665 EDMONDS WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiii lill
11060
665 EDMONDS WAY
ADDRESS: 665 LMONAs WLA
TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER: 210S225003080aD
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:— Oil 617'-; DETERMINATION: [-]Conditional Waiver F] Study Required, Maiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE. PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
M110% ", lAJ
1600,114 1 � 'P
A=w0�0-N-WIR -- OR
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORYDA
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DA:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMP\DSrs\Fomis\Strcet File Checklist.doc
Ctt? of (1b. pub
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
/ flo6L
F
P
At: 665 Edmonds Way AF
. f
Occupancy established by this, certificate:
E
Intemational Building Code Section ii'O�6,
—Building -Permit
Dwelling Units: **N/A**
Jyp�ICqnstrup�lon: VB
A;
-A - 4T�:
MaximuJlOccupanLoad.
Room capa6iti'signs,-wvhne'nirie(16ir&drm7u%*ti'r,-'e'"m'ai'n.pb'st&d,
Building Owner: Edmonds Way Profestiohal.I.Centdr
THE Grow With Us Daycare
EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING COD&_ iZXD(
FOR WHICH THE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY IS 6 bYS-60"E'D.
Issued this 31 st
FICIAL
BLD2010-0248
INo. Stories: I
Basement: No
IBC 1004)
, .8- 99 #F-502, Edmonds, WA 98026
y
WG WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2006
0
AND DIVISION OF OCCUPANCY AND THE USE
BY:
This certificate shall be posted in a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and shall be maintained in �Ie condition at all times. Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new
Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
qk
0 PLANNING DATA
0 1 FILE I
-- Sign5 --
Name: I S
6 Ire, L-i
Date:
--LP
Site Address: � 6 �— E-) ,,e J
Plan Check #: BLD-200V&�-L/
Project Description: VJIA� k INA
01�,Iltrlj
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (0/ NO)
Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
-%is"
wes�,tk (00)
—[Corner
V�A-e, 9
Map Page:
Lot: (YES [Flag
Lot: (YES
ADB File (or date waived):
TOTAL Area Per 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
ExafnPle
Wall wlinternal
&W7708tIon
Yes WIth
conditlons
Yes
I sq. t1111neal
ff. attached
41 ft. attached
wall
41 square feet
20 square feet
Wa/1
Sign # I
ip PW-
I
�,, �t;-
U\��
0
Sign #2
fw Y\.-J
Sign #3
TO TA L Sig n A rea fo r Tena n tlSite
Max Permitted: —Tprevious
Total:
Proposed Total:
Sign Height
Sign Type:
Max Permitted: I %I
Actual Height:
Sign Type:
. 3
Max Per'mitted.
Actual Height:
Sign Type:
Max Permitted:
Actual Height:
Sgn.Lighting
Sign Type:
Propo sed: KV VA
Allowed in Zone:
Sign Type:
Proposed: v, 0 V-0-
Allowed in Zone:
1�
0 0
PLANNING DATA
-- Signs --
11 STREET
Sign Color5
Proposed: -N?\
Acceptable?
144AA-k,
[Requires
ADB Approval?
k 6
Sign, Location
If freestanding and 3-feet or over (unless a fence) meets setbacks?
J- 3
Required Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Actual5i��cks
Street:
Side:
r:
ij�of for. ���i�nd�i.
Sign.�
Size:
Location:
Critical Areas Determination ff:
11 Study Required
El Waiver
Other
Plan Review By:
PLANNING DATA STREET FILE
New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects 8
Name:
Date: 5 4,4.,c /
Site Address:
'1qAO
Plan Check#: BLD_-'�OkC)_Oi%C'
Project Description: ke,,ockl ex-r6A-, c�n-a� e- 42e- 4o
<95; M,
la, Z?-. 4. Z�
Use(s) Proposed:
Allowed Use-_(0) NO)
'D,
'4' �'_ C_U 9
CUP File Number- CQ / 09-3,R
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES (�N
Reduced Site Plan Provided��NO)
Zoning:
'Cle-c-N2�
Map Page:
Comp Plan Designation: Pkla,-�ed
Q'wa'�' 9
Corner Lot: (YE S/
Flag Lot: (YEEJL�Q
ADB File Number (date waived):
_LotA rea:
Plans Match ADB Approved: GDNO�
Shoreline Required: (YES 40—P
Critical Areas Determination #:C9,A-,�,pO-+CC)t73
El Study Required
0 Waiver
SEPA Determination: Exec.,k
Exempt - q f.,opo-
,ec/ keeeAl-.. 6cc)c-y
El bl"g-M Ati, 0 Vre %rf*u' ^o3afJ—Fe&'
94RIO,
Needed (fo c yy art" n 2 e t UR
Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form).
St
Side:
Side:
4" CA- ki r,'e_'-'
LRea
AID
_=
-A
Street -
e,
Side_�,,,
Rear:
Lot Coverage/FAR Required: Norve,
Lot Coverage/FAR Provided: AJIA
Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations: N /A
Building, ffei4h t
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
c.o(-r,,e_r- nP s'-Ae-
Maximum Height:ps
Actual Height:
Subdivision:
Lot Aggregation Required: No.
_L?nd.4040ing-
Landscaping Matches ADB Approved:
Landscaping Bid Provided: C(YE §)NO)
Bond Amount (I.W �.id):TJS'b 'V
Ir
Plan Review B
e'.X�
*'We '. E-b4 S%de_ Vo tc� -\O
�Occ/
r1doq-
�Y_
4,o
n4' t"e-relse-
4Vie-
0 0
PLANNING DATA
New Commercial / Multi -Family Projects
II =FILE I
Commercial ParNn A nolysis
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
f
WS %
rotal Parking Reqtdred.
I q
Total Parking Pro vided:
MUM
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
Parking Ratio
# Units
Required
Parking
Studio
1.21D.U.
1 Bedroom
1.51D.U.
2 Bedrooms
1.8/D.U.
r
3 + Bedrooms
2.0/D.U.
Total Parking Required.
Total Parking Provided:
Other.,
srv.�
Plan Review 13>�.
0 PLANNING DATA 0
New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects
rw
Name: Da
*�(c
.Site Address: Plan Check#: BLD - loog'-C96,r
t -7 5-- W6V U
Project Descr iption: NVAJ 04_-('Ct, 6-J, 1 d(a) LAJ / PCV (r\�
Use(s) Proposed: 0
flowed Use: (Yol NO)
CUP File Number: 1011-
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / 1,05)
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES 10
Zoning.- 6 P
Map Page: to
Comp Plan Designation-.
Corner Lot: (YES
Flag Lot: (YES W U 4, Y/0�-
ADO File Num ber(date-veaived):/4--Vt'-(D�'—I
Lot Area:
Plans Match ADO Approved: ACE�)NO)
Shoreline Required: (YES
Critical Areas Determination #-.
El Study Required
K-Waiver
SEPA Determination. -
Exempt
breeded (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake
Ballinger- Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form).
f;?�64uzr ed-Setback,5 / . 'i d__ 4,4
_00"Ot Side.
Street: E - r
5W Alw Alorl�
Acft�alSethacks
Street:
Side:
Side: G
Rear. -
Lot CoverageAW Required: , 1104
Lot Coverage/104kProvided:
Lot I CoverageW,'A" Calculations: 6ull4j, 3,-7
BuddingW_-�Vht
Datum Point: /V
Datum Elevation: 2-3 q,
Maximum Height: -2-)
Subdivision:
Lot Aggregation Required:
Landscaping Matches ADB Approved: pe"Jist
Landscaping Bid Provided: (YES t9) /� i I
Bond Amoul(100% Bid):
(tic e t vv
1)
Plan Review By-
0
PLANNING DATA
New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
0A
0 ice-
rotal Parking Required:
Fotal Parking Provided:
Multi r�pa*i"
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
king Ratio
�ar
# Units
d#f
Re red
! -C
;apr k�n, 1
Studio
1-214-U-
z
I Bedroom
2 Bedroomx"',
1-8 D.U_
3 + Be9 /OOMS
2. D.U_
ro�aZfarking Required--
"0 IParking Provided:
PIA
f �5 M- crdc_�
Plan Review By:R_I
2) �cj
3) ftu
�Yult
-<I r4-d Olf
Otl I L4 �C�PerlCv7
4 C_ k U " 15 , ,-)
1 1/3ro/og'
6,0� Wo
fy.AW ,,n 5-. P_ *_ eA
#P20
CA File No:QRA-�M7-Coc?-�
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation)
2.
3.
4.
'61
0
7.
Site Address/ Location:
Property Tax Account N
Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet).- 17113 -3 4�+-
V
Is this site currently developed? V yes; — no.
!A M. ItO ��Jt
ff yes; how is site developed? 16LL IS. 0- 5 i e (A C C2 le- 4
Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
'X Flat less than 5-feet elevation'diange over entire site..
Rolling- slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet
over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth:
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: NP Approx� Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway 0 D floodplain of a watercourse.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
0 Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested— . ;meadow ;shrubs n-dxed V
urban landscaped (1awn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
For City Staff Use Only
Plan Check Number, if applicable? - YA
Site is Zoned? P
SCS mapped soil ty;e(s)? 0 — C—vej—cff qrLx�
5-0"c& 1,c, m Q— Y 010 s-topp
Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? Mq'L�Q'
Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area?
DETERMINATION
0
Reviewedby.2k. A
WAIVER
"0C. 1 %9%)
#P20
� 0
City. of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application.for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable Cit y staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, 'or soil
surveys).
DateReceived: 9
City Receipt 5�L�l
Critical Areas File #: Cp-
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist,- sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist,.make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in findifig and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form.. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersign ed applicant, and his/bff/its heirs, and assigns,'in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or.
incomplete information finnished by the applicant, his/herlits agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and e.xhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this appliy�#�n on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE oF APPLicANT/AGENT DATE 6 6 AS- /0 ;;;"
Property Owner's Authoriza(l��o k_--
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant: Applicant Representative:
UeA \�Q- D- :Yo-,i 5 e- n
Name Name
FNIA S-o-L 2-�(..�2-gwyjq 5TF--F-
Street Address
TZM0xQ3 U A
city State Zip
Street Address
F--S M017
City State Zip
Telephone: Y� S- - 7-7 3 S-kS Telephone: t/?-.5-- 77'?- - Z q ZS-
Email address (optional)- te)!2 Oeo mm4-ne,�Ernail Address (optional):..; ( o��iTod e I -se /I
,j� ctil s e
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER International Building Cod �ectionlfo
At: 665 Edmonds Way --Build"ng-Perrni1\;0 BLD2010-0248
No. Stories: I
Occupancy established by this,.6ertificate: Dwelling'Units: **N/A**
E ,,�."I�,�Typg,3Con.4frubtioh:-. V6 Basement: No
I.BC 1004)
Maxirnurntjq'cco0.orq F?
whd —,it.remain"posted-at 61i times.
Room qapaqJty-�Jghs;. -&req'ivired mu,
64'
-Ce: 23631�-Ai h'�
Building Owner: Edmonds Way Professlonai'-� whers rgsi.- z wa V 99 #F-502, Edmonds, WA 98026
W&WS MPLYING WITH -�JH E !REQUJI REM E NTS OF THE 2006
THE Grow With Us'Daycare HAS -Cb
EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING �CODE.i��.XDOP',T,'E6�BY-THE'CITY FqRT-HE GROUP AND DIVISION OF OCCUPANCY AND THE USE
FOR WHICH THE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY IS CLASSIFIED.
t
Issued this 31 1 day -Of- 2 0-11
IA-L
BY:
This certificate shall be posted in a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and shall be maintain �in I eg condition at all times. Any change' of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new
Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
assesses a a,
F—
101
Uty Of EdMolMdo 19720 44th Ave. Suite H, Lynnwood, WA 98036
Phone: 425-672-3706 Fax: 425-672-3708
nn, v Signs@SeattleSigns.com
Proof Date: 4/8/2011 File: 40412.FS
D Med Grey 195—L 0 Reflux Blue
White F� Metallic Gold
Black
M ff ff z -
9 % N
ay pLANNING
P IBOVEU I,
--4
4dl Vj;q11 1.410�fijC
CITY OF EDMONDS
BULQn�,'G -E'.�'EPARTMENT
WORK �Q
ADDRI�E�o
OWNER
�4o 4!�=
APPR0VE1)2;-"-7—
AL
3LDG. 0F7.:C:.^L
0 0
we
ION n=PUE
REM It
44 incMW
-mu4k M&-e- - APR 18 2011
SD-X�rol'r' NOV 17 2911 IV14htj--j*q-vj�
BUILDING DEP�Q!NkTSIK "Lt" �-AUILDINQ DEPARTM
CITY OF SIDMONC
This layout is property of Speedy Sign Center. Reproduction of this material is forbidden. If produced by anyone other than Speedy Sign Center without consent client will be required to pay
for any design fime accrued. Important: Please do I check I layout above for accuracy including spelling as your sign(s) will be In
MEET FILE 1/+
0
0
APPRUVED AS NOTED
BY ENUNEERING.
- zo-:Um 5co- A - i A -
Date: —AILI 11
Stetw S".LL TV- L6MTE�b
in-rrlv.vLq 6 N Ts4vm Tj
t4 'rD CftKre, Ar SWrWr
1;ncrimee *42M 4;b� v*W-LxT--
19�4111% ?M=96 AP*4-
incAaded 14 41s
o( tj -0 1
vk Tr
RECEIVEE)
. APR - 8 201,
DEVELOP MENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
7-/f -
0
E
------------------
-----------------
RECEIVED
APR - 8 2011
DEVELOPMENT sffMCES CTFL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Harrison, Marie
From: Scott Andersen [scott309@com cast. net]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:23 PM
To: jdjansen56@comcast.net; Harrison, Marie
Subject: Re: Sign application bId2011024.1
The bolts anchoring the building mounted sign to the wall will be 6 lag bolts 5/16ths diameter x 2inch
long (1 in each corner and 2 in the middle edges top and bottom). The street sign will have pressure
treated 4"x4" posts on either side concreted into ground (2ft deep) and the sign will sit in between the
posts fastened by 6, 6 inch long lag bolts 5/16th in diameter. The posts will have decorative post caps
and the post will be as tall as the sign. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank
you. Best regards, Scott Andersen 4257722640
Connected by MOTOBLUR TM on T-Mobile
----- Original message -----
From: idiansen56(cDcomcast. net
To: Scott Andersen <scott309(@co m cast. net>
Sent: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 14:59:51 PDT
Subject: Fw: Sign application bld201102411
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: "Harrison, Marie" <Harrison2ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:55:15 -0700
To: <JDJANSEN56a
,COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Sign application bld20110241
4e-
4
W,
Q
Hello Jeanie: I just noticed that you did not provide any footing details for the sign. Also there is no detail showing how
the wall sign will be attached. Please provide this information.
CITY OF EDMO
121 5h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa
DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs DEPARTMENT: PLANNfNG DiviSION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
BUILDING PERMIT REVISION #1
STAFF DECISION
TO: Scott Anderson, Grow With Us Learning Center
FROM: Jen Machuga, Planner
DATE: March 2, 2011
FILE: BLD20100248 (Revision #1)
BLD20100248 Revision #1 Proposal.
A building permit (BLD20100248) was issued in September 20 10 for the remodeling of an existing
single-family residence, change in use to a daycare facility, and construction of an addition of
approximately 852 square feet on the north side of the existing building. The permit included paving and
striping of a new parking lot and a landscaping plan for the entire site. Administrative design review was
conducted concurrently with the building permit review, and staff issued administrative approval of the
project design on September 8, 2010. Following the initial design review approval and issuance of the
building permit, the applicant wanted to make changes to the landscape plan as well as a few changes to
sidewalk access to the building. Thus, a revision (Revision #1) to the issued building permit was
submitted on February 15, 2011. Staff sent the applicant questions on the proposed revision on February
23, 2010, and in response, the applicant added plants to the revised landscape plan on February 24, 2010.
As part of Revision # 1, the applicant has proposed to eliminate the portion of the five-foot concrete
sidewalk adjacent to parking stalls #10 and #11. Also, the applicant has proposed to relocate the walkway
that serve's the side entrance at the northeast comer of the addition to follow the eastern side of the
building instead of being separated from the building by a landscaped area. Additionally, numerous
changes were proposed to the landscape plan.
Staff s analysis of the proposed changes associated with Revision #I follows.
OwnerlApplicant.
Scott Anderson
Grow With Us Learning Centers
23632 Highway 99, Suite F — PMB 502
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page I of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #I
Design Review Process:
As part of the City's review of the original building permit application (BLD20100248), staff design
review was required per ECDC 20. 10. The proposal is located within the Planned Business (BP) zone,
which is not an area of the City that is specifically designated for District -Based Design Review.
Therefore, the proposal is subject to the General Design Review requirements of ECDC 20.11. Projects
that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the design
review is considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.11
(General Design Review) and 20.01 (Type I Staff Decision —No Notice Required). Because the project is
located in the BP zone, the design standards in ECDC 20.11.030 apply in addition to the general design
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff design review with a building permit is considered a Type I
decision sub9ect to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003. The project was determined to be exempt from
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under WAC 1.97-11-800(3). A critical areas checklist was
submitted in 2007 and a waiver from further study was granted (File No. CRA20070093).
Since the design review process for the project was originally administrative, design review of the
proposed revisions is also administrative. The subject staff report only addresses the proposed changes
from the original design review approval issued on September 8, 2010. Refer to the staff report issued on
September 8, 20 10 for staff s complete analysis. of all applicable code sections for the entire project. The
subject report only addresses the code sections applicable to Revision # 1.
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance:
A. ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review)
The proposal is subject to the General Design Review criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, which include
criteria for building design and site treatment. With the changes proposed through Revision #1,
the project will still be consistent with the criteria applicable to site treatment in that
approximately nine of the existing evergreen trees will be retained on the site, sufficient
landscaping is provided around the front and all sides of the site to assist in buffering the building
from surrounding properties and curbing will be provided to protect the majority of the
landscaped areas.
B. ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements)
The applicant has proposed several revisions to the approved landscape plan. These revisions
include changes to the majority of the proposed tree and shrub species as well as changes to
locations of many of these plants. Due to the extent of the proposed revisions to the approved
landscape plan, Revision 91 will be reviewed entirely on its own for compliance with the
landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 instead of addressing each proposed change from the
approved plan individually.
The subject site contains several large existing evergreen trees. Many of these trees are located in
areas that cannot be protected during development due to the need to locate the parking area at
the front of the building. However, approximately nine existing trees are indicated on the plans
as to be retained. These existing trees will provide a good base to the proposed additional
landscaping. It should be noted that the existing trees to be retained as shown on the revised
landscape plan are the same as those shown on the approved landscape plan.
The City's Street Tree Plan requires street trees adjacent to Edmonds Way. The landscape plan
indicates four Cercidiphyllumjaponicum (Katsura) trees adjacent to the southwestern property
line. These trees are shown to comply with the minimum required size of 3" caliper and the
maximum allowed spacing of 40 to 60 feet on center. The applicant has indicated that the
Katsura. tree on the east side of the vehicular exit from the site may need to be moved to the east
Page 2 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision # I
slightly in order to avoid conflict with utility lines. This will be acceptable, as the total number
and spacing of the street trees will still comply with the requirements of the City's Street Tree
Plan.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type IV landscaping along the southwestern side of the subject site in
order to provide a visual separation from the street where clear sight distance is required. The
proposed landscaping between the parking area and Edmonds Way includes the street trees
discussed above as well as Acerpalmatum (Japanese maple) trees near the center of this property
line and a cluster of existing evergreens near the southern comer of the site. These trees are
consistent with the Type IV landscaping requirement for trees to be planted 25 feet on center.
The Type IV landscaping requirernents also specify that all trees shall be free of branches below
six feet in height, which has been added as a condition of approval. Various shrubs including
Prunus laurocerasus 'Otto Luyken'(Otto luyken laurel), Rex crenata convex * a (Japanese holly),
Festuca glauca (blue fescue), Euonymusfortunei (emerald gaiety), and Euonymusjaponica
(golden euonymus) are also indicated within the Type IV landscape area. These shrubs will need
to be maintained at a maximum height of 3.5 feet where clear sight distance is necessary. A
condition to this effect has been added to the approval to ensure proper maintenance of the Type
IV vegetation in order for clear sight distance to be maintained.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type V landscaping to provide visual relief and shade within parking
areas. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking stalls, at least 17.5 square feet of
landscape development must be provided for each parking stall proposed. Thus, with a total of 14
parking stalls, the applicant is required to provide at least 245 square feet of Type V landscaping
within the parking area. The revised landscape plan indicates Type V landscaping within the
landscape areas surrounding the parking lot, exceeding 245 square feet in total area.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type 11 landscaping to be provided along the northwestern property
line. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses, and
includes the requirement for evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being
deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on
center in addition to shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height at maturity to cover the ground
within three years. A combination of existing evergreen trees and new Chamaecyparis obtusa
(hinoki) and Acerpalmatum (Japanese maple) trees will be provided along the northwestern
property line. Although there are areas where the trees are slightly more than 20 feet apart, this is
compensated for by the cluster of existing trees being retained near the southwestern comer of the
existing building, and the average distribution complies with the requirement for the trees to be
planted at 20 feet on center. In. addition to the proposed trees, the revised plans indicate a
combination of shrubs including Rex crenata convexa (Japanese holly), Prunus lau�ocerasus
'Otto Luyken'(Otto luyken laurel), Rhododendron (purple gem rhododendron), and Euonymus
japonica (golden euonymus). These shrubs comply with the requirement for a minimum height
at maturity of 3.5 feet. This combination of shrubs and trees will sufficiently comply with the
Type 11 landscaping requirements.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires a combination of Types I and 11 landscaping along the portion of the
eastern property line adjacent to the residentially zoned property, as Type I landscaping is
intended to provide a very dense sight barrier between significantly separate uses and Type 11 is
intended to provide separation between similar uses. The daycare center and adjacent residential
property are not significantly separate uses, but they are not quite as similar as Type 11
landscaping calls for. Thus, the landscape plan was required to show a combination of deciduous
and evergreen trees planted at 20 feet on center as well as shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet high at
maturity to provide sufficient coverage of the ground within three years. The applicant has
proposed to retain some of the existing evergreen trees along the eastern property line and plans
to supplement these trees with new Chamaecyparis obtusa (hinoki) and Acer palmatum (Japanese
maple) trees. The majority of the trees along the eastern property line will be evergreen, which
Page 3 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #I
complies with the requirement for no more than 30 percent to be deciduous of Type II
landscaping and ties in the requirement of Type I landscaping to include evergreen trees. The
overall spacing of the trees along the eastern property line more than complies with the
requirement for the trees to be spaced at no more than 20 feet on center, as some of the trees are
clustered much closer together. The applicant incorporates the fencing requirement of Type I
landscaping by including a six-foot fence along the eastern property line, which will provide
additional screening from the adjacent R-zoned property. The proposal includes various shrubs
along the eastern property line, including flex crenata convexa (Japanese holly), Prunus
laurocerasus 'Otto Luyken'(Otto luyken laurel), Rhododendron (purple gem rhododendron),
Euonymusjaponica (golden euonymus), and Pierisjaponica (Japanese pieris). These shrubs
comply with the requirement for a minimum height at maturity of 3.5 feet. This combination of
shrubs and trees complies with the Type 1/11 landscaping requirement for the eastern property
line.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.020.E, "automatic irrigation is required for all ADB-approved
landscaped areas for projects which have more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of
building area or more than 20 parking spaces." Because the proposal does not trigger SEPA
review, automatic irrigation is not a requirement.
A condition of approval has been added requiring all tree and plant sizes and spacing to be
consistent with the minimum size and maximum spacing requirements of ECDC 20.13.015 and
the City's Street Tree Plan. Additionally, ECDC 20.13.020.13 requires four to six inch extruded
curbs where landscaping meets paved areas. Thus ' 'in the area where the sidewalk is proposed to
be removed adjacent to parking stalls # 10 and # I I, the applicant must provide an extruded curb
between the pavement of these parking stalls and the landscaping. This has been added as a
condition of approval. With this condition of approval, the changes to the sidewalk surrounding
the building requested under Revision #1 will not impact any other requirements of the Planning
Division.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject site is located within the "Planned Business/Neighborhood Business" designation of the
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the site is locatedwithin the "Westgate Corridor." The proposal is
subject to the applicable general objectives for urban design located on pages 90 through 98 of the
Comprehensive Plan. These objectives were addressed in staffs original design review approval issued
on September 8, 2010. The proposed changes as part of Revision #1 will not impact the project's
compliance with the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan discussed in staff s original design
review decision.
Findings & Conclusions:
In accordance with the requirements ofECDC 20.11.020 and 20.11.030, the proposal has been found to
be in compliance with the design criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, the bulk and use requirements of the
zoning ordinance, and the building design and site treatment criteria applicable to general design review.
Detailed discussion on compliance with these requirements can be found in the sections above as well as
in the original staff issued on September 8, 2010.
Technical Review:
The Engineering Division, Building Division, and Fire Department have reviewed the proposed revisions
to the building permit (File No. BLD20100248). Any comments from these departments will be provided
as part of their review of Revision # 1.
Page 4 of 5
0 File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #I
Public Comments:
Projects that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the
design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision (Type 1) subject to the requirements of
ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review) and 20.01 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Therefore, no
public notice was required for the subject application. The City has not received any comment letters for
this project.
Decision
Staff finds that with the conditions below, the proposed revisions to the issued building permit are
consistent with design criteria in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Edmonds Community
Development Code, specifically ECDC 20.11,030. Therefore, staff finds that Revision #1 to building
permit BLD20100248 is APPROVED with the following conditions:
I . Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes, and it is the
responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
2. Tree and plant sizes and spacing shall comply with minimum sizes and maximum spacing of
ECDC 20.13.015 and the City's Street Tree Plan.
3. Trees within the Type IV landscaping area (adjacent to the southwestern property line) shall be
free of branches below six feet in height, and shrubs within this area shall be maintained at a
maximum height of 3.5 feet.
4. An extruded curb four to six inches in height must be installed between parking stalls #10 and
#I I and the landscaping area pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 20.13.020.D.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Machuga,
Appeals
March 2, 2011
Date
Design review decisions by staff are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or
development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by
staff is not in itself an appealable decision.
Page 5 of 5
In
a4e
9� @ H T 93 _/_�A F F 0 C 0-5 H 9� U0 L V �i\ P,\Pi V (0'
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING * TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
2802 WETMORE AVE. - SUITE 220 - EVERETT, WA 98201 - PH: (425) 339-8266 - FAX: 14251258-2922
August 6, 2009
RECEIVED
APR - 6 2010
AUG
Mr. Dave Gebert, P.E. DEVELOPMENT SEROCES CTFL 6
City of Edmonds C11Y OF EDMONDS Pt.ANA(/N(3
121 5h Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020 ARMUIRU AS NOTED
BY' ENGINEER `G
Re: Grow with Us Day'care — 49 Student Daycare on Edmonds Wayqo*"—
Updated Traffic Impact Analysis, GTC #09-079 A. . 51& &
r)nf'-- Ob Z12
,0240110,030 W2400'248
Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) is providing updated text to address comments from
the City of Edmonds pertaining to a discrepancy -in Table I and credit for the exist'
i ing
single-family residence- We have included the other* �s`ections of the report for
consistency with the original report. This study has been organized in the mariner of the
SEPA Traffic Impact Requirements for the City of Edmonds for developments generating
Z:1
less than 25 PM peak -hour trips.
DEVELOPMENT SITE DESCRIPTION
The Grow with Us daycare is proposed to remodel an existing single-family residential
unit and construct an 832 square foot (SF) addition. The daycare is proposed to total
2,273 SF of daycare that will be approved for 49 students. The development site Is
located at 665 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. The proposed development ' Is
anticipated to be occupied in 2010. The development is proposed to have two one' -way
access points, one each for inbound and outbound traffic. The outbound access will be
the farthest from the signalized intersection of Edmonds Way at 226th Street SW.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
th
Trip Generation, 8 Edition (2008). The average trip generation.r6tes for [TE Land Use
Code (LUC) 565, d'aycare center, and ITE LUC 210, single-family detached housing,
have been used for the trip generation calculations.
Daycare facilities ha�e pass -by trips associated with parents dropping off children -in the
morning before work and picking up children in the afternoon after work. These trips are
not new trips generated by the development since these trips are currently on the
surrounding roadway system. GTC collected data at the North Creek County Day
"TREETf
LOSANALYSIS - EIS -HEARINGS - SAFETY- SIGNALS - Pj
COUNTSISURVEYS - SITE IMPACTS Aft kment 10
(page I of 19)
0
Mr- Dave Gebert, P.E.
August 6, 2009
Page 2
School, which has similar uses to the Grow with Us daycare. GTC's data shows a pass -
by rate of 69%. This pass -by rate -has been applied to the trip generation for the Grow
with Us daycare. GTC's study for the North Creek, Community Day School is included
with this report. This pass -by rate should be considered conservative since Snohomish
County allows a 75% pass -by rate (dr daycares on arterials and Edmonds Way would be
classified as an arterial by Snohom'sh.County.
The Grow with Us daycare, based on a capacity of 49 students and the removal. of one
single-family residential unit, will generate 58.48 new average daily trips (ADT) with
I I AM peak -hour trips (6 inbound/5 outbound) and I I PM peak -hour trips (5
inbound/6 outbound). A summary of the trip generation has been included in Table 1.
Tablet: Trip Generation Summary
DAN
—_ AM Peak -Hour Trips
PM Peak -Hour Trips
Land Use
Trips
Total
Finbound
Outbound
Total
Inbound
Outbound
Davcare - Total Trips
1 (49 Students)
219.52
39
21
18
40
18
22
Daycare - Pass -By Trips
- 151.47
-27
-14
-13
-28
-13
-15
(49 Students)
1
Single -Family
-9.57
-1
-1
0
-1
0
-1
TOTAL T58
-48
11
6
5
11
5
6
The trip generation calculations have been included in the atlachments.
ACCESS ANALYSIS
The development is proposed to have an internal one-way loop. Inbound traffic will
enter at the cast edge of the property and the outbound traffic will exit at the west edge of
the property. This configuration should maxim,ize the efficiency of the flow of traffic on
the site- 1L_
An infori-nation sight distance analysis was performed using the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SRWeb application, which has -photos taken at
street level along all of WSDOT's routes. It appears that there is adequa�te sight distance
in both directions from the access -
a A
ROOF I P
Mr. Dave Gebert, P.E_
August 6, 2009
Page 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
Traffic impact mitigation payments to the City of Edmonds are based on Edmonds Road
Impact Fee Rate Studv Table 4, Impact Fee Rates. The table does not have a rate for
daycares and therefore GTC has calculated the traffic impact fee based on the new PM
peak -hour trips generated by the development, a mitigation fee of $736.66 per PM peak -
hour trip and an estimated trip length factor.
The average trip length for the City of Edmonds is not included in the City of Edmonds
Trajji'c Impact Analysis Requirements and GTC staff was unable to obtain from City of
Edmonds staff what.average trip length was used in the traffic impact fee calculations.
