229 MAIN ST.PDF11111111111111
11933
229 MAIN ST
DATE SIGNED
e4S469
POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P 469
SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT. -
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW-UP
DEC 23 1981
TO LEIF
FORM 41 - LITTLE'S
IN& -OFFICE COMMUNICA&NS
DATE March 25, _ 19 74
FROM RHONDA
SUBJECT: IMPORTANT -- AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION -- COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26
The Amenities Design,Board on March 6 approved the sign permit for Pioneer
First Federal and; therefore, approved the use of city right-of-way for
overhang of the sign. The Street Use Permit had been referred to ADB for
review and recommendation.
The Building Permit has already been issued. I assured the sign installer
that I would reach him on Wednesday morning. They have not started work yet.
IN& -OFFICE COMMUNICA&NS
TO Harry Whitcutt
Bui;ding OfficiaZ
"oe Wallie
City PZanner
FORM 41 - LITTLE'S
DATE December ZZ., 19 73
FROM Leif R. Larson
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Street Use Permit for Pioneer First FederaZ Savings Sign
The attached sign appZication is in question aa to whether the proposed
sign extends into the pubZic right-of-way. If it does, a street use
permit wiZZ have to be postponed untiZ the Amenities Design Commission has
been appointed, pursuant to CounciZ action of November 20, Z973.
rf
Attachments
TO
ONT91-OFFICE COMM U Nk Tit
CITY ENGINEER
DATE August 6 1975
FRom BUILDING DEPT.
SUBJECT: Pioneer Ist Federal Bank - #740614
229 Main St.
Please review the attached letter regarding speed bumps
and advise.
Harry
AUG 6 1975
Edffillds Efl9r. Dept.
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:— --,4544 cd-7 CC 1000
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: —
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 101
-0
q3-
DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver 0 Study Requir ��aiver
im
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK: 7
I
LATEMP\DSTs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doe
CA FILE N 0.—
(scal Areas Checklist
Site lnform��io,n (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
I.. Site Address/Location: yla�e,� clbcao
2. Property Tax Account Number:
1!� �i Cn7 Q-)r2 nC)=
6>3 _CN,
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet)': -roll or
4. Is this site currently developed? __)�_yes; 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-fe6t over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes pres�;nt on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise
of 10-feet6ver 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- R-C-) .;Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. ftj--) Approx- Depth:
What season(s) of the year? rk) 4
8. Site is in the floodway Y\)O floodplain A� of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? —r\��3 — Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _;-shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: T\)o A-W-�L-lr OX94
�For City Staff Use 0
T.�:,--- Site is'76ned? C-
-Scs'im"ap-ped soil type(s)? 4,
e-4o jo,.;,4 J
inventory air CA. map indicates .�etland presetit on site?... Aoov
inventory or C.A.- inap-indicates on t -'0
Critical Arm si e —A,
it6within'&signatod earth subsidenc61andslide--hazard am? . :.. . . J;
/Zolv
W'.;;!� ltede�gnAted on'the EnvironmentallySensitive'Areas Mao. A.10
ATION.
N M
OF
.490.19
City of Ediii6nds
Gritic,at . Are'as,,.-Checklist
-The Critical A=�, Ch contained on
this form is to be .'filled out by any person
preparing a Development Permit
Application for the City of Edmonos prior
to his/her submittal of a developm6at
permit to the City
The purpose of lh$,Checklist is to enable
City staff to det6imine Whether any
potential Critical Areas are or may be
present bn the subject property. Ile
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 sod surveys)...
An applicant, or his/her representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,
and submit it to the City. IMe City will.
review the checklist, make a precursory site
visit, and makea' determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a
development permit application.
With a signed -copy ofthis form, the
applicant should also 'submit a vicinity map
or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel
with enough detail that City staff can find
and identify the subject parcel(s). in
addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent infonmation (e.g. site
plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in
conjunction with this Checklist to assist
staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of theMite.
I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the'answers provided are
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant-
WI KE-1 t I
Street Addren
Applicant Representat7lve':
Nanie
StredA&k=
7 k`
6TY"GIF�: EE"DSY
-11.07:
WATEWSEWER.i DEPARTMENT- Inspection.. -(NoAngpep�
'C Call-- PRospect ..when work
CENTER --
Is. ready for
d -or hol.da,y 42, 1
tions S, atnidii; st'in 'a*,v.' N9.
P
'ERMIT
RE S WER
................ .................................. ...... .................. ..................... .............. ............ ......
"ion
01*jvkh ... Vir.S.V. 1 5.'. Ing'a..A. .......... 6oNT.RAcToR,.-.!..JD.- ... QJQV3.Itnk;�.V --- f ...... Q.Q..* r
..F.Pdf�na, AV ...........
Permission 14 -granted ...-.March 5
.............................. ...... 19..:.5'7 for . ......................... dayS,-;�q.REPAIR or-:100NNECT F� Side'sewer
--iot bty-gili%ierg in accordince-.'Mth,appilpati n on file and
6 or nances.
ATTENTIO , N 'iS--CALLED TO TH . E FOLLOWING:
NOT��Vo. 17�The own6rs of the property- may,7obtaln a permit to construct: sewer inside property. line. -A licensed Side Sewer Contractor. must
be employed, tQ const ct side'sewer In -street area. 130'riolt cover,any portion of sewer before It h":,,been Inspected.----.
2—Obtaln, full Information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 an 9
,No. d- Regulations governih side iev4rd when. you permit..
NwE No. 3—Top, of -.side siwer must have at least 30 Inches coverage at property line and 12 Inches: Inside property line: minimum grado of. 2%.
in'grade. sharper _than %.will be permitted.
& No. 4—Trenches In street must be water- settl . e . d, a . nd surface - �of-.treet` restore� to original- condltldn."(�o - ntr otors shall be responsibi . e- for
faflur4' due- to�jmproper work which. may develop within one year of -completion.
NOTE'No; 5 t isLu n1awful to alter. or do any other work than to.provided for In the permit, or to do any work 'on the main sewer or its' a
P,
enances except to Insert the pipe Into the, wye.
02
0
ci
M M
M
NOTICE: N6 WARRANTY OF ACCURACY 7he Information shotyn on the
::,4 84ched map was compiled for use b) 9
0 1 the City of Edmonds, its ernpl-�yo,.�s 0
anc! consultants. The City of Edmonds does not warrant the zcc.!rLcy of
-k
0 anyihing set forth on the map. Any person or enfi
C) ty requesi4vj a copy M
shou!d conduct an Independent Inquilytegarding the Inj Ugfio' IL
Includino, but
Ith ap, not Imited to, the Wation of any-
0 0 sevier stub
M W Sh vin. Such seworstubs mayormaYndedstandmayormay noteyist at 1 2
lull' 6110011,
Neither the C4 of Edmonds nor fts employees or Oj CL
, Fma
vjn.
f "'rs 8
In df rs shr-�' liabi or the 1nf0rmdM OM Go IMS map, nor fcf any orej
rej esent Arovidi d based upon mW Mgp
;j
0 (n m ---i G) < -M
rn q r; I
PI C"
r-i
;U
m
0
0
9v
M
Zia
U,
0
t4 0
P
z
0
kA
Sop
02
P
M
0
_U
K
Ir —
PLANNING DATA FILE]
Signs --
5TMIET R4e
Name: 1, �J -A-
Date:
Site Address:
Plan Check ff: BLD-200f 3
Project Description: e.
Reduced Site Plan Provided: NO)
Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Map Page: I
Corner Lot: YOE /NO)
Flag Lot: (YES
ADB File # (or date waived):
TOTAL Area p!?.r Type of,
Type of Sign
Allowed in
Matrix
conditions
Allowed
area per
Unit
TOTAL sign
area
Proposed
zone?
met?
unit
allowed for
sign area
this sign
Example
wall wlinternal
Illumination
Yes Ppith
conditions
Yes
I sq. ft-111neal
ft. attached
41 ff. attached
wall
41 square feet
20 square feet
W3#
Sign # I
yc?
'7 L-1
rvl�
Sign #2
e-5
e,
431
-71,1�t
-7�
o
Sign #3
-MOVAJ-1-4,�
TOTAL Sign Area for TenantlSite
Max Permitted: 7� 0
Previous Total:
Proposed Total: 73.33
sign
Sign Type: ujckv�
Max Permitted: IL14 bt��, yVb6
Actual Height:
Sign Type: WCA\
Max Permitted: JL� b-r -
�k
Actual Height: J-,�
Sign Type: IV\,ID NO
Max Permitted: ILI
Actual Height: Ll
Sqn.Lighting
Sign -rype- 0�
Proposed: Ok- r...\ I t�\
Allowed in Zone:
Sign Type:
Proposed: Y%
Allowed in Zone:
PLANNING DATA
Signs --
STREET�Fl
Sign Colors
Proposed:
Acceptable?
Requires ADB Approval?
Sgn Location
If freestanding and 3-feet or over (unless a fence) meets setbacks?
Required Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
e
Rear:
Landscaping for Freestandiqg Signs
Size:
Location:
Critical Areas Determination ff:
0 Study Required
EY waiver
Other
5 ��C,%- LJL)
:::�Lrfr6 r vi ��K
Plan Review By:
M
CITY.Copy
STREET USE PERMIT APPLICATION
NAME OF APPLICANT:
NAME OF BUSINESS:- Metropolitan Federal Savings and Loan
MAILING ADDRESS: 229 Main St, E4monds, WA 98020
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Ste�'Jlk�ay 672-6701
Q
ADDRESS OF PUBLIC USE: same
Describe the public place or portion of public space to be utilized:
Attach a plot plan.
Specify the type of use
desired: CANVAS AWNINGS
Specify the length 'of time fdQhh%�,INDEFINITE
NOTE: The issuance of this permit ist'd prspby the applicant to be of a temporary nature and that no
vested right is granted.
INDEMNITY: The applicant understands and by hi�l�her signature to this application, agrees to hold the
City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever,
foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the applicant or the City of Edmonds, or any of its
departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense or any legal proceedings including
defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. In addition, the application
understands that the City shall be provided a Certificate of Insurance to indemnity and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds from all claims and/or property damage, and naming the City of Edmonds as an
additional insured.
CODE APPLICATION: By signing the application below the applicant warrants that s/he has read or
had the opportunity to read Chapter 18 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and s/he
understands that all terms of the adopted ordinance are incorporated herein as if set forth in full and this
application and permits therefore are subject to the terms of that Chapter.
SIGNAT"(� DATE
SIGNATURE OF APPROVAL FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
When applicable, if the street use proposal directly impacts any adjacent business or private property
owner the applicant must obtain written approval from the affected parties. This requirement is evaluated
by City Staff after the initial submittal of the application.
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Address
Address
Address
Address
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ... FOR CITY USE ONLY
Planning Division Review: ADB# 9,3 -
Approved By Date (0��Iq*
Public Works Review: Approved Byn5���, Date Vf
Fire Department Review: Approved Date,--�?-)n
Police Department Review: Approved By_ ate /7 -
Engineering Division Review: Certificate of Insurance Verified
Bond Required A) L;4 - Amount$
Permit Approved for -Issuance By..
Dated—.
Remarks or
PERMIT# OF ISSUANCE
RELEASED B)!�;Z
Z6 -RECEIPT #
I&
0
STREET USE PERMIT AUP STREET. THLE
NAME OF APPLICANT:
NAME OF BUSINESS: k-
MAMINGADDRESS:
�a V-e
c1b 0
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER--�,A L--')Q�6 QY-\
6c&Z)o
ADDRESS OF PUBLIC USE:
Describe the public place or portion of public space to be utilized:
cin tw%e- Scx..)Ir,-% s4lc C-r'- -r--xcx
Specify the type of use
Specify the length of time for use: "i I VCN-k . evc- per-.�'-t
NOTE: The issuance of this permit is understood by the applican! to be of a temporary nature and that no vested right is
granted
INDEAMITY. The applicant understands and by hislher signature to this application, agrees to hold the City ofEdmonds
harmlessfrom any injuries, damages or claims ofany kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may
be made against the applicant or the City ofEdinonds, or any of its departments or employees, inc7uding but not limited
to the defense or any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this
permit. In addition, the application understands that the City shall be provided a Certificate ofInsurance to indemnity
and hold harmless the City ofEdmondsfrom all claims andlor property damage, and naming the City ofEdmonds as an
additional insured. I
CODE APPLIC4 TION. By signing the application below the applicant warrants that s1he has read or had the
opportunity to read Chapter 18 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and s1he understands that all terms of the
adopted ordinance are incorporated herein as ifsetforth in full and this application and permits therefore are subject to
the terms of that Chapter
SIGNATURE!���� DATE
STRUSEHO.DOCJLG/2-95
SIGNATURE OF APPROVAL FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
When applicable, if the street use proposal directly impacts any adjacent business or private property
owner the applicant must obtain written approval from the, affected parties. This requirement is
evaluated by City Staff after the initial submittal of the application.
Signature N P� —Address
Signature
Signature
Q; "0+"V
Address
Moral
AAA
DO NOT WRITE BELOW TFHS LINE --FOR CITY USE ONLY
Planning Division Review: ADB# A
Approved By Date
Public Works Review: Approved By Date 0 z5v kq4
Fire Department Review: Approved B A9 Date 1CP/)6b'rN—
Police Department Review: Approved By
Permit Coordinator Review: Certificate 6f Insurance Verified olic
Engineering Division Review: Bond Required Amount $
Approved By Dated 1_oT_?7,9s-
Remarks or Comments:
PERMIT -DATE OF ISSUANCE_/Q_2�P V-9
RELEASED B RECEIPT
ya� I
0
0
STRUSEHODOOLG/2-95
XCORD CERTIFIGATE OF LIABILITY INS-,,�RANCE
ISSUE DATE
(10/16/95)
PRODUcER ., h I
PARKER, SMITH & FEEK, INC.
4600 First Interstate Center
9 3rd Avenue'
Seattle, Washington 98104
INWREV---- ------- -- - ------- - . .... .... ----- .... . .. . . ... .... .. ....
RAFN COMPANY
P.O. Box 4229
Bellevue, Washington 98009
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE
CERTIFIC DEFOWTHIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EITEND 11 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED
'Y THE P=..
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
COMPANY
A ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
COMPANY
B
COMPANY
C
COMPANY OCT 1395
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YkIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES *OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN isii�Ufft&,'fk ... E'1'N_'S__U'REID'_N_AME_D ABOVE FOR .- THE - POLICY - PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS
AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
Co
Type of Insurance
Policy
Policy Effective
Policy Expiration
Limits
Ltr
Number
Date (MM/DDNY)
Date (MM/DDNY)
A
General Liability
KKO
04/20/95
04/20/96
Aggregate $2,000,000
X Commercial General Liability'
_6300161
,General
P roducts/Comp 6ps Agg. $2,606,000
Made X Occur.
Pers. & Adv. Injury $1,000,000
—Claims
Owners & Contractors Prot.
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
X Washington Stop Gap
Fire Damage (any one fire) $ 50,000
Med. Expense (any one person) $ 5,000
Automobile Liability
Combined Single Limit $
_Any Auto
—All Owned Autos
Bodily Injury (per person) $
Autos
—Scheduled
Hired Autos
Bodily Injury (per accident) $
0
Non -Owned Autos
Property Damage $
rarage Liability
r
G ge
Auto Only - Each Accident $
_ Any
__,Any Auto
Other Than Auto Only:
Each Accident $
Aggregate $
Excess Liability
Each Occurrence $
Umbrella Form
Aggregate $
—
—Other Than Umbrella Form
Workers' Compensation and
WC STATUTORY LIMITS
Employers' Liability
—
OTHER
TL Each Accident $
The Proprietor/Partners/ Ind.
EL Disease -Policy Limit $
Executive'Officers are: Excl.
EL Disease -Each Employee- $
ther
Description of operations/locations/vehicies/speciaI items
Metropolitan Federal Savings Exterior Repairs - Street Use & Minor Repairs Permit - Project #8064. City of Edmonds is included
as Additional Insured per attached endorsement #43342.
*10--da sJo ..no -pqyM!�qt..q!..premiqm
- - ----- y ... .... T ...... 9.. ................
RAFNCOXCERT95(M4) 9 , — 72*
GOVERNMENT PERMIT FOO, OUR WORK ENDORSEMENT —
ADIATIONAL PROTECTED PERSONS
110-
ishw
0
11
This endorsement changes your Commercial
General Liability Protection.
How Coverage Is Changed However, the government unit isn't a protected
person for injury or damage that results from
The following is added to the Who Is Protected your work for it. Nor is it a protected person
Under This Agreement section. This change - for bodily injury or property damage that
adds certain protected persons and limits their results from your completed* work.
protection.
Government unit The state or other unit of
government shown in the Coverage Summary as
a government unit is a protected person. But
only for covered injury or damage that results
from your work for which it has issued a permit.
We explain what we mean by your work and
your completed work in the Products and
completed work total limit section.
Other Terms
All other terms of your policy remain the same.
43342 E--.d.7-85 Printed ir, USA. �-ndorsemen.i to Cornmercisi General Liabi!it,
P e u I FF i a r; d. Mi a c2 In s- u r a n c C - 9 8 5 C,
t-� , age 1 of I
- --- - p ,
O.CT 17 '95 01:48PM METROPOLITAN FEDERAL
P. 2
� e
=0
0
pit
Ila
V%
14
. . ....... J. -
0
0
0
ST
cn
0
I
4h
(A ms Te- r
Ey',�;+
Lu,
0
MET IPED sh\)tNcz�& 1� �-(:Zctr,�
2-zc� e.\A�Y-,)
0
0
A
April 26, 1974
Ptes-er First Toderal
3d & Hain Street*
FAmonds, Washington 98020
Attention: Lee Barton, Mana"r
Gentleman:
The Edmonds City Council on April 2, 1974, approved the
Street Use Permit for the extension of the overhead sign 3'6" into
city right-of-way. Since that date the sign has been installed.
However, to meet the legal requirements of the Ordinance, it is requested
that the City of Edmonds be provided a certificate of insurance to indemnify
and hold the City harmless from all-cleims and/or property damage, naming
the City of FAmonds an an also insured.. A copy of Ordinance 1416 in enclosed
for your information.
Your* very truly,
CITY OF EMONDS
LEIF R. LARSON, P.E.
City Engineer
rf
Enclosure
EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 74
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF SOMERSET
City Planner, Joe Wallis, briefly reviewed this plat with the use of slides
showing maps and several views of the site. It is located at 9th Avenue North
immediately north of Northetream Lane. City Engineer, Leif Larson, recommended
that the plat be approved,.subject to the applicant filing a maintenance bond
in the amount of $2,400. This is to asaure that any deficiences that occur
MOTION: after the acceptance of the improvements will be taken care of. COUNCILMAN
ANDERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSOh, TO APPROVE THE kINAL PLAT OF
SOMERSET, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED PROCURING OF A MAINTENANCE BOND. CARRIED.
STREET USE PERMIT - LANDSCAPING AND RUSTIC SIGN AT 9TH AND SOMERSET LANE
City -Planner Wallis reported that this it6m,had been considered by the Amenities
Design Board. The Board recommended that there be an agreement with the
Homeowners' Association to maintain the landscaping which would be out in
the right-of-way; and that that portion of the Homeowners' Agreement be submitted
to the City Attorney ior review. In the'event.the City finds it necessary to
remove that landscaping the.Homeowners' Association is aware that it is.in th . e
City right-of-way and that the City will not aBaume'any liability for maintaining
or re-establishing that landscaping. Mr. Wallis pointed out that the City does
not at the present time regu ' late.signs identifying neighborhoods or subdivisions,
nor. do we regulate. signs in multil4amAy 'districts put out for the pu'r,
pose of
renting. �Ile.thougllt these two items should be addressed in the Sign Ordinance.
MOTION: Following some discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY CO"UNCIIMAN NELSON AND SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE STREET USE PERMITIOR LANDSCAPING AND
RUSTIC SIGN AT *9ilf AND SOMERSET LANE CONTING ENT UPON A HOMEOWNERS, ASSOCIATION
AGREEMENT ON THE MAINTAINING OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND ALSO
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE USE OF TM RIGHT-OF-WAY BY Tit CITY IN -THE EVENT OF
ANY 1`UTURE ACTION. MOTION CARRIED.
STREET USE PERMIT - OVERHEAD EXTENSION OF SIGN AT _3RD AND MAIN (PIONEER 1ST FEDERAL)
Planner Wallis reported.that the Amenities Design Board approved the above-
menti ' oned sign. Mr. Wallis stated that. -there is a 31611 extexision into tile
street, and therefore it has to be a minimum of.91 above tile sidewalk because
of this extension into the right-of-way. The applicant has stated that he
MOTION: will remove tile present sign. A MOTION WAS MADE BY -COUNCILMAN ANDERSON AND
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WINTERS TO APPROVE Tit STREET dSE-PERMIT FOR THE
EXTENSION OFTHE SIGN ATRONEER FIRST FEDERAL. �kOTION CARRIED.
REPORL' BY CITY ENGINEER ON 220TH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HEARING
Engineor Larson stated that council had been sent copies of . tile minutes of' the
heari.rij,, with iegard to this matter. . The hearing was held on February 14, lqy4.
lie said that he did not get the feeling from th ' e audience that the ','Oth
project was controversial. There are no parks, recreation land or rorest
land affected and every effort will be made'to.design it to the existing grade.
Mr. Larson stated that based.on 'his findings, the project is not considered
to be a major action significantly affecting tile environment. It wac, tiierefore,
recommended that a Negative Declaration be adlopted in connection with the
propused U.A.B. Project 8-!(-139 (07) for.improvement of d2Oth 1. Street S. W.
from 84th Avenue West to the Traction Company right-of"way. Some disciassion
followed, and -Mr. Larson mentioned that there would be a left turn holding lane
provided at 76th Avenue West and 220th. Councilman Welling said that lie would
like to continue to be advised on the break -off point between the negative
declaration and a positive environmental impact statement. Planner Wallis
noted. that legislation is being drafted now -to brink to the counci I to further
specify what is included in both the assessment and the declaration. lie said
there is a certain amount of information in the Environmental Policy Act tLat
gives some guidelines in this respect.
EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 2. 1974
-3-
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF SOMEFSET.
City Planner, Joe Wallis, briefly reviewed this plat with the use of slides
showing maps and several views of the site. It is located at 9th Avenue North
immediately north of Northatream Lane. City Engineer, Leif Larson, recommended
that the plat be approved,.subject to the applicant filing a maintenance bond
in the amount of $2,400. This is to saitsure that any deficiences that occur
MOTION: after the,acceptance of the improvements will be taken care of. COUNCIL14AN
ANDERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON, TO APPROVE THE yINAL PLAT OF
SOMERSET, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED PROCURING OF A MAINTENANCE BOND. CARRIED.
STREET USE PERMIT - IANDSCAPING AND RUSTIC SIGN AT 9TH A ND SOMERSET LANE
City Planner Wallis reported that this item had been considered by the Amenities
Design Board. The Board recommended that.there be an agreement with the
Homeowners' Association to maintain the landscaping which would be out in
the right-of-way; and that that portion of the Homeowners'. Agreement be submitted
to.the City Attorney for review.. In the event the City finds it necessary to
remove that landscaping the,Homeowneral Association is aware that it is in the
City right-of-way and,that the City will not assumeAny liability formaintaining
or re,establishing that landscaping. Mr. iall:is pointed out that the City does
not at the.present time regulate signs identifying neighborhoods or subdivisions,
nor do we regulate signs in multi-famAy'districts put out for the purpose of
renting. He thought these two items should be addressed in , the'Sign Ordinance.
MOTION: Following some 'discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NELSON AND SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN ' ANDERSON'TO APPROVE TH . E STREET USE PERMIT FOR LANDSCAPING AND
RUSTIC SIGN AT 9TH AND SOMERSET LANE CONTINGENT UPON A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
AGREEMENT ON THE MAINTAINING OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY; AND ALSO
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY By THE city IN THE EVENT OF
ANY 11ITURE ACTION. MOTION CARRIED.
STPEET USE PERMIT - OVERHEAD EXTENSION OF SIGN AT 3RD AND MAIN (PIONEER IST FEDERAL)
Planner Wallis reported that the AmenitiesDesign Board approved the above -
mentioned sign. Mr. Wallis stated that there is a 316" extension into the
street, and therefore it has to be a minimum of 91 above the sidewalk because
of this extension into the right-of-way., The applicant has stated that he
MOTION: will remove the present sign. A MOTION.WAS MADE BY COUNCII14AN ANDERESON AND
SECONDED -BY COUNCILMAN WINTERS TO APPROVE THE STREET USE PERMIT �'OR THE
EXTLPN�;ION OFTHE SIGN ATIIONEER FIRST FEDERAL. MOTION CARRIED.
REPoin By CITY ENG,rNEER ON 220T)l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HEARING
Engineor Larson stated that council had, been sent copies of the minutes of' the
hearing with regard to this matter. The hearing was field on Febriiary 14, 3.9'?4.
Ile said that he did not get the feeling from the audience that the ;'.'Otlj
project was controverrial. There are no parks, recreation land or forest
land arfected and every effort will be made to design it to the existing grade.
Mr. barson stated that based on his findings, the project is not coiisidered
to be a me ' -Jor action significantly affecting the environment. It was, tiierefore,
recommended that a Negative Declaration be adlopted in connection with the
proposed U.A.B. Project &!,1-139 (07) for improvement of ;??Oth Street-"'. W.
.from 84th Avenue West to the Traction Company right-of-way. 'lomo discuosion
followed, and -'Mr. Larson mentioned that there would be a left turn holding lane
provided at 76th Avenue West and 220th. Councilman Welling said that lie wolild
like to continue to be advised on the break -off point between tLe negative
declaration and a positive environmental impact statement. Plaliner Wallis
noted that legislation is being drafted now to bring to the council to further
specify what is included in both the.assessment and the declaration. Ile said
there is a certain amount of information in the Environmental Policy Act tI;at
gives some guidelines in this respect.
0 40 / 6 . T.
CITY of EDMONDS
Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525
Office of the City Engineer
March 27, 1974
MEMO TO: Mayor H.H. Harrison
& City Council
FROM: Leif R. Larson
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Pioneer First Federal Savings
Street Use Permit Application
The Amenities Des * ign Board reviewed and approved the
application by Pioneer First Federal Savings for a new sign at
3d*and Main Streets. This approval included the Street Use
Permit to extend the sign over the sidewalk 3'6" at a height of
91.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the
Street Use Permit subject to receipt of certification of insurance
to indemnify and hol'd the City harmless from all claims arising
out of the use and adequate insurance for public liability an d/or
property damage.
rf
Attachments
01 0
RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
505 BELL STREET
EDMONDSs WASHINGTON 98020
APPLICATION FUR STREET USE PERMIT
(Submit in TriLlLicate,)
a __� —1, � -r
Wame of Applicant: _ � Qj_k_r,:p TZ EZ
DEC 13 1973
[X-s(_'Jription ot Public Place or Portion Thereof Desired to be used*.
(L; i.b.i 1: may be attached)
T%q)e of One desired to be Made of Public Place:
Tf Applicable, Attach Plans and Upecitications vor mny uxiiity or ;>LrucLuvt:
Vrecled and/or Maintained on the Public Place#.
J.:xnibi ( or Drawing Nos:
Teiq)ora Pe rmi t:
c.tt,,erwise designated herein, this permit is understood by applicant 'to be
w1jouy of �.'% temporary nature, that -it vests no permanent right whatsoever. If the
permitted use becomes dangerous or such structure shall become insecure or unsafe,
or s�ajjl not he constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions
of �itle, the same may be revoked and the structure and obstructions ordered
removed by Order of the City Engineer. If this application is for a specific
fx�riocj o[ t,iffw, the term of said- application is:
,I nct(, mill ty:
ApplicanL understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the
C! ty c f cdmonus harmless from any in.juries, damages or claims of any kind or des-
+1 L(Jj wtkit:,oever, Foreseen or unforeseen, that may be mcide against the applicant
i.iie c"*.,,- :t: Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including but not:
I htsio�.; r.e) the riefense of any legal. proceedings including defense costs, court,
and at-torney fees.
A
of Cliapter 6.40 of the Edmonds City Code:
A-1,J.1 i cint warrants that fie has read, or had the opportunity to read, Chapter 6.40
ei� iij(, ),-,hnt)non City Code, and understands that all terms of that Ordinance are
ii,,, rrw.,ratad 'oerein as is set forth in full and this application and permit there-
fore arw _sij�)Ject to.the terms of -that Ctiapter of the Edmonds City Code.
R A j I e_ <I 6 A)
14 E70, E-
,ON ty
ture of Applicant)
Pioneer FKrst'FdderaZ
'Citz of E.dmonds Appliq&jjion for Street Use Permit
Name of Applicant.. ELI-
Street Address:
city:
Date:
A22roval (and Agreemient, if Ag )licable) of Abutting Property Owner(s):
dE�tUre Address
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS L114E (To be completed by Issuing Agency)
Date of City Council Approval:
Permit Fee:
Provision for Indemnity:
Annual Fee due January 1, 19
Terms and Provision of Performance Bond, 11' Applicable:
1---7jTprT(=!1e Ordinance
'(Note: Reference 6 '0.0'50 6JT t; e
Additional Conditions Imposed Upon and Agreed to by Applicant:
Z—, //Z1,,�/, 11) A,, �/ 316
Approved by:
City Engineer Date
Approved by:
(If applicable) Building Official Date
Permit Issued: Penn�it Number:
Date
Applicant has read the foregoing application and conditions of approval of this
permit, fully understands and agrees to all conditions of the foregoing applica-
tion and permit approval, and by the execution of his signature hereto agrees to
the same:
Date
-T
.Applicant's Signature
P�-7
37)
vy
',O.k
!4l
14
S-4
4
Uo
t.8
Fl. r
64. c
I I 4o!
rn
On
IREM
I;E:m
Ulm
17XMr
"Wa
FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
200 DAYTON ST. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771-3202
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
May 9, 1983
Pioneer Bank
PT Main St.
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
Gentlemen:
HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
The City of Edmonds is currently experiencing a serious storm
water problem. our sewage wastewater treatment system is being
overtaxed by large volumes of storm water from roofs, drains,
driveways, and parking lots. If this water is not eliminated from
the system, the sewage treatment plant will require expansion much
sooner than it otherwise would.
A series of tests were completed, identifying your property
as one of the infiltration sources. This storm water must be
removed from the sanitary sewer system as soon as possible. The
attached drawings indicate several solutions to this problem, one
of which should be applicable to your property.
The City has established this as a top priority project, and
your cooperation is urgently needed. Please contact Dan Smith or
Jerry Hauth at 771-3202 for assistance prior to installation of
your modified system.
Sincerely,
JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E.
City Engineer
DTS/st
Attachments (2)
cc: f ile
e
!SFLASH BOX 15OLOT-10N]
To SANIrA#Z�
F905L.,i5m sewe-x
DK\IWEtL saono
Cur 'Pa2c
2. CEME-Nr OVV? WAIN
J.'40'p ar3ow �jvipe4T WlT-!6f_
TO TKYWEIL. ( 1101-5 1-5 S/AJIOLI
A AOLC r'ILLOV WI-rH 6jrTAlJrL
ALT-ERNATe- SIT-e- S&L-u-riog
cgmcvr oveg DnAlly
.3. Avv: e:V_-OW AND RVAJ
.... DRAIN- TOE To Aj�TCO—qArrc5
_5C7,1._ U 7_1 0 Al
-7. ADZ> fvcaotV 7-0 &VP
4 P1/?6_cf �VWV�C �W�l
g/ W41. 4r
K_- VelqWELL wrH
GKAV& L_
I - cul, f.pd
. 1 1
-ORAIN SDLUTIO�J
1. CL)-r DkAW 'PIP6'
2. CiFMEIJ-r 011CIk DRA14
RUN WATCF- TZ) --S'rcAz"
-5. iVz
Nol-CF.- AV- Woev- iN
Ovr-WAY To -5E Po4e t-lr-o\j5ElD
-4
n MtT
WE I--p [�OLFS-Qx(j
E r3
-IkZ R AR)
cur P, pe
I-?- CEAAff4r OV6P_
-FO 5�AfJ I TAAJ
061A/ M
E
I.AJEW rlvt:
A"D T-Hp'j CLJ'Z-f3, No-rE: ALL Wd)a�K-i Po,�-Ja- lll.�
I
e-() C 0 flJ T IN C-T-V P-- , ItR AA r 0 1 ve a
2. WAT-E7z- VIPC�C) -fe,) CqL)7-r&-K-- lf-3 ST(ze-t7-r
VVHCAC: rr K-O�JS 7-0 6ATZA -BoNSIWI op—
AFAMP
yL) MAy) Ir yoo IvE-t5*9 To' A&I
o v
Fl rO Z)FV156-- P4,qAl role 041 ZCVK UP
y I
(fO1V5uLr1,v6l' //v rl-lc IlelkV
ye�-z
/A/
4 AM .5-r . F-V M 0^0 S 234Z-3 //W/.
,P/'/- 77-5 34734- -31ol
�16)6 /00 7;4 Vj
I
Memo to: Plann' /A. D. B.
