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-of-sight Oview Doverheadlines 0 underground utilities Otraffic Dadjaceniveg. 0— Exposurelowind: *ingletree Obelowcanopy Oabovecanopy Orecentlyexposed 0 windward, canopy edge Dare'a prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: S Occurrence of snowfice storms M never Xseldom 0 regularly TARGET LiseUnderTree: )6ilding �Varking Eltraffic Opedestrian Drecreation Olandscape Clhardscape Osmallfeatures Outilitylines Can target he moved? Y & Can use be restricted? Y a Occupancy: FJ occasional use D intermittent use C-) frequent use konstaril use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. JIM 0 9 I L TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS., Suspect mot rot Y N Mushroorn/conk/bracket present: Y @ 10: b Exposed roots: 0 severe � moderate 11 low Undermined: D severe 4 moderate 0 low Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected: _9'6 Buttress wounded: Y Regricled mot area: El severe *Moderate Ellow Potential for root failure: 0 severe $"Moderate LEAN. - deg. from vertical 11 natural 0 unnatural D self -corrected Soil heaving: Y 9 When: 0 low Decay in plane of lean: Y @ Roots broken Y 0 Soil cracking: Y @ Compounding factors: Lean severity. 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS., Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Godominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Woundstseam Decay cavity Conks/mushmomslbracket Bleedino/saD flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holetbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borersltermitestants Cankerstoalls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: 0-VA (�))N Failure potential: I - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual biannual - other Size of part: 1 - <V (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cmY 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; "2, + '!> + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 0 reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin D raise canopy 0 crown reduce 0 restructure El shape Cable/Brace., Inspect further 01 root crown 0 decay 0 aerial 3 monitor Remove tree: Y N Replace? Y N Movetargel: Y IJ2) Other Eff ect on adjacent trees: 0 none 13 evaluate Notificatlow. 0 oviner 0 manager IX(loverning agency Date: C5 COMMENTS Cill' woe, 1V .12�. as i6, 40 01 101i A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: ?'601 Map/Locatlon: Owner public - privat unknown other 9' Date: Ot 1TA lk":� inspector: Date of last inspection: illlq4c I., M 111W iEl:if HAZARD RATING: _3 + q + jA Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead free Tree k G Species: WMe V I YU 2'1 VAVAS S+Y-010146 OBH: 9 0 # of trunks: Height Spread: wv 09 Form: neneraltv svmmetric M minor asvmmetry 0 major a mmetry 171 stumn sarout El stan-headed Crown class: X dominant 0 co -dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed Live crown ratio. 10 0 % Age class- F1 young 0 semi -mature 0 mature 0 over-mature/senescent Pruning history: Y crown cleaned )Q excessively thinned '4 topped �dcrown raised 0 pollarded El crown reduced 0 flush cuts C1 cabledibraced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 0 specimen C1 heritage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen n shade 0 indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Follagecolor *ormal Ochlorotic Onecrotic EpIcormics? Y G Growth obstructions: Foliage density: )knormal 0 sparse Leaf size: $ normal 0 small 0 stakes 0 wirettles 0 signs 0 cables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent 'A average 0 poor Twig oieback? Y N 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development 0 excellent Itaverage 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: r excellent laverage 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/diseases.- SITE CONOITIONS Site Character )kresidence 0 commercial 0 industrial 0 park 0 open space 0 natural 0 WoodlandMorest Landscape type: n paftay 0 raised bed El container 0 mound 'XIawn 0 shrub border I-] wind break Irrigation: % none C3 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive I-] trunk wetted Recent site disturbance? Y construction El soil disturbance 0 grade change EJ line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 13 history of fail FJ clay D expansive 0 slope - 0 aspect: Obstructions: 0 lights 0 signage El line -of -sight 0 view 0 overhead lines 11 underground utilities C1 traffic 11 adjacent veg. 0 Exposuretowind: Xsingletree Dbelowcanopy nabovecanopy Orecently"posed 0 windward, canopy edge Oarea prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: 5 Occurrence of snowfice storms 0 never X seldom 0 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: building 0 parking D traffic 0 pedestrian El recreation L landscape E3 hardscape 0 small features 0 utility lines Can target be moved? Y Can use be restricted? Y N 0 Occupancy: 0 occasional use 0 intermittent use 0 frequent use Y constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. 0 V '" 1�- 09 CIJA TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS. - Suspect mot rot Y 0 Mushroom/conk/bracket present Y ID: Exposed mots: 0 severe 0 moderate )kiow undermined: 0 severe M moderate �(Iow Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y 0 When: Restricted mot area: 11 severe 1-1 moderate 1*ow Potential for root failure: 0 severe *oderate 0 low LEAN. - deg. from vertical 0 natural 0 unnatural 11 self -corrected Sail heaving: Y Decay in plans of lean: Y b Roots broken Y & Soil cracking: Y & Compounding factors: Lean severity: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFEC7S.* Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOTCROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Woundstseam Decay cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Looselcracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termiteslants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likelyto fall: :]rVV_nV_ 0��- cavli-,4 Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual - biannual - other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: I - occasional use; 2 intermittent use-, + + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 0reduce end weight Ocrownclean Othin Draisecanopy Elcrownreduce Drestructure nshape Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther Crootcrown Odecay Daerial Omonitor Removelree: Y N Replace? Y N Movelarget: Y N Other Effect on adjacent from 0 none 0 evaluate Notificallon: F-1 owner F1 manager Ygoverning agency Date: COMMENTS st-e ph-cyi'0 0�- Ca-v&\4 10c-ck-�-e6 C)Y-\ tr'uvlt� YA- A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: ICA CO-5 Map/Localion: Owner: public private known. other Date:'5'i 1-1-4 It S Inspector: PMUZ00A Date of Iasi inspection: HAZARD RATING: I + I + LA = Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree I ncc 111011111111,M1110 I CK110 I IUD Treet 90 1 species. INVU 20�-)r CKEDY-6 CeLICLY (C_YW1W_V&eC�JP0Lr �QLXNS0Y-%%aMA6^ OBH: #of trunks: Height Spread: Form: 0 generally symmetric Aminor asymmetry Omajorasymmetry 0stumpsprout 0 stag -headed Crown class: 0 dominant )4co-dominant 0 intermediate D suppressed 2015 Live crown ratio. tO % Ageclasv. Oyoung lAsemi-mature Ornature Oover-maturetsenescent Gril. PruninghlstofT. 13crowncleaned 0 excessively thinned �topped Kcrownraised Elpollarded Ocrownreduced 0 flush EW ff d"ble W&d C3 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: SpecialValue: Ospecimen Oheritage/historic Owildlife Ounusual Ostreettree Oscreen Oshade indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH rollagecolor Inormal Ochlorotic Onecrotic Epicormics? Y Growth Obstructions: Foliage density: \6normal 0 sparse Leaf size: 0 normal El small 0 stakes 0 wire/des 0 signs El cables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent laverage 0 poor Twig Oleback? Y G 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development 0 excellent b(average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent rAaverage 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character kesidence 0 commercial 0 industrial 0park Dopenspace El natural 0 woodlandVorest Landscape type: n parkway 0 raised bed El container 0 mound )klawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: tknone 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk welded Recent site disturbance? Y (9 0 construction 0 sail disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 00/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: 11 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume 171 disease center C3 history of fail EJ clay 0 expansive 0 slope — 11 aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-of-sight Oview Doverheadlines 0 underground utilities Otraffic Eladjaceniveg. 0— Exposurelowind: )�singletree Obelowcanopy Clabovecanopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge Care'a prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: 5 - Occurrence of snowfice storms Onever Aseldom Oregularly TARGET Use Under Tree: buildintO parking Dtraffic L-Jpedestnr*n Drecreation ?Klandscape 13hardscape Osmallfeatures Llutilitylines N Can target be moved? Can use be restrictai N Occupancy: n occasional use 0 intermittent use 0 frequent use I constant use The Intemardonal Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. A TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS.' Suspect root rot: Y @ Mushroonvconk/bracket present Y ID: Exposed roots: 0 severe �kmoderate 0 low undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate )6w Root pruned: — distance from trunk Root area affected: —% Buttress wounded: Y (P When: Restricted mot area: 11 severe El moderate L\Ajow Potential for root failure: 0 severe D moderate Xiow 11T� 09 2Z165 LEAIN. — deg. from vertical ED natural 0 unnatural M self -corrected $oil heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y Roots broken Y 0 Soll cracking: Y ID Compounding factors: Lean severity. 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow,sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hanaers Girdling Woundstseam Decay cavity Conksimushmoms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loosetcracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likelyto fall: rywkkk�vu �r Failure potential: I - low, 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Inspection period: — annual biannual other 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - Ar (75 cm) Failure Potential + Size ot Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; I+ '2,,- + — LA = 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part D reduce end weight I-] crown clean 0 thin El raise canopy 0 crown reduce D restructure 0 shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further C root crown 0 decay ED aerial 0 monitor Remove tree: Y N Replace? Y N Move target: Y E) Other Effect an adjacent trew. D none Devaluate Notification: 0 owner 0 manager �9oveming agency Date: 01 COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE H)W RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: — U01 casptrs C'-'-;' HAZARD RATING: Map/Location: Owner public private unknown — other Date: 67 1-2-4 It 5 Inspector: I Date of last inspection: Failure + Size + -i-rg—et Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree TREE CHARACTERISTICS TreetYCZ species. 2D(d- Oil'b"(36 OBH: # of trunks: I Height 85 spread: K"! C 9 2915 Form: 0 generally symmetric '%minor asymmetry 171 major asymmetry 0 slump sprout 171 stzg-headed Crown class: K dominant 0 co -dominant 1-1 intermediate 0 suppressed CYR. Livectownratio: SO % Ageclass: Oyoung Xsemi-mature Ornature Dover-mature/senescent (11V Pruning history: 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned 0 topped 0 crown raised EJ pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: special Value: 1-1 specimen 0 hedtage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen 171 shade th indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Follagecolor ?Znormal Clchlorotic Onecrotic Epitormics? YCD Growth obdructions: Foliage density: 4normal 0 sparse Leaf size: 0 normal 0 small 0 stakes 0 wire/ties 0 signs 13 cables Annual shoot growth: 0 excellent X-average o poor Twig Dieback? Y 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: C-1 excellent ;-<-"'average 0 poor 0 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent �(average 0 fair El poor Major pests/diseases. SITF WIN1117111INS SileCharacter Aresidence 0 commercial 0 industrial El park 0 open space 0 natural f -1 woodland\f orest Landscapetype: 0 parkway 0 raised bed 0 container 0 mound )4 lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: *none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk wettled Recent she disturbance? Y C) Oconstruction 0 soil disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing D site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ I ill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: El drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume El disease center 0 history of fail n clay 0 expansive 0 slope — o aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-of-sight Oview 0overheadlines; 0 underground utilities Otraffic Dadjacentveg. 0— Exposure to wind: 0 single tree belowcanopy Dabovecanopy Orecentlyexposed 0 windward, canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind dimctioi — Occurrence of snowfice storms 171 never 0 seldom 0 regularly TARGET UseUnderTiree: Obuilding Elparking 0traffic Opedestrian Crecreation Klandscape 13hardscape 13smallfeatures Outilitylines; Can target be moved? Y N Canusebarestricied? Y N Occupancy: X, occasional use C) intermittent use 11 frequent use D constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. 