The trip length factor has therefore been calculated from data used by Miral Associates in
the City qf Monroe- An average trip length of 2.0 miles was used in the traffic impact fee
calculations for the City of MoriroL An average trip length for Grow with Us daycare'
patrons was calculated to be. 1-075 miles, based on data provided by the applicant for a
similar center under the same ownership. This data results in a tri� length factor of
0.5375 for the daycare. This trip length factor is similar to the factor used by the City of
Edmonds for high schools. The calculated trip length factor should therefore be
appropriate since daycares and high schools have similar trip types and there are more
daycare alternatives than high school alternatives, which would reduce the trip length for
daycares. It should be noted that the calculated daycare trip length adjustment factor
could be reduced if the average trip length for the City of Edmonds is greater than the 2.0
mile tnip length form similar cities that GTC used- Table 4, Impact Fee Rate and the
Mirm Associates are included xvith this report.
The Grow with Us daycare is anticipated to generate 12 PM peak -hour trips per Table 1,
which results in 6.45 PM peak -hour trips when multiplied by the trip length adjustment
factor. The traffic mitigation fees for the Grow with Us daycare are $4,751.46. Per
Table 4, Impact Fee Rate (City of Edmonds) the credit for the existing single-family
residence being removed is $840.72; therefore, the total mitigation fees the Grow with Us
daycare will be responsible for is $3,910.74.
aR'A"FOF'1'C",,
VO
0
W. Dave Gebert, P.E.
August 6, 2009
Page 4
GTC trusts that this updated memorandum and attachments adequately address the trip
generation and traffic impacts of the proposed Grow with Us dayeare development. If
there are any questions or cominents, please contact GTC at (425) 339-8266.
Sincerely,
GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC.
J011
Matthew J. Palmer, P.E. W
Traffic Engineer
Attachments /(a /o7
CC: Scott Andersen'
A-2322
RAFFIC
Grow with Us Daycare
GTC #09-079
Trip Generation for: Weekday
(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)
NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
. DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS
Gross Trips
Internal
Crossover
TOTAL
PASS -BY
DIVERTED
LINK
NEW
PASS -BY
DIVE TEDI
LINK
NEW
LAND USES
VARIABLE
ITE
LU
code
Trip
Rate
%
IN
%
OUT
In+Out
(Total)
% of
Gross
Trips
TrIpst
n+Ou
Total)
1(n+Out
Total)
% of
Ext.
LiEL
I , n+Out
(Total)
% of
Ext.
Trips
In+Out
(Total)
ln+Outi
(Total)
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
565
4.48.
50%
219.
1 1
0
219.52
1
151.471
'O'V,,
0 1
68,05
76
76
0
0
34
34
9.!�
500"",
50%
-9.57
0
-9.57
0.00
0
-9.57
0
0
0
0
5
-5
l7rotals
......................
F,
, 717", " T,77 .. 7,
"T
209.95
1;
0 1
2 9.95
2
151.47
0 11
58.48
76
76
0
0
29
1 29
ji
Grow with Us Daycare
GTC #09-079
Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM
(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour
NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS
TOTAL
PASS -BY
DIVERTED
NEW
PASS -BY
DIVE TE111
NEW
Gross Trips Internal
crossover
LINK
LINK
ITE
% of
Trips
0y. o f
% of
Trip
%
%
In+Out
n+Out
In+Out
In+Out
ln+Outi
LAND USES
VARIABLE
LU
Rate
IN
OUT
(Total)
Gross
In+Out
(Total)
Ext 's
(Total)
Ext.
(Total)
(Total)
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
code
Trips
�To a
Trip
Trips
Daycare
49 students
565
:tc
47%
39
0
39
27 1
0%
0 11
12
14
13
0
0
6
6
,Single -Family Res (removed)
-1 units
210
75%
-1
0
0
0%
0
0
1
17rotals
......
38
0
38
27
,,,
.....
0
11
14
13
6
5
0
4
T�
Grow with Us Daycare
GTC #09-079
Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM
(a.k.a.): Weekday OM Peak Hour
NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS
TOTAL
PASS -BY
DIVERTED
NEW
PASS -BY
DIVERTED1
NEW
Gross Trips Internal
Crossover
LINK
LINK
LAND USES
VARIABLE
ITE
LU
Trip
%
%
In+Out
% of
G . ross
Trips
I n+Ou t
In+Out
%o
Ext
In+Out
% of
E xt.
In+Out
In+Out
In
Out
in
Out
In
Out
code
Rate
IN
OUT
(Total)
Trips
Total)
(Total)
Trip
(Total).
(Total)
(Total)
Daycare
49 students
565
0.82
53%
40
0
40
�.5j
28-
Q
0 1
12
13
15
0
6
7
Single -Family Res (removed)
-1 -units
210
1.01
37%
0
0
1
0
t"
::
�Oq
0
.1
0
T als
r ot
.........
......
jllIl""�,�l""Ill""Illi�,-"""";","-","�,,
=71"T"TT,
39
0
39
28
. .....
0
1,
1 151
0
f 5
1 6
0 �
MOM rflaUls-Foc C 00 H7ULVIAIMV�B
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING eTRANSPORTATION PLANNING
RADIO 123 BLDG. - 2917 PACIFIC AVENUE - EVERETT, WA 98201 (206) 339-8266
-7 Z;�t_j(S)j —fD
S-1 CC� Z_
May 13, 1992 H EA R I N G EXA N, I E
R, -.4
Mr. Norman Stone, LURE
Snohomish County Dept. of Public.Works 1992
2930 Wetmore Avenue, Ist Floor
EXHI'8iT
Everett, WA 98201 CASE
RE: .. 7-A61.10303 - North Creek Country- Day School (GTC # 92-038)
Traffic Impact Study for proposed School Expansion
Dear Mr- Stone. -
I OR
Background: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been hired by Jane Heusse (Owner/
Applicant), to complete a traffic assessment of trip geheration and mitigation
requirements for the proposed expansion of the North Creek Country Day School on
196th Street SE west of SR-527 in Snohomish County (see Figure 1). We have reviefwed
your preliminary comments for the subject project (December 19, 1991 memorandum to
Ernie Jensen). It was determined that the subject project is located within Transportation
Service Area USA) "F". This traffic assessment memorandum addresses trip generation/
distribution, existing LOS conditions and the impacts of the proposed development on the
affected County road system per the requirements of the new Title 26.13 ordinance. Note:
This project would only generate four (4) new PM peak trips and thus, the recent Traffic
Impact Analysis Checklist ircm WSDOT District 1 is not applicable. However, the newly
signaiized intersection of SR-527 and 196th Street SE (as part of WSDOT's Phase I
improvements to the SR-527 corridor) was analyzed since a critical access intersection.
196th Street, which dead -ends just west of the project site, would handle 100 % of site
traffic -ast to SR-527.
Description of Proposed Site Development and Access: FhIs CUP applicatirn
proposes to expand an existing pre-school, elementary and extenued day-care facility on
—.3 4-acre site at 1510-196th Street SE. Two (2) pre-school c!asses, one K-3 elementary
class and AM/PM daycare classes are being conducted at the North Creek Country Day
School, using a converted single family residence and garage at preSent.. The site
proposal calls for construction of a new 28' x 56' structure to housetwo (2) new
classrooms for new elementary and pre-school students. There are presently 73 students
enrolled at the school, with 18 new students projected for the 1992-93 year and 9
additional students projected by 1994-95 (total student enrollment of 99),;=- -
Access to the site would be provided via two driveways (inbound west access and
outbound east access)- Both driveways have a gravel surface at present, but would be
paved with site construction along with the parent drop-off/pickup loop and 14 on -site
parking stalls (see SiterPlan). The inbound driveway would be located approximately 225
feet east of the North Creek Bridge,while the outbound driveway would be located within
an existing 30-foot access easement near the east property boundary (110 feet east of
west/inbound entrance).
COUNTSISURVEYS - SITE IMPACTS 9 LOS ANALYSIS e EIS a HEARINGS * SAFETY * SIGNALS * PARKING
0
Mr. Norman Stone
May 13, 1992
Page 3
TRIP GENERATION
Existing Traffic & Travel Modes: An origin -destination and travel mode survey of the
existing 73 students in preschool and K-3 classes was conducted by Edith Christianson,
manager of the North Greek County Qay School. Parents of. students were surveyed to
determine trip origin, travel mode. and trip time data. Three (3) distinct groups were
identified in the travel survey: 1) Single occupant vehicle (SOV) coming directly from
home or college to school; 2) SOV vehicle droppiN off student(s) on way to work; and,
3) carpool vehicle (HOV) with student(s) riding with school staff or sibling. As
summarized in Table 1, the existing school generates an estimated 150 ADT on an
average weekday with a total of 75 vehicles (66 parent and 9 staff). Ova.- t�lo-thirds (69
%) are pass -by trips by SOV or HOV vehicles. Thus, new site trips by SOV or HOV
vehicles arriving from homes or near -by colleges represent 31 % of daily site traffic. Note:
Non of the students presently walk or bike to school and parent/staff vehicles represents
nearly 100 % of daily site traffic.
Traffic Generated by New QlassroomqJ2
J. Section 520 (Elem. School) of the 5th
edition ITE Trip Generation manual was utilized to estimate the daily site trips generated
by the two (2) proposed classrooms. Full occupancy of the new classrooms is projected
by 1994-95 (3rd year), and 30 new daily trips are projected for the site proposal. FM
peak hour trips to be generated were determined by estimating the nurinber �f daily trips
that would occur during the critical 3:30-5:30 PM commuter peak period. Peak departure
times and number of students departing per the existing travel survey are: 12:00 PM -
15; 3:30 PM - 31; 5:00 PM - 15; and 5:30-6:00 PM - 12. Nearly 2/3 of exiting peak trips'
occur during the critical PIVI peak period. Thus, it is estimated that approximately 1/3 of
daily trips would occur during the afternoon rush hour - 10 PM peak trips. The number
of new daily/peak trips for the expanded. school facilities would be 9 AWDT and 4 PM
peak trips (new), assuming the existing 69 % pass -by trip rate.
Trip Distribution & PM Peak Volumes: As shown in Figure 2, tr.p distribution
percentages for daily and PM peak -hour traffic to/from the project site were estimated
based on the 0 & D survey of existing students. The majority of the new school traffic
(55%) would be destined to the north on SR-527 with 15% east onto 180th and 40% north
on SR-527 (5% to Seattle Hill Road, 25% to,Mill Creek Road and 10% to the west on
164th Street). Forty percent (40%) of new School traffic would be des&ed to the south
on SR-527 with 15% east onto Maltby (212th), 20% west to Filbert Road and 5% south
on SR-527. The remaining 5% are local trips on 196th Street to the east.
Existing Level -of -Service (LQS) at Critical Intersections: The'�worst leve!s of
congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally occur during the PM peak
period. A measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by calculating the level -
of -service (LOS) at intersections. Traffic operations Within the study area were analyzed
using the methodology pcesented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS'
ratings for each intdrsecton range from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (forced flow or
jammed conditions), with LOS E being capacity conditions. LOS D (tolera. d
Qle elays) is
R' 'A'AA1 'C"
I
North Creek Country Day School
1510 - 196th Stre.et SE
Snohomish County, Wa.
GgBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS
Matthew Avery—
Whi tney Burns
Marianna DeTIDrrE
Ashly C(:)ul(L_
I SODtt Holma�
I Hillary Iveans—
i Nicholas Kropp—
i Katerina LaMarch
i James McDowell —
I Brendan McMahork_
Megan May_
Erik Olsozl___
Jessie Owen—
Shefali Pace
Claim Pallarx-,ch
i Kelly Pattison—
I Kyle Pattison
j Liz Pynsky
j Ashley Scotto —
Tara Scott..
Alison Simmons
Kyle Taylor
Fbrrest Itmapson
Alec Turnbull
Ryan White
art, kno
Iq_I;_
:?1-7
0
CLASS LIsT Z e jj_U
AND NORMA'S ROCM
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
IVL4-'
CREEX
Ct)Ut,t T,,�Y --)AY SCHO
th ST - -S - E
BOTOLE.1-1-,
4220.050 Pass -By Rates
Adopted 3131103 uniess otherwise noted, First Revision 10/11104
(1) For any given land use being reviewed by DPW, if a pass -by rate is not included in the table shown in
Subsection 4220.050(2) below, but an average pass by rate for the AM and/or PM peak hour is included
in the ITE Trip Generation Report, then the ITE average pass -by rates shall be used.,
(2) For Drive -Through Espresso Stands, Daycare Located on Arterials, Specialty Retail, Health Clubs,
and Video Store the following pass -by rates shall apply:
ITE
Code
Description
Pass -By Rates
Conditions
Espresso
100%
Apply this rate only to free-standing, no sit -
Stand
down, drive -through -only espresso stands
565
Daycare
75%
Apply this rate only to daycare facilities located
on arterials.
814
Specialty
25%
Retail
493
1 Health Club 154%
896
Video Store
53.5% for ADT, 80% for
peak -hour trips
912
Drive-in Bank
47%
(3) Unless stated otherwise in an adopted DPW Rule, the pass -by rate for PM peak hour trips will be
used for average daily trips (ADT)- (Adopted 8/8/00)
4220.060 Traffic Counts
Adopted: 111103, First Revision 10/11104
(1) Traffic Studies provided for large developments will need to include traffic counts for any impacted
key intersections on critical arterial units. These counts are necessary to estimate future volumes and to
support the forecast assignments of trips from the development at the intersections-
(2) DPW has a regular program of conducting traffic counts and may be able to provide the developer
with acceptable counts. DPW will determine whether or not specific available traffic counts are
acceptable- For purposes o * f future analysis of level of service for traffic studies, the count date should
not be more than one year prior to the submittal date of the report. An older count is only acceptable with
prior written permission from the department. For other purposes, such as screening or assistance with
trip distributions, counts may be up to two �years old- When acceptable counts are not available fro�m
DPW, developers must provide new counts with their traffiG studies.
(3) DPW may develop guidelines to be used to determine whether or not counts are acceptable and a
standard format for counts, including a tabular format-
4220.070 Trip Distributions and Assignments
Adopted: 111103, First Revision 10/11104, Second Revision 1219107
(1) Trip distribution means applying the trip generation to the road system to forecast the number of new
vehicle trips on specific roads in the system. A "trip distribution" is a type of traffic analysis that estimates
the likely destinations of trips generated by a proposed development and the likely traffic routes to reach
those destinations. The result of this analysis is a map or list indicating what number or percentage of
trips from the proposed development are 6dded to the development's road system, including the number
or percentage of trips added to individual traffic movements on arterial units and/or at intersections. The
analysis provides a set threshold, consisting of a predefined number or percentage of trips below which
no attempt is made to further distribute the trips onto the road system -
DPW Rules Page 9 of 12
0
Chapter 4 - Impact Fee Schedule
The 'impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the "cost per trip end"
information to reflect differences in trip -making characteristics for a variety of land
use types within the study area. The fee schedule is a table where fees are
represented as dollars pet unit for each landuse category. Table 4 shows the
various components of the fee schedule (trip generation rates, new trip percentages,
trip lengths, and trip length adjustment for each land use).
Trip Generation Components
Trip generation rates for each land use type are.derived from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edifion). The rates are expressed
as vehicle trips entering and leaving a property during the I'M peak hour.
PASS -BY TRIP ADJUSTMENT
The trip generation rates represent total traffic entering.and leaving a property at the
driveway points. For certain land uses (e.g., retail), a substantial amount of tl�is
traffic is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the
driveway. These pass -by trips do not sicrnificantiv impact the surrounding street
system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the 'impact fee- The
resulting trips are considered "new" to the street system and are therefore subject to
the impact fee calculation- The "new" trip percenta-es are derived partially from
ITE data and from available surveys conducted around the countTy_3
TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT
Another variable that affects traffic impacts is the length of the trip generated by a
particular land use. The "cost per trip" calculated in the impact fee program
represents an average for all new trips generated within Monroe. Being an average,
there will be certain land uses that generate trips of different lengths. If a given trip
length is shorter than the average, then its relative traffic impacts on the street
system will be lower than average. Conversely, longer trips will impact a larger
proportion of the transportation network. In order to reflect these differences, the
method includes an ad-ustment factor, which is calculated as the ratio between the
trip length for a particular land use type and the "average" trip len'th for the City-
9
Trip length data were estimated using limited national survey resultS.3 These
national data showed average trip lengths of around 3.1 miles. The average trip
length estimated for Monroe was 2.0 miles, based upon the 2025 mix of land use
types within the study area and the geographic size of the city. To better reflect
Monroe's conditions, the trip lengths were adjusted lower to match the 2.0 mile
average for M onroe.
3 Trip Generation Sources: ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition)- ITE Trip Generation Handbook,(March 2001),
Pinellas County (FI) Impact Fee Study (1991), Osceola County (FI), Aftemative Traffic Generation Rate Study
(2004), Polk County (FI) Transporlation Impact Fee Study (2005).
City of Monroe Augu!�t 2007
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Page 15
E
0
Addresses of 50 Crients of my Center Located At 21313 84th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026
Address
city
state
Zipcode
1- 22024 761h Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
2.21713 80th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
3.23317 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98026
4. 22420 95th PI W
Edmonds
WA
98020
5. 23523 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98020
6- 21323 80th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
7. 8121 236tti St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
8. 8524 Bowdoin Way
Edmonds
WA
98026
9. 642 Maple St
Edmonds
WA
98020
10. 23510 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98026
11. 7315 224th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
12. 8725 220th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
13. 9216 220th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
14. 7707 238th Pf SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
15. 614 6th Ave N
Edmonds
WA
98020
16. 22829 85th PI W
Edmonds
WA
98026
17. 20317 92nd Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98020
18. 23430 97th PI W
Edmonds
WA
98020
19- 23014 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98020
20- 20503 79th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
21. 7308 208th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
22. 23332 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
'WA
98026
23. 8134 212th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98020
24. 22217 76th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
25. 7302 213th PI W
Edmonds
WA
98026
26- 8325 226th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
.27. 7222 208th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
28. 20714:76th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
29. 7409 210th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
30. 21124 Shelf Valley Rd
Edmonds
WA
98026
31. 21323 80th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
32- 7201 224th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
33- 23408 Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98026
34. 22309 92nd Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98020
35- 21822 82nd PI W
Edmonds
WA
98026
36. 8408 224th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
37. 7726 218th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
38. 9601 224th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98020
39- 21319 84th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
40. 8504 218th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
41. 7512 218th St SW
Edrnonds
WA
98026
42. T723 209th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
43- 19729 76th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
44. 7807 218th '�t SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
45. 22828 76th Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
46. 8623 204th St SW
Edmonds
WA
98026
47.8415221stPIS%N-f-
Edmonds
WA
98026
48.23502 Edmonds Way
Lynnwood
WA
98036
49. 229W Edmonds Way
Edmonds
WA
98020
50.23028 83rd Ave W
Edmonds
WA
98026
fit
3. TQIP LEA3&T-JA pACTOP�-
93. E I
ryl I'v,
j 5�
A r oAJ-5
q
AliA It33 I- its —DAr
m�A 1 A3 C P-t\ 4�-Ce, L 0 lj
v
�77, -7 Its -Z 13 ta 9 Ll 44N Avt, LJ
7.
39, q W v%i(es lEh&opjw LOA-qgo-L(c
q M,�v. 31 WtA as
fn 3-5- YVI f
qo
q
7ft -Aej 93.
qq
:3 Ll M,��
r? 3 tin i"n rn,-LGI� IK
,f , Z
19. 7miV J
47.
q Mi-(t5 .
M 1-1 qg
o7q .7 o4s (C-f
11 MAO
5 m \A 67 m% fej S-o 3 m�jx r",Io
f-Y- '-7 m;l
-14, 3 1,, OX A ALA
7,5- oq Aj
qqml 11�1' Av vt, T I iyi e-
2& Z� eA
Av5 A, iLxs
03 It -S
3 Sq e,.s
es 07 rl-1tvp
e,,s
0 41-7
Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate
TABLE 4
IMPACT FEE RATES
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Trip
ITE ITE Land Use
Trip
% New
Length
Net New Trips per
Impact Fee Per Unit @ $
Code Category
Rate'
Trips'
Factor'
Unit of Measure
763.66 per Trip
110 Light Industrial
0.98
100%
1.59
1.56 1,000 sq ft
I - 19 per square foot
140 Manufacturing
0.74
100%
1.59
1.18 1,000 sq ft
0.90 per square'foot
151 Mini -warehouse
0.26
100%
1-59
0.41 1,000 sq ft
0.32 per square foot
ZIO Single family
1.01
100%
1.09
1.10 dwelling
840.72 per dwelling unit
House
220 Apartment
0.62
100%
1.15
0.71 dwelling
544.49 per dwelling unit
230 Condominium
0.54
100%
1.15
0.62 dwelling
474.24 per dwelling unit
240 Mobile Home
0.56
100%
1-09
0.61 dwelling
466.14 per dwelling unit
310 Hotel
0.61
100%
1.25
0.76 room
582.29 per room
320 Motel
0.47
100%
1 1-25
0.59 room
448-GS per room
420 Marina
0.19
100%
0.97
0.18 berth
140-74 per boat berth
430 Golf course
0.30
100%
' 1.00
0.30 acre
Z29.10 per acre
444 Movie Theater
3.80
100%
0.72
2.74 1,000 sq ft
1.36 per square foot
492 Racquet club
1.83
100%
.0.97
1.78 1,000 sq ft
3_S8 per square foot
530 High School
1.02
100%
0.62
0.63 1,000 sq ft
0.48 per square foot
560 Church
0.66
100%
I.IS
0.76 1,000 sq ft
O-S8 per square foot
610 Hospital
0.92
100%
1.56
1.44 1,000 q ft
`lA 0 per square foot
620 Nursing home
0.20
100%
0.87
0.17 bed
132.88 per bed
710 General Office
1.49
100%
1.59
Z.37 1,000 sq ft
1.81 per square foot
720 Medical office
3.66
100%
1.50
5.49 1,000 sq ft
4.19 per square foot
820 Shopping Center
3.74
81%
0.40
1.21 1,000 sq ft
0.93 per square foot
832 Restaurant: sit-
10.86
56%
1.06
6.45 1,000 sq ft
4.92 per square foot
down
833 Fast food, no
5
52%
0.62
8-,.J 1,000 sq ft
6.44 per square foot
drive -up
834 Fast food, w/
33.48
51%
0.62
10-59 1,000 sq ft
8-08 per square foot
drive -up
844 Gas station
14.56
__�3_38
60%
0.53
4-63 pump
3,53S.82 per vfp
845 Gas station
47%
O.S3
3-33 pump
2,545.26 per vfp'
vdconvenience
850 Supermarket
11-51
55%
0.65
4.11 1,000 sq ft
3.14 per ---square foot
851 Convenience
53-73
39%
0.40
8.38 1,000 sq ft
6.40 per square foot
market-24 hr
912 Drive-in Bank 1
54-771
51%1
0.47 1
13.13 1,000 sq ft
10.03 per square foot
'ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends
3 Excludes pass -by trips: see "Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended
Practice" (1988)
4 Ratio to average trip length.
5 vfp: vehicle fueling position
Henderson, City of Edmonds, Washington
Young & April 15. 2003
Company Page 18
'pKCIO, 70;".
M� HW
A: EOSCIENCES INC.
GC*ot'ec1*zmca1 Pavemcnt En ineering - Hydrogeotogy - GcocillIrl'olinfelital - hispectioll Testing
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Anderson Development
23632 Highway 99, # F-502
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Attn: . Mr. Scott Anderson
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIG&TION
Commercial Development
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds- Washington 98020
Dear Mr. Anderson:
At your request., HWA GeoSciences Inc.. (HWA) has undertaken and completed a
geotechnical investigation within your existing residential lot, for your proposed
commercial development in Edmonds,.Washington. This'investigation has been
performed in support of the application required to obtain a -building permit from the City
of Edmonds for the proposed 4,800 square foot, two-story, commercial building at the
subject site.
For the purposes of this investigation, HWA performed a review of pertinent geologic
maps for the site area, conducted a site reconnaissance to observe local topographic
features, excavated 5 shallow hand borings, and conducted 5 DCP (Dropweight Cone
Penetrometer) soundings to delineate in situ density/strength conditions of the site soils
within the footprint of the proposed development.
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property, presently consists of a. developed 0.3 9 acre lot, located within the
SW 1/4, Section 25, Township 27 N, and Range 3 E; situated at municipal address
665 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds,.Washington (Snohomish County No.
2703250003080000). The approximate site location is depicted on Figure 1, the Project
Site & Vicinity Map. 19730 -.64th Ave.nue W.
RECEIVED
Suite 20V,,.','.,
Lynnwood, WA.980 36��.��
JUL 2 4 2008
425:774.
�Tel
;�S
BUILDING DEPT.:�.;:
"TREE:
T FILE
July 18, 2007 0 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As currently proposed, the new development will consist of a single 4,800 square foot,
two-story, commercial building situated over the footprint of the existing residential
structure, as shown on Figure 2, the Site & Exploration Plan Map.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
Currently, an existing one-story wooden residential structure, built in 1953, occupies a
footprint area of approximately 1,441 square feet in the central portion of the roughly
17,000 square foot lot. The commercial development will require demolition of the
existing residential structure. The lot is relatively level in the front and ascends a slope in
the backyard in the northeast comer.
GEOLOGY
The published geologic map for the site area, "Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King
Area ", prepared by Booth, et al, 2004, shows that the site vicinity is underlain by Vashon
advance outwash. Advance outwash deposits consist of chiefly gray, clean to slightly
silty, fine to medium sand, with varying percentages of gravel. These materials were
deposited in pro -glacial streams as the Vashon Stade ice advanced southward in Puget
Sound. In general, the sediments are coarser at higher levels of the unit, because the
streams deposited -larger materials closer to the ice front. Because these granular soils
were over -ridden by the Vashon Stade ice, they are dense to very dense. They are quite
permeable; however, they are not always water -bearing. Advance outwash is generally
competent for support of structures, and excavates relatively easy with conventional
excavation equipment. Although sideslopes in this sand stand near -vertical temporarily
where dry, shoring is necessary for long-term support.
SOILS
According to the Soil Conservation Map for Snohomish County (NRCS, online web soil
survey, 2007), the site is overlain by Everett gravelly sandy loam on 0 to 8 percent
slopes. The Everett gravelly sandy loam soils formed on glacial outwash. The rate of
runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight for these soils.
SITE EXPLORATION
,d
On July 3 , 2007, HWA geologists conducted a limited shallow hand -exploration
program to evaluate near -surface conditions on the site. At that time, 5 hand borings
were conducted to depths ranging from 3.0 to 4.8 feet, before refusing on coarse gravel or
cobbles. Site soil conditions were noted at each of the hand boring locations, which were
selected based on the location of proposed structures, as shown on the Site Plan provided
by the project architect. The approximate locations of our hand borings are shown on
Figure 2, the Site & Exploration Plan Map.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Hand boring logs were prepared from our observations, and are presented on the attached
Figures 4 through 8. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the exploration logs
precedes them as Figure 3.
The hand auger borings at all locations were supplemented by utilizing a Dropweight
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The DCP
consists of a steel extension shaft assembly, with a 60 degree hardened steel cone tip
attached to one end, which is driven into the subsoil by means of a sliding drop hammer.
The base diameter of the cone is 20 mm. The diameter pf the �shaft is 8 mm less than that
of the cone to ensure that at shallow penetration depths the resistance to penetration is
exerted on the cone alone. The DCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg sliding
hammer from a height of 575 mm*. The depth of cone penetration was measured after
each hammer drop and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of the DCP. index. The
DCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from 1 blow of the 8 kg
hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mm/blow). The data obtained from the
DCP tests was correlated to approximate Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) blows per
foot, in order to evaluate the density/strength of the subgrade soils.' The DCP data is
plotted on the appropriate Hand Boring/DCP Logs on Figures 4 through 9.
LABoRAToRy TESTING
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples obtained from the hand boring
explorations to characterize relevant- engineering and index properties of the site soils.
Laboratory tests included determination of in -situ moisture content and particle size
characteristics.
The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The moisture content test results are displayed
on the exploration logs and on the particle size distribution graphs provided on Figure 10,
as appropriate.
SOIL PROFILE
Typically, the near surface soils observed in the hand borings consisted of loose to
medium dense fill soils overlying weathered and unweathered glacial outwash soils. The
soil conditions are described briefly as follows:
Undocumented Fill.. -hrunediately below grade, in all hand borings except HH-4,
undocumented fill was encountered, and consisted of loose to medium dense, brown to
yellow brown, fine sandy silt silty fine sand to sand with silt and gravel; often containing
wood debris. This soil unit was fully penetrated in HH-3 and HH-4 where it was 4.4 and
3.4 feet thick, respectively. Apparently, the fill thickens to the south and from east to
west on site.
Weathered Outwash: - Weathered outwash, consisting of loose, brown to yellowish
brown, silty sand with to sand with silt and gravel, was encountered below the fill in all
665 Edmonds Way Development. 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 0 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
the hand borings at depths ranging from 0.2 to 2.9 feet below the existing ground surface.
The thickness of this unit, where penetrated in HH-2, HH-3, and HH-5, ranged from 0.9
to 2 feet. Below this unit, the soil becomes cleaner, denser, and changes color to olive
brown or gray.
Advance Outwash — Advance outwash, consisting of medium to dense, olive brown to
gray, sand with silt and gravel, was encountered below the weathered outwash at an
approximate depth of 2.8 feet in HH-2; at 3.8 feet in HH-3; and 3.0 feet in HH-5. The
thickness of this unit is unknown as it was too deep to fully penetrate with hand tools. It
appears, however, that the depth to advance outwash increases slightly from west to east.
DCP soundings indicate that these soils become denser at about 4 to 5 feet below existing
grade at the test locations.
GROUND WATER
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of the hand borings. However, it is
anticipated that ground water conditions will vary depending on the season, variations in
local subsurface conditions, and other factors. During wet season periods, it is possible
that ground water may become perched on the surface of lower permeability deposits that
may exist at other locations of this site.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
In accordance with the criteria contained in the City of Edmonds Code, Title 23-Natural
Resources; Chapter 23.80 — Geologically Hazardous Areas, the subject site is not situated
within an area designated as a potential erosion or landslide/steep slope or seismic
hazard.
The existing native soils consist of granular soils that were directly glacially
consolidated, and are dense. There are no steep slopes on the property and, consequently,
no potential landslide hazard.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
In summary, the soil conditions within the subject site proposed for the commercial
development consists of medium dense, granular, glacial outwash soils, overlain by loose
to medium dense undocumented All and weathered outwash layers at least 4-5 feet thick.
The actual depth to medium dense native soils at other locations within the development
footprint will need to be verified in the field during construction. In our opinion, the
medium dense to dense native sand (outwash) will provide adequate bearing for the
foundation system for the proposed single -story structure. However, the undocumented
fill and weathered outwash materials are not recommended for foundation and floor slab
support purposes.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 4 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Excavation and Temporary Shoring Requirements
Preparation for construction of conventional foundations will require the excavation and
removal of all undocumented fill beneath proposed footing and slab areas. Based on the
results of our investigation, these excavations will be at least 4 feet deep or greater and
require excavation wall sloping and/or shoring to protect workers and existing structures
in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155. The fill
materials at the site classify as Type C soil. Unsupported excavations in Type. C soils,
exceeding 4 feet in depth, must be inclined no steeper than 1 Y211: IV (horizontal to
vertical). Flatter slopes may, however, be required if ground water seepage occurs.