Sept 80 'I'leetin(, 7
0
Pacre 3-
ADB-65-80 ROBERT PANTLEY - Review of site, landscape and elevations
for retail/ofTice/restaurant at 138 Railroad Ave. (CW)
Several City departments and Mr. Pantley are currently
involved in a possible redesign of the on -site parking
and circulation system. Comments shall be forthcoming,
or presented at the meeting, when an agreed upon plan
is completed.
ADB-66-80 HERBERT AND FRANK ZE14K - Review oF screening of roof -top
mechanical equipment for the &iil-In 'I'avern at 105 Main
Street. (BC)
Engineering has no comment on this item.
C>
ADB-67-30 FINLEY/ BUTTERFIELD/ PIONEER FIRS'].' FED1,RAL SAVINGS - Review
of revisions to exterior elevations, parking UiT circul-
ation and' signage of exisLinp, hanl� at' 229 Main Street.
(3rd and Main) (BC)
Parking stall widths are reqUired to be 9 feet in width.
Also, a right-of-way construction pe I rmit shall be required
when new curb cut is made on 3rd Ave. N. This driveway to
be 24' wide.
I
0 0
*'Aro�
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER - 2612 Wetmore Avenue - P.O. Box 1709 - Everett, Washington 98206 - Telephone (206) 259-0231
July 31, 1975
City of Edmonds
Building Department
250 Fifth N.
Edmonds WA 98020
Gentlemen:
When we remodeled our office at Third and Main in Edmonds
the first of this year, it was requested by the City that
a speed bump be placed in the driving lane for our new
drive-in window. The purpose for'this being that it would
slow cars down as they approached the sidewalk on Third
Avenue.
Since installing the speed bump, we have had two parties
fall and be injured. In. one case a medical claim was
filed against our insurance, and in the second case not
only was a medical claim filed, but the party is also
asking for $2,000 damages.
We cannot afford to have this continue at.this rate. The
purpose of this letter is to request'that we be given
permission to remove the speed bump in order to remove
this hazard for pedestrians.
We would appreciate ananswer on this matter as soon as
possible.
Yours truly,,
PIONEER FIRST FE ERAL
N. J. Halladay
Vice President
NJH: ls
Arlington Edmonds Everett Federal Way Marysville Redmond Snohomish - South Everett
CITY of EDMONDS
Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525
Building Department
August 6, 1975
N. J. Halladay, Vice President
Pioneer First Federal Savings
P.O. Box 1709
Everett, Washington 98026
Dear Sir: Re: Permit #740614-229 Main St'.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 31,
1975. We have asked the city engineer's office to review
the matter, and will advise.you of the result.
Veryitruly yours,
ED NDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT
H rry M.
arry M. hitcutt
Build,-Ing Official
HMW/ae
cc: engineer
SM- EE i F'6LE
INAR-00FICE COMMUNICATONS
DATE August 8, _lg 75
TO Harry Whitcutt FP0M Richard H. Allen
Building Official Assistant City Engineer
SU13JECT: Speed Bumips'-- Pioneer Bank'at 3d.Avenu) N. and Main Street
In reference to your memo of August 6th and the letter from Pioneer Bank
dated July 31'st, the review of the building plan submitted for the building
permit indicated a hazardous situation involving the increase in traffic
exiting the subject property due to the addition of a drive-in window. We
have had previous experiences with drive-in activities in the downtown area
involving injuries to pedestrians on the public sidewalk. The conditions
peculiar to the development in the downtownbusiness area are not the most
suitable for drive-in activities and are generally used for pedestrian and
street -side parking activities.
To protect the p.ublic in theluse of the sidewalk adjacent to the subject
bank, we requestJthat signs and speed bumps be placed in the e*xiting drive-
way which has proved to be an effective means of controlling the traffic
entering the sidewalk. We.will, however,.consider other alternate means
for insuring that the drive-in customers make appropriate stops. It is,
there fore, requested that the owner submit,alternate plans for our review.
RHA: mj r
a
i U,01
Si L L- 4" 11
SIGNING EVAWATION
Engineering Depittment
October 29, 1975
PRIVATE PARKING LOT AT 3d "ENUE AND MAIN STREET
1. The proposed "No Entry" sign will probably work at the proposed h6izht.
The colors look good and bl*ndinto the landscaping although it
should be noted that for traffic control the color green means "Go".
I',,vdd1d recommend painted directional arrows on the parking lot paving
to indicate that if you don't see the sign and want to enter, you would
see the painted arrows showing exit only.
2. The stop sign is recognized internationally by almost everyone, there-
fore, it would be of benefit to the motorist attempting egress from
the parking lot to have a stop sign installed --other commercial-l-prop-
�_:,;verties have installed stop signs with good success.
3. A drawing of the ingress parking and egress could be used "as a hand-
out to customers" as an education process and would be a benefit of
all concerned.
.I -, �, � - - , � " ': �_ - - "
March 27, 1974
MEMO TO: Mayor H.H. Harrison
& City Council
FROM: Leif R. Larson
City Ennineer
SUSJFCT: Pioneer First Federal Savings
Street Use Permit Aglication
The Amenities Design Board reviewed and approved the
application by Pioneer First Federal Savings for a new sion at
3d and Main Streets. This approval included the Street Use
Permit to extend.the siqn o4� the'sidewalk 3'6" at a heiqht of
9
It is recommended th,�t thn Ci.ty Council approve. the
Street Use Permit subject to receipt of certification of insurance
to indemnify and hold the City harmless from all claims arising
out of the use and adequate insurance for public liability and/or
property damaqe.
rf
all
AMIENIIIES DESIGN BOARD
:1arch 6, 1974
Ile special meeting of the Ameni ties Design Board was called to order by
Chairman Margaret Bernhaft. flembers prpsent were John Latourell, Mike
Rizzuto and Keith Goldsmith. Staff member present was Joe Wallis, City
Planner.
ADB-4- 74 T i i � e r- la r k e t c� r -, . Installation of pole sign. 7711 Lake
Ballinger Way N.E. (BC )
t1r. Wallis explained that this application had been continued from the Feb-
ruaCy 27th hearing. The Board had some ques tions and the appl kant had nut
he present at the hearing.
Mr. Wallis said the application is for a pole sign at a new business. The
property is zoned Community Business. This is for store identification all
Lake Ballinger Way which is a 40 mile per hour thoroughfare. i1r. Wallis had
some drawings that the applicant had agreed wUl to acuptaMe to him The
original plot plan showed this signing area wqh thme red oaks an it. The
Planning Departnent had a question that thne migtit attairl a statirre that
would obscure die sign so that there might be pruning of the trees. "Ir.
Wallis said he had been told that they will now put i" Japanese maple trems
which will remain fairly low. The sign will he set back sow 5 Net frol
the property line and there will he smw fairly low growing ground cover
along the street itself.
The applicant was in the audience. He said he had been advised by beir nur-
seiT people that these trves would rint exceed a maxhmm of 72 inchn and pinn-
hably not muru than 5 feet. It is 14 feet to the base of the sign and then
6 feet on top uf that. 1r, Wallis said they itre within the allowable sign
area including the pole sign as far as the zoldrig conde is concerne? Tile
applicant was asked if there was water available for the planting are�t around
the sign ind he said the water had been installed at the time of building.
The new sign will tie in with the existing signs a" the b0lding and Me Burd
said they felt these were very UsLefully done.
Ile Board discussed the need for additional landscaphq on Me site. Mey
discussed die use of Juniper Tams which f!U in and make good ground a)ver
in addition to looking nice.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY 11R. LATOURELL, SECOINI)ED BY �IiQ. RIZZUTO THAT THE APPLICA-
TION AS MODIFIED BY THE RECOVINENDATION FOR PERVETER PLMITINn OF MNPER TANIS
BE ACCEPTED. , Motion carried unanimously.
The applicant thanked the Board for callinq a special mntkg to hear this
matter. He said time was very important to them and they really appreciated
the time the Board had donatpd.
ADB- 10- /4 Pioneer Iirst Federal. Attached sirin at 3rd and lain. NO
Mr. Wallis explained to the Board that Lee Barton is the local manager of
Pioneer First Federal. Lee served on the Ad Hoc Design Committee and is
qu i te fami 1 i a r wi th the i nten t of the Boa rd. Sometime back the people repre-
senting Pioneer cane in to make application for a sign. At that time we did
not have Out- applications ready ard apparently Mr. Barton assumed that an
application for the amenitie; boald as well as Me buildinq apoication were
made. He asked that this be heard and inasmuch as the application had been
pending for some time Mr. Wa!lis was ask,ng that this be heard ai this time.
Mr. Wallis said this application was for an attached sign on the Pioneer First
Federal building at 3rd and thlin with the design intent be for identification
-,iithin the pedestrian scale downtown. The sign elevation was raised to 10
feet above grade because of code testrictions of the City. 'Ir. Wallis said
Amerii ties Do,; i( n Soo� H .,11 -,1, M(!(,!:in 1 1974 P,
olld(�; I (lo -, tandpo in t i L wou I d be Ltf�r i f flh� si'lo colild r;tav down in tho
e -r !.h.y had to rllef-t the,
_a " cn� il, w,ts 00yinally shown on lhe drawintl how ve n
standards of the City. 1he sign -is back-1 iq�ited. 1he sign Is on both 3rd and
Hain. The existing pole -iqn will be 'reinoved.
Mr. Barton said at some da t( � in the future they would be back to the Amenities
Design Board to remodel their, building. Until that timp this is thr, sign they
I propose to use.
(:ZI—
I I T WAS IMOVED BY MR. RIZZUTO, SECONDED BY VIR. LATOURELL THAT THE APPLICATION OF
'V
T W'i'
PI0�,JF1RNFIl6T FEDERAL FOR SlrN BE APPROVED. 'lotion carried unrinimously.
N 5TH AND MAIN
Al Kincaid, PresidLnt of the Chamber of Commerce told the backgr,ound of' the
proposed fountain at the corner of 5th and Main. lie said he had been to Europe
and fountains are the feature in the center of town. lie said he had contacted
Jack McLellan, a local desiUner and they had worked on a design that would be
acceptable to the town. They bad come up with a design tlhat was oriented to the
sound. Council had ayreed to participate 50% of cost in this venture, however
they were concerned about traffic and a mockup had been placed there to see how
traffic would move. This experiment had been very successful. fluch information
and assistance had been obtained from Leif Larson, Herb Gilbo and Joe Wallis.
Mr. Kincaid introduced the sculptors who have been working on this project,
Mr. Ed Belieu and Mr. Howard Duell.
Following further discussion and examination of thQ fountain project A MOTION
WAS 11ADE BY MR. LATOURELL, SECONDED BY MR. GOLDSMITH THAI THE BOARD ENDORSE TfiE
CONCEPT OF THE FOUNTAIN PROJECT AND ENCOURAGE THE CITY AND OR C011HUNITY GRO11PS
TO PA13TICIPATE IN PROVIDING ASSOCIATED STREET FURNITURE TO COMPLIFE THE VILLAGE
SQUARE. IN ADDITION AT SOME FUTURE TIME THE BOARD 140111-D LIKE To REVIE14 THE
PLANTINr, PLAN AND LIGHTING PIAN AND FURI*HERMOPE EN(.OURAGE LOCAL. I INANCIAL PARTI-
CIPAlION IN THE PROJECT. 'lotion carried unanimously.
The Board had further discussion on hearings and applications to the Boa�-d for
review and A 14OTION WAS PIAOE BY t!P. LATOURELL, SECONDED BY 111R. RIZZUTO THAT
DOCUMENTATION TO FULLY EXPLAIN 111F : APPLICATION MUSI" BE SUBtlITTED AND THr APPLI-
CANT OR ]'HE Al'I"LICANTS 16PRESENTA"lm riu,Jr LIL AVAILA11,1A, TO 'HIC B04101 '10 EXPLAIN
ANY QUES-11ONS OR 7HE APPLICA-11ON WILL BE CARRIED OVER TO '11117 LIND OF THL A(A'NDA
Of: THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHI.DULED MEETING. Motion c-irrierl unanivK)nsly.
There being no further busin(ss the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p;m.
STATEMENT OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION qj916/y
#7
Pioneer First Federal - Building remodel and parking lot.
This project will not be a major action significantly effecting the environment
for the following reasons:
(1) The number of proposed parking spaces (20) will not generate unusual
noise or air pollution in a business district.
(2) The project conforms to existing codes and requirements.
(3) The drainage will be handled in the design and engineering of the
parking lot.
K v i #miiny
AY L. SHOUDY
Assistant City Planner
11-14-74
REMODEL EDMONDS BRANCH
PROJE E PIONEER FIRST FEDERAL
SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC.
PATE SUBMITTED July 5, 1974
ENVIRO,'IMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971,
the responsible official must make a declaration of environmental impact as early
as possible in the process of evaluating a project.
The inforimation in this form will be used to determine whether it will be neces�
sary to require an environmental impact statement. If an impact statement is
not required, a Statement.of Negative Declaration will be placed in the. file.
If an impact staterient is required, a draft statement must be filed with this
office, public notice gillven and a review period of 30 days allowed. The final
statement and comments must be filed with the Department of Ecology, Office of
the Governor and the Ecological Commission.
The Edmonds Planning Staff will assist you in any way we can in accumulating
this information and we would appreciate your cooperation.
1. Land:
Area in acres O,-j3 ACRES
Soils type SANDY LOAM Limitat.ions NQNE
Description of topography (slope) pgOpEgTy SLOPES DOWN -APPROXIMATELY
Grading: estimated cubic yds. MINOR GRADING ONLY
Filling: estimated cubic yds. NONE gFQ1jIgE6
2. Water:
Stream - estimated flow (gallons) per minute —NONE
Will stream be altered? NOT APPLICABLE
91 To what degree? NOT APPLICABLE
Impact on storm drainage (increase in run-off)
2853 SO, FT. TO DRY WELL -
Estimated area to be paved, g623 SQ_-FT-
Shorelines: within 200 ft. of Mean Higher High WaterNoT AppLICABLE
Adjacent to shorelines zone
00 00
Environmental Assessment, page 2
3. Vegetation:
Type of trees NONE % to be removed_ Nf)T APPI IrARI F
Minimum diameter. of trees to remain NOT AppLirA13LE
Ground cover [-AWN & RESIDENTIAL PLANTING % to be removed 100%
Proposed landscaping, if any WILL BE.SUBMITTED LATER DURING CONSTRUCTION
PER I OD.
4. Existing Land Use within 300 ft. radius of proposed development:
Single
Multi -
Vacant
Family
Fami I y
Comm.
Other
North
X
South
X
East
X
Wes t
X
5. Circulation:
Estimated increase in auto trips daily 10%
Estimated demand for public transportation NONE
Degree of change on adjacent streets NONE
6.. Area of imoact:
nei ghborhood —X
ci ty-wi de
regional
7. Effect on air quality:
NONE
8. thanges in noise generation: NONE
AMENITIES DESIGN BOARL"
JULY 24, 1974
The regular meeting of the Amenities Design Board was called to order by Vice Chairman
John Latourell. Mr. Latourell welcomed the audience and introduced the members of the
Board.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF MEMBER PRESENT
JoRn Latourell Margaret Bernhoft Kay L.Shoudy, Assistant City Planner
Keith Goldsmith Mike Rizzuto
Don Westlin
AGENDA ITEMS
ADB-46-74 Foster & Kleiser - advertising sign at, 23305 Highway 99 (CG)
Mrs. Shoudy showed slides of the site where sign will be located stating
that there is an existing sign there now. There was some confusion on the
exact location of the property and the applicant clarified the location
stating that it is just south of 230th on Highway 99.
Mr. G oldsmith expressed concern and displeasure over the fact that plans
are not submitted early enough prior to the hearing date to allow the Board
members to look the plans o/er and visit the property site. In this case
the application listed the wrong address. Mr. Latourell concurred.
Mr. Westlin made a motion that action be withheld on this application until
it can be reviewed in relation to the correct site and surrounding area.
Mr. Westlin asked Mrs. Shoudy if the sign meets the building code.
Mrs. Shoudy stated that they are required t o get a permit from the State
Highway Department under the Scenic Highway Act. The applicant stated that
he thought it had been obtained. Mrs. Shoudy said that the Scenic Highway
Act limits the distance between billboards and there may be some oroblems
with distance limitations. She said there may also be some problem with
the area allowed in the sign because the sign area is computed on lot
frontage in that zoning district. The applicant stated that he could provide
the Board with a proper site plan.
MR. GOLDSMITH SECONDED MR. WESTLIN'S MOTION TO WITHHOLD ACTION ON THIS
APPLICATION UNTIL MORE DETAILED PLANS CAN BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED.
MOUa CARRIED.
ADB-47-74 Pioneer First Federal Savings - Landscape Parking area at 3rd Ave. & Main
Mr. Tom Johnson, representative for Pioneer First, stated that they had
submitted a floor plan, plot plan, environmental assessment, and landscaping
plans for the structure at the corner of 3rd and Main and the planned
additional parking area south of Main on 3rd. He stated the plans include
alterations to the building itself as well as additional parking space.
There was general discussion of the landscape plan with Mr. Johnson answering
questions. There was also general discussion of the planned alterations.
Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed plans for the parking area would make
the property more functional.
MR. GOLDSMITH MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ADB-47-74 AS SUBMITTED. SECONDED BY
MR. WESTLIN. MOTION CARRIED.
Mrs. Shoudy asked if they were approving the landscaping plan only. Mr.
Goldsmith stated that his motion was to approve the entire plan as presented.
Fil NO.
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CIVIC CENTER ANNEX, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL BY AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD
1,, (We) the undersigned, hereby make application to.the City of Edmonds
for Amenities Design Board approval
aw"A) of the accompanying plans for.(nature of use):
which plans.are attach
hereto ana-made a part hereof in accordance _wTth the provisions of
Ordinance . The following are' pertinent -facts with respect to the
proposed d—ev-576pment:
1. Name and address of applicant(s): PIONEER FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC.
2702 COLBY, EVERETT, WASH. 98201 PhiDne: 259-0231
2. Applicant's interest in property: owner ( X ) agent for owner(
architect optionor other
3. Name and address of dwner.(s) SAME As ITEM 1, AgOVE,
Phone:
4. Location of property: Street Number:
or Common Address: 380 AVENUE & MAIN SIR ET
5. This property is 'presently zoned:' BC
COWLINITY BUSINESS ZONE,
6. Use for which approval is reque*sted is specifically described as
follows: LANDSCAPED PARKING AREA.
7.. Existing use of property: ___RUIC)ENIIAL
8. If approved, work on project will begin about: SEpTEJffiEg 1974
9. Estimated time for completion of work: _ 120 [)AyS,
10. Date: —July 5. 1974
11. Attatchments Number
I (We) hereby certify to the best of 0/1,0)r) knowledge, that the
statements and information containedr are in all respects true
and correct.
R. M. Humphrev
Signat re V Applicant
President
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CIVIC CENTER ANNEX, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL bY AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD
CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL.
Every application.for Site and Architecture Approval is considered in
relationship to the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to
provide that the general appearance of the site and of the buildings and
structures thereon, and. -their arrangement and relationship to one another
.and to other development in the vicinity shall be harmonious, orderly,
and based upon good standards.of architectural design. Also considered
where pertinent are the adequacy of proposed landscaping, parking spaces,
driveways and -elements of des i gn affecting' the performance characteristics
of any proposed.r6sidential, commercial or industrial operation.
GUIDE TO PROCEDURE
I . Complete the attached 6pp,lication.and file with the Planning Department.
II. All applications must be filed in acceptable form by 5:00 O.M.,
fourteen (14) days prior to a'scheduled meeting. In those cases
where the -project or request is not categorically exempt from the
pro ' visions of the.Environmental Impact Statement and/or the.Shore-
lines Management Act,"also the State Environmental Protection Act,
an additional delay may be requiredfor processing applications
depending on the depth of study required for the above.
A. A decision of the Site and Architecture Application cannot 'be
rendered.until after the completion*of all environmental
clearance requirements.
B. File with the Planning Department Office the followi I ng material:
1. Completed application.
hoe---
3. Required Submittals: Two (2) prints of all preliminary drawings
and/or final drawings necessary to clearly illustrate the app-
licant's request, scaled and dimensioned. The appl,icant it
responsible for the accuracy of these drawings,..and any approval
granted on the basis of inaccurate information may be held
invalid. The applicant or his representative sh6Uld.contact
theflanni partm-ent Office (775-25-21-y-f-oir consultatioR_
as 5 which of the followl-ngitems shall be requi.red in.
connection with the submission of a p Icular aRplic on.
The required data may i lude, but is not limited to, the
following:
a. Plot Plan
1) All property lines.
2� Setback lines.
3 All structures existing and�proposed to be indicated
in scale.
4) Existing trees,'size, location, and type, including
the existing grade at the base.
5) Driveways and off�street parkin including curbing,
surfa�ing material, stall size and aisle Widths, and
traff I c direction.
6� Loading areas.
7 Public improvements, including streets, curbsi
gutters, street lighting, and sidewalks.
8) Grading, cuts or fills, and proper drainage.
r.
Guide To Procefr!b(con'd)
Pa-ge two
b. 6uilding Elevations
11 All elevations pertinent to application.
2 Type of materials.
3 Height
4 Screening of r6of-based mechanical equipment.
C. Landscaping Plan
1) Type and location of existing and proposed
shrubs and trees.
2� Initial size of all plant material.
3 Fencing, including height, location, and style
(use of material).
d. Signing
1). Size, shape, and exact location of all existing
and proposed signs (interior or exterior),.
2� Colored sketch of all proposed signs.
3 Materials (wood, pl.astic, metal, etc.)
4� Type of illumination.
5 Cross�-section of entire parcel illustrating the
proposed freerstanding sign.in proper relation
to the structure it is designed to serve.
e. Lighting Plan
I Lot lighting.
2 Any structure illumination.
3 Location.
4 General style of fixtures.
51 Intensity.
ovw
L
DAVIDO CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
CIVIL n STRUCTURAL v LAND USE
I
ITO: City of Edmonds
FROM: Quin Clements, P.E.
IDATE: September 9, 2010
I
I
I
I
I
I
� i
I
I
P�
I
I
MEMORANDUM
RE: Washington Federal Building — 229 Main St.
Drainage Narrative
STREET FILE
RECEIVED
SEP 101' 2010
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
C4TY OF EDMONDS
This memorandum summarizes the proposed drainage system for the proposed Washington Federal Bank on the
subject pa * rcel including addressing the minimum requirements applicable to the project set forth in the 2010
Stormwater'Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (the combination of
which shall be referenced herein as "Drainage Manual").
Project Summary
The 14,405 SF site at 229 Main Street in Edmonds, WA will be redeveloped with the existing building demolished,
and a new building and parking lot constructed. Access and parking for the site is from both 3 d Ave N via a new
curb cut and driveway, and the existing access from an alley off of Main St. Per the Drainage Manual, the site falls
within the drainage thresholds for a Category 2 Small Site Project and must comply with the associated minimum
requirements set forth in the Drainage Manual.
In conversations with the City about the drainage basin that the site lies within, it was determined that there have
been flooding issues at downstream intersections. Consequently, Dow control would be required on site meeting the
requirements set forth in the flow control portion of the Drainage Manual.
The proposed drainage system, shown on the Drainage Plan submitted separately, includes collection of stormwater
via downspouts for the proposed building, and Type I catch basins within the parking lot. The collected stormwater
is conveyed to a four foot diameter, sixty-five foot long detention tank and flow control manhole. The Type I catch
basins shall have a spill control elbow (downturned 90 degree bend) for separation of oil and water from the
pollution generating impervious surfaces before conveyance to the detention tank.
The controlled discharge from the flow control manhole will be conveyed southerly down the westerly property line
and into a new Type 11 catch basin within the Main St right-of-way. A new 12" main will be installed westerly in
Main St approximately 113 feet and connect to a new Type I catch basin which will replace an existing shallow
Type I catch basin. An existing 6" storm drain conveys the stormwater westerly through the public storm system to
its direct discharge point hi Puget Sound. A new Type I catch basin will also be installed in place of a bubble -up
catch basin just west of the intersection of 3 d Street and Main St along the curb line. This will connect to the new
Type 11 catch basin via a new 12" storm main along the curb. The easterly catch basin and connecting 12" ston-n
main is being installed per the request of the City as it is not needed for the drainage improvements of the subject
site.
Minimum Requirements
The site is required to satisfy minimum requirements I through I I per the Drainage Manual Section 5.0 Small Site
Requirements. The site and drainage design satisfies the requirements as stated below:
Seattle Al -ea Office
15029 Bothell Way NE, Ste 600, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155
Ph. 206.523.0024 Fax 206.523.1012
Drainage Design Meino—Washington Federal Bank
Whidbey Office
PO Box 1132, Freeland, WA 98249
Ph. 360.331.4131 Fax 360.331.5131
Drainage Narrative - 229 Main St — Washington Federal Bank September 9, 2010
Sinall Site Hininnon Requirement 91 — Preparation of Stornni'ater Site Plan
A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the area of proposed construction, topographical information and a tally of new
and replaced impervious surface has been prepared in accordance with Section 5.1 of the Drainage Manual to satisfy
this requirement. Also completed were a construction plan, details, and specifications for storinwater control
features. See the Drainage Plan submitted separately for the design layout.
Minitnuln Requirement #2 — Construction S101'1771iaier Pollution Prevention Plan
This requirement consists of two parts — an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Spill Prevention
Plan. The Stormwater Spill Prevention Plan was deemed not necessary given the small site and the unlikelihood of a
spill reaching the storinwater system. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared and submitted
separately showing erosion control elements to be implemented during construction.
Mininnun Requirement 93 — Source Control of Pollutants
A list of applicabl6'Best Management Practices has been attached to this narrative as a guide for preventing sources
of pollution from entering the site drainage system. The oil/water separator serves as a source control for any oil that
may be in stormwater runoff from the parking area.
Mininnun Requirement #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Ou�falls
The site complies with this requirement by discharging site runoff to its natural discharge point downstream, Puget
Sound. The existing site discharged stormwater to dry wells on site to be infiltrated. This was not a possibility for
the redevelopment due to the required flow control system and necessary storm drain extension in Main St.
Minimum Requirement #5 — Onsite Storinwater Management
Low impact development options were analyzed for the developed site, but were deemed unsuitable due to a
combination of poor onsite soils, the requirement for flow control, and the limited space on site. Infiltration
possibilities would have been excessively large due to poor soils found by the geotechnical engineer. Open space
limitations were not conducive to rain gardens. See the attached Geotech Report for additional on -site soils
information.
Minimum Requirement 96 — Runoff Treatment
Per conversations with City personnel, treatment sufficient for the project site includes spill control devices (down -
turned 90 degree elbows) in the parking lot catch basins, as well as desigriing the detention tank with 0.5' of'
sediment storage. See the Drainage Plan and details submitted separately for details of these facilities.
Minimum Requirement #7 — Flow Control
Flow control was required for the site due to downstream flooding issues. The procedure used for sizing the
detention tank and discharge orifices is described below. For detailed modeling parameters and results, see the
WWHM modeling printouts attached, as well as the Drainage Plan submitted separately for the layout of the flow
control facilities.
Modeling — Methodology and Procedure
The site areas were determined and categorized by land cover type. The areas used in the modeling are as follows:
WWHM Areas
Mitigated Areas
Acres
Roof Tops - Flat
0.040
Sidewalks - Flat
0.024
Parking - Mod
0.196
C, Lawn, Mod
0.071
The areas were input into WYniM3, a continuous modeling simulation recommended by the Drainage Manual for
sizing detention facilities. The Puget East 36 precipitation time series was used. An iterative process of changing
tank length, orifice size, and orifice elevation was used to maximize storage within the tank, while also meeting
I
I
I
I
I
"I
A
I
I
I
FA
I
I
I
I
Davido Consulting Group, Inc.
Page 2
I
I -
IDrainage Narrative - 229 Main St — Washington Federal Bank
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S eptember 9, 2010
discharge thresholds for the 10 and I 00-year storms based on the amount of impervious surface on the site. These
thresholds are shown below.
Flow Control Modeling Requirements
ac es impervious
.25 cfs/acre
.45 cfs/acre
10 year
0.267
0.067
100 year
0.267
0.120
The outlet of the tank was set 0.5' above the bottom of the tank to allow for sediment settling and storage. The
resultant tank size and orifice sizes and elevations are as follows:
Flow Control Facility Sizing Results
Detention Tank: 65 LF 4' Diameter
Tank Top: 46.50'
Tank Bottom: 42.50'
Orifice #1: 1. 10" @ elevation 43. 00'
Orifice #2: 1.35" @ elevation 44.70'
10-Year Discharge = 0.0663 cfs
1 00-Year Discharge = 0. 1133 cfs
Minimum Requirement 98 — TVetland Protection
The site is not in close proximity to any wetlands, therefore this requirement is not applicable.
Mininium Requirement #9 — Operation and Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance guidelines for the flow control facility and catch basins are attached.
Minimum Requirement 910 — Offsite Analysis andMitigation
An offsite analysis was not required for the site as the downstream issues were known prior to a field investigation.
The project was required to improve the storm'systern in Main St and implement flow control in order to mitigate its
own stormwater impact to the already overstressed system. As there was not an appropriate discharge point for the
flow control system, the storm main extension in Main St was necessary in order to gravity flow from the flow
control manhole to the new 12" main.
Mininium Requirement #11 — Financial Liability
A performance bond will be submitted by the contractor for work requiring such. The responsibility to obtain the
performance bond will be the contractors. A construction cost estimate for both on -site and off -site work has been
prepared for use in determining bond and inspection amounts.
Attachments: Source Control BMPS
WWHM3 Modeling Printouts
Operation and Maintenance Manual
Construction Cost Estimate
Geotech Report
10
Divido Consulting- GrOUP, Inc.
Page 3
BMPs for
Description of Pollutant Sources: Landscaping can include grading. soil
ID :D'
Landscaping
transfer, vegetation removal, pesticide and fertilizer applications, and
and Lawn/
watering. Stormwater contaminants include toxic organic compounds,
Vegetation
heavy metals, oils, total suspended solids, coliform bacteria, fertilizers, and
Management
pesticides.
Lawn and vegetation management can include control of objectionable
weeds, insects, mold, bacteria and other pests with chernical pesticides and
is conducted commercially at commercial, industrial, and residential sites.
Examples include weed control on golf course lawns, access roads, and
utility corridors and during landscaping; sap stain and insect control on
lumber and logs; rooftop moss rernoval; killing nuisance rodents;
fungicide application to patio decks, and residential lawn/plant care.
Toxic pesticides such as pentachlorophenol, carbamates, and
organometallics can be released to the environment by leaching and
dripping from treated parts, container leaks, product misuse, and outside
storage of pesticide contaminated materials and equipment. Poor
management of the vegetation and poor application of pesticides or
fertilizers can cause appreciable stormwater contamination.
February 2005
Pollutant Control Approach: Control of fertilizer and pesticide
applications, soil erosion, and site debris to prevent contamination of
stormwater.
Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) and
use pesticides only as a last resort. If pesticides/herbicides are used they
must be carefully applied in accordance with label instructions on U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered materials. Maintain
appropriate vegetation, with proper fertilizer application where
practicable, to control erosion and the discharge of stormwater pollutants.
Where practicable grow plant species appropriate for the site, or adjust the
soil properties of the subject site to grow desired plant species.
Applicable Operational BM[Ps for Landscaping:
• Install engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration
and regulation of stormwater in landscaped areas.
• Do not dispose of collected vegetation into Waterways or storm
drainage systems.
Recommended Additional Operational BM[Ps for Landscaping:
* Conduct mulch -mowing whenever practicable
* Dispose of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation,
by composting, if feasible.
Volume / V - Source Control BMPs 2-23
0 Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed
for more than one week during the dry season or two days during the
rainy season.
* If oil or other chemicals are handled, store and maintain appropriate oil
and chernical spill cleanup materials in readily accessible locations.
Ensure that employees are familiar with proper spill cleanup
procedures.
0 Till fertilizers into the soil rather than dumping or broadcasting onto
the surface. Determine the proper fertilizer application for the types of
soil and vegetation encountered.
0 Till a topsoil mix or composted organic material into the soil to create
a well -mixed transition layer that encourages deeper root systems and
drought -resistant plants.
* Use manual and/or mechanical methods of vegetation removal rather
than applying herbicides, where practical.
Applicable Operational BWs for the Use of Pesticides:
0 Develop and imp ' lement an IPM (See section on IPM at end of BMP)
and use pesticides only as a last resort.
0 Implement a pesticide -use plan and include at a minimum: a list of
selected pesticides and their specific uses; brands, formulations,
application methods and quantities to be used; equipment use and
maintenance procedures; safety, storage, and disposal methods; and
monitoring, record keeping, and public notice procedures. All
procedures shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 17.21 RCW
and Chapter 16-228 WAC (Appendix IV-D R.7).
