Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
951 MAIN ST (2).PDF
11111111111111 14200 951 MAIN ST • ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNTMARCEL NUMBER: '411 e1 0 y,4 7 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver tudy Required E]Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DA PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) GEOTECH REPORT DAT STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc Wetlalfd�°swrce� Ar :iP, Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. ' Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 ' Critical Area Study 8t Wetland Mitigation Plan 1 for 1 Michel Main St. Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #05023 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave. SE ' Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 ' For: Michel Construction ' Attn. Rob Michel 7907212 th St. SW #212 ' Edmonds, WA 98026 March 29, 2005 i' I' TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING SETBACK WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS FUNCTIONS AND -VALUES ASSESSMENT WILDLIFE WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT GRASS SEEDING PLANTING NOTES PERFORMANCE BOND PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE GOALS CONTINGENCY PLAN USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES FIELD DATA CRITICAL AREA STUDY AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN MAP 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 5- 7 7 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 1/1 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ' Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wetland delineation in January of 2005 to locate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on the approximate 0.61 acre site ' located northeast of the intersection of Main Street and 9th,Avenue S in the city of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located as a portion of Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E, W.M. This site is currently undeveloped, represented by red alder and accessed via Main Street in the south. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped land to the east, a single-family residence to the west, and the unopened right-of-way of a public. alley to the north. This property is comprised of three existing legal lots, and has a north aspect slope down to Shell Creek and an associated Category II ' wetland. Both Shell Creek and the associated wetland extend off-site to the east, north, and west. Shell Creek (Type F) is known to support anadromous fish. Type F streams and Category II wetlands in the city of. Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. 'Given the size of the site and the location of on-site critical areas, the entire property is occupied by wetland and associated buffer. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing' to construct one single-family residence on these ' existing legal lots. This house is proposed to be, placed on the southern portion of the property, as far from the wetland as possible.. Placement of this house is proposed to impact 6,924. square feet of buffer area. Avoidance of these impacts ' would result in a loss of reasonable economic use of this property. As mitigation for this buffer impact, the applicant is proposing to enhance the 2,100 square feet of remaining on-site buffer, 876 square feet of on-site wetland, and to place a fence along the edge of the 15 -foot BSBL to prevent intrusion to the ' wetland and buffer. In addition, the applicant is proposing to avoid wetland and buffer impacts by not developing the public alley north of the property. This will prevent impacts to 880 square feet of wetland and 467 square feet of buffer ' immediately adjacent to the site, as well as additional temporal impacts and physical impacts necessary to connect this alley to existing developed streets. ' WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and ' Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the on-site wetland and off-site stream are classified as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Forested Wetland, Semi- permanently flooded. Stream: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Streambed. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS Under ECDC, chapter 23.50.010 and 23.90.010, the on-site wetland and. off-site stream are classified as follows:. Wetland Category 2: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek received a score of 60 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Category 2 wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. Shell Creek Type F: This perennial stream located approximately 40 feet north of the subject site is known to support anadromous fish. Type F anadromous fishbearing streams in. the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. At the discretion of the Director, Critical area tracts may be' required in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit developments.. These critical area tracts shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The director. may require that critical area tracts be dedicated to the city, to be . held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing. with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a provision to assess costs associated therewith. (EDCD 23.40.270) BUILDING SETBACK Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280: Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: • Landscaping • Uncovered Decks • Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not exceed more than eighteen (18) inches into the setback area; and • Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios, provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in Chapter 19.97. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 2 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 11 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT 1 Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington. State Department of Ecology 1 Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. Under this method, the 1 process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: 1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and 1 percentage cover). 2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of .hydric soils is determined. 1 3) Determination of the presence of wetland hydrology. in the area examined under the first two steps. 1 Vegetation Criteria. The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydrophytic vegetation as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that. ' occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the 1 plant species present. One- of the most common indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated "Facultative" and wetter on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. 1 Soil Criteria and Mapped Description The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, ' defines hydric soils as those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil 1 meets the definition and criteria for hydric soils. 1 The soils underlying the site are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington as Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes and Alderwood-Urban land complex, .8 to 15 percent slopes. 1 Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes is on till plains, terraces, and outwash plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly 1 sandy loam and about 25 percent Everett gravelly sandy loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Ragnar, Indianola, McKenna, and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and drainage ways on plains. Also included are ' colluvial soils,. -slump areas, and escarpments. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. 1 - Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 3 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 1 i 1 u 1 11 The Alderwood soil is moderately deep over a hardpan and is moderately well drained. It formed in glacial till. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35 inches. Depth to the hardpan.. ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability of the Alderwood soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity is low. A seasonal perched water table is at a depth of 18 to 36 inches from January to March. Springs or seep areas are common. The Everett soil is very deep and somewhat excessively drained. It formed in glacial outwash. Typically, the surface layer, where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The subsoil is dark brown very sandy gravelly loam about 12 inches thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely gravelly sand. Permeability of the Everett soil is rapid. Available water capacity is low. Alderwood- Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes: This map unit is on till plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent urban land. Included in this unit are small areas of Everett and Indianola soils on terraces and outwash plains, -Kitsap soils on terraces and terrace escarpments, and Ragnar soils on outwash plains. Included areas make up about. 15 percent of the total acreage. Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, ' and other structures that obscure or alter the soils so that identification is not possible. 1 Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the .surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5% of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 4 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Category 2 Wetland: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek extends off- site to the west, north, and east. Vegetation in this wetland is represented by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac) and scattered Western hemlock (Tsuga ' heterophylla, FacU-), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina, Fac). Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of black (10 ' YR 2/1) and a texture of gravelly muck from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils were saturated to the surface during our January 2005 site investigation. ' Non -Wetland Areas: Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the site is represented by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fac), holly (Ilex aquifolium, ' FacU), sapling red alder, lady fern, and English ivy (Hedera helix, Not/Up[). Typical soils in the portions of the property mapped as non -wet have a Munsell color of dark brown (10 YR 3/3) and a texture of gravelly loam from 0 to 18 inches below the ' surface. Soils sampled in the upland areas of the site were dry during our January 2005 site visit. - '. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to this site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems ' common to western Washington. FUNCTIONS' AND VALUES COMPONENTS . ' Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and education. The most.commonly assessed functions are discussed. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided ' below. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 The on-site wetland is a portion of a large riparian wetland system that extends off- site to the west, north, and east, and is associated with Shell Creek (Type F). The large size of the wetland, the deep absorbent organic soil and the dense native vegetation all allow this wetland to store stormwater and moderate stream flows. This wetland stores water during periods of high precipitation and releases it during times of low flow, helping to maintain consistent stream flows. The presence of organic soil and dense vegetation contribute to water quality improvements by filtering sediment and pollutants from overland flows and trapping nutrients. This is an especially valuable function as this wetland is bordered by roads and is downstream of developed areas. This wetland and stream system provides a valuable Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 5 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 natural oasis in an increasingly urban area. This system provides wildlife with a protected movement corridor as well as high quality forage and cover opportunities. Overall, this wetland and stream system provides a high level of functions and values. ' The on-site buffer of this wetland is forested and provides protection to the wetland, habitat for wildlife, and serves to filter overland flow. The presence of a ' single-family residence in what would be the buffer area on the adjacent lot to the west currently reduces the capacity of this buffer to protect the wetland and provides an avenue for intrusion. The relatively small area of buffer limits the potential water quality improvements that may be provided. The proximity of this buffer to Main Street results in. roadside trash and wildlife disturbance resultant from traffic noise. Overall, this buffer provides a moderate level of functions and values. PROPOSED IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ' To construct this house, the applicant is proposing to impact 6,924 square feet of forested buffer. The main impacts of this development will be a loss of buffering capacity to the wetland and a .loss of wildlife habitat. Given the resilient nature of ' this wetland and' stream system,. the moderate functions and values currently_ provided by this buffer, and in relation to the system as a whole, the relatively small area of impact, itappears that construction of this house will result in a ' limited loss of overall functions and .values of the system. POST MITIGATION FUNCTIONS AND VALUES As mitigation for the proposed buffer impacts, the applicant is proposing to enhance the remaining on-site buffer, the on-site portion of the wetland, install a fence with NGPA signage along the perimeter of the 15 foot BSBL, and to not ' develop the public alley north of the subject property. Wetland and buffer enhancement is proposed to consist of removing any trash found with the ' enhancement areas, controlling any invasive species, and planting conifers. This will improve aesthetic values, increase the density and diversity of native species, and aid in the transition from a predominantly deciduous canopy to a mixed and ' eventually coniferous forest. Placement of a fence and signs along the perimeter of the BSBL will serve to delineate the presence of critical areas on-site, as well as discourage intrusion to the wetland and remaining buffer. The applicants decision ' to avoid developing the public alley north of the property will prevent direct impacts to the wetland and stream, which would include wetland fill, habitat fragmentation, and culverting Shell Creek. In addition, construction of this alley would provide easy access to the wetland and stream which would likely result in long term and continuing impacts such as increased trash, increased noise from traffic and humans, and disturbance to vegetation and habitat as children play in ' the area. The applicants proposal to provide on-site wetland and buffer enhancement in conjunction with avoiding off-site wetland impacts resultant from construction of the alley should help to maintain the overall quality and function of ' this wetland and stream system. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 r- , ' WILDLIFE - During our site investigation several species of -bird were noted. These include ' American robin, winter. wren, bushtit, and black -capped chickadee. Given this wetlands' association with Shell Creek, other resident and migratory species would be expected to utilize the site during some portion of their lives. No herpetofauna were noted. WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT As partial mitigation for the proposed buffer reduction, the applicant is proposing ' to enhance the entire 876 square feet of on-site wetland and 2,100 square feet of on=site buffer. Wetland and buffer enhancement will consist• of removing any existing trash and invasive species while taking .care I not to disturb the existing native species, and interplanting the areas with conifers on 10 -foot centers. ' GRASS SEEDING All disturbed ground within on-site critical areas shall be seeded to the recommended, certified grass seed mixtures below. Fertilizer shall only be used when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into sensitive stream and wetland systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting biologist and/or the ' County Biologist, a fertilizer such as 16-16-16 shall be applied at 100 pounds per acre. ' Wetland Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Fowl meadowgrass Poa palustris 0.8 ' Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.8 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 0.2 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 Wetland Enhancement (876 square feet) Common Name Letm Neme Size Spacing- QuantY Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 gallon 10' 5 ' Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 gallon 10' 4 - , Buffer Enhancement (2,100 feet) ' .square Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing uantit ' Western red cedar Douglas fir Thuja plicata Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 gallon 1 gallon 10' 10' 11 10 ' GRASS SEEDING All disturbed ground within on-site critical areas shall be seeded to the recommended, certified grass seed mixtures below. Fertilizer shall only be used when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into sensitive stream and wetland systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting biologist and/or the ' County Biologist, a fertilizer such as 16-16-16 shall be applied at 100 pounds per acre. ' Wetland Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Fowl meadowgrass Poa palustris 0.8 ' Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.8 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 0.2 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 Wetland and buffer enhancement projects are typically more complex to construct than can be described in plans. Careful monitoring by a professional wetland ' scientist for all portions of this project is strongly recommended. Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care ' and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local 'and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetland professional. The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species; and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns -found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Three foot by two inch by 1/4 -inch lath, or other approved marking device, shall be tplaced next to each planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in monitoring the plantings. Wood chips or other suitable material shall be used for mulching in the planting ' areas. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two=foot diameter area at each planting site. Mulch is to be placed in this two -foot diameter area at a .depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around the base of each plant shall be kept free of mulch. PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the ' estimated cost for plant material and labor. Annual monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to assure the success of this enhancement plan. The City of Edmonds shall release this bond at the end of the three years, upon successful determination for all portions of this mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: Critical Area Study &Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 Buffer Gross Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. ' Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 0.6 Annual ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 0.3 1 White clover Trifolium reperis 0.2 PLANTING NOTES Wetland and buffer enhancement projects are typically more complex to construct than can be described in plans. Careful monitoring by a professional wetland ' scientist for all portions of this project is strongly recommended. Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care ' and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local 'and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetland professional. The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species; and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns -found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Three foot by two inch by 1/4 -inch lath, or other approved marking device, shall be tplaced next to each planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in monitoring the plantings. Wood chips or other suitable material shall be used for mulching in the planting ' areas. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two=foot diameter area at each planting site. Mulch is to be placed in this two -foot diameter area at a .depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around the base of each plant shall be kept free of mulch. PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the ' estimated cost for plant material and labor. Annual monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to assure the success of this enhancement plan. The City of Edmonds shall release this bond at the end of the three years, upon successful determination for all portions of this mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: Critical Area Study &Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 QUANTITY OF ONE GALLON PLANTS @ $8.25 per plant 30 ' ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR $247.50 ' ESTIMATED COST OF MONITORING (3 YEARS@ $600/yr) $1,800.00 ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE (3 YEARS@ $500/yr) $1,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $247.50 120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $297.00 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM ' Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Semi-annual site inspections (twice yearly, in the spring and fall) for three years ' 3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year) Purpose of Monitoring ' The purpose of monitoring this project is to evaluate the. success - of the enhancement plantings. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at the end of three- years the performance standards are being met and that habitat - ' values in the enhancement areas are equivalent to similar ecosystems in the immediate area. ' Inspection Schedule Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report will be ' supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project. Condition monitoring of the plantings will be done by a qualified wetland biologist ' in the spring and fall annually for the three-year monitoring period. A written report describing the monitoring results will be submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will occur ' three years after completion of planting. The contracted wetland professional will prepare a final report as to the success of the project. ' Definition of Success / Performance Standards The enhancement areas shall support at least 80% survivorship, and at least 80961 areal coverage of the native plants set forth in this plan by the end of three years. The species mix should resemble that proposed by the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a criterion for success. Reproduction of volunteer native species may be used to establish areal coverage ' requirements. If a given area contains more than 10% areal coverage of invasive, non-native species within the planting areas, the enhancement shall -not be considered successful for that area. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 MAINTENANCE ' The enhancement areas will require periodic maintenance during the monitoring period. The buffer and wetland enhancement will be maintained at least once a ' year for each of the three monitored years, or as needed to assure the success of the mitigation project. Maintenance may include, but will not be limited to, removal of invasive vegetation (by hand or chemical means as necessary), ' replacement of plant mortality, and/or the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period. Chemical control, if necessary, shall be applied by a licensed applicator following all label instructions. PERFORMANCE GOALS ' The goal of this mitigation plan is to improve the functioning of the on-site wetland and buffer to compensate for the proposed buffer impacts. The enhancement planting will increase species diversity and aid in the transition to a coniferous ' forest canopy. The mitigation area will continue to function 'as an -.integral portion of the larger wetland system to the south and help to support an overall complex natural environment. ' CONTINGENCY PLAN . ' If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, . or it appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same species or; if necessary, alternative species may be added to the enhancement ' areas. If this situation -persists into the next inspection, a .meeting with a representative for the city of Edmonds, the consulting wetland biologist and the property owner will be scheduled to decide upon contingency plans. Elements of ' the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to more aggressive weed control, supplemental irrigation, plant mortality replacement, species substitution, ' fertilization, and/or soil amendments. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 WRl Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 " USE OF THIs REPORT ' This Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan is supplied to the Michel Construction as a means of describing jurisdictional wetland conditions, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is based largely ' on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of ' the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation -or probing difficulties. ' The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended. to ' provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the " laws now in effect. ' The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland_ ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wet nd Resources, Inc. ouis Emenhiser ' Senior. Wetland Ecologist D 1 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 1 REFERENCES City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Title Chapter 23 Environmentally Critical Areas. ' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS- 79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife ' Service. Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. ' Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ' Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1978). ' National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. ' Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. ' Washington State Wetlands Rating System. Washington State Department of Ecology. Western Washington, Ecology Publications #93-74 August 1993 and #04-06-025 August 2004. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 Field Data Michel - 9th Et Main - WRI# 05023 ' Investigation Date: January 20, 2005 Pit Depth Texture Color Moisture Species % Status Strata S1 0-18"+ Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/3 dry Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 FacU Tree Non-Wetland Tsuga heterophylla 30 FacU- Tree Thuja plicata 20 Fac Tree Alnus rubra 10 Fac Tree ' Ilex aquifolium 15 FacU Shrub Athyrium filix-femina 40 Fac Herb Hedera helix 10 FacU Herb Conclusion: Non-Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are not met. S2 0-18"+ Gravelly Loam 10YR 2/1 sat Alnus rubra 60 Fac Tree Wetland Muck at surface Tsuga heterophylla 10 FacU- Tree Rubus spectabilis Athyrium filix-femina 70 50 Fac+ Fac Shrub Herb i Conclusion: Wetland - Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are met. ' I 1 i ' 13 G z S 3AV Hlb S 3Aa GME AM S0NOW03 u a w� -J Q 7 Z Z g H U3 n LL 0 z LU w a w w �o u �ZU- o00 cL 0 M --- _ w� H -- ao- - - - - w ao u En Q' i 91 11 it i1 i1 11 11 ' 11 11 i1 11 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 i1 11 11 i1 11 i i1 11 i 11 11 11 i1 i 11 11 it it 11 i1 it it it 11 i1 i1 i1 11 i1 11 4 11 1 it 11 .i1 11 il il. 41 11 11 11 i1 i 1 11 1 11 11 11 i1 i1 11 i1 it it i1 i1 it a 11 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 4 i1 11 i1 11. i i it. 1 i1 i1 it it it it 11 i1 i1 it 11 11 11 1 11 11 I 1 i1 11 11 11 11 11 � 11 4 h 11 11 it 11 .1'h 11 w 1 41 1 I 11 11 11 1 11 i1 11 11 i1 11 i i1 _ 11 11 11 11 11 i 11 11. i1 11 i1 it 11 1 41 . 1 11 11 11 11 i 11 11 11 11 11 11 i1 i' 11 11 Q z 11 i1 iI it 11 11 iI 11 1 I I I 1 1 t� 11 i1 1 11 1 11 i1 r it 11 i 41 i1 11- h i1 11 i1 11 i1 11 11 1' 11 'i1 ,{r'� o W U i1 11 1 4 1 i 11 11 i i1 11 11 11 11 11 11' {1 11 11 I z W N 11 i1 it 11 11 {1 11y it i1 1t: i' 11. i1 i1 11 1 -0 it i1 ..,,il_ , °1;;1°w;; w 3 ? z ©� �11 O H 11 11 -V 11 11 11 1 11 11 i1 it it i1 11 i1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 i1 1 11 11 11 i i1 11 11 11 i1 i1 i1 11-.; . 11 11- 11 +¢411 JJQ 1 =N u z t i1 1 11 1 it i1 1 it i1 1 it 1 i1 1 i 1 V 1 4 i 1 i1 11 11 11 11 it 1 11:11 11 it 111111111it1111i1{1!{ 1,'iLn "•I`;' 1 z � _w ONIISIX3 r .I -- zm .. a , Ngo Q i i1 11 11 11 i1 i1 11 {11° w I _ w w En 11 11 it i• i1 it 11 it i1 4 it it 11 i1 {I {I 11 W U dEi N et 1 a Z vhf S� J O i1 11 C) o z w Z O w u z O r� w m , 1 U - ILL u o a m .. 0 ' 1 O cy - o u W N �o cg �vN � p W z a >-zW tom M000 cp J p :c �z2 ° 30 gV u nr U U L N W .'E N O SE III E LU z E JJQ JNla-1169 z � _w ONIISIX3 zm E' -z w 0.0 Oma. Q W U dEi N et a� Z vhf S� w°N` C) o z w Z O w r� w m Q U - ILL m .. 0 C N 11 O cy o W N J U � 0 �o cg �vN � p W z a >-zW tom M000 cp J p :c �z2 ° 30 gV u nr U U L N W .'E N O SE III E LU z E 1� Wetlalfd)�e.go re. 6/`IC. Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. t Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Critical Area Study 8t Wetland Mitigation Plan for Michel Main St. Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #05023 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave. SE Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337=3174 For: ' Michel Construction Attn. Rob Michel 7907212 th St. SW #212 tEdmonds, WA 98026 ' March 29, 2005 't i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM 1 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS 2 BUILDING SETBACK 2 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT 3 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS 5 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 WILDLIFE 7 WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 7 . GRASS SEEDING 7 PLANTING NOTES 8 r PERFORMANCE BOND 8 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM 9 MAINTENANCE 10 PERFORMANCE GOALS 10 CONTINGENCY PLAN 10 USE OF THIS REPORT 11 REFERENCES 12 FIELD DATA 13 CRITICAL AREA STUDY AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN MAP 1/1 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ' Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wetland delineation in January of 2005 to locate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on the approximate 0.61 acre site ' located northeast of the intersection of Main Street and 91' -Avenue S in the city of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located as a portion of Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E, W.M. This site is currently undeveloped, represented by red alder and accessed via Main Street in the south. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped land to the east, a single-family residence to the west, and the unopened right-of-way of a public alley to the north. This property is comprised of three existing legal lots, and has a north aspect slope down to Shell Creek and an associated Category II ' wetland. Both Shell Creek and the associated wetland extend off-site to the east, north, and west. Shell Creek (Type F) is known to support - anadromous fish. Type F streams and Category II wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot ' protective buffers. ' Given the size of the site and the location of on-site critical areas, the entire property is occupied by wetland and associated buffer. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing - to construct one single-family residence on these ' existing legal lots. This house is proposed to be placed on the southern portion of the property, as far from the wetland as possible. Placement of this house , is . proposed to impact 6,924 square feet of buffer area. Avoidance of these impacts ' would result in a loss of reasonable economic use of this'property. As mitigation for this buffer impact, the applicant is proposing to enhance the 2,100 square feet of remaining on-site buffer, 876 square feet of on-site wetland, and to place a fence along the edge of the 15 -foot BSBL to prevent intrusion to the wetland and buffer. In addition, the applicant is proposing to avoid wetland and buffer impacts .by not developing the public alley north of the property. This..will prevent impacts to 880 square feet of wetland and 467 square feet of buffer immediately adjacent to the site, as well as additional temporal impacts and physical impacts necessary to connect this alley to existing developed streets. ' WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the on-site wetland and off-site stream are classified as follows: tWetland: Palustrine, Forested Wetland, Semi- permanently flooded. Stream: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Streambed. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 r WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS Under ECDC, chapter 23.50.010 and 23.90.010, the on-site wetland and off-site stream are classified as follows: ' Wetland Category 2: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek received a score of 60 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form. Category 2 wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. Shell Creek Type F: This perennial stream located approximately 40 feet north of the subject site is -known to support anadromous fish. Type F .anadromous fishbearing streams in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. ' At , the discretion �.of the Director, Critical area tracts may be required in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit ' developments. These critical area tracts shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than five thousand (5)000) square feet. The director may require that critical area tracts be dedicated to the city, to be- held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the. development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association. or other legal. entity (such as a ' land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a provision to assess costs associated therewith. (EDCD 23.40.270) ' BUILDING SETBACK Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280: Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other ' structures shall be set back a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: • Landscaping • Uncovered Decks • Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not exceed more than eighteen (18) inches into the setback area; and ' Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios, provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in Chapter 19.97. ' Critical Area Stud & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Y 8 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 1 WETLAND D DETERMINATION REPORT ' Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology ' Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: 1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage cover). 2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of hydric soils is determined. ' 3) Determination of the presence of wetland hydrology in the area examined under the first two steps. ' Vegetation Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydrophytic vegetation as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. One of the most common ' indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated "Facultative" and wetter on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. ' Soil Criteria and Mapped Description. The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, rdefines hydric soils as those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and. criteria for hydric soils. The soils underlying the site are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County ' Area Washington as Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes and Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. ' Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes is on till plains, terraces, and outwash plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent- Everett gravelly sandy loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Ragnar, Indianola, McKenna, and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and drainage ways on plains. Also included are ' colluvial soils, slump areas, and escarpments. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 soil is moderately dee over a hardpan and is moderately well The Alderwood y p P Y drained. It formed in glacial till. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about .2.3 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35- inches. Depth to the hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability of .the Alderwood soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water ' capacity is low. A seasonal perched water table is at a depth of. 18 to 36 inches from January to March Springs or seep areas are common. ' The Everett soil is very deep and somewhat excessively drained. It formed in glacial outwash. Typically, the surface layer, where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is very. dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The subsoil is dark brown very sandy ' gravelly loam about 12 inches thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely gravelly sand. Permeability of the Everett soil is rapid. Available water capacity is low. ' Alderwood- Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes: This map unit is on till plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent urban land. Included in this unit are small areas of Everett and Indianola soils on terraces and outwash plains, Kitsap soils on terraces and terrace escarpments, and Ragnar soils on outwash plains. Included. areas make up about 15 ' percent of the total acreage. Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, ' and other structures that obscure or alter the soils so that identification is not possible. Hydrology Criteria. The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, ' states that "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5% of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas ' inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5% of the -growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining ' whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. ' Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 1 ' BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Category 2 Wetland: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek. extends off- site to the west, north, and east. Vegetation in this wetland is_ represented by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac) and scattered Western hemlock (Tsuga ' heterophylla, FacU-), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina, Fac). Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of- black (10 ' YR 2/1) and a texture of _gravelly muck from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils were saturated to the surface during our January 2005 site. investigation. Non -Wetland Areas: Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the site is represented by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), Western hemlock (Tsu3a heterophylla, FacU-), Western red cedar (Thuja pllcata, Fac), holly (Ilex aquifolium, . FacU), sapling red alder, lady fern, and. English ivy (Hedera helix, Not/Up[). Typical soils in the portions of the property mapped as non -wet have a Munsell color of dark brown (10 YR 3/3) and a texture of gravelly loam -from 0 to 18 inches below the ' surface. Soils sampled in the upland areas of the site were dry during our January 2005 site visit. ' FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT. METHODOLOGY t The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation.This assessment pertains specifically to this site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems ' common to western Washington. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES COMPONENTS Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, ' recreational opportunities, and education. The most commonly assessed functions are discussed. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. EXISTING CONDITIONS The on-site wetland is a portion of a large riparian wetland system that extends off- site to the west, north, and east, and is associated with Shell Creek (Type F). The large size of the wetland, the deep absorbent organic soil and the dense native ' vegetation all allow this wetland to store stormwater and moderate stream flows. This wetland stores water during periods of high precipitation and releases it during times of low flow, helping to maintain consistent stream flows. The presence ' of organic soil and dense vegetation contribute to water quality. improvements by filtering sediment and pollutants from overland flows and trapping nutrients. This is an especially valuable function as this wetland is bordered by roads and is downstream of developed areas. This wetland and stream system provides a valuable Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 5 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 1 ' area. This s natural oasis in an increasingly urbansystem wildlife with a provides protected movement corridor as well as_ high quality forage and cover opportunities. Overall, this wetland and stream system provides a high level of functions and values. The on-site buffer of this wetland is forested and provides protection to the wetland, habitat for wildlife, and serves to filter overland flow. The presence of a ' single-family residence in what would be the buffer area on the adjacent lot to the west currently reduces the capacity of this buffer to protect the wetland and provides an avenue for intrusion. The relatively small area of buffer limits the potential water quality improvements that may be provided. The proximity of this buffer to Main Street results in roadside trash and wildlife disturbance resultant from traffic noise. Overall, this buffer provides a moderate level of. functions and 1 values. PROPOSED IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ' To construct this house, the applicant is proposing to impact 6,924 square feet of forested buffer: The main impacts of this development will be a loss of buffering capacity to the wetland and a loss of wildlife habitat. Given the resilient nature of ' this wetland and stream system, the moderate functions and values currently provided by this buffer, and in relation to the system as a whole, the relatively small area of impact, it appears that construction of this house will result in a ' limited loss of overall functions and values of the system. POST MITIGATION FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ' As mitigation for the proposed buffer impacts, the applicant is proposing to enhance the remaining on-site buffer, the on-site portion of the wetland, install a fence with NGPA signage along the perimeter of the 15 foot BSBL, and to not develop the public alley north of the subject property. Wetland and buffer enhancement is proposed to consist of removing any trash found with the enhancement areas, controlling any invasive species, and planting conifers. This will improve aesthetic values, increase the density and diversity of native species, and aid in the transition from a predominantly deciduous canopy to a mixed and ' eventually coniferous forest. Placement of a fence and signs along the perimeter of the BSBL will serve to delineate the presence of critical areas on-site, as well as discourage intrusion to the wetland and remaining buffer. The applicants decision ' to avoid developing the public alley north of the property will prevent direct impacts to the wetland and stream, which would include wetland fill, habitat fragmentation, and culverting Shell Creek. In addition, construction of this alley ' would provide easy access to the wetland and stream which would likely result in long term and continuing impacts such as increased trash, increased noise from traffic and humans, and disturbance to vegetation and habitat as children play in the area. The applicants proposal to provide on-site wetland and buffer enhancement in conjunction with avoiding off-site wetland impacts resultant from construction of the alley should help to maintain the overall quality and function of ' this wetland and stream system. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 1 ' WILDLIFE ' During our site investigation several species of bird were noted. These include American robin, winter wren, bushtit, and black -capped chickadee. Given this wetlands' association with Shell Creek, other resident and migratory species would ' be expected to utilize the site during some portion of their lives. No herpetofauna were noted. WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT As partial mitigation for the proposed buffer reduction, the applicant is proposing ' to enhance the entire 876 square feet of on-site wetland and 2,100 square feet of on-site buffer. Wetland and buffer enhancement will consist of removing any existing trash and invasive species while taking care not to disturb the existing ' native species, and interplanting the areas with conifers on 107foot centers. ' GRASS SEEDING All disturbed ground within. on-site critical areas shall be seeded to the recommended, certified grass seed mixtures below. Fertilizer shall only be used ' when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff. into sensitive stream and wetland systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by -the consulting biologist -and/or the County Biologist, a fertilizer such as 16-16-16 shall be applied at 100 pounds per ' acre. ' Wetland Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Fowl meadowgrass Poa palustris 0.8 ' Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.8 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 0.2 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 Wetland Enhancement (876 square feet) ' Common Name Latin Name Size S acinq Quantit Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 gallon 10' 5 ' Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 gallon 10' 4 Buffer Enhancement (2,100 square feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacinq Quantit ' Western red cedar Thuja plicata Pseudotsuga 1 gallon 1 10' 10' 11 10 Douglas fir menziesii gallon ' GRASS SEEDING All disturbed ground within. on-site critical areas shall be seeded to the recommended, certified grass seed mixtures below. Fertilizer shall only be used ' when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff. into sensitive stream and wetland systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by -the consulting biologist -and/or the County Biologist, a fertilizer such as 16-16-16 shall be applied at 100 pounds per ' acre. ' Wetland Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Fowl meadowgrass Poa palustris 0.8 ' Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.8 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 0.2 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 7 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 Buffer Grass Seed Mixture ' Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Colonial bentgrass Agrostis . tenuis 0.6 Annual ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 0.3 ' White clover Trifolium repens 0.2 PLANTING NOTES ' Wetland and buffer enhancement projects are typically more complex to construct than can be described in plans. Careful monitoring by a professional wetland scientist for all portions of this project is strongly recommended. Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care 1 and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species. ' substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetland professional. ' The plants shall be arranged with the'appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required. vegetation, coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar ' undisturbed sites in the area'. Three foot by two inch by 1/4 -inch lath, or other approved marking device, shall be _ ' placed next to each planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in 'monitoring the plantings. 'h planting Wood chips or other suitable material- shall be used for mulching in the p ' areas. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two -foot diameter area at each planting site. Mulch is to be placed in this two -foot diameter area at a depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around the base of each plant ' shall be kept free of mulch. PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the ' estimated cost for plant material and labor. Annual monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to assure the success of this enhancement plan. The City of Edmonds shall release this bond at the end of the three years, upon ' successful determination for all portions of this mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 825 plant 30 p QUANTITY OF ONE GALLON PLANTS C� $. per ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR $247.50.. ' ESTIMATED COST OF MONITORING (3 YEARS@ $600/yr) $1,800.00 ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE (3 YEARS@ $500/yr) $1,500.00 ' TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $247.50 120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $297.00 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM ' Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Semi-annual site inspection's (twice yearly, in the spring and fall) for three years ' 3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year) Purpose of Monitoring ' The purpose of monitoring this project is to evaluate the success of the enhancement plantings. Success wilt be determined if monitoring shows that at . the end of three years the performance standards are being met and that habitat .' values in the enhancement areas are equivalent to similar ecosystems in the immediate area. ' Inspection Schedule Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will be made to determine plan. compliance. A compliance report will be ' supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project. Condition monitoring .of the plantings will be done by a qualified wetland biologist in the spring and fall annually for the three-year monitoring period. A written ' report describing the monitoring. results wilt be submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will occur three years after completion of planting. The contracted wetland professional will ' prepare a final report as to the success of the project. ' Definition of Success / Performance Standards The enhancement areas shall support at least 80% survivorship, and at least 80% areal coverage of the native plants set forth in this plan by the end of three years. ' The species mix should resemble that proposed by the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a criterion for success. Reproduction of volunteer native species may be used to establish areal coverage requirements. If a given area contains more than 10% areal coverage of invasive, non-native species within the planting areas, the enhancement shall not be considered successful for that area." ' Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 MAINTENANCE ' The enhancement areas will require periodic maintenance during the monitoring period. The buffer and wetland enhancement will be maintained at least once a year for each of the three monitored years, or as needed to assure the success of ' the mitigation project. Maintenance may include, but will not be limited to, removal of invasive vegetation (by hand or chemical means. as necessary), replacement of plant mortality, and/or the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period. Chemical control, if necessary, shall be applied by a licensed applicator following all label instructions. ' PERFORMANCE GOALS The goal of this mitigation plan is to improve the functioning of the on-site wetland and buffer to compensate for the proposed buffer impacts. The enhancement planting will increase species diversity and aid in the transition to a coniferous ' forest canopy. The mitigation area will continue to function as an integral portion of the larger wetland system to the south and help to support an overall complex natural environment. ' CONTINGENCY PLAN ' If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, or it appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same species or, if necessary, alternative species may be added to the enhancement ' areas. If this situation persists into the next inspection, a meeting with a representative for the city of Edmonds, the consulting wetland biologist and the property owner will be scheduled to decide upon contingency plans. Elements of ' the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to more aggressive weed control, supplemental irrigation, plant mortality replacement, species substitution, fertilization, and/or soil amendments. ' Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 WR! Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 ' USE OF THis REPORT ' This Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan is supplied to the Michel Construction as a means of describing jurisdictional wetland conditions, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is based largely ' on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of ' the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. ' The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to ' provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. ' The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetlandecologists. No other representation or warranty. is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. tWetl. nd Resources, Inc. ouis Emenhiser Senior Wetland Ecologist 1 ' Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 ' REFERENCES ' City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Title Chapter 23 Environmentally Critical Areas. ' Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the -United States. FWS/OBS- 79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. ' Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg,. MS. ' Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1978). ' National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. ' Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. ' Washington State Wetlands Rating System. Washington State Department of Ecology. Western Washington, Ecology Publications #93-74 August 1993 and #04-06-025 August 2004. 1 ' Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 12 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 Field Data .Michel - 9th ft Main - WRI# 05023 ' Investigation Date: January 20, 2005 Pit Depth. Texture Color Moisture Species % Status Strata S1 0-18"+ Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/3 dry Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 FacU Tree ' Non -Wetland Tsuga heterophylla 30 FacU- Tree Thuja plicata 20 Fac Tree Alnus rubra 10 Fac Tree Ilex aquifolium 15 FacU Shrub Athyrium filix-femina 40 Fac Herb Hedera helix 10 FacU Herb 'r Conclusion: Non -Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology n are of met S2 0-18"+ Gravelly Loam 10YR 2/1 sat Alnus rubra 60 Fac Tree Wetland Muck at surface Tsuga heterophylla 10 FacU- Tree Rubus spectabilis 70 Fac+ Shrub Athyrium filix-femina 50 Fac Herb Conclusion: Wetland - Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are met. (' 13 y / 3 W 1 S 3AV H16rS it AM SAN�Wg3 s Y `.+ W �G Q Z Z z Ld a W z a _ Lu o� � w >Lu o v zL w UJ aw oog= u a N = Ln L) Z zh.. L Q LLI00, LLI Z V yS O v 1 i1AI 41 it �1 dl �i1,I1 it �I dl 1I AI 4 " . iI Y 91I �I I �I !� �I �I 1 �1 �I �I �I, �I �I �i �I 1 "d1 11 11 4 Y 11 it 1I AI 11 11 iI iI iI iI i1 �I11 All I �1 P Y1 I1 11d1 d1 11 d1 11 II - i1 � Jdl J�I I �11�1 �1 �1 j1 {1 i1 q1 i1 i1 1 1t1 �1 �1 II �I �I iI iI i1 11 11 11 11 41 11 -� iI 11 1 q1 d1 AI �41 91 11 91 i1 q1w I I �1 �I �I ' �I �I �I �I �i it�I �i �I �I � � ,f �1 Al �I �I All 1I At it it " 11 . 11 Y �I �I it �1 it �I �I �I � �I �I� � � �I �I � _ �I ,Q c� 1i lid�i*�All 11 11 H 11 41 .ill C) Wz z W N a ' I 41 �i �I � 11 j1 it 11 �I 11 �I AI �1 �I �I �I �1 �I 1 it 1 -� it 11 - " {IItI LLJ 11it11i11i11�11i 0 � 0 1 �I i1 �I 11 - 11 11 �I �I -�1 �1 it �1 �I 41 = N z I1 I1 1I Al I1. . i 1 41 11 it it 41 11 41 1 O �i Al 1141 Atii i1 it 11 11I1 it it 41 9111 A1- �1 �1 �1 �i W W LA Q I.L.�I �1 I1 A1 '� i1 11 41 11 it 11, if 11 it it 4 41 Al it {I it {I J p Q U Z p v 0 CL V JiL i I 4z Z ld tL ZLLJ p=p p w a ti U U- L" LU v, Z Ln D Ln = p O d Z z � N 4 U- D O 06 ; w N z I O V w z O O d N ch _ II'w z 0 0. w O K N N W N �` n N z m .z o w VA0 VA �1 I� i ®x............ C. Q i i CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISANCE .E;2EPORT Site Location: 945 Main St. Tax Acct. Number: :1067-000-018-00-04 Reconnaisance Report : Study Required Reconnaisance #: (A-05-1 Applicant: Rob Michel Owner: f rederickson CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISANCE REPORT: CRITICAL AF;EAS REPORT REQUIRED (CA -05-1) During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain critical areas, including a Wetland and a Stream and may be adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property. They also asses these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal res%alts in an alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. • You have the option of completing the portion of the study that i;lassifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. • You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas are listed 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. REPORT REQUIREMENTS — STREAMS Shell Creek is either on or near the subject property. • Streams are areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water. Streams 'need not contain water year-round. • Streams are regulated as types of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. • Streams are classified according to whether or not they run year round and whether or not they support fish populations according to the classification system listed in 23.90.010.A.1., i • The minimum buffer widths for streams vary depending on the type of stream and are listed in 23.90.040.D.1. In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas report;c referenced above, specific Critical Areas report requirements for Fish and Wildlife (Habitat Conservation Areas are provided in 23.90.020.A -C and additional technical information requirements for streams are listed in 23.90.020.D. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH A STREAM Development proposals that encroach into streams or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed through the approval of certain processes. • The width of a stream buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement if through the review of a Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan that meets the specific requirements referenced in 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that a buffE:r can be reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%. • A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to buffer averaging are listed in 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that the buffer width can be reduced at any single location through buff6r averaging is 50%. • Development proposals that proposed encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a Planner for more information. REPORT REQUIREMENTS — WETLANDS The site investigation has shown that the site may contain a wetland. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by ground or surface water that supports, under normal circumstances, vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil. • Wetlands are generally rated according to their size, condition, -function, and vegetation types into four (4) different categories described in 23.50.010 and by use of the "City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form" by the critical areas consultant. • Buffer widths for wetlands vary depending on the category of the wetland as listed in 23.50.040.F. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reportE referenced above, there are specific Critical Areas report requirements for wetlands that are provided in 23.50.030. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH WETLANDS Development proposals that encroach into wetlands or their buffers or Building setbacks may be allowed through the approval of certain processes. The width of a wetland buffer may be reduced through buffer Enhancement if the criteria described in 23.50.040.F.3 can be met. The maximum ;amount that a buffer can be reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%. • A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to buffer averaging are listed in 23.50.0401.4. The m"Iximum amount that the buffer width can be reduced at any single location through bufi'er averaging is 50%. • Development proposals that proposed encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through the above methods require a Critical Areas V-6riance, or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you think that you have a proposal that may, require one of these processes, please contact a Planner for more information. 2 • Any time a development proposal requires an alteration to a wetland, a mitigation plan is required as part of the Critical Areas report. In addition to.the General Mitigation requirements referenced above, mitigation requirements specifiic to wetlands are provided in 23.50.050. • NOTE: There are specific performance standards for the subdivision of lands in wetlands and wetland buffers. These are listed in 23.50.060. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide HazOrd Area. Landslide Hazard Areas are regulated in the Critical Areas Chapter as a type of Geologically Hazardous Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in (23.80.020.6.). • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas report:; referenced above, there are specific Critical Areas report requirements for Geologically Hazardous Areas that are provided in 23.80.050. Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by, a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in (23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) meet must comply with the design standards listed in 23.80.070.A.3. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL WAIVERS If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 20.156.040). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Name — Signature Date NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code'(ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. 3 RETURN NAME & ADDRESS City of Edmonds City Clerk's Office 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 STREET TILE 200808110535 CONFORMED COPY 200808110535PGS SNOHOMISHBCOUNTY,, 145.00 IGTON Please print neatly or type information Document Title(s) o {!ei y % /- -4v ZZ S c. Lit s f cL- Reference Number(s) of related documents: Additional Reference #'s on page _ Grantor(s) (Last, First, and Middle Initial) C, 4t, °� Additional Grantors on page Grantee(s) (Last, First, and Middle Initial) Additional Grantees on page Legal Description (abbreviated form: i.e. lot, block, plat or sectio, to%vnship, range, quarter/quarter) LO•�5 a 7 --Mje0 u�,� v2 9, Q/dC,�i 67, 411 if � '7.� 0 4 RZ1inl iN leo �r»� a o� fads; /'�� Ps 3 8'¢ 314 omplete legal on page Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number D0�3?I b67- 0,?7-oa Additional parcel #'s on page The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The responsibility for the accuracy of the indexing information is that of the document preparer. `I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additional fee as provided in RCW 36.18.0.10.1 understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some part of the text of the original document. Signature of Requesting Party The Recreation and Conservation Office 11 i l Washington Street SE Olympia WA 98501 DEED OF RIGHT TO USE LAND FOR PUBLIC RECREATION PURPOSES, The Grantor, City of Edmonds for and in consideration of monies coming to whole or in part from the Outdoor Recreation Account of the General Fund of the State of Washington and in fulfillment of terms of the Project Agreement :identified below, conveys and grants to the State of Washington individually and as, the representative of all the people of the State, the right to use the real property described below forever for the outdoor recreation purposes. Those purposes are described in the Project Agreement entered into between the Grantor and the State of Washington through the Recreation and Conservation Office entitled 5-�\'A-t Proj ect Number 0(o- I 10` N signed by the Grantor on the 11 day of �._ and by the Recreation and Conservation Office on the M day ofd and the application and supporting materials which are on file with the Grantor acid the state in connOction with the Project Agreement. The Grantor will not make or permit to be made any use of the real property described in this deed, or any part of it, which is inconsistent with the right to use for public outdoor recreation herein granted unless the state, through the Recreation and Conservation Office or its successors, consents to, the inconsistent use, which consent shall be granted only upon conditions which will ensure that other outdoor recreation land of at least equal fair market value at the time of change of use and of as nearly as :feasible equivalent usefulness and location for the public recreation purposes for which state assistance was originally granted will be substituted in the manner provided in RCW 79A.25.100 for marine recreation land, whether or not the real property covered by this deed is marine recreation land. RCW 79A.25.100 reads as follows: "Marine recreation land with respect to which money has been expended under RCW 43.99.080 (recodified as RCW 79A.25.080) shall not, without the approval of the committee, be converted to uses other than those for which such expenditure was originally approved. The committee shall only approve any such conversion upon conditions which will assure the substitution of other marine recreation land of at least equal fair market value at the time.of conversion and of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location." The real property covered by this deed is described as follows: Lots 27 through 29, Block 67, all in the Plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Pages 38 and 39; Records of Snohomish County, Washington APN: 004342-067-027-00 This deed shall in no way modify or extinguish the functions of the Grantor under the Project Agreement, including the Grantor's functions to operate and maintain the land as set out in the Project Agreement. Date this _day of 3 v`ti , 2008 By: Title � 'stoti'• '1p ATTEST: ..4 +A` � •oNpTgRy Powcu �„•� to . SVA ' 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ............ •v,`o►�� :SS OF sfJ`r\�lI�l► COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 13. day of Z' -1 , 2008, before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of as on, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ` j ,r -►nn ��„�;,5� to me. This individual is known to be the of the City of Edmonds that executed the foregoing deed and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the same as the free and voluntary act and deed of said Ci� r t a r. M ` 1V_A-S\, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the seal of said WITNESS my hand and'official seal the day and year in this certi',ftcate first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in County. My commission expires 3-1-o Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer March 31, '2005 CITY Copy City of Edmonds �ECEIV�p c/o Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212th St. SW, #102 APR 14 2005 Edmonds, WA 98026 PERMIT COUNTER Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations Proposed New Residence 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Michel Construction property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: • Site Plan (attached) • Proposed new residence plans by Michel Construction • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property at 945 Main is rectangular in shape (see Site Plan). The property has not been developed and contains mature trees, shrubbery, grasses and a °designated wetland" region at the extreme northeast comer of the property. The rear of the property (down-slope — northerly) abuts the City of Edmonds alleyway. right-of-way. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to construct a new residence in the south central portion of the overall property (see Project Plans). Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks, no evidence of soil creep or any evidence of erosional degradation. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 9 Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 2 The natural topography of this site allows for storm water runoff to flow north by northeasterly into the "designated wetland" zone. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits were dug under this engineer's observation on March 18, 2005. Test Pit No. 1 was located in the southwest portion of the property and Test Pit No. 2 was located in the north central foundation line for the proposed house. Both test pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt 6" to 18" Moderately dense sandy loam (moist) 18" to 8' (bottom of test pits) Dense sands with gravels Water was encountered in both test pits at approximately 5 -foot depths (below existing grade). The test pits were left open for approximately 8 hours with the water level stabilizing at 4.5 feet below grade (see photographs). Minor sloughing of the test pit walls occurred during the 8 -hour period. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the Michel property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed new residence, subject to the following.- No ollowing: No excavations below groundwater elevation (approximately 5 feet below grade) without specific geotechnical recommendations. • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.-c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 3 The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the,width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the -bottcom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommenclations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations.' For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recomi�nend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral leading: Parameter Desiqn Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 4 We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.-f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls.. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 5 walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated bE!hind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural. Fill contairis recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fillbehind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: At the time of this report, it is understood that excavation for the new residence will not exceed 3 feet below grade. As stated, the groundwater table was encountered at approximately 5 feet below grade. If proposed excavations exceed 5 feet in depth, specific temporary shoring recommendations and de -watering recommendations are required. - In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cults up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the: excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may. be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no City of Edmonds Go Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 6 steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 21-1:1V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the; top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, %Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. FJI roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Groundwater was observed in both test pits during the fieldwork at an approximately 5 -foot depth below grade. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be .allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent &Nay from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The. stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 7 All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during they filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (42) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub -grade, 900% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the upper silty, on- site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The upper on-site soils are generally silty (soils below 3 feet are sandy with gravels) and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these so4s exceeds the optimum moisture content. " Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture! content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 8 The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: As stated, the overall property slopes downward to the north and northeast (see Topographic Map). The "designated wetlands" at the extreme northeast corner of the property receives storm water runoff. This site is geotechnically viable for an on-site dispersion system that would recharge the wetland zone. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Any soil cuts greater than 5 feet require temporary shoring and de -watering recommendations / inspections • Any retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation • Temporary and final erosion control SUMMARY: The proposed Michel Construction new residence at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction. cro MIMS1 construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 9 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW QF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final house plaris were not available for review. As stated in this report, the proposed new residence may be constnxted on standard reinforced foundations located above 3 -foot depths. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to XM compliance with the. recommendations of this report. Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement of Minimal Risk" will be, issued. CLOSURE The findings and recommendations of this report were prelrared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice.. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during, ttiat,E ppear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer BENCH SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 10TH AVE AND MAIN STREET ELEVATION: 1a1 (Y" @ UTILITY POLE W W W W W ---w --W - 6' CJ. W)VTERMAIN 194 192 19' MAIN STREET 55 —.-55 —.-55 55 55 - 55 ---_ 55 — LocA-TtoI) OP sots. TEs-r't Ts 3 -1%-05 lz.R :� Q• — >;,-.ms„µ-,� e. A r itd �•�, i 1t,� / .s t ,�T�A • '".°rF"a�.. '''�3+C`S.°9. . •xL :1'C � .Sf Si ,-v�i,t lz.R :� Q• — >;,-.ms„µ-,� e. A r itd �•�, i 1t,� / .s t M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. March 31, 2005 Geotechnical/Civil Engineer RECEDED APR 14 2005 PERMIT COUNTER City of Edmonds �aTREET BILE c/o Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212' St. SW, #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations Proposed New Residence 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Michel Construction property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: • Site Plan (attached) • Proposed new residence plans by Michel Construction • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property at 945 Main is rectangular in shape (see Site Plan). . The property has not been developed and contains mature trees, shrubbery, grasses and a "designated wetland" region at the extreme northeast comer of the property. The rear of the property (down-slope — northerly) abuts the City of Edmonds alleyway right-of-way. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to construct a new residence in the south central portion of the overall property (see Project Plans). Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks, no evidence of soil creep or any evidence of erosional degradation. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 . City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 2 The natural topography of this site allows for storm water runoff to flow north by northeasterly into the "designated wetland" zone. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits were dug under this engineer's observation on March 18, 2005. Test Pit No. 1 was located in the southwest portion of the property and Test Pit No. 2 was located in the north central foundation line for the proposed house. Both test pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt 6" to. 18" Moderately dense sandly loam (moist) 18" to 8' (bottom of test pits) Dense sands with gravels Water was encountered in both test pits at approximately 5 -foot depths (below existing grade). The test pits were left open for approximately 8 hours with the water level stabilizing at 4.5 feet below grade (see photographs). Minor sloughing of the test pit walls occurred during the 8 -hour period. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experienaD with similar sites in the area, the Michel property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed new residence, subject to the following: • No excavations below groundwater elevation (approximately 5 feet below grade) without specific geotechnical recommendations. • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for 4-3ny retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 3 The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings, bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18),and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing. pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils maybe designed for 2,000 p.s.f. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) - Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. City of Edmonds Go Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 4 We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing sails provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive. earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (1100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the City of Edmonds Go Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 5 walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural -Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: At the time of this report, it is understood that excavation for the new residence will not exceed 3 feet below grade. As stated, the groundwater table was encountered at approximately 5 feet below grade. If proposed excavations exceed 5 feet in depth, specific temporary shoring recommendations and de -watering recommendations are required.- In equired: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 6 steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: IV. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Groundwater was observed in both test pits during the fieldwork at an approximately 5 -foot depth below grade. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 7 All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub -grade, 900,1 below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM_ Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the upper silty, on- site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The upper on-site soils are generally silty (soils below 3 feet are sandy with gravels) and thus are moisture; sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. " Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 8 The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceatable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: As stated, the overall property slopes downward to the north and northeast (see Topographic Map). The "designated wetlands" at the extreme northeast corner of the property receives storm water runoff. This site is geotechnically viable for an on-site dispersion system that would recharge the wetland zone. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Any soil cuts greater than 5 feet require temporary shoring and de -watering recommendations / inspections • Any retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation • Temporary and final erosion control SUMMARY: The .proposed Michel Construction new residence at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction. c/o Wnel Gonstruction, Inc_ March 31, 2005 Page 9 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final house pians were not available for review. As stated in this report, the proposed new residence may be constructed on standard reinforced foundations located above 3 -foot depths. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to venF,( compliance with the recommendations of this report_ Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement of Minimal Risk" wilt be, issued. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prelaared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and: Frac:tice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions am based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during-oonstn�ction that Iippear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call Afr Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer BENCH 5 -EWER MANHOLE AT THE WTER5ECION OF 50TH AVE ANO MAIN 5TREET ELEVAMON:IA� nly 6 UTILITY POLE -W-.-W-.-W---W-.-w 594 592 59:- 55 -.-96 MAIN STREET 55 W ---W - 6" C.L WATERMAIN . -- 55 -•-_ 55 L,OC A't t oi) OP sole. -rEs-rl TS 3 -t%-os" ............ 14" lot JM ............ 14" lot 13 M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. March 31, 2005 eotechnical /Civil Engineer City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212'' St. SW, #102 RECEIVED Edmonds, WA 98026 APR, 14 2005 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation RecommendationtERMIT COUNTER Proposed New Residence 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents.the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Michel Construction property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: • Site Plan (attached) • Proposed new residence plans by Michel Construction • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property at 945 Main is rectangular in shape (see Site Plan). The property has not been developed and contains mature trees, shrubbery, grasses and a "designated wetland" region at the extreme northeast comer of the property. The rear of the property (down-slope — northerly) abuts the City of Edmonds alleyway right-of-way. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to construct a new residence in the south central portion of the overall property,(see Project Plans). Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks, no evidence of soil creep or any evidence of erosional degradation. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS I SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRA/NAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 2 The natural topography of this site allows for storm water runoff to flow north by northeasterly into the "designated wetland" zone. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 2 soil test pits were dug under this engineer's observation ori March 18, 2005. Test Pit No. 1 was located in the southwest portion of the property and Test Pit No. 2 was located in the north central foundation line for the proposed house. Both test pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt 6" to 18" Moderately dense sandly loam (moist) 18" to 8' (bottom of test pits) Dense sands with gravels Water was encountered in both test pits at approximately 5 -foot depths (below existing grade). The test pits were left open for approximately 8 hours with the water level stabilizing at 4.5 feet below grade (see photographs). Minor sloughing of the test pit walls occurred during the 8 -hour period. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experienaa with similar sites in the area, the Michel property at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed new residence, subject to the following.- No ollowing: No excavations below groundwater elevation (approximately 5 feet below grade) without specific geotechnical recommendations. • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 3 The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommenclations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure mey be usedwhen considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is . anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-quarter inch. NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral (loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f_ Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 4 We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls balled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure . 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction,, Inca March 31, 2005 Page 5 walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated bE.,hind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be' accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural. Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: At the time of this report, it is understood that excavation for the new residence will not exceed 3 feet below grade. As stated, the groundwater table was encountered at approximately 5 feet below grade. If proposed excavations exceed 5 feet in depth, specific temporary shoring recommendations and de -watering recommendations are required. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of thE: excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. _AII permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 6. steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the: top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improv: stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six -(6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, 113upac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. 1111 roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Groundwater was observed in both test pits during the fieldwork at an approximately 5 -foot depth below grade. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 7 All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a! moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements Minimum Relative Compaction !a5% 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub -grade, 900% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM. Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modred Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or whE.-n the upper silty, on- site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The upper on-site .soils are generally silty (soils below 3 feet are sandy with gravels) and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the Optimum moisture content. " Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally; structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. March 31, 2005 Page 8 The use of "some" on-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: As stated, the overall property slopes downward to the north and northeast (see Topographic Map). The "designated wetlands" at the extreme northeast corner of the property receives storm water runoff. This site is geotechnically viable for an on-site dispersion system that would recharge the wetland zone. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Any soil cuts greater than 5 feet require temporary shoring and de -watering recommendations / inspections • Any retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation • Temporary and final erosion control SUMMARY: The proposed Michel Construction new residence at 945 Main, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during constructiion. cio micnei construction, Inc_ March 31, 2005 Page 9 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW QF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final house pians were not available for review. As stated in this report, the proposed new residence may be constructed on standard reinforced foundations located above 3 -foot depths. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review 1he final house plans to XM compliance with the recommendations of this report. Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement of Minimal Risk" will be issued. CLOS: - The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and Fractice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions 211) based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface cond+tions between explored locations. if conditions are encountered dwinff that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to calla. r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer BENCH MAR SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTER5ECTION OF IOTH AVE AND MAIN 5TREET ELEVATION: IPA rv)' 6 UTILITY POLE -.-W W_ -W WIN 6"CJ. WPTERMAIN 194 LIC ALLEY MAIN STREET ...... ------ ...... toCA"Tto#-) OP sm- TEs'rt TS 3 -l% -OS II 190 192 196 200 202 204 MAIN STREET ...... ------ ...... toCA"Tto#-) OP sm- TEs'rt TS 3 -l% -OS � 41 1 I f 1 N t t h J7'P-i w. a � 1 r k � �•p C �' u .r 4 Y;. J r i �� �e• , Y a �"` aY� fE",• rza d 41 y i R � I f 1 N t t h J7'P-i w. a � 1 r k � �•p C �' u Y;. J r i �� �e• , Y a �"` aY� fE",• rza d r � Y��t r y i R � I f t h J7'P-i w. a � 1 r k � �•p C �' u Wetlalfd)Wowrez, Ar t [l Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance s 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan for .Michel Main St. Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #05023 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave. SE Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 For: Michel Construction RECEIVE Attn. Rob Michel 7907 212th St. SW #212 APR 14 2005 Edmonds, WA 98026 PERMIT COUNTER March 29, 2005 STREET FILE TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM 1 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS 2 BUILDING SETBACK 2 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT 3 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS 5 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT 5 WILDLIFE 7 WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 7 GRASS SEEDING 7 PLANTING NOTES $ PERFORMANCE BOND 8 PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM 9 MAINTENANCE 1.0 PERFORMANCE GOALS 10 CONTINGENCY PLAN 10 USE OF THIS REPORT 11 REFERENCES 12 FIELD DATA 13 CRITICAL AREA STUDY AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN MAP 1/1 SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, .Inc. conducted a wetland delineation in January of 2005 to locate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on the approximate 0.61 acre site located northeast of the intersection of Main Street and 9' Avenue S in the city of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located as a portion of Section 24, Township 27N, Range 3E, W.M. This site is currently undeveloped, represented by red alder ;and accessed via Main Street in the south. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped land to the east, a single-family residence to the west, and the unopened right-of-way of a public alley to the north. This property is comprised of three existing legal lots, and has a north aspect slope down to Shell Creek and an associated .Category II wetland. Both Shell Creek and the associated wetland extend off-site to the east, north, and west. Shell Creek (Type F) is known to support anadromous fish. Type F streams and Category II wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. Given the size of the site and the location of on-site critical areas, the entire property is occupied by wetland and associated buffer. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing; to construct one single-family. residence on these existing legal lots. This house is proposed to be placed on the southern portion of the property, as far from the wetland as possible. Placement of this house is proposed to impact 6,924 square feet of buffer area. Avoidance of these impacts would result in a loss of reasonable economic use of this property. As mitigation for this buffer impact, the applicant is proposing; to enhance the 2,100 square feet of remaining on-site buffer, 876 square feet of on-site wetland, and to place a fence along the edge of the 15 -foot BSBL to prevent intrusion to the wetland and buffer. In addition, the applicant is proposing to avoid wetland and buffer impacts by not developing the public, alley north of the property. This will prevent impacts to 880 square feet of wetland and 467 square feet of buffer immediately adjacent to the site, as well as additional temporal impacts and physical impacts necessary to connect this alley to existing developed streets. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the on-site wetland and off-site stream are classified as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Forested Wetland, Semi- permanently flooded. Stream: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Streambed. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - CITY OF EDMONDS Under ECDC, chapter 23.50.010 and 23.90.010, the on-site wetland and off-site stream are classified as follows: Wetland Category 2: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek received a score of 60 on the City of Edmonds Wetland Field .Data Form. Category 2 wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. Shell Creek Type F: This perennial stream located approximately 40 feet north of the subject site is known to support anadromous fish. Type F anadromous fishbearing streams in the city of Edmonds typically receive 100 -foot protective buffers. At the discretion of the Director, Critical area tracts may be required in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit developments.: These critical area tracts shall 'delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet. The director may require that critical area tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or, held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such as a land trust), which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a provision to assess costs associated therewith. (EDCD 23.40.270) BUILDING SETBACK Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.280: Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: • Landscaping • Uncovered Decks • Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not exceed more than eighteen (18) inches into the setback area; and • Impervious ground surfaces, such as -driveways and patios, provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in Chapter 19.97. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: 1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage cover). 2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of hydric soils is determined. 3) - Determination of the presence of wetland hydrology in the area examined under the first two steps. Vegetation Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydrophytic vegetation as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and. duration of_ inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated. soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. One of the. most common indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when. more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated "Facultative" and wetter on .lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. Soil Criteria and Mapped Description The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, defines hydric soils as those that formed under conditions .cif saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and criteria for hydric soils. The soils underlying the site are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington as Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes and Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loans, 25-75 percent slopes is on till plains, terraces, and outwash. plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent Everett gravelly sandy loarn. Included in this unit are small areas of Ragnar, Indianola, McKenna, and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and drainage ways on plains. Also included are colluvial soils, slump areas, and escarpments. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 The Alderwood soil is moderately deep over a hardpan and is moderately well drained. It formed in glacial tilt. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35 inches. Depth to the hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches: Permeability of the Alderwood soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity is low. A seasonal perched water table is at a depth of 18 to 36 inches from January to March. Springs or seep areas are common. The Everett soil is very deep and somewhat excessively drained. It formed in glacial outwash. Typically, the surface layer, where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The subsoil is dark brown very sandy gravelly loam about 12 inches thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely gravelly sand. Permeability of the Everett soil is rapid. Available water capacity is low. Alderwood- Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes: This map unit is on till plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent urban land. Included in this unit are small areas of Everett and Indianola soils on terraces and outwash plains, Kitsap soils on terraces, and terrace escarpments, and Ragnar soils on outwash plains. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, and other structures that obscure or atter the soils so that identification is not possible. Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or. equal to 12.5% of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface -For less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 4 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Category 2 Wetland: This riparian wetland associated with Shell Creek extends off- site to the west, north, and east. Vegetation in this wetland is represented by a canopy of red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac) and scattered Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina, Fac). Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of black (10 YR 2/ 1) and .a texture of gravelly muck from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils were saturated to the surface during our January 2005 site investigation. Non -Wetland Areas: Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the site is represented by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), Western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fac), holly (Ilex aquifolium, FacU), sapling red alder, lady fern, and English ivy (Hedera helix, Not/Up[). Typical soils in the portions -of the property mapped as non -wet have a Munsell color of dark brown (10. YR 3/3) and a texture of gravelly loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils sampled in the upland areas of the site were dry during our January 2005 site visit. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opiniondeveloped through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to this site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western Washington. FUNCTIONS AND VALUES COMPONENTS Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality. improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and education. The most commonly assessed functions are discussed. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. EXISTING CONDITIONS The on-site wetland is a portion of a large riparian wetland system that extends off- site to the west, north, and east, and is associated with Shell Creek (Type F). The large size of the wetland, the deep absorbent organic soil and the dense native vegetation all allow this wetland to store stormwater and moderate stream flows. This wetland stores water during periods of high precipitation and releases it during times of low flow, helping to maintain consistent stream flows. The presence of organic soil and dense vegetation contribute to water quality improvements by filtering sediment and pollutants from overland flows and trapping nutrients. This is an especially valuable function as this wetland is bordered by roads and is downstream of developed areas. This wetland and stream system provides a valuable Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 5 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 natural oasis in an increasingly urban area. This system_ provides wildlife with a protected movement corridor as well as high quality forage and cover opportunities. Overall, this wetland and stream system provides a high level of functions and values. The on-site buffer of this wetland is forested and provides protection to the wetland, habitat for wildlife, and serves to filter overland flow.. The presence of a single-family residence. in what would be the buffer area on the adjacent lot to the west currently reduces the capacity of this buffer to protect the wetland and provides an avenue for intrusion. The relatively small area of buffer limits the potential water quality improvements that may be provided. The proximity of this buffer to Main Street results in roadside trash and wildlife disturbance resultant from traffic noise. Overall, this buffer provides a moderate level of functions and values. PROPOSED IMPACTS TO FUNCTIONS AND VALUES To construct this house, the applicant is proposing to impact 6,924 square feet of forested buffer. The main impacts of this development will be a loss of buffering capacity to the wetland and a loss of wildlife habitat. Given the resilient nature of this wetland and stream system, th"e moderate functions and values currently provided by this -buffer, and in relation to the system as a whole, the relatively small area of impact, it appears that construction .of this house will result in a limited loss of overall functions and values of the system. POST MITIGATION FUNCTIONS AND VALUES As .mitigation for the proposed buffer impacts, the applicant is proposing to enhance the remaining on-site buffer, the on-site portion of the wetland, install a fence with. NGPA signage. along the perimeter of the 15 foot BSBL, and to not develop the public alley north of the subject property. Wetland and buffer enhancement is proposed to consist of removing any trash found with the enhancement areas, controlling any invasive species, and planting conifers. This will improve aesthetic values, increase the density and diversity of native species, and aid in the transition from a predominantly deciduous canopy to a mixed and eventually coniferous forest. Placement of a fence and signs along the perimeter of the BSBL will serve to delineate the presence of critical areas on-site, as well as discourage intrusion to the wetland and remaining buffer. The applicants decision to avoid developing the public alley north of the property will prevent direct impacts to the wetland and stream, which would include wetland fill, habitat fragmentation, and culverting Shell Creek. In addition, construction of this alley would provide easy access to the wetland and stream which would likely result in long term and continuing impacts such as increased trash;, increased noise from traffic and humans, and disturbance to vegetation and habitat as children play in the area. The applicants proposal to provide on-site wetland and buffer enhancement in conjunction with avoiding off-site wetland impacts resultant from construction of the alley should help to maintain the overall quality and function of this wettand and stream system. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 6 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 WILDLIFE During our site investigation several species of bird were noted. These include American robin, winter wren, bushtit, and black -capped chickadee. Given this wetlands' association with Shell Creek, other resident and migratory species would. be expected to utilize. the site during some portion of their lives. No herpetofauna were noted. . WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT As partial mitigation for the proposed buffer reduction, the applicant is proposing to enhance the entire 876 square feet of on-site wetland and 2,100 square feet of on-site buffer. Wetland and buffer enhancement will consist of removing any existing trash and invasive species while taking care, not to disturb the existing native species, and interplanting the areas with conifers on .10 -foot centers. Wetland Enhancement (876 square feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 1 gallon 110' 5 Western. red cedar Thuja plicata 1 gallon 110' 4 Buffer Enhancement (2,100 square feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity Western red cedar, Thuja plicata 1 gallon 10' 11 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 gallon 10' 10 GRASS SEEDING All disturbed ground within on-site critical areas shall. be seeded to the recommended, certified grass seed mixtures below. Fertilizer shall only be used when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into sensitive stream and wetland systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting; biologist and/or the County Biologist, a fertilizer such as .16-16-16 shall be applied at 100 pounds per acre. Wetland Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f. Fowl meadowgrass Poa palustris 0.8 Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.8 Meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 0.2 Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 Buffer Grass Seed Mixture Common Name Colonial. bentgrass Annual ryegrass White clover Latin Name Agrostis tenuis Lolium multiflorum Trifolium repens PLANTING NOTES lbs./1,000 s.f. 0.6 0.3 0.2 Wetland and buffer enhancement projects are typically more complex to construct than can be described in plans. Careful monitoring by a professional wetland scientist for all portions of this project is strongly recommended. Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local and regional sources, depending- on seasonal demand. Some limited species substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetland professional. The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the area. Three foot by two'inch by 1/4 -inch lath, or other approved marking device, shall be placed next to each planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-native vegetation and to assist in monitoring the plantings. Wood chips 'or other suitable material shall be used for mulching in the planting areas. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two -foot diameter area at -each planting site. Mulch is to be placed in this two -foot diameter area at a depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around the base of each plant shall be kept free of mulch. . PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for plant material and labor. Annual- monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to assure. the success of this enhancement plan. The City of Edmonds shall release this bond at the end of the three years, upon successful determination for all portions of this mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a bid to install: Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29.2005 QUANTITY OF ONE GALLON PLANTS @ $8.25 per plant ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR ESTIMATED COST OF MONITORING (3 YEARS@ $600/yr) ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE (3 YEARS@ $500/yr) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM 011, $247.50 $1,800.00 $1,500.00 $247.50 $297.00 Requirements for monitoring project: 1. Initial compliance report 2. Semi-annual site inspections (twice yearly, in the spring and fall) for three years 3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year) Purpose of Monitoring The purpose of monitoring this project is to 'evaluate the success of the enhancement plantings. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at. the end of three years the performance standards are being met and that habitat values in the enhancement areas are equivalent to similar ecosystems in the immediate area. Inspection Schedule Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report will be supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of. the project. Condition monitoring of the plantings wit[ be done by a qualified wetland biologist in the spring and fall annually for the three-year monitoring period. A written report describing the monitoring results will be submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will occur three years after completion of planting. The contracted wE�tland professional will prepare a final report as to the success of the project. Definition of Success / Performance Standards The enhancement areas shall support at least 80% survivorship, and at least . 