Temporary excavation slopes should be protected from erosion, as necessary, by covering
the cut face with well -anchored plastic sheets. Maintenance of safe working conditions,
including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Based on
the soil conditions observed in our explorations, we anticipate that the on -site soils can be
excavatedwith conventional equipment such as backhoes and loaders.
Foundations and Floor'Slabs
Design Considerations: The proposed structure may be supported on footings bearing
directly on medium dense native soils; or on properly compacted structural fill, which
may, subject to the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer, consist of the existing on
site undocumented fill soils that are removed and replaced under controlled compaction.
The recommended compaction level for structural fill placed under footings and grade -
supported slab levels is 95% Modified Proctor maximum dry density (per'ASTM
D1557).
In our opinion, wall or column footings bearing in medium dense to dense advance
outwash may be designed for 2,50.0 pounds per square foot (psf) maximum allowable
bearing pressure. Footings bearing within structural fill placed over the dense to very
dense glacial till may be designed for allowable bearing pressures up to 2,000 psf
These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term loads such as wind and seismic.
effects. It is not,.however, recommended that foundations be designed for differing
bearing pressures, or be supported on dissimilar materials, to avoid potentially
undesirable differential settlements. Continuous footings should have a minimum
width of 18 inches, and column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches,
regardless of bearing pressure considerations. Minimum footing widths may,
therefore, govern footing design. Footings should bear at least 24 inches below the
lowest adjacent exterior grade to provide for frost protection.
If footings are supported by structural fill, this fill should extend beyond the outer
edges of the footings a minimum distance equal to the fill thickness existing below
the footing, measured at the level of the excavation base. If adjacent individual
footings are located at different elevations, it is recommended that the horizontal
distance between them be at least 1.5 times the elevation difference between their
665 Edmonds Way Development. 1 5 . HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 0 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
bases. Where adjoining continuous footings are at different elevations, the upper
footing should be progressively stepped down to the lower footing. Typically, each
step height should be limited to 2 feet or less and the following footing ran should be
at least twice the step height.
We recommend that perimeter foundation drains be provided around all exterior footings.
The footing drains and all surface drains should be separately tight -lined to discharge to a
sewer or storm basin. Surface and roof drains should not be inter -connected with the
foundation drains to prevent the potential clogging and flooding of these drains.
Floor slabs may be supported at grade on structural fill compacted to the requirements
indicated above. If grade-supported.slabs are employed, they must be underlain by a
capillary break layer comprised of clean, uniform, open -graded, washed rock or pea
gravel, to prevent future slab dampness which could be detrimental to floor coverings and
functional use of the facility. This capillary break layer should be at least 6 inches thick
and should be in contact with, or provided with suitable drainage outlets, to the perimeter
foundation drain system. A plastic vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary
break layer to isolate the slab concrete from this layer, and should consist of plastic
sheathing such as Visqueen.
Construction Considerations: Footing foundation excavations should be trimmed neat
and the excavation bottoms should be carefully prepared in order to minimize the amount
of soil disturbance and need of over -excavation that may otherwise be required. The
ground surface, where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed, should be
proof -rolled, or suitably probed to determine the presence and approximate extent of any
soft or unstable areas. Proof -rolling or probing should be performed under full-time
observation of an HWA representative. Any soils that cannot be adequately recompacted
should be over -excavated and the unsuitable materials removed and replaced with
compacted structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. We recommend that
HWA be retained to observe and approve footing excavation preparation, and placement
and compaction of structural fill prior to pouring concrete.
Assuming construction is performed as recommended herein, we estimate that the total
and differential settlements for foundations will be less than 1 -inch and 1/2 -inch,
respectively.
Seismic Considerations
Should it be necessary for a development of this type to be designed for seismic
conditions, we anticipate that the new structures would be designed in accordance with
the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) standards. In this regard, for seismic design
purposes, the site is considered Site Class C, as described in Section 1615.1 of the
2003 IBC. For the site location, the design maximum considered spectral response
665 Edmonds Way Development. 6 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 0 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
acceleration at short periods, Ss, is 1.26g. The design maximum considered spectral
response acceleration at 1 second period, S1, is 0.43g.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein loose, saturated, granular deposits temporarily
lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Based on our
observation of relatively dense material at or close to the base of the hand borings and the
apparent absence of regional ground water, at shallow depths, we consider the potential
for seismic liquefaction on the site to be negligible. Hence, seismically induced
liquefaction instability is not considered to be an issue for this site.
Erosion Control during Construction
Best Management Practices (BMP's) as described in City of Edmonds Code must be
followed for erosion control during construction. These measures include an erosion
control plan that addresses, limiting activity during wet periods, placement of a silt
retention system on the eastern side of the property, and proper disposal or recompaction
of any material that is disturbed on the site.
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this letter report for Mr. Scott Anderson, for use in design, permitting,
and construction of the proposed 4,800 square foot building on the subject lot.
Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over
small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be
detected by a geotechnical study of this scope. Accordingly, HWA should be consulted
for review and potential revision of our recommendations, if conditions are encountered
during construction that. differ materially from those encountered during our investigation
and described in this report.
Our scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding
the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or
ground water at this site. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety
engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations and we cannot be responsible
for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the
responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the
recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe.
0-0
665 Edmonds Way' Development. 7 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 0 0
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service, and trust that this report meets with your
requirements. However, if you have any questions regarding this report, or require
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at (425) 774-
OtO6.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
I EXPIRES 08 / 24 / =0
Steven E. Greene, L.E.G. Lome A. Balanko, P.E.
Vice President/Senior Engineering Geologist President
Attachments:
Figure 1:
Project Site Location and Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
Site Plan & Exploration Plan
Figure 3:
Legend of Symbols and Terms
Figure 4:
Log of HH-1 & DCP-1
Figure 5:
Log of HH-2 & DCP-2
Figure 6:
Log of HH-3 & DCP-3
Figure 7:
Log of HH-4 & DCP-4
Figure 8:
Log of HH-5 & DCP-5
Figure 9:
Log of DCP 1-B
Figure 10:
Particle Size Analyses
665 Edmonds Way Development. 8 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 1.8, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
REFERENCES
Booth, D.B, Cox, B.F., Troost, K.G., a S. A. Shimel, 2004, Col"posite Geologic Map of
the Sno-King Area, University of Washington, Seattle Area Geologic Mapping
Project.
City of Edmonds, 2000,'Title 23-Natural Resources;'Chapt& 23.80 — Geologically
Hazardous Areas.
International Code Council (ICC), 2003 International Building Code.
NRCS, 1. 983; Soils Map ofShohomish County Area, WA661 (on-line version)
WSDOT, 2006, Standard Specificationsfor Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction,
M 41-10.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 9 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
TOPOI map printed on 07/09/07 from "Washngton.tpo" and"Untitled.tpg"
X iLN
Ui,
f
KIM ma
,WAW�
., gg,
gm
/A
F
3A
Approximate
74
Project Site
. . . . . . . . . . .
cation f
11 �l A7
.............
il M45"
vW:
�g
rull
z All,
Oil -
NOW
q;L; .-Awl it
THt /MN
vIr OW FEET 9L���I= MIAM
F%Wed dom TOM 02MI Nalkaw Oeogmphic Hokbp (www."xom)
PROJECT SITE & VICINITY MAP FIGURE NO.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT NO.
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
u iml 665 EDMONDS WAY 2007-105
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON
DRILLING COMPANY: HWAGeoSciences Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION:
i feet
TE STARTED: 07/03/2007
IRTE
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
COMPLETED: 0710312007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION: See Figure 2
C0
Lu
L)
W
(L
co
e
z
U)
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
0
z
Fn A
U)
W
1—
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
2
_J
0 U)
ca W
U.1
J
CL
uJ
_J
(L
LU �
X
W
W
z
n 2 L)
W >. U)
2�
Lu
0
It
a-
W
0 U) =) DESCRIPTION
Y)
Q. z
0
0
a
0-1
ML
Soft, brown, fine to medium sandy SILT, roots and rootlets,
i F-0
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
10�
dry to moist Scattered fine gravel.
(FILLANEATHERED OUTWASH)
Sm
Loo a, yellow brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to
coarse SAND, dry.
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
Hand boring terminated at about 1 .5 feet below existing
ground surface due to refusal on gravel/cobble. No ground
water seepage was observed white advancing this hand
boring.
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-1A) was advanced
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 5.2 feet below the
existing ground surface.
S-1
MC
A�
OTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
mini
J"10
0 20 40 60 80' .100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 .4 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-1
fMGEOSCIENCES INC. 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of I
. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 4
KANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117/07
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences; Inc. CE ELEVATION: :I: feet DATEJWTED: 07/03/2007
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATEIMPLETED: 07103/2007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION: See Figure 2
U)
0) _J
_W _J 0
M 0 Cl)
Co Cn
U)
U) =3
0— ML Soft, brown, fine to medium sandy SILT, roots and rootlets,
dry to moist. Scattered fine gravel.
IFILLANEATHERED OUTWASH) ---------
SM
Loose, yellow brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to
coarse SAND, dry.
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
21 Loose, yellow brown, slighty silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine
Loose
to coarse SAAND, dry.
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
DESCRIPTION
Hand boring terminated at about 2.2 feet below existing
ground surface due to caving on loose materials. No ground
water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring.
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-2) was advanced
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 3.8 feet below the
existing ground surface.
0:
Lu
LU
U
x
Lu M
Q.
z
Lu
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
D
z
U)
05 A
U)
Lu
0
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
uJ uJ
_J _J
Lu
Z'
a- a.
z
UJI
M
0
U)
Lu
Q.
0
W.
(D
uJ
a
0
A
A;
S-2
MC
A.'
—2
GS
1-4
—3
—5
—6
[-7
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated
ii,,. , and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other Umes and/or locations.
9
—10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-2
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: 1 of I
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 5
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7/17/07
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoScienres Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: i feet TE STARTED: 07/03/2007
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger E COMPLETED: 07/03/2007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab 00GTGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION: See Figu're 2
U) W
U) L)
M z W
W
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
D Cn (n d)
z LU 17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
0 ui
0 LLJ LU
_J _J Cr z
M U) EL Q. W 0
a. 2 L) ;� = 0 CL
>_ Cn ui W W
U) D DESCRIPTION U) a. 0 0
ML Soft, dark brown, fine to coarse sandy SILT, with brown fine to 0
coarse crushed volcanic gravel, rootlets, dry to moist.
— — — — — — — LFILLL — — — — — — — — — - . . . . . . .
7 M
Loose, brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium
SAND, dry, rootlets.
1 2-
3-
1 4-
1 5-
1 6-
1 7-
I a-
1 9-
1 10-
S-1 MC
Utility top at 2.1 feet below existing ground surface.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Loose, rust mottled, yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse S-2
gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
SP Loose, olive brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium S-3
SAND, moist.
(OUTWASH)
Hand boring terminated at about 4.0 feet below existing
ground surface due to caving on loose materials. No ground
water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring,
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-3) was advanced
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 7.0 feet below the
e)dsbng ground surface.
LN OTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. .
A
MC
GS
A
MC
:A
A
3
4
—5
—6
7
8
9
L10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-3
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of I
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 6
HANDHOL 2007-,105,GPJ 7/17/07
01 DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences Inc. SISCE ELEVATION: :I: feet DATEAKTED: 07/03/2007
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger DATOWLETED: 07/03/2007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION: See Figure 2
Lu
a:
uJ
(L
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
0
z
Lu
a
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
0
LU
Lu Co
It
z
D
CL
Co
2
U)
L)
3:
UJ .2
X
0
Q:
(L
W
W
0
>-
U)
U)
D
DESCRIPTION U)
Q. ;a
0
0
a
0—
1 .
. . . . . . . . . i r-O
-\Sod.
Loose, brown to light brown, silty, SAND with gravel, dry to
moist, rootlets.
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SM Loose, orange brown, SAND with silt and gravel, rootlets, S-1
moist
2-
31
1 4-
1 5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
1 '10-
Sand becoming light yellow brawn at 3.6 feet below existing S-2
around surface.
Hand boring terminated at about 3.7 feet below existing
ground surface due to caving on loose materials. No ground
water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring.
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-4) was advanced
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 5.5 feet below the
existing ground surface.
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
&
A;
Ak'
MC
2
A
—3
A
MC
A;
—4
A;
I . . . - . - - - L-10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-4
IWAGEOSCIEN . CES INC 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of I
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 7
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117107
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA.GeoSciences Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
--SAMI�LING METHOD:- Grab
LOCATION: See Figure 2
i feet
TE STARTED: 07103/2007
0 E COMPLETED: 07/03/2007
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
a)
U)
cc
Lu
Lu
0
W
Q.
z
uj
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
(D
0
r
D
z
L)
LU
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
(D
2
0 U) .
W
_j
W
_j
LU
0:
z
co U)
2 0
a.
E
o_
2
2�
Lu
0
a-
>_ U)
C3 U) D DESCRIPTION
Lau
Lu
0
0— 1 " * SM Loose, brown, SAND with silt and ..... roots and rootlets, wood
0
debris, dry to moist.
(FILL)
2-
3-
1 4-
1 5-
1, 6-
7-
1 9-
1 10-
SM Loose, light yellow brown, silty SAND with gravel, rootlets, dry
to moist
(FILLNVEATHERED OUTWASH)
Increase in fine gravel and coarse sand content noted.
SP Medium dense, olive brown, fine to medium SAND. Scattered
coarse sand and fine gravel, moist.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
Sand becoming light yellow brown at 3.5 feet below existing
ground surface.
Hand boring terminated at about 4.1 feet below existing
ground surface due to refusal on gravel1cobble. No ground
water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring.
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-5) was advanced
from the bottom of hand boring to a depth of about 5.2 feet
below the existing ground surface.
i
S-1
S-2
L NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified locafion and on the date indicated
. and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
MC I :
MC
GS
M1=�
5
—7
0 20 40 60 80 1 00
Water Content
Plastic Limit 1 , 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL-INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
'COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-5
665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: 1 of I'
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 'EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 8
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7/17/07
r1DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences Inc. SWE ELEVATION:
:l: feet
DATESTED: 07/0312007
DRILLING METHOD:
D LETED: 07/03/2007
SAMPLING METHOD:
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION:
ca
uJ
z
uJ
Q.
< U)
d)
co
F_
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
0
D
z
U) -5
V5 A
U)
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
a)
_J
0 Cn
Lu
_J
a.
LLJ
_J
(L
W
Lu
z
M
co Cn
a. L)
0
Lu U)
0 co M DESCRIPTION
U<)
(LLU
C)
W
(D
W
0
011
1 . . . . . . . . .
I F-0
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-1B) was advanced
adjacent to hand boring HH-1 to a depth of about 5.75 feet
below the existing ground surface.
OTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
I
A
A
—3
A,
A:
—4
—5
6
[8
01�
I . . . . . . . - t--- 10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DCP 1-B
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: 1 of 1
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 9
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7/17/07
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
cal
-
-
11111SM1111111"00111111
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name
% MC
LL
PL
PI
Gravel
%
Sand
0
YO
Fines
0
I YO
*
HH-2
S-2
1.8-2.0
(SP) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND
3
17.1
81.1
1.8
*
HH-n3
S-2
3.0-3.5
(SP) Reddish brown, gravelly, poorly graded. SAND
5
35.7
59.4
4.9
A
HH-5
S-�
3.0-3.5
(SP) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND
1 4 1
1
11.3
1 84.91
3.8
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS
=A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOILS
665 EDMONDS WAY METHOD ASTM D422
fMGEOSCIENCES INC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21 F16URE: 10
City of EdmoncTs
Permit Application Form
Form A
Per M.'it A.ppli.qAtion for, R. New ShTgle, Family
n.� We rid r � R- 6 M.O: de I El GarAgi/Carport
Grading cyds
ed fifA fit I m-p-rovemen-ttCha nge of Use
k8.d6iyIFiebi'hinq -Wall
6i6riSpecify)
Brief Desc . tion:
qtu'u 7
Site Address: t
Sno County Tax Account Parcel #:
Businessrrenant Name (if applicable):
I
PROPERTY OWNER:
Eairin'6�7ddress.
Phone: (&ZC2) -77377&939 FAX: f-1-05)
CONTRACTOR: OSame:as P
Mailing
City: k
Phone:
State License Number
APPILICANTMONTACT:
Fill out the following informa
-Erh"ew ComMpt 0,.Acrdiffdiv
Repair 0.-!.:S.*r
El Stbrage/Shed
EJ P ire iysftm f Soecif
Su
ZIP.
E-Mail:
117
Exp: Date: City Business License No:
OSame as Property Owner OSame as Contractor
City: State: Zip
Phone.- FAX: (476) -7-70-36_32 E-Mail: _1'/14J,/S(0
L:\T—tNIPISUILDINGWEBchecklistsZFR.CONINI.APP.docSI24/2007
CITY OF EDMONDS
COMMUNITY SERVIGA D9PARTMENT
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. 9 Owner: HARVERD.& BESS GROSS.
Na W65 EDMONQ'S' WAY
erifiit No. 91'� 'c�271
Issue Date to -,1 -7 -
B.' 0 Contractor: V-BUILT CONSTRUCTION CO.,'
NaT,0. BOXXX 1
655--
,Ma AIg Mailin Address
NO 71A 98020 LY NWOOD, WA 98046
City State zip City State Zip
V BUIL**128M9 546-0269
State License Number Telephone Number
9 Address or Vicinity of Construction:- In froht of 'residence at 665 Edmonds, Way, Edmonds, WA
Type of Work to be Done: � Conversion of. sidewalk into 24' driveway $er City of E'dmonds
reauirements. AeW4" CfA*'L4_. tr—bz I
lz : .4 '/
el
Work in -Connection With: u
Ell S or Plat XX Single Family,. 0 City Projects-,.
k
El Multifamily
'El utility
z
Pavement Cut: El Y E3 N
U
APPLICANT TO READ AND, SIGN
t� INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by. his signature to this application; agrees to hold the City of Edmonds
>- harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, that may
be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense
of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this.permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.. WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.
0
U Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed'
by City forces, at which time a d-ebit or credit will.be processed for issuance.to the applicant.
0
e A 24 hour notice is required for inspection'; Please call Public Works: 771-3202
9 Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
e Restoration to be in accordance with City Code.
0 Street to be kept clean at all times.
0 Traffi� Control to be in accordance with City regulations...
'I street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end� of working day;
no exceptions.
I understand the aboye and that this
must be available at the iob site for inspection.purl ses at all times.
ignature: Date:
-or C66tractor
Owner
This Permit Must Be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes
Call DIAL -DIG Prior To Beginning Work
z
U
C4
0
fJ4
ISSUED BY: L/717, ovya"-'�L�
Time A uthorized: Void after -days.
Special Conditions:(h sk - /I A, 44.r" r, 0//IPYI
4."11- '�" ALA
f U
Amendments - dl'lldleA Ili '/'� S lel"� 'q (ld'I'l
Z/1 �;' r /I 1,/ &1. �4 A, tlf�
X
NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.
PERMIT FEE: "t 30. o 0
Security Deposit:
Receipt No.: 015 ev
Fund HlFee:�
Street Cut Dimensions:
Eng. Div. July I
1� wiiiia
I I,
'jFu-!wI I I - Route copy to Street Dept.)
FIELD INSPECTION NO*
Comments:
CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION 0 YES 0 NO
Partial Work Inspection by P. W.:
Work, Disapproved By: Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date:
Eng. Div. July 1985
APPLICATION
for
The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . ..........................................
NEW CONSTRUCTION [] REPAIRS 0
A02 - 02 300
owNER... ......................... .................. CONTRACTOR .................................................................................................. PERMIT No . ......................
ADDRESS ... to-la.5 .... Edrn.anciz ..... Wci.q -------------------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . ........ ..................................... BLOCK No . ...................... .....................
NAMEOF ADDITION ............................................................................................. . ..........................................
M ay., lot 12
DXQ, 'Tqs+aa on Sawar
Approved:
DATE................................................ By ............... ......................................................
ENGINEERING REPORT
(Drainage and Grading Calculations)
FOR
Grow With Us Learning.Center
.665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
March 23, 2010
38608
-GIST
gtoto
Prepared by:
Robert L. Long ��/.00
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates
1921736 th Avenue W. Suite 106
Lynnwood, W ashington 98036
LSA No. 5221
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
Introduction
This summary report provides site design information for the proposed redevelopment
for a Grow With Us Learning Center. It includes storm drainage (infiltration trench) and
grading analysis to support the conversion/expansion of a single family residence to a
daycare facility and driveway/parking lot expansion. The property is located at 665
Edmonds Way in the southwest 1/4 of Section 25, T 27 N, R 3 E, W.M.
ApplicantlOwner.
Grow With Us Learning Center
c/o Scott Andersen
21318 84t' Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 772-2975
SECTION
Site Address:
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Parcel Number. 270325-003-080-00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES
A. Project Summary .............................................................................................................. I
B. Development Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 2
C. Parcel (Vicinity) Map .......................................................................................................... 1
D. Aerial Photo ...................................................................................................................... 1
E. Stormwater Control System Summary and Calculations ................................................... 6
F. Drainage Basin Description and Maps .............................................................................. 3
G. Grading and Erosion Control Summary and Grading Calculations ..................................... 4
H. Operation and Maintenance Guidelines ............................................................................. 4
1. Geotechnical Evaluation (July 18, 2007) and Design Infiltration Rate (March 3, 2010) .... 24
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report. 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221 111.01F! March 2010
PROJECTSUMMARY.
The total site consists of about 12,824 sf (0.2944 acres) and is currently occupied by a single family
residence. The existing single family residence is surrounded by lawn, mature trees and
landscaping. The site is bordered by single family lots 'to the south and east, a construction
company business to the north, and Edmonds Way (SR 104) right-of-way to the west. Access to
the site is from Edmonds Way via a loop driveway along the site's westerly boundary. The site
generally slopes from northeast to southwest. The very. back corner of the site drops about three
feet in the easterly most 40 feet of the site and then is relatively flat dropping less than two feet in
remaining 100 ft to 180 ft of the site. Stormwater run-off from the site sheet flows in a westerly
direction with no signs of a defined channel. Some of the site's runoff appears to drain off in a
southeasterly direction across neighboring residential properties. Runoff flows for the existing
driveway would flow in a westerly direction towards Edmonds Way. The existing gutter of Edmonds
Way flows in a southeasterly direction along the site's frontage. No stream or wetlands were
discovered on or immediately adjacent to the site. Additional discussion of the local drainage basin
and downstream path is discussed in section F of this report.
Existing Features Summary:
a. Site Area .................................................................................... 12,824 sf (0.294 acres)
b. Offsite tributary area to the site: Negligible from neighboring properties to the east.
c. Soil Hydrologic Type: Everett — gravelly sandy loam— hydrologic group A (see section G)
The proposed project includes conversion of the existing residential structure to a daycare facility
by adding about 850 sf floor area and reconstructing the driveway and parking area. The
reconstructed driveway would add parking stalls, a trash enclosure area, and restrict the loop
driveway to one-way traffic flow with an entrance (southeast access point) and exit (northwest
access point). Frontage improvements along Edmonds Way already exist and only new driveway
cuts and ramps will be reconstructed.
Infrastructure improvements include reconstructed driveway and access points; storm water
collection, conveyance and infiltration trench to control stormwater runoff; and possible
reconnection of the typical utilities- water, sewer, gas, electric, and communication services as
needed.
Nearly all existing vegetation will be removed during grading activities in the development area of
the site; some existing vegetation may be retained along the site's property lines. Landscaping
and grass lawn around the new house will stabilize the site upon building. construction. A storm
drainage collection and infiltration trench will be installed just west of the existing building. All roof
top drains and runoff flows from the driveway area shall be routed to the proposed infiltration
trench. See section E for additional evaluation of the storm drainage control system.
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665.Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 L.OR March 2010
A-1
L
TESC I rGEND
@
M 226TH STREET S.W.
GRADING OUANT171ES:
j�l
I k
_(/ZL
TFT',
LEO
L�,dl—S�unl.nd
.4 i. & Associates, lnc�
f i
BASIS OF SEA -RINGS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
13ENCZ IATARK
r'gy - T
--ant
SURVEY NOTES
_T
M T
X-----------------
CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE
^=;: 111,91.
Q�
:'.-1 7
L'T 6
<
X=1=1 ==,A�l
_j
Q_
0
9L�
APPUCANT/OWNER ZONING'
T
Z
0
LOT AREA
w
0 (o
SITE ADDRESS TAX PARCEL —i Z�
L>j
Li
FNCANEER /SURVEYOR
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
z
Li 0
z
7
Lf) W
z z
I'l 2 2
c� -,
LLJ Z
C'4 0 ou
z >- m
0 --
p G) Ul
L) m
Li 0
V) m
0
z
U71
3:
U)
" . T5221.2
ON-
:.ar
7.
M
—.a
K
m_._ "W! & 4="' =x 1. 1 2 f I
21 89:2-
EROM AND SIMPANT-mmm (m) Nom
L r. W M 9, --. A r--.
W-
SW 1/4
. 114,
T
T
Nab..
V-1 -"T --n., 1�
EE -"V�V TS ---T. --. =--L
_ _ I_
T`r-�'OF. ED
IT 141244P,
S59TIT22k:
s.- AI.I.. 11 T
I—— TK 3 K
Lcl:TYQF� EDAIONDS,;:,�.
J=e�� ST774DARD DETAIL
3/4;Z W1 A-,
b
AIJ
PR�
.'�TAIL.(�). Wo). 0&/Xs W.RAI.
MTRA71014 7RENCH
Ic
DRI.Al .1.
:1".. -1 .1 C
IC.TA.. T-S
- DETEtl.I 11 TWS
C- .
AINDARD
-M
. _j
U=
I T F E D NA 0 N DS�:
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
LER
Lovell—Sauerland
& Associates,
7
�-='A'
z
0
z Ln
2:
C'
co
0
0 >:
0
Z.z uJ Z
u- -_j L_ =)
z '00
u
Z
0
0 V)
u m
> w 0
V) =
0
z
Ln
t:
V)
AS SHO
5292
21 .2
QUARTER IUWN�"W'W*�U r
SIA 27 3
NW-25-274
13
Of t
14 12 10
--22(YTH-- ST�--SW---
L
E 1
VI
2
A
D
DI
5
I
5 6 0 3-001
b %,
EL
3
4
66
2
2
..
4 7
CO
VIEW'
-EL&I- 0 3
uj 3
1:
3 A
5472 2
4
14 13
ZZ
—
-------
4L
LLA 3
D 5
4
d
6
2
12 11 6
3
6 4
��LJ 4
22
7
17
1 2
7 8
8
5
7 12 6
z 5
is
L
8
)," .—
�- 6
3 10
9
�2
10
7
CW PL
CH TRIDO
. . !;
;
W
9
0
10
3-036
6 5 3-038
Z
MICH
I
12
Fp
(6556)
088) 3-�41
-039
7 6
ej
of
022
7
�u
11
PAR
13
14
5
1
1 2
7 5
3
6
10
Is
08
3 2 8 3 I .
01 4
7�7
5
9
1
. .....
13 BI
I N
r
16
12 11 10 3
14
2 1
01 (Q;
C 0
Do 3
WAY
13TH SW
072
3-141
3-04
3
1 2 3
3-05
4
11
10 9 8 7
14TH
17
is
I
3-160!346 13
, 2 3
I Yb
3- 1
17
1 2
2
08
3
1<
(a ir
1
2
16
171
31
17
14TW WAY 7 aUCY. 7
L -2-2
7
4 5 6 s
6
St �j 9
10 9
3 2
4 17 Q 31)
P
-14813-10 PIN 3 q 9A 7
5 9-
-LU2 z 8 to 26ih
4 6
5 t�t,. 3 7— 3
7 �c
, , c%) _ 4 6 2_
C.)
rz.
CY
1 1 2
2
26 3 3-062 �-227TK
2 25 3-122 3-123 1 -112
27 00
------- 3-113 LL-2000-134
21
02 U)
R
8 Qq
0 PARK—
��;,2 '2 5 Parcel icin ap
NW-36-27-3
Lovell-Sauerland and Associate s Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
C-1
1 14
S
Vl
4
& "T, k
*42
JO
W,
, QjI
r it
Alk
r 46
41
-Ww
J
or
0 71"
rLIn
Ur 15
11b.0 V
j
Aerial Photo
(June 2007)
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221
March 20
10
S TORMWA TER CON TROL S YS TEM S UMMA R Y A ND CA L CULA TIONS:
The project proposes to create, replace and/or retain 8,450 sf of impervious surface on -site. To
mitigate the re -development of the site, an infiltration system will be installed to control the
drainage runoff. All of the on -site impervious surfaces shall be collected and routed to an on -site
infiltration system. The proposed 89 ft (1) x 6 ft (w) x 3.0 ft (d) infiltration trench has been designed
to completely disperse the 1 00-year 24-hour design storm on -site. Therefore, the project will have
no "effective impervious" surface that impacts the City's drainage system.
The on -site infiltration trench is to be constructed per the City of Edmonds' standard practices.
The length of the trench is dependent upon the designed infiltration rate of the native soils and the
collection area conveyed to the trench. SCS soil survey designates the area soils as an Everett
(#17- type A) soil. The site specific geotechnical evaluations (attached in section 1) confirms the
type A sandy soils. In accordance with the soil evaluation a design infiltration rate of 2 in/hr has
been used to size the on -site infiltration trench.