0 Choose the least toxic pesticide available that is capable of reducing
the infestation to acceptable levels. The pesticide should readily
degrade in the environment and/or have properties that strongly bind it
to the soil. Any pest control used should be conducted at the life stage
when the pest is most vulnerable. For example, if it is necessary to use
a Bacillus thuringiens is application to control tent caterpillars, it must
be applied before the caterpillars cocoon or it will be ineffective. Any
method used should be site -specific and not used wholesale over a
wide area.
0 Apply the pesticide according to label directions. Under no conditions
shall pesticides be applied in quantities that exceed manufacturer's
instructions.
0 Mix the pesticides and clean the application equipment in an area
where accidental spills will not enter surface or ground waters, and
will not contarninate the soil.
2-24
Volume / V - Source Control BMPs
Februaty 2005
I
February 2005
F1
Store pesticides in enclosed areas or in covered impervious
containment. Ensure that pesticide contaminated stormwater or
spills/leaks of pesticides are not discharged to storm drains. Do not
hose down the paved areas to a storm drain or conveyance ditch. Store
and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to
all near the storage area. 5
• Clean up any spilled pesticides and ensure that the pesticide
contaminated waste materials are kept in designated covered and
contained areas.
• The pesticide application equipment must be capable of immediate
shutoff in the event of an emergency.
Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet of open waters including
wetlands, poffds, and streams, sloughs and any drainage ditch or
channel that leads to open water except when approved by Ecology or
the local jurisdiction. All sensitive areas including wells, creeks and
wetlands must be flagged prior to spraying.
• As required by the local government or by Ecology, complete public
posting of the area to be sprayed prior to the application.
• Spray applications should only be conducted during weather
conditions as specified in the label direction and applicable local and
state regulations. Do not apply during rain or immediately before
expected rain.
Recommended Additional Operational BM[Ps for the use of pesticides:
• Consider alterriatives to the use of pesticides such as covering or
harvesting weeds, substitute vegetative growth, and manual weed
control/moss removal.
• Consider the use of soil amendments, such as compost, that are known
to control some common diseases in plants, such as Pythium root rot,
ashy stem blight, and parasitic nematodes. The following are three
possible mechanisms for disease control by compost addition (USEPA
Publication 530-F-9-044):
1. Successful competition for nutrients by antibiotic production;
2. Successful predation against pathogens by beneficial
microorganism; and
3. Activation of disease -resistant genes in plants by composts.
Installing an aniended soil/landscape system can preserve both the plant
system and the soil systern more effectively. This type of approach
y, and
provides a soill1andscape systein with adequate depth, perineabilit
organic matter to sustain itse�f and continue working as an effective
stormwater infiltration system and a sustainable nutrient cycle.
Volume IV - Source Control BMPs
2-25
I
I �
Once a pesticide is applied, its effectiveness should be evaluated for
possible improvement. Records should be kept showing the
applicability and inapplicability of the pesticides considered.
• An annual evaluation procedure should be developed including a
review of the effectiveness of pesticide applications, impact on buffers
and sensitive areas (including potable wells), public concerns, and
recent toxicological information on pesticides used/proposed foi- use.
If individual or public potable wells are located in the proximity of
commercial pesticide applications contact the regional Ecology
hydrogeologist to determine if additional pesticide application control
measures are necessary.
• Rinseate frorn equipment cleaning and/or triple -rinsing of pesticide
containers should be used as product or recycled into product.
0 The application equipment used should be capable of immediate
shutoff in the event of an emergency.
For information, the WSUExtension Home Progaraln,
more Contact -Assist
(253) 445-4556, or Bio-Integral Reso urce Center (BIRC), P.O. Box 741.4,
Berkeley, CA.94707, oi- the Washington Department ofEcology to obtain
"Hazardous Waste Pesticides " (Publication 989-41); andlor EPA to
obtain a publication entitled "Suspended, Canceled and Restricted
Pesticides " which lists all restrictedpesticides and the specific uses that
are allowed Valuable inforinationfrom these sources inay also be
available on the internet.
Applic able Operational BMPs for Vegetation Man agement:
Use at least an eight -inch "topsoil" layer with at least 8 percent organic
matter to provide a sufficient vegetation -growing medium. Amending
existing landscapes and turf systems by increasing the percent organic
matter and depth of topsoil can substantially improve the permeability
of the soil, the disease and drought resistance of the vegetation, and
reduce fertilizer demand. This reduces the demand for fertilizers,
herbicides, and pesticides. Organic matter is the least water-soluble
form of nutrients that can be added to the soil. Composted organic
matter generally releases only between 2 and 1*0 percent of its total
nitrogen annually, and this release corresponds closely to the plant
growth cycle. If natural plant debris and mulch are returned to the
soil, this system can continue recycling nutrients indefinitely.
LF�
2-26
Select the appropriate turfgrass mixture for your climate and soil type.
Certain tall fescues and rye gras§es resist insect attack because the
symbiotic endophytic fungi found naturally in their tissues repel or kill
common leaf and stem -eating lawn insects. They do not, however,
repel root -feeding lawn pests such as Crane Fly larvae, and are toxic to
ruminants such as cattle and sheep. The fungus causes no known
Volume / V - Source Control BMPs
February 2005
February 2005
adverse effects to the host plant or to hurnans. Endophytic grasses are
commercially available and can be used in areas such as parks or golf
courses where grazing does not occur. The local Cooperative
Extension office can offer advice on which types of grass are best
suited to the area and soi I type.
Use the following seeding and planting BMPs, or equivalent BMPs to
b In
obtain information on grass mixtures, ternporary and permanent
seeding procedures, maintenance of a recently planted area, and
fertilizer application rates: Temporary Seeding, Mulching and Matting,
Clear Plastic Covering, Permanent Seeding and Planting, and Sodding
as described in Volume 11).
Selection of desired plant species can be made by adjusting the soil
properties of the subject site. For example, a constructed wetland can
be designed to resist the invasion of reed canary grass by layering
specific strata of organic matters (e.g., compost forest product
residuals) and creating a mildly acidic pH and carbon -rich soil
medium. Consult a soil restoration specialist for site -specific
conditions.
• Aerate lawns regularly in areas of heavy use where the soil tends to
become compacted. Aeration should be conducted while the grasses
in the lawn are growing most vigorously. Remove layers of thatch
greater than 1/4-inch deep.
• Mowing is a stress -creating activity for turfgrass. When grass is
mowed too short its productivity is decreased and there is less growth
of roots and rhizomes. The turf becomes less tolerant of
environmental stresses, more disease prone andmore reliant on outside
m eans such as pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation to remain healthy.
Set the mowing height at the highest acceptable level and mow at
times and intervals designed to minimize stress on the turf. Generally
mowing only 1/3 of the grass blade height will prevent stressing the
turf.
Irrigation:
The depth from which a plant normally extracts water depends on the
rooting depth of the plant. Appropriately irrigated lawn grasses
normally root in the top 6 to 12 inches of soil; lawns irrigated on a
daily basis often root only in the top I inch of soil. Improper irrigation
can encourage pest problems, leach nutrients, and make a lawn
completely dependent on artificial watering. The amount of water
applied depends on the normal rooting depth of the turfgrass species
used, the available water holding capacity of the soil, and the
efficiency of the irrigation system. Consult with the local water utility,
Conservation District, or Cooperative Extension office to help
determine optimum irrigation practices.
Volume IV - Source Control BMPs 2-27
I
Fertilizer Manag-emen I:
Turfgrass is most responsive to nitrogen fertilization, followed by
potassium and phosphorus. Fertilization needs vary by site depending
on plant, soil and climatic conditions. Evaluation of soil nutrient
levels through regular testing ensures the best possible efficiency and
econorny of fertilization. For details on soils testing, contact -the local
Conservation District or Cooperative Extension Service.
Fertilizers should be applied in arnounts appropriate for the target
vecyetation and at the time of year that minimizes losses to surface and
ground waters. Do not fertilize during a drought or when the soil is
dry. Alternatively, do not apply fertilizers within three days prior to
predicted rainfall. The longer the period between fertilizer application
and either rainfall or irrigation, the less fertilizer runoff occurs.
:M
* Use slow release fertilizers such as methylene urea, JDBU, or resin
coated fertilizers when appropriate, generally in the spring. Use of
slow release fertilizers is especially important in areas with sandy or
gravelly soils.
0 Time the fertilizer application to periods of maximum plant uptake.
Generally fall and spring applications are recommended, although
WSU turf specialists recommend four fertilizer applications per year.
2-28
Properly trained persons should apply all fertilizers. At commercial
and industrial facilities fertilizers should not be applied to grass
swales, filter strips, or buffer areas that drain to sensitive water bodies
unless approved by the local jurisdiction.
Integrated Pest Manag�ment
An IPM program might consist of the following steps:
Step 1: Correctly identify problem pests and understand their life cycle
Step 2: Establish tolerance thresholds for pests.
Step 3: Monitor to detect and prevent pest problems.
Step 4: Modify the maintenance program to promote healthy plants and
discourage pests.
Step 5: Use cultural, physical, mechanical, or biological controls first if
pests exceed the tolerance thresholds.
Step 6: Evaluate and record the effectiveness of the control and modify
maintenance practices to support lawn or landscape recovery and prevent
recurrence.
For an elaboration of these steps refer to Appendix IV-F.
Volume IV - Source Control BMPs
February 2005
- I
F
BMPs for Description of Pollutant Sources: Facilities include roadside catch
Maintenance of basins on arterials and within residential areas, conveyance systems,
Stormwater detention facilities such as ponds and vaults, oil and water separators,
Drainage and biofilters, settling basins, infiltration systems, and all other types of
Treatment storrnwater treatment systerns presented in Volume V. Roadside catch
Systems basins can rennove frorn 5 to 15 percent of the pollutants present in
stormwater. When catch basins are about 60 percent full of sediment, they
cease removing sediments. Oil and grease, hydrocarbons, debris, heavy
metals, sediments and contarninated water are found in catch basins, oil
and water separators, settling basins, etc.
Pollutant Control Approach: Provide maintenance'and cleaning of
debris, sediments, and oil frorn stormwater collection, conveyance, and
treatment systems to obtain proper operation.
Applicable Operational BMPs:
Maintain stormwater treatment facilities according to the 0 & M
procedures presented in Section 4.6 of Volume V in addition to the
following BMPs:
0 Inspe ct and clean treatment BMPs, conveyance systerns, and catch
basins as needed, and determine whether improvements in 0 & M are
needed.
0 Promptly repair any deterioration threatening the structural integrity of
the facilities. These include replacement of clean -out gates, catch
basin lids, and rock in emergency spillways.
0 Ensure that storm sewer capacities are not exceeded and that heavy.
sediment discharges to the sewer system are prevented.
0 Regularly remove debris and sludge from BMPs used for -rate
peak
control, treatment, etc. and discharge to a sanitary sewer if approved
by the sewer authority, or truck to a local or state government
approved disposal site.
Clean catch basins when the depth of deposits reaches 60 percent of
the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to the invert of
the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. However, in no case should
there be less than six inches clearance from the debris surface to the
invert of the lowest pipe. Some catch basins (for example, WSDOT
Type IL basins) may have as little as 12 inches sediment storage
below the invert. These catch basins will need more frequent
inspection and cleaning to prevent scouring. Where these catch basins a
are part of a stormwater collection and treatment system, the system
owner/operator may choose to concentrate maintenance efforts on
downstream control devices as part of a systems approach.
2-40 Volume IV - Source Control BMPs February 2005
I
�1
Clean woody debris in a catch basin as frequently as needed to ensure
proper operation of the catchbasin.
Post wamincy signs; "Durnp No Waste - Drains to Ground Water."
"Streams," "Lakes," or emboss on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets
where practical.
Disposal of sediments and liquids from the catch basins must Comply
with "Recommendations for Management of Street Wastes" described
in Appendix IV-G of this volume.
Additional Applicable BM[Ps: Select additional applicable BMPs frorn
this chapter depending on the pollutant sources and activities conducted at
the facility. Those BMPs include:
• BMPs for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control at Industrial Sites
• BMPs for Storage of Liquid, Food Waste, or Dangerous Waste
Containers
• BMPs for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances
• BMPs for Illicit Connections to Storm Drains
• BMPs for Urban -Streets.
Februaty 2005 Volume / V - Source Control BMPs 2-41
- I
BMPs for Description of Pollutant Sources: Public and commercial parking lots
Parking and
Storage of Such as retail store, fleet vehicle (including rent -a -car lots and car
Vehicles and dealerships), equipment sale and rental parking, lots, and parking lot
Equipment driveways, can be sources of toxic hydrocarbons and other organic
compounds, oils and greases, metals, and suspended solids caused by the
parked vehicles.
Pollutant Control Approach: If the parking lot is a high -use site as
defined below, provide appropriate oil removal equipment for the
contaminated stormwater runoff.
Applicable Operation al BM[Ps:
2-48
• If washing of a parking lot is conducted, discharge the washwater to a
sanitary sewer, if allowed by the local sewer authority, or other
approved wastewater treatment system, or collect it for off -site
disposal.
• Do not hose down the area to a storm drain or to a receiving water.
Sweep parking lots, storage areas, and driveways, regularly to collect
dirt, waste, and debris.
Applicable Treatment BMPs: An oil removal system such as an API or
CP oil and water separator, catch basin filter, or equivalent BMP,
approved by the local jurisdiction, is applicable for parking lots meeting
the threshold vehicle traffic intensity level of a high -use site.
Vehicle High -Use Sites
Establishments subject to a vehicle high -use intensity have been
determined to be significant sources of oil contamination of stormwater.
Examples of potential high use areas include customer parking lots at fast
food stores, grocery stores, taverns, restaurants, large shopping malls,
discount warehouse stores, quick-lube shops, and banks. If the PGIS for a
high -use site exceeds 5,000 square feet in a threshold discharge area, and
oil control BMP from the Oil Control Menu is necessary. A high -use site
at a commercial or industrial establishment has one of the following
characteristics: (Gaus/King County, 1994)
• Is subject to an expected average daily vehicle traffic (ADT) count
equal to or greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross
building area: or
• Is subject to storage of a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles that are
over 10 tons gross weight (trucks, buses, trains, heavy equipment,
etc.).
Volume IV - Source Control BMPs
[I
Februaty 2005 1
F�
I �
I ;'
I
d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BMPs for Roof/ Description of Pollutant Sources: Stormwater runoff from roofs and
Building Drains sides of manufacturing and commercial buildings can be sources of
at Manufacturing Pollutants caused by leaching of roofing materials, building vents, and
and Commercial other air emission sources. Vapors and entrained liquid and solid
Buildings droplets/particles have been identified as potential pollutants in
roof/building runoff. Metals, solvents, acidic/alkaline pH, BOD, and
organics, are some of the pollutant constituents identified.
February 2005
Pollutant Control Approach: Evaluate the potential sources of
stormwater pollutants and apply source control 13MPs where feasible.
Applicable Operational Source Control BMPs:
• If leachates and/or ernissions from buildings are suspected sources of
stormwater pollutants, then sample and analyze the stori-nwater
draining from the building.
• If a roof/building stormwater pollutant source is identified, implement
appropriate source control measures such as air pollution control
equipment, selection of materials, operational changes, material
recycle, process changes, etc.
Volume IV - Source Control BMPs
2-51
- I
Gotf and Country
Clubs
Description: Public and private golf courses and parks are included.
SIC. 7992, 7997
Potential Pollutant Generating Sources: Maintenance of grassed areas
and landscaped vegetation has historically required the use of fertilizers
and pesticides. Golf courses contain small lakes that are sometimes
treated with algaecides and/or mosquito larvicides. The fertilizer and
pesticide application process can lead to inadvertent contarnination of
nearby surface waters by overuse, misapplication, or the occurrence of
storms shortly after application. Heavy watering of surface greens in golf
courses may cause pesticides or fertilizers to migrate to surface and
shallow ground water resources. The use of pesticides and fertilizers
generates waste containers. Equipment must be cleaned and maintained.
Miscellaneous
Description: This.group includes photographic studios, commercial
Services
photography, funeral services, amusement parks, furniture and upholstery
SIC. 4959, 7260,
repair and pest control services, and other professional offices. Pollutants
7312, 7332, 7333,
from these activities can include pesticides, waste solvents, heavy metals,
7340, 7395, 7641,
pH, and suspended solids, soaps and detergents, and oil and grease.
7990,8411
Potential Poll utant Generating Sources: Leaks and spills of materials
frorn the following businesses can be sources of stormwater pollutants:
I . Building maintenance produces wash and rinse solutions, oils, and
solvents.
2. Pest control produces rinsewater with residual pesticides from washing
application equipment and empty containers.
3. 'Outdoor advertising produces photographic chemicals, inks, waste
paints, organic paint sludges containing metals.
4. Funeral services produce formalin, formaldehyde, and ammonia.
5. Upholstery and furniture repair businesses produce oil, stripping
compounds, wood preservatives and solvents.
Professional
Description: The remaining service businesses include theaters,
Services
hotels/motels, finance, banking, hospitals, medical/dental laboratories,
SIC.- 6000, 7000
medical services, nursing homes, school s/universities, and legal, financial
and 8000, 806,
and engineering services. Stormwater from parking lots will contain
807 not listed
undesirable concentrations of oil and grease, suspended particulates, and
elsewhere
metals such as lead, cadmium and zinc. Dangerous wastes might be
generated at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical services.
Potential Pollutant Generating Sources: The primary concern is runoff
from high use parking areas, maintenance shops, and storage and handling
of dangerous wastes.
A-1 8
Volume / V - Source Control BMPs February 2005
I
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results
Western Washington Hydrology Model
PROJECT REPORT
Project Name: Wash Fed 1
Site Address:
City Edmonds
Report Date 8/26/2010
MGS Regoin Puget East
Data Start 1939/10/1
Data End 2097/08/31
DOT Data Number: 03
WWHM3 Version:
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Acres
C, Lawn, Mod
.071
Impervious Land Use
Acres
ROOF TOPS FLAT
0.04
SIDEWALKS FLAT
0.024
PARKING MOD
0.196
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Tank 1, Tank 1,
WWHM') Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
1Uj
Washington Federal Bank
Tank Hydraulic Table
WWHM3 Modeling Results %. I
Stage(ft) Area(acr) Volume(acr-ft) Dschrq(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.089
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.133
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.178
0.000
0.000.
0.000
0.000
0.222
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.267
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.311
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.356
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.444
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.489
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.533
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.578
0.001
0.002
0.009
0.000
0.622
0.001
0.002
0.011
0.000
0.667
0.001
0.002
0.013
0.000
0.711
0.001
0.002
0.015
0.000
0.756
0.001
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.800
0.001
0.003
0.017
0.000
0.844
0.001
0.003
0.019
0.000
0.889
0.001
0.003
0.020
0.000
0.933
0.001
0.003
0.021
0.000
0.978
0.001
0.004
0.022
0.000
1.022
0.002
0.004
0.023
0.000
1.067
0.002
0.004
0.024
0.000
1.111
0.002
0.004
0.025
0.000
1.156
0.002
0.004
0.026
0.000
1.200
0.002
0.005
0.027
0.000
1.244
0.002
0.005
0.027
0.000
1.289
0.002
0.005
0.028
0.000
1.333
0.002
0.00�
0.029
0.000
1.378
0.002
0.006
0.030
0.000
1.422
0.002
0.006
0.031
0.000
1.467
0.002
0.006
0.031
0.000
1.511
0.002
0.006
0.032
0.000
1.556
0.002
0.007
0.033
0.000
1.600
0.002
0.007
0.033
0.000
1.644
0.002
0.007
0.034
0.000
1.689
0.003
0.008
0.035
0.000
1.733
0.003
0.008
0.035
0.000
1.778
0.003
0.008
0.036
0.000
1.822
0.003
0.008
0.037
0.000
1.867
0.003
0.009
0.037
0.000
1.911
0.003
0.009
0.038
0.000
1.956
0.003
0.009
0.038
0.000
2.000
0.003
0.009
0.039
0.000
2.044
0.003
0.010
0.039
0.000
2.089
0.003
0.010
0.040
0.000
2.133
0.003
0.010
0.041
0.000
2.178
0.003
0.010
0.041
0.000
2.222
0.003
0.011
0.049
0.000
2.267
0.003
0.011
0.055
0.000
2.311
0.003
0.011
0.059
0.000
W"M3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
2.356
0.004
0.011
0.062
0.000
2.400
0.004
0.012
0.065
0.000
2.444
0.004
0.012
0.068
0.000
2.489
0.004
0.012
0.071
0.000
2.533
0.004
0.013
0.073
0.000
2.578
0.004
0.013
0.075
0.000
2.622
0.004
0.013
0.07�
0.000
2.667
0.004
0.013
0.079
0.000
2.711
0.004
0.014
0.081
0.000
2.756
0.004
0.014
0.083
0.000
2.800
0.004
0.014
0.085
0.000
2.844
0.004
0.014
0.087
0.000
2.889
0.004
0.015
0.089
0.000
2.933
0.004
0.015
0.091
0.000
2.978
0.004
0.015
0.092
0.000
3.022
0.005
0.015
0.094
0.000
3.067
0.005
0.015
0.095
0.000
3.111
0.005
0.016
0.097
0.000
3.156
0.005
0.016
0.099
0.000
3.200
0.005
0.016
0.100
0.000
3.244
0.005
0.016
0.102
0.000
3.289
0.005
0.016
0.103
0.000
3.333
0.005
0.017
0.104
0.000
3.378
0.005
0.017
0.106
0.000
3.422
0.005
0.017
0.107
0.000
3.467
0.005
0.017
0.109
0.000
3.511
0.005
0.017
0.110
0.000
3.556
0.005
0.018
0.111
0.000
3.600
0.005
0.018
0.113
0.000
3.644
0.005
0.018
0.114
0.000
3.689
0.006
0.018
0.115
0.000
3.733
0.006
0.018
0.116
0.000
3.778
0.006
0.018
0.118
0.000
3.822
0.006
0.018
0.119
0.000
3.867
0.006
0.019
0.120
0.000
3.911
0.006
0.019
0.121
0.000
3.956
0.006
0.019
0.122
0.000
4.000
0.006
0.019
0.124
0.000
4.044
0.000
0.000
0.216
0.000
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Acres
C, Lawn, Mod
.071
Impervious Land Use
Acres
ROOF TOPS FLAT
0.04
SIDEWALKS FLAT
0.024
PARKING MOD
0.196
WWHM3 Modeling Results
ZD
WWHM3 Modeling Results DCG. Inc.
ALI-List 26, 2010
1
Washington Federal Bank -
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow
MITIGATED LAND USE
ANALYSIS RESULTS
WWHM3 Modeling Results
I
Groundwater
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.072319
5 year
0.096837
10 year
0.114623
25 year
0.138928
50 year
0.158409
100 year
0.179104
Flow Frequency
Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.103177
5 year
0.135007
10 year
0.15815
25 year
0.189831
50 year
0.215263
100 year
0.242318
Yearly
Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1941
0.079
0.104
1942
0.088
0.119
1943
0.105
0.137
1944
0.047
0.072
1945
0.050
0.078
1946
0.072
0.119
1947
0.062
0.093
1948
0.079
0.109
1949
0.074
0.113
1950
0.076
0.102
1951
0.139
0.207
1952
0.044
0.073
1953
0.198
0.242
1954
0.080
0.100
1955
0.064
0.087
1956
0.045
0.075
1957
0.070
0.097
1958
0.041
0.069
1959
0.059
0.090
1960
0.047
0.071
1961
0.064
0.096
1962
0.066
0.095
1963
0.090
0.111
1964
0.046
0.070
1965
0.089
0.117
WV,q4M3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3) Modeling Results
1966
0.062
0.092
1967
0.058
0.086
1968
0.099
0.131
1969
0.111
0.141
1970
0.049
0.079
1971
0.059
0.089
1972
0.057
0.079
1973
0.090
0.134
1974
0.052
0.076
1975
0.062
0.079
1976
0.083
0.119
1977
0.051
0.082
1978
0.071
0.101
1979
0.106
0.144
1980
0.091
0.108
1981
0.083
0.108
1982
0.087
0.122
1983
0.127
0.191
1984
0.087
0.124
1985
0.065
0.087
1986
0.054
0.086
1987
0.070
0.122
1988
0.116
0.146
1989
0.048
0.073
1990
0.084
0.101
1991
0.129
0.212
1992
0.122
0.196
1993
0.063
0.093
1994
0.052
0.082
1995
0.044
0.064
1996
0.063
0.089
1997
0.079
0.137
1998
0.076
0.107
1999
0.058
0.087
2000
0.178
0.241
2001
0.066
0.095
2002
0.047
0.069
2003
0.145
0.172
2004
0.080
0.119
2005
0.058
0.080
2006
0.072
0.088
2007
0.056
0.083
2008
0.062
0.094
2009
0.077
0.108
2010
0.077
0.132
2011
0.250
0.305
2012
0.127
0.155
2013
0.09?
0.127
2014
0.112
0.172
2015
0.099
0.132
2016
0.042
0.068
2017
0.080
0.131
2018
0.074
0.102
2019
0.077
0.098
2020
0.080
0.112
2021
0.060
0.083
2022
0.084
0.116
WWHM3 Modelinc, Results
:D
DCG, Inc. n
August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WYMM3 Modeling Results
2023
0.079
0.110
2024
0.083
0.103
2025
0.049
0.077
2026
0.081
0.105
2027
0.050
0.081
2028
0.055
0.077
2029
0.056
0.085
2030
0.085
0.129
2031
0.085
0.144
2032
0.100
0.133
2033
0.066
0.100
2034
0.044
0.069
2035
0.071
0.098
2036
0.059
0.082
2037
0.073
0.112
2038
0.081
0.106
2039
0.079
0.115
2040
0.077
0.096
2041
0.112
0.146
2042
0.054
0.089
2043
0.093
0.126
2044
0.150
0.180
2045
0.063
0.082
2046
0.086
0.122
2047
0.068
0.091
2048
0.059
0.089
2049
0.074
0.123
2050
0.061
0.076
2051
0.076
0.144
2052
0.063
0.086
2053
0.058
0.088
2054
0.128
0.149
2055
0.054
0.072
2056
0.113.
0.171
2057
0.078
0.117
2058
0.108
0.170
2059
0.089
0.118
2060
0.079
0.128
2061
0.103
0.136
2062
0.113
0.140
2063
0.154
0.240
2064
0.069
0.084
2065
0.085
0.107
2066
0.073
0.105
2067
0.036
0.057
2068
0.059
0.090
2069
0.101
0.128
2070
0.042
0.064
2071
0.055
0.071
2072
0.056
0.074
2073
0.055
0.085
2074
0.075
0.140
2075
0.057
0.081
2076
0.077
0.101
2077
0.075
0.111
2078
0.122
0.148
2079
0.061
0.093
WW`HM3 Modeling Results
DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
2080
0.070
0.103
2081
0.082
0.149
2082
0.094
0.123
2083
0.067
0.094
2084
0.060
0.087
2085
0.057
0.085
2086
0.073
0.108
2087
0.062
0.106
2088
0.097
0.128
2089
0.059
0.088
2090
0.100
0.159
2091
0.065
0.085
20.92
0.063
0.091
2093
0.115
0.150
2094
0.061
0.090
2095
0.084
0.111
2096
0.049
0.077
2097
0.090
0.119
2098
0.099
0.130
Flow Frequency Return
for Tank 1 All
Return Period
Flow(CFS)
2 Year
0.0400
.5 Year.;,
0 --01�-� 8.
16 �Y'ear'
A_0663'
25 Year
'0.'0832
50..Year..
0.0974
V100, Year.
Yearl y Peaks
for Mitigate(
Year
Mitigated
1940
0.0368
1941
0.0374-
1942
0.0503
1943
0.0294
1944
0.0323
1945
0.0635
1946
0.0388
1947
0.0358
1948
0.0563
1949
0.0376
1950
0.0963
1951
0.0317
1952
0.0860
1953
0.0380
1954
0.0303
1955
0.0319
1956
0.0334
1957
0.0305
1958
0.0340
1959
0.0303
1960
0.0375
1961
0.0342
1962
0.0341
1963
0.0279
1964
0.0378
WWUM3 Modeling Results
tlets Mitigated
WWHM') Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
1
Washington Federal Bank WVMM3 Modeling Results
1965 0.0348
1966 0.0321
1967 0.0431
1968 0.0399
1969 0.0341
1970 0.0355
1971 0.0340
1972 0.0665
1973 0.0320
1974 0.0324
1975 0.0476
1976 0.0340
1977 0.0348
1978 0.0666
1979 0.0400
1980 0.0439
1981 0.0402
1982 0.0892
1983 0.0590
1984 0.0328
1985 0.0368
1986 0.0628
1987 0.0672
1988 0.0302
1989 0.0340
1990 0.1019
1991 0.0933
1992 0.0380
1993 0.0326
1994 0.0277
1995 0.0329
1996 0.0709
1997 0.0369
1998 0.0325
1999 0.0953
2000 0.0380
2001 0.0271
2002 0.0692
2003 0.0606
2004 0.0288
2005 0.0308
2006 b.0321
2007 0.0356
2008 0.0370
2009 0.0673
2010 0.1096
2011 0.0411
2012 0.0386
2013 0.0843
2014 0.0588
2015 0.0303
2016 0.0640
2017 0.0338
2018 0.0340
2019 0.0384
2020 0.0296
2021 0.0379
WV,THM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank WWHM3 Modeling Results
2022 0.0421
2023 0.0363
2024 0.0320
2025 0.0387
2026 0.0368
2027 0.0337
2028 0.0335
2029 0.0631
2030 0.0744
2031 0.0405
2032 0.0432
2033 0.0280
2034 0.0364
2035 0.0325
2036 0.0436
2037 0.0337
2038 0.0399
2039 0.0315
2040 0.0635
2041 0.0377
2042 0.0393
2043 0.0662
2044 0.0299
2045 0.0504
2046 0.0328
2047 0.0356
2048 0.0604
2049 0.0281
2050 0.0717
2051 0.0341
2052 0.0332
2053 0.0546
2054 0.0264
2055 0.0786
2056 0.0445
2057 0.0844
2058 0.0378
2059 0.0598
2060 0.0406
2061 0.0389
2062 0.1083
2063 0.0300
2064 0.0373
2065 0.0390
2066 0.0253
2067- 0.0357
2068 0.0668
2069 0.0276
2070 0.0294
2071 0.0270
2072 0.0330
2073 0.0697
2074 0.0347
2075 0.0330
2076 0.0396
-2077 0.0400
2078 0.0386
WWHM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
2079
0.0373
2080
0.0736
2081
0.0503
2082
0.0363
2083
0.031S
2084
0.0364
2085
0.0386
2086
0.0520
2087
0.0513
2088
0.0349
2089
0.0790
2090
0.0324
2091
0.0334
2092
0.0740
2093
0.0333
2094
0.0372
2095
0.0327
2096
0.0373
2097
0.0565
WWHM3 Modeling Results
Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
0.2496
0.3051
2
0.1981
0.2420
3
0.1777
0.2405
4
0.1544
0.2398
5
0.1504
0.2123
6
0.1445
0.2074
7
0.1386
0.1984
8
0.1292
0.1912
9
0.1284
0.1801
10
0.1272
0.1722
11
0.1271
0.1722
12
0.1224
0.1707
13
0.1217
0.1703
14
0.1160
0.1591
15
0.1146
0.1546
16
0.1131
0.1496
17
0.1128
0.1490
18
0.1118
0.1488
19
0.1115
0.1480
20
0.1112
0.1464
21
0.1078
0.1456
22
0.1056
0.1443
23
0.1047
0.1442
24
0.1032
0.1435
25
0.1010
0.1411
26
0.1000
0.1397
27
0.0996
0.1397
28
0.0991
0.1372
29
0.0988
0.1367
30
0.0987
0.1361
31
0.0970
0.1339
32
0.0967
0.1334
33
0.0938
0.1320
34
0.0931
0.1319
WVv'HM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results
ZD
35
0.0905
0.1315
36
0.0903
0.1314
37
0.0900
0.1302
38
0.0897
0.1286
39
0.0889
0.1283
40
0.0887
0.1279
41
0.0884
0.1277
42
0.0875
0.1272
43
0.0866
0.1257
44
0.0857
0.1235
45
0.0854
0.1230
46
0.0854
0.1229
47
0.0853
0.1224
48
0.0844
0.1222
49
0.0842
0.1216
50
0.0841
0.1195
51
0.0832
0.1195
52
0.0828
0.1189
53
0.0828
0.1189
54
0.0825
0.1187
55
0.0813
0.1181
56
0.0807
0.1174
57
0.0802
0.1172
58
0.0801
0.1156
59
0.0800
0.1147
60
0.0800
0.1130
61
0.0792
0.1125
62
0.0790
0.1119
63
0.0790
0.1108
64
0.0788
0.1107
65
0.0788
0.1107
66
0.0786
0.1100
67
0.0778
0.1085
68
0.0773
0.1083-
69
0.0771
0.1080
70
0.0770
0.1079
71
0.0769
0.1077
72
0.0769
0.1070
73
0.0762
0.1066
74
0.0758
0.1062
75
0.0756
0.1060
76
0.0752
0.1049
77
0.0750
0.1047
78
0.0744
0.1038
79
0.0744
0.1027
80
0.0735
0.1025
81
0.0732
0.1022
82
0.0731
0.1017
83
0.0731
0.1009
84
0.0723
0.1008
85
0.0720
0.1007
86
0.0710
0.1003
87
0.0706
0.1000
88
0.0698
0.0977
89
0.0698
0.0977
90
0.0696
0.0974
91
0.0694
0.0958
WWHM3 Modeling Results
DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
92
0.0683
0.0958
93
0.0666
0.0953
94
0.0659
0.0953
95
0.0658
0.0940
96
0.0655
0.0937
97
0.0646
0.0930
98
0.0645
0.0929
99
0.0641
0.0927
100
0.0635
0.0919
101
0.0632
0.0906
102
0.0632
0.0906
103
0.0629
0.0904
104
0.0629
0.0899
105
0.0627
0.0896
106
0.0624
0.0891
107
0.0621
0.0889
108
0.0620
0.0889
109
0.0618
0.0887
110
0.0617
0.0880
ill
0.0613
0.0878
112
0.0612
0.0876
113
0.0611
0.0874
114
0.0603
0.0872
115
0.0596
0.0869
116
0.0593
0.0867
117
0.0592
0.0865
118
0.0591
0.0863
119
0.0589
0.0856
120
0.0588
0.0854
121
0.0587
0.0853
122
0.0583
0.0847
123
0.0582
0.0847
124
0.0579
0.0844
125
0.0579
0.0832
126
0.0575
0.0825
127
0.0567
0.0824
128
0.0566
0.0820
129
0.0564
0.0819
130
0.0564
0.0817
131
0.0562
0.0813
132
0.0555
0.0808
133
0.0547
0.0805
134
0.0547
0.0790
135
0.0542
0.0787
136
0.0542
0.0787
137
0.0535
0.0778
138
0.0520
0.0773
139
0.0515
0.0771
140
0.0513
0.0765
141
0.0504
0.0761
142
0.0503
0.0758
143
0.0492
0.0748
144
0.0491
0.0739
145
0.0490
0.0734
146
0.0477
0.0729
147
0.0474
0.0718
148
0.0467
0.0715
WWHM3 Modeling Results
W)vVHM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc. August 26, 2010
I -
Washington Federal Bank
149
0.0467
0.0715
150
0.0455
0.0713
151
0.0451
0.0701
152
0.0444
0.0690
153
0.0444
0.0689
154
0.0437
0.0688
155
0.0422
0.0683
156
0.0421
0.0645
157
0.0413
0.0636
158
0.0365
0.0565
POC # 1
Facility �-4'1'1TLED duration standard for 1+ flows.