4 '-A' TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect mot rot Y MushroonVconk/bracket present: Y �) 10: Exposed roots: 0 severe 0 moderate Xfow Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate *w Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected: -1% Buttress wounded: Y When: Restricted mot area: 0 severe n moderate 1*10w Potential for root failure: 0 severe 0 moderate )14 low LEAN., - deg. from vertical 0 natural 0 unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plans of lean: Y 0 Roots broken Y (ZI Soil cracking: Y 9 Compounding factors: Lean severity: 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRMICHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/mushmoms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bore rs/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: Failure potential-. I - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual - biannual - other Size of part: 1 - <6' (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-3V (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) brget rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part C reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce 0 f estructure 0 shape Cablel'Brace: Inspectfurther Crootcrown Odecay Flaerial 3monitor Removelree: Y N Replace? Y N Movetarget: Y N Other Effect an adjacent trew 0 none El evaluate 0� Notification: 10 owner 0 manager �goveming agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HMA RD E VA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: 2-0 01 as ms Map/Location: Owner public private unknown other ptlZrok/ )d ' I% Date:01 12-141 USinspector U I %I M It 11 ?N 1JUg A Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS .& Tree* ?01? species. sm E r I IV It ' / — ' I DOW - 1-1 0 of trunkir. Height S'5;7 - Spread: 11 Form: 0 generally symmetric Xminor asymmetry 13 major asymmetry HAZARD RATING: I+ '2- + Failure + Size +--ir—get Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating — Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree 0 slump sprout El stag -headed WON 0 9 2015 Crown elm: X dominant 0 co -dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed S-i:�Vm-s CTR. Live crown ratio. % Alieclass. 0young Xsemi-mature 0 mature 0 over-maturetsenewent CI-N ON: Pruning history: 0 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned Xtopped 0 crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced C] none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 0 specimen 0 heritagethistoric 0 wildlife 0 unusual 0 street tree 0 screen 0 shade i*indigenous 11 protected by gov. agency li'11*41.15.1111K Follagecolor Vnormal Ochlorotic Onecrotic EpitormIcs? Y & Growth obstructions: Foliage density: *ormal 0 sparse Leaf size: 0 normal 0 small 0 stakes 0 wirettles 0 signs 0 cables Annual shoot gmwth. Y excellent 0 average 0 poor Twig Dleback? Y 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development ED excellent $,gverage 0 poor C3 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent )kaverage 0 fair C1 poor Major pests/diseases* — SITE CONDITIONS Site Character 0 residence 0 commercial 0 industrial EJpark Oopenspace El natural D woodlandVorest Landscape type: 0 parkway 0 raised bed 0 container 0 mound )� lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: ).4none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk welded Recent site distuitiance? Y (9 0 construction n soil disturbance E) grade change 0 line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 00/0 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 00/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-500/6 50-75% 75-1000/6 Soil problems: El drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume C3 disease center 13 history of fail Dclay Clexpansive Oslope-0 aspect: Obstiructions: Olights Osignage Oline-ol-sight Oview Eloverheadlines 0 underground utilities Otraffic Eladjacentvag. 0— Exposure to wind: 0 single tree *elow canopy 0 above canopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge 0 area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: G- Occurrence of snow/ice storms 171 never Aseldom 0 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: FJ building 0 parking 0 traffic 0 pedestrian D recreation )k!andscape 0 hardscape 0 small features 0 utility lines Can target be moved? Y N Can use be restricted? Y N occupancy: "*occasional use 11 intermittent use 0 frequent use 13 constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect mot rot: Y ON Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y D ID: C q Exposed roots. 0 severe 13 moderate *ow Undermined: 13- severe 11 moderate Ilow i:(,-; ^ Root pruned: — distance from trunk Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y & When. Gi Restricted mot area: 11 severe El moderate Wlow Potential far mot failure: 0 severe 0 moderate *ow LEO. — deg. from vertical El natural C3 unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane of loan: Y Roots broken Y & Soil cracldng: Y 1@ Compounding factors: Lean severltlr 0 severe 0 moderate El low CROWN DEFECTS., Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments -C, Included bark ry� Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/searn Decay Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket BleedinU/SaD flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holetbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/buris Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: Muk r)Z.15 T—D Failure potential: I - low, 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 6-18" (15-45 cm); Inspection period: — annual — biannual other 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >V'(75 cm) Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating Target rating: I - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + I/ + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 01 reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce 0 restructure D shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further 0 root crown 0 decay 0 aerial 3 monitor Remove tree: Y N Replace? Y N Movetarget: Y N Other Effect on adjacent troes- 0 none El evaluate Notification: r--1 oviner 0 manager V governing agency Date: COMMENTS 1* 44 aA Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE H)WRD EVALUATION FORM2nd Edition w Sfte/Address: /2-001 CASapfY55 4_E_� Map/Location: Owner public - private unknown - other Date:4nd?AJJS Inspector: , 1e_Y\Y'\*%';eY Nttls Date of last inspection: TREE CHARACTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: I + tz", + Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree k FQ4 Species. 2AVJ ?Qr-i OYVDV—C( Led 0-y- OBH: 0 of trun1w. Height 27-n' Spread: I C) Form: 0 generally symmetric 0 minor asymmetry Omajorasymmetry Ostumpsprout 17-1 stag -headed ��O�j 0 9 Crownclass: )�domirtant D co -dominant D intermediate 0 suppressed CTR' Live crown ratio: -1 Q% Age class. 0 young 0 semi -mature 0 mature 0 over-maturetsenescent G; f'Y Ds Pruning history: EJ crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned *opped 0 crown raised 0 pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: El specimen 0 heritagethistoric 0 wildlife El unusual 1771 street tree 11 screen 0 shade � indigenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Follagecolor )knormal Ochlorotic Onecrotic Epicormits? Y 9 Growth Obstructions: Foliage denstty: V normal Osparse Leaf sIze: EJ normal 0 small 0 stakes 0 wire/ties, 0 signs 0 cables Annual shoot growth: E3 excellent 'Aaverage 0 poor Twig Oleback? Y 0 curb/pavement 0 guards Woundwood development: 0 excellent Xaverage 0 poor C3 none 0 other Vigor class: 0 excellent )(average 0 fair 0 poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character residence 0 commercial 0 industrial El park 11 open space 0 natural El woodland\forest Landscape type: 0 parkway 0 raised bed 0 container 0mound x1awn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: 0 none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y @) 0 construction 0 soil disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 00/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 00/0 10-25% 25-50016 50-75% 75-1000/6 Soil problems: 0 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted C] droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume C1 disease center 0 history of fail 11 clay 10 expansive 0 slope — 0 aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-ol-sight Elview Doverheadlines 0 underground utilities Otraffic Dadjaceniveg. 0— Exposuretowind: 171singtetree Wbelowcanopy Dabovecanopy 0 recently exposed 0 windward, canopy edge 0 are'a prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: Occurrence of snowlice storms C3 never �seldorn C3 regularly TARGET LlseUnderTree: Dbuilding Oparking Eltraffic Opedestrian Drecreation Wandscape Ohardscape Osmallfeatures Elutilitylines Can target be moved? Y N Canuseberestriclad? Y N Occupancy: )6asionaluse Dintermittent use 11 frequent use D constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS. Suspect mot rot Y 1�) mushroom/cank/bracket present Y & to: Exposed roots. 11 severe 0 moderate �_Klow Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate Ylow Root pruned: - distance from trunk Root area affected: 0,16 Buttress wounded: Y 91 Restricted root area: 0 severe n moderate )_41low Potential for root failure: 0 severe 0 moderate LEO., - deg. from vertical 11 natural D unnatural F1 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plane of lean: Y 0 Roots broken Y B Soil cracidng: Y �6 7D when: )k1ow 0 v � ... .. Compounding factors: Lean severitT. 0 severe 0 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracksisplits Hanaers Girdling Woundstseam Decay Cavity Conks/mushmomstbracket Bleeding/sap flow Looselcracked bark Nesting holetbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termiteslants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fall: CanwA Failure potential: I - low� 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual ' biannual _ other Size of part: 1 - <V (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + !2e + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: D remove defective part El reduce end weight 0 crown clean 0 thin 0 raise canopy 0 crown reduce D restructure D shape Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther r1rootcrown Odecay Elaerial 3monitor Removetree: Y N Replace? Y N Movetarget: Y N Other Effect an adjacent trees, 0 none Devaluate Notification: Downer 0manager *overning agency Date: COMMENTS A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE H)W RD EVA L UA TION FORM2nd Edition Site/Address: Map&ocabon: Owner public private own — other Date* .01 -1 ?A ' 6 Inspector: V lOg h Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree I Htt: till11AMR111i I ItKID I 1W Tree#, species. OBH: # of trunks: Hellitt !3 Q Spread: KCIV 09 2'ZZ Form: 0 generally symmetric 0 minor asymmetry YNmajor asymmetry 0 stump sprout 0 stag -headed ULQVE_Wi-��a " i Crown class: A dominant n co -dominant 0 intermediate 0 suppressed C i —i Y S' Live crown ratio: ID % Age class: 0 young 0 semi -mature 0 mature 0 over-mature/senescent Pruning history: 13 crown cleaned 0 excessively thinned *opped 0 crown raised El pollarded 0 crown reduced 0 flush cuts 0 cabled/braced 0 none 0 multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: 0 specimen El heritage/historic 0 wildlife 0 unusual [I street tree 0 screen El shade *digenous 0 protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color )6ormal Foliage density: 14normal 0 chlorotic 0 necrotic Epicarmics? Y N 0 sparse Leaf size: 0 normal 0 small Annual shoot growth. El excellent )-Average 0 poor Twig Ofeback? Y N Woundwood development Vigor class: 0 excellent Major pestsidiseases: SITE CONDITIONS Growth obstructions: El stakes 0 wirettles El signs 0 cables 0 curb/pavement 0 guards 0 excellent )(average 0 poor 0 none 0 other � average 0 fair 0 poor Site Character *esidence 0 commercial 0 industrial [I park El open space 0 natural 0 woodlandVorest Landscape type: 0 parlavay 0 raised bed 0 container 0 mound )� lawn 0 shrub border 0 wind break Irrigation: 0 none 0 adequate 0 inadequate 0 excessive 0 trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y & 0 construction E) soil disturbance 0 grade change 0 line clearing 0 site clearing • dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N • dripline w/ fill soil: 00/0 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 00/0 10-25% 25-5W6 50-75% 75-100% Soil problems: C1 drainage 0 shallow 0 compacted 0 droughty 0 saline 0 alkaline 0 acidic 0 small volume 0 disease center 0 history of fail El clay 0 expansive 0 slope —0 aspect: Obstructions: Olights Osignage Oline-of-sight Oview Ooverheadlines 0 underground utilities OtraffiG Dadjacentveg. 0— Exposuretowind: Osingletree �belowcanopy Oabovecanopy Drecentlyexposed 0 windward, canopy edge 0 are*a prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: 5 — Occurrence of snow/ice storms 0 never Aseldom 0 regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: 0 building 0 parking D traffic EJ pedestrian 0 recreation 0 utility lines Alandscape 0 hardscape 0 small features Can target be moved? Y N Can use be restricted? Y N Occupancy: loccasional use F1 intermittent use 0 frequent use 0 constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. if -'C' NOV 09 2-093 TREE DEFECTS V I V U.- ROUT DEFECTS: suspect mot rot: Y Mushroom/conk/brackel present Y 10: Exposed roots: 0 severe 0 moderate Y'low Undermined: 0 severe 0 moderate �10%v Root primed: - distance from trunk Root area affected: _% Buttress wounded: Y ON When: Restricted mot area: 0 severe 0 moderate )6w Potential for root failure: 0 severe 0 moderate �Jow LEAN. - deg. from vertical El natural 0 unnatural 0 self -corrected Soil heaving: Y Decay in plans of lean: Y Roots broken Y 9 Soil cracking: Y 1� Compounding factors: Lean severitT. 0, severe C1 moderate 0 low CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, rn = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper Bow, sweep Codominants/forks Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hanaers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Gavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding1sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting holetbee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/buris Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree pan most likely to fall: Camel Failure potential: I - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: - annual biannual - other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm): 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - AV'(75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; + + 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: 0 remove defective part 0 reduce end weight Ocrownclean Othin Draisecartopy Ocrownreduce 0 restructure 0 shape Cable/Brace: Inspectfurther Crootcrown Odecay naerial Dmonitor Removetree: Y N Replace? Y N Movelarget: Y N Other Effect an adjacent trees, 0 none Devaluate Notification: Downer Omanager overning agency Date: n COMMENTS toll op Ap kw - I :jr 209 Caspers St - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/place/209+Caspers+St,+Edmonds,+W 1,A--- --- - - C, e3. Street View - Aug 2011 ? 0 J� � , 5 Of I 9/24/2015 2:39 PM #P20 CA File No: Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: a4� 2. Property Tax Account Number: . ;1 ? 