Site Area Summary.,
Total Site Area = 12,824 sf
Proposed Impervious = 8,450 sf
Building Addition, Patio and Walk = 1,509 sf
Existing House = 1,441 sf
Driveway / Parking = 5,500 sf
Proposed Pervious = 4,574 sf (Lawn and landscape)
Inflitration Trench Design Summary, Table:
Total Site Area
Proposed Impervious Area
Proposed Pervious Area
Developed Storm Events (SCS Unit Hydrograph)
Peak Storm Runoff Rates
Total Storm Volumes
Infiltration Trench Design (89'x 6'x 3')
Provided Storage Volume (30% voids)
Infiltration Rate (2 in/hr over 89'x 6' bottom area)
12,824 sf (0.294 acres)
8,250 sf (0.189 acres)
4,574 sf (0. 105 acres)
2 year 10 year 100 year
0.06 cfs 0.08 cfs 0.13 cfs
894 cf 1,279 cf 2,109 cf
480 cf
0.0247 cfs
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 L. a FRI March 2010 E-1
TO 1-1/2-
FRAME & WASHED ROCK A-"
GRATE
6" FROM BUILDING
D
0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------
OIL/W17ATERSEPARATOR
T 'L 1W
TEE, SEE DETAIL
lz M
284.00
281.00
A--4-j
- - - - - - - - - - -
Q-"'
PROFILE
WRAP SIDES & TOP NTH
FILTER FABRIC TYPAR 3401,
AMOCO 4545 OR APPROVED
EQUAL
6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE
WASHED ROCK
3/4" - 1-1/2"
SECTION A -A
INFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL 6'(W) x 89'(L) x 3.0'(D)
N. T. S.
89*-6" PVC
PERFORATED PIPE
00.00%
6" FROM BUILDING
TYPE 1-L CB
6" PVC
REMOVABLE PLUG
11' VENT HOLE--
6" PVC
FACTORY TEE
282.50 ED
LEfjF0RA-L- PIPE
6' PVC PIPE
�0 GROUT
G�
6 PVC PIPE
OIL/WATER SEPARATOR TEE
Lovell-SaueHand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
March 2010
LSA No. 5221 L. M RE E-A
Infiltration Bed Design:
Size = 89ftx6ftx 3ft
Storage Volume (30% voids in W to 1-1/2" rock) = 480 cf
Existing Soils Sand with gravel and trace silt
Test Pit #HH-5 (see attached geotech report)
Sand = 95.5%
Silt = 3.5%
Clay = 1.0%
USC Soil Classification SP
USDA Textural Triangle = Sand (less than 10% silt/clay)
Per DOE Stormwater Management Manual, 2005 Volume 111, Table 3.7 a USDA
Textural Sand Classification designates a 2 in1hr long-term (design) infiltration rate
(see attached geotechnical report and memo in section I of this report)
Bed Infiltration Rate:
Bottom Surface Area = 89 ft x 6 ft = 534 sf
Soil Infiltration rate = 2 in/hr
Bed Infiltration rate = 0.0247 cfs (534 sf x 2 in/hr . 12 in/ft . 3600 sec/hr)
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010 F-3
STAGE STORAGE TABLE
RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No. TRENCH
Description: INFILTRATION TRENCH
Length: 89.00 ft. Width:
6.00 ft.
voids: 0.300
STAGE --STORAGE--
(ft) --- cf-- --Ac-Ft-
281.00 0.0000 0.0000
281.80
128.16 0.0029
282.60
256.32 0.0059
283.40
384.48 0.0088
281.10 16.020 0.0004
281.90
144.18 0.0053
282.70
272.34 0.0063
283.50
400.50 0.0092
281.20 32.040 0.0007
282.00
160.20 0.0037
282.80
288.36 0.0066
283.60
416.52 0.0096
281.30 48.060 0.0011
282.10
176.22 0.0040
282.90
304.38 0.0070
283.70
432.54 0.0099
281.40 64.080 0.0015
282.20
192.24 0.0044
283.00
320.40 0.0074
283.80
448.56 0.0103
281.50 80.100 0.0018
282.30
208.26 0.0048
283.10
336.42 0.0077
283.90
464.58 0.0107
281.60 96.120 0.0022
282.40
224.28 0.0051
283.20
352.44 0.0081
284.00
480.60 0.0110
281.70 112.14 0.0026
282.50
240.30 0.0055
283.30
368.46 0.0085
STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE
DISCHARGE LIST ID No. INFIL
Description: INFILTRATION RATE FOR 89'X6'
STAGE <--DISCHARGE->
(ft) --- cfs-
47
282.00 0.0247
283.00 0.0247
284.00 0.0247
LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY
MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> OUTFLOW STORAGE
< ---- - -- DESCRIPTION -------- > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id (cfs) VOL (c�
2 YEAR ....................... 0.00 0.06 TRENCH INFIL 281.54 1 0.03 85.72 cf
10 YEAR ...................... 0.00 0.08 TRENCH INFIL 282.04 2 0.03 166.93 cf
100YEAR ..................... 0.00 0.13 TRENCH INFIL 283.99 3 0.03 478.24 cf
100 Year 24-hour design storm has a peak stage of 283.99 (2.99 ft) in the, trench.
Lovell-Sauerfand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 1. S R March 2010
Grow With Us Learning Center- 665 Edmonds Way LSA No. 5221
SCS Weighted average curve number calculations March 2010
SCS Soil = Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam
SCS Hydrologic Soils type:- A
Areas
Sq. Ft. Ac. % of Site Area
Site area 12,824 0.294 100.0%
Existing conditions
Assumptions: CN:
Undisturbed forest land 42
Second growth forest 55
Meadow or pasture 65
Grass, > 75% coverage (50% off -site collected areas) 68
Grass, > 50% coverage 100
Open water 81
Impervious (Ex. House to be remodeled 98
Future conditions
Assumptions:
Undisturbed forest land
Second growth forest
Meadow or pasture
Grass, > 75% coverage
Grass, > 50% coverage
Open water
Impervious
Total Weighted CN
Pervious: Area, acres
Percent pervious area
Weighted CN
Impervious: Area, acres
Percent impervious area
Weighted CN
Area (sf)
11,383
1,441
59.8
0.261
8&8%
55.0
0.033
11.2%
98.0
Total
Site area 12,824
CN:
42
55
65
68
77
100
98
Day Care Building, Patio, Walk 2,950
Driveway 5,500
Total Weighted CN:
Pervious:
Area, acres:
Percent pervious area:
Weighted CN:
Impervious:
Area, acres:
Percent impervious area:
Weighted CN:
4,374
8,450
87.8
0.100
34.1%
68.0
0.194
65.9%
98.0
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
March2010 r-s
LSA No. 5221
Grow With Us Learning Center
LSA No. 5221
Developed Condition Design Storms
DETAIL BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: D002 NAME: DEVELOPED 2 YEAR
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... : 0.29 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... TYPEIA PERV IMP
PRECIPITATION .... 1.50inches AREA..: 0.10Acres 0.19Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... 10.00 min CN .... : 68.00 98.00
TC .... : 5.00 min 5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.06 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min
BASIN ID: D010 NAME: DEVELOPED 10 YEAR
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ...... * : 0.29 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE ...... TYPE1A PERV IMP
PRECIPITATION .... 2.00inches AREA..: 0.10Acres 0.19Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... 10.00 min CN .... : 68.00 98.00
TC .... : 5.00 min 5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.08 cfs VOL: 0.03 Ac-ft TIME: 500 min
BASIN ID: D100 NAME: DEVELOPED 100 YEAR
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA ....... : 0.29 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
RAINFALL TYPE .... TYPE1A PERV IMP
PRECIPITATION .... 3.00inches AREA..: 0.10Acres 0.19Acres
TIME INTERVAL .... 10.00 min CN .... : 68.00 98.00
TC .... : 5.00 min 5.00 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
PEAKRATE: 0.13cfs VOL: 0.05Ac-ft TIME: 490min
Lovell-Sauerfand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 L.MIR March 2010
DOWNSTRAM DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION:
The site is located in the downstream portion of the Edmonds Way watershed basin. The
Edmonds Way basin is a large urban basin that collects stormwater runoff from commercial and
residential areas along Edmonds Way (SR-104) in the south portion of the City (see attached
watershed map).
Current storm runoff from the site sheet flows southwesterly to Edmonds Way. The gutter line
along the east side of Edmonds Way directs the run off in a southeasterly direction to a
catchbasin inlet near the southeast corner of the. site. The runoff enters a 48" storm pipe
conveyance system that directs the flows northwesterly in a man-made pipe and catchbasin
system. The system continues northwesterly along Edmonds Way about 4,500 ft; near the
intersection of Pine Street, the system diverges westerly out of the Edmonds Way right-of-way.
The system ultimately discharges to Puget Sound on the south side of the City Marina.
Majority of the downstream system consists of a man-made pipe and catchbasin system. No
apparent flooding or system inadequacies within a % mile down stream of the site were
discovered during site visits or research of the downstream system.
See attached watershed and downstream drainage map for the local downstream path.
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 L.WR March 2010
�1�7
. ZV*Nlw
1331
1330
1329
1260
1261
557
1350
12-74*
694
690
697
715
1345
719
12
13
707
N
12 1080
121
1355
631
641
691
13
12-316
556
0
13
. 1
10
681
704
720
12-109* 12-110a
12-7ol3TH
WY.
722
7,?8
541
708
560
1371
620
630
640
650
660
670
710
724
728
601
619 641
643
749
1218
S
(0
647
753
75,7
761
7691
1
744
620
14TH
WY S
635 740
550 12-217 12-8 12-6 k '39
600 \0 0 645
736
12-7
60 651 73?
I
_e9d
739
756
760
1416
731
721
713
1420
-87a
1!
10609
bl/
655
14TH
WY S
-
12 5Z-
-
10503 10521
630 j
IT
7.28
724
720
727
10703
665
4
10607
12-
83a
10525
660 V
723
-84
N
717
10705
12-4
S\�
10605
10519
10431
12-
S I
It 0 C:�§ 0 C=3 a t=l a
S W
12-10
1 2-82a
724 728
1
0
el
710
22604
0
22605
22606
0%
12-
12-3
150
15-Oi
1041.5
700
20615
2,2616
12-12
70
(3
-i2--207
12-206
226TH PL SW
10404
72?
74.(
12-205
i�tn-_Lj
22625
1508
2-203A
22630
>
IZ3
10406
745
LOLD631
<rL
.02631
1041
741
A l(i
P,26g?8
2-203
.22703
22704
2-2
728
7
I
22703
12-13
22712
740.
Downstream Map
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report
665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221
March 2010
V-3
Grading and Erosion Control:
This project will require grading to construct the proposed building expansion; reconstruct the
driveway and parking area; and install the stormwater infiltration trench. Standard erosion control
measures are proposed to be used during construction. The primary erosion and sediment
control BMP during construction will be proper soil stabilization methods. Exposed soils shall be
stabilized byapplication of effective bmp's that protect the soil from the erosive forces of raindrops,
flowing water, and wind. Applicable practices include, but not limited to, temporary. and
permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics, matting, soil
application of polyacrylamide (pam) , the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved,
and dust control. The contractor shall select a soil stabilization method best suited for the
particular situation. Stock piles must be stabilized and protected with sediment trapping
measures. In addition, site containment of exposed soils shall be sustained by using silt fence
barriers along the down -slope boundaries of the site's disturbance areas. See the site
development plan for details.
Estimated -grading cakulations: Minimal project grading is expected due to nature of the
project (a redevelopment project) and the relatively flat site. The attached calculations were
performed using and average horizontal areas.(slice method). The quantities listed are for the
permitting process only and should not be considered precise amounts for bidding purposes. The
estimated grading quantities are: -
Approximate Cut: 250 CY
Approximate Fill: 100 CY
Conclusion: Included in the site development construction plans are specific grading and
drainage improvement notes and details. With proper installation, maintenance and inspections
of the proposed construction the project should have minimal impact to the surrounding
environment.
Lovell-Sauerfand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 L.OR March 2010 6-1
28
T
" Z4
W6od
4
vW,
4 0*
lit.
Soils Map
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No. 5221
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
March 2010
G -01
SOIL SURVEY OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Everett Series- Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes (soil #17- Hydrologic Group "A")
This very deep, somewhat excessively'd rained soil is on terraces and outwash plains. It formed in glacial outwash. Areas are long
and narrow and are oriented in a northwest to southeast direction. They at 10 to 40 acres in size. The native vegetation is mainly
conifers. Elevation is near sea level to 500 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 40 inches, the a verage annual air
temperature is about 50 degrees F, and the average frost -free season is about 170 to 190 days.
Typically, the surface layer, where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is dark brown gravelly sandy loam. The subsoil is dark
brown very gravelly sand loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the substratum is brown very gravelly sand about 5 inches
thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely gravelly sand. In some areas the substratum is
weakly cemented.
Included in this unit are small areas of Alderwood soils on till plains, Indianola soils on terraces and outwash plains, and Ragnar
soils on outwash plains. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage.
Permeability of this Everett soil is rapid. Available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow,
and the hazard of water erosion is slight.
This unit is used mainly as woodland. It is also used for urban development and for hay and pasture.
Douglas -fir is the main woodland species on this unit. On the basis of a 100-year site curve, the mean site index is 141. On the
basis of a 50-year site curve, the mean site index is 111. The mean annual increment at culmination (CMAI) for Douglas- fir age 65
is 146 cubic feet per acre. Among the trees of limited extent are western hemlock, western redcedar, and red alder. The common
forest understory plants are salal, brackenfem, red huckleberry, common rose, and Oregon -grape.
This unit is well suited to year-round logging. Logging roads require suitable surfacing for year round use. Rock for road
construction is readily available on this unit.
Seedling mortality is the main limitation in the production of timber. Refores tation can be accomplished by planting Douglas -fir
seedlings. High soil temperature and low soil moisture content during the growing season cause a high mortality of seedlings.
When openings are made in the canopy, invading brushy plants, if not controlled, can delay the establishment of seedlings.
If this unit is used for hay and pasture, the main limitations are slope, low available water capacity, and low soil fertility.
Rotabon grazing, proper stocking rates, weed control, and fertilizer are need for maximum quality forage. Supplemental irrigation is
also needed. Periodic mowing and spreading of the droppings help to maintain uniform growth and discourage selective grazing.
Fertilizer is needed for optimum growth.
The main limitation for homesites and septic tank absorption fields is steepness of slope. If the density of housing is moderate to
high, community sewage systems may be needed to prevent contamination of water supplies as a result of seepage. Septic tank
absorption lines should be installed on the contour.
This map unit is capability subclass VIs.
Lovell-Sauerfand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221 March 2010
C7
Grading Quantity Estimation
Grow With Us Learning Center-
665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221
March 2010
Site Grading for Building Foundation
Cut Area Fill Area Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Elevation at Elev. at Elev. Cut, CF
Fill, CF
Cut, CY
Fill, CY
284.5 0 0 0
0
0.0
0.0
284.5 860 0 0
0
0.0
0.0
286.5 860 0 1,720
0
63.7
0.0
286.5 0 0 860
0
31.9
0.0
2,580
0
96
0
Site Grading for Rear Yard
Cut Area
Fill Area
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Elevation
at Elev.
at Elev.
Cut, CF
Fill, CF
Cut, CY
Fill, CY
286.5
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
287.0
470
0
118
200
4.4
7.4
288.0
210
0
340
0
12.6
0.0
289.0
275
0
243
0
9.0
0.0
290.0
10
0
143
0
5.3
0.0
290.5
0
0
206
0
7.6
0.0
1,049 200 39 7
Site Grading for Rear Yard
Cut Area
Fill Area
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Volume of
Elevation
at Elev.
at Elev.
Cut, CF
Fill, CF
Cut, CY
Fill, CY
285.5
0
0
0
0
.0.0
0.0
286.0
2,500
0
625
200
23.1
7.4
287.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
625 200
Additional Cut/Fill for Infiltration Trench
Cut/Fill Match= 89 x 6 x 4.5 = 2,403 cf 89 C.Y.
Approximate Total Quantities:
CUT= 250 C.Y. (96 + 39 + 23 + 89)
FILL = 100 C.Y. (89+7)
23
7
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221
March 2010 G-4
Grow With Us Learning Center
(665 Edmonds Way)
Operation and Maintenance Requirements: This manual is intended to provide guidance to the
owner(s) for the operation and maintenance of the drainage and the stormwater detention storage
facilities for the Grow With Us Learning Center (665 Edmonds Way). The owner is responsible for
maintenance of storm drainage facilities within the property. The owner is not responsible for
maintenance within the public right-of-way.
This manual is not comprehensive. Although it explains the intended operation of the various
components of the drainage system, and suggests a routine of inspection and maintenance, it
cannot anticipate every problem. Once a historical record of maintenance is established, it may
be prudent to alter the routine. It is recommended that maintenance records be kept, and that the
records be reviewed periodically.
Concept of Operation: The drainage design is shown and described in the final site
development engineering plans and report. The approved site development plans and report
should be retained as part of this document and used as a reference to identify drainage facilities
mentioned in this manual.
Stormwater Infiltration Trench System. The onsite infiltration trench system consists of an
underground rock filled trench with a 6" perforated dispersion pipe running through the center.
The infiltration trench is located under the proposed driveway and parking area between Edmonds
Way and the onsite building. The infiltration trench system has been designed to completely
infiltrate the 100-year 24-hour storm event. If an extraordinary event was to occur the catch -
basins at the ends of the trench would overtop and overflow into the street system.
Recommended Inspections of Facilities. The following are inspection guidelines for the drainage
system. The inspections should occur prior to the winter rain season, leaving sufficient time to
correct any detected maintenance problems, and at the end of the season to determine the effect
of the season's runoff. Once a historical basis is developed the frequency of inspection may be
modified as necessary.
For additional and updated maintenance information visit the Washington State Department of
Ecology's web -site at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wqhome.htmI
Lovell-Sauerfand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
CATCH BASINS
Maintenance
Results Expected When
Component Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Maintenance is Performed
General Trash & Debris
Trash or debris of more than % cubic foot which is
No trash or debris located immediately in front of
(includes
located immediately in front of the catch basin
catch basin opening.
Sediment)
opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by
more than 10%.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 1/3 the
No trash or debris in the catch basin.
depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest
pipe into or out of the basin.
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking
Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris.
more than 1/3 of its height.
Dead animals or vegetation that could generate
No dead animals or vegetation present within
odors that could cause complaints or dangerous
the catch basin.
gases (e.g., methane).
Deposits of garbage exceeding I cubic foot in
No condition present which would attract or
volume.
support the breeding of insects or rodents.
Structure Damage Corner of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past Frame is even with curb.
to Frame and/or curb face into the street (if applicable).
Top Slab
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks.
Cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure
all material is running into basin).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation Frame is sifting flush on top slab.
of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top
slab.
Cracks in Basin Cracks wider than % inch and longer than 3 feet, Basin replaced or repaired to design standards.
Walls /Bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin
through cracks, or maintenance person judges that
structure is unsound.
Cracks wider than Y2 inch and longer than 1 foot at No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of
the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of inlet/outlet pipe.
soil particles entering catch basin through cracks.
Sediment/ Basin has settled more than I inch or has rotated Basin replaced or repaired to design standards.
Misalignment more than 2 inches out of alignment.
Fire Hazard Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and No flammable chemicals present.
gasoline.
Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than No vegetation* blocking opening to basin.
10% of the basin opening.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is No vegetation or root growth present.
more than six inches tall and less than six inches
apart.
Pollution Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1/2 cubic foot No pollution present other than surface film.
per three feet of basin length.
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Wa�
LSA No. 5221 March 2010
CATCH BASINS (continued)
Maintenance Results Expected When
Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed
Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any
Catch basin cover is closed.
open catch basin requires maintenance.
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by on maintenance
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Mechanism
person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have
Not Working
less than % inch of thread.
Cover Difficult to
One maintenance person cannot remove lid after
Cover can be removed by one maintenance
Remove
applying 80 lbs. Of lift; intent is keep cover from
person.
sealing off access to maintenance.
Ladder Ladderrungs
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,
Ladder meets design standards and allows
Unsafe
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
maintenance person safe access.
Metal Grates
Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.
Grate opening meets design standards.
(if Applicable)
Trash and Debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of Grate free of trash and debris.
grate surface.
Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards.
Missing
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates
Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA N6.5221
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
U M R. March 2010
H
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES)
Maintenance
Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is Performed
Pipes
Sediment & Debris Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the
Pipe cleaned of all sediment
diameter of the pipe.
and debris.
Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water
All vegetation removed so water flows freely
through pipes.
through pipes.
Damaged Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing
Pipe repaired or replaced.
more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe.
Any dent that decreases the cross section area of
Pipe repaired or replaced.
pipe by more than 20%.
Open Ditches
Trash & Debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000
Trash and debris cleared from ditches.
square feet of ditch and slopes.
Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the
Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris
design depth.
so that it matches design.
Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water
Water flows freely through ditches.
through ditches.
Erosion Damage to See "Ponds" Standard.
See "Ponds" Standard.
Slopes
Rock Lining Out of Maintenance person can see native soil beneath
Replace rocks to design standards.
Place or Missing (If the rock lining..
Applicable)
Catch Basins
See "Catch Basins" Standard.
See "Catch Basins" Standard.
Debris Barriers
See "Debris Barriers" Standard.
See "Debris Barriers" Standard.
(e.g., Trash Rack)
For additional and updated maintenance information visit the Washington State Department of
Ecology's web -site at: http://www.ecy.wa.-qov/programs/Wq/Wqhome.htmI
Lovell-Sauertand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No. 5221 L. M R. March 2010
H-1
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Anderson Development
23632 Highway 99, # F-502
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Attn: Mr. Scott Anderson
Subject: GEOTECIINICA-L INVESTIGATION
Commercial Development
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds Washington 98020
Dear Mr. Anderson:
At your request, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has undertaken and completed a
geoteclu-dcal investigation within your existing residential lot, for your proposed
commercial development in Edmonds, Washington. This investigation has been
perfon-ned in support of the application required to obtain a building permit from the City
of Edmonds for the proposed 4,800 square foot, two-story, cornn-iercial building at the
subject site.
For the purposes of this investigation, HWA performed a review of pertinent geologic
maps for the site area, conducted a site reconnaissance to observe local topographic
features, excavated 5 shallow hand borings, and conducted 5 DCP (Dropweight Cone
Penetrometer) soundings to delineate in situ density/strength conditions of the site soils
C� t;'
within the footprint of the proposed development.
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property presently consists of a developed 0.39 acre lot, located within the
SW '14, Section 25, Township 27 N, and Range 3 E; situated at municipal address
665 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds,. Washington (Snohomish County No.
2703250003080000). The approximate site location is depicted on Figure 1, the Project
Site & Vicinity Map.
19730 - 64th Avenue..XM
::Stiit6260
Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957
Tel: 4 25.774. 0 106.
Fdx:..425:774.27J4,;'.:�
wwwmvageosciencesxor�
R-4�
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As currently proposed, the new development will consist of a single 4,800 square foot,
two-story, commercial building situated over the footprint of the existing residential
structure, as shown on Figure 2, the Site & Exploration Plan Map.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
Currently, an existing one-story wooden residential structure, built in 195' ), occupies a
footprint area of approximately 1,441 square feet in the central portion of the roughly
17,000 square foot lot. The con-unercial development will require demolition of the
existing residential structure. The lot is relatively level in the fi-ont and ascends a slope in
the backyard in the northeast comer.
GEOLOGY
The published geologic map for the site area, "Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King
Area", prepared by Booth, et al, 2004, shows that the site vicinity is underlain by Vashon
advance outwash. Advance outwash deposits consist of chiefly gray, clean to slightly
silty, fine to medium sand, with varying percentages of gravel. These materials were
deposited in pro -glacial streams as the Vashon Stade ice advanced southward in Puget
Sound. In general, the sediments are coarser at higher levels of the unit, because the
streams deposited- larger materials closer to the ice front. Because these granular soils
were over -ridden by the Vashon Stade ice, they are dense to very dense. They are quite
permeable; however, they are not always water -bearing. Advance outwash is generally
competent for support of structures, and excavates relatively easy with conventional
excavation equipment. Although sideslopes in this sand stand near -vertical temporarily
where dry, shoring is necessary for long-term support.
SOILS
According to the Soil Conservation Map for Snohomish County (NRCS, online web soil
survey, 2007), the site is overlain by Everett gravelly sandy loam on 0 to 8 percent
slopes. The Everett gravelly sandy loam soils formed on glacial outwash. The rate of
runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight for these soils.
SITE EXPLORATION
On July 3 d , 2007, HWA geologists conducted a limited shallow hand -exploration
program to evaluate near -surface conditions on the site. At that time, 5 hand borings
were conducted to depths ranging from 3.0 to 4.8 feet, before refusing on coarse gravel or
cobbles. Site soil conditions were noted at each of the hand boring locations, which were
selected based on the location of proposed structures, as shown on the Site Plan provided
by the project arcl-�itect. The approximate locations of our hand borings are shown on
Figure 2, the Site & Exploration Plan Map.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
T- 01
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Hand boring logs were prepared from our observations, and are presented on the attached
Figures 4 through 8. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the exploration logs
precedes them as Figure 3.
The hand auger borings at all locations were supplemented by utilizing a Dropweight
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The DCP
consists of a steel extension shaft assembly, with a 60 degree hardened steel cone tip
attached to one end, which is driven into the subsoil by means of a sliding drop harruner.
The base diameter of the cone is 20 mm. The diameter of the shaft is 8 nun less than that
of the cone to ensure that at shallow penetration depths the resistance to penetration is
exerted on the cone alone. The DCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg sliding
hammer from a height of 57S mm. The depth of cone penetration was measured after
each hammer drop and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of the DCP index. The
DCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from I blow of the 8 kg
hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (min/blow). The data obtained from the
DCP tests was correlated to approximate Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) blows per
foot, in order to evaluate the density/strength of the subgrade soils. The DCP data is
plotted on the appropriate Hand Boring/DCP Logs on Figures 4 through 9.
LABORAToRy TESTING
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples obtained from the hand boring
explorations to characterize relevant engineering and index propel ties of the site soils.
Laboratory tests included determination of in -situ moisture content and particle size
characteristics.
The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The moisture content test results are displayed
on the exploration logs and on the particle size distribution graphs provided on Figure 10,
as appropriate.
SOIL PROFILE
Typically, the near surface soils observed in the hand borings consisted of loose to
mediurn dense fill soils overlying weathered and unweathered glacial outwash soils. The
soil conditions are described briefly as follows:
Undocumented Fill. -Immediately below grade in all hand borings except HH-4,
undocumented fill was encountered, and consisted of loose to medium dense, brown to
yellow brown, fine sandy silt, silty fine sand to sand with silt and gavel; often containing
wood debris. This soil unit was fully penetrated in HH-3 and HH-4 where it was 4.4 and
3.4 feet thick, respectively. Apparently, the fill thickens to the south and from east to
west on site.
Weathered Out -wash: - Weathered outwash, consisting of loose, brown to yellowish
brown, silty sand with to sand with silt and gravel, was encountered below the fill in all
665 Edmonds Way Development. � 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
1-3
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
the hand borings at depths ranging from 0.2 to 2.9 feet below the existing ground surface.
The thickness of this unit, where penetrated in HH-2, HH-3, and HH-5, ranged from 0.9
to 2 feet. Below this unit, the soil becomes cleaner, denser, and changes color to olive
brown or gray.
Advance Outwash — Advancebutwash, consisting of medium to dense, olive brown to
gray, sand with silt and gravel, was encountered below the weathered outwash at an
approximate depth of 2.8 feet in HH-2; at 3.8 feet in HH-3; and 3.0 feet in HH-5. The
thickness of this unit is unknown as it was too deep to fully penetrate with hand tools. It
appears, however, that the depth to advance outwash increases slightly from west to east.
DCP soundings indicate that these soils become denser at about 4 to 5 feet below existing
grade at the test locations.
GROUND WATER
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of the hand borings. However, it is
anticipated that ground water conditions will vary depending on the season, variations in
local subsurface conditions, and other factors. During wet season periods, it is possible
that ground water may become perched on the surface of lower permeability deposits that
may exist at other locations of this site.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
In accordance with the criteria contained in the City of Edmonds Code, Title 23-Natural
Resources; Chapter 23.80 - Geologically Hazardous Areas, the subject site is not situated
witliin an area designated as a potential erosion or landslide/steep slope or seismic
hazard.
The existing native soils consist of granular soils that were directly glacially
consolidated, and are dense. There are no steep slopes on the property and, consequently,
no potential landslide hazard.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
In surnmary, the soil conditions within the subject site proposed for the commercial
development consists of mediurn dense, granular, glacial outwash soils, overlain by loose
to medium dense undocumented fill and weathered outwash layers at least 4-5 feet thick.
The actual depth to medium dense native soils at other locations within the development
footprint will need to be verified in the field during construction. In our opinion, the
medium dense to dense native sand (outwash) will provide adequate bearing for the
foundation system for the proposed single -story structure. However, the undocumented
fill and weathered outwash materials are not recommended for foundation and floor slab
support purposes.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 4
HWA GeoSciences hie.
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
Excavation and Temporary Shoring Requirements
Preparation for construction of conventional foundations will require the excavation and
removal of all undocumented fill beneath proposed footing and slab areas. Based on the
results of our investigation, these excavations will be at least 4 feet deep or cireater and
require excavation wall sloping and/or shoring to protect workers and existing structures
in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155. The fill
materials at the site classify as Type C soil. Unsupported excavations in Type C soils,
exceeding 4 feet in depth, must be inclined no steeper than I Y2H: IV (horizontal to
vertical). Flatter slopes may, however, be required if ground water seepage occurs.
Temporary excavation slopes should be protected from erosion, as necessary, by covering
the cut face with well -anchored plastic sheets. Maintenance of safe working conditions,
including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Based on
the soil conditions observed in our explorations, we anticipate that the on -site soils can be
excavated with conventional equipment such as backhoes and loaders.
Foundations and Floor Slabs
Design Considerations: The proposed structure may be supported on footings bearing
directly on medium dense native soils; or on properly compacted structural fill, which
may, subject to the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer, consist of the existing on
site undocumented fill soils that are removed and replaced under controlled compaction.
The recommended compaction level for structural fill placed under footings and grade -
supported slab levels is 95% Modified Proctor maximum dry density (per ASTM
D1557).
in our opinion, wall or column footings bearing in medium dense to dense advance
outwash may bedesigned for 2,500 pounds per square foot (pso maximum allowable
bearing pressure. Footings bearing within structural fill placed over the dense to very
dense glacial till may be designed for allowable bearing pressures up to 2,000 psf,
These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term loads such as wind and seismic
effects. It is not, however, recommended that foundations be designed for differing
bearing pressures, or be supported on dissimilar materials, to avoid potentially
undesirable differential settlements. Continuous footings should have a minimum
width of 18 inches, and column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches,
regardless of bearing pressure considerations. Minimum footing widths may,
therefore, govern footing design. Footings should bear at least 24 inches below the
lowest adjacent exterior grade to provide for ft-ost protection.
If footings are supported by structural fill, this fill should extend beyond the outer
edges of the footings a ininimum. distance equal to the fill thickness existing below
the footing, measured at the level of the excavation base. If adjacent individual
footings are located at different elevations, it is reconu-nended that the horizontal
distance between them be at least 1.5 times the elevation difference between their
665 Edmonds Way Development.
HWA GeoSciences Inc.
July 18, 2007 -105-21
HWA Project No. 2007
bases. Where adjoining continuous footings are at different elevations, the upper
footing should be progressively stepped down to the lower footing. Typically, each
step height should be limited to 2 feet or less and the following footing run should be
at least twice the step height.
We recommend that perimeter foundation drains be provided around all exterior footings.
The footing drains and all surface drains should be separately tight -lined to discharge to a
sewer or storm basin. Surface and roof drains should not be inter -connected with the
foundation drains to prevent the potential clogging and flooding of these drains.
Floor slabs may be supported at grade on structural fill compacted to the requirements
indicated above. If grade -supported slabs are employed, they must be underlain by a
capillary break layer comprised of clean uniform, open -graded, washed rock or pea
gravel, to prevent future slab dampness which could be detrimental to floor coverings and
functional use of the facility. This capillary break layer should be at least 6 inches thick
and should be in contact with, or provided with suitable drainage outlets, to the perin eter
foundation drain system. A plastic vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary
break layer to isolate the slab concrete from this layer, and should consist of plastic
sheathing such as Visqueen.
Construction Considerations: Footing foundation excavations should be trimmed neat
and the excavation bottoms should be carefully prepared in order to minimize the amount
of soil disturbance and need of over -excavation that may otherwise be required. The
ground surface, where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed, should be
proof -rolled, or suitably probed to determine the presence and approximate extent of any
soft or unstable areas. Proof -rolling or probing should be performed under full-time
observation of an HWA representative. Any soils that cannot be adequately recornpacted
should be over -excavated and the unsuitable materials removed and replaced with
compacted structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. We recommend that
HWA be retained to observe and approve footing excavation preparation, and placement
and compaction of structural fill prior to pouring concrete.
Asstu-ning construction is performed as recornmended herein, we estimate that the total
and differential settlements for foundations will be less than I -inch and 1/2 -inch,
respectively.