Flow(CFS)
Predev
Dev Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0362
2355
14660
622
0.0374
2090
13590
650
F a, I
0.0386
1836
12655
689
FCail
0.0399
1618
11709
723
F��ail
0.0411
1454
10889
�48
0.0423
1287
10094
784
4
0*0436
1149
9405
Ill
Fat i ]L
0.0448
1036
8761
845
Ea.il
0.0460
915
8162
892
0.0473
805
7597
943
�
0.0485
733
7106
969
7 4
0.0497
666
6638
996
0.0510
603
6173
1023
Fail
0.0522
556
5764
1036
Fa� - l
0.0534
511
5377
1052
0.0547
474
5046
1064
0.0559
434
4707
1084
0.0572'
390
4420
1133
7,ij
.
0.0584
369
4118
1115
F_ail
0.0596
348
3829
1100
T"a �i
0.0609
321
3601
1121
0.0621
291
3374
1159
1"'a. 1 1 1
0.0633
265
3173
1197
Fail
0.0646
246
2989
1215
i
0.0658
232
2812
1212
Fai`
0.0670
219
2625
1198
0.0683
209
2461
1177
0.0695
200
2310
1155
Fail
0.0707
186
2153
1157
Fail
0.0720
0.0732
171
158
2009
1858
1174
1175
F�,,il
71 a4l
0'.0744
142
1726
1215
0.0757
133
1622
1219
0.0769
125
1501
1200
1;a
0.0761
115
1375
1195
Fail
0.0794
97
1286
1325
-�all
0.0806
86
1199
1394
Fail.
0.0818
83
1123
1353
rl;"�i i 1
0.0831
79
1053
1332
0. 0843
75
987
1316
WWHM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc.
WWHM3 Modeling Results
Au ust 26, 2010
9
ILI
Washington
Federal Bank
\VWRM3 Modeling Results
0.0856
68
918
1350
�ail
0.0868
63
854
1355
0.0880
61
795
1303
1
0.0893
57
752
I319
�aiI
0.0905
51
708
1388
r+iI
0.0917
46
665
1445
2ail
0.0930
44
624
1418
�ail
0.0942
41
584
1424
0.0954
41
552
1346
0.0967
39
518
1328
Fail
0.0979
36
483
1341
�ail
0.0991
33
462
I400
FaiI
0.I004
31
443
1429
�oil
0.1016
29
429
1479
�ail
0.I028
29
41I
1417
�a�I
0.1041
27
390
1444
ra�l
0.1053
26
366
I407
0.1065
25
343
1372
�z�l
0.I078
25
323
1292
�ail
0.I098
24
309
1287
�aiI
0.1103
24
294
1225
0.1115
23
278
1208
0.1127
21
266
1266
rai�
0.II40
19
258
1357
7a1l
0.I152
18
250
1388
Fail
0.II64
15
239
1593
1.7siI
0.II77
15
230
1533
F*il
O.lIO9
15
223
1486
FaiI
0.I20I
15
215
1433
�ail
0.1214
15
210
I400
Ta-1
0.1226
13
202
I553
�zil
0.1238
13
191
1469
Vail
0.1251
I]
188
1446
Fail
0.1263
12
177
1475
�ail
0.1275
lU
169
1690
0.1288
9
157
1744
-Fail
0.1300
O
150
1875
r�il
8.I312
8
143
1787
�ail
0.I325
8
136
I700
oaiI
0.I337
8
129
1612
raiI
0.1349
8
126
1575
Fail
0.1362
8
120
I500
Fail
0.1374
8
116
I450
�ail
0.1387
8
Ill
1387
Fail
0.I399
7
I08
1542
FaiI
0.14II
7
104
1485
Fail
0.I424
7
96
I371
Fail
0.1436
7
91
I300
7a41I
0.I448
6
86
1433
-1-ail
0.I46I
6
82
I366
rail
0.1473
6
76
1266
0.I485
6
72
1200
Fail
0.I498
6
68
II33
rail
0.15I0
5
67
1340
oaiI
0.1522
4
65
1625
�aiI
0.I535
4
62
I550
Fa41l
0.1547
]
58
1933
Fail
WWI{M3Mndclhng
Results
[)CG,loc. August 26,20lO
-
[I
I -
Washington Federal Bank-
0.1559 3 57 1900
0.1572 3 53 1766
0.1584 3 51 1700
d
I
I
WWHM.3 Modeling Results -
The development has an increase in flow durations
from 1/2 predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow
or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50
year flow.
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1.
On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Perind and Impind Changes
No changes have been made.
This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without
warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and
results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions
and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all
warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to
implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no
event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State
Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including
without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of
busimess information, business interruption, and the like) arising out
of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek
Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been
advised of the possibility of such damages.
I
I
WVMM3 Modeling Results DCG, Inc.
August 26, 2010
0
. I
Table 3.4
Specific Maintenance Requirements for Detention Vau Its/Tan ks
Results Expected When
Maintenance
Maintenance is
Component
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Performed
Storage
Plugged
One-half of the cross section of a vent is blocked
Vents open and
Area
Air Vents
at any point or the vent is damaged.
functioning.
Debris and
Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the
All sediment and debris
Sediment
diameter of the storage area for 1/2 length of
removed from storage
storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of
diameter.
area.
(Example: 72-inch storage tank would require
cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches
for more than 1/2 length of tank.)
Joints
Any openings or voids allowing material to be
All joint between
Between
transported into facility.
tank/pipe sections are
Tank/Pipe
Section
(Will require engineering analysis to determine
structural stability).
sealed.
Tank Pipe
Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more
Tank/pipe repaired or
Bent Out
than 10% of its design shape. (Review required by
replaced to design.
of Shape
engineer to determine structural stability).
Vault
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any evidence of
Vault replaced or repaired
Structure
soil particles entering the structure through the
to design specifications
Includes
cracks, or maintenance/inspection personnel
and is structurally sound.
Cracksin
determines that the vault is not structurally
Wall,
sound.
Bottom,
Damage to
Frame
and/or Top
Slab
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any
No cracks more than 1/4-
inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles
inch wide at the joint of
entering the vault through the walls.
the inlet/outlet pipe.
Manhole
Cover Not
Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any
Manhole is closed.
in Place
open manhole requires maintenance.
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance
Mechanism opens with
Mechanis
person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have
proper tools.
m Not
less than 1/2 inch of thread (may not apply to self -
Working
locking lids).
Cover
One maintenance person cannot remove lid after
Cover can be removed and
Difficult to
applying normal lifting pressure. Intent is to
reinstalled by one
Remove
keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.
maintenance person.
Ladder
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,
Ladder meets design
Rungs
misalignment, not securely attached to structure
standards. Allows
Unsafe
wall, rust, or cracks.
maintenance person safe
I
access.
February 2005 Volume /I/ — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs
3-43
I
I
I
i
I
r7
�i
I
'I
I
I
11
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
Maintenance. Control structures and catch basins have a history of
maintenance -related problems and it is imperative that a good
maintenance program be established for their proper functioning. A
typical problem is that sediment builds up inside the structure which
blocks or restricts flow to tile inlet. To prevent this problem these
structures should be routinely cleaned out at least twice per year. Regular
inspections of control structures should be conducted to detect tile need for
non -routine cleanout, especially if construction or land -disturbing
activities are occurring in the contributing drainage area.
A 15-foot wide access road to the control structure should be installed for
inspection and maintenance.
Table 3.5 provides maintenance recommendations for control structures
and catch basins.
Table 3.5
Maintenance of Control Structures and Catchbasins
Maintenance
Results Expected When
Component
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is Needed
Maintenance is Performed
General
Trash and
Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 foot
Control structure orifice is not
Debris
below orifice plate.
blocked. All trash and debris
(lncludes
removed.
Sediment)
I
Structural
Structure is not securely attached to manhole
Structure securely attached to wall
Damage
wall.
and outlet pipe.
Structure is not in upright position (allow up to
Structure in correct position.
10% from plumb).
-Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and
Connections to outlet pipe are water
show signs of rust.
tight; structure repaired or replaced
and works as designed.
Any holes --other than designed holes --in the
Structure has no holes other than
structure.
designed holes.
Cleanout
Damaged or
Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing.
Gate is watertight and works as
Gate
Missing
designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by one
Gate moves up and down easily and is
maintenance person.
watertight.
Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged.
Chain is in place and works as
designed.
Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area.
Gate is repaired or replaced to meet
design standards.
Orifice Plate
Damaged or
Control device is not working properly due to
Plate is in place and works as
Missing
missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate.
designed.
Obstructions
Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation
Plate is free of all obstructions and
blocking the plate.
works as designed.
Overflow
Obstructions
Any trash or debris blocking (or having the
Pipe is free of all obstructions and
Pipe I
potential of blocking) the overflow pipe.
works as designed.
February 2005 Volume /// — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs
3-55
- I
Table 3.5
Maintenance of Control Structures and Catchbasins
Maintenance
Results Expected When
Coniponent
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is Needed
Maintenance is Performed
Manhole
See Table
See Table 3-4
See Table 3.4
3.4
L
CATCH BASINS
General
Trash &
Trash or debris which is located immediately in
No Trash or debris located
Debris
front of the catch basin opening or is blocking
immediately in front of catch basin or
inletting capacity of the basin by more than 10%.
on grate opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No trash or debris in the catch basin.
percent of the sump depth as measured from the
bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or
out of the basin, but in no case less than a
minimum of six inches clearance from the debris
surface to the invert of the lowest pipe.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking
Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or
more than 1/3 of its height.
debris.
Dead animals or vegetation that could generate
No dead animals or vegetation
odors that could cause complaints or dangerous
present within the catch basin.
gases (e.g., methane).
Sediment
Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of
No sediment in the catch basin
the sump depth as measured from the bottom of
basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the
basin, but in no case less than a mi-nimum of 6
inches clearance from the sediment surface to the
invert of the lowest pipe.
Measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the
lowest pipe into or out of the basin.
Structure
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or
Top slab is free of holes and cracks.
Damage to
cracks wider than 1/4 inch
Frame
and/or Top
(Intent is to make sure no material is running into
Slab
basin).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
Frame is sitting flush on the riser
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from
rings or top slab and firmly attached.
the top slab. Frame not securely attached
Fractures or
Maintenance person judges that structure is
Basin replaced or repaired to design
Cracksin
unsound.
standards.
Basin Walls/
Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider than
Pipe is regrouted and secure at basin
Bottom
1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any
wall.
inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks.
Settlement/
If failure of basin has created a safety, function. or
Basin replaced or repaired to design
Misalignme
design problem.
standards.
nt
Vegetation
Vegetation growing across and blocking more than
No vegetation blocking opening to
10% of the basin opening.
basin.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that
No vegetation or root growth present.
is more than six inches tall and less than six
inches apart.
3-56 Volume /// — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs Februaty 2005
r�
L n
A
I
I
1,
I
I
P
d
I
.1
U
r]
Ll
I
Table 3.5
Maintenance of Control Structures and Catchbasins
Maintenance
Results Expected When
Component
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is Needed
Maintenance is Performed
Contaminati
See "Detention Ponds"
No pollution present.
on and
Pollution
Catch Basin
Cover Not in
Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any
Catch basin cover is closed
Cover
Place
open catch basin requires maintenance.
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Mechanism
person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have
Not Working
less than 1/2 inch of thread.
Cover
One maintenance person cannot remove lid after
Cover can be removed by one
Difficult to
Remove
applying normal lifting pressure.
maintenance person.
(Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to
maintenance.)
Ladder
Ladder
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not
Ladder meets design standards and
Rungs
securely attached to basin wall, misalignment,
allows maintenance person safe
Unsafe
rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
access.
Metal Grates
(if
Applicable)
Grate
opening
Unsafe
Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.
Grate opening meets design
standards.
Trash and
Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20%
Grate free of trash and debris.
Debris
of grate surface inletting capacity. I
Damaged or
Missing.
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate.
Grate is in place and meets design
standards.
I
Methods of Analysis This section presents the methods and equations for design of control
structure restrictor devices. Included are details for the design of
orifices, rectangular sharp -crested weirs, v-notch weirs, sutro weirs,
and overflow risers.
Orifices. Flow -through orifice plates in the standard tee section or
turn -down elbow may be approximated by the general equation:
Q = C Af2gh (equation 4)
where Q = flow (cfs)
C = coefficient of discharge (0.62 for plate orifice)
A = area of orifice (ft)
h = hydraulic head (ft)
g = gravity (32.2 ft/seC2)
Figure 3.20 illustrates this simplified application of the orifice
equation.
Februaty 2005 Volume /// — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs
3-57
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - On -Site and Right -of -Way Improvements
Owner: Washington Federal Bank
Project: 229 Main St - Washington Federal Bank
By: Tim Gabelein
Date: 9-Sep- 10
On -Site Work
9
NO. .
10
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
Low Unit
Price
High Unit
Price
Low To
Moe �A
High Total
Price
I
Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
I
LS
$250
$500
$250
$500
2
'S L
Minor \hanges
I
EST
$2,000
$3,0001,/
$2,000
$3,000
3
IMobiliza\n
I
LS
$4,986
$15.9
,/4
$4,986'
$15,924
4
Sawcut
246
LF
$2.00
g.50
$492
$615
5
\tion Inc. Haul
Structure Exca
242
CY
$20
$30
$4,840
$ 7,216 0
6
Cut and Cap Ex Nitary Sewer
I
EA
$5001
$1,000
$500
$1,000
7
HMA 1/2" Overlay\
41
TN
$90,
0or $100
$4,100
8
Trimming and Cleanu'k
I
LS
$1,0
$2,000
_$3,690
$1,000
$2,000
9
HMA 1/2" Full Depth \
166
TN
X90
$100
$14,940
$16,600
10
Catch Basin Type 11 - 48"
1
EA
X2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$3,000
11
Detention Tank - 4'Diamet
65
LF
w
$110
$5,200
$7,150
12
Flow Control MH - 54"
1
EA
$3 ),000
$3,500
$3�000
$3,500
13
Footing Drain Pipe
307
LF
of $10
$20
$3,070
$6,140
14
6" PVC Sewer Pipe
167
L
$401
$60
$6,680
$10,020
15
6" SD Pipe
591
A
$15
$25
$8,865
$14.775
16
36" SD Pipe
7
&F
$40
$60
$280
$420
17
Shoring
19V
SF
$ 1
$3
$1,923
$5.769
18
Catch Basin Type 1 w/ Spill
Control Tee
1
/4
N�EA
$1,200
$1,500
$4,800
$6,000
19
ISD/SSS Cleanouts
k
$600
$1,000
$6,600
$11,000
20
1 Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control
I
LS
N
$1,500
$2 500
$1,500
$2,500
21
JCB Inlet Protection
3
EA
$250.00
$350.00
$750
$1,050
22
High isibility Fence
324
LF
$2.00
$5.00
$648
$1,620
23
Remove Asphalt Pavinz
535
SY
$10
$20
$5,350
$10,700
24
Remove Concrete
615
LF
$10
$20
$6,150
$12,300
25
Lane Striping
338
LF
$1
$2
$338
$507
26
6" Conc. Curb
746
LF
$V
$30
$11,190
$22,380
27
Conc. Sidewalk/
89
SY
$30
$45
$2fi7l)_
$4,005
28
1 " Water Mai
9
LF
$15
$20
$135
$180
29
RPBA 0�
I
EA
$250
$350
$250
$3501
30
Hot Box 4embly
I
EA
$600
$800
$600
$8001
Construction S total
20% Construction Conting cy
Construction TA
Notes:
stimate d
I / oes not include electrical service connection, gas service connection, I
$104,697
$175 165
$20,939
$35:033
$125,636
$210,198
$125,63.6
$210,198
J\oping or irrigati
. on services.
Construction Cost Estimate -Washington Federal Building DCG, Inc. Page 1 of 2
I -
I -
I
I
I
k
I
I
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - On -Site and Right -of -Way Improvements
Owner: Washington Federal Bank
Project: 229 Main St - Washington Federal Bank
By: Tim Gabelein
Date: 9-S -10
,U 0
RiEht-of-Wav Wor
NO.
\1 M
QTV
UNIT
Low Unit
Price
High Unit
Price
w Total
Y,
Price
High Total
Price
I
01
Spill Prevention, ontrol and
Countermeasures,\
I
LS
$250
$ 0
$250
$500
2
Minor Changes
I
EST
$1,000
4.65,000
$1,000
$2,000
3
IMobilization
I
LS
$2;971
$9,803
$2,971
$9,803
4
Temporary Traffic ContrX
I
LS
$3,000
$5,000
$3,000
$5,000
5
Sawcut
792
LF
$2.01'
$2.50
$1,584
$1,980
6
Structure Excavation Inc. Ha\
24
CY
/20
$301
$480
$720
7
HMA 1/2" Patch -
17
TN
$150
$200
$2,550
$3,400
8
Remove Ex Type FCatch Basin
2
EA
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$3,000
9
12" SD Pipe
\�29
LF
0
$40
$60
$9,160
$13,740
10
Shoring
1 NO
SFJ
$ 1
$3
$1,980
$5,940
11
Catch Basin Type 11 - 48"
X
F/
$2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$3,000
12
Catch Basin Type 1
2
VA
$15200
$1 �500
$2,400
$1,000
13
Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control
$1.000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
14
Remove Cone. Curb and Gutter
96
LF
$10
$20
$3,960
$7,920
15
Street Trees w/ grates
6
EA
$300
$450
$1,800
$2,700
16
Cement Conc. Driveway
121
SY
$40
$60
$4,840
$7,260
17
Remove Conc. Sidewalk j4
F 312
SY
$15
$25
$4,680
$7,800
18
Cement Cone. Sidewalk
312
SY
$30
$45
$9,360
$14,040
19
Cement Cone. Curb and Gi/er
396
LF
X5
$30
$5,940
$11,880
20
Cement Cone. Curb Ram
I
EA
$1,00)
$1,500
$1,000
$1,500
21
Cu b Painting
94
LF
$2.
$3
$188
j!$282
]72
22
Lane Striping
248
LF
$1
$2
$248
,
Construction Cost Estimate -Washington Federal Building
Construction ' u btotal %62.391 $107,837
u
20% Construction ConXinency $12,478 $21,567
Construction Ntal $74,869 $129,405
ToA $74,869 $129,405
DCG, Inc. Page 2 of 2
PREPARED FOR
WASHINGTON FEDERAL
August 2, 2010
�L-,St-n'ior Pr �ect Geb"W�
0.1
:fAj
Kyle R. Campbell, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVING$
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-1.8117.02
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
1805-136 T" Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711
Toll Free: 866-336-8710
I
I -
11
August 2, 2010
ES-1 817.02
I
Washington Federal
425 Pike Street
Seattle, Washington 981010
IAttention: Mr. John Yeckel, Facilities Manager
Dear Mr. Yeckel:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Earth Solutions NW LLC
colwruclinr Moll itorino
7
Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Washington Federal Savings, 229 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington".
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, the site is underlain
primarily by native silty sand deposits grading from loose to very dense. Groundwater was not
observed at the boring locations during the fieldwork (July 2010).
Based on the results of our study, the proposed single -story bank can be supported on
conventional foundation systems bearing on competent or recompacted native soil or structural
fill.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Scoft S. Riegel, L.G.
Senior Project Geologist
V_'kI7. Vx
11
- I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES-1 817.02
PAGE
INTRODUCION ..,- ...................................................... ........
I
General** .................................. -.- ........ --.-
1
.Proiect Description .............. ....... ......... -- .......... - -
1
SITECONDITIONS .............. ................... � ............................
2
Surface. ............. .7 .................... .................. ...........
2
Subsurface................................ ......................
2
Geologic Setting ......... 1-1-1- ................. 11-1.1 .........
2
GroUndwater ................... -- ..... .................. ;-
3
Prelimina!y Infittrati.oh Recommendations ........ i,-� ...............
3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ -
3
General....... .................. .............. --l-.-
3
Si!e Preparationand General Earthwork ........ ......
4
Temporary Erosion Control ................ ............ I ........
4
Site Stripping Recommendations ........................
4
In -situ Soils.. ................ ................................ ; .........
4
Structural Fill.�,.. .................. ........ ..........
4
Foundations ...............
5
Seismic ! Des ian'.'Considerafi ons ......... ..........
5
Slab-On-aGr6de Floors .....................
6
Rdt aihirfg'Walls., ....................... ........
6
Dra...................
7
Excavations and Slopes....... ...... .......... ; .........
7
Utility Trench Su ftand Backfill ............
PPO
7
Pavement Sections ...... ......
7
LIMITATIONS ...� ...... .......
8
Additional Services ........
8,
GRAPHICS
PLATE 1
PLATE 2
,PLATE 3
PLATE 4
APPENDICES.
Appendix A
Appendix B
VICINITY MAP
BORING LOCATION PLAN
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
Subsurface Exploration
Boring Logs
Laboratory Test Results
Earth Solutions NVV, LLC
I
I
I
11
6wd
I
I
11
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I -
I '
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-1 817.02
INTRODUCTION
General
This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the single -story bank structure to be
constructed off the northwest corner of the intersection between Main Street and Third Avenue
North in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this
geotechnical engineering st�dy addressed the following:
Conducting subsurface explorations within accessible portions of the development
envelope;
- Conduct engineering analyses, and
* Preparation of this report
The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation:
Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Washington, and;
Snohomish County USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS).
Proiect Description
The project will include demolishing the existing Washington Federal Savings bank and
constructing a new 2,700 square foot, single -story bank building and associated improvements.
We anticipate the building may utilize reinforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) or brick wall
construction and conventional framing. Final site designs were not available at the time of this
report; however, we anticipate the footprint of the new bank building will be larger than the
existing structure.
At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However,
based on our experience with �similar developments we antipipiate wall loads %.A/ill range from
about one to two kips per foot and slab -,.on -grade loading will likely be on the order of 150
pounds per square foot (psf).
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 2
Given the low topographic relief across the site, grading will likely be limited to cutting existing
soils to the foundation subgrade elevations. The remainder of the site will be developed with
asphalt paved drive lanes and general landscaping.
ESNW understands the feasibility of infiltrating runoff generated from new impervious surfaces
is being investigated.
If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review
the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that our
geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection between Main Street and Third
Avenue North in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated
on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map). The site is about 0.33 acres in size and is currently occupied with a
single -story bank structure and improvements. The site is bordered to the north by a residential
structure, to the south by Main Street, to the east by Third Avenue North and to the west by a
US Post Office.
The existing site topography gently descends to the west-southwest with about five feet of total
elevation change.
Subsurface
An ESNW representative observed, logged and sampled two borings drilled with a limited
access drill rig and operator contracted to ESNW. The approximate locations of the borings are
depicted on the Boring Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring logs provided in
Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions.
Fill was not encountered at the boring locations except for a gravel base underlying the asphalt
:OaveehO nt.. .13.61ow ai�qW f . out inches of �asphalt pavement, native soils were encountered
consisting of fine to medium silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) extending to the
maximum exploration depth of about 21.5 feet. Soil relative density generally increased with
depth.
Geologic Setting
The referenced geologic map resource identifies Whidbey Formation (Pre -Fraser Glaciation)
deposits (Qw) across the site and surrounding areas. The Whidbey formation consists
predominately of compact fine to coarse sand deposits,.
Q
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Washington Federal ES-1817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 3
The Snohomish County Soil Survey (SCS) identifies Alderwood Urban land complex soils (2 to
8 percent slopes) across the subject parcel. Alderwood urban land complex soils are
characterized by highly modified soils placed during regional grading op6rations.
The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations are generally more consistent with
glacial till deposits rather than the Whidbey formation sand deposits reported in the referenced
geologic map.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed during the fieldwork (July 2010), However, perched
groundwater would likely be present within during the wetter, winter and spring months of the
year. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors,
including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general,
groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months.
Preliminary4hfiltration Recommendations
Representative soil samples collected from test pits and were analyzed using the USDA textural
classification method. This classification differs from the USCS classification method in that the
sand fraction of the sample is based on the minus #10 sieve fraction as opposed to the minus
#4 sieve fraction used for USCS classification.
The native soils encountered in the boring locations consists of sandy loam, based on the
USDA textural classification, with relative fines contents of about 37 to 43 percent. In
accordance with Table 3.7 of the 2005 DOE Stormwater Management in Western Washington
manual, Volume: III Hydrologic Anal'�5is and Flow Control RIVIPs, a long-term design* infiltration
rste of,;0.25 inches per hour can �be- assigned to the sandy lobirn �$'oils ieftpuritered on th'e�
The allowable des ' ign infiltration rate includes a facto r-of-safety reduction of 4.0 as required by
the DOE manual. It is important to note that textural analysis and corresponding infiltration
estimates do not reflect in -situ relative soil density. If infiltration will be pursued, failing head
infiltration testing is recommended to better determine the hydraulic capacity of the site soils.
Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the boring locations during our fieldwork (July
2010). The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below existing grades.
-PI.SCIUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of the geotechnicai engineering study, construction of the proposed bank
building and associated improvements at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. The recommendations provided in this report are based in part on the soil
conditions encountered at the boring locations, engineering and analyses, our understanding of
the proposed project and our experience with similar projects.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
- I
Washington Federal ES-1817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 4
This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Washington Federal, and their
representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in
a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area.
Site Preparation and Earthwork I
Prior to construction we anticipate site preparation will include demolishing and removing the
ex isting structure and associated improvements and implementation of temporary erosion
control measures.
Temporary Erosion Control I
Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry
spalls can be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a stable
access entrance surface, as necessary. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing
placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be protected to reduce
soil erosion.
Site Stripping Recommendations
The site is largely developed and very little topsoil or landscape areas are present. ESNW
should observe stripping operations to confirm adequate removal of organic soil and to
minimize excess stripping.'
In -situ Soils
The soils at1he boring� locations which Would likely. be. exo,080d d u(ng grading activiiies: con8.i.st
.of 8i I Ity, sand and have a high sensitivity to moisture. Soils encountered during 'sAe excavatiohs
. : .
oi st . uf 0, P' qtOnt, Will require moisture conditioning prior to placement
thit. are ovor'the. optimum "D
apdomp.action. Conversely,-soils%thlat are subs�t.aniiaily:�:elo,w,i6e,opiimum moisture, c-,6h.tbnt
m I a* �idqu'ir'e,:ti�oi�.ttjro,.Opn-ditioning through the addiiioh,& wat.Or.pl&r.to use as structural fi I , 1.
y
t, he i . in'd6untered at 140.1est Oit oda i ns are,'gp_ 1Y
From a geotechnical.:,standpoih , t . ,t o i I's
tr tt ra ided the;soil:moi§turp,,cpntent,is:.at or -.up to -8 -percent -above
Witablojor uso* �as s. lu 0 fil.l.-prov
-st U -season will
the dptitniim,�,,moi�tur�,e,:c&ntetliti Thbuseon-sitetpilsas rUtturpi -fill during the, wet
'for
t`66,dg f the u siebfimport6d kil
:b�'diffidult. A conting,�ncy,should belhclud.ed in the projec e
should the on -site soil be too wet for use as structural'fill.
Structural Fill
Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway
re Fill aced to r, - nstruct permanent slopes and throu g wall and utility
a 'a' s. s P1 0 9hout retainin
ed §tr ur i as 0
backfill areas are also consider uct al fill. 8oifs placed in s1ructufal,are - sh' uld
-prich
be placed in IoO�e' lifts bf 12 inches or less and corop�cted :to a relative cornpaction.6f 90
-determined by theModified Proctor
pprcent, based on the laboratory mbArnum,dry density as,.
Method (ASTM D-1557).
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I -
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 5
I .
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with
a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions,
imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with
a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the
minus three-quarter inch fraction.
Foundations
Based on the results of -our study, the single -story bank can be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footings bearing on competent or recompacted native soil or structural
fill. We anticipated competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will
be encountered at depths of between approximately two to four feet below existing grades.
Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at the foundation subgrade elevations,
compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement
with structural fill, will be necessary,
Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be
used for design:
a Allowable soil bearing capacity 3,000 psf
; 0. Passive earth pressure
350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
* Coefficient of friction
A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and
seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of -
safety of 1.5.
With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential
settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur
during construction, as dead loads are applied.
Seismic Design Considerations
The 2006 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for
seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class
C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design.
In our opinion, the native soils encountered at the boring locations have a low susceptibility to
liquefaction. The lack of a shallow groundwater table and the relative density of the native soils
is the primary basis for this opinion.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
- I
Washington Federal
August 2, 2010
Slab -On -Grade Floors
ES-1817.02
Page 6
Slab -on -grade- floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of
competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be
recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of
the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock
or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines
content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter
inch fraction). The use of a vapor barrier below the slab is recommended. The product used
for the vapor barrier should be specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Retaining Walls
If retaining walls will be used for this project, they must be designed to resist earth pressures
and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall
design:
9 Active earth pressure (yielding wall) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
v At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall)
Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles
(where applicable)
a Passive resistance
* Coefficient of friction
,!) Seismic surcharge
50 pcf
70 psf (rectangular distribution)
350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
,0.4
6H (where H equals retained height)
Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should
be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls
such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic
pressures should be included in the wall design.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of
the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall
backfill can consist of a less permeable soil. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along
the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall
drainage detail is provided on Plate 3.
Earth Solutions NVV, LLC
I
I
I
Washington Federal
August 2, 2010
Dra��e
ES-1 817.02
Page 7
Groundwater was not observed at the boring locations during the fieldwork (July 2010).
However, perched groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations particularly during the
winter and spring months. ' Temporary measures to control surface water runoff during
construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Based on the
soil and groundwater conditions observed at the boring locations, extensive dewatering of
excavations will likely not be necessary.
In our opinion, footing drains should be installed around the building perimeter. A typical
foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 4.
Excavations and Slopes
The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington
Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope
inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the site soils are
classified as Type B by OSHAIWISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B
soils must be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary shoring may be
necessary to support excavations if the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be
achieved.
Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2HAV, or flatter, and should be planted with
vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. The geotechnical engineer should
observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide
additional excavation and slope recommendations,. as necessary.
Utifl!y Trench Support and Ba c*kfill
In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations will be generally suitable
for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench
excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Please refer to the 'Site Preparation
and Earthwork' section of this report for recommendations regarding the use of on-,s.ite soil as.