02.-� Ob 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): J47 4 'exx) 4. Is this site currently developed? Yyes; _ no.. If yes; how is site developed? -S—/ a P� 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a ve rtical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: A C" ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ;Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway No floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? NO __ Flows are seasonal? — (VVhat time of year? 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? SITE DETERMINATION —STUDY REQUIRED Reviewed WAIVER T STREET FLE Drainage Report fo r LE" i "OV 0 DEVELO , P"It - CYR. "ISS CrI , Kurt & Cari Cambell Proposed Shop Date: November 5, 2015 Site Address: 209 Caspers St. Edmonds, WA 98290 Donna L Breske PE, LLC 6621 Foster Slough Road Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: (425)334-9980 Mobile: 206-715-9582 Email: donnabreske@comeast.net 11-5-15 I j Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................... ........... 1 VicinityMap ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Small Site Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of a Stormwater Site Plan ........................................... 3-4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #2: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan .............................................. 4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #3: Water Pollution Source Control for New Development ................... 4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #4: Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls ............................................. 4 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5: On -Site Stormwater Management ................................................... 4 City of Edmonds Site Classification Worksheets ........................................................................................ 5-7 Appendix A — 2005 DOE Volume V, Chapter 5 Applicable On -Site Storm Water BMP's ........................... 8-18 OVERVIEW CAMBELL SHOP: The project is the construction of a new shop outbuilding on a residential lot located at 209 Caspers Street, Edmonds, WA. The total rooftop area of the shop is 765 sf. Removal of a looped driveway and installation of new driveway pavement on site is also proposed. A house and patio that currently exist on site will remain. A total of 4,114 sf of regulated impervious area is proposed for this project. The site is basically flat with some downward slope to the south. Frontage and access is on Caspers Street. Per the city of Edmonds Stormwater Management (SWM) Drainage System Design, and Erosion & Sediment Control Requirements handout #E72 the project is categorized as Category I Small Site Project. A Permanent Stormwater Control Plan is included within the titled Road and Drainage Plan Sheet. Specific design elements on the plan sheet include a stormwater transition zone per BMP T5.12, a vegetative flow path per BMP T5.12 Figure 5.5 of Volume V, Chapter 5 of the 2005 DOE Storm Water Manual. Also included in the design are 25-ft splash block dispersion flow paths per BMP T5. 10 for rooftop storm water flow dispersion. Minimum Requirements #1 - #5 are addressed within this report. City of Edmonds Site Classification Worksheets are also included in this report. I I PUGET SOUND A iAIVl ISI TE Ow EDMONDS FERRY IERMINALI DALEY I ST clwc CEN7ER WIELD BELL ST MAIN cn WALNUT PUGET DR YOST MEMORIAL PARK VICINI77 MAP N. TS. VICINITY MAP 196TH ST SW 2127H ST SW PREPARED BY, VICINITY MAP KURT & CARI C"BELL DONNA L BRESKE PE, LLC P. 0. BOX 1523 SNOHOMISH, WA 98291 PHONE. (425) 334-9980 ADDRESS. 209 CASPERS STREEr, EDMONDS, WA DonnaBreske0comcast.net I ISSUE DATE: 11-5-15 FIGURE.- 1 of 1 Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement Small Site Reguirements #1-5: Small Site Minimum Requirement #I: Preparation of a Stormwater Site Plan, Steps 1-7 ESWCS Section 5. 1 Step 1: Collect and Analyze Information on Existing Conditions. • A site plan of the existing and proposed features was provided by the client. Information provided includes parcel boundary bearings & distances, existing features including buildings and driveways. • Information viewed on Google Earth is consistent with the site plan provided by the client. 9 The Edmonds GIS information was used to obtain topography on the site. Step 2: Prepared Preliminary Development Layout Professional Engineer, Donna L. Breske, combined the information listed in Step I above to create a Site Plan. Step 3: Perform Off -Site Upstream and Downstream Analysis. Per the City of Edmonds Basin Map, the project is located in the Puget Sound Piped Basin. Upstream Analysis: No significant storn-i drainage enters from upstream to the site. There is no disruption to the upstream condition as a result of this proposed project. Downstream Analysis: Existing storm drainage leaves the site via a looped driveway with two points of egress/ingress to Caspers Street. Stormwater flows enter the gutter line of Caspers Street. The looped driveway will be removed as part of this project and one driveway installed instead. Step 4: Determine Applicable Small Site Minimum Requirements. 0 Minimum Requirements #145 are applicable as follows: The proposed project results 4,114 sf of regulated impervious area. 22,800 sf of site disturbing activity is proposed. Since there is less than 5,000 SF of regulated impervious area, and there is less than I -acre of land disturbing activity, City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement's Category I Small Site Minimum Requirements #1 - #11 apply to this drainage plan. Step 5: Prepare a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan A Permanent Stormwater Control Plan is included within the titled Road and Drainage Plan Sheet. Specific design elements on the plan sheet include transition zone per BMP T5.12, a vegetative flow path per BMP T5.12 Figure 5.5 of Volume V., Chapter 5 of the 2005 DOE Storm Water Manual. Also included in the design are 25-ft splash block dispersion flow paths per BMP T5. 10 and Figure 5.3 for Downspout Splashblock Dispersion. No more than 700 square feet of rooftop imperious area is to be routed to any splash block. The entire rooftop of the proposed shop is 765 square feet and a minimum of two splash blocks must be installed. Step 6: Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The 12 Elements of the SWPP are shown on the TESC and Clearing Plan Sheet. Applicable SWPP elements are referenced in the design. Step 7: Complete the Stormwater Site Plan A Permanent Stormwater Site Plan signed by Donna L. Breske, P.E. is included in the submittalfor this project. LID's as explained n Step 5 are proposed for all new impervious areas on site. Additionally, placement of topsoil per BMP T5. 133 is specified within the vegetative flowpaths. Small Site Minimum Requirement 2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ESWCS 5.2 SWPP elements are included on the TESC and Grading Plan Sheet. Small Site Minimum Requirement 3: Source Control of Pollutants - ESWCS 5.3 Per Section 5.3 of Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement, specific source controls are not required since there is less than 5,000 square feet of PGIS, (pollution generating impervious surface.) However, the LID flow dispersion into a vegetated area, via a transition zone from the paved driveways, provides source control. Small Site Minimum Requirement 4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls - ESWCS 5.4 There are no naturally occurring drainage systems, streams, wetlands or buffers in the area of the proposed project. No natural drainage systems will be altered as a result of this project. Small Site Minimum Requirement 5: On -Site Stormwater Management - ESWCS 5.5 Small Site Minimum Requirement #5 requires that stormwater is infiltrated, retained, or dispersed on -site to the maximum extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts, and to reduce hydrologic disruption to the maximum extent feasible. (This sarne requirement is also found in the 2005 DOE Manual Volume V, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2. In accordance with this requirement, LID techniques are designed for proposed impervious surfaces. El 'Figure -A Determining Applicability of Stormwater Management Code ECDC Chapter 18-30 If any of the descriptions in the Blue Boxes apply to your project or project site, the Stormwater Management Code applies. Does your Project Site require the issuance of a City permit under any of the following: ECDC Title 18 - Engineering Division ECDC Title 19 - Building Division A Stormwater Permit2 No Are you submitting a Subdivision application per ECDC Chapter 20.75? 1 No Does your Project site involve any of the following: 500 square feet or more of land - disturbing activity, new impervious surface, or replaced impervious surface? A utility or other construction project consisting of 500 lineal feet or more of trench excavation? Is located in, adjacent to, or drains into (currently or as a result of the project) a Critical Area or a Critical A ___ In-=_0 I No Stormwater Management requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30 are not applicable to your Project or Site ' Yes Yes Stormwater Management requirements of ECDC Chapter 18.30 are applicable to your Project or Site. Note: The definitions of the terms in italics are found in ECDC Chapter 18.30.0 10 and the Stormwater Code Supplement. This chart provides an initial screening for determining the applicability of ECDC Chapter 18.30. The results from using this chart do not substitute for a determination of applicability by the Public Works Director or Designee per ECDC Chapter 18.30.030 and the relevant portions of the Supplement. 2 If ECDC Chapter 18.30 is applicable to the proposed project and it does not require any other City -issued permit, a Stormwater Permit and associated fees will be required. E72-SWjV—Erosioti—Conit-ol-05.18.15.p(�( Page 3 oJ'12 Figure-B Project Classification If you have determined that the Stormwater Management Code applies to your project (Figure -A), follow the Blue boxes in the chart below to determine the Classification of your project. Does the project involve I - acre or more of land - disturbing activity' 9 Is the project part of a larger common plan of dc velopment or sale where the total disturbed area for the entire plan wi I I total I -acre or more of land -disturbing activity? Does the Project involve one or more of the following: 2,000 square feet (sf) or more of new impervious surface, regulated replaced impervious sur ,face or new plus regulated replaced impervious surface? OR 7,000 sf or more of land -disturbing activity? OR 50 cubic yards or more of either grading, fill, or excavation as defined in Chapter 18.40.000 ECDC? No Minor Site Project: See Stormwater Supplement Chapter 6 for specific requirements Large Site Project: See Stormwater Supplement Yes Chapte 4 for specific 0 requirements. Does the project create or add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface, regulated replaced impervious surface or new plus regulated replaced impervioussur ace? f Oil Convert 3/4 acre or more of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped area OR Through a combination of creating effective impervious surface and converted pervious surfaces, causes an increase of 0. 1 cubic feet per second in the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated using an approved model? No 4 1 ws Category 1 Small Site Project: See Stormwater Supplement Chapter 5 or specific requirements Category 2 Small Site Project: See Storrawater Supplement Chapter 5 for specific requirements Notes: Terms in bold italics are described in the Glossary on pages 10- 11. The definitions of the all terms in italics are found in ECDC Chapter 18.30.0 10 and the Stormwater Code Supplement The Classification flowchart assumes the project in question meets the applicability requirements of ECDC 18.30.030. Land -disturbing Activity: Any activity that results in the movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non -vegetative) or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to grading. filling, excavation, and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and/or road construction. E72-SWM—Erosioti—Conti-ol-05.18.15.pe#' Page 4 of 12 City of Edmonds Vrb Site Classification Worksheet H_ Page 1 of 2 7,. 1 1�41� The project's Site Classification will dictate the specific stormwater management requirements applicable to your site. Completing this worksheet will help determine the amount of regulated impervious surface and whether your project falls into the classification of a Small Site (Category I or Category 2), or a Minor Site. Please reference the Glossm (pp. 10- 11), Figures D and E, (pp. 8-9), and Examples (pp. I 1- 12), to assist with completion of this worksheet. 1) Is Permeable Pavement' Proposed For Use on this Site? F] Yes Rx No Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 5.1 If YES, the subject area is to be considered impervious for initial site classification purposes. Include total permeable pavement area in the calculation of Non -Regulated, Replaced and/or New impervious surface areas in the table below. 2) Determine the Amount and Type of Existing & Proposed Impervious Surface for the Site Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 2 and Fig. C Line 1: Identify the Non -Regulated Impervious Surface Area. Line 2: Identify the Replaced Impervious Surface Area, dividing the total between Exempt and Regulated; either or both may be zero. Note: For project classification purposes, Replaced Impervious may only be considered exempt under certain conditions. Refer to the Glossary and Figure D. Line 3: Identify the New Impervious Surface Area for your prcject. All impervious areas created post -July 7, 1977 or after the date of annexation into the City are regulated & should be included in this total unless they can be categorized separately as a Replaced -Regulated area. Line 4: Enter the sum of the total Replaced -Regulated plus the total New impervious areas. Line 5: Identify the total area currently mitigated by an existing city -approved stormwater management system. Line 6: Enter the sum of the value in Line 4 less the value in Line 5 to identify the total Regulated area in which stormwater controls have not yet been applied. Line 7: Identify the total area proposed to be mitigated through the use of Low Impact Development Techniques. Z, Line 8: Identify the total area proposed to be rnitigated through conventional Stormwater Management Techniques. Z) ** Provide a copy of the following table on the drainage plan sheet for the proposed project ** Line Type Area (square feet) 1. Non -Regulated Exempt Regulated 2. Replaced L782 Sf 0 3. 