Seismic Considerations
Should it be necessary for a development of this type to be designed for seismic
cond * itions, we anticipate that the new structures would be designed in accordance with
the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) standards. In this regard, for seismic design
purposes, the site is considered Site Class C, as described in Section 1615.1 of the
2003 IBC. For the site location, the design maximum considered spectral response
665 Edmonds Way Development. 6 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
I -(.e
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
acceleration at short periods, Ss, is 1.26g. The design maximum considered spectral
response acceleration at 1 second period, S1, is 0.43g.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein loose, saturated, granular deposits temporarily
lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Based on our
observation of relatively dense material at or close to the base of the hand borings and the
apparent absence of regional ground water at shallow depths, we consider the potential
for seismic liquefaction on the site to be negligible. Hence, seismically induced
liquefaction instability is Dot considered to be an issue for this site.
Erosion Control during Construction
Best Management Practices (BMP's) as described in City of Edmonds Code must be
followed for erosion control during construction. These measures include ail erosion
control plan that addresses, lin-dting activity during wet periods, placement of a silt
retention system on the eastern side of the property, and proper disposal or recompaction
of any material that is disturbed on the site.
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this letter report for Mr. Scott Anderson, for use in design, pennitting,
and construction of the proposed 4,800 square foot building on the subject lot.
Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vaiy significantly over
small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be
detected by a geotechnical study of this scope. Accordingly, HWA should be consulted
for review and potential revision of our recommendations, if conditions are encountered
during construction that differ materially from those encountered during our investigation
and described in this report.
Our scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding
the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or
ground water at this site. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety
engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations and we cannot be responsible
for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the
responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the
recominended. actions presented herein are considered unsafe.
0-0
665 Edmonds Way Development. 7
HWA GeoSciences Inc.
1`7
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service, and trust that this report meets with your
requirements. However, if you have any questions regarding this report, or require
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at (425) 774-
0106.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
1EXPIRES 081241,92=5
Steven E. Greene, L.E.G. Lome A. Balanko, P.E.
Vice President/Senior Engineering Geologist President
Attachments:
Figure 1:
Project Site Location and Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
Site Plan & Exploration Plan
Figure 3:
Legend of Symbols and Ten -as
Figure 4:
Log of HH-1 & DCP- I
Figure 5:
Log of HH-2 & DCP-2
Figure 6:
Log of HH-3 & DCP-3
Figure 7:
Log of HH-4 & DCP-4
Figure 8:
Log of HH-5 & DCP-5
Figure 9:
Log of DCP 1 -13
Figure 10:
Particle Size Analyses
665 Edmonds Way Development. 8 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
11-13
I
July 18, 2007
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
REFERENCES
Booth, D.B, Cox, B.F., Troost, K.G., a S. A. Shimel, 2004, Con7posite Geologic Allap of
the Sno-King Area, Unillersity of Washington, Seattle Area Geologic Mapping
Project. -
City of Edmonds, 2000, Title 23-ATatural Resources; Chapter 23.80 — Geologically
Hazardous Areas.
International Code Council (ICC), 2003 International Building Code.
NRCS, 1983, Soils Adap ofSnohomish Couno) Area, WA661 (on-line version)
WSDOT, 2006, Standard Specificationsfor Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction,
M 41-10.
665 Edmonds Way Development. 9
i
HWA GeoSciences Inc.
TOPOI map printed on 07/09/07 from "WasNngton.tpo" and "Untided.tpg"
Ry
L
Edri n 9
imond's
X
N fri r-1
?
o Approximate
co
Project Site
Location
:3
:r
z
1 7VT
o
�wnt welig
0:
Nk
""T
Iv. .—Y
t
04
X
X
CA
TNjr /MY
via*
u A HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
a------------------- I —
000 FEET I =METERS
Piuded flz� TOP0.1 03MI Nd6usl Oe*Mbk HoktW (�.iopo.wW
PROJECT SITE & VICINITY MAP
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
� 665 EDMONDS WAY
C
C
P', min
---g
"41 s
M
FE
FIGURE NO.
- I
PROJECT NO.
2007-105
T-10
LEGEND
H
T HAND HOLE DESIGNATIOM AND APPROXIKATE LOCAMON
DCP-6
+ DCP DESIGNATION AND APPROMATE LOCAMON
DCP-3
&HH-3 !.�F_DCP-4
HH-
LL- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
14
LgIny S
WIT 1;
Nikw
�',I�s ITS
FS
226TH STREET S.W.
N onnr
a 20' 40, 80'
SCALE: l'-40'
HH-1
90,111 HWAGEOSCUNM INC
2
2007-105-21
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSclences Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION:
:l: feet
DATE STARTED: 07/03/2007
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
DATE COMPLETED: 07/0312007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION: See Figure 2
co
ui
a-
Co
2
< Z�
1.- 4)
U)
1—
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
D
z
cn
(0
a)
0
V5 Fi
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
—4)
0
W
1
UJ
-)
Lu co
M 'a
of
z
3:
co U)
2 L)
CL
2
(L
2
2� g
w
Z)
0
0-
LU >_ (A)
<
<
uJ
of
Lu
DESCRIPTION
a- z
0
0
0
0— ML I Soft, brown, fine to medium sandy SILT, roots and rootlets,
dry to moist. Scattered fine gravel.
(FILLIWEATHERED OUTWASH)
SM Loose yellow brown. silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to
coarse SAND, dry. S-1 Mc
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
2
Hand boring terminated at about 1.5 feet below existing
ground surface due to refusal on gravel/cobble. No ground
3— water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring.
Dropiveight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-IA) was advanced
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 5.2 feet below the
existing ground surface.
4
5
6
7-1 ,
8
9
1 10
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
A,
A;
—2
A
A
A:
A.
3
A,
A,
A�
—4
.
. ....
....
—5
—6
—7
—9
0 2D 40 60 80 100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-1
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of I
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 4
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117/07
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-2
III EDMONDS I PAGE: 1 of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCESINC EDMONDS,WASH . INGTON PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21' FIGURE: 5
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117/07
DRILLING COMPANY: HWA GeoSciences Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: feet
DATE STARTED: 07/03/2007
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
DATE COMPLETED: 07/03/2007
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & D. Coltrane
LOCATION See Figure 2
U)
Lu
Co
W
0
z
W
Lu
W
CL
<
I.- a)
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
z
0
U)
W
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
_J uJ III
0 U) _J _J
ca U) a. CL
uJ
Lu
z
n
(L
W
W
0
IX
(L
W
0 DESCRIPTION to in
a.
0
0
0
0— ML Soft, - dark brown, fine to coarse sandy SILT, with brown fine to
0
..a,.e ... bed volcanic gravel, rootlets, dry to moist.
-�M — --- — — — — — — — — — LFILLL . . . . . . . . . .
Loose, brown. silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium
SAND, dry, rootlets.
a
S-1
MC
2—
—2
Utility top at 2.1 feet below existing ground surface.
-- -------------------
A
3—Loose, rust mottled, yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse
S-2
MC
3
gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist.
GS
(WEATHERED OUTWASH)
. . . .
A,
>>A
6
A
:--w- Loose, olive brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium S-3
MC
A�
—4
AND, moist.
(OUTWASH)
A
Hand boring terminated at about 4.0 feet below existing
ground surface due to caving on loose materials. No ground
5— water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
.... q
—5
boring.
a
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-3) was advanced
A
adjacent to the hand boring to a depth of 7.0 feet below the
existing ground surface.
A
6—
—6
A
7-
111-7
8—
-9
101
20 40 60 80
10
100
0
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
HH-3
HWAGEOSCIENCU fNC 665 EDMONDS WAY
PAGE: 11 of I
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.:
2007-105-21 FIGURE:
6
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117107
T-lq
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-4
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. ED"' EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of I
MONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT No.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 7
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7/17107
X-15
0'_DRILLINGCOMPANY: HWAGeoScjences Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION:
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: Grab
LOCATION: See Figure 2
i feet
DATE STARTED: 07/03/2007
DATE COMPLETED: 07/03/2007
LOGGED BY: T. Taddese & 0. Coltrane
to
U)
uj
W
Q
a:
w M
z
-t —
, 2
0
l-
I-_
Non -Standard Penetration Resistance
0
z
U)
rn
co
Lu
I_
0
17.6 lb weight 32.6" drop
0 U)
uj W
_j _j
W
W
W
z
Z)
a.
M U)
2 0
CL CL
2 2
2�
WX
10--
0
ao:
Q.
Li
W
0
(n
=) DESCRIPTION
ouj Z_
0
0—
0
SM Loose, brown, SAND with slit and , roots and rootlets, wood
debris. dry to moist.
(FILL)
SM Loose, light yellow brown, silty SAND with gravel, rootlets, dry
to moist
S-1
me
(FILLfWEATHERED OUTWASH)
a
2-
2
Increase in fine gravel and coarse send content noted.
3
—3
SP Medium dense, olive brown, fine to medium SAND. Scattered
S-2
MC
coarse sand and fine gravel, moist.
GS
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)'
Sand becoming light yellow brown at 3 5 feet below exisflng
ground surface-
:>>
4
4—
a
Hand boring terminated at about 4A feet below existing
5—
ground surface due to refusal on gravel/cobble. No ground
....
—5
water seepage was observed while advancing this hand
boring.
Dropweight Cone Penetration Test (DCP-5) was advanced
from the bottom of hand boring to a depth of about 5.2 feet
6—
below the existing ground surface.
a
6
7—
—7
8-
10—
—10
0 20 40 60 80
100
Water Content (%)
Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit
Natural Water Content
NOTE:
This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated
and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
ffLT, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HH-5
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 665 EDMONDS WAY PAGE: 1 of 1
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 8
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117107
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HAND HOLE:
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DCP I-B
III EDMONDS WAY PAGE: I of 1
HWAGEOSCIENCES 'NC EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 9
HANDHOL 2007-105.GPJ 7117107
1-17
GRAVEL SAND
Fine Coarse Medium Fine__]
Coarse SILT CLAY
ME
Milli I IRIS liiimmlii
1
111161111111104
11111
1111
INS
I
liiiinmiiii
liiism�illirikinkNi
Millillismi
liiism�
11
liplill
SHE
1111
Ills!
11
Ili
III
i
loin
Milli
lu'
111
111
111111
si
IRIS
Ills
IS
1111
milli
Ills
IBM
11! 111 01111 Milli
off
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name
%MC
LL*
PL
PI
Gravel
%
Sand
%
Fines
0
*
HH-2
S-2
1.8-2.0
(SP) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND
3
17.1
81.1
1.8
*
HH-3
S-2
3.0-3.5
(SP) Reddish brown, gravelly, poorly graded SAND
5
35.7
59.4
4.9
A
I HH-5
S-2
3.0 - 3.5
1 (SP) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND
1 4 1
1
1 1
11.3
1 84.9
1 3.8
=A GEOTECH ICAL INVESTIGATION PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOILS
00 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 665 EDMONDS WAY METHOD ASTM D422
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 10
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC,
March 3, 2010
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21.
Andet-son Development
-23632 Highway 99, Suitc.F, PMB 502
Edinonds, WA 98206
Attn: Mr. Scott Anderson
Re: DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE ESTIMATE
Grow With Us
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter provides an estimated long term (design) infiltration rate for the proposed on
site storm water disposal system required for the "Grow with Us" Day Care Facility
planned for construction at 665 Edmonds Way, Edmonds� Washington. The project site
location is within the Area "where infiltration may be feasible" according to Exhibit B
prepared by the City of Edmonds� as shown. on Figure 1. This estimate is based oil the
evaluation of previously developed. laboratory grain size data for a sample obtained in
hand boring, HH-5 as part of a geotechnical investigation conducted in 2007 by HWA
GeoSciences hic (Geotechnical Investigationfor Commercial Development, 605
Eidnionds Edmonds, Washington for Anderson Development).
As currently proposed, we understand that a storm -water infiltration trench is proposed to
be situated as shown on Figure 2. Review of the log of the existing hand. boring log for
HH-5. which is located at the Northwest.end Of the proposed trench, indicates this portion.
of the site underlain below a, depth of 3 feet by advance outwash sand deposits comprised
of poorly graded sand with gravel (See,Figure 3). Normalization of the grain size data
obtained for sample S-2 froin HH-5 indicates the soil can be c lassified as Sand in
accordance with USDA classification systern. as shown on. Figure 4. According to the
Washington State Department of Ecolo * gy's Storm Water Management Manual for
Western Washington, infiltration rates can be estimated from grain size distribution data.
Using Table 3.7 entitled "Recornmended. Infiltration rates based on the USDA Soil
Textural Classification" an estimated long terin (design) infiltration rate of 2.0 inches per
hour is estimated lot this project site area.
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this infiltration system evaluation and sizing for the client
Mr. Scott Anderson, for use in designing and permitting the proposed
commercial development. Experience has shown that soil and ground water
March 3, 2010
HWA Project No. 2007-105-21
conditions can vary signi ficantly over si-hall distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur
between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical assessment of this
limited scope and nature. Accordingly, we make no warranty expressed or implied that
subsurface conditions throughout this site will be as observed at our exploration
locations. Should conditions be found to vary signit7fcantly from what we have described
during future construction operations on site ' we should be notified immediately so that
wc may review Such findings and the applicability of our recommendations to the
development being proposed.
If you have any questions regarding this proposal, or need additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
.HWA GeoSciences Inc.
0
1704
W Aju'111_114V
"'EVEN ELLIOTT GREENE
Steven E. Greene, L.E-.G.
Engineering Gcologist[Vice President
Attachments:
Figure I
Infiltration Feasibility Map
Figure 2
Project Site E;xploration Plat!
Figure 3
1-,og of Hand boring HB-5
Figure 4
USDA Classification Chart
Cirow With Us -Infiltration Rate 2
HWA,GeoSciences Inc.
-T. :Z0
EXHIBIT B
City of Edmonds
Infiltration Feasibility Map
< th
Scole: 1"=4000'
16 11
lvxtd
LEGEND A soli"VT
Colin Y
PARK
YMBOL MEANING Vie
01
Siles where 617(trotion
may be msibl.. if
conditions are met.
sit.$ where Will'.60. h
N
will -at be Permitted.
CITY Lfmlrs
M.;. S
Y�f
'k
V,
roxi telate
A ion
S. 220th 1.
2241h
c
228(h st- x
E
INGE
2
ULT", I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY'MAP
FIGURE NO.
DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE ESTIMATE
PROJECT NO.
GROW WITH US
665 EDMONDS WAY
2007-105
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
'tmmml
a t;m)
L% t i s n.ova-,mr
r&hrV(�(UFir.Tr-.5 fA.,,va7*v
QX4:M0 fl'i.' T TJMl*&A L C.- 'Y44-1,
LIX-ArK14
5.
2,
9p ;oc.*, kyst—I'A kmn. DIV sAjarl IvK�!LL, A."I
t-1 I-P-1
pi
I—
;1e5,m dw K, -*wT brry, Ctp ft- r.%-&.-r ahm... 4�7 Le:
-A* La —ad GS
WE CqTmxy"l
0 (41 Irl t it-
rJEOtEGHtfir-AL INVESTIGAtION HAND HOLE:
CCARAERCK. DEVGLOPMENT HH-5
imaosawas mr- 665 ECIPACINDE, WAY I"Irle 1 C4 1
EDMONDS. 10,1ASHINGTON 2037-106-21 a
i7030A: ?xr.!)4
1ILTI, I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE ESTIMATE
GROW WITH US
665 EDMONDS WAY
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON
j
5 i
FIGURE NO.
1'-23
I MQ
ONO
Borehole
Depth (ft)
USDA Classification
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
0
HH-5-S2
3.0
SAND
95.5
3.5
1.0
Fractions normalized to 100% passing the 2mm (#10) sieve
UVA DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE ESTIMATE
GROW WITH US USDA Textural
HMGEOSCIENCESINC 665 EDMONDS WAY Classification Chart
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECTNO.: 2007-105-21 FIGURE: 4
USDA TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION 2007-iO5.GPJ 30`10
X-021
STREETFILE
RESUB
JUN 112010
"N
0 NMC r
Operation and Maintenance Guidelines ;em
FOR
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washin gton
June 2 nd 2010
Of WA
ST
Prepared by:
Robert L. Long
MEMO
LM N N
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates
1921736 th Avenue W. Suite 106
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
LSA No. 5221
Operation and Maintenance Guidelines
FOR
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
June 2 nd 2010
ITA S,
3esda A
Prepared by:
Robert L. Long
Lovell-Sauerland & Associates
1921736 th Avenue W. Suite 106
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
LSA No.5221
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
Introduction:
This Operation and Maintenance Guidelines manual provides a summary of the site
redevelopment and outlines the function and proeceudres for operation and maintenance of the
storm drainage control systems for the project. The property is located at 665 Edmonds Way in
the southwest 1/4 of Section 25, T 27 N, R 3 E, W.M.
Applicant/Owner
Grow With Us Learning Center
c/o Scott Andersen
21318 84" Ave IN
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 772-2975
Project Summary.
Site Address:
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Parcel Number. 270325-003-080-00
The total site consists of about 12,824 sf (0.2944 acres) and occupied by a single family
residence (June 2010). The proposed project includes conversion of the existing residential
structure to a daycare facility by adding about 850 sf floor area and reconstructing the driveway
and parking area. The reconstructed driveway would add parking stalls, a trash enclosure area,
and restrict the loop driveway to one-way traffic flow with an entrance (southeast access point)
and exit (northwest access point). Frontage improvements along Edmonds Way already exist and
only new driveway cuts and ramps will be reconstructed.
Nearly all existing vegetation will be removed during grading activities in the development area of
the site; some existing vegetation may be retained along the site's property lines. Landscaping
and grass lawn around the new house will stabilize the site upon building construction.
Infrastructure improvements include reconstructed driveway and access points; storm water
collection, conveyance and infiltration trench to control stormwater runoff; and possible
reconnection of the typical utilities- water, sewer, gas, electric, and communication services as
needed. A storm drainage collection and infiltration trench will be installed just west of the
existing building. All roof top drains and runoff flows from the driveway area shall be routed to the
proposed infiltration trench.
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates
Engineering and Drainage Report
LSA No.5221 L=
Grow With Us Learning Center
665 Edmonds Way
June 2010
D�n. I ^f I I
Stormwater Control System Summary.
The project proposes to create, replace and/or retain 8,450 sf of impervious surface on -site. To
mitigate the re -development of the site, an infiltration system will be installed to control the
drainage runoff. All of the on -site impervious surfaces shall be collected and routed to an on -site
infiltration system. The proposed 89 ft (1) x 6 ft (w) x 3.0 ft (d) infiltration trench has been designed
to completely disperse the 1 00-year 24-hour design storm on -site. Therefore, the project will have
no "effective impervious" surface that impacts the City's drainage system.
The on -site infiltration trench is to be constructed per the City of Edmonds' standard practices.
The length of the trench is dependent upon the designed infiltration rate of the native soils and the
collection area conveyed to the trench. SCS soil survey designates the area soils as an Everett
(#17- type A) soil. In accordance with a soil evaluation a design infiltration rate of 2 in/hr has been
used to size the on -site infiltration trench. The site specific geotechnical evaluations and compete
engineering calculations for the system are on file at the City of Edmonds.
Site Area Summary.
Total Site Area = 12,824 sf
Proposed Impervious = 8,450 sf
Building Addition, Patio and Walk 1,509 sf
Existing House = 1,441 sf
Driveway / Parking = 5,500 sf
Proposed Pervious = 4,574 sf (Lawn and landscape)
Inflitration Trench Design Summary Table:
Total Site Area
Proposed Impervious Area
Proposed Pervious Area
Developed Storm Events (SCS Unit Hydrograph)
Peak Storm Runoff Rates
Total Storm Volumes
Infiltration Trench Design (89'x 6'x X)
Provided Storage Volume (30% voids)
Infiltration Rate (2 in/hr over 89' x 6' bottom area)
12,824 sf (0.294 acres)
8,250 sf (0.189 acres)
4,574 sf (0. 105 acres)
2 year 10 vear 100 year
0.06 cfs 0.08 cfs 0. 13 cfs
894 cf 1,279 cf 2,109 cf
480 cf
0.0247 cfs
Lovell-Sauerland and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
P:400 I nf 11
Operation and Maintenance Requirements: This manual is intended to provide guidance to the
owner(s) for the operation and maintenance of the drainage and the stormwater detention storage
facilities for the Grow With Us Learning Center (665 Edmonds Way). The owner is responsible for
maintenance of storm drainage facilities within the property. The owner is not responsible for
maintenance within the public right-of-way.
This manual is not comprehensive. Although it explains the intended operation of the various
components of the drainage system, and suggests a routine of inspection and maintenance, it
cannot anticipate every problem. Once a historical record of maintenance is established, it may
be prudent to alter the routine. It is recommended that maintenance records be kept, and that the
records be reviewed periodically.
Concept of Operation: The drainage design is shown and described in the final site
development engineering plans and report. The approved site development plans and report
should be retained as part of this document and used as a reference to identify drainage facilities
mentioned in this manual.
Stormwater Infiltration Trench System. The onsite infiltration trench system consists of an
underground rock filled trench with a 6" perforated dispersion pipe running through the center.
The infiltration trench is located under the proposed driveway and parking area between Edmonds
Way and the onsite building. The infiltration trench system has been designed to completely
infiltrate the 100-year 24-hour storm event. If an extraordinary event was to occur or multiple
back to back large storm events occurred the catch -basins at the ends of the trench would
overtop and overflow into the street system. If regular overtopping of the collection catchbasin is
experienced the system shall be thoroughly cleaned and inspected. Over a period of time siltation
of the infiltration bed can occur (especially if the system is not inspected and cleaned regularly)
and replacement of the rock in the infiltration system may be required.
Recommended Inspections of Facilities. The following are inspection guidelines for the drainage
system. A minimum of two overall site drainage system inspections should occur annually. The
inspections should occur prior to the winter rain season (September/October), leaving sufficient
time to correct any detected maintenance problems, and at the end of the season (May/June) to
determine the effect of the season's runoff. A mid raining season (February) inspection is
recommended. Once a historical basis is developed the frequency of inspection may be modified
as necessary.
For additional and updated maintenance information visit the Washington State Department of
Ecology's web -site at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/Wq/Wqhome.htmI
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
P;4aa :t nf 11
General Design, Maintenance, and Construction Criteria for Infiltration Facilities
Construction Criteria
. Initial basin excavation should be conducted to within 1 -foot of the final elevation of the basin floor.
Excavate infiltration trenches and basins to final grade only after all disturbed areas in the upgradient
project drainage area have been permanently stabilized. The final phase of excavation should remove all
accumulation of silt in the infiltration facility before putting it in service. After construction is completed,
prevent sediment from entering the infiltration facility by first conveying the runoff water through an
appropriate pretreatment system such as a pre -settling basin, wet pond, or sand filter.
. Infiltration facilities should generally not be used as temporary sediment traps during construction. If an
infiltration facility is to be used as a sediment trap, it must not be excavated to final grade until after the
upgradient drainage area has been stabilized. Any accumulation of silt in the basin must be removed before
putting it in service.
. Traffic Control — Relatively light -tracked equipment is recommended for this operation to avoid
compaction of the basin floor. The use of draglines and trackhoes should be considered for constructing
infiltration basins. The infiltration area should be flagged or marked to keep heavy equipment away.
. Trench Preparation -Excavated materials must be placed away from the trench sides to enhance trench
wall stability. Care should also be taken to keep this material away from slopes, neighboring property,
sidewalks and streets. It is recommended that this material be covered with plastic.
Stone Aggregate Placement and Compaction - The stone aggregate should be placed in lifts and
compacted using plate compactors. As a rule of thumb, a maximum loose lift thickness of 12 inches is
recommended. The compaction process ensures geotextile conformity to the excavation sides, thereby
reducing potential piping and geotextile clogging, and settlement problems.
. Potential Contamination - Prevent natural or fill soils from intermixing with the stone aggregate. All
contaminated stone aggregate must be removed and replaced with uncontaminated stone aggregate.
. Overlapping and Covering-Fol lowing the stone aggregate placement, the geotextile must be folded over
the stone aggregate to form a 12 inch minimum longitudinal overlap. When overlaps are required between
rolls, the upstream roll should overlap a minimum of 2 feet over the downstream roll in order to provide a
shingled effect.
- Voids behind Geotextile - Voids between the geotextile and excavation sides must be avoided.
Removing boulders or other obstacles from the trench walls is one source of such voids. Natural soils
should be placed in these voids at the most convenient time during construction to ensure geotextile
conformity to the excavation sides. Soil piping, geotextile clogging, and possible surface subsidence will be
avoided by this remedial process.
- Unstable Excavation Sites - Vertically excavated walls may be difficult to maintain in areas where the
soil moisture is high or where soft or cohesionless soils predominate. Trapezoidal, rather than rectangular,
cross -sections may be needed.
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineeting and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
P:nrin A nf 11
Maintenance Criteria
Provision should be made for regular and perpetual maintenance of the infiltration basin/trench, including
replacement and/or reconstruction of the any media that are relied upon for treatment purposes.
Maintenance should be conducted when water remains in the basin or trench for more than 24 hours after
the end of a rainfall event, or when overflows occur more frequently than planned. For example, off-line
infiltration facilities should not have any overflows. Infiltration facilities designed to completely infiltrate
all flows to meet flow control standards should not overflow. An Operation and Maintenance Plan,
approved by the local jurisdiction, should ensure maintaining the desired infiltration rate.
Adequate access for operation and maintenance must be included in the design of infiltration basins and
trenches.
Removal of accumulated debris/sediment in the basin/trench should be conducted every 6 months or as
needed to prevent clogging, or when water remains in the pond for greater than 24 hours after the end of a
rainfall event.
Volume /// — Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs February 2005
Lovell-Saueriand and Associates Grow With Us Learning Center
Engineering and Drainage Report 665 Edmonds Way
LSA No.5221 March 2010
P;Igp 1; of 11
4.6 � Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities
The facility -specific maintenance standards contained in this section are
intended to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are
required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be
measures of the facility's required condition at all times between
inspections. In other words, exceedence of these conditions at any time
between inspections and/or maintenance does not automatically constitute
a violation of these standards. However, based upon inspection
observations, the inspection and maintenance schedules shall be adjusted
to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires
a maintenance action.
Table 4.5 — Maintenance Standards
No. I — Detention Ponds
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance Is Performed..
General
Trash & Debris
Any trash and debris which exceed 5
Trash and debris cleared from site.
cubic feet per 1,000 square feet (this
is about equal to the amount of trash
it would take to fill up one standard
size garbage can). In general, there
should be no visual evidence of
dumping.
If less than threshold all trash and
debris will be removed as part of next
scheduled maintenance.
Poisonous
Vegetation and
Any poisonous or nuisance
vegetation which may constitute a
No danger of poisonous vegetation
where maintenance personnel or the
noxious weeds
hazard to maintenance personnel or
public might normally be. (Coordinate
the public.
with local health department)
Any evidence of noxious weeds as
Complete eradication of noxious weeds
defined by State or local regulations.
may not be possible. Compliance with
(Apply requirements of adopted IPM
policies for the use of herbicides).
State or local eradication policies
required
Contaminants
Any evidence of oil, gasoline,
NO
and Pollution
contaminants or other pollutants
00fitaFftiftafitS
(Coordinate removal/cleanup with
O"011utants-
ffeSeflt.
local water quality response agency).
Rodent Holes
Any evidence of rodent holes if
Rodents destroyed and dam or berm
facility is acting as a dam or berm, or
repaired. (Coordinate with local health
any evidence of water piping through
department; coordinate with Ecology
dam or berm via rodent holes.
Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10
I
acre-feet.)
4-30
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs Februafy 2005
D C _f 11
No. I — Detention Ponds
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is
Results Expected When
Component
Needed
Maintenance IsPerformed
Pond Berms
Settlements
Any part of berm which has settled 4
Dike is built back to the design
(Dikes)
inches lower than the design
elevation.
elevation.
If settlement is apparent, measure
berm to determine amount of
settlement.
Settling can be an indication of more
severe problems With the berm or
outlet works. A licensed civil
engineer should be consulted to
determine the source of the
settlement.
Piping
Discemable water flow through pond
Piping eliminated. Erosion potential
berm. Ongoing erosion with potential
resolved.
for erosion to continue.
(Recommend a Goethechnical
engineer be called in to inspect and
evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.
Emergency
Tree Growth
Tree growth on emergency spillways
Trees should be removed. If root
Overflow/
creates blockage problems and may
system is small (base less than 4
Spillway and
cause failure of the berm due to
inches) the root system may be left in
Berms over 4
uncontrolled overtopping.
place. Otherwise the roots should be
feet in height.
removed and the berm restored. A
Tree growth on berms over 4 feet in
licensed civil engineer should be
height may lead to piping through the
consulted for proper berm/spillway
berm which could lead to failure of
restoration.
the berm.
Piping
Discernable water flow through pond
Piping eliminated. Erosion potential
berm. Ongoing erosion with potential
resolved.
for erosion to continue.
(Recommend a Goethechnical
engineer be called in to inspect and
evaluate condition and recommend
repair of condition.
Emergency
Emergency
Only one layer of rock exists above
Rocks and pad depth are restored to
Overflow/
Overflow/
native soil in area five square feet or
design standards.
Spillway
Spillway
larger, or any exposure of native soil
at the top of out flow path of spillway.
(Rip -rap on inside slopes need not be
I I
I
replaced.) I
II
Erosion I
See "Side Slopes of Pond" I
4-32
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
Dnna 7 -f 1 1
No. 2 — Infiltration
-Maintenance,
Defect..
Conditions When Maintenan e Is
Results Eipe4fi;d�W6en.
orn onen
'Needed
Mainbanahce'16,�
Peirformed
General
Trash & Debris
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Poisonous/Noxious
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Vegetation
(No. 1).
Contaminants and
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pollution
(No. 1).
Rodent Holes
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1)
Storage Area
Sediment
Water ponding in infiltration pond after
Sediment is removed
rainfall ceases and appropriate time
and/or facility is cleaned
allowed for infiltration.
so that infiltration system
works according to
(A percolation test pit or test of facility
design.
indicates facility is only working at 90% of
its designed capabilities. If two inches or
more sediment is present, remove).
Filter Bags (if
Filled with
Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2
Filter bag is replaced or
applicable)
Sediment and
full.
system is redesigned.
Debris
Rock Filters
Sediment and
By Visual inspection, little or no water flows
Gravel in rock filter is
Debris
through filter during heavy rain storms.
replaced.
Side Slopes of
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Pond
(No. 1).
Emergency
Tree Growth
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1).
and Berms over 4
feet in height.
Piping
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Emergency
Rock Missing
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
Overflow Spillway
(No. 1).
Erosion
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
See "Detention Ponds"
(No. 1).
Pre -settling
Facility or sump
6" or designed sediment trap depth of
Sediment is removed.
Ponds and Vaults
filled with Sediment
sediment.
I
and/or debris I
I
I
February 2005 Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-33
Nee 8 of 11
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenande'
Defect
Con d itio-n s Wh e n M "a I nte na n ce I Is'Needed
Results-E*pected When
Coen ' in
Mainte"nifice Is
performe d
General
Trash &
Trash or debris which is located immediately
No Trash or debris located
Debris
in front of the catch basin opening or is
immediately in front of
blocking inletting capacity of the basin by
catch basin or on grate
more than 10%.
opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No trash or debris in the
percent of the sump depth as measured from
catch basin.