.:structutb . I fill. Utility1rdrith b6ckfill sh6old be placed and compacted to the: specifications of
-structural fill'provided 1 n* this. report, or to the F_dm0pds.:specificpfion'
Pavement Sections
The ts , _9
pdrformanbe of �,ite �� verner! is lar ely.-ralated to, the :condition of the underlying
subgrade. To. ensure adequate pavement perfornirldnce., the subgrade sliould be in a firm and
unyieldirfg,c'ond1tio . n when.siubjected to proofrolling with:a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in
pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site. Preparation and
Earthwork" section of this report, It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwiseunsuitable su I bgrade
areas may still exist after base'gradin* �activities. ;Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade
conditions will ne�quire remedial measures such as overexcavation, Placement of a geotktile
and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
I
- I
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 8
For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic,
the following pavement sections can be considered:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base
(CRB), or;
G Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB).
The AC, ATB and CRIB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. Soil base material
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are
professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members
in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not
expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test
locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction, ESNW should reevaluate
the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered.
Additional Services
ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical
recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and
consultation services during construction.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
I
I
I
I
U
11
nni". .- 1, ' ' .1 ' UEII I
4, cmt
4:; ant
r
P'vi� _r'*'T
F 1,
it 14—
A
F1
t qj""
4'�� �Y
;7w A I
y
�P Im
lBmo �y it S
r
it 2� ;I vc
4'1 v'.
F, A
T :�:`M -ilj
AW -
147;
'fjja;'� NLI Ir
vj
Izz,
IQ
2
X 9 :0 L,
��n -I,
7:
7P.
&
44 CK,
Z i
41; t
pto- iLi
6
IM'Q
IR-k
Ntl
T,' li" ;�L
71-'fb UF,.U_
:41
1-1� * r
NORTH
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 454
By Thomas Brothers Maps Vicinity Map
Dated 2009 229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 07/28/2010 Proj. No. E1817.02]
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked SSR I Date July 2010 Plate 1
- I
I-B-1
672
J
Existing Bank
7
/A/
LEGEND
B-1 —Approximate Location of
ESNW Boring, Proj. No.
ES-1 817.02, July 2010
Su
bject Property
Existing Building
NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
NORTH
Oil! �h"
40
Not - To - Scale
WON
Boring Location Plan
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS Date 07/28/20-10]Proj. No. 1817.02
Checked SSR I Date July 2010 1 Plate 2
U1
I.
rl
I
I
'I
I
I
I
11
.1
I
I
'I
I
18" Min.
0- .0 -0
o 0. 0
0 oo 0,
o. 0. 0 0 0 .
, ftz'
0 - 0'.' 000
0
o o(5
o
o o
o 0 0 0 o
0 o C) 0 .0 oo 0
o
0
0. .0 o o o
0. 000(l oo
..0 .0 o 0.0 o
o 0 0 0 o
cr oo 0 0 0 o o
o o 0 0ob '0
o o 0
0 o
o I o ' ' .0
oo o o
o o o
C�'o o o o 0 - 6
o
0 oo o o
0 0 o 0 0 0 0
0 .. 09 0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0. .
0 .0 . 0
0 0 00
1 0
0 - 00 0 0 0 �p
0 0 0000 .
0 0 0.
0 0
0 1
NOTES:
• Free Draining Backfill should consist
of soil having less than 5 percent fines.
Percent passing #4 should be 25 to
75 percent.
• Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu
of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW
recommendations.
• Drain Pipe should consist of perforated,
rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1
Drain Rock.
LEGEND:
1 00 `0�00` o001 Free Draining Structural Backfill
1 inch Drain Rock
Structural
Fill
\ Perforated Drain Pipe
(Surround In Drain Rock)
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
All,
ywO
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GILS Date08/02/2010 Proj No. 1817.02
Checked SSR -1 Date Aug. 2010 1 Plate - 3
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround with 1 " Rock)
NOTES:
Do NOT tie roof downspouts
to Footing Drain.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT OT SCALE
Surface Seal to consist of
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
12" of less permeable, suitable
soil. Slope away from building.
LEGEND:
Surface Seal; native soil or
other low permeability material.
1" Drain Rock
. . . . . . . ...
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date 08/02/2010[Proj.
No. 1817.02
Checked SSR
I Date Aug. 2010
1 Plate 4
I -
I -
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
ES-1 817.02
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two' borings at readily accessible
locations of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in July 2010. The
approximate boring locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the borings are
provided in this Appendix. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below
existing grades.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
- I
Earth Solutions NWLLC
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH
LETTER
DESCRIPTIONS
CLEAN
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
GRAVEL
GRAVELS
AND
a 4b 42
&. . A.
FINES
GR�VELLY
IJ
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
61).
� �,Z).! 6 <
GP
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL- - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
0�0. C
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
GRAVELS WITH
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
FINES
SILT MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
AMOUNT OF FINES)
CLAY MIXTURES
CLEAN SANDS
Sw
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
MORE THAN 50%
SAND
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
OF MATERIAL IS
AND
SP
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES
FINES
SANDS WITH
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MORE THAN 50%
FINES
MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION
CLAYEY
PASSING ON NO,
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
sc
SANDS, SAND - CLAY
AMOUNT OF FINES)
#AIXTURC5
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML
I
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
SILTS
FINE
LIQUID LIMIT
AND
CL
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
GRAINED
LESS THAN 50
'CLAYS
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
SOILS
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
7
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY'
MORE THAN 50%
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
OF MATERIAL IS
MH
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SMALLER THAN
SILTY SOILS
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
AND
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
GREATER THAN 50
CLAYS
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
A
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
. 11
I
I
I
I
It
I
I -
I -
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1
2881 152nd Avenue N.E.
PAGE I OF 2
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT WashinQton Federal PROJECT NAME 229 Main Street
PROJECTNUMBER 1817.02 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washin 11!Q_n
DATE STARTED 7/29/10 COMPLETED 1/29/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS;
DRILLING METHOD HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING .........
LOGGEDBY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF DRILLING
NOTES 4" Aspahlt Pavement AFTER DRILLING
W
0-
rw
0
2:(q
IL iF
w (n
Uj
>
0 Z -j
<
TESTS
0_6
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
_j
a.
0
mo>
2 Z
0
UZ
0
<
U)
W
Brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist
MC 15.40%
Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist
S-S
1010
6-9-11
MC 11.30%
(20)
-trace gravel
(USDA Classification: sandy LOAM]
100
7-10-13
MC 12.60%
(23)
Fines 37.40%
sand pockets
1
MC 10.60%
(37)
SPA
-sli ht oxidized lenses.
100
20-2140
MC 10.20%
(61)
-A
2(�
Solutions NVV BORING NUMBER B-1
tip=Earth
2881 152nd Avenue N.E.
. e mond, Washington 98052 PAGE 2 OF 2
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT Washington Federal PROJECT NAME 229 Mai,n Street
PROJECT NUMBER 1817.02 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds. Washinciton
LU
a-
W
Lu
>-
W
(0 W
3: �- 0
IL
Lu Co
ui
>
6 Z -j
D <
TESTS
Cj
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
_j
ca 0 >
Uj
2 z
(.)
() z
:j
0
<
C/)
LU
20
Brown silty SAND, very dense, moist
20-39-50
(89)
MC 13.60%
SM
-trace gravel
Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation. Boriing backfilled with bentonite.
Bottom of hole at 21.5 feet.
W]
W1
I
H
H
1,
d
I
J
I
H'
I
I -
I -
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Earth Solutions NW
BORING NUMBER 9 2
2881 152nd Avenue N.E. PAGE 1 OF 1
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT Washington Federal PROJECT NAME 229 Main Street
PROJECT NUMBER 1817.02 PROJECTLOCATION Edmonds,
DATE STARTED 7/29/10 COMPLETED 7/29110 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING
LOGGEDBY SSR CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING
NOTES 4" Asphalt Pavement AFTER DRILLING —
W
W Co
Lij
>
0 Z _j
<
TESTS
CL 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
0
a. D
0
CO 0 >
2z
L)
uz
zj
(9
<
W
0
Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist
SM
becomes medium dense
Brown silt; Fine SAND, dense, moist
100
7-19-22
MC 1010%
(41)
-trace gravel
100
14-22-32
MC 12.00%
(54)
Fines 43.30%
-becomes very dense
[USDA Classification: sandy LOAM]
S-S
SS.
100
25-38-40
(78)
MC 10.20%
100
15-28-36
MC 10.60%
(64).
-trace gravel
8S
160'
21-50
MC 10.60%
-sand pockets
Boring terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite.
Bottom of hole at 16.0 feet.
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ES-1 817.02
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
I
I
I
t
11
I
11
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUMN
tioqh Soliftjons NW
WENT Washington Federal PROJECT NAME _ffqLbingtion Federal
PROJECTNUMBER, ES-1817.02 PROJECTLOCATION "Ed a ds
U.S. SI.Orr-OKNING IN INCHES I VS. SIM NUMBERS 1,ftRODAETER
Q 4 3, 2 t5 1 11 IP 3 4 810 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 901
100
80
70
6
J7�
Lu 50—
TF
z
EL
45
z
FFE
oc
40
ui
35
—
TH
25
20
10
:5
100 10 1 0A 0.01 0.001
GRAKSIZE, IN MILLIMETERS
RAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
One cciamal medium fine
Specimen Iden0cation
Classifficafibn
LL
PL
P.1
CC
CU
0
B-1. 7.5ft.
USDA' I3tb*n-saod�L.IdtjM,'USCS:�'SM
m
'134 5.0ft
MDA: Brown sofidy'1Da1M,.USCS: SM
a,.,.
S�cimen'fdentificMjon
0160
D60
D30
DID
.1
osiit
% clay
9
B-1 7.5ft.
19
0.267
37.4
M
B-2 5.0ft
19
0.23G
43.3
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
,ES-1 817.02
4 COPIES Washington Federal
425 Pike Street
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. John Yeckel, Facilities Manager
Craft Architects
2505 Third Avenue, Suite 324
Seattle, Washington 98121
Attention: Ms. Kathy Craft -Reich (Email only)
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
DAVIDO CONSULTINGGROUP, INC.RESUB
CIVIL a STRUCTURAL m LAND USE NOV 0 4 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Edmonds
FROM: Quin Clements, P.E.
DATE: November 3, 2010
RE: Washington Federal Building — 229 Main St.
Drainage Narrative - Revisions per City ol'Fdinonds Comments
STREET FILE
This memorandum summarizes the proposed drainage system for the proposed Washington Federal Bank on the
subject parcel including addressing the minimum requirements applicable to the project set forth in the 2010
Stormwater Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (the combination of
which shall be referenced herein as "Drainage Manual").
Project Summary
The 14,405 SF site at 229 Main Street in Edmonds, WA will be redeveloped with the existing building demolished,
and a new building and parking lot constructed. Access and parking for the site is from both 3 rd Ave N via a new
curb cut and driveway, and the existing access from an alley off of Main St. Per the Drainage Manual, the site falls
within the drainage thresholds for a Category 2 Small Site Project and must comply with the associated minimum
requirements set forth in the Drainage Manual.
In conversations with the City about the drainage basin that the site lies within, it was determined that there have
been flooding issues at downstream intersections. Consequently, flow control would be required on site meeting the
requirements set forth in the flow control portion of the Drainage Manual.
The proposed drainage system, shown on the Drainage Plan submitted separately, includes collection of stormwater
via downspouts for the proposed building, and Type I catch basins within the parking lot. The collected stormwater
is conveyed to a four foot diameter, sixty-five foot long detention tank and flow control manhole. The Type I catch
basins shall have a spill control elbow (downturned 90 degree bend) for separation of oil and water from the
pollution generating impervious surfaces before conveyance to the detention tank.
The controlled discharge from the flow control manhole will be conveyed southerly down the westerly property line
and into a new Type 11 catch basin within the Main St right-of-way. A new 12" main will be installed westerly in
Main St approximately 113 feet and connect to a new Type I catch basin which will replace an existing shallow
Type I catch basin. An existing 6" storm drain conveys the stormwater westerly through the public storm system to
its direct discharge point in Puget Sound. A new Type I catch basin will also be installed in place of a bubble -up
catch basin just west of the intersection of 3 rd Street and Main St along the curb line. This will connect to the new
Type I I catch basin via a new 12" storm main along the curb. The easterly catch basin and connecting 12" storm
main is being installed per the request of the City as it is not needed for the drainage improvements of the subject
site.
Minimum Requirements
The site is required to satisfy minimum requirements I through I I per the Drainage Manual Section 5.0 Small Site
Requirements. The site and drainage design satisfies the requirements as stated below:
Seattle Area Office Whidbey Office
15029 Bothell Way NE, Ste 600, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 PO Box 1132, Freeland, WA 98249
Ph. 206.523.0024 Fax 206.523.1012 Ph. 360.331.4131 Fax 360.331.5131
Drainage Design Memo —Washington Federal Bank_Revisions-20101018
Drainage Narrative - 229 Main St - Washington Federal Bank September 9, 2010
Small Site Minimum Requirement #1 - Preparation ofStornnvater Site Plan
A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the area of proposed construction, topographical information and a tally of new
and replaced impervious surface has been prepared in accordance with Section 5.1 of the Drainage Manual to satisfy
this requirement. Also completed were a construction plan, details, and specifications for stormwater control
features. See the Drainage Plan submitted separately for the design layout.
Minimum Requirement #2 - Construction Storinivater Pollution Prevention Plan
This requirement consists of two parts - an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Spill Prevention
Plan. The Stormwater Spill Prevention Plan was deemed not necessary given the small site and the unlikelihood of a
spill reaching the storrilwater system. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared and submitted
separately showing erosion control elements to be implemented during construction.
Minimum Requirement #3 - Source Control of Pollutants
A list of applicable Best Management Practices has been attached to this narrative as a guide for preventing sources
of pollution from entering the site drainage system. The oil/water separator serves as a source control for any oil that
may be in stormwater runoff from the parking area.
Minimum Requirement #4 - Preservation ofNatural Drainage Systems and Ou�falls
The site complies with this requirement by discharging site runoff to its natural discharge point downstream, Puget
Sound. The existing site discharged stormwater to dry wells on site to be infiltrated. This was not a possibility for
the redevelopment due to the required flow control system and necessary storm drain extension in Main St.
Minimum Requirement #5 - Onsite Stornrivater Management
Low impact development options were analyzed for the developed site, but were deemed unsuitable due to a
combination of poor onsite soils, the requirement for flow control, and the limited space on site. Infiltration
possibilities would have been excessively large due to poor soils found by the geotechnical engineer. Open space
limitations were not conducive to rain gardens. See the attached Geotech Report for additional on -site soils
information.
Minimum Requirement #6- Runoff Treatment
Per conversations with City personnel, treatment sufficient for the project site includes spill control devices (down -
turned 90 degree elbows) in the parking lot catch basins, as well as designing the detention tank with 0.5' of
sediment storage. See the Drainage Plan and details submitted separately for details of these facilities.
Minimum Requirement # 7 - Floiv Control
Flow control was required for the site due to downstream flooding issues. The site lies within a Direct Discharge
Basin per City of Edmonds Basin Delineation maps. The procedure used for sizing the detention tank and discharge
orifices is described below. For detailed modeling parameters and results, see the WVMM modeling printouts
attached, as well as the Drainage Plan submitted separately for the layout of the flow control facilities. Allowable
and actual site discharges are shown in tile "Flow Control Modeling Requirements- table below as Well as oil the
Draina-e Plan.
Modeling - Uethodologv and Procedure
The site areas were determined and categorized by land cover type. The areas used in the modeling are as follows:
WWHM Areas
Mitigated Areas
Acres
Roof Tops - Flat
0.094
Sidewalks - Flat
0.010
Parking - Mod
0.163
C, Lawn, Mod
0.063
Davido Consulting Group, Inc.
Page 2
Drainage Narrative - 229 Main St — Washington Federal Bank September 9, 2010
The areas were input into WWFIM3, a continuous modeling simulation recommended by the Drainage Manual for
sizing detention facilities. The Puget East 36 precipitation time series was used. An iterative process of changing
tank length, orifice size, and orifice elevation was used to maximize storage within the tank, while also meeting
discharge thresholds for the 10 and 100-year storms based on the amount of impervious surface on the site. These
thresholds are shown below.
Flow Control Modeling Requirements
acres impervious
.25 cfs/acre
.45 cfs/acre
10 year
0.267
0.067
100 year
0.267
0.120
The outlet of the tank was set 0.5' above the bottom of the tank to allow for sediment settling and storage. The
resultant tank size and orifice sizes and elevations are as follows:
Flow Control Facility Sizing Results
Detention Tank: 65 LF 4' Diameter
Top: 46.50'
�Tank
Tank Bottom: 42.50'
Orifice #1: 1. 10" @ elevation 41.00'
Orifice #2: 1.35" @ elevation 44.70'
1 0-Year Discharge= 0.067 cfs
1 00-Year Discharge= 0. 116 cfs
Minimum Requirement #8 — Welland Protection
The site is not in close proximity to any wetlands, therefore this requirement is not applicable.
Minimum Requirement #9 — Operation and Maintenance
Operation and Maintenance guidelines for the flow control facility and catch basins are attached.
Minimum Requirement #/0 — Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
An offsite analysis was not required for the site as the downstream issues were known prior to a field investigation.
The project was required to improve the storm system in Main St and implement flow control in order to mitigate its
own stormwater impact to the already overstressed system. As there was not an appropriate discharge point for the
flow control system, the storm main extension in Main St was necessary in order to gravity flow from the flow
control manhole to the new 12" main.
Minimum Requirement #I I — Financial Liability
A performance bond will be submitted by the contractor for work requiring such. The responsibility to obtain the
performance bond will be the contractors. A construction cost estimate for both on -site and off -site work has been
prepared for use in determining bond and inspection amounts.
Attachments: Source Control BMPS
WWHM3 Modeling Printouts
Operation and Maintenance Manual
Construction Cost Estimate
Geotech Report
Davido Consulting Group, Inc.
Page 3
Washington Federal Bank
Western Washington Hydrology Model
PROJECT REPORT
Project Name: Wash Fed Rl
Site Address:
City
Edmonds
Report Date
11/3/2010
MGS Regoin
Puget East
Data Start
1939/10/1
Data End
2097/08/31
DOT Data Number: 03
WWHM3 Version:
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Acres
C, Lawn, Mod
.063
Impervious Land Use
Acres
ROOF TOPS FLAT
0.094
SIDEWALKS FLAT
0.01
PARKING MOD
0.163
Element Flows To:
Surface
Tank 1, Tank 1,
Interflow
Name Tank 1
Tank Name: Tank 1
Dimensions
Depth: 4ft.
Tank Type Circular
Diameter 4 ft.
Length : 65 ft.
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 3.7 ft.
Riser Diameter: 6 in.
Orifice 1 Diameter: 1.1 in.
Orifice 1 Diameter: 1.35 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
Groundwater
Elevation: 0.5 ft.
Elevation: 2.2 ft.
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
Tank
Hydraulic
Table
Stage(ft)
Area(acr) Volume(acr-ft)
Dschrg(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.089
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.133
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.178
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.222
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.267
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.311
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.356
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.444
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.489
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.533
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.578
0.004
0.002
0.009
0.000
0.622
0.004
0.002
0.011
0.000
0.667
0.004
0.002
0.013
0.000
0.711
0.005
0.002
0.015
0.000
0.756
0.005
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.800
0.005
0.003
0.017
0.000
0.844
0.005
0.003
0.019
0.000
0.889
0.005
0.003
0.020
0.000
0.933
0.005
0.003
0.021
0.000
0.978
0.005
0.004
0.022
0.000
1.022
0.005
0.004
0.023
0.000
1.067
0.005
0.004
0.024
0.000
1.111
0.005
0.004
0.025
0.000
1.156
0.005
0.004
0.026
0.000
1.200
0.005
0.005
0.027
0.000
1.244
0.006
0.005
0.027
0.000
1.289
0.006
0.005
0.028
0.000
1.333
0.006
0.005
0.029
0.000
1.378
0.006
0.006
0.030
0.000
1.422
0.006
0.006
0.031
0.000
1.467
0.006
0.006
0.031
0.000
1.511
0.006
0.006
0.032
0.000
1.556
0.006
0.007
0.033
0.000
1.600
0.006
0.007
0.033
0.000
1.644
0.006
0.007
0.034
0.000
1.689
0.006
0.008
0.035
0.000
1.733
0.006
0.008
0.035
0.000
1.778
0.006
0.008
0.036
0.000
1.822
0.006
0.008
0.037
0.000
1.867
0.006
0.009
0.037
0.000
1.911
0.006
0.009
0.038
0.000
1.956
0.006
0.009
0.038
0.000
2.000
0.006
0.009
0.039
0.000
2.044
0.006
0.010
0.039
0.000
2.089
0.006
0.010
0.040
0.000
2.133
0.006
0.010
0.041
0.000
2.178
0.006
0.010
0.041
0.000
2.222
0.006
0.011
0.049
0.000
2.267
0.006
0.011
0.055
0.000
2.311
0.006
0.011
0.059
0.000
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI
DCG, Inc.
November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
2.356
0.006
0.011
0.062
0.000
2.400
0.006
0.012
0.065
0.000
2.444
0.006
0.012
0.068
0.000
2.489
0.00ra
0.012
0.071
0.000
2.533
0.006
0.013
0.073
0.000
2.578
0.006
0.013
0.075
0.000
2.622
0.006
0.013
0.077
0.000
2.667
0.006
0.013
0.079
0.000
2.711
0.006
0.014
0.081
0.000
2.756
0.006
0.014
0.083
0.000
2.800
0.005
0.014
0.085
0.000
2.844
0.005
0.014
0.087
0.000
2.889
0.005
0.015
0.089
0.000
2.933
0.005
0.015
0.091
0.000
2.978
0.005
0.015
0.092
0.000
3.022
0.005
0.015
0.094
0.000
3.067
0.005
0.015
0.095
0.000
3.111
0.005
0.016
0.097
0.000
3.156
0.005
0.016
0.099
0.000
3.200
0.005
0.016
0.100
0.000
3.244
0.005
0.016
0.102
0.000
3.289
0.005
0.016
0.103
0.000
3.333
0.004
0.017
0.104
0.000
3.378
0.004
0.017
0.106
0.000
3.422
0.004
0.017
0.107
0.000
3.467
0.004
0.01'7
0.109
0.000
3.511
0.004
0.017
0.110
0.000
3.556
0.004
0.018
.0.111
0.000
3.600
0.004
0.018
0.113
0.000
3.644
0.003
0.018
0.114
0.000
3.689
0.003
0.018
0.115
0.000
3.733
0.003
0.018
0.146
0.000
3.778
0.003
0.018
0.223
0.000
3.822
0.002
0.018
0.327
0.000
3.867
0.002
0.019
0.451
0.000
3.911
0.002
0.019
0.594
0.000
3.956
0.001
0.019
0.752
0.000
4.000
0.000
0.019
0.924
0.000
4.044
0.000
0.000
1.109
0.000
Name : Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use Acres
C, Lawn, Mod .063
Impervious Land Use Acres
ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.094
SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.01
PARKING MOD 0.163
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
Element Flows To:
Surface
MITIGATED LAND USE
Interflow
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.072896
5 year
0.0974
10 year
0.115146
25 year
0.139364
50 year
0.158752
100 year
0.17933
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.1043
5 year
0.136416
10 year
0.15976
25 year
0.191706
50 year
0.217345
100 year
0.244615
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
Groundwater
POC # 1
POC # 1
Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1941
0.080
0.105
1942
0.089
0.120
1943
0.105
0.138
1944
0.047
0.072
1945
0.051
0.079
1946
0.073
0.122
1947
0.063
0.094
1948
0.080
0.110
1949
0.074
0.116
1950
0.077
0.103
1951
0.138
0.209
1952
0.045
0.074
1953
0.198
0.241
1954
0.080
0.101
1955
0.064
0.088
1956
0.046
0.076
1957
0.071
0.099
1958
0.042
0.070
1959
0.060
0.091
1960
0.047
0.073
1961
0.064
0.097
1962
0.066
0.096
1963
0.090
0.111
1964
0.046
0.071
1965
0.090
0.118
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
1966
0.062
0.093
1967
0.059
0.087
1968
0.100
0.133
1969
0.112
0.142
1970
0.050
0.080
1971
0.059
0.090
1972
0.057
0.080
1973
0.091
0.136
1974
0.052
0.077
1975
0.062
0.079
1976
0.083
0.121
1977
0.052
0.084
1978
0.072
0.102
1979
0.106
0.147
1980
0.090
0.107
1981
0.083
0.110
1982
0.088
0.123
1983
0.129
0.194
1984
0.088
0.127
1985
0.065
0.088
1986
0.055
0.087
1987
0.071
0.124
1988
0.117
0.147
1989
0.047
0.075
1990
0.084
0.100
1991
0.130
0.215
1992
0.123
0.201
1993
0.064
0.094
1994
0.053
0.083
1995
0.045
0.064
1996
0.063
0.090
1997
0.080
0.139
1998
0.076
0.108
1999
0.059
0.088
2000
0.179
0.242
2001
0.067
0.097
2002
0.047
0.070
2003
0.143
0.170
2004
0.079
0.122
2005
0.058
0.081
2006
0.072
0.087
2007
0.057
0.083
2008
0.063
0.095
2009
0.078
0.109
2010
0.078
0.134
2011
0.249
0.304
2012
0.128
0.156
2013
0.098
0.128
2014
0.113
0.175
2015
0.099
0.135
2016
0.043
0.070
2017
0.081
0.133
2018
0.075
0.102
2019
0.077
0.097
2020
0.080
0.114
2021
0.060
0.084
2022
0.085
0.117
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI
DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
2023
0.079
0.113
2024
0.083
0.102
2025
0.050
0.078
2026
0.082
0.105
2027
0.051
0.082
2028
0.055
0.079
2029
0.057
0.086
2030
0.087
0.131
2031
0.087
0.147
2032
0.101
0.135
2033
0.067
0.101
2034
0.045
0.070
2035
0.071
0.098
2036
0.059
0.083
2037
0.074
0.115
2038
0.081
0.107
2039
0.080
0.116
2040
0.077
0.096
2041
0.112
0.147
2042
0.054
0.090
2043
0.094
0.127
2044
0.149
0.179
2045
0.063
0.082
2046
0.086
0.125
2047
0.069
0.091
2048
0.060
0.090
2049
0.075
0.126
2050
0.060
0.075
2051
0.077
0.147
2052
0.062
0.088
2053
0.059
0.089
2054
0.127
0.147
2055
0.054
0.072
2056
0.114
0.174
2057
0.079
0.119
2058
0.108
0.171
2059
0.089
0.118
2060
0.080
0.130
2061
0.104
0.137
2062
0.114
0.141
2063
0.156
0.241
2064
0.069
0.083
2065
0.086
0.107
2066
0.074
0.106
2067
0.037
0.057
2068
0.060
0.091
2069
0.101
0.131
2070
0.043
0.066
2071
0.055
0.071
2072
0.056
0.074
2073
0.056
0.086
2074
0.076
0.141
2075
0.057
0.082
2076
0.078
0.101
2077
0.076
0.112
2078
0.123
0.149
2079
0.062
0.094
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI
DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
2080
0.071
0.104
2081
0.083
0.152
2082
0.095
0.124
2083
0.067
0.095
2084
0.061
0.087
2085
0.058
0.086
2086
0.075
0.110
2087
0.064
0.110
2088
0.098
0.130
2089
0.060
0.089
2090
0.101
0.161
2091
0.065
0.086
2092
0.064
0.092
2093
0.114
0.153
2094
0.062
0.092
2095
0.083
0.112
2096
0.050
0.078
2097
0.091
0.120
2098
0.098
0.132
Ranked
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Yearly Peaks for
Predeveloped
0.2488
0.1977
0.1791
0.1558
0.1495
0.1428
0.1385
0.1299
0.1291
0.1281
0.1267
0.1231
0.1229
0.1169
0.1145
0.1139
0.1137
0.1128
0.1122
0.1118
0.1080
0.1057
0.1053
0.1043
0.1015
0.1009
0.1006
0.0999
0.0991
0.0983
0.0980
0.0975
0.0949
0.0942
Predeveloped and
Mitigated
0.3040
0.2421
0.2415
0.2410
0.2149
0.2092
0.2008
0.1939
0.1789
0.1747
0.1739
0.1708
0.1698
0.1614
0.1560
0.1528
0.1518
0.1487
0.1474
0.1471
0.1470
0.1467
0.1466
0.1466
0.1422
0.1413
0.1407
0.1392
0.1380
0.1372
0.1357
0.1349
0.1345
0.1344
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
Mitigated. POC #1
W"M3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
0.0906
0.0906
0.0903
0.0900
0.0897
0.0893
0.0893
0.0885
0.0879
0.0869
0.0868
0.0862
0.0856
0.0849
0.0836
0.0834
0.0834
0.0833
0.0829
0.0828
0.0818
0.0813
0.0810
0.0803
0.0803
0.0800
0.0800
0.0798
0.0797
0.0796
0.0793
0.0792
0.0787
0.0780
0.0777
0.0775
0.0773
0.0771
0.0770
0.0768
0.0764
0.0760
0.0757
0.0753
0.0750
0.0750
0.0744
0.0742
0.0740
0.0728
0.0722
0.0715
0.0711
0.0708
0.0706
0.0705
0.0686
0.1334
0.1325
0.1321
0.1315
0.1309
0.1300
0.1297
0.1282
0.1268
0.1266
0.1259
0.1248
0.1241
0.1240
0.1230
0.1223
0.1221
0.1214
0.1201
0.1197
0.1186
0.1185
0.1183
0.1165
0.1161
0.1161
0.1152
0.1135
0.1126
0.1122
0.1118
0.1106
0.1101
0.1099
0.1099
0.1099
0.1088
0.1077
0.1075
0.1068
0.1066
0.1061
0.1052
0.1047
0.1038
0.1032
0.1024
0.1022
0.1019
0.1015
0.1011
0.1011
0.1000
0.0986
0.0983
0.0974
0.0971
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWfIM3 Modeling Results RI
92
0.0685
0.0967
93
0.0670
0.0960
94
0.0670
0.0957
95
0.0667
0.0954
96
0.0664
0.0949
97
0.0648
0.0943
98
0.0647
0.0941
99
0.0642
0.0939
100
0.0639
0.0932
101
0.0636
0.0919
102
0.0636
0.0916
103
0.0636
0.0911
104
0.0633
0.0909
105
0.0629
0.0908
106
0.0628
0.0904
107
0.0628
0.0903
108
0.0624
0.0903
109
0.0622
0.0895
110
0.0619
0.0894
ill
0.0618
0.0892
112
0.0617
0.0881
113
0.0609
0.0879
114
0.0604
0.0877
115
0.0603
0.0877
116
0.0603
0.0874
117
0.0601
0.0873
118
0.0601
0.0873
119
0.0596
0.0872
120
0.0594
0.0862
121
0.0594
0.0860
122
0.0594
0.0858
123
0.0592
0.0858
124
0.0589
0.0838
125
0.0583
0.0836
126
0.0582
0.0834
127
0.0572
0.0834
128
0.0570
0.0830
129
0.0570
0.0825
130
0.0566
0.0821
131
0.0564
0.0818
132
0.0559
0.0817
133
0.0552
0.0810
134
0.0552
0.0800
135
0.0546
0.0797
136
0.0543
0.0792
137
0.0542
0.0788
138
0.0530
0.0787
139
0.0522
0.0782
140
0.0521
0.0776
141
0.0514
0.0768
142
0.0513
0.0763
143
0.0499
0.0748
144
0.0498
0.0747
145
0.0497
0.0740
146
0.0474
0.0740
147
0.0474
0.0725
148
0.0469
0.0724
WWTIM3 Modeling Results RI
RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
149
0.0468
0.0716
150
0.0461
0.0710
151
0.0457
0.0709
152
0.0452
0.0702
153
0.0448
0.0701
154
0.0445
0.0696
155
0.0427
0.0696
156
0.0427
0.0657
157
0.0417
0.0645
158
0.0371
0.0571
POC # 1
Facility FAILEID duration standard for 1+ flows.
Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0364
2393
12927
540
Fa - i -- 1
0.0377
2118
11875
560
Fail
0.0389
1883
10863
576
Fail
0.0402
1665
9966
598
Fail
0.0414
1496
9130
610
Fail
0.0426
1331
8343
626
Fail
0.0439
1180
7657
648
Fail
0.0451
1057
7024
664
Fail
0.0463
956
6456
675
Fail
0.0476
828
5933
716
Fail
0.0488
754
5446
722
Fail
0.0500
686
5017
731
-Fail
0.0513
620
4619
745
Fail
0.0525
569
4253
747
Fail
0.0537
521
3908
750
Fail
0.0550
484
3620
747
Fail.