4 New (Post 1977) 4 Total Regulated Impervious Area Mitigation required if in excess of 2000sf + 15,028 Sf 5. 6. Total Area Mitigated by Existing Stormwater Management System(s) Re gulated A rea Not Yet Mitigated 0 0 7. Area Proposed to be Mitigated by Low Impact Development Techniques 15,0287ST771 8. Area Proposed to be Mitigated through Conventional SWM Techniques I (e.g. porous asphalt, porous concrete, paver blocLs, concrete open celled paving grids, or plastic lattices filled with turf or stone) E72-SIVM—Erosion—Control-05.18.15.doc Page 5 of 12 APPENDIX A: 2005 DOE VOLUME V, CHAPTER S APPLICABLE ON -SITE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BMP"S Chapter 5 - On -Site Stormwater Management Note: Figures 5. 1 through 5.5 are courtesy of King County 5.1 Purpose This Chapter presents the methods for analysis and design of on -site stormwater management Best Management Practices (BMPs). Many of these BMPs, although being used elsewhere, are new locally. Efforts are underway to ftirther develop these "low impact development" concepts in Western Washington. Ecology will update these BMPs as local standards are established. 5.2 Application The On -Site Storrnwater Management BMPs presented in this Chapter have application to treatment situations specified in Volume V, Chapter 3. On -site BMPs focus on minimization of impervious surface area, the use of infiltration, and dispersion through on -site vegetation for stormwater runoff flow control and treatment. Most of the BMPs serve to control runoff flow rate as well as to provide runoff treatment. Non -pollution generating surfaces, such as rooftops and patios, may also use the infiltration BMPs contained in Volume 3, Section 3. 1, which provide flow control only. Pollution -generating surfaces, such as driveways, small parking lots, and landscaping, must use on -site BMPs to provide some water quality treatment. 5.3 Best Management Practices for On -Site Stormwater Management The following On -Site Stormwater Management BMPs are included in this Chapter: Section 5.3.1 - Dispersion and Soil Quality BMPs (Required for Manual Equivalency) BMP T5. 10 Downspout Dispersion BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion BMP T5.13 Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth Section 5.3.2 - Site Design BMPs BMP T5.20 Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP T5.21 Better Site Design BMP T5.30 Full Dispersion February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-1 Projects shall employ these BMPs to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on site to the maximum extent practicable without causin2 floodin2 or erosion imDacts. Sites that can falIv infiltrate (see or are to provide runoff treatment or flow control facilities. Full dispersion credit is limited to sites with a maximum of 10% effective impervious area that is dispersed through 65% of the site maintained in natural vegetation. Impervious surfaces that are not fully dispersed should be partially dispersed to the maximum extent practicable and then hydrologically modeled. If the model predicts that there will be a 0. 1 cfs or greater increase in the I 00-year return frequency flow, or if certain thresholds of impervious surfaces or converted pervious surfaces are exceeded within a threshold discharge area (see Volume 1, Table 2.2), then a flow control facility is required. Also, a treatment facility is required if the thresholds in Table 2.1 of Volume 1 are exceeded. Note: Sections 5.3.3. and 5.3.4. have been deleted. The reader is directed to Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, authored by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension and published by the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. The document is available at the following websites: http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/Publications.htm http://www.pierce.wsu.edu Also, the reader is directed to Appendix C in Volume III of this manual where directions are given concerning flow reduction credits for using low impact development BMP's. 5-2 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 5.3.1 Dispersion and Soil Quality BMPs (Required for Manual Equivalency) The following BMPs pertain to dispersion and soil quality applications. BMP T5.1 0 Downspout Dispersion Purpose and Definition Downspout dispersion BMPs are splashblocks or gravel -filled trenches that serve to spread roof runoff over vegetated pervious areas. Dispersion attenuates peak flows by slowing entry of the runoff into the conveyance system, allows for some infiltration, and provides some water quality benefits. Applications and Limitations Downspout dispersion is required on all subdivision single family lots which meet one of the following criteria: 1. Lots greater than or equal to 22,000 square feet where downspout infiltration is not being provided according to the requirements in Volume 111, Chapter 3. 2. Lots smaller than 22,000 square feet where soils are not suitable for downspout infiltration as determined in Volume 111, Chapter 3 and where the design criteria below can be met. All other projects required to apply Roof Downspout BMPs must provide downspout dispersion if downspout infiltration is not feasible or applicable as determined in Volume 111, Chapter 3, and if the design criteria below can be met. Flow Credit for Roof Downspout Dispersion If roof runoff is dispersed according to the requirements of this section on single-family lots greater than 22,000 square feet, and the vegetative flowpath* is 50 feet or larger through undisturbed native landscape or lawn/landscape area that meets BMP T5.13, the designer may click on the "Credits" button in the WWHM and enter the percent of roof area that is being dispersed. General Design Guidelines Dispersion trenches designed as shown in the Figures 5.1 and 5.2 shall be used for all downspout dispersion applications except where . Vegetativeflow path is measured from the downspout or dispersion system discharge point to the downstream property line, stream, wetland, or other impervious surface. February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-3 splashblocks are allowed below. See Figure 5.3 for a typical splashblock. Splashblocks may be used for downspouts discharging to a vegetated flowpath at least 50 feet in length as measured from the downspout to the downstream property line, structure, sensitive steep slope, stream, wetland, or other impervious surface. Sensitive area buffers may count toward flowpath lengths. The vegetated flowpath must be covered with well -established lawn or pasture, landscaping with well - established groundcover, or native vegetation with natural groundcover. The groundcover shall be dense enough to help disperse and infiltrate flows and to prevent erosion. If the vegetated flowpath (measured as defined above) is less than 25 feet on a subdivision single-family lot, a perforated stub -out connection may be used in lieu of downspout dispersion (See Volume 111, Chapter 3). A perforated stub -out may also be used where implementation of downspout dispersion might cause erosion or flooding problems, either on site or on adjacent lots. This provision might be appropriate, for example, for lots constructed on steep hills where downspout discharge could be cumulative and might pose a potential hazard for lower lying lots, or where dispersed flows could create problems for adjacent offsite lots. This provision does not apply to situations where lots are flat and onsite downspout dispersal would result in saturated yards. Note: For all other types ofprojects, the use of a perforated stub -out in lieu of downspout dispersion shall be as determined by the Local Plan Approval Authority. 5-4 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 a I I I ro of dowspott serves up to 700 St. of roof 50' m in. veg etate d Illow path spash block doonspott extension NTS splash block Figure 5.3 — Typical Downspout Splashblock Dispersion Additional Design Criteriafor Dispersion Trenches A vegetated flowpath of at least 25 feet in length must be maintained between the outlet of the trench and any property line, structure, stream, wetland, or impervious surface. A vegetated flowpath of at least 50 feet in length must be maintained between the outlet of the trench and any steep slope. Sensitive area buffers may count towards flowpath lengths. Trenches serving up to 700 square feet of roof area may be simple 10- foot-long by 2-foot wide gravel filled trenches as shown on Figure 5-1. For roof areas larger than 700 square feet, a dispersion trench with notched grade board as shown in Figure 5-2 may be used as approved by the Local Plan Approval Authority. The total length of this design must provide at least 10 feet of trench per 700 square feet of roof area and not exceed 50 feet. A setback of at least 5 feet must be maintained between any edge of the trench and any structure or property line. * No erosion or flooding of downstream properties may result. February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-7 Runoff discharged towards landslide hazard areas must be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist. The discharge point may not be placed on or above slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist and jurisdiction approval. For sites with septic systems, the discharge point must be downgradient of the drainfield primary and reserve areas. This requirement can be waived by the jurisdiction's permit review staff if site topography will clearly prohibit flows from intersecting the drainfield. Additional Design CriteriaJor Splashblocks In general, if the ground is sloped away from the foundation, and there is adequate vegetation and area for effective dispersion, splashblocks will adequately disperse storm runoff. If the ground is fairly level, if the structure includes a basement, or if foundation drains are proposed, splashblocks with downspout extensions may be a better choice because the discharge point is moved away from the foundation. Downspout extensions can include piping to a splashblock/discharge point a considerable distance from the downspout, as long as the runoff can travel through a well -vegetated area as described below. The following conditions must be met to use splashblocks: A vegetated flowpath of at least 50 feet must be maintained between the discharge point and any property line, structure, steep slope, stream, wetland, lake, or other impervious surface. Sensitive area buffers may count toward flowpath lengths. A maximum of 700 square feet of roof area may drain to each splashblock. A splashblock or a pad of crushed rock (2 feet wide by 3 feet long by 6 inches deep) shall be placed at each downspout discharge point. e No erosion or flooding of downstream properties may result. Runoff discharged towards landslide hazard areas must be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist. Splashblocks may not be placed on or above slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist and approval by the Local Plan Approval Authority. For sites with septic systems, the discharge point must be downslope of the primary and reserve drainfield areas. This requirement can be waived by the Local Plan Approval Authority if site topography clearly prohibits flows from intersecting the drainfield. 5-8 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 4 1 . a BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion Purpose and Definition Sheet flow dispersion is the simplest method of runoff control. This BMP can be used for any impervious or pervious surface that is graded so as to avoid concentrating flows. Because flows are already dispersed as they leave the surface, they need only traverse a narrow band of adjacent vegetation for effective attenuation and treatment. Applications and Limitations Flat or moderately sloping (<15% sloge imervious surfaces such as Rriveways, sport courts, patios, and roots without gutters; slopi—ng creare7 areas that are comprised of bare soil, non-native landscaping, lawn, and/or pasture; or any situation where concentration of flows can be avoided. Design Guidelines • See Figure 5.5 for details for driveways. • A 2-foot-wide transition zone to discourage channeling should be vrovided between the edRe of the drivewav Davernent and the (townsiope vegetation, orunaer miiamg eaves. inismaybean extension of subgrade material (crushed rock), modular pavement, drain rock, or other material acceptable to the Local Plan Approval A vegetated buffer width of 10 feet of vegetation must be provided for ge to 20 feetof width of gavedorimEervious s face. Anadditional5 beet of width must be added t-or each addition 20TE-e-t—or'707 or fraction thereof. A vegetated buffer width of 25 feet of vegetation must be provided for up to 150 feet of contributing cleared area (i.e., bare soil, non-native landscaping, lawn, and/or pasture). Slopes within the 25-foot minimum flowpath through vegetation should be no steeper than 8 percent. If this criterion cannot be met due to site constraints, the 25- foot flowpath length must be increased 1.5 feet for each percent increase in slope above 8%. No erosion or flooding of downstream properties may result. Runoff discharge toward landslide hazard areas must be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified geologist. The discharge point may not be placed on or above slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist and approval by the Local Plan Approval Authority. For sites with septic systems, the discharge point must be downgradient of the drainfield primary and reserve areas. This requirement may be waived by the Local Plan Approval Authority if site topography clearly prohibits flows from intersecting the drainfield. February 2005 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-11 I I , a Flow Credits Where BMPT5.12 is used to disperse runoff into an undisturbed native landscape area or an area that meets BMP T5.13, the impervious area may be modeled as landscaped area. This is done in the WWHM by entering the impervious area into the" landscaped area" field. — --------- Ol 01 Uwalla drain Wz 25' from ROW 0 1 cc 1700 sq. ft rroX betkveen berms d rhfeway slopes i a .......... aw !oward stmet. I 2 MO: `�, ........... .................. ziutn. ........... ... . ..... . ............. ............. in in ................. ... ... ... un, BERM DETAIL Diagonal berm wpatn WRI) 29 PLAN Driveway Dispersion Trench Driveway Slope Varies and Slopes Toward Street ............ ............. ... ... ...... ............ ..... ....... ... . ...... ....... .. _ . ..... .. .......... .......... ..... .......... .......... .. . .... .......... . . :::t:t::H ............... .................. . ...... .......... .. ........... ................. ............ PLAN Sheet Flow Dispersion from a Driveway Flat to Moderately Slopi gDriveways Figure 5.5 — Sheet Flow Dispersion for Driveways 5-12 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 d $ , a BMP T5.13 Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth Purpose and Definition Naturally occurring (undisturbed) soil and vegetation provide important stormwater functions including: water infiltration; nutrient, sediment, and pollutant adsorption; sediment and pollutant biofiltration; water interflow storage and transmission; and pollutant decomposition. These functions are largely lost when development strips away native soil and vegetation and replaces it with minimal topsoil and sod. Not only are these important stormwater functions lost, but such landscapes themselves become pollution- generating pervious surfaces due to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and other landscaping and household/industrial chemicals, the concentration of pet wastes, and pollutants that accompany roadside litter. Establishing soil quality and depth regains greater stormwater functions in the post development landscape, provides increased treatment of pollutants and sediments that result from development and habitation, and minimizes the need for some landscaping chemicals, thus reducing pollution through prevention. Applications and Limitations Establishing a minimum soil quality and depth is not the same as preservation of naturally occurring soil and vegetation. However, establishing a minimum soil quality and depth will provide improved on - site management of stormwater flow and water quality. Soil organic matter can be attained through numerous materials such as compost, composted woody material, biosolids, and forest product residuals. It is important that the materials used to meet the soil quality and depth BMP be appropriate and beneficial to the plant cover to be established. Likewise, it is important that imported topsoils improve soil conditions and do not have an excessive percent of clay fines. Design Guidelines • Soil retention. The duff layer and native topsoil should be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent practicable. In any areas requiring grading remove and stockpile the duff layer and topsoil on site in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas, to be reapplied to other portions of the site where feasible. • Soil quality. All areas subject to clearing and grading that have not been covered by impervious surface, incorporated into a drainage facility or engineered as structural fill or slope shall, at project completion, demonstrate the following: 1. A topsoil layer with a minimum organic matter content of ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-13 4 4 0 6 original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 4 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. 2. Planting beds must be mulched with 2 inches of organic material 3. Quality of compost and other materials used to meet the organic content requirements: a. The organic content for "pre -approved" amendment rates can be met only using compost that meets the definition of "composted materials" in WAC 173-350-220. This code is available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/facilities/350.html The compost must also have an organic matter content of 35% to 65%, and a carbon to nitrogen ratio below 25: 1. The carbon to nitrogen ratio may be as high as 35:1 for plantings composed entirely of plants native to the Puget Sound Lowlands region. b. Calculated amendment rates may be met through use of composted materials as defined above; or other organic materials amended to meet the carbon to nitrogen ratio requirements, and meeting the contaminant standards of Grade A Compost. The resulting soil should be conducive to the type of vegetation to be established. Implementation Options: The soil quality design guidelines listed above can be met by using one of the methods listed below 1. Leave undisturbed native vegetation and soil, and protect from compaction during construction 2. Amend existing site topsoil or subsoil either at default "pre - approved" rates, or at custom calculated rates based on specifiers tests of the soil and amendment 3. Stockpile existing topsoil during grading, and replace it prior to planting. Stockpiled topsoil must also be amended if needed to meet the organic matter or depth requirements, either at a default "pre -approved" rate or at a custom calculated rate. 4. Import topsoil mix of sufficient organic content and depth to meet the requirements. 5-14 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005 More than one method may be used on different portions of the same site. Soil that already meets the depth and organic matter quality standards, and is not compacted, does not need to be amended. PlanningIPermitdnglInspectionIVerification Guidelines & Procedures Local governments are encouraged to adopt guidelines and procedures similar to those recommended in Guidelines and Resources For IMplementing Soil Quali1y and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washinjzton. This document is available at h.ttp://www.soi.Isforsal.m.on.or Maintenance • Soil quality and depth should be established toward the end of construction and once established, should be protected from compaction, such as from large machinery use, and from erosion. • Soil should be planted and mulched after installation. • Plant debris or its equivalent should be left on the soil surface to replenish organic matter. • It should be possible to reduce use of irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. These activities should be adjusted where possible, rather than continuing to implement formerly established practices. Flow Reduction Credits Flow reduction credits can be taken in runoff modeling when BMP T5.13 is used as part of a dispersion design under the conditions described in: BMP T5. 10 Downspout Diversion BMP T5.1 I Concentrated Flow Dispersion BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion Chapter III, Appendix III-C, Section 7.5: Reverse Slope Sidewalks Chapter III, Appendix III-C, Section 7.2.4: Road projects February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 5-15 4 - - -0, a #1 "ical Areas Checki istf&A File No: Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: -2LCI 6+. 2. Property Tax Account Number: ZU103Z 141 (c�'t 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): -37&j &Z8 6�*, FT7 4. Is d-ds site currently developed? — yes; I/ no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 0 — 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: -7S7 Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: K) Z;�- ;Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site conhiins a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? $AE I G�ASOP- �Mtf=rlows are seasonal? — (What time of year? I 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: f-A 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? *Pacp, MY UQU-11R.13D Reviewed bV: .WAIVER. -77,-751 c-, t Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 file. 1 %9V Clot Edmonds Develo)*ip3ervices Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are' or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date City RIWO�-. 1'-7',g (5?, Critical Areas File#: :;;-, oo i G Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00 Date Mailed to Applicant -1 - E5- o I A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, inderrmify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/hedits agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file t�i s application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. L DATE SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTIAGENT", Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have a, zed the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Owner/Applicant: Name Street Address aOvAnf,)D� wyc�l C1 ��026 city State Zip Telephone: V2 S -7-7 e & ZC7 Email address (optional): Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 DATE Applicant Representative: o�At,-� t\AL)F--L-Li�--,-� Name Zorl Street Address F-- b W 0 t,-) D,�:> W A -"I (�6�Z6 City State Zip Telephone:- -5-5 / Email Address (optional): JOVU�M Q. ��oJ L--'Y--07r, C—OM DATQIV PERMIT ADDRFJ&2n0AC_PADcQe_,� 10 LEGAL DESCHWON. NG PERMIT REVIEW - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECK Instruction: r_710-jo-t I tVIV I Check Accuracy of Legal Description Check Against Assessor's Map for Legal Subdivision Does it conform to City Approved Subdivision? Reviewer's Initials 1. This lot included in Subdivision/Plat No.: 2. Site Inspection made on: I , . 1 119.4 3. Ilhat are around water and soil conditions? 4. Sit Drainage Checked? VZ4 17 �4 **' 5. Storm Sewer Availabilitv: NfE�5. -Sht. I of Ng. No - 04 P -, - A 1 roject_CYAr YD Roadside Ditch lk )'Nk tZ _ 6. Grading & Final Contours: " j 7. Septic Tank System Design Approved.!. A - 11 8. Sanitary Sevier Availability 't4L--S Sht f Owc. No.— ` Projectp T-5 9, Side sewer availability: larf"_i iT74 i 9. Sanitary Sewer Connection FeeO ' K10-tJ!a: 10. llater Mains A Fire Hydrants (Indicate Size Main) &�qA#Aj I&* Check Fire Dept.'s Comments 11. Sidewalks: (Si spection shows conditions of sidewalks as follows) M 0 0 12. Curbs: s for safety, location, C b Q rivewa K-heck driveway grade and 13. Underground Hiring: Street Lights: 14. Street Right-of-way A Bldg. setbacks: i Sht. of nfficial Street Map. 15. Existing Utility Easements? KjoQE 16. Access Easements: L K -7-5 17. Site Plan checked for accuracy 18. Special Requirements listed in Memo to Bldg. nept._ 19. Commercial &-Apt. Requirements form completed? 20. Drawings stamped & notations made? 21. All Items filled in on Bldg. Permit Applicati n? 0 22. 23. Bonds posted for site work? Right-of-way Invasion Permit required? � La, COMMENTS: Rev. 7/1/76 APPLICATION for The City of Edmonds SIDDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . .......................................... NEW CONSTRUCTION E] REPAIRS 0 112-08950 OWNER.......... JAM.S.A.....Welle r ....................................... ----------------- CONTRACTOR ................................................................................. ................ PERMIT No . ...................... ADDRESS ...... Z09 ... Cas-per-St. - --------------------------------------------------------------- uj -j LL- Lu Lu c/) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No - ---------------------------------------------- BLOCK No . ............................................ NAMEOF ADDITION ......................................................................................................................................... Dye Tested On Sewer 1972 Approved: DATE................................................ By ............................................ !:krol 320. !. n- tilir; Pot fmt� C.Avtv. 1� -rw v� S-fr- I r -0-0- 09 2GO. 00 S.60 00 14S.00-- SCALE ]"=50- E y \\ 0 1 LEGA L A Lf. Cl A L CA A -r, o, 13, -,(;-w c o K, N E S. CIO' OrN \N Y--� SEC 24 66 OF CLOSUK #P20 City, of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this' t�A is"to' be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Received:- 9. City Receipt #: Critical Areas File #: 1.0 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Aoolicant- A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must'fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please subirdt a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in fitiding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its; heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, inderrinify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/herlits agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLicANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner's Authorization * By MY signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER t DATE. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Owner/AppUcant: 3, Rlku�- Narne�-' Street Address \J rUA CX�MAI,. k J"w4& qe()ao city State Zip Telephone: Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City State Zip Telephone: Email address (optional): - Email Address (optional): - I- -* I -t , . P ? #P20 Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: 12-0c� (�(k!5 wc=� 2. Property Tax Account Number: PqQ�,�2,4(DOZV+60C) 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): t 4. Is this site currently developed? — yes; -2�- no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. I -.% LL CA File No: leDO-+ * 1 .7 -r Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. A Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: What season(s) of the year? Site is in the floodway ' floodplain NQ ;Approx. Depth: - — of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? N 0 Flows are seasonal? — (What time of year? 10. Site is primarily: forested udcl TRL-16 meadow shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is.present on site: For City Staff Use Only 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. SiteisZoned? p-5-11- 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? .4106nMd CQOA CCIAL foc'no, (Ac1k(-*'* -tv �kv (ree�L) e 4. Critical reas mvenZoZ orC.A. in dica Crii ical Area on sit ? �ppr fi �e Tim _ I F Ale-yi .6V - (orrl ou's ( S' �e-wpi 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed bT. Date: to (0 CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: Parcel east of 209 Caspers; St. Tax Acct. Number: 27032400214600 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA-2007-0134 Applicant: Betty Mueller Owner: Betty Mueller CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains and/or is adjacent to critical areas, including a stream, pursuant to Chapters 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify, and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose to submit the entire study with your specific development application. Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas that are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study, and there is an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. Please contact the Planning Division for more information. General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. REPORT REQUIREMENTS — STREAMS A portion of Shell Creek is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject property. • Streams are areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water. Streams need not contain water year-round. • Streams are regulated as types of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. • Streams are classified according to whether or not they run year round and whether or not they support fish populations according to the classification system listed in ECDC 23.90.010.A.l. • The minimum buffer widths for streams vary depending on the type of stream and are listed in ECDC 23.90.040.D.l. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Areas report requirements for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are provided in ECDC 23.90.020.A to C and additional technical information requirements for streams are listed in ECDC 23.90.020.D. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH A STREAM Development proposals that encroach into streams or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed through the approval of certain processes. The width of a stream buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement through the review of a Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan that meets the specific requirements referenced in ECDC 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that a buffer can be reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%. A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to buffer averaging are listed in 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that the buffer width can be reduced at any single location through buffer averaging is 50%. Development proposals that propose encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a Planner for more information. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Name Signatu Date NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 2 PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 11 STREET=FILE I Name: Date: Site Address: cc�, ,, P-� Tax Parcel: Project Description: ),� a- CQ,-� Plan Check M I IS (- L/ Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES / NO) Zoning: F—� — I -)— Map Page: Corner Lot: (YES NO) Flag Lot: &ES)/ NO) Critical Areas Determination#: (IRAg-oIr Study Required Waiver SEPA Determination: J21Exempt El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) 0 Fee 0 Checklist El APO List with notarized form Required Setbacks Street: Side: 9��— Rqw: Actual Setbacks Street: Side: Side: Rear: �� Detached Structures: El Rockeries: 11 Fences/Trellises: El Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: Stairs/Deck: Height Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed: Actual Height: Other Parking Required- Parking Provided: Lot Area: Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Lot Coverage Calculations: L/ A-N .ADU Created: (YES / to') Subdivision: Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / NO) Comments -TIC 4 5ay Plan Review By: r4p- Planning Data Form 07-14-0g.doc �t-r? '. 1891, March 6, 2002 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Ms. Betty Mueller 209 Caspers Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Sight Distance Obstruction on Caspers Stree Dear Ms. Mueller, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Our records indicate that you are the owner of the subject property at 209 Caspers Street. We have received a complaint that your large tree and ivy on your property at the comer of Cary Road and Caspers Street are making it unsafe for drivers on Cary Road to exit safely onto Caspers. City of Edmonds staff has investigated the matter and determined the ivy around the tree in question does, in fact, create a sight distance hazard per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), Street Obstructions, Chapter 9.25 (copy enclosed). In order to reduce the hazard and enhance public safety, the City of Edmonds is requesting that you remove the ivy around the tree to a height of six feet off the ground. The tree itself may also be causing a sight distance problem. The City, however, believes the removal of the ivy will adequately mitigate the sight distance issue, and at this time the City does not desire to impose such an intrusive solution. However, we will re-evaluate this after the ivy has been removed. The City would not be opposed to your comer tree being removed if you deem this a more practical solution. Please complete the trimming by March 20, 2002. Your cooperation in bringing your vegetation into compliance is appreciated. Please feel free to call me with any questions at 425-771-0220, Ext. 1329. Sincerely, SMITH, P.E. Traffic Engineer DCS/cmc Enclosures c: Jason Tourtellot, Code Enforcement Officer David K. Gebert, City Engineer Jim Kammerer, Street Division Manager R:\ENGR\DARRELL\TmfficConcems\Caspm St3-1-2002 sight hweavivsWed August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Jar)an Prop CITY OF EDMONDS AONDS 0-5 2-9-4 L�� NEW ADDITION RETIREMENT ?P:-., 13 -I viz:t i RLE L - ASS118 INFORMATION SHEET ASSET NO. ��9�1 ADDITION TO ASSET NO. DESCRIPTION SERIAL NO. LOCATION DVT. NO I * *PURCHASE ORDER NO PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST *PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COST c---5Z :;,/ e 5� B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. 4�3 ESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY VDEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT 40 G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE �tnp INITIAL DATE a'--1 - VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. ** STREET HLE 0* CITY OF E- ORA ON 200 DAYTON ST. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 * (2CI',) 71". DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M'Irch .1.6, 198�1 Dear Resident: 'HARVE H. HARRISON On February 17, 1981, the Edmonds City COUncil passed Resolution 488 for construction, reconstruction and repair of deteriorated sidewalks. A public hearing will. be hold in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center on April 21, 1981 at 7:30 P.m. You are invited to attend this hearing for discussing construction of now sidowalk abutting YOUr property. The installation of new sidowalks, at the expense of the abutting property owner, is provided by Ci.ty Ordinance, Chapter 7.20 and Revised code of Washington, Chapter 35.68. The. area needing sidewalks ha!-; 1)4�on i-,iarkod adjoining your property. Construction of tho�;(-. si.dewalks MLI-st be completed on or before September 1, I'M]_ In the evont improvements are not completed withill tjj(� al)ov(-,, specif, time, el the City will perform and compj(�t-(, the i"'Provements at.the expense of the abu tting property owner. This action is in response to mrj)y citizen requests and increased pedestri.an traffic j." areas. S i 1) (-- (' r(� 1 Y, 1"M-:1) P. 11FR7J1[;'1RG Director of Public Works C 1% CITY OF EDMONDS.,.40 OP. ENGINEERING DEPA.RTMENF. 00 XT RLE L APPLICAT-ION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (ADIZic:vit to Ccnplete A & B and Submt in DuvZicate) Permit to be issued to: SNO. GO. P 0 For work at: (address or vicinity) C Type of work to be done: QCNAV� Bove (Attach Drawing ��,Iien Anplicable) Time Required -- Start: AZI 1-74 Owner:. U E 3m'Ass M Name 2OC3 C I&I Mailing Address City State Contractor: U . IC) Name 21 0 15 14 \14 Mailin,g Address city State Finish: 12 Telephone Number . I State License Number -177 4 - 2111 Telephone Number INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this applic.ation, 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 applicant or the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including.but not limited to the defense o f any legal I 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 Department. 'Work subject -to inspection and restoration in accordance with City Code. A 24-hour notice is required for inspection by the Engineering Department. Call 775-2 5. Signature: -I ZZ13 /7C. JnWeror Agent Date Tigned DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE (To be completed by Issuing Agency) 141 Permit Issued (DateJ Permit Number Ion -Fee:-. Bond: Time Authorized: E 'GINEEP bATE N S AP111AL LOCATIQ:�J REASON �:Ul T v p a c 'R�� :�, � N-� c-- 7VPC- LO 00TED onvr-N. DATE REC. of MAP POST�ED OLE DEPT. J.j DATE REV N E N IKE R DRAFTSMAN APPROVALS ElTa V,,7-;\17 GRANTOR - DATE GRANTE TRANSF. I JIDATE RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE L�J'ORCt COMPLET BY G. IS t<w W.O. No. ('090(lo"i I SCALE--j"= '02' AS BUILT U.G. FILE No. C-MV9'0CXY,j2W7AL n��InLVC:G ONC:MPT UNZ)QR DIGVRICY 02PA PWOCEDURES, SECTION - @� PARA 0 ITEM!u� DATEMIQ B Y INTERPRETATION REFERMCD TO FOREMAN � —DAT-E----A=BY—� O.H. U.G. COND KV ADD-------CKT FT H REMV-----Cr,T FT ------- —PH NET — CKT FT QA,.. 2," R%-7�P-Q C)N4 ��Ln Gtz�p-u- Pr,>. 2c,' ��Airr AHj) -rnu-wc�� S(o % NODITO -1-0 01W. RUN JC-0' 4%L. W5. -Tp-j. -To B. XNSTALU PC-D. A�=? "S" N� W.C. NO. G eb 0 CpF) I S)-- 61040 Or I c CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525 September 15, 1976 Mr. Leif Larson Edmonds City Engineer Edmonds Civic Center 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Leif: CE I VED -SEP 1 0 IJ16 UQUOS Enclosed please find a Quit Claim Deed and Grant of Easement for the Mueller exchange of properties. The legal description on page two does not appear to be complete and -P may contain a typographical error in the first line. I am referring to the notation Rge 03 Pt-73). The ")" does not seem to belong. (0 Would you please check the legal to make V absolutely sure that it is correct. (f- If the legal description is correct, then you may have the parties execute it and file it in Snohomish County. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Wayne D. Tanaka WDT/dm Enclosure A V Ir 0 9 14 N A4. Ta 'De - m4o aux. e c o w *j Yom. ?- 17 -?4 Z# I 3 1 0 40 Septemher 3, lq76 MEMO TO: MAYOR HARRISON MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: J. HERB GILBO MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, FROM: LEIF R. LARSON CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT:' UTILITY EASEMENT FOR 209 CASPERS STREET EXCHANGE Tile original easement granted by Mr. Gerdon for sanitary sewers under- L.I.D. No. 97 is in error. Subsequently, Dr. Mueller bought*the property and in checking out the easement discovered the discrepancy. In order to have the easement cover the area where the sewers are located, it is necessary that Or. Mueller and City of Edmon.ds ex- change easements. Your authority for the Mayor to execute this exchange is requested. Copies of the old and new easements are attached. LRL: mj r Attachments This corrects legal description on previous easenien*cvWder 0 AIR 1747992 1., 1 1 V Y E A. S E M E ff J' — — — — — — — — — -- 1117 CONS)l DERATION of bendf,its to accrue to the grantors, herein, the unders-igned, * n d hereby grant to U�C7 CITY OF I-I'DI-10,11DS, * Municipal ;i'pe.riiizinont eascme�nL for the in.stallatiofi., operation, and maini.c.nance of ov,,-�r, acta.ss, through aw.-A below Lbe to.11.0-wilicl described property, and Hic, 1-Urthcr right to 170111OVe' t3!'(2C,; ' ID US 11 e S , undergrowth and othc�r obstructions. interfering with the -location, construction and inai.nt-b-nance. of said Litility or utilities, together i-.,ith the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The ea-ein-Int and riglit-of-waty hereby granted is located in thi�� Count iohomir;h, SItate of Washington, and. is niore y c) f " i particularly dc.,_:;cribed, as follows: The 14est 280 ft of the North 1.0 ft of the following described tract: Sec 24, Twp 27,. Rge, 03 Rt-73) Beg SW cor of the NE �-, of the NW 314; th, W 10 ft; th N 145 ft; th 14 115 ft to TOB; th W 3(10 ft; th S'13.5 ft; th W 16 ft th N 330 ft; th E 316 ft; th S 195 ft to TPP,-. The ICJTY ogrc(,s to re -store to substantially LI)e origin.-Il condition �.',uch _iAnt.)_rovoiw_,nts a.-, ar,:� disturbc(-] durinq the const-.ruc- tion, maintniiance and r.cpa_�ir of said utility or uLilitics; provided, the graritor��-,, t.heir hcir:3 or assigns sh ' all not con.sti.uct any porman'ent: stru-_Lyrt� ovcr, upon or within the permanent eascinenL. DATLD This—__ day of STATE-' OF WASI It. NGJ'O! COUNTY OF S1,10110111,Sll) On thi�; day before mr, and to me K-rio,..jn to be. Lhe j.11(tivi.dual de -scribed in and idio exocuted' -the witli.i.ii -in(] fox-egoi.nq and ackno�%Jedgcd t-hat sioncd the :7�lme a,,; 1 19 instrurnen t, free and voluntary ac-L zind deed, for the LISCS 111d purposes Lherein men tioned- I 0#0 EASEMENT 04W IN CONSIDERAT,'ON op OENF.FiT3 TO ACCRUEJO THE GRANVORS'HEREtN SY PEASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ESTASLISHMENT OF A $EWER SYSrEMq THE UN0ZR5JGN:-rUq AND 9 -�;7S %flFE9 HEREBY Grl,V�T T IFY OF EDMIONDS9 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONg AN E A, 3 1- NZ NT 9 FCCT IN QJ0VH. EX7 E ND; NG .-FEE-S ON EITHER SIDE OT* '.-14fF. FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE� FOR TH ' E fNSTALLATPONg OPIZRATIONq ANID MAINYEINIANCE OF A SANOTARY AND/OR-S-TORM SEVICR L5NC OVER, ACROSSp THPOUGH AND BELOW THE t:OL- OWING DESCRIBED PROPERTYp LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF -SNOHOPIISH� STATE OF '%AIAS41NGT.0,�,� The Vlest 280 foot of the Norl'lh 10 foo-i(i of the following described pro-oorty: L.� LIA at the -u-u.�',—.-Ost co�me, of t:-,-c' -'I� I/li C) 0 -r- t-rhanco v. e.q t 10 fe� to tho, Point of Be ginning thence continuf.ng 7* st 155 foot, thonce North 145 fee', thonco V.'C.st 260 fc-ot u 0 -obt, thenco North 320 feet,., thence East thonce "outh 145 fect , thanca+ West I" f 31�feet, thence- 7outh 90 foot� theince Ea-st-115 foot, thonce -outh 240 foot to he Point of Be -inning of Snohomish Couniy2 1*:ashing'u,on* - - records DATED TH'$ DAY or z( 1 7, 7— S� P, W"O I. L) T) A %l A T 9 P. ;'RE E Atli C VOL A(:)* 'A 0 F E At H NO"�AR�' PUBLIC N AND. FOR E S F A I E OF h iNZ 0 A T VOL PA G E (L 0 3 -ZL _.IL�'MELTODY !S 61— 68 5S, ST(I 74-� to .1 134' 0 TZ w /Al to' A, XA A J, 5 . CAI "W ISM 4 51 142 '1 - to -ROE .3 60 6 71 a 35(174�190 0 BROOKMERE 2 13 12 0 DRIV w ui 14 ',VA (3934 0 , 1;! 