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
Inlet and outlet pipes free
blocking more than 1/3 of its height.
of trash or debris.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
No dead animals or
generate odors that could cause complaints
vegetation present within
or dangerous gases (e.g., methane).
the catch basin.
Sediment
Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No sediment in the catch
percent of the sump depth as measured from
basin
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 6 inches clearance
from the sediment surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Structure
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
Top slab is free of holes
Damage to
inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch
and cracks.
Frame and/or
Top Slab
(intent is to make sure no material is running
into basin).
Frame not sifting flush on top slab, i.e.,
Frame is sitting flush on
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame
the riser rings or top slab
from the top slab. Frame not securely
and firmly attached.
attached
Fractures or
Maintenance person judges that structure is
Basin replaced or repaired
Cracksin
unsound.
to design standards.
Basin Walls/
Bottom
Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider
Pipe is regrouted and
than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the
secure at basin wall.
joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of
soil particles entering catch basin through
cracks.
Settlement/
If failure of basin has created a safety,
Basin replaced or repaired
Misalignment
function, or design problem.
to design standards.
Vegetation
Vegetation growing across and blocking more
No vegetation blocking
than 10% of the basin opening.
opening to basin.
Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints
No vegetation or root
that is more than six inches tall and less than
growth present.
six inches apart.
4-36 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs February 2005
D'-- 0 -4:11
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance Is:Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is
performed
Contamination
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
No pollution present.
and Pollution
Catch Basin
Cover Not in
Cover is missing or only partially in place.
Catch basin cover is
Cover
Place
Any open catch basin requires maintenance.
closed
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
Mechanism opens with
Mechanism
maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts
proper tools.
Not Working
into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread.
Cover Difficult
One maintenance person cannot remove lid
Cover can be removed by
to Remove
after applying normal lifting pressure.
one maintenance person.
(intent is keep cover from sealing off access
to maintenance.)
Ladder
Ladder Rungs
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not
Ladder meets design
Unsafe
securely attached to basin wall,
standards and allows
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
maintenance person safe
access.
Metal Grates
Grate opening
Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.
Grate opening meets
(if Applicable)
Unsafe
design standards.
Trash and
Trash and debris that is blocking more than
Grate free of trash and
Debris
20% of grate surface inletting capacity.
debris.
Damaged or
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
Grate is in place and
Missing.
grate.
meets design standards.
No. 6 — Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks)
Maintenance
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is
Results Expected When
Components
Needed
Maintenance Is Performed
General
Trash and
Trash or debris that is plugging more
Barrier cleared to design flow
Debris
than 20% of the openings in the barrier.
capacity.
Metal
Damaged/
Bars are bent out of shape more than 3
Bars in place with no bends more
Missing
inches.
than 3/4 inch.
Bars.
Bars are missing or entire barrier
Bars in place according to design.
missing.
Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%
Barrier replaced or repaired to
deterioration to any part of barrier.
design standards.
Inlet/Outlet
Debris barrier missing or not attached to
Barrier firmly attached to pipe
Pipe
pipe
February 2005 Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-37
Paep. innf 11
No. 16 — Baffle Oifflater Separators (API Type)
Maintenance
Defect
Condition When Maintenance* Is
Results Expected When
.Component
Needed
Maintenance is Performed'
General
Monitoring
Inspection of discharge water for
Effluent discharge from vault should
obvious signs of poor water
be clear with out thick visible sheen.
quality.
Sediment
Sediment depth in bottom of vault
No sediment deposits on vault
Accumulation
exceeds 6-inches in depth.
bottom that would impede flow
through the vault and reduce
separation efficiency.
Trash and Debris
Trash and debris accumulation in
Trash and debris removed from
Accumulation
vault, or pipe inletloutlet,
vault, and inlet/outlet piping.
floatables and non-floatables.
Oil Accumulation
Oil accumulations that exceed I-
Extract oil from vault by vactoring.
inch, at the surface of the water.
Disposal in accordance with state
and local rules and regulations.
Damaged Pipes
Inlet or outlet piping damaged or
Pipe repaired or replaced.
broken and in need of repair.
Access Cover
Cover cannot be opened,
Cover repaired to proper working
Damaged/Not
corrosion/deformation of cover.
specifications or replaced.
Working
Vault Structure
Vault replaced or repairs made so
Damage - Includes
Cracks in Walls
See "Catch Basins" (No. 5)
that vault meets design
specifications and is structurally
Bottom, Damage to
sound.
Frame and/or Top
Slab
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the
Vault repaired so that no cracks
joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or
exist wider than 1/4-inch at the joint
evidence of soil particles entering
of the inlet/outlet pipe.
through the cracks.
Baffles
Baffles corroding, cracking,
Baffles repaired or replaced to
warping and/or showing signs of
specifications.
failure as determined by
maintenance/inspection person.
Access Ladder
Ladder is corroded or
Ladder replaced or repaired and
Damaged
deteriorated, not functioning
meets specifications, and is safe to
properly, not securely attached to
use as determined by inspection
structure wall, missing rungs,
personnel.
cracks, and misaligned.
4-48
Volume V— Runoff Treatment BMPs Februaty 2005
p;1 ain 11 r%f 11
REM
Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, hic.
Engineers/Surveyors/Planners
Development. Consultants
19217 36th Avenue W. Suite 106 Lynnwood, WA
98036 phone: (425)775-1591
LSAengineerm'g.com
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
For.
AND.ERSEN DEVELOPMEN
Peak Job # 1064
Owner
Jeanie Jansen
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, 98020-4640
Prepared F oir
Northwest Regional Office
3190 - 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
425-649-7000
Developer
Andersen Development
23632 HWY 99
Suite F PBM 502
Edmonds, Wa 98026-9205
425-771-6444
_eln
Operator/Contractor
DEC - 5 2008
Project Site Location BUILDING DEPARTMENT
I CITY OF EDMONDS
665 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Wa 98020-4640
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
.AARON TYSON
360-658-6986
SWPPP Prepared By
PEAK ENGINEERING INC.
601 DELTA AVE, MARYSVILLE, WA 982-70
360-658-6986
BRIAN R. LINDSAY, DESIGN ENGINEER
SWPPP Preparation Date
June 13, 2008
Revised per City Review Dec 2, 2008
Approximate Project Construction Dates
START DATE: October, 2008
END DATE: June'2009
C TV;
i (10py
601 Delta Ave. * Marysville, WA 98270
PHONE (360) 658 -6986 - FAX (360) 658 -7826 - Website: peak-engineering.net
ILI 7
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... I
2.0 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Proposed Construction Activities and Drainage Information ........................................... 2
3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs ............................................................................................... 3
3.1 The 12 BMP Elements ...................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1
Element #I —
Mark Clearing Limits ................................................................
4
3.1.2
Element #2 —
Establish Construction Ac cess ..................................................
4
3.1.3
Element #3 —
Control Flow Rates ....................................................................
5
3.1.4
Element #4 —
Install Sediment Controls ..........................................................
5
3.1.5
Element #5 —
Stabilize Soils ................................................. ; ..........................
6
3.1.6
Element #6 —
Protect Slopes ............................................................................
7
3.1.7
Element #7 —
Protect Drain Inlets ....................................................................
8
3.1.8
Element'#8 —
Stabilize Channels and Outlets ..................................................
8
3.1.9
Element #9 —
Control Pollutants ......................................................................
9
3.1.10'
Element #10
— Control Dewatering ...............................................................
11
3.1.11
Element# I I
—Maintain BMPs ......................................................................
12
3.1.12
Element #12
— Manage the Project .................................................................
12
3.2 Site Specific
BMPs ..........................................................................................................
15
3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs ............................................................................................
15
4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation ................................................................... 15
5.0 Pollution Prevention Team ....................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Roles and Responsibilities ................... *"**""*'***""**'****'*"'*'**'**"**'****"*"******'* ................ 17
5.2 Team Members ................................................................................................................ 18
6.6 Site Inspections and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 18
6.1 Site Inspection ................................................................................................................. 18
6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency ........................... ................................................... 19
6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation ....................................................................... 19
6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring ...................................................................................... 19
7.0 REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING ............................................................................. 20
7.1 Recordkeeping ................................................................................................................. 20
7.1.1 Site Log Book ................................................................................................ 20
7.1.2 Records Retention ..................................
7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records ......................................................................... 20
7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP ...................................................................................... 20
7.2 Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports ...................................................................... 21
11
I
7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance ..................................................................... 21
7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes ..................................................................... 21
Appendix A — Site plans
Appendix B — Construction BMPs
Appendix C — Alternative Construction BMPs
Appendix D — General Permit
Appendix E — Site Log Inspection Forms
Appendix F — Engineering Calculations
iii
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1.0 Introduction
Federal, State and County law requires construction site operators to manage their stormwater for
sites larger than one acre.. The Department of Ecology administers these laws through the
Construction Stormwater General Permit. For details on who needs a permit, see Ecology's
publication: "How to Meet Ecology's Construction, Stormwater General Permit Requirements. A
Guide for Construction Sites" The permit requires the construction site operator, to develop, use,
and amend a Ston-nwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP is to
reduce and prevent soil and other common construction pollutants from washing off the site and
reaching streams, rivers, and other local water bodies.
This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SVvTPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES
stormwater permit requirements for the Andersen Office Building construction project in City of
Edmonds, Washington.
This SWPPP describes the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent
erosion. and sediment control measures (TESC), , pollution prevention measures,
inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the
proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to:
Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and
sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater
contamination and water pollution from construction activity.
2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or
sediment management standards.
3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts
including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling
peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee's
outfalls and downstream of the outfalls.
This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stormwater
General Permit, Stormwater Management Manualfor Western Washington (SWMMWW 2005).
The report is divided into seven main secti ' ons with several appendices that include stormwater
related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are:
Section I — INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary
description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document.
Section 2 — SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed
description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities,
and calculated stormwater flow rates for existing conditions and post —
construction conditions.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Section 3 — CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPs. This section
provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on
the 12 required elements of the SWPPP.
Section 4 — CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION.
This section providesa description of the timing of the BMP implementation in
relation to the project schedule.
Section 5 — POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies
the appropriate contact names (emergency and non -emergency),
monitoring personnel, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation
control inspector
Section 6 — SITE INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING. This section
provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such
as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample
frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations
from the site.
Section 7 — REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING. This section
describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation,
site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of
certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction.
Supporting documentation and standard forins are provided in Appendices A-F.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 Existing Conditions
This project will construct a two story commercial office building, on a approximately 0.29 acre
site. The site is located on the northeast side of Edmonds Way (SR 104) just north of 15 TH Street
SW with a site address of 665 Edmonds Way. The existing- single-family residence and out
buildings will be removed prior to construction. Vegetation found on site consists of lawn, native
landscaping and some 3 d growth trees. The development area is relatively flat. The Soil Survey
of Snohomish County identified the onsite surface soils as Alderwood urban complex
(Hydrologic Soils Group Q.
2.2 Proposed Construction Activities and Drainage Information
The project will provide a driveway access from Edmonds Way for the commercial office
building. The site provides onsite parking with some additional covered parking area Within the
4
T
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
building foot print. For sto'rmwater management a pipe detention facility has been sized
according to the 1992 DOE drainage manual per city of Edmonds standards.
Construction activities will include site preparation, TESC installation, demolition of the existing
residence, excavation for the building foundations and detention pipe, site -wide grading, and
asphalt paving. The schedule and phasing of BMPs during construction is provided in Section
4.0.
The following summarizes -details regarding the site areas:
Total site area: 0.29 acres
Percent impervious area before construction: 35%
Percent impervious area after construction: 63%
Disturbed area during construction: 0.20 acres
Disturbed area that is characterized as impervious (i.e.,
access. roads, staging, parking): 0.18 acres
2-year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction
(existing): .01 cfs
1 0-year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction
(existing): 0.03 cfs'
2-year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction:' 0.04 cfs
1 0-year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 0.06 cfs
2-year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.01 6fs
1 0-year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.03 cfs
All stormwater flow calculations are provided in Appendix F. -
For the pre -developed conditions, the 2yr, I Oyr and I 00yr 24hr storm events were modeled using
the existing site condition to determine the pre -developed peak runoff rates. In modeling the
existing conditions this analysis takes credit for the existing impervious surfaces that onsite. The
existing and proposed impervious and pervious lawn and landscape area was calculated and used
for the developed condition calculations. To match the ' existing conditions, flow restrictors have'
been designed to release the detained runoff under developed conditions at 50% of the two year
and 100% of the I 0-yr and I 00-yr storm events at the existing conditions peak rates. As required
per Figure III-1.1 (Attached to the Appendix) a volume was calculated and factor of safety, of
3
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1.35 times the calculated detention capacity was used to determine the minimum required
detention volume.
3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs
3.1 The 12 BMP Elements
3.1.1 Element #1 — Mark Clearing Limits
To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of
construction will be clearly marked before land -disturbing activities begin. Trees that are to be
preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and. their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the
field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an
undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing
limits that will be applied for this project include:
High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C 103)
* Orange Filter Fabric Fence will be used to delineate the onsite clearing limits.
Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix C as a quick.reference tool
for the onsite inspector in the event the BMPs listed above are deemed ineffective or
inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES
Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a
violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D),. the
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementat ' ion of one or
more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C, after the first sign that existing BMPs are
ineffective or failing.
3.11 Element #2 — Establish Construction Access
Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where
necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public
roads, and wheel washing, street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent
sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The
specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project
include:
0 Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105)
0 Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization (BMP C107)
Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the
onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate
during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix
4
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
3.1.3 Element #3 — Control Flow liates
In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater
discharges from the site will be controlled. The specific BMPs for flow control that shall be used
on this project include:
0 Temporary Sediment Pond (BMP C241)
Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite
inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during
construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D).
To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the project must
comply with Minimum Requirement 7 (SWMMWW 2005).
In general, discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be controlled where increases in
impervious area or soil compaction during construction could lead to downstream erosion, or
where necessary to meet local agency stormwater discharge requirements (e.g. discharge to
combined sewer systems).
3.1.4 Element #4 — Install Sediment Controls
All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal
BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to an infiltration facility.
The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include:
0 Gravel Filter Berm (BMP C232)
0 Silt Fence (BMP C233)
0 Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220)
Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the
onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate
5
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix
D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work
areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on
vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize wash off of sediments from adjacent streets in
runoff.
Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level,
vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 5, page 4-102).
In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent
stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the
effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or
biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention
ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be
used to control sediment discharge'during construction, the structure will be protected from
excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated
sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent storinwater BMP
will be restabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the
site has been stabilized.
The following BMPs will be implemented as end -of -pipe sediment controls as required to meet
permitted turbidity limits in the site discharge(s). Prior to the implementation of these
technologies, sediment sources and erosion control and soil stabilization BMP-efforts will be
maximized to reduce the need for end -of -pipe sedimentation controls. .
Temporary Sediment Pond (BMP C241)
Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C25 1)
Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment (BMP C 250)
(implemented only with prior written approval from Ecology).
3.1.5 Element #5 — Stabilize Soils
Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent
erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be
used on this project include:
0 Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120)
rel
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
0 Plastic Covering (BMP C 123)
Soils shall be continuously stabilized through out the life of the project.
Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the
onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate
during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix
D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES C6nstruction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion a nid
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, no soils shall remain
exposed and unworked formore than 7 days during the dry season (May I to September 30) and
2 days during the wet season (October I to April 30). Regardless of the time of year, all soils
shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on weather
forecasts.
In general, cut and fill slo' es will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be
p
temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion,
protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm
drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels.
3.1.6 Element #6 — Protect Slopes
All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner than minimizes
erosion. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project:
0 Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120)
Interceptor Swales upslope of top of banks will redirect runoff away from exposed slope areas.
Alternate slope protection BMPs are included -in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the
onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate
during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix
D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
7
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
3.1.7 Element #7 — Protect -Drain Inlets
All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to
prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However,
the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate
from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP
C220) will be implemented for altdrainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted
by sediment -laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures
can be applied on this project:
Drop Inlet Protection
0 Excavated Drop Inlet Protection
0 Block and Gravel Drop Inlet Protection
0 Gravel and Wire Drop Inlet Protection
0 Catch Basin Filters
Alternative BMP not included in the SWMMWW (2005) or SWMMEW
(20 04)
Culvert Inlet Protection
0 Culvert Inlet Sediment Trap
9 Alternative BMP not included in the SWMMWW (2005) or SWMMEW (2004)
If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to
satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are
listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment
Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed
in Appendix C.
3.1.8 Element #8 — Stabilize Channels and Outlets'
Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural
drainage point, efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for
channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include:
0 Check Dams (BMP C207)
Rock check dams will be provided at 50' minimum spacing along all temporary sediment swales.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference
tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or
inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES
Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a
violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or
more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are
ineffective or failing.
The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, all temporary on -site
conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the
expected peak 10 minute velocity of flow from a Type I A, I 0-year, 24-hour recurrence interval
storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the I 0-year, I -,hour peak flow rate indicated by
an, approved continuous runoff simulation model, increased by a factor of 1. 6, shall be used.
Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent
streambanks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance
systems.
3.1.9 Element #9 — Control Pollutants
All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be
handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good
housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean,
well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific
sources of pollutants are discussed below.
Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing:
All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas
will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify
maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills.
On -site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall
include secondary containment.
Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when
conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment.
In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be
placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle.
Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any
discharge or spill incident.
Chemical storage:
0
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Any chemicals stored in the construction areas will conform to the
appropriate source control BMPs listed in Volume IV of the Ecology
stormwater manual. In Western WA, all chemicals shall have cover,
containment, and protection provided on site, per BMP C 15 3 for Material
Delivery, Storage and Containment in SWMMWW 2005
Application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides,
shall -be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result
in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers'
recommendations for application procedures and rates shall be followed.
Excavation and tunneling spoils dewatering waste:
Demolition:
Dewatering BMPs and BMPs specific to the excavation and tunneling
(including handling of contaminated soils) are discussed under Element
10.
Dust released from demolished sidewalks, buildings, or structures will be
controlled using Dust Control measures. (BMP C140).
Storm drain inlets vulnerable to stormwater discharge carrying dust, soil,
or debris will be protected using Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220
as described above for Element 7).
Process water and slurry resulting from sawcutting and surfacing
operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by
implementing Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures
(BMP C152).
Concrete and grout:
Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented
from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling
measures (BMP C 15 1).
Sanitary wastewater:
Portable sanitation facilities will be firmly secured, regularly maintained,
and emptied when necessary.
Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on -
site treatment system or to the sanitary sewer as part of Wheel Wash
implementation (BMP C 106).
Solid Waste:
Other:
Stormwat&r Pollution Prevention Plan
Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers.
Other BMPs will be administered as necessary to address any additional
pollutant sources on site. -
This project does not require a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Federal regulations of the Clean
Water Act (CWA).
3.1.10 Element #10 — Control Dewatering
All dewatering water from open cut excavation, tunneling, foundation work, trench, or
underground vaults shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to
a sediment trap or sediment pond. Channels will be stabilized, per Element #8. * Clean, non -
turbid dewatering water will not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds, and will be
discharged to systems tributary to the receiving waters of the State in a manner that does not
cause erosion, flooding, or a violation of State water quality standards in the receiving water.
Highly turbid dewatering water from soils known or suspected to be contammated, or from use
of construction equipment, will require additional monitoring and treatment as required for the
specific pollutants based on the receiving waters intowhich the discharge is occurring. Such
monitoring is the responsibility of the contractor.
However, the dewatering of soils known to be free of contamination will trigger BMPs to trap
sediment and reduce turbidity. At a minimum, geotextile fabric socks/bags/cells will be used to
filter this material. Other BMPs to be used for sediment trapping and turbidity reduction include
the following:
0 Concrete Handling (BMP C151)
0 Temporary Sediment Pond (BMP C24 1)
0 Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment (BMP C250)
Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C 25 1)
0 Infiltration
Use of a sedimentation bag, with outfall to a ditch or swale for srndll
volumes of localized dewatering.
I I
Stormwatef Pollution Prevention Plan
Alternative BMP not included in the SWMMWW (2005), or SWMMEW
(2004)
Alternate dewatering control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a -quick reference to ' ol for the
onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate
during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix
D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D),' the Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the
alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or
failing.
3.1.11 Element #11 — Maintain BMPs
All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and
repaired as needed to assure continued perf6nnance of their intended function. Maintenance and
repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP's specifications. Visual
monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours
of any rainfall event that causes a discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is
temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month.
All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the
final site stabilization i's achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped
sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs
or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized.
3.1.12 Element #12 — Manage the Project
Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following
principles:
Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage
patterns.
0 Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control.
0 Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed.
E Keep runoff velocities low.
0 Retain sediment on site.
0 Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures.
N Schedule major earthwork during the dry season.
12
Stormwater Pollution'Prevention Plan
In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below:
As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed
according to the following key project components:
Phasing of Construction
The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order
to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport
of sediment from the site during construction.
Revegeta * tion of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be
an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction,
per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). -
Seasonal Work Limitations
From October I through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil
disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of
the local permitting authority that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from
leaving the site through a combination of the following:
Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil
type, and proximity to receiving waters; and
0 Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and
11 Proposed erosion and sediment control measures.
Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the
local pennitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on
site disturbance.
The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading
limitations:
11 Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment
control BMPs;
E] Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility
structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the
vegetative cover'to soil; and
13
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
11 Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water
runoff within the.site in approved and installed erosion and
sediment control facilities.
Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions
Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction
projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and
scheduling the construction work.
Inspection and Monitoring,
All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure
continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall
be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and
practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary
skills to:
11 Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could -
impact the quality of stormwater, and
0 Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures
used to control the quality of stormwater discharges.
A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on -site or on -call
at all times.
Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified
in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential
to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or
design changes shall be implemented as scion as possible.
Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP
This SWPPP shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the
site.
The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design,
construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or
could hlive'. a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of
the state.
The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations
conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state
regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in
14
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater
discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to
include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems
identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7)
days following the inspection.
3.2 Site Specific BN[Ps
Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site
specific plan sheets will be updated as per DOE code.
3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs
BMP C250: Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment
BMP C25 1: Construction Stormwater Filtration. ,
4.0- Construction Phasing and BMP
Implementation
The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following
provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding
BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet/dry season
construction dates.
The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the .
construction project, and reflects differences in.BMP installations and inspections that
relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade
Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May I to September 30
i
and the wet season is considered to be from October I to April 30.
0 Dry Season starts:
05/01/2008
* Estimate of Construction start date: 10/01/2008
* Mobilize equipment on site:
WEEK ONE
Mobilize and store all Erosion and Sedimentation
Control (ESC) and soil stabilization products
(store material s_ on'hand BMP C 150): WEEK ONE
15
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
• Site inspections and monitoring conducted weekly and
for applicable rain events as detailed in Section 6 of this
SWPPP:
WEEK ONE
• Install ESC measures:
WEEK TWO
• Install stabilized construction entrance:
WEEK TWO
• Begin clearing and grubbing:
WEEK TWO
• Excavation for vault foundations:
WEEK FOUR
• Soil stabilization on excavated side slopes (in idle, no
work areas as shown on ESC plans):
WEEK FOUR
• Excavate and install new utilities and services:
WEEK SIX
• Complete utility construction:
WEEK SEVEN
• Site grading begins:
WEEK FIVE
• Site grading ends:
SPRING
• Final landscaping and planting begins:
SPRING
• Permanent erosion control measures (hydroseeding):
FALL
Begin implementing soil stabilization and sediment
control BMPs throughout the site in preparation for wet
season: WEEK SIXTEEN
• Wet Season starts: 10/01/2008
• implement Element #12 BMPs and manage site to
minimize soil disturbance during the wet season 10/01/2008
• Estimate of Construction finish date: 06/01/2009
16
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
5.0 Pollution Prevention Team
5.1 'Roles and- Responsibilities.
The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the
SWPPP, including the following:
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) — primary
contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual
monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any
ESC measures.
Resident Engineer— For projects with engineered structures only
(sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.)-.' site representative for the owner
that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and
issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or
representative
Emergency Ecology Contact — individual to be contacted at Ecology in
case of emergency.
Emergency Owner Contact — individual that is the site owner or
representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an
emergency.
Non -Emergency Ecology Contact — individual to be contacted at Ecology
in case of non -emergency.
Monitoring Personnel — personnel responsible for conducting water
quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion
and Sediment Control Lead.
I-
17
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
5.2 Team Members
Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team
are provided in the following table.
Title
Name(s)
Phone Number
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL)
AARON TYSON
360-658-6986
Resident Engineer
C. Scott Stewart
360-658-6986
Emergency Ecology Contact
Raman lyar (NW Regional Office)
425-649-7000
Emergency Owner Contact
425-771-6444
Non -Emergency Ecology Contact
Carrol Johnson (Olympia)
360-407-6437
Monitoring Personnel
AARON TYSON
360-658-6986
6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring
Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters. of concern and
documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will.
be maintained for all on -site construction activities and will include:
A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit
requirements; -
Site inspections reports
For convenience, a sample inspection form is included in this SWPPP. This SWPPP may be
included in the site log book if desired, or the inspection forms may be separated and. included in
a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book and the SWPPP report and
drawings must be maintained on -site or within reasonable access to the site and be made
available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction.
6.1 Site Inspection;
All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance
of their intended ftmct I ion. Site inspections will be conducted by a person who is, knowledgeable
in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The onsite inspector will have
the skills to assess the potential for water quality impacts as a result of the type of construction
activities occurring on site, and the knowledge of the appropriate and effective ESC measures
needed to control the quality of stormwater discharges.
18
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance
of their intended, function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
(CESCL) per BMP C 160. The name and contact information for the CES C^L is provided in
Section 5.2 of this SWPPP.
Site inspections will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater
discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment,
turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the
effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the
BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be
documented in the site log book. All new BMPs or erosion control design changes will be
documented in the SWPPP within seven (7) days of the implemented revision.
6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency
Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any
rainfall event which causes a discharge of stormwater from the site. For sites with temporary
stabilization measures, the site inspection frequency can be reduced to once every month.
6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation
The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in
Appendix E. As mentioned in the introduction to Section 6.0. The site inspection log forms may
be separated from this SWPPP document, but will be maintained on -site or within reasonable
access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction.
6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring
The 45onstruction site is less than five acres in size, and does not discharge to an impaired water
body, and is therefore not subject to the general water quality monitoring requirements set forth
in the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D).
19
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
7.0 REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING
7.1 Recordkeeping
7.1.1 Site Log Book
A site log book will be maintained for all on -site construction activities and will include:
A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit
requirements;
Site inspections reports
Stormwater quality monitoring if required.
7.1.2 Records Retention
Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), for this
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit
requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of
three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition
S5.C.
7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records
The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained
on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon
request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology
within 14 days of receipt of A written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other
information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the
SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in
accordance with permit condition S5.G.
7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP
In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.13, and S9.13.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be
modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in
stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation,
or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potefitia,l for discharge,
of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven (7) days of
determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct
problems identified, and an updated timeline for BM P implementation will be prepared.
20
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
7.2 Reporting
7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms will be submitted to the Department of Ecology as
per the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D).
7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance
If any of the terms and conditions of the permit is not met, and it causes a threat to human health
or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S5.17:
I Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply.
2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to
correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any
noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted,to
Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation.,
3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted
to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology.
In accordance with permit condition S4.F.6.b, the Ecology regional office will be notified if
chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned for adjustment of high pH water (see
Section 5.0 of this SVvTPP for contact information).
7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes
In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to.
Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction (if applicable) to be covered by the General
Permit.
21
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix A — Site Plans
ANDERSEN OFFICE BUILDING
SIV114, SWI14, SECTION 2$, TOWNS)
.915 1-.—,
ILI
tot w
lee
AIRE ln'v-�
4 U
BEL AIRE Dl�. 8
4,
SAAFTARY SEWN NOTE. N\
V N'�
X %
LOT a
7.
.0"o
A
SVI
2mm snmiF 8w
A^—,= v
molm
XAK & TOPOOS~
A��kLffi R
KE ING
—TA A— —I-- -- —M
PAX, (.") .".7420
WA7f
----------
----
-------
-RKX&,
TORN
L.
rX.L= --
FIRE DEPT PUWER
,MECTION (FDCI
MRS-9 MY.&C-M&
in now
Air 1EXAMM
CLEANOUT �MSMW GADLE)
C" nii�;.slllom
vffmmTToN summif cs"r
19 m
-T
~M FOR ommmm
4- Z-1. Mm a,
=X DUAL
GRAOM UTIMIT us msru awwa PROJECTNO.
1064
MWE BE&MG awc
eame, DRAmaE& umffy am C2
U.M.
V=—'—
OF3
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix B — Construction BMPs
Orange Filter Fence (Silt Fence) (BMP C233)
Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105)
Rock Check Dam (BMP C207)
Geotextile-Encased Check Dam (BMP C�08)
Straw Bale Barrier (BMP C230)
Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220)
Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120)
FIL 7ER FABRIC -
SECURED TO 2 " X 2
14 GA. WRE FABRIC
EQUAL
2"X2" WOOD OR Q
EQUIVALENT :1�114
8 "_ 12"
8
PL A CE J14 "_ 1. 5 " WA SHED GRA VEL IN
THE 7RENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF
FIL7ER FABRIC FENCE ON 7HE SURFACE
CONTRACTORIDEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE
S7RAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CON7ROL.
TEMPORA R Y FILTER FABRIC FENCE
N. TS.
IC90-199V
DATE
FIL7ER FABRIC MATERIAL IN
CONTINOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES
ORWRE RINGS TO ATTACH
FABRIC TO WRE.
WRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE
TO SUPPORT FILTER FABRIC.
BURY BOTTOM OF FIL7ER
14ATERIAL 8" TO 12"
.9 911 "m
2" X 2" WOOD POSTS OR
EQUIVALENT
CITY INSPEC77ON REQUIRED ON ALL
EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE
OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN.
STANDARD DETAIL
FILTER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEMS
---I PATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS I DWG No' E1.1
,l
CON7RACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTYUCTION ENTRANCE
DURING 7HE CONS7RUC7lON PERIOD.
Cl TY INSPEC 77ON REQUIRED ON ALL. EROSION CON TROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
I elgo- 1 9qu
.0-'N.'*D
C.- I -TY"---."'-
I I
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 10/6/03 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
DATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS I DWG No' E1.2
I
CITY INSPEC77ON REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CON7ROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
D S.
REVISIONS
STANDARD DETAIL
APPROVED BY DATE
D. GEBERT 10/06/03
D, GEBERT 05/19/05 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS
D. GEBERT 05/05/06 DATE SCALE DWG NO
S io-3 a 1 1
18 _19C 7/24/01 NTS E1.3
L
4
GRA. 7E
A�..CBI
FIL TER SOCK W 7H I
OVER FLOW HOLES
I CA TCH BASIN I
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE
DETAIL E1.1.1). 7HIS APPLICAITON
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON
PERIOD.
"I 1 9
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix C — Alternative BMPs
The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for 7 of the elements not described in
the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP f6r a specific element is not
functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented.