0.0562
448
3367
751
0.0574
401
3081
768
0.0587
377
2818
747
0.0599
354
2618
739
0.0612
327
2395
732
,Iaj
0.0624
297
2191
737
Fail
0.0636
278
2002
720
Fail
0.0649
252
1822
723
Fail
0.0661
239
1663
695
'-ail
0.0673
224
1526
681
�--ajl
0.0686
213
1384
649
Fail
0.0698
203
1287
633
Fail
0.0710
189
1190
629
Fail
0.0723
176
1089
618
Fail
0.0735
163
976
598
Fail
0.0747
154
902
585
Fail
0.0760
135
843
624
Fa-11,
0.0772
126
781
619
Fail
0.0785
120
731
609
Fail
0.0797
107
668
624
7a�l
0.0809
91
622
683
Fai:i
0.0822
84
582
692
Fail
0.0834
78
541
693
ail
0.0846
75
512
682
ail
WWTIM3
Modeling
Results RI RI
DCG, Inc.
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
0.0859
71
485
683
7a4l
0.0871
65
458
704
0.0883
61
426
698
Eail
0.0896
58
403
694
Faii-I
0.0908
-49
387
789
l-,lail
0.0920
47
357
759
0.0933
46
335
728
0.0945
44
311
706
0.0957
41
294
717
Fail
0.0970
41
282
687
Fail
0.0982
37
271
732
Fail
0.0995
34
262
770
Fail
0.1007
33
255
772
Fail
0.1019
30
239
796
7-41
0.1032
30
227
756
7ail
0.1044
29
214
737
Fail
0.1056
26
202
776
-;�, il
A. 3 - -
0.1069
25
193
772
Fai]
0.1081
24
182
758
0.1093
24
170
708
�'a4
- 1
0.1106
24
161
670
Fa,_il
0.1118
24
151
629
0.1130
21
143
680
�,a�
il
0.1143
19
136
715
Fail
0.1155
18
130
722
Fail
0.1167
17
123
723
Fail
0.1180
15
119
793
Fail
0.1192
15
113
753
Fai 1
0.1205
15
109
726
0.1217
15
106
706
0.1229
14
101
721
a
0.1242
13
98
753
Fai-1
0.1254
13
96
738
0.1266
13
93
715
0.1279
11
86
781
0.1291
10
80
800
-7ail
0.1303
8
78
975
0.1316
8
74
925
0.1328
8
72
900
Fail
0.1340
8
68
850
Fa 11
0.1353
8
62
775
Fail
0.1365
8
59
737
-7all
0.1378
8
55
687
0.1390
7
53
757
-i�,ai]
0.1402
7
51
728
0.1415
7
46
657
Fail
0.1427
7
44
628
Fa i 11
0.1439
6
44
733
Fa-'.1
0.1452
6
43
716
7 ali
0.1464
6
41
683
--ail
0.1476
6
33
550
0.1489
6
32
533
Fail
0.1501
5
32
640
-zaJl
0.1513
4
32
800
Fail
0.1526
4
29
725
7a 11
0.1538
4
27
675
i I
0.1550
4
26
650
7a:i� I
WWHM3
Modeling
Results
RI RI
DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Washington Federal Bank
0.1563 3 25 833 ---ail
0.1575 3 25 833 Fail
0.1588 3 25 833 i I
The development has an increase in flow durations
from 1/2 predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow
or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50
year flow.
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1.
On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Per1nd and Imp1nd Changes
No changes have been made.
WWHM3 Modeling Results RI
This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without warranty of any
kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed
by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology
disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to
implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear
Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any
damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits,
loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use
of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington
State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
WWfIM3 Modeling Results RI RI DCG, Inc. November 3, 2010
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - On -Site and Right -of -Way Improvements
Owner: Washington Federal Bank
Project: 229 Main St - Washington Federal Bank
By: Tim Gabelein
Date: 3-Nov-10
On -Site Work
NO.
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
Low Unit
Price
High Unit
Price
Low Total
Price
High Total
Price
I
Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
I
LS
$250
$500
$250
$500
2
Minor Changes
I
EST
$2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$3,000
3
IMobilization
I
LS
$5,089
$16,215
$5,089
$16,215
4
Sawcut
246
LF
$2.00
$2.50
$492
$615
5
Structure Excavation Inc. Haul
242
CY
$20
$30
$4,840
$7,260
6
Cut and Cap Ex Sanitary Sewer
I
EA
$500
$1,000
$500
$1,000
7
HMA 1/2" Overlay
41
TN
$90
$100
$3,690
$4,100
8
Trimming and Cleanup
I
LS
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
9
HMA 1/2" Full Depth
166
TN
$90
$100
$14,940
$16,600
10
Catch Basin Type 11 - 48"
1
EA
$2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$3,000
11
Detention Tank - 4' Diameter
65
LF
$80
$110
$5,200
$7,150
12
Flow Control MH - 54"
1
EA
$3,000
$3,500
$3,000
$3,500
13
Footing Drain Pipe
307
LF
$10
$20
$3,070
$6,140
14
6" PVC Sewer Pipe
167
LF
$40
$60
$6,680
$10,020
15
6" SD Pipe
591
LF
$15
$25
$8,865
$14,775
16
36" SD Pipe
7
LF
$40
$60
$280
$420
17
Shoring
1923
SF
$1
$3
$1,923
$5,769
18
Catch Basin Type I W/ Spill
Control Tee
4
EA
$1,200
$1,500
$4,800
$6,000
19
SD/SSS Cleanouts
I I
EA
$600
$1,000
$6,600
$11,000
20
Temporary Construction
Entrance
I
LS
$300
$500
$300
$500
21
Silt Fence
101
LF
$8
$12
$808
$1,212
22
Construction Fencing
308
LF
$8
$12
$2,464
$3,696
23
CB Inlet Protection
3
EA
$250.00
$350.00
$750
$1,050
24
High isibility Fence
324
LF
$2.00
$5.00
$648
$1,620
25
Remove Asphalt Paving
535
SY
$10
$20
$5,350
$10,700
26
Remove Concrete Curb
615
LF
$10
$20
$6,150
$12,300
27
Lane Striping
338
LF
$1
$2
$338
$507
28
6" Conc. Curb
746
LF
$15
$30
$11,190
$22,380
29
Conc. Sidewalk
89
SY
$30
$45
$2,670
$4,005
30
1 " Water Main
9
LF
$15
$20
$135
$180
31
RPBA
I
EA
$250
$350
$250
$350
32
Hot Box Assembly
I
EA
$600
$800
$600
$800
Notes:
Construction Subtotal $106,872 $178,364
20% Construction Contingency $21,374 $35,673
Construction Total $128,247 $214,037
Total $128,247 $214,037
Estimate does not include electrical service connection, gas service connection, landscaping or irrigation services.
Construction Cost Estimate -Washington Federal Build ing_Revis ion 1
DCG, Inc. Page 1 of 2
a
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - On -Site and Right -of -Way Improvements
Owner: Washington Federal Bank
Project: 229 Main St - Washington Federal Bank
By: Tim Gabelein
Date: 3-Nov-10
Rietit-of-Wav Work = Materials that Citv of Edmonds Shall Provide
NO.
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
Low Unit
Price
High Unit
Price
Low Total
Price
High Total
Price
I
Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
I
LS
$250
$500
$250
$500
2
Minor Changes
I
EST
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
3
Mobilization
I
LS
$3,176
$10,223
$3,176
$10,223
4
Temporary Traffic Control
I
LS
$3,000
$5,000
$3,000
$5,000
5
Sawcut
792
LF
$2.00
$2.50
$1,584
$1,980
6
Structure Excavation Inc. Haul
24
CY
$20
$30
$480
$720
7
HMA 1/2" Patch
17
TN
$150
$200
$2,550
$3,400
8
Remove Ex Type I Catch Basin
2
EA
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$3,000
9
12" SD Pipe
229
LF
$40
$60
$9,160
$13,740
10
Shoring
618
SF
$1
$3
$618
$1,854
11
Catch Basin Tvpe 11 - 48"
1
EA
$2,000
$3,000
S2,000
$3,000
12
Catch Basin Type 1
3
EA
$1'200
$1,500
$3,600
14,500
13
CB Inlet Protection
5
EA
$250.00
$350.00
$1,250
$1,750
14
Brick Work (a,) Crosswalk
I
LS
$2,000
$3,000
$2,000
$3,000
15
Sig age Along Frontage
I
LS
$2,000
$4,000
$2,000
$4,000
16
Remove Conc. Curb and Gutter
396
LF
$10
$20
$3,960
$7,920
17 1
Street Trees w/ grates
6
EA
$300
$450
$1,800
$2,700
18 lCement
Conc. Driveway
121
SY
$40
$60
$4,840
$7,260
19
Remove Cone. Sidewalk
312
SY
$15
$25
$4,680
$7,800
20
Cement Cone. Sidewalk
312
SY
$30
$45
$9,360
$14,040
21
Cement Conc. Curb and Gutter
280
LF
$15
$30
$4,200
$8,400
22
Cement Conc. Curb and Gutter
(Along Post Office)
117
LF
$15
$30
$1,755
$3,510
23
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp
I
EA
$1,000
$1,500
$1,000
$1,500
24 lCurb
Painting
94
LF
$2
$3
$188
$282
25 JLane
Striping
248.
LF
$1
$2
$2481
$372
Construction Subtotal $66,699
$112,451
20% Construction Contingency $13,340
$22,490
Construction Total $80,039
$134,941
Total $80,039
$134,941
Construction Cost Estimate_Washington Federal Build ing_Revision 1
DCG, Inc. Page 2 of 2
U 1 0
City of Edmonds
Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet
//)C. I gq�)
Name of Proposed Project: L"I &!� HL(�
RECEIVpo.
I'S
2010
16ILDI, 4G DEpAh,
OTY OF EDMONre
Owner/Applicant Applicant Contact Person:
i6lka6 L-11-6 61 Lt- A-C�q _&V*T6�r�
Name Name
A7L!� FW 5 T Z5-05, "-sy-GL mte= _32-t-
Street/Mailing Address Street/Mailing Address
Wk
I�Ik 50 E4
city S tate Zip City State Zip
Telephone: O-C6-7 77- 8-39 -3 Telephone: 2b6-7z-o- 70o I
Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable):
Firm Name
Telephone:
THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Contact Name
1001 in I
Project Traffic Levels _-Sectio
s to Complete
1. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated Q_
I and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist)
11. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated
All sections
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Location - Street address: 02--4) �A(N _-Svo��T
60CV(6(NM f�tW 00 %i("rLO(Attach a vicinity inap and site plan.)
b. Specify existing land use: Udv-- Z'301�_S�
.c. Specify proposed type and size of development: 2,50'LStr
(# of residential units andlor square footage of building)
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page I of 5
d. Date construction will begin and be completed:
e. Define proposed access locations: VL;_;-
Au,o -C�, Og:��r,�f 01'0> 41T'ON 34 -C. %E: Ff�H6450
f. D fine proposed sight distance at site egress locations:
2. TRIP GENERATION
Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer)
a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
PM Peak -Hour Trips
Daily (ADT) IN OUT
b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour
Trips
IN
OUT
c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour
Trips
IN
OUT
d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips:
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 2 of 5
3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For
developments that generate over 75 peak -hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require
trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model.'
4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY
a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements?
b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis:
Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer
Existing Conditions
LOS
Delays
Year of Opening
LOS
Delays
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
LOS
Delays
c. Describe channelization warrants:
(Attach striping plan.)
d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths):
50%
95%
Existing Conditions
Year of Opening
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
e. If appropriate, state traffic control warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants):
f. Summarize local accident hiStory2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials):
1 Available upon request at City of Edmonds Development Services Department
2 Available upon request at City of Edmonds Police Department
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of 5
5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the city.'
a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts (less than two years old), including turning
. movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project.
b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the
project is fully open (with and without project traffic).
c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years
after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic).
d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source:
6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS
a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation.
Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by
ten or more peak -hour trips. Other City -planned developments, must also be factored into the
LOS calculations.
LOS
LOS
Existing Conditions
Existing
Delays
Year of Opening
With Project
Without Project
Five Years Beyond Change of
Land Use
With Project
I
Without Project
I
b. Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications:
1 A list of planned developments are available at the City upon request for public records
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 4 of 5
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic
impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached)
and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECDC 18.82.130.
El CHANGE IN USE
Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the
previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04),
the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used.
ITE Land Use Category
Per Unit
Fee Rate
New Use
$ -7. (�,o
Prior Usl�W-
_41- qpzzqiP
$,7�-
Units in
square feet,
# of dwelling,
vfp, etc.
X z q 02--
X 2-SICA
IU .0 -!?
New Use Fee: $ Prior Use Fee: $
0 NEW DEVELOPMENT
ITE Land'use Category Per Unit
I Fee Rate
New Use
0 OTHER
X
Units in
square feet,
# of dwelling,
vfD. etc.
Fee
MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION:
$
INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 (+ consultant fee)
$
TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
$
City of Edmonds, Erigineering Division Approval
le,
I #/I 1/* /6
Date
' No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative.
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 5 of 5
CPrA
olo
7. (o 7>
�� (3LO [0 - 0(-a 4 �
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Re�ised July 2007
Project Info
STREEApicanM:
Project Address
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
Date 9/8/2010
229 MAIN STREET
For B ' WiLartment Use
AEC.EIVED
SEP . t 0 2010
BUILDING D15PARTMENT
Wy OF EDMONDS
0060 ra Wfi&4ONDS, WA 98020
I !, BISON ENGINEERING, INC
p0'flcanFAdTl 00 19TH AVE NE, SHORELINE, WA 98155
Applicant Phone: 206-364-3343
Project Description
New Building n Addition Alteration E] Plans Included
Refer to WSEC Section 1513 for controls and commissioning requirements.
Compliance Option
0 Prescriptive * Lighting Power Allowance 0 Systems Analysis
I (See Qualification Checklist (over). Indicate Prescriptive & LPA spaces clearly on plans.)
Alteration Exceptions
(check appropriate box -sec. 1132.3)
I [Ell o c anges are being made to the lighting
r[:] Less than 60% of the fixtures new, installed wattage not increased, & space use not changed.
Maximum Allowed Lighting Wattage
Location
(floor/room no.)
Occupancy Description
Allowed
Watts per ft2
Area in ft2
Allowed x Area
I
RETAIL BANK
1.50
2802.0
4203.0
From Table 15-1 (over) - document all exceptions on form LTG-LPA
Proposed Lighting Wattage
Total Allowed Wafts 1 4203.01
Location
(floor/room no.)
Fixture Description
Number of
Fixtures
Watts/
Fixture
Watts
Proposed
I
PF38, PF3B-E: 2X4 PARABOLIC, Q)T8, ELEC BALLAST
25
93.0
2325.0
1
GF2A, GF2A-E: 2X4 LENS TROFFER, (2) TB, ELEC BALLAST
6
64.0
384.0
1
RR1, RR1E: REC DNLT, (1) 32W CFL, ELEC BALLAST
25
34.0
850.0
1
WB1: 41 WALL BRACKET, (2) 39W FL LAMP, ELEC BALLAST
1
80.0
80.0
Total Proposed Watts may not exceed Total Allowed Watts for Interior Total Proposed Watts 1 3639.01
Notes:
1. For proposed Fixture Description, indicate fixture type, lamp type (e.g. T-8), number of lamps in the fixture, and ballast type (if
included). For track lighting, list the length of the track (in feet) in addition to the fixture, lamp, and ballast information.
2. For proposed Watts/Fixture, use manufacturer's listed maximum input wattage of the fixture (not simply the lamp wattage) and
other criteria as specified in Section 1530. For hard -wired ballasts only, the default table in the NREC Technical Reference Manual
may also be used. For track lighting, list the greater of actual luminaire wattage or length of track multiplied by 50, or as applicable,
the wattage of current limiting devices or of the transformer.
3. List all fixtures. For exempt lighting, note section and exception number, and leave Watts/Fixture blank.
2006 Washington State Nonresidential E
Code Compliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised July 2007
Project Info
Proj Addres WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
Date 9/3/2010
229 MAIN STREET
For Building Department Use
EDMONDS, WA 98020
Name: ROBISON ENGINEERING, INC
Appl. Name 20300 19TH AVE NE, SHORELINE, WA 98155
Appl. PhonE 206-364-3343
Project Description
21 New El. Addition [I Alteration Plans Induded
Refer to WSEC Section 1513 for controls and commissioning requirements.
Compliance Option
Lighting Power Allowance 0 Systems Analysis
Building Grounds
(luminaires > 100 Watts)
21 Efficacy > 60 lumens/W Controlled by motion Sensor
Exemption (list)
Alteration Exceptions
(check appropri te box - sec. 1132.3) 10
No changes are being made to the lighting
Less than 60% of the fixtures new, installed wattage not increased, & space use not changed.
Tradable Maximum Allowed Lighting Wattage
Tradable Locations
Description
Allowed Watts
per ft2 or per If
Area (ft), perimeter
(1f) or # of items
Allowed Watts
x ft2 (or x lf)
Uncovered Parking and drives
PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS
0. 15 W/ft2
10088.0
1513.2
Main Entry
NORTH ENTRY 30 W/LF of door widt
6.0
180.0
Other Entries
SOUTH ENTRY 20 W/LF of door widtl
6.0
120.0
Canopies and Overhangs
DRIVE-THRU CANOPY
1.25 W/ft2
1 982.01
12 2 7�. 5]
Total Allowed Watts 1 304
Use mfgr listed maximum input wattage. For fixtures with hard -wired ballasts only,
Tradable Proposed Lighting Wattage the default table in the NREC Technical Reference Manual may also be used.
Location
Fixture Description
Number of
Fixtures
Watts/
Fixture
Watts
Proposed
SITE
S3: POLE LT, 40OW PSMH LAMP
3
461.0
1383.0
SITE
S41: POLE LT, 40OW PSMH LAMP
1
461.0
461.0
ENTRIES
R1, R1E: RECESSED DNLT, 32W CFL, ELEC BALLASI
8
34.0
272.0
GROUND
FLI: SIGN FLOODLT, 70W ME, CWA BALLAST
21
85.0
170.0
CANOPY
Cl: CANOPY LT, 10OW MR LAMP
61
122.0
732.0
Total Proposed Watts may not exceed Total Allowed Watts for Exterior
Non -Tradable Maximum Allowed Lighting Wattage
Total Proposed Watts 3018.0
Non -Tradable Locations
Description
Allowed Watts
per ft2 or per If
Area (ft), perimeter
(10 or # of items
Allowed Watts
X ft2 (or X 10
Bldg. Fagade (by perim)
FACADE
5.0 W/If
314.0
1570.0 .
Automated Teller
ATM + ND 270W + 90W per adc
2.0
360.0
1
1
1
1
1 _J
Non -Tradable Proposed Lighting Wattage
Location
Fixture Description
Number of
Fixtures
Watts/
Fixture
Watts
Proposed
Bldg. Facade (by perim)
RI: RECESSED DNLT, 32W CFL, ELEC BALLAST
3
34.0
102.0
Automated Teller
Rl: RECESSED DNLT, 32W CFL, ELEC BALLAST
3
34.0
102.0
Automated Teller
Wl: WALL SCONCE, 10OW MH LAMP
2
122.0
244.0
=W2
WALL SCONCE, 32W CFL LAMP
6
34.0
204.0
Bldg. Fagade (by perim)
I Wl: WALL SCONCE, 10OW MH LAMP
1
122.0
122.0
2006 Washinaton State Nonresidential Enerciv Code Comoliance Form
!Lighting, Motor, and Transformer Permit Plans Checklist LTG-CHKr
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms Revised July 2007
Project Address WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
Date 9/7/2010
The following information is necessary to check a permit application for compliance with the lighting, motor, and transformer requirements
in the 2006 Washington. State Nonresidential Energy Code.
Applicability.)
(yes, no, n.a
I Code
Section
lComponent
lInformation Required
Location
on Plans
Building Department
Notes
LIGHTING CONTROLS (Section 1513)
yes
1513.1
Local control/access
Schedule with type, indicate locations
E2.1
yes
1513.2
Area controls
Maximum limit per switch
EO.0
yes
1513.3
Daylight zone control
Schedule with type and features, indicate locations
E2.1
yes
vertical glazing
Indicate vertical glazing on plans
E2.1
n.a.
overhead glazing
Indicate overhead glazing on plans
n.a.
1513.4
Display/exhib/special
Indicate separate controls
1513.5
Exterior shut-off
Schedule with type and features, indicate location
yes
(a) timer w/backup
Indicate location
E1.0
yes
(b) photocell.
Indicate location
El . 0
1513.6
Inter. auto shut-off
Indicate location
n.a.
1513.6.1
(a) occup. sensors
Schedule with type and locations
n.a.
1513.6.2
(b) auto. switches
Schedule with type and features (back-up, override capability);
Indicate size of zone on plans
yes
1513.7
Commissioning
Indicate requirements for lighting controls commissioning
EO.0
EXIT SIGNS (Section 1514)
yes
1 1514
Max. watts
Indicate watts for each exit sign
EO.2
LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE (Section 1530-1532)
yes
1531
Interior ighting
Summary Form
Completed and attached. Schedule with fixture types,
lamps, ballasts, watts per fixture
EO.2
yes
1532
Exterior Lighting
Summary Form
Completed and attached. Schedule with fixture types,
lamps, ballasts, watts per fixture
EO.2
MOTORS (Section 1511)
n.a. 1
1511
1 Elec motor efficiency
MECH-MOT or Equipment Schedule with hp, rpm, efficiency
TRANSFORMERS (Section 1540)
n.a. 1
1540
1 Transformers
Indicate size and efficiency
If "no" is circled for any question, provide explanation:
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Enerqv Code Compliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised July 2007
Project Info
Project Address WASHINGTON FEDERAL
Date 9/9/2010
299 MAIN STREET
For Building Department Use
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Applicant Name: ROBISON ENGINEERING, INC.
EH� ddress: 20300 19TH AVENUE NE, SHORELINE, WA
IApplicant Phone: 206-364-3343
11'roject Description I [Z New Building [:1 Addition E] Alteration 1:1 Change of Use
I R Prescriptive 2] Component Performance E] Seattle EnvStd
-ompliance Option (See Decision Flowchart (over) for qualifications) [:] Systems Analysis
Space Heat Type
0 Electric resistance * All other (see over for definitions)
Total Glazing Area Electronic version: these values are automatically taken from ENV-UA-1.
Glazing Area Calculation
(rough opening) Gross Exterior
Note: Below grade walls may be included in the
(vertical & overhd) divided by Wall Area times 100 equals % Glazing
Gross Exterior Wall Area if they are insulated to
the level required for opaque walls.
413. 0 2908.3 X 100 14.2%
0 yes Check her ' e if using this option and if project meets all requirements for the Concrete/Masonry
Concrete/Masonry Option
Option. See Decision Flowchart (over) for qualifications. Enter requirements for each qualifying
* no
assembly below.
0 yes Check here if using semi -heated path and if project meets all requirements for semi -heated spaces
Semi -Heated Path in
no as defined section 1310. Requires other fuel heating and qualifying thermostat. Only wall
insulation requirement is reduced (2006 change). Only available in prescriptive path.
Envelope Requirements (enter values as applicable)
Minimum Insulatlon R-values
Roofs Over Attic
All Other Roofs
Opaque Walls'
Below Grade Walls
Floors Over Unconditioned Space
Slabs -on -Grade
Radiant Floors
Maximum U-factors
Opaque Doors
Vertical Glazing
Overhead Glazing
Maximum SHGC (or SC)
Vert ical/Overh ead Glazing
1. Assemblies with metal framing must comply with overall U-factors
Notes:
Opaque Concrete/Masonry Wall Requirements
Wall Maximum U-factor is 0. 15 (R5.7 continuous ins)
CMU block walls with insulated cores comply
If project qualifies for Concrete/Masonry Option, list waIFS__
with HC Z: 9.0 BtU/ft2. *F below (other walls must meet
Opaque Wall requirements). Use descriptions and values
from Table 10-9 in the Code.
Wall Description
(including insulation R-value & position)
1.1-factor
2006 Washington State Nonresidential EnerqV Code
ce Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised July 2007
Decision Flowchart Use this flowchart to determine if project qualifies for the optional Prescriptive Option.
for Prescriptive Option I If not, either the Component Performance or Systems Analysis Options must be used.
F-1 "I" I YV rUl Lflu PUFflo— Or oeiermining DUiiaing enveiope
requirements, the following two categories comprise all space heating types:
Other All othet space heating systems including gas, solid fuel, oil, and
propane space heating systems and those systems listed in the exception to
electric resistance. (continued at right)
All lnulatil Ins talled?
0, ��
Bel d Va lax to
R-10
ow '
Below, Grd Wall .11h)
R-19
R 'f 0, At .
co ver ttic
R-30
AJI Other Roof
R-21
Raised Floor
R-19
Slab -On -Grade
R-10
Radiant Floor
R-10
Opaque Door
U-0.60
neria
>
WallR19
(below)
Yes
Y'
Yes
AG Mass Wall Insulation Req
Mass Wall
UO. 15/R5.7ci
CMU Block
Ins. Cores
Wood Frame
R19
Metal Framed
R19
— — — — — — — --- tieciric Hesistance: bipace heating systems which use electric resistance
elements as the primary heating system including baseboard, radiant, and
START forced air units where the total electric resistance heat capacity exceeds 1.0
WM2 of the gross conditioned floor area. Exception: Heat pumps and
terminal electric resistance heating in variable air volume distribution systems.
, JEltric
tance Yes
Heat? 'I>-- I —
All Insulation Installed?
Wood
Metal
Below Gird Wall (ext)
R-10
R-10
Below Grid Wall (oth)
R-19
U-0.062
Roof Over Attic
R-38
U-0.031
All Other Roof
R-30
U-0.034
Raised Floor
R-30
U-0.029
Slab -On -Grade
R-10
R-10
Radiant Floor
R-10
R-10
ODaoue Door
U-0.60
ti-o Ro
AG Wall Rl�,,
I wood, or
Q0.062 metal,
y
Yes
Glazing Criteria Met?
Glazing Criteria Met?
Glazing
Vert OH
Glazing
Vert CH
Area %
UVal UVal SHGC
Area %
UVal UVal SHGC
0-30%
0.55 0.70 0.45
0-30%
0.40 0.60 0.40
30-45%
0.45 0.60 0.40
>30
Not Allowed
>45%
Not Allowed
I
No
Y s J
I'S
No
Prescriptive
I
IPath Allowed
Component Performance,
Systems Analysis, or
EnvStd Required
z-�"
Zmass WalIN-
NO—Ill-, Criteria OK? '�No-*
(below)
Yes
FAG Mass Wall Insulation R7eq
Mass Wall U 0. 15/ R5.7ci
CMILI Block Ins. Cores
Wood Frame R19
Metal Framed UO.062
No
Concrete/Masonry Option*
Wall Heat Capacity
(HC)
*If the area
weighted heat
capacity (HC) of
the total above
grade wall is a
minimum of 9.0,
the Concrete
Masonry Option
may be used.
—For f ram ed
walls, assume
HC=1.0 unless
calculations are
provided; for all
Ot er walls, use
Section 1009.
Assembly Description
Assy.Tag
HC**
Area (sf)
HC x Area
Totalsi
Area weighted FIC: divide total of (HC x
area) by Total Areal
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Enerav Code COMDliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised J.lv 2n07
Project Address WASHINGTON FEDERAL
Date 9/9/2010
Space Heat Type
0 Electric resistance All other
For Building Department Use
Glazing Area as % gross exterior wall area
14 . 2% Prop.
F 45.0% Max.Target
Concrete/Masonry Option
0 Yes * No
Notes: It glazing area exceeds maximum allowed in Table, then calculate adjusted areas on back (over).
Building Component
Proposed UA
Target UA
List components by assembly ID & page #
U-factor x Area (A) UA (U x A)
U-factor x Area (A) UA (U x A)
U= 0. 370 Plan ID C (WINDOW)
0.370 196.0 72.5
0.550 413.0 227.2
U=0.580 Plan IDA' (SWING DOOR)
0.580 100.0 58.0
��,Glazing % Electric:Resisr Other,Heatin I g I
-R cm
U= 0. 580 Plan ID F1 (SWING DOOR)
0.580 84.0 48.7
� 0.55
,-) C
U=0.370 Plan ID D (WINDOW)
0.370 33.0 12.2
.0730%
�>30-45% see -note above, '.,0.45
a)
>
U= Plan ID:
U= Plan ID:
IU= Plan ID:
U)
.Y
U= Plan ID:
0.700
c:
U= Plan ID:
�Qlazin g.0io`EIectr i c Re sist. 0 1 tfter Heating�
NO
>
U= Plan ID:
-�o % 0.6. -.0.7.
0
'0
0
-
U= Plan ID:
-�;30-45% see,riote6bove 0�6_
42
U= Plan ID:
0
0
U= Plan ID:
>
cr
0
E
U= Plan ID:
1 0
JU= Plan ID:
0.700
CD
U= Plan ID:
0.600
0
ca 0
U= Plan ID:
�.'��'Electric Resist 'Other� Heating
CL 0
0
U= Plan ID:
0.60'� 0.60.
R= 30. 0 Plan ID ROOF
0.032 2800.0 89.6
0.036 2800.0 1007
5 (D
>
R= Plan ID:
'Electric Resist." Other H�atinj',
0
R= Plan ID:
0:03 0.03�
R= Plan ID:
0.046
0
0
R= Plan ID:
Electric Resist. Other Heatin 9
R= Plan ID:
0.034 '0.046,
R= Plan ID WOOD FRAMING 0.062 2342.0 145.2
0.062 2495.3 154.7
R= Plan ID CONCRETE 0.043 153.3 6.6
U)
=
R= Plan ID:
ca
3:
R= Plan ID:
Elebtrid Re§iSt.. Oth& Heating:
a)
R Plan ID:
Frame-Wd 0b62.
Cr
CU
CL
R= Plan ID:
t:0.062
Frame-MtI 0.662'' 0.109,
0
R= Plan ID:
Mass I Wall" 0 . 15*
."Note:
sum of Target Areas here should equal Target Opaque Wall Area (see back)
+ + see mass wall �Criteria
R= Plan ID CONCRETE 0.035 169.2 5.9
0.070 169.2 11.8,
-cD =u
R= Plan ID:
Electric Resist... 'Q ther Heatinli.
0 a 5
R= Plan ID:
Intins' '-'-:'00'62_.",1.',T'._z
P.Q62
Note: if insulated to levels required for opaque walls, list above with opaque walls
Ext Ins 0- 67�, 0:67
-c
R= Plan ID:
0.056
c
> c
D C.
R= Plan ID:
71� Electri6�Resist. �Otfie'rl16atin
0
1 . , , 1g,
.5
R= Plan ID-
1
-0.029 0.056
lR=
Plan ID.
'c
R= Plan ID SLAB ON GRADE
0.730 226.5 165.3
0.540 226.5 122.3
D a
eElectric Resist� �Othe.r�Heating
!E
R= Plan ID:
a
R= Plan ID:
�,F=0�54:,
R= Plan ID:
(s4e,Table:13-1 f6f'radiant-,,fI9or,vaILi&.§),
*For CMU walls, indicate core insulation material. Totalsl
610470
604.1
Totals
6104 -07
616.8
To comply: 1) Proposed Total ILIA shall not exceed Target Total ILIA.
2) Proposed Total Area shall equal Target Total Area.
2006 Washi
State Nonresidential Enerqy Code Compliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised July 2007
Glazing
Proposed SHGC
Target SHGC
List components by assembly ID & page
SHGC*
x Area (A)
SHGC x A
SHGC
x Area (A)
=SHGCxA
ID: c
0.450
196.0
88.2
0.450
413.0
18579
ID: A,
0.450
100.0
45.0
Glazing
-,E'lektiric Fleisist;
Other Heating
ID: F1
0.450
84.0
37.8
0-30%
IDA
0.45
ca
ID: D
0.450
33.0
14.9
>30-45%-,--;,
7 7
hot allowed.
'0.4
ID:
ID:
*Note: Manufacturer's SC mav be used in lieu of SHGC.
Totals
413.0
185.9
1
Totals
1
413.0
1
185.9
1 91
For compliance: Proposed total SHGC x A shall not exceed Target total SHGC x A
NOTE: Since 1997 SHGC compliance for vertical and overhead glazing is allowed to be calculated together.
ITarget Area Adjustment Calculations
If the total amount of glazing area as a % of gross exterior wall area (calculated on ENV-SUMI) exceeds the maximum allowed in Table 13-1,
then this calculation must be submitted Use the resu Iting areas in the Target UA and SHGC calculations above.
t-,roposeC Areas: Numbered values are used in calculations below.
Roofs over Attics Other Roofs Walls
Glazing AreajOG= IOG= IVG= 413.
0
Opaque Areal 2800.0 1 2495:3:�
Gross Exterior Wall Max Glazing Area Maximum Target
Area (Table 13-1) Glazing Area
2908.3 X 45.0%
100 1308.7
ZTarget OG Area in Roofs over Attics
Target OG Area in Other Roofs
1308
—
Max OG Remaining
1308.7
:a lesser
ID lesser
1308.7
1308.7
Proposed Opaque Area
Proposed OG Area
Target OG Areal
Roofs
2800.0
I
+
0
+
Note:
OG overhead glazing
VG vertical glazing
Target VG Area For Target OG's the
413.0 lesser values are
used both here and
below.