11 Exi m I . ZI L�< syl ev wor . z 15 �i3 5 4-( ) to" a- LS-15-69 ATEF S-21-70 15' 0 CASPERS, _��) 1 66 IJT,(IZ2 a r0320) sl—, A N S T (2',' 9 b 711 ) 10' S5,0 0 G7 cLS 1) 10' 3 51 -5 L 7 3 8 5 5 0) -S r ---S � I - 7 4 - 7 > 9 3� 16 !SXITCIA, OF MUIrLLWX CASEAL991 Cc a Itwcour 10 &J I 6 0 .r DIA *A I I DATE: August 24, 1976 MEMO TO: J. Herb Gilbo, Mayor'.s Administrative Assistant FROM: Leif R. Lars'on. City Engineer SUBJECT: Ci ty Council Extended A(lenda It is requested that the following items he added to the extended aqenda: item: New'Utility Easement for 209 Caspers St. - Vacate Existing Item: New Utilitv Easement at 80th Avenue V. and Main S t. Vacate Existinn Suggested'Agenda Date; September 7, 1976 mjr A; 4k MAKE REMITTANCES PAYABLE TO: p--- FIRST HALF MUST BE PAID BY APRE VERNE SIEVERS OR ENTIRE TAX BECOMES DELINQUI, A 1,97 SECOND HALF DELINQUENT AFTER OCT SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER EVERM, WASHINGTON 98206 REAL ESTATE TAX TATEMENT TAX UNDER $10.00 TO BE PAID IN F SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STAT IF WASHINGTON OF ALL STATE. COUNT MUNICIPAL. SCHOOL. AND RO TAXES. L E Y Y A S S E S S E D V A L U A T 1 0 N T A X FCODE RATE LAND �R I UO�CE SPECIAL 'S ACCOUNT NUM--' T S M BUILDINGS TOTAL GENE 'UMBER 7 .7 YOUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING TAX DISTRICTS: F:, 4, STATE )973 COUNTY CITY 01 ROADILIB, PORT STRICT OTHER FULL FULL TAX > FIRE DISTRICT HOSPIT . AL 0 7 CHECK BOX TO DIKE NO, DR NO, LL OR 4��TER SEWER FOREST FIRE INDICATE FULL OR --�TA L -F HALF -TAT 4 HALF PAYMENT NAME AND ZD ss '1-24-67 LEGAL DESCRIP N OMITTED OR DELINQUENT TAX NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE TAX ui Lu �-j r- OMIT ROLL EC 24 TWP 27 RG-E 0-3 T- BEG Sw `OR N�-j T H W J'C F T WA 9802. H N 145FT TH W 115FT F H 5 A135FT TH W 16FT T TiA E 3 16 TH S 195FT B 'a�EASE PRINT CHANGE OF TA R CHANG� OF ADDRESS BEL 6<PAYtR NOTI NAME ADDRESS CITY- STATE- V.g t4r, 2- go' 0 PL /0. ZIP ODE YEAR EAR TAX AMOUNT INTEREST CHECK m 0 C 2 z x�-A - lk 0- 9AP 04V CQ Tiq EASEMENT IN CONSIDERAT,,'GN OF BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO THE GRANTORS HEREIN BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEWER SYSTEMV THE UNOERSIGN7-Ug AND HIS WiFE9 HEREBY GRANT TO THE C—iTY Or"E ONDS9 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION9 AN EASEVENT9 FEET IN WIDTHp EXTENDING FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED GENTERLINE� FOR THE INSTALLAT9DNq OPERATION9 AND MAINTENANCE OF A SANITARY AND/OR STORM �;EWER LINE OVER� ACROSS, THROUGH AND BELOW THE FOL— OWING DESCRIBED PROPERTYp LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF 'WASHINGTON, TO —WIT: 'eet of the North 10 feet of the following described property: The West 280 f L -n_-,-nc- at the '7outh7rast of tlh-c 11L' 1//,' of th�,_ of !� -inning., lslu, 24p T.27Ro 1'j*p L� v y theneb 'i�lest 10 fee to the Point of Bec thence continuing V,.'est 155 feet, thence North 145 feet, thence Vicst 260 feetp thence South 145 feet , thence West 16 feet, thence Northr3_20_,,�fbet,' thence East 31� feet, thence �',outh 90 feet, thence East 115 feet thente '7outh 240 feet to �he Point of Beginning4 records of Snohomish Coun�ypt'Zhington. D�.'puty e�^ DATED TH�S DAY ZL ')N F'E8':50kAL;'Y APPEARLD His EXECUIED 1HE THE. SAME A'�' T9FiR. 4� N zi �i E iN m F_ -4 r 4 o N. E My HA140. AND )FFi-�'ik 12 bEFOISE ME WIFE9 TO ME KNOVN TC BE THE ;NDIV(01�4Ak' AND FOREGO:NG ;NSTRJMENTo ANO ACK ' N� �W- PREE ANC YOLQNT�,11*4Y ACV AND DZECO, F"lp $CAL 'lH;,3 :)A� OF NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR I -HE STATE OF 1 K S D i A T IN C:l C' to U-) VOL 873 PAGE Ari STREET FILE Septemhef-3, 1976 MEMO TO: MAYOR. HARRISON MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: J. HERB GILRO MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT FROM: LEIF R. LARSON CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: UTILITY EASEHENT FOR 209 CASPERS STREET EXCHANGE The original easement'granted by Mr. Gerdon for sanitar.v sewers under L..I.D. No. 97 is in error. Subsequently, Dr. Mueller bought the -property and in checking out the easement discovered the d.iscrepancy. In order to -have the'easeme,ht cover the area where the sewers are located, it is necessary that Dr. fluellerand City of Edmonds ex- change easements.. Your authority for the fla,11or to execute this exchange is request6d. Copies of the old and new -easements Are attached. LRL: mj r Attachments Asst. City Engr. Date Date ji 7�43,7 IM 71 ...4. IND eIV _11�1__ oi _01 _A41. PiNg �S� r"I'�M4,ti;31-1, *Al ...... . . . . . . . "Op. 90M, ., Iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701! Wn�- 2 - Yk� A"Y'- S-A X�, 31, . . . . . . . . . . . NZ _4:0 if .� A I v n* Ws L�: I Li, , Xll�' 7 , rA-,- 7, n:s Ali- P C 7PO Irk* ae Xx....... .... Qj I 01 Ve, No '!7 ti STREET. FILE OLL n EM. 41, . .' T 27'�, r.At�,��,Cr..:Oed Aa- T1 -rHe: SAV Q,� r. r7 e r a 114, NAV'/4, 5e-"- 24 C aA. rn rri e t� �tt g' The' e \Vei�t 115 d -4 T,:v Tile7 T i 6'n c" e 10 'Henc,e 1145 -Feet ric e- i INT 5r= a f :-I. t", I N G� 195 4::eet Thence We'si 7 e e�t In e r 15 1 n I )I(o eE�' . T T tZ 0 P7,::71 N T' -,14 T -r.-,ae +. - c:;> f i I 4-- T�l le 40 �5(:.l A L _C_ OC'-' T65, SPS� z 9,�� 1.965 I Q Q - Z,?z+ - z4D I= 85�- 34'- 4 5 " \v 9 1> L4j lot*- 5\V Cor. NIE'/4 Nw'14,3er 24 & ASSOCIATES A, Ccxi�u`lunjc Lzind Surveyors -DMONDS, WASH. 324 MAIN STI, I A IF b. 41/54- mr, 00 A65-3445" Vv IL09-uu- CASPER �`;TREET FOUND CASED CONC. MON. W/ BRASS NAIL IN 2" LP. DOWN .75' JULY 2014 STREET FILE TRth PL'rA 5CALE: 1" = W-011 0 0 w j ul) < A Q w a cq 0 < oz Lu a. U < z 0 Q lz� N Lu 1.8.15 '.EVISIONS: 2.11.15 .6.15 PRINTED: or' 114, 24 SEC, 27 TWN, 03 RNG, 01!1 CO-NSTRUC77ON SEQUENCE WES.- -------------------------------------- to, ma EWNG PA 770 TO REIMIN SPLASH BLOCK 25-FT OW PATH DISPERSION FL 40 A MAVMUM OF 700 7 EVS71NG HOUSE 21'- 1 NEW DRIVEWAY OF ROOFTOP AREA CAN 70 R&WAIN PROPOSED SHOP BE ROUIED 70 ANY ONE SPLASH BLOCK. HENC& A MINIMUM OF 765 SF TWO SPLASH BLOCKS ROW7OP CAN BE USED. AREA 2' WDE IRANS117ON ZONE PER 2&4r SALASH T5. f2 AND FIGURE a 5 ON BLOCK ROW PA BY VMUIR V, CHQffl? 5 OF MET, 20125 DOE SIORM WATER MANUAL SEE 7RAINSMON ZONE DETAIL THIS r B-mp- MEM w 110 T(ax) L 10' WDE VEGETA7ED FLOW PAW PER ;> SUP 75.12 SHEET FLOW DISPERSION -fw Se,40xv-- 15' WDE VEGETA TO FLOW PATH PER t BYP T5. 12 91EET FLOW DISPERSON PLACE AMENDED SOIL PER SUP 75. IJ IN APPLICABLE VEGETATED FLOW PAWS AS SHOAN ON THE 'POST CONS7RU0710N 2' WDE 7RANS177ON ZONE PER SOt PLACEMEN'T EVISIT' THIS SHEET 9MP M12 AND FIGURE a5 ON VMUME V, CHAPIER 5 OF 7HE 2005 DOE SIORM NA7ER MANUAL SEE 7RAINS17ION ZONE DETAIL IHIS SHEET ---------------------------------------- 25' BSSL -------------- CASPERS STREET SURFACE EY1011110 fxsnw HOUSE HARDSCAPE 70 70 REMAIN REMAIN i EXEMPT EAWT IMPERVIOUS 11VIPERVIOUS (PRE-1977) (PRE-1977) EXEMPT REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA NEW DRA SURFACE NEW DRIANG SIRFALE 4,150 Sr NEW ROOF70P AREA U,u .7 31�� EXEMPT REPLACED DRIVING SURFACE 782 SF NEW DRIVING SURFACE 2,280 SF 'NEW DRJWNG SURFACE DEMWINE RECULA70 IMPERWOUS AM NEW DRIWNG SURFACE- 4,131 SP PROPOSED GARAGE RUH EAW& 7659 EXEMPT REPLACED DRIVING SURFA -782.7 70TAL REGULANDIMPERVIOUS AREk 4,114 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA EXHIBIT SCALE: 18j'-40p 0 20 Scale I n = 20' No tomeckon -to 11,1��IctdjCLUA� Pror" a"Co-vc0t Uv," ",� rm �- POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL QUAMTY AND DEP Frm'k - BMP T5.13: P16VO 0A , I DESIGN GUIMJNES 1 RM17ON pbuFF LAm AND NAnw mpsox sHouw BE REmNEv IN AN wisnow swr m X MAMMUM EXIENT PRAC77CA&E IN ANY AREAS REQUIRING GRADING REWOVED AND STOCMLE THE DUFF LAYER AND TOPSOIL ON STE IN DESIGNAIIED, COMMOUM AWA NOT ADJACENT 70 7HE PUBLIC RESOURXS AND CRI77CAL AREAS, 70 BE REAPPUED 70 01HER POR71ONS OF THE SITE WERE FEASIBLE SOIL QUAUTY ALL AREAS SURECT 70 CLEARING AND WADING THAT HAW NOT BEEN COVERED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFAC& WCORPORA IED IN70 A DRAINAGE PACIUTY OR ENG1NEERED AS SMUCIURAL 9U OR SLOPE SHALL, AT PROECT COWPLE79W, DEMONSIRA11F THE FOLLONNa 1. A TOPSOIL LAYER WIH A MINIMUM OR04NIC CONTENT IN TURF AREAS� AND A PH FROM 6.0 TO BID OR MAIWNG 7HE PH OF 7HE OMOINAL UNDIS7URBED SOIL THE RIPSOIL LAYER SHkL HAW A MINIMUM DEP7H OF 8 INCHES EXCEPT WiD?E ME R007S LIMIT 7HE DEPTY OF INWRPORA77ON OF AkENOMENTS NEEDED 70 MEET 7HE CR17ERIA. SUBSOILS BELOW 7HE 7OPS01L LAWN 9101ILD BE SCARJREDAT LEAST 4 INCHES WTH SOME INCORPORA ?70N OF 7HE UPPER MA TERIAL 70 A VOID S7RA 77RED LA = NHD?E FEASIBLE 2. PLAN77NO SOS MUST BE MULCHED K17H 2 INCHES OF WMIC MAIRIAL I QUALITY OF COMPOST AND 07HER MAIERIAL USED 70 MEET THE ORG00 CONTENT REQUIRCIIENM A. THE ORGANIC COWENT FOR 'PRE -APPROVED' AMENDMENT RATES CAY BE MET ONLY USING COMPOST 7HAT MEETS 7HE D&W1770N OF "COMPOSTED M47ERIAL' IN NAC 173�-350 ZC770N 220. IHIS CODE IS A VAILAW AT INE DEPT. OF ECOLOGYS HOWE H77P,11'*W.ECYWA-GOVIPROWMSISHFAICOMPOSTI 7HE COMPOSTMUST ALSO HAW AN ORGANC MAT7ER CON7ENT OF 35X 70 65X AND A CARBON 70 M7ROGEN R4 17ON BELOW 2a- 1. THE CARBON 70 N17ROGEN RA710 MAY BE AS HIG14 AS 35.1 FOR PLAN77NOS COMPOSED EN71RELY OF PLANTS NA71VE TO THE PUGET SOUND LOKMDS REGION, B. CALCULA TED AMENDMENT RA 7ES MA Y BE MET 7HROUGH USE OF COMPOSIM MA IENALS AS DERNED ABOVEr OR OW ORGANIC MAIERIAL AiVIENDED 70 MEET INE CARBON TO N17ROEN RA770 REQUMENM AND MEE71NG TIE CONTAMINANT STANDARDS OF GRADE A COMPOST THE RESULWO SOIL SHOULD BE CONDUCIVE 70 INE TYPE OF WGETA71ON TO BE ESTABLISHED. IMPLEUEIVTA77ON OP77ONS 7HE SOIL QUALITY DESIGN GUIDEUNES USIED ABOVE CAN BE MET BY USING ONE OF 7HE METHODS LISTED BELOW. 1. LEAVE UNDISTURBED NA71VE VfQ7A770N AND SOIL, � AND PR07ECT FROM COMPAC77ON DURING CONSIRUC710N. 2. AMEND E)OSTNG SITE MPSO/L OR SURML 07HER AT DEFAULT 'PRE -APPROVED' RATES, OR AT CtISMW CALCULA 7ED RA IES BASED ON SPEC117ES 07S OF IHE SOIL AND AMENDMENT J. SMCKPILE BOS77NG TOPSOIL DURING GRADIN4 AND REPLACE PRIOR TO P(ANTNa DEPTH REQUIREMEN73; STHO? A T A DEFA UL T 1PRE-APPRO RD' RA 7E OR A T A CUSTOW CALCULA 7ED RA 7F. 4. IMPORT 77OPSOIL MIX OF SUFFICIENT ORGANIC CONTENT AND DEPIH 70 NEET THE REQUIREMENTS. MORE 7HAN ONE ME7HOD MAY BE USED ON DIFFERENT POR17ONS OF 7HE SNE 97E. SOIL THAT ALREADY MEM 7HE DEPTH AND ORGANIC MATIER QUALITY STANDARDS; AND NOT COMPACTM, M NOT NEED 70 BE AUENDED, AREA OF POST CONS7RUC770N )MPOR7ED 7OPS011. PLACEMENT PER SUP IS 13 IN ORDER 70 A CHEW FULL DISPERSION PER BMP T130 4510 SF PUW77#VG A90 NOTE: PtANTNG BEDS CAN BE PLACED IN THE AREAS OF STORM NAM? DISPERSION. ANY SUCH PLAN77NG BEDS MUST HAVE A MINWUM OF 2* OF MULCH PLACED IN ADDITION 70 THE POST CONSTRUC77ON SOL PLACEMENT PEI? SUP 7111 POST CONSTRUCTION AMENDED SOIL PLACEMENT EXTHBIT SCALE. 1"--401 S17E PLAN NOTE: PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND LOCA77ON OF BUILDINGS AND DRIvEwAys OBTAINED FROM HIEN T. TOPOGRAPHY LINE OBTAINED BY THIS ENGINEER FROM CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE GIS DATA. 1. SCHEDULE A PRE-CONS7RUC7101V NEFTNG W7H CITY ENGINEERING DIV19ON AT 425--77f-0220, EXT. 1326. 7W DAY (48 HR) N0710E IS REQUIRED. I REVIEW 011PORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CON7ROL N07M .1 CALL FOR U17UTY LOCA 7ES 4 INSTALL 7ESC MEASURES AND MAINTAW DUST CONIROL IWILE PRM17NG DISIURSANCE OF ANY AREAS OF VEGETA71ON OUISIDE THE CONS7RUCTON ZONE. & HAVE masipy CoNinot MEASURES INSPECIM BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, ALL 7EMPORARY SED141ENTATOM AND ERa%ON CONIROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND INSPECIED PRIOR TO ANY CONSMUC770N OR SITF CLEARINa EROSION AND SMMDVTAIIOIV CON7ROL PRAC710ES ANDIOR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNJIL PERMANENT VEGETA77ON IS ESTABLISHED. 6 DEMOLISH EVS`nNG S7RUCIURES NNERE APPUCARLE Z ROUGH GRADE 97E AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL DRAINAGE FEAIURES 8 CiLK GRUB & ROUGH GRADE SITE REVEGETAW DISTURBED AREAS NOT SURECT 70 ADD17IONAL SURFACE DISRWSANCE IMMED147ELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (07HER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STA9112ED PER EROSION CONMOL N07ES Baow) 9. INSTALL U71UNES AND 07HER 97F IMPROVEWENTS, INCLURNG FRONTAGE IMPROVEMiNP9 IWERE APRJCA9LF- 11. STA81UZE AND COUPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR To REVEGEL47701v OF ENTRE Mir. 12 ESIABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PDOMNENT VEGETA7761N, ALL TEMPORARY V?OMON CCNiRaMEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON RNAL 97F STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. DRAIN AGE NO 1. A LOOKING GRA7ED LID SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL CATCH BASINS UNLESS OTHERMSE NOTED. 2. ALL CA70H BASINS SHALL HAVE EIGH7EEN (IS-) MINIMUM SUMP, TRAFF1 RIM, AND PIPE REQUIRED FOR ALL DRIWNG SURFACE LOCATIONS. J. ALL PIPE MA7ERIALS SHALL BE PVC AS7m 3034-SDR35, ADS(N-12 OR HEAVY DUTY HIGHWAY GRADE), DUC77LE IRON, CONCRETE, OR EQUAL AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 4, ALL NEW OR RECONS7RUCTED IMPERWOUS DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS MUST BE SERVED BY AN 01LIW47ER SEPARATOR BEFORE DISCHARGE INTO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR PUGET SOUND. AS A MINIMUM, OILIWATER SEPARATOR SHALL CONSIST OF A TYPE-1 CATCH BASIN K1774 A PVC TEE INSTALLED INSIDE K17H 12" MINIMUM TAILPIPE AND 12" MINIMUM RISER PIPE. ALSO REQUIRED MINIMUM 12" CLEARANCE FROM BOTTOM OF TAILPIPE TO BOTTOM OF CS AND MINIMUM 6m CLEARANCE FROM 70P OF RISER PIPE TO TOP OF CB. 5. ANY DEWA71ON FROM APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL. ALL CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED 70 THE CITY. 6. A COPY OF APPROVED S70RM WATER PLANS MUST BE ON S17E WHENEVER CONSTRUC710N IS IN PROGRESS. PUGET SOUND (oA EDMONDS FERRY 7ERANNAL DALEYFST w clwc 4 Owc C 7m, aEwim PWMn J04 I CITY PARK,, Zt: �t ff MIT I MST MEMONAL PARK ST VICINNY W N. T. S. PROJECT CONTACT MST VICINIff MAP 196 TH S T SW 0 OWERIDEVELOPER.- CI WL ENGINEER. KURT W & CARI, CAMPBELL DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 209 CASPERS ST, 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. EDMONDS, W4 98290 SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE.- (XXXXXXXXXX PHONE: (425) 334-9980 EMAIL., donnabresketcomcostnet 2127H ST PROPER77 INFORMA -UTIMTY CONTACT LIST S17E ADDRESS, 209 CASPERS ST, EDMONDS, WA 98290 UN17ED STA7Es TAX PARCEL NO.- 27032400215300 SEKR & CITY OF EDMONDS CABLE: COUCAST ZONING: RESIDEN71AL (RS-12) WA 7ER 121-5TH AVENUE NORTH 12645 STONE AVE N EDMONDS, WA 98026 SEA TRE AREA: 40,946 SF (0.94 AC) (425) 771-0241 (877) 824-2288 ELEC00 SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. nRE 21018 HIGHWAY 99, DEPARIMENT.