Element #1 - Mark Clearing Limits: C 10 1 — Preserving Natural. Vegetation
Element #2 - Establish Construction Access: C 106 — Wheel Wash
Element #3 - Control Flow Rates:-, C240 - Sediment Trap
Element #4 - Install Sediment Controls: C235-Straw Wattles
Element #5-- Stabilize Soils:- C130 Surface Roughening
Element #6 - Protect Slopes: C206-Level Spreader
Element #8 - Stabilize Channels and Outlets: C209 Outlet Protection
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix D — General Permit
'. I . 9
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix E — Site Log Inspection Forms
The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist
that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested -that the inspection
report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection
information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this
SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and
that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below.
At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include:
a. Inspection date/times
b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection,
approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and
approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours.
C. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented,
including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or
practices.
d. The following shall be noted:
i. locations of BMPs inspected (see drawings)
ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance,
iii. the reason maintenance is needed,
iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or
intended, and
V. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and
the reason(s) why
e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence
of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil
sheen shall be noted, as applicable.
f. If applicable, a description of any water quality monitoring
performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring.
9. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any
BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the
inspection.'
h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site
inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance
with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES
permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the
remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as
well as a schedule of implementation.
Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection;
and the following statement: "I certify under penalty of law that
this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my
knowledge and belief'.
When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and
conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop,
contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance;
correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs),
and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all
applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a
threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the
Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.17 of the permit.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Appendix F — Engineering Calculations
(DETAILED CALCULATIONS ARE LOCATED
IN THE DRAINAGE REPORT)
TnE STAKES TO I
PARALELL,
UN50ARRED AND I
UND15TURBED 5U54'
FERTILIZE ALI- M
APPRO\/EP 5TAP-1
APPLIED AT MANU
5uc-jc-vE5TeV RATE.
PLANT TREE I" HI6
THAN DEPTH &RO�
NURSERY.
CvUIrl" APARA7V-
1/21, REINFORCED
12 0A C7AL\/. V41RE
2x2 DOU6LAS FIS
2" DEPTH BARK tv
BAE
41, KATERINC
SURROUNDIN6 TM
FINISHED 6RADE
FULL BURLAP OF1
OF ROOT15ALL
PLANTINIS, MIX 5A
See 6eNERAL NC
SCARIFY PLANTIt
EX15TIN& SUP&W
SET ROOTBALL
OF coMPAr_,TF_V
5ACKFILL MIX
A A R,1
TREE PLmumTING Uff"ETAI
i Cie' 4LE.- I" = 1'-0"
21, DEPTH BARK MULCH
4" ViATERINGs BASIN
SURROUNVIN6 PLANT
ZZ
RE_MO\1e 5URLAP FROM TOP
1/5 OF ROOTEIALL. LI6HTLY-1-,,,,
SCARIFY ROOTBALL OF
CONTAINIER-61ROViN PLANTS.=
PKIOFt To BACKFILLIN&
EXISTIN& 5L1B&RAA00E
PLANTIN(SOACK FILL
MIX. SEE (5 . ENERAL
NOTES
SCARIFY PLANTIN6 PIT NALL
SET. ROOTDALL ON MOUND
OF COMPACTED PLANTINO
5ACKFILL MIX
SHRUB DETAIL
VALZ
L
0 PLANT SHIIRM I" HICPHIM
THAN DEPTH &ROM AT
wftmy.
o 19!RTILIZE ALL PLANTS V41TH,
i
XVPKOVW5TAKTMMMILIZF_R
2 TIMES APPLIW AT MANUF`A4TL"MR'S
.A-. ;Z= A- I I t"Irl I& Sj"ESTED FtATES -
nommomm� t!�i
. C_^rm
efz,e
.11 f' —A' -Z;�' _\A
46C
PLANT SCHEDULE'.
SYMBOL
1 0
ED'-
na
I I W.I.
.... ....... 0
.........
......... 655 EPMONDS ViAY ... ......
'1416H
-------- .......
.. ................ OFFICE BUILPIN&
2 STORY
OVEN
F E
..........................
... .........
...................... ............
............
. ..........
.............................................
................. ........
............................................
.................
0
...............
.................................... .............
....................... ............. I .......
................ ........ I ...................
.......... ....... ......... I ...............
........................... 1*111117.7.7 ...............
. ............... LAWN'
.............. I ...........
. ................................
... .. . ................... .....................
.......... ............. %weew - . --I*.",.*.*.*.*.*.,.*.,.,.,.,.,.,,,.,I -
.. ...............
TO 26-1216 � ............
..... .......
. .........
1115 264.'
................... It e
............. 11.7.1114
..........
P NE
1021
01,
ol
.... . . ......
11 LAN <I
................... . ... M ......
C'.11%ftof
........... ...
..........
CIS
FH..... .... . ..
TE 2&6,b4 .....................
............................................
. ........................................... . . . ....
IE 28424 7:1 - . - . - . - ,. - . - . - . - . - . - . - I 'A/
..............
.................. *.*.:***
2 ...................................... .
..........
.............. ... ...
4#1 PVC, I- .......................... I ..........
IE 265.4q 1t. . ; . I
V-1.7-1.1-7. . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . , . .:. . .:. . ..... .... .. :1..
............. ..........
...............................
V' HOPE N V.1.7.4.- 1 \ I
... ......................
Aw
"Awl
. ........ ...
-C)
..................
...........................
CE,
Te 28,5%76 ..................
+
la,265.re t"IRTiELEVATION) . . . . . .
...................
v4m
w2w ap E
A ir: 2815.65
12!1 CP N �5'HIOH
dr-O' HI&H NOOVE
3FR
6 TMLIS %jrr\
EXISTING*
W
0 J
TRAS 4 N
CONVERTE- 0
ENCLO
pi
SX Ib ro Tnsak
15T DAY CARE
O�RILM IN TYPE 11112
TO PRON/10F. C4749k
V41THIN (5) YEARS,
H
CON Ina dy,
0 N Ec"Tc C W11-
A' 7
E
2
K
Ulm
"J%pi-ne
<
1\1 N
13
bit ExtkWEP <
= C-URSIN&\
711 (IYPICAP
-><
4 NIO-I'ED
Aq 5� 1;�y Cl
-r,4, SUMrr fiWLT
TO
_AA
22" C4N
14
A/
NORTH
34 We 1,
rA w:
pis
Ron%
K
^APE .00P
LAN Li
4
PL AN
A
Planning Division conditions of approval:
I . Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city
codes, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all 26" CON
necessary permits.
2. Tree and plant sizes and spacing shall comply with minimum sizes and N
maximum spacing of ECDC 20.13.015 and the City's Street Tree Plan.
ALE
3. Trees within the Type IV landscaping area (adjacent to the southwestern
property line) shall be free of branches below six feet in height, and shrubs
within this area shall be maintained at a maximum height of 3.5 feet.
4. An extruded curb four to six inches in height must be installed between 2 CON
parking stalls # 10 and #I I and the landscaping area pursuant to the pLANNING
requirements of ECDC 20.13.020.D. 101, R 13
.4.0h.10
11::7.*.111 ...............
1)30)
................. 'WOW
..........
...............
..........
.................
�OJILDING UEPARIVAEW
011'y OF EMhONDS
ON
%ki
RANDALLJ. MUNSON
BUILDING DESIGNER
1930
6TH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 301
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
98134
VOICE
(206) 349-4551
FAX
(866) 312-8468
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
THIS PLAN IS ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES 13Y THE
WENT INDICATED.
REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
WRITTEN CONSENT OF DESIGNER,
RANDALL J. MUNSON. IS PROHIBITED.
ARCHITECT MAINTAINS ALL RIGHT
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
INCLUDING COPYRIGHT.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL
CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN-
SIONAL ERRORS. OMISSIONS OR
oISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGIN-
NING OR FABRICAnNG ANY WORK
DO NOT SCALE DRAWiNG3.
REVISION8
No. DGW ROM
CITY OF
2L 00.08.10 EDMONDS
CITYOF
07.23.10 EDMONDS
W
< 0�
Z W
0 1,-
Z
All W
VJ Z () 04
C i: 0
0
Z
Z IL
U
ui
�—
dZ Z Q 5 Z
U :D co —
X
LU a P
W
UL C/)
a
U J 0 T Z
CD 0
CD C4
LANDSCAPE PLAN
and DETAILS
PROJECT NO. :
DESIGN : RJM.
DRAWN RJM
ISSUE DATE 04.02.10
04
JESUE
AW I ?- 2010
01_��*Nll I&
nowsk M
HrxOJECT DATA
I
ONNER NAME
&ROA Y41TH US LEARNIN6 CENTERS
21515 54th AVENUE NEST
EDMONDS, NA5HIN6TON ciaO26
(425) 112-2115
51TE ADDRESS
(565 EDMONDS NAr
TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER
2-10525-005-050-00
LE&AL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF THE5OUTHAE5T
GUARTER OF THE SOUTHAEST aUARTER OF SECTION 25, TONN5HIF 2-1
NORTH, RAN&E 5 EAST, A.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLON5:
BEOINNIN6, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST OUARTER
OF THE 5OUTHAEST GUARTER OF THE 5OUTHNE5T GUARTER:
THENCE NORTH 58cI52'O-7" NEST 516AO FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY
LINE OF PAVED COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE SOUTH 35clo5l EAST ALON& SAID ROAD 614.11 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BE61NNIN16;
THENCE NORTH 50d551 EAST TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST
GUARTER OF THESOUTHNEST GUARTER OF THE SOUTHAE5T GZUARTER'
THENCE SOUTH ALON6 SAID EAST LINE TO AN INTERSECTION NITH THE
NORTHEASERLt' LINE OF SAID PAVED COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE NORTHNE5TERLY ALON6 THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BE&INNIN(5.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
NA5HINc7TON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2164265
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NA5HINr7TON
BUILDIN6 PE516NER
RANDALL J. MUN50N
1600 (oth AVENUESOUTH - SUITE 301
SEATTLE, NA5HINCTON c[5154
(206) 545-4551
(e)(56) 512-5465
ARCHITECT OF RECORD
JOHN 6. NASON
14405 5.E. 26(oth STREET
KENT, AA5HINrvTON c15042
(.255) 651-02c[4
STRUCTURAL F-NC71NEER
REED 4 ASSOCIATES
a511 212th STREET 5.N.
EDMONDS, NA5HIN6TON c[802(5
(425) Ila-21c[5
(425) -7-75-20-75 FAX
6EOTECHINCAL EN61NEER
HAA rzE05CIENOE5, INC.
21512 50th DRIVE 5.E.
SUITE 110
BOTHELL, NASHINrvTON c15021
(425) -7-74-010(o
(425) '774-2-114 FAX
CIVIL EN&INEER
LOVELL-SAUERLAND $ ASSOCIATES
Icf2l-f 56th AVENUE NEST - SUITE IO(b
LYNNNOOD, NASHIN6TON c1503(5
(425) '775-1511
SURVEYOR
BT SURVEYS
12415 cIth DRIVE 5.E.
EVERETT, NA5HIN&TON cl,5205
(425) 544-6251
Tf;ZAFF1C-F_Ne1NEER---
61550N TI;;Z-AFF1C,-'00N5ULT1N6
280.2 NETMORE AVENUE
EVERETT, NA5HIN(9TON c15201
(425) 55cl-82(66
LOT COVERArvE
LOT AREA 12,524 SGUARE FEET
LOT COVERA6E 25clo SaUARE FEET
LOT COVERA&E AS A FEROENTArvE OF LOT AREA = 15,64%
IMPERVIOUS OOVERAC7E
BUILDIN& ADDITION, PATIO 1501 5GUARE FEET
AND NALK
EXISTIN6 HOUSE 1441 5OUARE FEET
PRIVENAY 5500 5OUARE FEET
TOTAL 5450 5OUARE FEET
FLOOR AREAS
EX15TINC7 1444 SOUARE FEET
PROPOSED 552 5OUARE FEET
PORCHES c14 SOUARE FEET
6LAZIN& AREA 355.50 5GUARE FEET
6LAZIN& AS A FEROENTA6E OF FLOOR AREA = 15.45%
2006 NA5HIN&TON STATE ENEROY CODE NINDON5 .55'U'VALUE
OPTION No. 4 DOORS .20 'U'VALUE
MEDIUM 6A5 FURNACE
FARKIN6
(1) STALL PER EMPLOYEE ond (1) STALL PER (5) CHILREN
(4) EMPLOYEE 5TALL5 and (10) CHILDREN.5-TALL5 = 14 STALLS REOUIRED
PARKINr-v PROVIDED (14) STALLS
CODE ANALY515
(0W16EPIH6, 91 'Et:i= PER,%����
A d I __ I I
........ ...
............. ....
..........
................ .......
.......... * ......
.......... ..........
................. .. ..... *****''
..................... .. ............
............
................. ..... ......
....................... ....
... .................... ...... . ..
.................................. ..... .
..................... ......
.......... .......
.................... .....
........... ........................
(555 EDMONDS ViA'T'
........................... ......................
..........................
......................
........................... :2 STORY OFFICE BUILDIN6 ......................
.......... .... 1<
.......................... .....................
................... ......................
.................... ............... :
IK
-N
........... ....... NOODE
..... ............... N� vp
..................
. . ................... .... *1111111*11111111* ..... -ENOE
.................................... r
.................................
....... .............................. ...........
....... ............... ........
............... 6' H I & H
........ ... ............................
.......................................... ................. NOODEN
........... ..... ..............
..............................
......................
....... ........
.....................................
............... .......
F E N 0 E
.... .......
.................... I ......
........................... .. .........................
...........................
.......................... ........
......................... OR
...................
....... . .........
................. .........
............... . TE 251.25 0
.............. .....
..........
IE 254:75
................. ................... ...... ....................
................ ............
....... ......... ...........
..................
................. 5" CF NE
............. ............ IE 254*7.4e)
..........
................ ........................
................. ..............
............
IN
.................... ......
................ ....................... ..........................
................. .....
................. ....
................ \ /
. ........ ....................... ....... ... ...
......................
................ ........
................ ... ....... ....................... .
...... 5/41
................ ...... ..................
....... ...............
.................
..................
.................................. .................
..................... ...................
......................... .... ........
...........................
FH ........
.............
TE 2ea)(65.54
.................
....................
....... ......... ........
iE 254.24 ....... : : ....
......................... ..........
.................. ........................... ... .. ..
4" FVO E
...................................
IE 2a5.41
............... ........ ........
...............
........... .... ..................
05" HDFE N .................
. ........ ............................................... ......
Opos.
........................
............... .......
............ R .. . ....... E ......
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
-C ........
ERED
Ov
H................ ..... .. I .............
.................... ..... ........
c
P RC :AD:D:IT . ........ PO
.................... .... ..
............ I ................................................................
0 M OIAL
..................................................
I
SIrvN
... ...................................................................
.........................
...... ............... .................... .........
OB .........
............................................................................
TE :2e5_5,.7r5
..................................................................... ..........
..........
............................................... -------
vim ..............
OFE .... ............................ .........
.......... 44" 1
.............
A CONO ........ ...
... ............................ .
IE 255.651
1 00 C, E
D ... ....... ............. .......
12" OF N
51 INA I<
cl'-O" HI&H ............... 5'HlrvH
I I t--N t-%
4'. xt R NOODEN
TRA5 EE ELEV.) FENCE
ENCLO5 E CONVERTE 4'-5 5/411
r
I TIN"I N
DAY CARE
10 PA frj_j
J r643
TRASH
41 �y
UP O�H Ec,TC$(:;TV 04c
0
5 013 1
a Cl rz 0
A-1.2 S ENA K z
'7 \ \' -
C ERED
RQH_
15,
EXTRUDED
CONCRETE OURBIN6\ <
(TYPICAL)
M
4
= ci
El
A-1.
6
NORTH
14
SITE P"'LAIN'
SCALE: 1" 10'-011 3
10 'HI(5H AOOD�N FENCE ALON6
PROPERTY LINES
loop 1 1
4'
0
c),
VICIN"ITY MAP :I AF VED BY PLAWING
Zone Corner��Flag o
N
-_Skctb_,a-h R
r Front CSW 151
C'�' %-, L� - ul\j�> Fog! Nes &W)
CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V-5 i
� I ic
6�5 _9N ''! �i
5�pivr�-,e F-�&r;m �- jOur M 02�0-A AJ I CA- I-
ZONIN6 BF - PLANNED BUSINESS
OCCUPANCY E
Cil"y ofEdmonds Building Department]
OOUFANO"r LOA (45) CHILDREN MAXIMUM
(A6175 OF CHILDREN TO (4) EMPLOYEES
BE SERVED 2 1//2 TO 12
YEARS)
1 A I x I e--p,-5-1-7-7
LIABILITY LIMIT NOTICE
NOTICE: PRANIN6 FACKA6E PREPARED FOR FERMITTIN6
REVIEA ONLY. ARCHITECT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
COMPLIANCE UNLE55 RETAINED FOP, FULL INSPECTION SERVICES.
NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB 51TE AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN51ONAL
ERRORS, OMI55ION5 OR DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BE&NNIN& OR.
FABRICATIN(9 ANY AORK
DO NOT SCALE DRANIN55
Other
th' 4%ed q,
E�Lht 10
4,kd eem pa az i:g�l
V,46n %�t
03
......................................... S U
0
�- ..................... .......
............................
U AUG 12 2010
EXISTIN A\TCH ASIN
................
...................... ONE)s
.............
............
RANDALLJ.MUNS ON
BUILDING DESIGNER
1930
6TH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 301
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
98134
VOICE
(206) 349-4551
FAX
(866) 312-8468
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
THIS PLAN IS ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY THE
CLIENT INDICATED.
REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
WRITTEN CONSENT OF DESIGNER,
RANDALL J. MUNSON, IS PROHIBITED.
ARCHITECT MAINTAINS ALL RIGHTS
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
.INCLUDING COPYRIGHT.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL
CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN-
SIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGIN-
NING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
REVISIONS
No. Date Item
CITY OF
06.08.10 EDMONDS
CITY OF
Z& 07.22.10 EDMONDS
z w
0
Z
C/) w
Z L)
(D
U.)
Z 00 (0
Z — C14
Z C:)
co
IL Z
0 U) w -
W 0
Z CO 0
0 j z
f— 0) < U-)
w LLI — >- 3: 1--
3: < -M
LL. U) c�
L 0 0 cq
0 x Z I--
0 C'q 0 11�-
c') 2 'to
ml C, 04
M C LLJ
14
SITE PLAN
PROJECT DATA
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
'�IROJECT NO.
DESIGN RJM
DRAWN RJM
ISSUE DATE 04.02.10
C13 N
TE 256.54
GOMM5t��IAL
51(5N
T E 2 a5
kNM E,265.5
X op E
2e)5.6
12" OF N
v
UP
y
NOODEN
FENCE
S4.
�pz
................
..............................
...............................
.................................
..............................
....................................
.....................................
....................................
........................
......................
.....................
.................................
...............................
COV
..............
PO Hr \ox,
POINT'C.1-
....................................
.................... I ........................
............................................ 3 7
............................................
..................
.......................... * . , . I . , . I . 1, ....
............
..............................
....................................
....................................
co rz
.....................
...............
Sil I < 11 r/r
0 13
C cl 0
I z
El
lo
4
12
'El
%sl
13
5>.
/o�
14
\ + . . ol�000p)
HEIGHT CALCULATION I&
POINT - A I-' b2�. vz,
POINT - B 4-/loZ7Z_
POINT - 0 40 1
POINT - D
TOTAL �s-s
qog. qss- toz-,Z38
1 oz- DIVIDED Br 4 04=I;2'AVERA&E &RADE
02- 7 -IrzHT
.38 :.
. � + 25-0" MAXIMUM ALLONABLE HE
I,zq.-7,5g --;,--:-'ACTUAL RIDOE ELEVATION
A 4,p vhfoijl�a py Soj_tl
>10
5
VNI
6H
VEN
;E
eE
AiG 3 0 2010
........................
.......................................
................................
...............
..........................
....................................
1111111111111
....................................
RE4E, L �,
AUG 12 2010
...........
3L��?��qj[L?FP M'ME-�'J"
RANDALL J. MUNSON
BUILDING DESIGNER
1930
6TH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 301
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
98134
VOICE
(206) 349-4551
FAX
(866) 312-8468
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
THIS PLAN IS ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY THE
CLIENT INDICATED.
REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
WRITTEN CONSENT OF DESIGNER,
RANDALL J. MUNSON, IS PROHIBITED.
ARCHITECT MAINTAINS ALL RIGHTS
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
INCLUDING COPYRIGHT.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL
CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN-
SIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGIN-
NING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
REVISIONS
No. Date Item
CITY OF
A06.08.10 EDMONDS
A2 CITY OF
07.22.10 EDMONDS
U)
w
z
0
Ill
1-
Z
w
Z
C)
(D 0
Lf)
U)
z m to
— cq
Z Z> C:)
0-
w co
< 0)
U)
C)
w z
w 0
F— F—
Z
0
E5 Q
Z
r 0) U)
F— (3) <
LL
12
(3)
C/) 04
0
C-4
Z
0 Cq o
cy) 2 L0
to
cy) 0 04
(D C\l LLJ
HEIGHT PLAN
PROJECT NO.
DESIGN RJM
DRAWN RJM
ISSUE DATE 04.02.10
t�3 b
st,hr x
END OF TRASH ENOL05URE Y4ALL
5 1/2" 5TD, STEEL PIPE 6ATE P05T
4" OONCRETE5LA5 Y41TH &"x&"xY4I.41NI.4 MM O\/E
4" LArER COMPACTED ROCK BASE, SLOPE FLOOR
1/5" PER LIN. FT. TO rzATE OPENINS - MED. BRM. FIN.
ASPHALT DRI\/E FLUSH TO CONCRETE
--------------- 1% ------------------------ t
4" CONCRETE SLAB NITH (5"x&"xNI.41Y4I.4 Y41NM O\/ER
4" LArER COMPACTED ROCK BASE, SLOPE FLOOR
1/4" PER LIN. FT. TO 6ATE OPENIN6 - MED. BRM. FIN.
12" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTIN67
Y41TH EMBEDDED P05T (CENTERED) 1211
' T-RASH ENCLOSURE SLAB APRON
A
CONCRETE DOME
6' DIAMETER CONCRETE
FILLED STEEL POST,
FAINT COLOR (P-I)
ASPHALT FA\/IN&
0
(9 0 c� 0
all
5TANDARD D.O.T. APPORVED STOP 516N,
COORDINATE Yqlth OIT'r OFFICIAL FOR
PLACEMENT ancl 51ZE AT RIC5HT OF NAlr5 P
CT111111I i
(24" SIZE 7YFICAL ATSITE INTERIOR)
EMBED IN CONCRETE AS 5HONN
OR PER D.O.T. REOUIREMENT
Ti =_ F1 - F -
JE 1
L J
I Ifl
STOP SIGN DETAIL
3 CALE: 1/2" 1'-0" 1EE1 I 1EE1 I 1EE1 I M1 I 1HEI
r
rb ""'V �-7
A-L.2 A-L.2
4" FAINT 5TRIFIN(5,
kNHITE (2 COAT5)
7YPI CAL
�1:2
VAN
"\/AN" TO BE BLOCK PRINTED AITH 5TENOIL LETTERS TO BE 10" TALL MIN.
NITH A NIDTH OF 1 1/2" MIN. TEMPLATE LEI I ER5 TO BE MECHANICALLY LAYED
OUT INITH UNIFORM LETTER SIZE AND 5FACINry
HANDICAPPED VAN STALL
. ............
&'-0" HI&H SOLID
OF-DAR 5CREENIN6
arewOncloswe
r
oved bT
and aw —7- , I i _f V 14 t e- -X I
0
ate
ce
STANLEY #cil'7 CLICK
LOOK 5AFErY PADLOCK
q
HASP (OR EGUAL AT
CHAIN -LINK (5ATE5) CONO
APRON NOTED ON SITE FLA
4" CONCRETE SLAB INITH
"dv�
BROM FIN15H - SLOPE TO 9
6ATE OPENIN6 -1.2
VF
No ID Co W
PRO\/IDE 5LEE\/E5 FOR EACH
ol>C�
Wi�6
0PCWiPG -M
CANE E30LT IN ASPHALT and ONE
AT ENCL05URE SLAB
f4u, W(D-rw
T ID A
ENCLOSURE PLAN
R1_%SH
BLUE 5AOK&N<)UND
NITH 1/4HITE 5"I`Mb'c�L
AND LETTERIN6 -
I" VqHITE LETTERS NITH
STANDARD kSORDINC7
PER HANDICAPPED
REGUIREMENTS
2" DIAMETER STEEL P05T
CENTERED ON H.O. STALL
CONCRETE FOOTIN6
1:211
lon,
RESERVED
1:211
BLUE BACK6ROUND
NITH INHITE 5rM50L
RESERVED
AND LETTERIN6
I" NH17E LETTERS Y41TH
STANDARD NORDIN&
PER HAND I CAPPED CODE
REOUIREMENT5
Tr
V AWN
ACCESSABLE
2" DIAMETER STEEL P05T
CENTERED ON H.O. STALL
CONCRETE FOOTIN6
PARKING
SIGN LJ
aH.C.
7
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
&RID FOR LA**rOUT
ONLY - NOT TO BE
FAINTED
FAINT 5'T'ME30L kNITI-
4" PNHITESTRIPE
'o, _4'-O" AT PARKIN6
HANDICAPPED VAN STALL
4 t
16 1
6 1 1
STAINED RIEDkNOOD OR
CEDAR 5LAT5
FORK LOOK kNITH
PADLOCK ErE
METAL CAP
TOP HIN&
CHAIN LINK FABRIC
STRECHER BAR
51/2" EXTRA 5TRONC7
5TV. 5TL. PIPE POSTS -
CMU YiALL5 BE'rOND
7;W55 RODS
OROP ROD A55MEBL'I'-
kNITH FROUND KEEPERS
F-40RIO BAND —
MINPon,
,4
C,ATtE�, 9w--pWIS OXTe">6b
IV RL,(, WIM
TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE
5�,ALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Parking Lot Entrance Only Sign Page I of 1
Home I Customer Comments I AboutUs I PrivacyPolicy Contactus I OrderPolicies I ShoppingCart
IYOUR E-MAIL
ISEARCH Home > 24" x I T1 king Lot Entrance Only Sign
9 24" x 18" Parking Lot Entrance Only Sign
ADA Parking Item # 791 L
FINI54ED ENTRANCE
Assigned Parking Re,ular Price 111,74
& EA 0
Children At Play
Sale price: $35.54 - you save $3.20
Church Parking I
NLY
Church Parking 2 Sheeting Engineer
Custom Signs
A -Graffiti Film No
nti
Customer Parking
Employee of Month Availability Usually ships the next business day
Fire Lane AN 2) Send thi� page to a friend
Handicapped 1
Handicapped 2
Hospital Parking I
Hospital Parking 2 Signs were excellent and delivered the next
Hotel Parking \V - Carol, Coxsackie, NY
No Loitering
No Parking 1
No Parking 2 Lescription Sign haracteristics Reflective Sheeting
No Parking 3 Zb
No Skateboarding
No Soliciting
241 x1i" 0, rking Lot ntrance Only Sign
No Trespassing
Parking Lot I
Our "Carking d-L—trance nly" sign w I assist you in reducing confusion in your parkin
Parking Lot 2 is sig �j
MeasOring 24"xl this sig is availabl( with a choice of Engineer or High Intensity 3M
Parking Lot 3 refle ive she All of ou signs havE rounded corners and mounting holes centered i
Parking Permit Signs top a d bo IT) IIaUo_rL_Ea #Mer grade sheeting is appropriate for off-streE
Pedestrian Crossing n Ily I, te ity sh uld be use( for all on street applications.
Private Driveway
Private Property W
Reserved Parking .......... . ...
School Signs 1
School Signs 2 RESUB
Sign Posts
Spanish Parking Signs JUL 12 2010
Tenant Parking 2u&RNQJE&AFTrMENT
Traffic Cones MONM
Traffic Signs
Visitor Parking
http://www.parkingsigncomer.com/entrance-only-7911.html
Parking Lot Exit Only Sign Page I of 1
Home I Customer Comments I About Us I Privacy Policy I Contact Us I Order Policies I Shopping Cart
IYOUR E-MAIL
7/12/2010
Home > 24" x IX-Rar king Lot Exit Only Sign
FSEARCH (D
0 1 24" x 18" Parking Lot Exit Only Sign
ADA Parking E''XIT Item # 787L
Assigned Parking i
Regular Price $38.74
Children At Play Sale price: $35.54 - you save $3.20
Church Parking 1 F
ON,Ly 1
Church Parking 2 S eeting Engineer
Custom Signs
nti-Graffifiti Film No
Customer Parking
Employee of Month Availability Usually ships the next business day
Fire Lane
Handicapped 1 Send this page to a friend".
Handicapped 2
Hospital Parking 1
Hospital Pa . rking 2 Good prompt service.
Hotel Parking Robert, Jackson, AL
No Loitering
No Parking 1
No Parking 2 Description Sign C iaracteristics Reflective Sheeting
No Parking 3
No Skateboarding
No Soliciting
No Trespassing 2411 x 10" Flarkinq Lot E it Only Sign
Parking Lot I Ou "Parking ot E I it Only" i n clearly signates; exit lanes. Measuring 24"x18", this si,
Parking Lot 2 t I SI
ava able with a ch ice of Eni
I ��ineer or Hii ' h Intensity 3M reflective sheeting. All of our si(
Parking Lot 3 hav rounde n and m unting holE s centered at the top and bottom for easy insti
rs
Parking Permit Signs Engi eer grEL* eeting is a ropriate ft r off-street use. High Intensity should be used
3i
Pedestrian Crossing on-leet W ca ions..
Private Driveway
Private Property
. .........
Reserved Parking
School Signs 1
School Signs 2
Sign Posts
Spanish Parking Signs
Tenant Parking RESUB
Traffic Cones
Traffic Signs JUL 12 2010
Visitor Parking R—MENT
P%
RESU
http://www.parkingsigneomer.com/exit-only-7871.html 7/12/2010 JUM 1179,
0j � Aff
Cr
RANDALLJ.MUNSON
BUILDING DESIGNER
1930
6TH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 301
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
98134
VOICE
(206) 349-4551
FAX
(866) 312-8468
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
THIS PLAN IS ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY THE
CLIENT INDICATED,
REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE B(PRESS
WRI17EN CONSENT OF DESIGNER,
RANDALL J. MUNSON, IS PROHIBITED.
ARCHITECT MAINTAINS ALL RIGHTS
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
INCLUDING COPYRIGHT.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL
CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN-
SIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGIN-
NING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
REVISIONS
No. Date Item
CITY OF
'06.08.10 EDMONDS
U)
z
0 F—
F— Z
C/)0 111
Z 0
z C\I
C:)
z L0
Z Q0
C\I
00
0 05
WEL Z
LLJ 0
Z 1.2- t-
0 (D
Z
C/) —
r
F— 0) <
W W :5;
LL - cy)
U) N
0 C) C\I
Z r--
0 C\j 0 1
co 2i —Lr)
ce)
(C,\)] LIj
SITE DETAILS
PROJECT NO.
DESIGN RJM
DRAWN RJIVI
ISSUE DATE :06.08.10
A
A-1 02
511f
RESUB t- C3,
MG 12 2010 ESUB
SULDN
cr-ly ICGFRFI�gr�S� JUL 12 2010
)010 - o0s
�w w, 1467
151, -k Pot"o
RM,
is li REET FILE
rm I E- 1 8470-90 U 0
JUN 1 2010
"'-WOF ONM
TESC
LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE— EXISTING ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY TO BE USED. ONCE EXISTING
ASHPALT IS REMOVED INSTALL QUARRY SPALL
ACCESS PER STD DETAIL E1.2.