Target Opaque Area
00.0
Proposed Opaque Area Proposed VG Area Target VG Area Target Opaque Area
Wal[]r �2495 . 3 1 + 1 413.0 j — 1 43.3.0 1 = I . ". 2 4 �95 . 3.,' �,� Target Areas OK
Note: If there is more than one type of wall, the Target VG Area may be distributed among them, and separate Target Opaque Areas found.
If the Target Areas for Opaque Walls listed on the front must equal the total calculated here.
Target values in shaded boxes are used in the applicable Target UA calculations on the front.
Target VG Area and Total Target OG Area are also used in the applicable Target SHGC calculations above.
2006 W
State Nonresidential Enerqv Code Compliance Form
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Forms
Revised July 2007
Project Info
Project Address WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
Date 9/9/2010
229 MAIN STREET
For Building Dept. Use
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020
Applicant Name: ROBISON ENGINEERING, INC.
I
IApplicant Address: 20300 19TH AVENUE NE, SHORELINE, WA
Applicant Phone: 206-364-3343
-
Project Description 2 SPLIT SYSTEM HEAT PUMP UNITS WITH OUTSIDE
Briefly describe mechanical CONDENESING UNITS AND INDOOR FAN COIL UNITS. ELECTRIC
system type and features. HEAT.
El includes Plans Include documentation requiring compliance with commissioning requirements, Section 1416.
Compliance Option * Simple System 0 Complex System 0 Systems Analysis
I (See Decision Flowchart (over) for qualifications. Use separate MECH-SUM for simple & complex systems.)
Equipment Schedule�sThe following information is required to be incorporated with the mechanical equipment schedules on the
plans. For projects without plans, fill in the required information below.
Cooli g Equipment Schedule
Equip.
ID
Brand Name'
Model No.'
Capacity2
Btu/h
Total CFIVI
OSA CFM
or Econo?
SEER
or EER
IPLV'
Location
I
SEE SCHEDULE
2
SEE SCHEDULE
I
Heati g Equipment Schedule
Equip.
ID
Brand Name'
Model No.'
Capacity2
Btu/h
Total CFM
OSA cfm
or Econo?
Input Btuh
Output Btuh
EfficienCV4
1SEE
SCHEDULE
2
SEE SCHEDULE
Fan Equipment Schedule
Equip.
ID
Brand Name'
Model No.'
CFIVI
SP,
HP/BHP
Flow Contro15
Location of Service
EF-1
SEE SCHEDULE
EF-2
SEE SCHEDULE
EF-3
SEE SCHEDULE
EF-4
SEE SCHEDULE
EF-5
SEE SCHEDULE
'If available. 2 As tested according to Table 14-1 A through 14-1G. 3 If required. 4 COP, HSPF, Combustion Efficiency, or AFUE, as
applicable. 5 Flow control types: variable air volume(VAV), constant volume (CV), or variable speed (VS).
2006 Washington State Nonresidential Energy Code Compliance Form
System Description If Heating/Cooling Constant vol? E] Air cooled? [:] Packaged Sys? [] <20,000 Btuh?
See Section 1421 for full description or Cooling Only: Split system? E] Economizer included?
of Simple System qualifications. If Heating Only: <5000 cfm? 0 <70% outside air?
Decision Flowchart rUse , is flowchart to determine if project qualifies for Simple System Option. If not, either the
"s fo
C com
ompie, System or Systems Analysis Options must be used.
Refer to MECH-COMP Mechanical Complex Systems for assistance in determining which
Complex Systems Complex Systems requirements are applicable to this project. I
PLANNING. DATA STREET =FILE
New Commercial / Multi -Family Projects
Name:
Date: !�ID— /H
Site Address: J
Plan Check ft: BLD -PC)/
Projec tDescription:
Use(s) Proposed:
Allowed Use: 6EI NO)
CUP File Number: C)l 0 oo(p
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES I NO)
Reduced Site Plan Provided: qft�-J NO)
Zoning:
Map Page:
Comp Plan Designation: yv,\
Corner Lot: ( OE / NO)
Flag Lot: (YES tb)
ADB File Number (date waived): PL-w-'m 0 On
Lot Area: 14) 1.100
Plans Mat&h AD6 Approved: (YES / NO)
Shoreline Required: (YES
Critical Areas Determination #-CpAr9J Scq. 14
El Study Required
WWaiver
SEPA Determination:
,V'Exempt
Needed (for sites with,500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake
Ballinger. Requires: (1)_fee, (2) Environmental Checkli t nd (3),APO List with notarizeo form).
Required Setback
Street:
fVk'*"" Y�_
Side:
Idi 0
Side:
1 0 0
ActualSetbacks
Street:
Side.,
av
Soe:
to'
Rea
Lot Coverage/FAR Required:
Lot Coverage/FAR Provided:
Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations:
Building Height
Datum Point: C 5 3V-d
Datum Elevation: /o 1)
Maximum Height: 09_1�
Actual Height:
Subdivision:
Lot Aggregation Required:
Landscaping
Landscaping Matches ADI3 Approved:
Landscaping Bid Provided: (YES / NO)
Bond Amount (100% Bid):
V�
Plan Review By:
PLANNING DATA
New Commercial / Multi -Family Projects
Commercial Parking Analysis
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking -
Total Parking Required. -
Total Parking Provided. -
Multi -Family Parking Anal is
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
Parking Ratio
# Units
Required
Parking
Studio
1.2/D.U_
I Bedroom
1.5/D.U.
2 Bedrooms'
1.8/D.U_
3 + Bedrooms
2.01D.U.
Total Parking Required. -
Total Parking Provided
Other
Plan Review By:
STREET FILE
STREET USE PERNUT APPLICATION
NAME OF APPLICANT:
NAME OF BUSINESS: Metropolitan Federal Savings and Loan
MAILING ADDRESS: 229 Main St
ds, WA 98020
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER.. St,401-1'-"�afty 672-6701
li<- �' -
L
ADDRESS OF PUBLIC USE: same
Describe the public place or portion of public space to be utilized:
.'TnP.WAT K
Attach a plot plan.
Specify the type of use
desired: CANVAS AWNINGS
Specify the length 'of time fd 4—,INDEFINITE
NOTE: The issuance of this permit is d s by the applicant to be of a temporary nature and that no
vested right is granted.
INDEMNITY: The applicant understands and by hi�z signature to this application, agrees to hold the
City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever,
foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the applicant or the City of Edmonds, or any of its
departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense or any legal proceedings including
defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. In addition, the application
understands that the City shall be provided a Certificate of Insurance to indemnity and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds from all claims and/or property damage, and naming the City of Edmonds as an
additional insured.
CODE APPLICATION: By signing the application below the applicant warrants that s/he has read or
had the opportunity to read Chapter 18 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and s/he
understands that all terms of the adopted ordinance are incorporated herein as if set forth in full and this
application and permits therefore are subject to the terms of that Chapter.
SIGNATUQIft-A&t�A DATE
J1
SIGNATURE OF APPROVAL FROM ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
When applicable, if the street use proposal directly impacts any adjacent business or private property
owner the applicant must obtain written approval from the affected parties. This requirement is evaluated
by City Staff after the initial submittal of the application.
Signature.
Signature,
Signature
Signature.
Address
Address
Address
Address
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ... FOR CITY USE ONLY
Plannin Division Review: ADB41
9 �__4
Approved By Date 0
Date 7
Public Works Review: Approved B
Approved By
Fire Department Review: Date.,�?-):)
Police Department Review: Approved By Date
Engineering Division Review: Certificate of Insurance V��ified ;2
BondRequired A)* -'Amount$ ,01,og
Permit Approve&fAssuance B
. I %
Dated
Remarks or
Comments:
PERMIT# -DATE OF ISSUANCE
RELEASED BIC/, -RECEIPT #_
Li
J."
mi
ACQJRD DATE
. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCEPage 1 of 2T'05/31/2007
PRODUCER 877-945-7378 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
Willis North America, Inc. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
26 Century Blvd. ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
P. 0. Box 305191
Nashville, TN 372305191
INSURED Washington Federal, Inc.
425 Pike Street
Seattle, WA 98101
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURERA: St. Paul Mercury Insurance
INSURERB: Affiliated FM Insurance Cc
INSURER C:
INSURER D:
INSURER E:
NAIC#
24791-000
100i4-001
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INSR
_LIEL
ADD'N
no
TYPEOFINSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICYEFFECTIVE
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE(MM/DDNY)
6/l/2008
LIMITS
A
GENERAL LIABILITY
FS06304827
-
6/l/2007
EACHOCCURRENCE
$ 11000,000
DAMAGE To RENTED
PFIEMISES(E.00C '.nc.)
I
_000,000
X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CLAIMS MADE 7X OCCUR
MED EXP (Anyone person)
$ 10,000
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
1 $ 11000,000
X WA Stop Gap Included
GENERAL AGGREGATE
$ 2,000,000
GEN'LA REGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:
rx-7- POLICY 7 JERCOT F� LOC
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$ 2,000,000
A
AUTOMOBILE
X
LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
PS06304827
6/1/2007
6/1/2008
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident)
$ 11000,000
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
$
ALLOWNEDAUTOS
SCHEDULEDAUTOS
X
BODILY INJURY
(Peraccident)
HIREDAUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
X
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Peraccident)
$
GE LIABILITY
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT
$
OTHERTHA EAACC
$
ANY AUTO
7
$
AUTO ONLYN AGG
A
EXCESSILIABILITY
7X OCCUR FICLAIMS MADE
FS06304827
6/l/2007
6/l/2008
EACH OCCURRENCE
$ 10.000,000
AGGREGATE
$ 10,000,000
$
DEDUCTIBLE
$
7X RETENTION $ 10,00C
A
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY
HSUB1882L16607
6/l/2007
6/1/2008
X I WC STATLI- OTH-
TORY LIMITS I I EB_
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
$ 1,000,000
ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
If yes, describe under
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
$ 11000,000
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
$ 1,000,000
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
Z353
6/1/2007
6 1 2008
7THER
Commercial Property
$130,000,000 Lose Limit
$ 100,000 Deductible
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONS/VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS q 4.
Th� City of Edmonds is named as an additional insured as respects the street use permit #44-2 for
Branch located at 229 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020.
CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 3 0 DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL
IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
City of Edmonds
Building Division REPRESENTATIVES.
250 - Sth Ave. N. AUTHORIZED RPRESENTATIV
Edmonds, WA 98020
ACORD 25 (2001/08) Coll:2000064 Tpl:636442 Cert:9064)i84 @ACORD CORPORATION 1988
A , I
Page 2 of 2
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement
on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
DISCLAIMER
The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.
ACORD 25 (2001/08) Coll:2000064 Tpl:636442 Cert:9004484
I (we) hereby certify to the best of my (our) knowledge, that the statements and
information contained herein'are, in all respects, true and correct.
(S
�', 7-- 1 7L T _7E A
0
4-IS-90
CRO SS INDEX AND BEVIEW ASS16NMENT-5
INITIATIN44- ACTION AP647ff oF
VATE_gZZ-p FAraE
OWNER NAME,' ,f/ ll�l 4f
ADDRE53*. A4
APPLICANT NAME.: zzae--vZ1-,'e
ADDRE55: '00,19 / *3,1;1 /
SITE LOCAT16N OR APPRE.S.S:
7- o m E -, �9�2 —
LE6.AL DffSCRIvjj0t4:
ATTACHED Lin
FILE #6. f N 4 t- PA P.F-SuL-rs FILED IN
iR.
1) 1 V. z cs
0 It a Z rUK j% t4
TYPE OF Us w MEETIN(i
\
1p. tu � CC A - 'D 'o
x "c w E t z MEETIN(
ACTION REC > Ica a Z cc iu w at I"- >
x /I VATa ace DATE t x j w 13
DATE 0 Cc Z
lo. 6�115
gic r- 'kul %,-I . sEr
lug 4( V)
"a��Aeavrl,17.
-
ENGINEERING
REVIEWS
K"
IA
-
kiii iS Nir
DATE
0
TO
MOTE S
DATE BY
LA.
ASSIGNED
DATE
TO
mm
NOT H S
DATE 13Y
PREVIOUS HISTORY
sirE R-EVIow VISIT
;IT
UTILITIES
DR A I N A 4 a/ro PosRAPJ4 Y
srREEr.s/5IDfiWALKS
TRAFFICIPARKINIS
ZoONIN4 COOS
[FIRE MAP.SHAL---
30010
2;4
PREPARED FOR RECEIVED
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SEP�, 11.*.0 2010
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
August 2, 2010 CITy OF EDMONDS
"---S-C (Riq*I,JL-J
'04t S
C---S-e'nior Project Ge'01 sDto..4-4
STR
Kyle R. Campbell, P.E.
Principal
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-1817.02
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
1805-136 TH Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98006
Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711
Toll Free: 866-336-8710
EET FILE
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
11
Geotechnical Sepvices Ape Pepfopmed fop
Specific Pupposes, Pepsons, and Ppojects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. Andno one
—notevenyou —should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Repopt
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all.- Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Is Based on
A Unique get of Ppoject-Specific Factops
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, Oroject-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones --and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or fiabili� for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsupface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Ppofessional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Repopt's Recommendations Ape Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
I
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Is Subject to
Misintepppetation
Other design team members' misinterp retation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redpaw the Engineep's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contpactops a Complete Repopt and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
Contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is. limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Ppovisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenviponmental Concepns Ape Not Coveped
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mentalstudy differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental repoitiorepared for
someone else.
Obtain Ppofessional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com_
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Youp ASFIE-Membep Geotechncial
Engmeep fop Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASF=@The Best People an Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MID 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFEs
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE and only for
purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members ofASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element ofa geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
I
r"
Ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11GER06045.0M
I
11
'August 2, 2010
ES-1817.02
Washington Federal
425 Pike Street
Seattle, Washington 981010
Attention: Mr. John Yeckel, Facilities Manager
is � 6 u ti 9-0, s
�C
Earth Solutions NW LLC
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Construction Monitoring
• Environmental Sciences
Dear Mr. Yeckel:
Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Washington Federal Savings, 229 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington".
t
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, the site is underlain
primarily by native silty sand deposits grading from loose to very dense. Groundwater was not
observed at the boring locations during the fieldwork (July 2010).
Based on the results of our study, the proposed single -story bank can be supported on
conventional foundation systems bearing on competent or recompacted native soil or structural
fill.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Scott S. Riegel, L.G.
Senior Project Geologist
1 1 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, \A/A 98005 - (425) 449-4704 - FAX (425) 449-4711
I
F�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES-1817.02
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1
General..................................................................... 1
Proaect Description .................................................... 1
SITECONDITIONS ............................................................... 2
Surface..................................................................... 2
Subsurface................................... ; ............................ 2
Geologic Setting ................................................. 2
Groundwater............................................................. 3
Preliminary Infiltration Recommendations .......................... 3
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................
General......................................................................
3
3
Site Preparation and General Earthwork .........................
4
Temporary Erosion Control ..........................................
Site Stripping Recommendations ................................
4
4
In -situ Soils ....................................................................
4
StructuralFill .................................................................
Foundations...............................................................
4
5
Seismic Design Considerations ....................................
5
Slab -On -Grade Floors ..................................................
6
RetainingWalls ............................................................
6
Drainage........... . ....... ....................................... I ......
Excavations and Slopes ...........................................................
7
7
Utility Trench Support and Backfill ...............................
7
Pavement Sections .........................................................
7
LIMITATIONS........................................................................
8
Additional Services .......................................................
8
GRAPHICS
PLATE I VICINITY MAP
PLATE 2 BORING LOCATION PLAN
PLATE 3 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE
PLATE 4 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
APPENDICES
Appendix A Subsurface Exploration
Boring Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ES-1 817.02
INTRODUCTION
General
This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the single -story bank structure to be
constructed off the northwest corner of the intersection between Main Street and Third Avenue
North in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this
geotechnical engineering study addressed the following:
Conducting subsurface explorations within accessible portions of the development
envelope;
I* Conduct engineering analyses, and
Preparation of this report
The following documents/maps were'reviewed as part of our report preparation:
e Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Washington, and;
9 Snohomish County USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS).
Proiect Description
The project will include demolishing the existing Washington Federal Savings bank and
constructin g a new 2,700 square foot, single -story bank building and associated improvements.
We anticipate the building may utilize reinforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) or brick wall
construction and conventional framing. Final site designs were not available at the time of this
report; however, we anticipate the footprint of the new bank building will be larger than the
existing structure.
At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However,
based on our experience with similar developments we anticipate wall loads will range from
about one to two kips per foot and slab -on -grade loading will likely be on the order of 150
pounds per square foot (psf).
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 2
Given the low topographic relief across the site, grading will likely be limited to cutting existing
soils to the foundation subgrade elevations. The remainder of the site will be developed with
asphalt paved drive lanes and general landscaping.
ESNW understands the feasibility of infiltrating runoff generated from new impervious surfaces
is being investigated.
If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review
the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that our
geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the.plans.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection between Main Street and Third
Avenue North in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated
on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map). The site is about 0.33 acres in size and is currently occupied with a
single -story bank structure and improvements. The site is bordered to the north by a residential
structure, to the south by Main Street, to the east by Third Avenue North and to the west by a
US Post Office.
The existing site topography gently descends to the west-southwest with about five feet of total
elevation change.
Subsurface
An ESNW representative observed, logged and sampled two borings drilled with a limited
access drill rig and operator contracted to ESNW. The approximate locations of the borings are
depicted on the Boring Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring logs provided in
Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions.
Fill was not encountered at the boring locations except for a gravel base underlying the asphalt
pavement. Below about four inches of asphalt pavement, native soils were encountered
consisting of fine to medium silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) extending to the
maximum exploration depth of about 21.5 feet. Soil relative density generally increased with
depth.
Geologic Sefting
The referenced geologic map resource identifies Whidbey Formation (Pre -Fraser Glaciation)
deposits (Qw) across the site and surrounding areas. The Whidbey formation consists
predominately of compact fine to coarse sand deposits.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I I
Washington Federal ES-1817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 3
The Snohomish County Soil Survey (SCS) identifies Alderwood Urban land complex soils (2 to
8 percent slopes) across the subject parcel. Alderwood urban land complex soils are
characterized by highly modified soils placed during regional grading operations.
The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations are generally more consistent with
glacial till deposits rather than the Whidbey formation sand deposits reported in the referenced
geologic map.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed during the fieldwork (July 2010). However, perched
groundwater would likely be present within during the wetter, winter and spring months of the
year. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors,
including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general,
groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months.
Preliminary Infiltration Recommendations
Representative soil samples collected from test pits and were analyzed using the USDA textural
classification method. This classification differs from the USCS classification method in that the
sand fraction of the sample is based on.the minus #10 sieve fraction as opposed to the minus
#4 sieve fraction used for USCS classification.
The native soils encountered in the boring locations consists of sandy loam, based on the
USDA textural classification, with relative fines contents of about 37 to 43 percent. In
accordance with.Table 3.7 of.the 2005 DOE Stormwater Management in Western Washington
manual, Volume III Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs, a long-term design infiltration
rate of 0.25 inches per hour can be assigned to the sandy loam soils encountered on the site.
The allowable design infiltration rate includes a factor -of -safety reduction of 4.0 as required by
the DOE manual. It is important to note that textural analysis and corresponding infiltration
-situ relative soil density. If infiltration will be pursued, falling head
estimates do not reflect in
infiltration testing is recommended to better determine the hydraulic capacity of the site soils.
Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the boring locations during our fieldwork (July
2010). The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below existing grades.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of the geotechnical engineering study, construction of the proposed bank
building and associated improvements at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. The recommendations provided in this report are based in part on the soil
conditions encountered at the boring locations, engineering and analyses, our understanding of
the proposed project and our experience with similar projects.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 4
This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Washington Federal, and their
representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in
a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession cureently practicing under similarconditions in this area.
Site Preparation and Earthwork
Prior to construction we anticipate site preparation will include demolishing and removing the
existing structure and associated improvements and implementation of temporary erosion
control measures.
Temporary Erosion Control
Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry
spalls can be considered in order to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a stable
access entrance surface, as necessary. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing
placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be protected to reduce
soil erosion.
Site Stripping Recommendations
The site is largely developed and very little topsoil or landscape areas are present. ESNW
should observe stripping operations to confirm adequate removal of organic soil and to
minimize excess stripping.
In -situ Soils
The soils at the boring locations which would likely be exposed during grading activities consist
it of silty sand and have a high sensitivity to moisture. Soils encountered during site excavations
that are over the optimum moisture content will.require moisture conditioning prior to placement
and compaction. Conversely, soils that are substantially below the optimum moisture content
may require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill.
From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally
suitable for use as structural fill provided the soil moisture content is at or up to 3 percent above
the optimum moisture content. The use on -site soils as structural fill during the wet season will
be difficult. A contingency should be included in the project budget for the use of imported soil
should the on -site soil be too wet for use as structural fill.
Structural Fill
Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway
areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility
trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should
be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90
percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor
Method (A'STM D-1 557).
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 5
I
I
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with
a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions,
imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with
a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the
minus three-quarter inch fraction.
Foundations
Based on the results of our study, the single -story bank can be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footings bearing on competent or recompacted native soil or structural
fill. We anticipated competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation support will
be encountered at depths of between approximately two to four feet below existing grades.
Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at the foundation subgrade elevations,
compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement
with structural fill, will be necessary.
Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be
used for design:
9 Allowable soil bearing capacity 3,000 psf
* Passive earth pressure 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
* Coefficient of friction 0.4
A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and
seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of -
safety of 1.5.
With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential
settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur
during construction, as �dead loads are applied.
Seismic Design Considerations
The 2006 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for
seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class
C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design.
In our opinion, the native soils encountered at the boring locations have a low susceptibility to
liquefaction. The lack of a shallow groundwater table and the relative density of the native soils
is the primary basis for this opinion.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
Washington Federal ES-1817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 6
Slab -On -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of
competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be
recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of
the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock
or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines
content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter
inch fraction). The use of a vapor barrier below the slab is recommended. The product used
for the vapor barrier should be specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Retaining Walls
If retaining walls will be used for this project, they must be designed to resist earth pressures
and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall
design:
Active earth pressure (yielding wall) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid)
At -rest earth pressure (restrained wall) 50 pcf
Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles 70 psf (rectangular distribution)
(where applicable)
Passive resistance 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)
* Coefficient of friction 0.4
9 Seismic surcharge 6H (where H equals retained height)
Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should
be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls
such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic
pressures should be included in the wall design.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of
the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall
backfill can consist of a less permeable soil. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along
the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall
drainage detail is provided on Plate 3.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 7
Drainage
Groundwater was not observed at the boring locations during the fieldwork (July 2010).
However, perched groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations particularly during the
winter and spring months. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff during
construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Based on the
soil and groundwater conditions observed at the boring locations, extensive dewatering of
excavations will likely not be necessary.
In our opinion, footing drains should be installed around the building perimeter. A typical
foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 4.
Excavations and Slopes
The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington
Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope
inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the site soils are
classified as Type B by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B
soils must be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary shoring may be
necessary to support excavations if the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be
achieved.
Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted'with
vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. The geotechnical engineer should
observe temporary. and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide
additional excavation and slope recommend atio.ns, as necessary.
Utility Trench Support and Backfill
In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations will be generally suitable
for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench
excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Please refer to the 'Site Preparation
and Earthwork' section of this report for recommendations regarding the use of on -site soil as
structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of
structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable City of Edmonds specifications.
Pavement Sections
The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and
unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in
pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site Preparation and
Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade
areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade
conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation, placement of a geotextile
and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
I
Washington Federal ES-1 817.02
August 2, 2010 Page 8
I
I
I
For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic,
the following pavement sections can be considered:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base
(CRB), or;
e Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB).
The AC, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. Soil base material
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and conclusions provi - ded in this geotechnical engineering study are
professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members
in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not
expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test
locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate
the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered.
Additional Services
ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical
recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and
consultation services during construction.
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Brack s
Landi
Bea
BR,kCKETT, S LAN C
1 1-1 Rn
WILDLIFE D4
REFUGE 1:1111c
I
,�o 1
11
- iw iP 1
if
3 y I
.8
EDMONDS ! -
CITY ' - -
lErbe6 ;7-
�HLOnl
I
I
16thSl 1
PA�RK
ea
E-j
St
9 ir j, -�- - &
I>-
I -Sj
Wards PI
j-,26
2nd
Fir Pl.
yl�
Fir
C,
Bella Coola
F
I
Rd 1�40�0
E
t
1*111tcomb
pi
00
J, r"
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 454
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2009
IB"t P, :PI 5
su/?
i 1/1",
',-th Av !SW
82
Svv
,F 1"S,
C6,
I I t
184th St S
SENVIEW PARK
185th P/ I SEf-
185th 185th St
HUT T S
PARK .-�A@
'I Sf S
8 �r-,�gTh p, SVV Pi i!: 186th:St S",
7th j 18
W" a:
I Svv
t 7t St Svv
To F.,��8 8 1 b �e St Sv%,
a es f
lei
<
18-th 11 89tF?a: 78 i��;
= - P Pisvv I < 1891
W
<
Blakej I , I -01h St Svv I golth St SIN -I qo�
I S 10
ti
ha" St, I 1915�
V" Clhe 191 st j� 191,5,S Sl-
ltrg St P1 Sw I 'E; PARK 1 SE
Z
L st SVV i � �l. 192h
///:So,.
v > Sierra Both
4 P*FWJ E7
3rd'PI SW
Foresi 11 94th
Deli Dr S p
A 1 �4' h�Sl
0 194th PI
--uget 9 4 t h P i Y�[
------ Svv-
r,�Exce!sior Pi
6T ST �:E: SiN
GET,DJR
h"tIlzitKt� Pu -ei �-FU :z
197th '15
T-�et Wy
H'indley Ln z U Mewiand St-Sw ;-Pl
< ImAPLEW
-B<,, k ' - , ""YlnNiewarid VVy 001) 198thSvSv-1
0. mere T.�� I -'* ..PARK A 63,th
Tie,
S,
81 -j m , PrSw 19�
01�lmpi� Av
Vev.-ri"00,
1200th St t-,�5vj
§111ner �n CASPERS ST P1 iVistavy 2
Saiii'l-ri 'ZI moumaini -�ijvjsta PI -Y
Ln C Vista V <
> >
a PI ascade.. ' —v"Y' Tj-o-n < <
WY ItAt'Q�ha st 24 >< Dr Cascade Ln 201 st P1 �i,
Carol
Sierra PI I Cascade I -202nd St SW ml
z ,5,1ZjAloha St
� -ri� � . -- 202nci ;-i —2
Carol .1 E-'Z: 02nd P1 Svv w,
-St < Glen St �Glen S! !rz,
-:< 203rd St SVV 2
204th'
Dalev St
—1 Slerra,�, st�
Dalfy St i;E ��i-SW= �04 i,, I �_2041h A14.�-
1203,(
St SVW 2
Mce �SprNue St S 12th PI N,� Highlaind �i PI 5�
--Dr
CIVI, r.p_� --- 204 5,"�Vl
H6�,
CTk' Idmonds!St 205th P1 W 19
PARK <
JLAYFIEL�D--- �D 2061.h PINE 206th: St
Bell St I 1 8 if=' E mond5 St 1 Ig RIDGE -'SV
drnonds -Ait,F estiva I - z Em�iald�Hij 1207th 3: -,
E a �61,iU ; 207-h PARK .26611
Museum sell St, P1 Sw
R AN
ANCI�,
k�s � PI 5w, < St Sw Sy"2�
-1 r 208th St 5W
Gi
-ANDER 5 0 W Dayton St IMAIN ST
��-4 8tha: 208th,
im C NT -Msple vvy pi SWi�,7TI
i�iE NTELR
YO�T
Maple S-, - :I " t- 209th
PARK Tio - - E�!-2
Sl 210, Pi-
�21
Qder St
A 15W-2-iith
1 Aide-r s6ii-sti— I 203,d PI SV4 �7, --�?:Pl Sw
.1 204th Pi SV,1 F1
E -'- :
St; Z- .
'212fH!,j
Cedar St
,agi,
7
-7 led 11
' 'Spruce St �pruceSt 96*,h-vf_
lia
d j ToF
213th 21-311
�5 ce P Rd
Hemlock. 'Hep
T-
=9Z 0 `5� 214t P1 214�ill S SIN
215th
>1! 215th,�- -SW�j Qlsilc� Sl_-
,Laurel St <kst SIN I- z ff5Yt5FSVV'
15 ;:--- StSWI, 1"'u'v,
T -5 -PJ Sw ---------- -21[§�h 'R _-gz5W > = 215th FI-SW.
IT I T15th ist �7 --216th St MV
-sin; 217thStSW 5-!5
06: 2 Ez E:
>
'J�Tl �! ., r� S�-- i
Z 217�1�,,ISW'f 21 7th St S
1254- - i2l8th�-
FiF -ST f -3:
, . !--: -15- sea 219th St%, 'V1 SW�-- : > 1 21 ft R, t, 30, SW I --A
�is`t 1-- 14 1. 87-tih PI W <
m -St
'g! I St Sw
El L--Sj ,.. - " sy-
220THZ, ST I le.
E I ri-P6R, i��- 220th�
*Bi,ch ��,( 9� PIS
221
t P,
%0 -Sw 14$ ???nd
NORTH
4
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW Cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
tilid"s
ppe�-,
Vicinity Map
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
P roj - N c, 1817.02
S �� '-"�
4-�t �'
LEGEND
B-1— —Approximate Location of
ESNW Boring, Proj. No.
ES-1 817.02, July 2010
Subject Property
Existing Building
NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design
purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the
approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of
existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated
is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our
study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes
or interpretation of the data by others.
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.
NORTH
Not - To - Scale
J.
Boring Location Plan
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date 07/28/2010
Proj. No. 1817.02
Checked SSR
I Date July 2010
Plate 2
I
� I
I
� I
18" Min.
0
0: 'ro
0
o o -b' -.2. G000
0.
0. . 0 0
o o 0 o 0000 o. oo
0 0 00 0
0
o 0 0 o
0 .0 o o
oo o
o
0 0
0 o 0
0 . 00 0 .0
0 0
0. .0 0
o 0. -.00.
oo 000 o oo o '9. 0
0 . o 0 o
oo o 0 . .
0 o .0
o 0 0
C
o
0 .0 0
o . o. o
0
o
0 o 0. .. 0 0 b o
0
0 00 o. 0 0
-o
0 0 0
0 0 o.
. o
0o'o 0 0 o.
o
0 0.
0 o o
0 o o 0. 0 0 o
0 . 0 0.1. . o
0 o 0
NOTES:
• Free Draining Backfill should consist
of soil having less than 5 percent fines.
Percent passing #4 should be 25 to
75 percent.
• Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu
of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW
recommendations.
• Drain Pipe should consist of perforated,
rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1"
Drain Rock.
LEGEND:
Free Draining Structural Backfill
1 inch Drain Rock
Structural
Fill
\ Perforated Drain Pipe
(Surround In Drain Rock)
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
j
x't
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
229 Main Street
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date 08/02/2010
1Proj. No. 1817.02
Checked SSR
I Date Aug. 2010
1 Plate 3
Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe
(Surround with 1" Rock)
NOTES:
Do NOT tie roof downspouts
to Footing Drain.
Surface Seal to consist of
12" of less permeable, suitable
soil. Slope away from building.
LEGEND:
Surface Seal; native soil or
other low permeability material.
1" Drain Rock
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT OT SCALE
NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
150
Ith.
.-ArLa
31dju ns
N.
Edmonds,
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
229 Main Street
Washington
'Proi. No. 1817.02
U
A
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
ES-1817.02
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings at readily accessible
locations of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in July 2010. The
approximate boring locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the borings are
provided in this Appendix. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet below
existing grades.
J
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Earth Solutions NWLLC
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
GRAPH
I LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
� I W., 6
ID'o
. AL.
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
.COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
0
Jk-
Iq
-M
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
Ir,
G- C
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS
sw
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINE S)
SID
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
sm
SILTY SANDS, SAND SILT
MIXTURES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
%c
S
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS LESS THAN 50
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW To
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
- - -
- - -
- - -
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
SIZE
SILTS LIQUID LIMIT
AND GREATER T N 50
CLAYS
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
L, 11-1, i2i, L, -I,
"111 L1.1-1 L, L1.11
PT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
.1
I
'I
i
i
I
I
I
I I
Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1
lh.�ffi 2881 152nd Avenue N.E.