- EDMONDS 98026 ISGAL DESCRIPTION (425) 670-J200 SEC77ON 24 TOWSHIP 27 RANGE 03 QUARTER NW 7H P7N GOVT LOT 1 SO SEC GAS., PUGET SOUND ENERGY EDMONDS RRE DIS7RICT (SCFD /I) 24 DAF COM SE COR SD'GOVT LOT I TH N88*34 45W ALG SLN SID GOVr LT 1 1OFT TH NOI*03 IJE 15FT TH N88*34 45W JOFT TO POS TH NOI*03 13E 147FT 10885 NE 47H ST BELLEKIE, W4 98004 121-57H A VENUE IVORTH TH N41*40 59E 21.50FT TH NOI*03 IJE 30,57FT TH N88*56 47W 1OJFT TH (425) 452-12J4 (EDMONDS CITY HALL) S01*03 IJW 192.67FT TH S88*J4 45E 189FT TO POS AKA PAR B CITY OF ED FIRE MARSHAL: (425) 771-0213 LLA LL-2014-0064 REC AFN 20150021200001 BEING A P77V OF GOVT LOT I 5D SEC 24. SURVEYORS NOTE THE LOCA71ON OF UNDERGROUND U77LI77ES SHOMV HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND DO NOT REFLECT THE LOCA77ON OF ALL U71LI71ES ON OR IN THE 2' MIN. WCINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE OMER SHOULD CONTACT ALL DpjVEWAy U77LITY PURVEYORS IN THE AREA TO ASCERTAIN THE LOCA71ON AND DEP7H OF ALL U71LI77ES. FX U FABRIC CLEAN (-,OX F1NES) up's SOT= & mm 314' WA DRAIN ROCK 6" MIN. AMENDED SOIL 7RANSITION ZONE N. T. S. CITY OF EDMONDS .97F CLASSIFICAT!ffl W)RK.WPrT Tjve Am (square feet) 1. Non -Regulated Exempt 2. Replaced 782 0 Now (Post 1977) 4 4 4 -) 4 4 + 4028 SF 4. Total Regulated Area (Mit1gation Required if in exc'emsff�02UQ900 sf) 4,114 SF a Total Area Mitigated by ExIsting Stomwater Management System(s) 0 6. Regulated Area Not Yet MINgated 0 7 Area pmposed to be MIttgated by Low Impact Development Techniques 5, 028 SF a Area proposed to be MItkated through Canvotlonal SW Techniques .0 ".1060- SAFETY PRECAUTION SK41 BE IMPLEMENTED BY CONTRACTOR(B) AT ALL TRENCHING IN ACCORDANCE 1(nnw whnf'a holnut WITH CURRENT OSHA STANDARDS 0 Call 811 two business days before you dig. OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE -WATERSHED: PUGET SOUND PIPED SHEET INDEX 1. ROAD& DRAINAGE 2. 7ESC & GRADING RESUB JAN 0 8 2016 BUIA-DIN1.3 IPAWTMENT CITY, F EDMONDS 5 6 mromy 0 Y STOOVU FOR STOOM FOR WU4 TOPSOIL & D%UFF UPHHS HARDPAN TYPE U�7 EXS7WG PANO COMM HITHIN 24 MAMNAL COVER 70 REMAIN S 11771W 24 HEURS __40 --------------------- XL �21' TREE TO BE REMOVED EVS71NO HOUSE NEW DRIVEWAY PROPOSED SHOP 9910 70 REMAIN 765 SF ROOF7OP` AREA Lj_ INSTALL STRAW 10^" HATTIES AS AT PROPERTY LINES NEW DRIVEWAY go AREA OF DIE DISTURBING ACIIVITY 2Z800 SF USE EXISTING DR! "A Y LOCA710N FOR IEIWPORARY C0NS7RUC!I7ON 2 ENTRANCE (D CASPERS STREET AREA OF SITE DISTURBING AC77WTY NEW DRIVEWAY 0 SM GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NO 1. ALL GRADING SHALL COMPLY 70 CHAPTER 18 OF IHE W7ERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE I IHE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MAMWAL. HFIERE CONSWENT WITH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSDERA71ONS SHALL BE PLACED ON 7HE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES. 3 TESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR 70 ANY 97E HORK (SEE ATTACHED DETAILED TEIC PLAN), 4. PUBLIC SIREM ARE 70 BE KEPT CLEAR OF DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING EXCAVA77ON AND RLL OPERA77ONS 4. STOCKPILES ARE 7V BE LOCA TED IN SAFE AREAS AND ADEQUA IFLY PR07ECTED 017HIN 24 HOURS TO PRMT EROSION HYDROSEED PREFERRED 6. DURING PERIODS OF HET RE47HER, IHE GRADING CONIRAC70R SHALL, TAKE ALL PRECAU71ONS 70 LIMIT SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND PR07ECT 7HE SITE GRADING AREA FROM EXCESSIVE RUNOFT' ER090N. Z AREAS TO RECE1wnLL SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL WGETAIION AND DamiovsMA TIER. a ALL RU MATERIALS USED SHAU BE FREE OF VEGETAIION AND DELETERIOUS MArfER AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN ROCKS MIER IHAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMEIER. 9. STRUCIURAL FILLS SHAU BE PLACED IN 8' TO 10' 7HICK LOOSE HORIZONTAL LM AND SPREAD UNIFORMLY taAu mumuRAL nus SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95X OF MAMMUM DENSTY AS DEM?A(INED BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST (ASIM D-1557-70). It DISIURBED AREAS TO BE STABILVED 197H HYDROMD OR STRAW MULCH H17HW 24 HOURS OFCOMPLE710N OF RNAL GRADING DURING NET HEATHER. S17E PLAN N07E- PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND LOCA 77ON OF BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS OBTAINED FROM CLIENT. TOPOGRAPHY LINE OBTAINED BY THIS ENGINEER FROM CITY OF EDMONDS WEBS17E GIS DATA. INSTALL STRAW HATTI.ES AS AT PROPERTY LINES (D ,ffillollp, SAFETY PRECAUTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY CONTRACTOR(S) AT ALL TRENCHING IN ACCORDANCE 11nowi, whatle h I WITH CURRENT OSHA STANDARDS U %Oww 0 Call 811 two business days before you dig, 51 SE 114.9 24 SEC., 2 7 TWNv GRADING OLIAN77 CUT. 65 CY RLL. 65 CY GRADING QUAN7771ES ARE ROUGH CALCULAIIONS THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SHRINKAGE OR SNWAGE. 0 3 RNG, WM M mm 0 "m'w%&'vv Scale 1 20' -CONSMUCTION SUP ELEMENTS DELEMENT 1. MARK CLEMING LIMITS. FLAS71C, METAL, OR STAKE HIRE FFjVCE MAY BE USED 70 MARK 7HEaEARING LMIM ELEMENT 2 ESIABLISH CONS7RUCHON ACCESS, USE EVS77NG PAVED DRIVEWAY ELEMENT & CON7ROL FLOW RA TES ELEMENT 4.' INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ELEMENT a- STABILIZE SOILS: SOILS 70 BE SIABIL1ZED AS LISTED IN 7HE COW? MEIHOO N07ES ELEMENT 6., PR07ECT SLOPE& CUT AND FILL SLOPES 91ALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED W A MANNER THAT DILL MINIMIZ ERO90N. MDVT 7, PR07ECT DRAW XLE7S ELEMENT & STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OURETS, NIA ELEMENT 9. CON7ROL POLLUTANTS ALL POLLUTANTS, Waupwo WASTE MA IMALS AND DEHOIJIION DEBRIS THAT OCCUR OIV-97E DURING C0JVS7RUC770N 91ALL BE HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER 7HAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAWNAIION OF STORMHAPER. ELEMENT 10. CONTROL DE -WATERING. ELEMENT 11: MAINTAIN OMPS ELEMENT 12 MANAGE IHE PROXCE NOTES- 1. S7R4 W ROLL INSTALLA 77ON REQUIRES 7HE PLACEMENT AND SECURE STAKING OF THE ROLL IN A TRENCH, Jo�-50 DEEP, DUO ON CONTOUR. RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOH0 70 RUN UNDER OR AROUND ROLL A STRAW ROLLS MUST BE PLACED ALONG SLOPE CONTOURS .1 SPACING DEPENDS ON SOIL TWE AND SLOPE STEERNEM STAKED RL7ER ROLLS .,-- SLOPE N.T.S. SEDIMENT, ORGANIC MA TIER, AND NA 77VE SEEDS ARE CAPTURED BMIND 7HE ROLLS, to x to STAKE DRAWA GE 8m�-10* DIA VICINITY MAP PUGET SOUND 1967H ST Sw PUGE' �l" DR 524 "o. EDMWDS AERR Y TERMINAL DALEY ST ciwc COM? i .... MELD BELL s MAIN 'K S7REET YOST '04 a) MEMORIAL r PARK WALNUT ST 2127H ST SW -C-ITY* PARK I vicimff w N.TS. CO VER ME 0 PROTECT DISTURBED SLOPES BY MULCHING (2o!-4' THICKNESS). IHIS CAN BE DONE BEFORE OR AFTER PERMANENT SEEDING, 7HE rff S OF MULCHES A VAILABLE ARE DESCRIBED BELOW (TAKEN FROM 7HE D.OX MANUAL): STRAW - MOST COMMONLY USED IN CON&IEW07ION WIH SEEWNG, J7S USE Is RECOMMENDED ANERE IMMEDIATE PROTECTION IS REOWRED AND PREFERABLY WIERE THE NEED FOR PROTECRON HILL BE LESS INAN 5 MONINS 7HE STRAW SHOULD COME FROM HFIEAT OR OAM AND MAY BE SOREAD By HAND OR MACHINF. STRAW CAN BE 0=01W AND MUST BE ANCHORED DO1W (ROLUNG OR PUNCHING INTO Soli. covERING wjH NEMN RA NG TA a SP W CRIFIER CORN STALKS - TRESE SHOULD BE SHREDDED INTO 4 TO 6-INCH LENGTHS, STALJ(S DECOMPOSE SLOKY AND ARE RESISTANT 70 HINDSLOW M CHIPS121ARK CHIPS - SUITABLE FOR AREAS 7HA T HILL NOT BE CLOSEL Y MOV0, AND AROUND ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS CHIPS DECOMPOSE SLORY AND DO NOT REQUIRE TACKINa WOOD CHIPS MUST BE 7REATED HIIH 12 POUNDS NITRM PER TON TO PREVENT NU7RIENT DEFICIENCY IN PLANTS (NOT NECESSARY FOR BARK). WOOD AND BARK CHIPS 7END 70 WASH DO1W SLOPES OF MORE THAN 6 PERCENT AND CREATE PROBLEMS BY CL06VNG INLET ORA TEA EM AND ARE 7HEREFORE NOT RECOMMENM FOR USE IN THOSE AREAS WDOO RBER -LISED IN HMO-SEEDWG OPER4710K APPLIED AS PART OF WE SLURRY IHIS FORM OF MULCH DOES NOT PROWDE SUFFICIENT PROIrCI70N TO EROOINE SOILS TO BE USED ALONE DURING INE HEAT OF SUMMER OR FOR LATE FALL SEEDWGS WOOD FIBER H)VRO-SEED SLURRIES MAYBE USED 70 TACK S7RAWMULCH. 7711SCOMOINA77ONIREAMENTIS HELL SU17ED FOR STEEP SLOPE$ AND CRI77CAL AREAS. NETS AND MATS - USED ALON& NET77NG DOES NOT RETAIN SOIL MOISTURE OR MODIFY SOIL TEMPERA TURE. IT STABIU2rS THE SOIL SURFACE NHILE GRASSES ARE BEING ESTABUSHED, AND IS USEFUL IN GRASSED WATERWAYS AND ON SLOPM LIGHT NEMNG MAY ALSO BE USED TO HOLD OIHER MULCHES IN PLACE. 17S RELA71MY HIGH COST MAKES IT MOST SUITABLE FOR SMALL 97M TEMPORARY COVE � R: TEMPORARY SEED 70 PROM SOIL SIABILIZ477ON BY PLAN77NG GRASSES AND LEGUMES 70 AREAS W#CH *10ULD REMAIN BARE FOR MORE INAN 7 DAYS (FROM MAY I To SEPT. 30) OR 2 DAYS (FROM OCT I TO APRIL .30) WID?E PERMANENT COVER IS NOT NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE A MINIMUM OF 2-4 INCHES OF TILLED TOPSOIL IS REQUIRED FOR 7HE SEEDSED. PLANIING SHOULD PREFiRABLY BE DONE BEIM APRIL I AND XNE 30, AND SEPT I 7HROUGH OCT it. IF PLANIING IS DONE IN 7HE MONIHS OF JULY AND ALIGUST, MOA17ON MAY BE REQUIRED. F PLAN77NO is DONE BETHEEN NOV I AND MARCH J1, MULCHING SYALL BE REQUIRED IMMEMAIELY AF`1ER pLAN71Na 7HE 90 MIX OF RE07Op(log ANNUAL RW(40A), CHERINGS FESCUE(40X), AND WTE DUTCH CLOVER00V SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE (SNOHOMISH COUNTY 70 APPROVE SEED WX). `H%RO-SEEDWG' APPLIC47IONS WIN APPROVED SEED-MULCH-FERAL12ER MIXIURES MAY AIM BE USED. THE SOIL COVER ME7HODS` LISTED UNDER "COW? DURING WNTEI? CONDITIONS" MAY ALSO BE USED AS TEMPORARY COVER AT ANY 77ME CLEAR PLAS77C COVERING PROTECT DIS7URSED SLOPES BY COVE RING NTH CLEAR PLAs7IC 7HIs MEINOD OF COW? IS GOOD FOR PROTECTING BARE AREAS WICH NEED IM071ATE COW? AND FOR WNTEP PLAN71NOS IT IS ALSO QUICK AND EASY To PLACE THE SHEONG HILL RESULT IN RAPID, 100X RUNOFF WICH MAY CAUSE SERIOUS E??O90N PROBLEMS ANDIOR FLOODING AT THE BASE OF SLM UNLESS WE RUNOFF IS PROPERLY INTERCEPTED AND SAFELY CONVEM BY A XUEC17NG DRAW. IHIS IS S7NCTLY A MWPORARY MEASURE, SO PERMANENT SrA91UZA770N IS SIRL REQUIRED, THE PLAS77C MUST BE ANCHORED. aEAR FLAS710 SHI"NG 91ALL HAW A MINIMUM 7HICKNESS OF 6 MIL AND MEET THE REQUMMENIS OF WSDOTIAPWA SEC71ON 9- 1A I COVERING 91AU BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED 77GHX YIN PLACE BY LISNG SANDBAGS OR 17RES ON ROPES WITH A MAMMUM 10 FOOT GRID SPACING IN ALL DIREC)IONS ALL SEAMS SHALL BE TAPED OR MOH70 DOW FULL LENGIH AND THERE WAU BE AT LEAST A I TO 2 FOOT OVERLAP OF ALL SENS SEAMS SHOULD 7HDV BE ROM AND STAKED OR 17ED. COVE?WG SpIALL BE WSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ON AREAS SEEDED 90W NOV. 1 70 MAR 1, AND REMAIN LW71L WGETA77ON IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHER WIEN IHE C0VER1NG IS USED ON UNSE00 SLOPa IT SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE UN71L THE NEXT SEEDWO PERIOD. 9MNG SHOULD BE AXD IN AT THE TOP Or THE SLOPE To PREVENT SURFACE FLOW BENEATH THE PLAS710. SHEEnNG SHOULD BE REMOVED AS SOON AS IS POSSIBLE ONCE VEGEIA710N IS VEL GROHN TO PREVENT BURNING THE VEGETANON 7HROUGH THE pLASIIc SnfrnNo. -AM=N OF SION CONTRaL AX—CE ERO - ELEMENTS: ALL EROSION AND SEDWENT CONTROL BMPS 91ALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OMER 70 ENSURE CON77NUED PERFORMANCE OR IHEIR INTENDED FYJNC77ON AU MAWIrNANCE AND REPAIR SYALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCMDANCE IWIN THE MANUAL AND UN17L CONS7RUC71ON AND LANOSCApING IS COMpLE7ED AND IHE pOIENTAL FOR ON-97E EROSION HAS PASSED. SL TA 770N BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMM&DIA TEL Y AFTER EACH RAIAFAU AND A T LEAST DAL Y DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. SOMENT DSV97S SHOULD BE REMOVED AF7ER EACH RAJNFALL THEY MUST BE REMOVED IWEN THE LEVEL OF DESPOS71ON REACHES APPROMMAXLY ON -HALF OF THE HEIGHT OF IIIE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPORTS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER 7HE BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SHALL BE OREM To CONFORg 70 7HE EXs7WG GRADE; COMPOST AMENDED AND SEEDED AN DOR OINERNSE PERMANENTLY STABUZED. 07HER BMPS AS REOWIRED BY THE 0TY AND APPROPRIA 7r FOR 7HE Sir 70 M117GA TE IHE MC7S OF INCREASED RUNOFF S1VALL BE APPLIED. jWNTON"CE OF SILTATION BALRIE - G) RS. SL TA 770JV BARRIERS SHAJ1 BE W91ECTED IMMMA TEL Y AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND A T LEAST DAIL Y DUR1NG FROtONGED RAINFALL NECESSARY REPAIRS 70 BARRIERS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL, BE ACCOMPLISHED PROMPTLY SE01MENT DEPOSIS'SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL 7HEY MUST BE REMOVED KNEN THE LEVEL OF'OEposilloN REACHES APPROXAMIELY CNE-HALF INE HEIGHT OF INE BARRIER, 91AU BE DREW 70 CONFORM TO 7HE &1S7WG GRADE; PREPARED AND SEEDED. ANY SEDIMENT DEP097S REMAINING N PLACE AFTER THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. _NA MffSH. ED: APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION PUGET SOUND PIPED CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: SHENT I __ NDEX 1. ROAD& DRAINAGE BY. 2. 7WC & GRADING CITY ENGINEERING DIMSION ------------------------ 25 4 B 'TT7 21.00 1 I =Jl 73.2 0.0 c r4 r-4 ----------- EXISTING HOUSE 0 0 cl� 01 EXISTING DRIVE" N. -------------------------------- 0 u� cq V-1 ------------------------------------- LO cq OMEN" 99 VA7 irb I'Mcplu .54 40 Vv ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0 FOUND CASED CONC. MON. W/ 'TREET BRASS NAIL IN 2" LP. DOVVN.75' CA '"PER 06 JULY 2014 I �0 c _�o � lk, or LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC 24 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-76)BEG SE COR LOT 1 TH W 441 FT TO TPB TH CONT W 203 FT TH N 2n FT TH E 203 FT TH S 21l FT TO TPB LESS io FI7 & LESS CO RD TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 27032400215300 ZONING: ZONING: RS-1200 LOT COVERAGE: FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING HOUSE & PROPOSED GARAGE 2,268 SQ. Fr. / 39,245-00 (LOT SIZE)= 6% HEIGHT CALCULATIONS: A4.00' B. 4.00' C. 0.00, D. o.00' 8/4 = 2'AVE GRADE MAX HT: 17' ACTUAL HT: 16.20' IMPERVIOUSAREA: EXISTING HOUSE W/ EAVES: 1887-32 SQ. Fr. EXISTING DRIVEWAY & PATIOS: 2178-04 SQ. Fr. PRPOSED DRIVEWAY: 681.00 SQ.- FT. PROPOSED GARAGE: W/EAVES: 765-00 SQ. Fr. TOTAL NON -REGULATED (PRIOR TO 1977): 4o65-36 SQ. Fr TOTAL NEW IMERPEVIOUS: 1,446.00 SQ. Fr GRADING: i'(AVE) X 1362 SQ. Fr. 1362 CU. FT./p_7 = 48 CUBIC YD CUT LOT SLOPE: 4% N-S Zone Comer LANNING J'Flag 1:01VED By 6 4� b �ck RR%An�d Front,57 Sides w Rear L Otherl�-7 --LL? of O#LeLg Lit _2 Lu 08 to m < 0 0 C4 W OZ (3 qfj 0 < U < z 0 u 0 cq w 1.8.15 ,EVISIONS: 2.11.15 .6.15 PRINTED: OCALE: 1" = 20'-0"