CLEARING LIMITS
FILTER FENCE (STD DETAIL E1.1)
0
INLET PROTECTION (STD DETAIL E1.3)
INSTALL INLET PROTECTION UPON INSTALLATION
OF NEW CATCHBASINS.
NOTES:
1. THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON
IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE OWNER SHOULD CONTACT THE
PURVEYORS OF ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREA TO DETERMINE
THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES ON AND
ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY
CONFLICTS ARE IDENTIFIED CONTACT ENGINEER
IMMEDIATELY.
2. ADD11IONAL UTILITY EASEMENTS MAYBE REQUIRED
DEPENDING ON EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS.
3. CONNECT ROOF AND YARD DRAIN TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
4. CALL ENGINEERING DIVISION (771-0220) FOR A
INSPECTION BEFORE BACKFILLING AND FOR FINAL
INSPECTIONS.
5. SEE SHEET A-1 FOR PARKING LOT LAYOUT, SIGNAGE AND
STRIPING.
GRADING QUANTITIES:
TOTAL CUT = 250 C.Y.
TOTAL FILL = 100 C.Y.
THE QUANTITIES OF EXCAVATION AND FILL ARE APPROXIMATE,
AND ARE SHOWN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A
GRADING PERMIT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR- CONTRACTUAL
PURPOSES.
ELEVATION
288.40'
(6 �011_
CD
FH
C-0,
--INV 283.0
......... R
.. .........
...............
..................... X;
. ..........................
........................
86) —/7 ...............
......................
M 8' 5�r FF
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 25,,T.27N., R.H., W.M.
'kill
LOT lb
L Lo
011�
Of
Co
5' HIGH
WOODEN
6 FENCE 1'9=20#
SCALE
10 0 30
— — — — — — — — — — -- 4
5' HIGH -,=a\ am I
WOODEN 1 0 20
FENCE
('99
G91
FOOTING ORA -,;DR L TRENCH (5 FT DEEP)
DO NOT CON E�T OOFDRAIN SYSTEM.
A
N JE
-(289),
PIS
00-
LOT 16
V..
0 5' HIGH
WOODEN
C14
C6 FENCE
'QW,--"PAT1
CN
'87.21
SDCO
INV 283.40
DRIVEv' '1UT
REPLAC 'EXSTING
C RBX G R. & 28
S
A LT Li<\
CB -TYPE 2
TE 284 * 88
CEIL G 2 5
7 .88
1 2 6 9. §8
CEN ER C
N,
48" CMP SE k N
ERRY TRAF��
X RIGHT LANE�\
'6
GNS
\-OSITE BENCHMARK 'B'
TOP N.E. BASE BOLT
226TH STREET S.W. OF LIGHT STANDARD
N 88*36'54" W ELEVATION 285.76'
ENTRANCE
ELEVATION
�AO05�- 287.24'
W
WV
�OUND TACK IN
\2" 1 * P ' IN
0 U�ENT
IN E
MS
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
BUILDING ADDITION, PATIO AND WALK = 1,509 SF
EX. HOUSE = 1,441 SF
DRIVEWAY = 5,500 SF
TOTAL = 8,450 SF
v1%.011,41 1 1 : IVIMF
N.T.S.
-BASIS OF BEARINGS
WASHINGTON STATE PLANE GRID SYSTEM (NORTH ZONE)
BENCH MARK
NAVD 88
SET BENCH MARK, TOP OF MOST NORTHERLY LIGHT STANDARD
BASE BOLT AT 11-iE SE CORNER OF SITE.
SURVEY NOTES
Vi
00"
Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig
1-800-424-5555
Utilities Underground Location Center
(ID,MT,ND,0R,WA)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP
27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH 88*32'07" WEST 516.90 FEET TO THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PAVED COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE SOUTH 35*05' EAST ALONG SAID ROAD 614.9 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 50*55' EAST TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO AN INTERSECTION NTH
THE NORTHEASTLERLY LINE OF SAID PAVED COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
ROAD TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.
2184263.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. CALL ENGINEERING
INSPECTOR (771-0220 EXT.1326) TO SET UP MEETING.
2. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS (1-800-424-5555).
3. CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW AND READ ESC NOTES AND PLAN.
4. FLAG CLEARING LIMITS.
5. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN CATCH BASIN PROTECTION (AS
NEEDED)
6. CLEAR SITE PER THIS PLAN (DEMO, ROUGH GRADING).
7. CONTRACTOR TO ADHERE TO STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED AREA
REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL.
8. INSTALL UTILITIES (SEWER, STORM, WATER, POWER, ETC.).
9. FINAL GRADE/PAVE, MAINTAIN MINIMAL CB PROTECTION.
10. INSTALL FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. CONSTRUCT NORTH
ACCESS FIRST TO PROVIDED SITE ACCESS PRIOR TO
REMOVING SOUTH ACCESS POINT.
11. HYDROSEED AND MULCH ALL EXPOSED AREAS.
12. REMOVE ESC DEVICES ONCE PERMANENT SITE STABILIZATION
MEASURES ARE INSTALLED. APPROVAL BY CITY REQUIRED,
PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF ESC DEVICES.
APPLICANTZOWNER
ZONING:
GROW WITH US LEARNING CENTERS
BP- COMMERCIAL PLANNED BUSINESS
CONTACT: SCOTT ANDERSON
23632 HWY 99
SUITE F PMB#502
LOTAREA
EDMONDS, WA 98026
12,824 SF (0.2944 AC.)
TELEPHONE: (425) 772-2975
TAX PARCEL
270325 003 080 00
SITE ADDRESS
WATER PURVYOR
665 EDMONDS WAY
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEWER PURVYOR
CITY OF EDMONDS
DESIGNER
ENGINEER /SURVEYOR
RANDALL J. MUNSON
LOVELL- SAU ERLAN D & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1930 6th AVE S
19217 36TH AVENUE W., SUITE 106
SUITE 301
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
SEATTLE, WA 98134
TELEPHONE: (425) 775-1591
TELEPHONE: (206) 349-4551
CONTACT- ROBERT LONG
"'T RESUB
IS
FILE
juN i,
L mm
Lovell — Sauerland
& Associates, Inc.
Engineers/Surveyors/Planners
Development Consultants
19217 36th Avenue W.
Suite 106
Lynnwood, WA 98036
phone: (425)775-1591
e—mail: info@lsaengineering.com
web: lsaengineering.com I
C�
co
0
�02
z
LLI
Ld
cr_
U)
0
M
Ld
IL
UJI
V)
Of
U2
z
0
of
z
In
0
n Z:
CIC
L'j 0 LLj
:2 1 1 ...j
n
0 U)
I
Lli
Ld
0
Ld
V)
�t
Q)
4/200 1
Lj
0
I-
C/)
C/)
<
0
C-�
>
LJJ
Ld
I ,
0
0
N
0
C/)
Li
0
0
z
C/)
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION JUN 0 2 2010
CITY OF EDMONDS SCALE 1 ff =20'
IDATE-
DRAWN CHECKED
RLL RLL SHEET
BY: DATE F.B.
CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION 3-23-10
CrrY M NO.
H! 8 U B
c) o 9-4 6 AUG 3 0 2010 LSA M NO 5221 oF3
=I hm! 11 A -M
GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO W.S.D.O.T. 2010 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
FOR ROAD, BRIDGE & MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND STANDARD PLANS
AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS
ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAN (W.S.D.O.T. 2010).
2. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF
EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF THEIR
SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND
DURING THE WORK.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
SIDE SEWERS (LATERALS & TEES) AND THE PLACING OF 2 X 4 MARKERS
WITH THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE LATERALS AND TEES INSCRIBED
ON THE MARKERS, AND PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
4.' THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL THE ENGINEERING DIVISION (425-771-0220,
EXT 1326) 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR ALL INSPECTIONS OF THE SIDE SEWERS
AND WATER SERVICES.
5. UPON COMPLETION OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH HIS CONSULTING ENGINEER
SHALL FURNISH AN AS -BUILT PLAN TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHICH
INDICATED THE LOCATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SIDE
SEWER LATERALS OR TEES, WATER LINES OR OTHER PERTINENT
INFORMATION.
6. UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED WITH STREET LIGHTING (PRIVATE).
7. WATER SERVICE WITH METER BOX AND CURB STOP REQUIRED FOR EACH
LOT.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR AND MAKE AIR TESTS OF
SANITARY SEWER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. LATERALS
TO BE 6" CONCRETE PIPE, OR P.V.C. CONFORMING TO SDR Z,&34 jW
STANDARDS.
9. EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS
DRAWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN
LOCATING SAID FACILITIES IN THE FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING ACTUAL LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD AND
CHECKING WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE UNDERGROUND
FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS.
10. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE
WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.
11. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN,
FLUSH, DISINFECT WHERE APPLICABLE AND OBTAIN SATISFACTORY
APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS REGARDING THE QUALITY AND
INTEGRITY OF EXISTING WATER LINES, SANITARY SEWER LINE, STORM
LINE, RETENTION SYSTEM, ETC. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF
THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER.
'Loto
12. ALL WORK AND rrERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
A.P.,
W.S.D.O.T. 2eO A.P.W.A. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR AS DIRECTED
BY THE CITY O� EDMONDS.
13. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE
EXACT LOCATIONS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE.
14. ALL INLET AND CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATES SHALL NOT BE
ADJUSTED UNTIL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PAVING.
15. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN
ACCORDANCE NTH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION /SEDI MEN TATION
CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY
MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL
FOR IN SITE EROSION HAS PASSED.
16. ALL REQUIRED STORM WATER RETENTION /DETENTION FACILITIES MUST
BE'CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO ANY PAVING UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION.
17. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS, REGARDLESS OF
LOCATION.
18. ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SHALL BE SEEDED WITH TOUGH, HARDY, FAST
GROWING GRASS UNLESS LANDSCAPING/EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE
EMPLOYED.
19. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING 8', 12", 18'.
24" & 36" INCLUDING DETENTION PIPE WILL BE 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED
STEEL AND SHALL USE TREATMENT 1.
20. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AN APPROVED TYPE HYDRO -
SEEDER, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE PERFORMANCE BOND WILL NOT BE
RELEASED UNTIL THE GRASS IS ESTABLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
21. PIPING SPECIFICATIONS AS NOTED.
22. ALL STEEL PARTS WILL BE GALVANIZED AND WITH TREATMENT #1
(ASPHALT COATED).
23. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF
SEWER, WATER, AND UNDERGROUND POWER SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF
EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. STANDARDS.
OPW III& S5STI 2A.'T. W R.V
, 1. M.
SW 1/4 SECT 2 k.
WORK PRIOR TO POUR
5-1/2'
V R
7-
1' BATTER
4 .
4
1'R
A 0.05 FT/FT
4
4 4
'A A' -
'A 6'
A
A.
4 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18' STANDARD
24' ARTERIAL
NOTES,
1. FORMS SHALL BE TRUE TO LINE AND GRADE
AND SECURELY STAKED,
2. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT
TO CATCH BASINS,
3. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE EVERY 10 FEET
AND DUMMY (CONSTRUCTION) JOINTS EVERY 5 FEET.
4. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL HAVE 1/2' TO 5/8' WIDE
PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER.
5, CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3- 300OPSI,
6. FINISH SHALL BE LIGHT BROOM,
7. CURB SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH CLEAR CURING
COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MOIST
FOR 72 HOURS,
8. ALL SIDEWALKS POURED BEHIND CURB IN
DRIVEWAY AREAS SHALL BE 6' THICK OVER 2' OF
CSTC WITH SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% MAXIMUM
DENSITY.
k�st. 189k)
5/8' MINUS CSTC
E.-D NA O.N. D - S....'
REVISIONS
APPROVED BY I DATE STANDARD DETAIL
D, GEBERT 4/27/05 STANDARD TYPE "A" CURB/GUTTER DETAIL
D. GEBERT 4/2/07 DATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS I DWG NO. E2.8
STANDARD TYPE 'A'
URB/GUTTER DETAIL
(E
VC 2.8)
2' MIN SAW CUT
\2' CLASS 'B' ACP
TACK CONC. SURFACE 4' -5/8' MINUS CSTC
- 2'- 5/8' MINUS CSTC
NOTE:
PAVEMENT COMPACTION- 91% RICE DENSITY
SUBGRADE AND TOP COURSE COMPACTION - 95Y (ASTM155'
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN,
CLIRB/GLITTER FORMS AND SUBGRADE INSPECTION REQUIRED
PRIOR TO POURING AND BEFORE APPLYING ACP
E.-D.- M' 0 ND -S
REVISIONS
APPROVED BY DATE STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 4/27/05 ASPHALT WALKWAY
D. GEBERT 04/2/07 DATE SCALE DWG No' E2.12
rzs. 7/24/01 1 NTS I
FRAME &
3/4" TO 1-1/2"
GRATE
WASHED ROCK
6" FROM BUILDING
-A
C
- - ------------
- - - - - - -
---
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - ---
OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
70'
TEE, SEE DETAIL
A Q
A
. 1.
I Z M1
284.00
281.00
PROFILE
WRAP SIDES & TOP WITH
FILTER FABRIC TYPAR 3401,
AMOCO 4545 OR APPROVED
EQUAL
6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE
WASHEDROCK
3/4" - 1-1/2"
SECTION A -A
INFILTRA71ON TRENCH DETAIL 6'(W) x 89(L) x 3.0'(D)
20' MIN WIDTH
2% (VARIES) 2% (VARIES
8!3'-6" PVC
PERFORATED PIPE
@ 0.00%
6 " PVC
REMOVABLE PLUG
1"VENT HOLE co
6" PVC
FACTORY TEE
6" FROM BUILDING
TYPE 1-L CB
282.50
PERFORATED PIPE
6" PVC PIPE
Z
GROUT
N"'�6"
PVC PIPE
OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
TEE
LL-2" MIN. COMP'T. DEPTH HMA PAVEMENT CLASS 1/2"
2" MIN. COMP'T. DEPTH AGG. LEVELING COURSE
4" MIN. COMP'T. DEPTH AGG. BASE COURSE
DRIVEWAY SEC11ON LL APPROVED SUBGRADE
NO SCALE
L
INSTALL Lovell - Sauerland
MATERIALI/2 PIXCPANSION JOINT
CURB AT 1-12 X
& Associates, Inc.
Engineers/Surveyors/Planners
Development Consultants
�ol
RAM AT 1,12 19217 36th Avenue W.
EXISTING
SIDEWALK E3 Suite 106
Lynnwood, WA 98036
phone: (425)775-1591
L 3� LANDING SAW CUT AS REQUIRED
T PICAL 13N ACTILE WARNING STRIP SEE DETAIL A e-mail: info@lsaengineering.com
ALL RAMPS I' TYP. V WIDE (TYPICAL) web: Isaengineering.com
LTAA\\,- 1/2,
/4'
N13MINAL DIMENSIONS
TRACTION GRID PATTERN
TACTILE WARNING TEXTURING
DETAIL A
NOTEi
1. AT LOCATIONS WHERE NEW RAMPS ABUT EXISTING CURB, GUTTERS, PLANTER STRIPSo AND SIDEWALKS,
CONSTRUCT NEW RAMPS TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACES,
2. ALL CONCRETE SURFACES SHALL HAVE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH.
3. CONCRETE SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH A CLEAR CURING COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MOIST
FOR 72 HOURS.
4. DETECTABLE WARNING PATTERNS (TRUNCATED DOMES) SHALL BE REQUIRED ON ALL PUBLIC STREETS WITH A
CURB RETURN AND PRIVATE STREETS SERVING FIVE OR MORE LOTS. TRACTION GRID (DIAMONDS> TO BE USED
AS INDICATED.
5. FOR NON -INTERSECTION CURB RAMPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE STANDARD DIAMOND PATTERN MAY BE
USED AS INDICATED IN TIFTATI A.
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FDRM WL7RK PRIOR TO POUR.
ACCESSIBLE RAMP SHALL BE POURED SEPARATELY
FROM CURB AND GUTTER,
1090- 1 99V
RADIUS VARIES
TYPE 2 CURB RAMP
5' LONG RAMP MIN
(SEE DETAIL E-2.15�
SIDEWALK �OT rA I ---)
MONO -S....:
'I"T Y 0 F.-
REVISIONS
APPROVED BY _DATE STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 03/24/05
CURB RAMP TYPE 2
D. GEBERT 06/27/05 DATE 7/24/01 SCALE - NTS DWG NO. E2.15
D. GEBERT 04/2/07 1 1
Im
PLACE F WIDE TACTILE
V EEHIND START OF RAMP
ACP ACP
CU
Est. 189Q
Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig
1-800-424-5555
Utilities Underground Location Center
(ID,Wr,ND,0R,WA)
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
OR 16' VERTICAL CURB (TO MATCH
VARIES PER
EXISTING CURBING) SHALL EXTEND
TO END OF RADIUS,
CODE
EXTRUDED CURB SHALL START
AT END OF RADIUS
>-
I
TRANSITION SLOPE SHALL
I BE 1112 (TYP)
>
TYPE 2 CURB RAMP
z 5' LONG RAMP MIN,
Q�
P
(SEE DETAIL E-2.15>
a.
U
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
ZFPLACE FULL DEPTH EXPANSION JOINT
I
BETWEEN C/G AND HIGH TRAFFIC LOAD GUTTER,
IF WING AND C/G ARE NOT POURED AS ONE UNIT
CURB/GUTTER AND WING FOR HIGH TRAFFIC
LOAD GUTTER MAY BE POURED AS ONE UNIT.
FULL DEPTH EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED
IF WIDTH OF OPENING EXCEEDS 15',
REVISIONS
APPROVED BY DATE STANDARD DETAIL
D. GEBERT 10/6/03 MULTI-FAMILY1 COMMERCIAL HIGH TRAFFIC LOAD DRIVEWAY ACCESS
D. GEBERT 04/2/07 (WITH APHALT DRIVEWAY APPROACH)
DATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS IDWG NO. E2.27
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE: -1 hdm 10
BY- mr-mnett
CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION
C14
P-1
(0
I
1.2
z
W
0
LIJ
5:
W
0
iy-
W
IL
W
U)
z
<
V)
LLJ
0
0
Ld
n Z)
0
1
LIJ
>
Ld
Ld
V)
Wzho
0
LLJ
I—
0
ry
Cn
V)
Z
r)
�7
<
3:
0
>
Lli
z
Ld
I ,
0
D
0
CN
C)
0
F-
0
V)
C)
:2
Ld
0
(f)
0
C'0
V)
JON 0 2 2010
SCALE
AS SHOWN
DRAWN
CHECKED
RLL
RLL
1
1
SHEET
2
DATE
3-23-10
F.B.
-
Crff M NO.
oF3
LSA M NO. 5221
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 25,
T.27N., R.H., W.M.
1rQ
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) N000
1. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT — CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLE: ACCESS SHALL BE, WHENEVER PRACTICAL, LIMITED TO ONE ROUTE. ACCESS FILTER FABRIC
POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED ROCK TO MINIMIZE THE SECURED TO % X 2'
TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A 14 GA. WIRE F BRIC
ROAD SURFACE, THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY.
SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE EQUAL
TRANSPORTED TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS. STREET
WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS MANNER.
2' X 2' WOOD OR 1 91
2. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT — STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED AREAS: EQUIVALENT
ALL SOILS EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIM11ES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE cu
APPLICATION OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOD, HYDROSEEDING, OR OTHER
VEGETATION, PLASTIC COVERING, OR MULCHING. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED,
DESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. THE EXPOSED SOILS
SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE. (TYPICALLY, NO SOILS
SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL
30 AND NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30). 8'— 12'
— PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES:
3. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT DEPOS111ON BY
APPROPRIATE USE OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES
OR MULCHING, OR BY A COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE U
BMPS.
4. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT — MAINTENANCE: 8#
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND
MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN
FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE V41TH THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE MANUAL. FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE.
5. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT — OTHER BMPS:
AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPRIATE BMP'S TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS
INCREASED RUNOFF SHALL BE APPLIED.
6. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT — UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE
FOLLOWING:
A. EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED STOCKPILED MATERIALS;
B. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND
SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES;
C. TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS,
SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS);
D. TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING;
E. DAILY CLEANUP AND STREET MAINTENANCE.
CONTRACTOR/DEV ELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE
STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL,
1090-199V
FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN
CONTINUOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES
OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH
FABRIC TO WIRE,
WIRE MESH SUPPORT F
TO SUPPORT FILTER F
BU Y BOTTOM OF FILTER
MATERIAL 8' TO 12'
6' MAX.
2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR
EQUIVALENT
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL
EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE
OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN,
C.I.-TY M*:O'
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
APPROVED BY DATE
FILTER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEMS
DATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS I DWG No' E1.1
61
MIN. RADIUS
QUARRY SPAILLS
2-4' MIN DIA
8'-12' MIN, DEPTH
PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/
EGRESS AREA
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
DURING THE CENSTRUCTION PERIOD,
ICITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROI
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
Id90-1991i
REVISIONS
APPROVED BY I DATE STANDARD DETAIL
1). GEBERT 10/6/03 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
— DATE 7/24/01 1 SCALE NTS I DWG NO. E1.2
4
A
4
2
4:
GRATE
CB
FILTER SOCK WITH I
OVER FLOW HOLES I
I CATCH BASIN I
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE
DETAIL E111), THIS APPLICAITON
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON
PERIOD,
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROLI
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
C J-7 Y
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
APPROVED BY -DATE
D. GEBERT 10/06/03
D. GEBERT 05/19/05 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS
168 9 0 — k19 C3 0 D. GEBERT 05/05/06 DATE SCALE DWG NO.
7/24/01 NTS E1.3
Call 2 Working Days Before You Dig
1-800-424-5555
Utilities Underground Location Center
(ID,Wr,ND,0R,WA)
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DAIE: - -11WIfOld
BY- mtM13fil
CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION
LEmanq
� iimiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
em M M
Lovell— Sauerland
& Associates, Inc.
Engineers/Surveyors/Planners
Development Consultants
19217 36th Avenue W.
Suite 106
Lynnwood, WA 98036
phone: (425)775-1591
e—mail: info@lsaengineering.com
web: Isaengineering.com
0
�zl_
Cq
P-1
co
0
_71
of
9
z
Ld
0
Ld
Of
F-
V)
V)
W
(L
Ld
W
Of
V3
Or:
V)
Ld
r')
0
�7
< Z�
V)
Lij
0
ry.
0 Ld
LLJ cr)
:2i
n
0
1
Ld
>
Ld
Ln
(000
Lij
0
I—
0
z
ry
D::
V)
V)
0
:2
>
M
Lj
In
0
0
N
0
Z
0
C/)
0
:2
Ld
0
V)
0
V)
V)
N 0 2 2010
SCAIE
AS SHOWN
DRAWN CHECKED
DATE RLL F.B. RLL SHEET
3-23-10 3
CITY FRE NO.
LSA M NO - 5221 1 oF3
-1
0
\41
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
SW 1/4 OF SECTICN 25, T.27N., R.H., W.M.
Y\\\ C
C
B
A
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
SCALE 1"=100'
50 0 150
Ism". '"I
0 100
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN NOTES
1. AFTER WORK WITHIN THE TRAVELED ROADWAY IS COMPLETED AT THE END OF EACH DAY,
THE ROAD SHALL BE COMPLETELY OPEN TO TRAFFIC AND ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OUT
OF THE TRAVELED ROADWAY. ANY EQUIPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LEFT WITHIN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL HAVE LIGHTED TYPE 11 BARRICADES AROUND THEM.
ALL NONAPPLICABLE SIGNS SHALL BE REMOVED, TURNED OR COVERED DAILY W11EN
CONbITION NO LONGER EXISTS. Af&jP& ft�WT W
,fM (
4W gome Igor
M
2. ACCESS B Y EMERGENCY VEHICLES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES.
WMA IM f-Al
3. CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AND DELINEATORS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR.
4. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
5. ADDITIONAL SIGNING AND FLAGGING MAY BE REQUIRED AS CONDITIONS WARRANT. ,
6. SHOULD A PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION FALL WITHIN A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, CONTRACTOR TO
ADJUST LOCATION OF SIGN TO FALL 5'+ BEYOND EDGE OF DRIVEWAY IN DIRECTION OF
ROAD TRAFFIC. (10' MAX. FROM PLAN LOCATION) DRIVEWAY ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AT ALL TIMES.
7. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL COMPLY WITH MUTCD STANDARDS (I.E. FIGURE 6-5).
8. ENTIRE CLOSURES OF EDMONDS WAY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, ONLY ONE LANE MAY BE
CLOSED AT A TIME.
9. CLOSURE OF THE SIDEWALK AND PARKING AREAS FOR MORE THAN 72 HOURS WILL REQUIRE
PAYMENT OF DISRUPTION FEES.
LTR.
MUTCD
SIGN TYPE
A
W20-1
ROAD WORK AHEAD
B
I W9-2
LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT
C
R3-7 (RIGHT)
RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT
D
G20-2
END ROAD WORK
NOTE: ALL CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AND FLAGGERS
ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR.
ONE LANE CLOSURE- SIGNAGE SCHEDULE
Call 2 Worldng Days Before You Dig
1-800-424-5555
Utilities Underground Location Center
(ID,WT,ND,OR,WA)
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE- -11 vp. [at 0
BY- MEM"
CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION
L EM
EMMM
Em 0 M
Lovell— Sauerlaiad
& Associates, Lac.
Engineers/Surveyors/Planners
Development Consultants
19217 36th Avenue W.
Suite 106
Lynnwood, WA 98036
phone: (425)775-1591
e—mail: info@lsaengineering.com
web: Isaengineering.com
0
'C'
N
0
�2
z
W
0
W
15
W
U)
Cn
0
W
Ld
U)
Of
W
0—f
z
n
_j
0
ry
I—
z
0
0
Q�
0
11
0
LIL_
11
<
ry
11
11
Lij
V)
0
r)
Ld
0
rel
I—
C)
LLJ
V)
(P/Z/10
z
0
(ID
V)
D
0
0
V)
0
0
z
V)
02 2010
SCALE 1 of = 100'
DRAWN CHECKED
DATE RLL F.B. RLL SHEET
3-23-10 - TC1
CITY FILE NO.
LSA FILE NO 5221 OF
TREE 5TAIQ`5 TO
PARALELL, EVEN-
UN50ARRED AND
UNDISTURBED SUE
• FERTILIZE ALL TF
APPROVED STAR
APPLIED AT MAN[
5U65,6175TED RATE
• PLANT TREE I" HI(
THAN DEPTH 6RC
NUR5ER"r.
(5U"rlN(5 APARATU
1/2" REINFOROED
12 &A 6ALV. NIRI
:2x2 r;)CU&LA5 Flf
2" DEPTH BARK �
4" NATERIN& 5AE
5URROUNDIN& TRI
FINISHED &RADE
FULL BURLAP OFf
OF ROOTBALL
PLANTIN& MIX 5/4
SEE 6ENTERAL NO
SCARIF'r PLANT11",
EX15TIN6 SUBORA
SET ROOTBALL C
OF COMPACTED
BACKFILL MIX
REE PLANTING DETAIL
50ALE: I" = 1'-0" "050
2" DEPTH BARI< MULCH
4" NATERIN& BA51N-
5URROUNDINry PLANT
REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP
1/5 OF ROOTBALL. L16HTLr'
5CARIF�r ROOTBALL OF
CONTAINER-6RONN PLANTS.
PRIOR TO BACKFILLIN&
EX15TIN& 5U5&RADT=-----'
PLANTIN6 5AOI<FILL
MIX. SEE 6ENERAL
NOTE5
50ARIF'yl PLANTIN& PIT NALI
SET ROOTBALL ON MOUND —
OF COMPACTED PLANTIN&
BACKFILL MIX
SHRUB DETAIL
SCALE =
PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL
+
n.
BOTANICAL NAME
F&L
0 PLANT SHRUB I" H16HER
1000 THAN DEPTH rvRONN AT
NURSERY.
o FERTILIZE ALL PLANTS PNITH
APPROVED STARTER FERTILIZER
2 TIMES APPLIED. AT MANUFACTURER'S
ROOTBALL DIA.'I 5U(5C7E5TEP RATES
ACER C, I RO I NATUM
FRAXINU5 0X'T'CARFA
allER01,15 FALUSTRI5
BERE3,ERIS VERRUOUL05A
RH0L;)01:;)F_Nr�R0N 'UNIOUE
\/IE3URNUM DAVIDDI
RH0r;'0r;)F_NDR0N 'PURPLE 5LEND'
AT51,16A HETEROPHYLLA
A 2 0ER0I1;)IFHYLLUM JAPONIOUM
COMMON NAME
VINE MAPLE
RA"rE3URN A5H
FIN OAI<
kNARTY 5ARBBERR"r'
UNIOUE RH0L';)01�)Er;)R0N
DAVII�)'5 VIBURNUM
AZALEA
NF5TFRN HEML0r_.f<
KAT51,IRA
RJM052
SIZE
a 1-011-101-011
2 11 oAL.
2 1/2 11 cAL.
1511 - Iall
4 " P075 A7 15 " 0. r-,.
51-011 - 101-011
511 cAL.
05 N
TE 256.54
Nm
A
v
2
\,X
LAION''DSCAPE
IL m
Fff" L A I& k ml
SCALE: I" = 10'-0"
E31 171 0
A 'K A
13
0
&'HI(SH INOOD�N r-r=Nrr= ALONO
FROPERTr LINE5
15, e-
0,
xx
- VING
A 13 Sy PLAt
26" CON tu D
13
13 +
1 0 N
r
13
Pf 2 CON RESUB
3 0 2010
loll c
..............
................. * .........
................................... .......
.......................................
X.
......... ... .. ..
......... .... .
...............
- sw
....................
..................
.............
............
RANDALL J. MUNSON
BUILDING DESIGNER
1930
6TH AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 301
SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
98134
VOICE
(206) 349-4551
FAX
(866) 312-8468
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
THIS PLAN IS ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY THE
CLIENT INDICATED.
REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
WRITTEN CONSENT OF DESIGNER,
RANDALL J. MUNSON, IS PROHIBITED.
ARCHITECT MAINTAINS ALL RIGHTS
UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
INCLUDING COPYRIGHT.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL
CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS
AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY
THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DIMEN-
SIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGIN-
NING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK.
00 NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
REVISIONS
No. Date Item
CITY OF
06.08.10 EDMONDS
A:2 CITY OF
07.23.10 EDMONDS
m
0
0
U)
w
z w
0 F-
Z
W
Z 04
c
LO
U) Z M (0
04
0
(L cc)
Lj— 1 0)
< EL Z
u� III -
W 0
F_ F—
z 5 Q
0 z
0 0)
w >iU-
0 c�
Z
0 C'q 0
00 2
(0 0 c\I
cf)
cq ui 119-t
LANDSCAPE PLAN
and DETAILS
PROJECT NO.
DESIGN RJM
DRAWN RJM
ISSUE DATE 04.02.10
AUG 12 2010
IRRUM�UN E� P/1,F h
�j