PAGE 1 OF 2
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT Washin-qton Federal PROJECT NAME 229 Main Street
PROJECT NUMBER 1817.02 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washington
DATE STARTED 7/29/10 COMPLETED 7/29/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Borete c GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD _HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING
LOGGEDBY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF DRILLING
NOTES 4" Aspahlt Pavement AFTER DRILLING
1-- W
of
V) W
3: �-:D
.
o__
WM
W
>
OZ
=) _j
TESTS
0
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
W
_j
a-
0
_j
MO§
(6
2Z
0
L) Z
<
U)
W
of
0
Brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist
SM
MC 15.40%
:.4.0
Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist
5
SS
100
6-9-11
MC 11.30%
(20)
-trace gravel
:.j
[USDA Classification: sandy LOAM]
S S
100
7-10-13
MC 12.60%
(23)
Fines 37.40%
10
-sand pockets
SS
100
8-16-21
MC 10,60%
(37)
SM
b
15
-slight oxidized lenses
SS
100
20-21-40
MC 10.20%
3.
(61)
LP
iL -
LU
a 20
20.0
111
I
11
'I
I
I
I
I
d'
11
, 1,
Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1
2881 152nd Avenue N.E.
.. PAGE 2 OF 2
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT Washinnton Federal PROJECT NAME 229 Main Street
PROJECT NUMBER 1817.02 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washington
W
Q.
>-
W W
�W
W
W M
of
W
>
�-:n
0 Z
=)
TESTS
(L 6
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Lu
-j
EL:D
0
_j
MO*
2 z
L)
0 z
<
W
of
20
Brown silty SAND, very dense, moist
Ss
100
20-39-50
MC 13.60%
SM
(89)
21.5 -trace gravel
Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation. Boring backfilled with bentonite.
Bottom of hole at 21.5 feet.
0
Uj
0-
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
I �
Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-2
2881 152nd Avenue N.E.
PAGE I OF 1
Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: 425-284-3300
Fax: 425-284-2855
CLIENT Washington Federal PROJECTNAME 229MainStreet
PROJECT NUMBER 1817.02 PROJECT LOCATION Edmonds, Washington
DATE STARTED 7/29/10 COMPLETED 7/29/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD _HSA ATTIMEOF DRILLING
LOGGEDBY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF DRILLING
NOTES 4" Asphalt Pavement AFTER DRILLING —
W
_1
ra. W
u,
>_
of
—
ZW)
C6
L)
—
1:0
F- iE�
0-_
ujM
_j 2
LLJ
>
6Z -'
=)
TESTS
(j
.
Q-0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LU
Q. =)
0
_j
M0§
0
_j
2z
UZ—
U)
LLU)
0
Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist
SM
2.0 -becomes medium dense
Brown silty fine SAND, dense, moist
SS
100
7-19-22
MC 10.20%
(41)
5
-trace gravel
SS
100
14-22-32
MC 12.00%
(54)
Fines 43.30%
-becomes very dense
[USDA Classification: sandy LOAM]
SS
100
25-38-40
MC 10.20%
(78)
SM
10
Ss
100
15-28-36
MC 10.60%
(64)
15
-trace gravel
A
SS
100
21-50
MC 10.60%
-sand pockets
IL
Boring terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite.
Bottom of hole at 16.0 feet.
M
ziW
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ES -I 817.02
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
Earlh'
lsolijwns
. NWLL,,
REPORT DISTRIBUTION
ES-1 817.02
4 COPIES Washington Federal
425 Pike Street
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. John Yeckel, Facilities Manager
Craft Architects
2505 Third Avenue, Suite 324
Seattle, Washington 98121
Attention: Ms. Kathy Craft -Reich (Email only)
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
City of Edmonds J U N I - 2005 Permit No: 610C,�> -
RIGHT-OF-WAY C0NSTRUC-kJgNXJ4MJT Issue Date: IIZ&Aw
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: z 2_,J M a i t/� s EDMONb.5
, wA 9 9020
C. Contractor: i IAI)A s!6 n,41614.
V___ �
Mailing Address: /M. C7
State License #: W 0001RQf 204PL
City Business License #:NR— 009-7
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):& Obvileve,
I
Contact: 't-'a6z.,4- Lvv
Phone:
Liability Insurance:'YC-S Bond:
1
Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): AIIA
E, Commercial Subdivision City Project F EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, 0 VWSD)
Multi-Farruly Single Family Other
fNSPECTOR:' iV:anyiW /*w
F. PAVEMENT CUT: YES fo G. SIZE OF CUT X
CONCRETE CUT: YES 0
G. El Mail Approved Permit V Call for Pickup
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless from
injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of
Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS
COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITOR CREDITWILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT.
* Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every
flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession.
* Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS.
* Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
C DIAL -A -DIG (1-8100-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
T I
IHAVEREAD E OVEST N SAND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND A CKNO WLEDGE
TIM()
T Y
THA us E T� Y THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE A T ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS
Date:
Signature:
ntractor or Agent)
0 'CIT '-,U
R., TY
Ri ht�-#A*Aj
-A
pptbved4y::�'i T'
-A*'th iied:','V�;jbid�
Mle A
imei. u, o I v
v'e
M74
y'�
-�_Ca L
`77
yT.
-4A
U''
'Xi
X
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS:
Call 425- 771-0220, Ext. 1326for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line.
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: DATE:
Inspector's Signature
CADocurnents and SettingsTuilis\My Documents\Fomis\Engnmg\ROWpermit_,doc Revised 10/01/03
a
,City of Edmonds
RIGHT-OF-WAYCONSTRUCTION PERMIT
Permit No:
Issue Date:
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 2-21 Mai P� sf, EDMONb�� �kiA 9 Zo
C. Contractor: Contact: Vc 6,&e4- L\-v ,
Mailing Address:
Phone:
State License #:-W OODIRC:)E 20 Liability Insurance: Bond: $
City Business License #:Nk— (309-76 Co
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):& o&neg, Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): loflo�
E. Commercial F1 Subdivision El City Project' F1 EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD)
'KIM(ulti-Family El Single Family D Other
INSPECTOR:
F. PAVEMENT CUT: El YES No G. SIZE OF CUT x
CONCRETE CUT:. El YES 0
G. E] Mail Approved Permit Call for Pickup
INDEMNITY: Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless from
injuries, damage� or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made. against the City of
Edmonds or an� of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit.
THE CONTRAICTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERJALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND A CCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMA TED RESTORA TION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PA TCH IS
tOMPLETED B Y CITY FORCESA T WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLIC;INT.
* Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every
flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession.
* Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS.
+ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
C IAL-A-DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
S I T T
IRAVERE D OVE T' FIENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE
T 0 P
FIMI
U
J�
S T, I
THA'. E TH, C PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE A T ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS
,0 eP Y.Of THE
Signature:
Date:
-(i�-ontractor or Agent)
FOWCITY-USE"ONLY
Right7of;-wayfee:
Approvedby:.
r
-Dis, U!
Time Authorized: Void After
ec-
Special Conditions: S1DF4Ud1,r_ 05:sOctiowF
5tWL MOT j5yZEA IQ jm��]Q 1a, lh�a Total, Fee: /-A 5
f2e-5-r k,;' -20 'Rec -ipt-.N.w:,
44AM LOWM 12M�) e-
'J, suptf h'�
T L S __--Y-
_A
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS:
Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326for a 24-hour voice-rqorded inspection request line.
DAT
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WOR1CJ E:
Inspector's Signature
CADocurnents and SettingsTurtis\My Documcnts\Fonns\Engnrng\ROWpertnit_.doc
a
Revised 10/01/03
LANDSCAPINC7-
44�1
LA
a
ITOUR -49'
J ;
W
iEL �U-P
(E) CANOPT ROOF
DRIVE-THRU t C7F-16%DE
EL 54.6
N -1 IU D Ir N il Ek ENAM
R
JI 111 1) FT
4:1
:>
J.-I t
------------------
fl
L-A,
E
tz
Ing c a'j
q 3 c
r�,S
F
HIP OOF
GUTTER.1 DS +
SUSPEN
5 JAD FASCIA
WITH IG GE
;&R.+z>E
�(E) TREE
5" CALIPER
62'
150' i5l' i
11 011111
5
clop
- --------- 11100
8!
7— - z
9-11 gR
(E) TREE
b" CALIPER
54'/
CENTERLINE 40-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY----
9�w
(:ON7KOL, PLAN
LE
cokrrlx�)W-'k�'
CA vric
,7-AP�'
'BA'Rp-<Am�
iTH
APPHOVED AS NOTED
BY ENGINEEJJ
MAIN STREET rloAIA2 n-e
Date: — -7 1. fsc-,os--
4- -MA% 'rx>004 For- vu-Kps-m-�
'k S-Mcnitwn OWL4 .
,STREET FILE— ssc- Few -wmrr 44= zwg�-ous-o
folz ftpffzovrro TpftTr-:Ic-
CON-cv-OL-
LANUSCAPINC,--
(E) CANUPT KUU�
jj. pp
)AIVE-THRU �V�
EL -54.6..
�(E) TREE -(E) TREE
i -50' 5" CALIPER 51' . 52' 1, 53' 5" CALIPER 5 " 4W'/ 55.'
c
I (� A) A 5 OaW P(L V-. 6a.CGEJ�� ca lEwr
CENTERLINE 40-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
TUf%F I C (:ONTK�`o L T>LAN
CON
C-o
tl--� i 1-�-k
CA wnc, t,,�
,7?-rf� -ro a
Pt,ftc,IF� 61")
LA6% WTSX�.
AP,,, p- i cA b c
�Aj ITH
S I C7 1�j
-51t>owpo-kc-
C-U rc-10D
I
*stc-Impfc-hel:
MAIN STREET 40sw1kLAe- ao-%7-,D fttE�
ES
E -FILE Islov-2005
ET a[Al &WAWNT
crry oF EDmoND9
I — 0
BAKER CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT LOCATED AT;
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WA
DURATION OF WORK
APPROXIMATELY
JOB NAME
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
PROJECT MANAGER
ZACHARY BULL
(509) 535.3133
R9-9
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
28"TRAFFIC
CONES
R9-9
[EN —PARKING
fl AMFTER
R9-10
W21-5 W20-1
ROAD
NHOU WORK
wo MUD
R9-11
G20-2 END
A ROAD WORK 100 +
1001+/- D
RDA WORK
RD
wc
Ml
b
G20- END
ROAD WORK
ROAD END
WORK OAD W RK
MW
G20-2A
W20-1
50'
28" TRAFFIC
CONES
R, R9-9
�R
R9-10
N
NOT TO SCALE
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PLAN #1 OF 2
SHOULDER CLOSURE
WITH "NO PARKING" REASON,
SIDEWALK REPAIR
LEGENDS
TRAFFIC
DIRECTION
CHANNELIZING
DEVICE
ADVANCE WARNING
SIGN LOCATION
EN WORK VEHICLE
FM� TYPE 11 BARRICADE
HIGH LEVEL
WARNING
NOTES:
1. CHANNELIZING DEVICES WILL NOT ENCROACH
INTO ADJACENT LANES.
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES
2. (NO PARKING) SIGNS WILL BE IN PLACE 48 HOURS
FELIPE J. MACIAS, TCS #002689
TELEPHONE: (425) 746-1060
PRIOR TO JOB START TIME.
3. ALERT METRO TRANSIT PRIOR START OF WORK.
E-MAIL: jack@trafficcontrolservices.net
FEBRUARY 02, 2011
APPIRQVED AS NOTEL
BY EN "NEERIN
Date:
Tg&Mr— &AYTIZOL A-MV-l" 720
STREET FILE
BAKER CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT LOCATED AT;
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WA
DURATION OF WORK
APPROXIMATELY
JOBNAME
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
PROJECT MANAGER
ZACHARY BULL
(509) 535.3133
LEGENDS
TRAFFIC
DIRECTION
DODD CHANNELIZING
DEVICE
ADVANCE WARNING
SIGN LOCATION
F=� TYPE 11 BARRICADE
isLOW LEVEL FLASHING
LIGHT(TYPEA)
R9-
%_!I�DEINAIK
L.
", .13
R9-9
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
N1,
28"
TRAFFIC
ONES
R9-1 0
R9-9
4b
NOTES:
1. (NO PARKING) SIGNS WILL BE IN PLACE 48 HOURS
PRIOR TO JOB START TIME.
28" TRAFFIC
�:�- -& CONES
R9-9
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
r Fm ---. -ao-s 5- 1
R9-1 0
R9-9
N
NOT TO SCALE
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PLAN #2 OF 2
AFTER HOURS
SIDEWALK CLOSURE
WITH "NO PARKING"
vp
N
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES
FELIPE J. MACIAS, TCS #002689
TELEPHONE: (425) 746-1060
E-MAIL: jack@trafficcontrolservices.net
FEBRUARY02,2011
/�oc f f
BAKER CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT LOCATED AT;
229 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WA
DURATION OF WORK
APPROXIMATELY
JOB NAME
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
PROJECT MANAGER
ZACHARY BULL
(509) 535.3133
NOTES:
1. CHANNELIZING DEVICES WILL NOT ENCROACH
INTO ADJACENT LANES.
2. (NO PARKING) SIGNS WILL BE IN PLACE 48 HOURS
PRIOR TO JOB START TIME.
3. ALERT METRO TRANSIT PRIOR START OF WORK.
4. NOTIFICATION TO THE POLICE DEPT AND FIRE DEPT.
72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ALLEY CLOSURE.
N
w
NOT TO SCALE
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PLAN #1 OF 2
ALLEY CLOSURE WITH
NO PARKING- REASON,
DRIVEWAY APPROACH REPAIR
LEGENDS
TRAFFIC
DIRECTION
CHANNELIZING
DEVICE
ADVANCE WARNING
SIGN LOCATION
LOW LEVEL FLASHING
LIGHT(TYPEA)
TYPE III BARRICADE
IFROAD
CLOSED
R11-2
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES
FELIPE J. MACIAS, TCS #002689
TELEPHONE: (425)746-1060
E-MAIL: jack@trafficcontrolservices.net
FEBRUARY 18,2011
fiftiw' 3 ig
Gregco ExcavafingLLC
3401 139th Ave RE
Lake Stevens Wa 9M58
.425-334-7307
9req-co.excavatingQaol.com
nc
Uj
0
ir 200ft
Oft
Traffic Control Plan prepared by DATE
K&D Services, Inc 02-21-11
PO Box 12040,Evereft WA 98206 PAGE 1 of 1
800.343.4049
Drawn by: D Sandal] - WATCS Certificate No 3765
360-459-8500
LEGEND
FLAGGER
ff
DEVICES
TRAFFIC FLOW
10 —�>
OFFICER
-V
--
SIGNS
61
—
PERM LANE MARKINGS
-V -%16
SURVEYORS
BARRICADES q%X11
TAPERS/TANGENTS
WORK SPACE
ARROW BOARD
AR�O
,W MOVft
PROTECTIVE VEHICLE
WIBEACON
UTILITY WORK
ARROW BOARD
CAUTION MODE
TRUCK -MOUNTED
ATTENTUATOR E31IM3
CONSTRUCTION
PCMS
I VMS
PORTABLE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL 0-0—
WORKHOURS
smom
< 13t!3H%r
—
13V3HV
. I 5INLVA
END
ROADeti-ORK
200ft
GV011
TREES
5�a
200-ft
0 ft
Construdton
EntrancelExIT
�ence to be placed to prevent driveway
36ft
un
,access from alley
a)
It
'60
<
E 0 0
4�- aintain I 1ft travel lane
WA Federal
I -PA.RKING
FTL K E:—Z7--
T OVI-AWAY AREA
IV,
sidewalk 9ft
parKing 7ft 1
parking
Main St (SR 104) ma(intain lift travel lane 'MP 24.51 200ft m .
110 PARKING Signs to be placed from alley to 3rd Ave.
Place 110 PARKING Signs with dates and times of work at least 72hours in advance of work.
Parking can be opened after work hours.
See TCP for alley closure
See TCP for pedestrian detour, sidewalk can be opened after work hours.
200ft
�i�IIDJV. aro�l
OND
26
rn
0
X
LANE WIDTH
lift
POSTED SPEED
25mpl�
MERGE TAPER (L)
11 5ft
BUFFER
155ft
SIGN SPACING
200ft
DEVICES TAPERS
20ft
DEVICES TANGENT
40ft
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
Not Drawn to Scale
This sketch not to be relied upon for exact location of Utilities.
CALL (800) 424-5555 TWO BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
PERMIT
City of Edmonds
PROJECT
Tear down WA Federal Building
DROJEC
LO%%Wl St and 3rd Ave
Yes No
-1-rallfic Control Supervisor(TOS) X
Flaggers X
Uniformed Officer X
fi-rworr' 4 1 6-
DRAWING NOT TO
SCALE
Is
GREGCO EXCAVATINGr LLC
3401-1391h Ave NE Lake Stevens, WA 98258
Phone: 425 334 7.307 Fax: 425 334 4642
gregcoexcavating@aol.com
Brian Valliant
Baker Construction & Development
RE: Washington Federal Savings Bank
229 Main St.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Haul Route
en
A�x 'f-� -5-
A -.,4-
10
I=
tr,
/-I t
Z, oj
A NG NUMBER
'7
PRINT&
1SX24 0 ON N01.1000H CLIZARPRINT
fm
1201
ACCESSIBLE
PARKING SIGN
-LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TAX PARCEL NO. 00434400TOO100
L E
GAL
D'SCR'p T'ON
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TAX PARCEL NO.
mo �Vs P T 0 L
EDMONDS PLAT OF BLK 007 D-00 - ALL OF LOTS I & 2
VICINITY MAP
EDMONDS CITY CENTER
-tp AS NOTED
52' 54' :55" jkp, 'ING
BY IN
CCONTOUR 4 9' :50' :5 V GINEER
Date:
-J�R�C_ caiTg-0 pLmJ M 5TATE
FERRY
---MAIN STREET
. 6�
-CENTERLINE 40-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
Corner Flag,.__
Zone
Setbacks Required Actual
10'-0" f`ULL ECALE 0 5 10 15 20 25
20'-0" HALf= 5r,,,kL;=
PLAN
NORTH,.
(T
RESUB
APR 28 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
5C,ALE5 ARE FULL SIZE
If= TH15 5HF-=-T 15 24"X56"
5C,ALES AFF_ HALf= 51ZF
If= TH15 SHEET IS 12"Xib"
Nvl± ._::ui
IN-13d3C3
4140C'3 "DNICI'llng
. S�Q
i
LANDSCAPE NOTES
1.
ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS AND WITHIN PARKING LOT
TO BE SET AT 10" MINUS FINISH ELEVATION EXCEPT AS NOTED. THESE AREAS TO
RECEIVE IMPORTED TOPSOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12". PLACED IN TWO LIFTS
OF A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6". THE FIRST LIFT OF TOPSOIL TO BE THOROUGHLY
ROTOTILLED INTO EXISTING SUBGRADE.
2.
ALL NEW PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE FINE BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 3 11 .
3.
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON THE SITE PLANS PREPARED BY
CRAFT ARCHITECTS. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF
ANY FIELD CHANGES TO THE SITE PLANS WHICH MAY REQUIRE
ADJUSTMENT OF DESIGN.
4.
REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE
INFORMATION. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY ADVERSE
DRAINAGE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE HEALTH OF PLANT MATERIAL.
5.
NO PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDES TO BE USED ON THE PROJECT SITE
DURING THE FIRST YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD.
6.
ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION
SYSTEM. REFER TO SHEET L-2.
7.
LANDSCAPE BOULDERS: B OULDERS TO BE PLACED IN PLANTING BEDS AS NOTED.
BOULDERS TO BE SET INTO THE SUBGADE AND POSTIONED THAT ALL EXPOSED SIDES
OF THE BOULDER SLOPES DOWN AND AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF BOULDER.
PROVIDE A MIN. (3) 2 MAN ROCK.
8.
RIVER ROCK MULCH: PROVIDE 1-6" DIA. WASHED RIVER ROCK TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8".
RIVER ROCK TO BE PLACED IN BED AREA WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF DRIVE THRU
ROOF.
9.
STREET TREE SPECIES AND TREE GRATE TYPE ALONG MAIN STREET MAYBE BE REVISED
BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. CONSULT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS -ENGINEERING
DIVISION (425-771-0220) PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND PLANTING OF TREES.
TREE PITS TO BE LINED ADJACENT TO EDGE OF SIDEWALK WITH ROOT BARRIER A MIN.
DEPTH OF 18" FROM FINISH GRADE. PROVIDE DEEPROOT UB-18-2 (1-415-344-1464),
OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
2
A
TREE GRATE TO BE URBAN ACCESSORIES MODEL KIVA 3 X 3 WITH STANDARD "S" FRAME.
PROVIDED BY URBAN ACCESSORIES (877-487-0488) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
10.
TREES PLANTED ALONG STREET FRONTAGES AND ALONG DRIVEWAYS SHALL HAVE A
7-FOOT BRANCHING HEIGHT.
A\
PLANT SCHEDULE
+ ++ 97 S.F.
EXISTING S APE
\hl
TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.)
0
+0
. . . . ...... IlAIZ)IINb LANIJZ�UAtL
LAN TO REMAIN
,�CA��, TYPE V
160
IN' N",
N.
NN�
"",.TREE TO B E"K ��3vl�b IN (,TYP'.)
IN,
S, -51`
NEW POLE LIGHT TYP.)
$ 8"
A
AS ...... ......
A
AL
�A S� -P-E TYPE V
fi00 S.F. //147 S.
0
D A
A,
m
I?
*9
NEW UTILITY Ou T,,,
MI rOkIr DAp� . . . . . .
flP
LANDSCAPE BOUDLERS
SEE NOTE #7
STEPPED WALL�,,,
W/ BRICK VEQ,,,tP ,N
N_ REFER TO ARCH. PIVFP POrV KAIII rP . . . . . . .
SYMBOL
QTY
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
SIZE
NOTES
DECIDUOUS TREES
3
ACER P ��l -S&GO QKU.MAP-LE
�S�ANGKAK�:_/
8' H T.
)B
PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CAPITAL' / CAPITAL FLOWERING PEAR
2" CAL.
B&B,SEE NOTE #10.
RUNUS S. 'KWANZAN' KWANZAN FLOWERING CHERRY
3" CAL.
B&B,SEE NOTE #10.
3
RAXINUS P. SUMMIT' SUMMIT ASH
2" CAL.
B&B,SEE NOTE #10..
EVERGREEN TREES
CHAMAECYPARIS OBTUSA 'GRACILIS' / HINOKI CYPRESS
6' H T.
B&B
1
PINUS F. 'VANDERWOLF'S PYRAMID VANDERWOLF'S PINE
6' H T.
B&B
EVERGREEN SHRUBS
19
MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' OREGON GRAPE
3 GAL.
CONT., 2' O.C.
7
NADINIA DOMESTICA 'MOON BAY' / HEAVENLY BAMBOO
5 GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
10
OSMANTHUS H. 'GOSHIKI' / GOSHIKI OSMANTHUS
5 CAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
7
PIERIS JAPONICA 'MT FIRE' / LI LY- OF- THE- VALLEY SHRUB
42" HT.
B&B, 4' O.C.
36
PRUNUS L. 'MT. VERNON' / MT VERNON LAUREL
5 GAL.
CONT., 2' O.C.
uu.�m
8
RHODODENDRON 'P.J.M.' RHODODENDRON PJ.M.
42" HT.
B&B, 4' O.C.
3
SARCOCCA RUSCIFOLIA SWEET BOX
5 GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
21
TAXUS 'DARK GREEN SPREADER' / SPREADING YEW
5 GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
0
6
VIBURNUM DAVIDII / DAVIDS VIBURNUM
5 GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
4
BERBERIS T. 'CRIMSON PYGMY' DWARF BARBERRY
I GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
0
15
SPIRAEA JAPONICA 'BUMALDA' BUMALDA SPIRAEA
5 GAL.
CONT., 3' O.C.
PERENNIALS, FERNS, & ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
0
19
BERGINA CORDIFOLIA 'WINTERGLOW' / BERGINIA
1 GAL.
C)
6
HEUCHERA 'OBSIDIAN' / OBSIDIAN CORAL BELLS
1 GAL.
0
12
PENNISETUM ORIENTAL 'KARLEY ROSE' / FOUNTAIN GRASS
1 GAL.
19
POLYSTICHUM POLYBLEPHARUM / JAPANESE TASSEL FERN
1 GAL.
400
GROUNDCOVER
FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS / BEACH STRAWBERRY
4" POT
18" O.C.
+ + + + +
+.++++++++++++
INCA MINOR / DWARF PERIWINKLE
4" POT
18" O.C.
----------
-----------
----------
SEE NOTE #8
+ 4?
?
+ 3 X 3 TREE GRATES AND ROOT BARRIER
AlA2
(,fy P.
+
+ PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS NEW MONUMENT/SIGN
+ +
REFER TO NOTE #9.
_7
A,
k
4�W
N",
PE TYPE. Ill
""�NNN
COO
Y,
LANDSCAPE TYPE Ill
3
NEW CAST IRON/STEEL BENCH
PER CITY OF/EDMONDS STANDARDS
ON CONIC. PLAZA
Ak�PAOVED oy
IN NNINC-11
LEGEND I-OD-1
TREE TYPE LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
- CALIPER @ DBH TOTAL PARKING STALLS: 18
F� TREES TO BE REMOVED PROVIDE TOPSOIL A MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE: 315 S.F. (17.5 S.F. PER PARKING STALL)
HB HORNBEAM s SPRUCE DEPTH OF 18" IN PLANTER BULBS PROVIDED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE: 404 S.F.
JM JAPANESE MAPLE SG SWEETGUM (MINI PARKS)
t F012 M MAGNOLIA
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
SG SWEETGUM
ST STRAWBERRY TREE
0
EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN.
RESUB
cx-p WEATHERED GRANITE (REFER TO LANDSCAPE NOTES) JAN - 7 2011
lq00000 7) 000no BUILDING DEPARTMENT
0, o
0 �? WASHED -6" DIA. (MIN. 6" DEPTH)
0 RIVER ROCK, 2
8%00%,50;T GrTY OF SOMONDS
NORTH
-DSCA.P.EPLA.N.
2505 Third Avenue
Suite 324
Seattle, WA 98 1 2 1
206.7 20. 700 1 phone
206.720.2949 fax
www.craftatchitects.com
V)
0
<
C4
ry
V)
0
00
ch
<
z
0
0
I-
c))
w
0
(N
V)
CONSULTANT
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
REGISTERED
E ARCHITECT
WILLIAM A. EgOWN
CERTIFICATE NO. 501
RGvM=PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/9/10
BID SET 9/22/10
REV 1-CITY COMMENT 11/3/10
REV 2-TREE GRATE 12/15/10
REV 3-TREES ON 3RD 1/4/10
and 7ft LANDSCAPE PLAN
Dft
Daftc
cf=L. co
Project Na 10-282
AWyni CB
god HOC I
COPYRIGHT CRAFT ARCHITECTS 2010
z"�'iTREET FILE
c2i
IRRIGATION NOTES
1. VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT
OF WORK. PROTECT ALL NEW AND EXISTING UnLITIES. PROMPTLY NOTIFY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN PROPOSED WORK MPRS
AND OBSTRUCTIONS.
2. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION OF ALL PROPERTY, MPLS
PERSONS, WORK IN PROGRESS, STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, WALKS, CURBS,
PAVED SURFACES AND EXISTING LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGA11ON TO
REMAIN DURING THE INSTALLA11ON OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION WORK.
VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND PROTECT SAID UTILITIES.
3. IRRIGA11ON CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL NECESSARY M 1
PERMITS AND FEES AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES
FOR THIS WORK. ALL WORK TO BE INSTALLED PER LOCAL CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS. mpi MP
4. PRESSURIZE MAINLINE TO 100 PSI FOR A PERIOD OF 2 HOURS
CHECK ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS FOR LEAKS AND REPAIR AS REQUIRED.
PROVIDE WRIITEN DOCUMENTATION THAT A PRESSURE TEST HAS BEEN COMPLETED mpi Pi
WITH NO MORE THAN 5 PSI LOSS DURING THE TEST DURATION. IPLINE 0:0�-
5. UPON THE COMPLETION OF IRRIGATION WORK, OPERATE THE SYSTEM IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. ADJUST AS REQUIRED. mpi
6. GUARANTEE ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR
COMMENCING AT THE TIME OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. THIS GUARANTEE
DOES NOT APPLY TO WORK OR DAMAGE DONE TO THE IRRIGATION
SYSTEM BY OTHERS AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE. . . . . . . mpi
7 PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE PROVID M
E THE OWNER NTH A SET OF CLEARLY
DRAWN REPRODUCIBLE RECORD DRAWINGS SHOWING ACTUAL LOCATION
RS
mpi
8. A SEPARATE IRRIGATION PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT. PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE PROVIDE THE CITY mpss
mpi
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL SPECIALIST WITH A COPY OF THE BACKIFLOW
TEST REPORT. TEST REPORTS CAN BE FAXED TO (425-744-6057) OR SS
E-MAILED TO (mcmurphy@dedmonds.wams). BACKIFLOW TESTING WILL BE
REQUIRED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THEREAFTER
M 11.
MP
p
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
P.S.I.
RAD.
G.P.M.
mpi
RAIN BIRD 1806-SAM-MP1000 90-210, 6" POP-UP ROTATOR
30
12'
0.37
mpi
RAIN BIRD 1806-SAM-MP1000 90-210, 6" POP-UP ROTATOR
30
12'
0.19
El MSS
RAIN BIRD 1806-SAM-MP SIDE STRIP, 6" POP-UP SIDE STRIP
30
4' X 12'
0.44
El MRS
RAIN BIRD 1806-SAM-MP RIGHT STRIP, 6" POP-UP RIGHT STRIP
30
4' X 12'
0.22
El MLS
'WS
RAIN BIRD 1806-SAM-MP LEFT STRIP, 6" POP-UP LEFT STRIP
DAI�
B 1402, ROOT WITF-Plbir- !QY!QTPhA IA1 1 1 AC0 PI IPPI
PIP
30
4�' �2
0.22
0.50
111"J"ImIV 1.01-PILAVI VT/ _T%jf_ Lj%jLpLjL_L_1%
1j %j
Fm
3/4" IRRIGA11ON METER (REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS)
rD_c_V_1
POINT OF CONNEC11ON
1 1' BRASS GATE VALVE
1 WILKENS 500, 1" PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE
1 FEBCO 850,11" DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY
1 1" RAINBIRD 44RC, 1" QUICK COUPLING VALVE
1 RAINBIRD 100 PEB, 1" MASTER VALVE
#
L,�ZONE
El
RAIN BIRD 100-PEB-PRS-D, 1" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 1
F-1
RAIN BIRD XCZ-075-PRF, 3/4" DRIP CONTROL ZONE 1.2
1
(--G.P.M.
ZONE NUMBER
El
RAIN BIRD ESP-LXM, 8-STATION MODULAR CONTROLLER —
L_--VALVE
SIZE/TYPE
WALL MOUNT W/ RAIN BIRD RSD-BEX, RAIN SENSOR
G.P.M.
. . . . . . .
RAIN BIRD LD-09-12, DRIPLINE W/0.92 GPH EMITTERS @ 12" O.C.
W/ RAIN BIRD TDS-050, GALV. TIE DOWN STAKES @ 3' O.C.
VALVE SIZE
1-1/4' MAINLINE, SCHEDULE 40 PVC
CLASS 200 PVC LATERAL LINE (3/4- UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
4" SLEEVING, SCHEDULE 40 PVC
4W
mpi
IRRIGATION POINT OF -CONNECTION
REFER TO CIVIL FOR, METER
3
DRIPLINE 18" O.C.
'2-1
4
51
Mp%LS -
2
1.6 MPI
DRIP
L ------ i MPI
KZD6
mpi
4
4
MpSS
IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
WALL MOUNTED
A"
SID
NORTH
RRIGATION PLAN
VALVESCHEDULE
ZONE #
VALVE TYPE
G. P. M.
1
RAIN BIRD 100-PEB
4
2
RAIN BIRD XCZ-075-PRF
1.6
3
RAIN BIRD XCZ-075-PRF
2.1
4
RAIN BIRD 100-PEB
6
5
6
7
8
PIPE SIZING TABLE
PIPE SIZE
MAX G.P.M.
344" CLASS 200
1 CLASS 200
UP TO 10 G.P.M.
UP TO 16 G.P.M.
S
RESUE
DEC lb 2010
2505 Third Avenue
Suite 324
Seattle, WA 98121
206,7 20. 700 1 phone
206.720.2949 fax
www.craftarchitects.com
(J�
CD
U�
< 0
04
0
00
U) m
<
LLJ �7 3:
LL_ < vi
0
z
0
0
LLJ
CD
�7
cf)
CONSULTANT
Revisions:
PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/9/10
BID SET 9/22/10
REV 1 - CITY COMMENT 11/3/10.
Sheet Title: IRRIGATION PLAN
Date: 08./23./lO
Design:
Drawn: CB
Project No: 10-282
Approved: CB
Sheet No: L— 2-
COPYRIGHT CRAFT ARCHITECTS 2010