80% areal coverage of the native plants set forth in this plan by the end of three years. The species mix should resemble that proposed by the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a criterion for success. Reproduction of volunteer native species may.be used to establish areal coverage requirements. If a given area contains more than 10% areal coverage of invasive, non-native species within the planting areas, the enhancement shall not be considered successful for that area. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 9 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 MAINTENANCE The enhancement areas will require periodic maintenance during the monitoring period. The buffer and wetland enhancement will be maintained at least once a year for each of the three monitored years, or as needed to assure the success of the mitigation project. Maintenance may include, but will! not be limited to, removal of invasive vegetation (by hand or chemical means as necessary), replacement of plant mortality, and/or the replacement of mulch for each . maintenance period. Chemical control, if necessary, shall be applied by a licensed applicator following all label instructions. PERFORMANCE GOALS The goal of -this mitigation plan is to improve the functioning of the on-site wetland and buffer to compensate for the proposed buffer impacts. The enhancement planting will increase species diversity and aid in the transition to a coniferous forest canopy. The.mitigation area will continue to function as an integral portion of the larger wetland system to the south and -help to support an overall complex natural environrriertt CONTINGENCY PLAN If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, . or it appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the .same species or, if necessary, alternative species may be added. to the enhancement areas. If this situation persists into the next inspection, a .meeting with a representative for the city of Edmonds, the consulting wetlland biologist and the property owner will be scheduled to decide upon contingency plans. Elements of the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to more aggressive weed control, supplemental irrigation, plant mortality replacement;, species substitution, fertilization, and/or soil amendments. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 10 WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan is supplied to the Michel Construction as a means of describing jurisdictional wetland Conditions, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, .on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and thedifficulty of access which. may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Resources, Inc. �54J� Louis Emenhiser Senior Wetland Ecologist Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan WRI Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29. 2005 REFERENCES City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Title Chapter 23 Environmentally Critical Areas. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS- 79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1978). National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication. #96-94. March 1997. Washington State Wetlands Rating System. Washington State Department of Ecology. Western Washington, Ecology Publications #93-74 August 1993 and #04-06-025 August 2004. Critical Area Study & Wetland Mitigation Plan 12 WW Project # 05023 Michel Main Street March 29: 2005 • Field Data sat Alnus rubra 60 Fac . Michel - 9th Et Main - WRI# 05023 Wetland Muck at surface Tsuga heterophyli!a 10 Investigation Date: January 20, 2005 Tree Rubus spectabilh; Pit Depth Texture Color Moisture Species % Status Strata S1 0-18"+ ' Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/3 dry Pseudotsugo menziesii 30 FacU Tree Non -Wetland Tsuga heterophylla 30 FacU- Tree - Thuja plicata 20 Fac Tree Alnus rubra 10 Fac Tree Ilex aquifolium 15 FacU Shrub Athyrium filix-femina 40 Fac Herb Hedera helix 10 FacU Herb Conclusion: Non -Wetland - Parameters for hvdrophvtic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are not met. S2 0-18"+ Gravelly Loam 10YR 2/1 sat Alnus rubra 60 Fac Tree Wetland Muck at surface Tsuga heterophyli!a 10 FacU- Tree Rubus spectabilh; 70 Fac+ Shrub Athyrium filix-femina 50 Fac Herb Conclusion: Wetland - Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are met. - 13 S 3AV HW6 S 3AV ant Ml SQNOWO3 u a w� J Q 0 Z Z (A.1 a O 0 z �� � W � O u LLA i- Z ILLI w LL c oo au-og:3 u 0 L 2Ln 17t7um J _. _ - Z0. Zh -. ,O -- L 0 Z� u>O Lu 1 7 !� 1 k , , , 1 1 1 �1 11 b i 11 11 it �' 11 11 it 1 1t i tl Y it t1 it ' P, 1 �I 1 �1 it i1 ) 11 II �I l' it 11, 11 i1 11 11 i1 11 i1 i1 i1 it 1 If it 11it 41 11 it i1 i 11 i1 i 11 11 it 11 i1 i1 11 11 i. -11 .11 11 i i1 it i i1 11 11 11 11 11 i1 i it i1 i1 11 i it it a ::Ei1 1 1 I 11 i1 11 11 � t 11 11 11 it 11 i i1 i i it 11 y I if 11 i1 i1 i1 it it i1 11 it it 11 . i 11 11 i 41 . t 1 11 i i it i1 i1 it it I w.,_ - r t 1 i1 11 i i1 i it it 11 11 it Q 11 11 it it 11 it 1 11 it i 11Al 11 i i it i1 it 11 i it I i t 11 it 11 it 11 i. i1 it it it i1 i1 i1 41it it i1 i Q D 11 it 1 11 11 11 it it it 1 41 411 41 41 41 ca I11111i1111i1111iiitiitl`Ii li t,. �= 4 i1 11 1111 11 11 i i it it 11 .11 - - ::E I- z 11 i1 i1 i1 11 i1 i1 i1 ilt 11 .: o w {I it 11 11 it i i 11 it 11 11 l Z W N i1 i i it it i1 i1 11 I Ill 11 ce a i1 11 it it 11 4 11 f i1 -a1. . E � = 11 it it 11 it it it 11 it it I w Ln 11 11 11 it i i it it Z Z it 11 i . it it 11 it it it 11 'y 11 i1 it 11 4 i 11 If .:� it'. 8 z o it i1 it 11 i 11 i1 it it Q it Q ..i ~ 11 41 11 i1 it i i i1 9t � :it uj 41 1 11 til . i1 1 i 11 .I i1: o=N 4 1 i i i i 4 1 i i i �' ,1i 1 O Z i1 11 it 11 11 11 it 11 11 i • I r o 0 11 it 11 it it 11 i 11 If, Ln it it i1 i1 i it 11 it11 i,: , I Q i1 it i i1 11 i1 it Q la_ it W LIJ A] 11 1 1 11 O Ln it 11 it 11 i1 i1 i1 o. i1 i1 i1 i1 O J O 11 V Z O ,• i u O -I d 1 I. z I i i I I I 1 " W M a J O z a rzW 'sam oo, c� h H a p a�Z a� N 77777777 V �Z 30 1- 2 a R N U u.N-v O .SKr W E V g 3 a Wa z U _ 9NIISIX3 vi M h O N w zLU •- �0 C �a �w z I i i I I I 1 " I I 77777777 V QONimina z U _ 9NIISIX3 w zLU m a0 O^ $W$ Q U �n zN =o Wrn Z N " Z) w ca Q LL to V uZ,1 " z z .. N O M = v I) w a = W N 6 z LL w vW l7 I_- an H a a F z J m ZVA O W O tVA U X C, it VA NAME: W 01.1-i GOn SITE ADDRESS: 95FI M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PLANNING DATA 0 Ili= CHK#: 0 S l Ll• 3 REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED? • Yes No) MAP PAGE: + CORNER LOT: Yes No) FLAG LOT: (Yes / o) ZONING: P-:5 CO CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: pO S — D O N Study Required: C, -3,'4m AK,. Si -K/•, JA weH6,,A ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: q' X ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ■ Exempt SETBACKS: morin 5t) (Wto+) (Cat't> (PuloljG *114F -y) Required Setbacks: Street: 20' Left Side: 54 Right Side: J` � Rear: 15' Actual Setbacks:n Street: 41 Left Side: Right Side: ear: Street map checked for additional setback required? Yes / No DNA) none ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: N oA-C, GAD\,Vv1 ❑ ROCKERIES: Npy1-C 5V ovvv� ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: ❑ STAIRS/ DECKS: PARKING: Required: 1 - LOT AREA: 01 $q (o • 1$ tP LOT COVERAGE— 3 Actual: i rl 94rA 9e9 6lnown ayrl stY rn t* 47 --f 2,1 to i-. -+$ >P (9 t nyi ) = vZ / oK- :.i BUILDING HEIGHT: A _ ,xo4 D5' 806.x6 Datum Point: 5y M H at 117TM JL M a in St. Datum Elevation: N o1 • c) l J3= 20l • 85; Maximum Allowed: 7,6' ( 2A 2' + Z5'v2� , G= lal8 06 = Z2i ) Actual Height: _2�}•�"5' � �' A.D.U. CREATED?: No Yes)(Nd 5el olnd � MA-r'V1t'V ?'°�•I� Z02. a w 14Jtva�c bra�}e SUBDIVISION: Ce OF Uworldf, PIAL, 131bl.k- 1,7 ;, A- p• 5 2'+ • 2,a Mir 5no Go Q f,'c 5or 1nfcr ri clirlL LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes No) g sHo�r OTHER: Plan Review By: NewBPP lanningDataForm. DOC 0 MO.W., wr�-tAj M I :5 L4 lom (,Or-viple " 7 Pc cy- "V. P2 M 612 m a 603 580 't' 20312 ' 2 843 923 m m $ g o o l o l o l o l g n 612 1107 I 1115 O H ^ m 9221 �GLENST - - 520 1105 1116 �— 540 _.....51541 1._ .... .. - o —� ` a 5,202 9210 522 505 03A ( �/ 1112 -, m 0 o I o o g o 516 111Qv`_:^ry , m ^ 1110 521 510 20322 2 502 - `R ° g o 0 0 0 o g o 443 I 4� /' 446 H 20414 i / DALEY ST 432 433 434 \6 ., m o m N N m Z o 431 428 1230 m dst $� _ m 420 a m m m m m Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 4� 431 d 430 411 = 1223 N 412 m m 413 �.N 404 401 1215 Y m a, O g g o 0 0 0 0 0 402 a 1 aoe 403 12TH1201 SPRAGUE ST 366 N 341 856 a o m m m N m l .. 325 t g g a m a m 25 0 o g o o - 336 : 321 1200 309 oy .HUmmingbird: „ n m o 311 Z '.320 9123 z o' o I 311 Hill Park w 303 EDNONDS ST = 300 m �' 9122 22Z 217 21227 = 231 y T911 :, 21 � 950 969 1100 d a { 224 215 219 91 212 -� N N g 1007 c c I o g o \\ ^ ^1 1201 Z 91 zos BELLlu 1101 ^ RALD HILA 138 131 N 91 a 931 o m 119 1013 $ 0 0 g 117 dg 1100 1114 1126 129 1200 O- 128 127 - 132#9126 } 1208 1118 1122 111 112 1212 1218 11591 9118 MAIN ST 11 S11dlW S �J > Wade James s 91 Theater „3 C�o j to � 950 yS � .91za a m � t zt7 m � m g g o 0 o a MAPLE ST Yost Memioriai Park O III�Y�� X1'1 p_ to p o ' V A a N 0. S ^ Nty j—) x N 9535 �. Pool ALDER ST _ 21028 21032 S 1/ S _ 9537 1J �j N a ae � � � 'Si a o o ^o ^ o ^ �o' o g o o � � j ❑ ddwln0 N ^ ^ ^ .. >. �.........-.- .. atm � 8 '(1NALNUI"ST 926 �' S g o O O O \q q l q O O ul O. N gp 515 923 m 1016 6 ^ 1033 21208 j r\3 212 C AR ST 1012 0 5 = 21209^ m N4 ob 2021211+' 1014 \O1p \Op 21214 21220 21215 sws 9506 m{ a 941 g 9s9 g g S 21230 a zlzv aio7 PAR IP c.1890 6/10/2005 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www6edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Michel Construction 7907 2121h Street SW # 102 Edmonds, WA 98026 MEMO TO: Puget Sound Energy Verizon Northwest SNOCOM Police and Fire Dispatch SNOPAC Snohomish County E911 U.S. Post Office Snohomish County Assessors Office Snohomish County Information Services Snohomish County P.U.D. i Edmonds Fire Department Edmonds Police Department Edmonds Utility Billing Edmonds Public Works Edmonds Building/Street File Edmonds Address Files Lynnwood Disposal Comcast Cable GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR This letter is to inform you of an address correction. Please change the following: From 939 Main Street To 951 Main Street We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause you and greatly appreciate your cooperation. Occupancy: SFR Tax ID Number: 00434206702700 Subdivision: City of Edmonds Blk 67 Lot #: 27-28-2:a If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me, at 425-771-0220 or Harrison@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Please contact me if you wish to be removed from this list. Respectfully, JVGarie �irrrison Senior Permit Coordinator Edmonds Building Department 612 580 0. 643 0 _ _ m n m n 603 6121115 m 20012 Z 923 m g o 0 o p o n 1107 �I ��� �n v1 n ' - - 560 m 20318 $ :....-.._ .. > .. :... 9221 529 GLENST 520 1105 1116 540 541 503 a m .'"q .o. .o, o ,.�. ..o ... o.. _• - 1103.tl� ... 1112^' "�5 ^o o a o ....516 ev i m v . - - - - - - m m ....:... _:. 1110 - 521 510 - - .. ., ...:.. m 20322 g 502 N 440 / 446 N x8414 - DALEY ST 432 433 �434 431 16 m 9 421 428 1710 m N N M O m .Z: }� O m m Q m m 422 Z. m m W S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 41 J 430 4 420 TZ -4 ! 411 412 412 L:�),,_ 1223 413 1215 404 408 402 i 1201 SPRAGUES7 316 403 12TH PL 11, 12'16 �\ 856 ,J • N - M O m m m m Q N m 'i O 336 321 .: 12DO 325 y N 339 H.6mm311 32,0 ingbiid. ry 9123 _ o o g 0 HIIIPark _ _ _ - - > 3„ 3m EDAAQNDS ST = 300 m 9122 om o o ~ vo om .^ 236 227r 231 911 _ N 1100 - 15 zY 212 0 1007 N N vri ry n N n n 4 ' 22 2 9 91 Ni 91 ...�. - - 205 N # BELL > 1101 RALD HI bA 131 91 1 931Q $ 1013 o m v t/B U 1114 1126 125 O. 137 O 117 a 110 12C0 126 127 812 1208 } 923m 1OD9 0 0 o g 111 p 1108 •111 _ 1122 111 117 1212 1218 115 11 91 2 ; MAIN ST 91 Wade'James s 9, m : 11 117 Theater -6 Cj► 51 9,24 ISO - y� q% 909 0 � _ - MAPLE ST Yost Memorial Park ;m am m m ►_ - m m n m 9535 210122 a • Pool g ALDER ST N m N _ zloze 21032 - 9537 8 b d o 0 0 0 0 0 $ o 0 0 ChWInG 8 V 0 8 m 9z6 m N j N ry o m o sty 923 0 $ $ m 1016 �Cr' - X03121208 Q ry �s�� +n,,,,� 1012 0 21202 m AR ST 1014 �O� `�9 21214 m 21209 �� $ c o 21211 934 x121521220 Gem 21222 212- 141 959 .�217 n P_AmR Snohomish County, WA Asset Parcel Data �I Pagel of 2 Snohomishftlino Government information & -Servicos County.4A& Washington * RIE A L * Property Information County Quick Info Directory Departments Employment Calendar Questions Search County Home links: Common Assessor Home Treasurer Home Information on which Department: to contact links: Please view Disclaimer If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please Contact Us. Date/Time:6/9/2005 4:31:38 PM Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Parcel Data (opens as new window) Return to Property Information Entr ry page Parcel Number 00434206702700 Prev Parcel Reference 43420670270007 View Man of this parcel (opens as new window) :Links to property information below • General Information Names & Addresses, Property Legal Description • Treasurer's Tax Information Total Current Year's Taxes and other information • Assessor's Property Values Market Values, Current Use Values (if any) • Assessor's Property Characteristics Tax Code Area, Use Code, Parcel Size • Assessor's Structure(s) Data Data related to the structures on a parcel • Assessor's Property Sales Sales recorded since 7/31/1999 • Assessor's Mapping Information Traditional and Interactive maps, Neighborhood General Information Taxpayer Name 11 Address (contact the Treasurer if you have questions) MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC 118022 212TH ST SW - - - ED;MONDS, WA 98026 If the above mailing address is incorrect and you want to make a change, see i:he information on Name and Address Changes Owner Name II Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC 118022 212TH ST SW - - - ED;MONDS, WA 98026 Street (Situs) Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) UNKNOWN - - - Parcel Legal Description CITY OF EDMONDS BLK 067 D-00 - ALL LOTS 27-28-29 Go to top of page Treasurer's Tax Information Taxes For answers to questions about Taxes, please contact the Treasurer's office (opens as new window) 2005 Taxes for this parcel $98.66 http://web5. co. snohomi sh.wa.us/propsys/Asr-Tr-PropinglPrpingO2-Parcel-.Data. asp?PN=004... 6/9/2005 Snohomish County, WA Asse r Parcel Data Page 2 of 2 (Taxes may include Surface Water Management and/or State Forest Fire Patrol fees. LID charges, if any, are not included.) To obtain a duplicate tax statement, either download our Tax Statement Request form or call 425-388-3366 to request it by phone. Go to top of page Assessor's Property Data Characteristics and Value Data below are for 2005�tax year. Please contact the Treasurer's office for answers to questions about Taxes (opens as new window) For questions ONLY about property characteristics or property values (NO r taxes), please contact the Assessor's Office (opens as new window) Property Values do not reflect adjustments made due to an exemption, such as a senior or disabled persons Values exemption. Reductions for exemptions are made on the property tax bill. Tax Year 2005 Market Land $9,000 Market Improvement $01 Market Total $9,000 Go to top of page Property Characteristics Tax Code Area (TCA) 00210 View Taxing Districts for this Parcel (opens as new wiiadow) Use Code 910 Undeveloped (Vacant) Land Size Basis ACRE Size 0.23 Go to top of page Property Structures No structures found for this parcel Go to top of page Property Sales since 7/31/1991 Explanation of Sales Information (opens as new window) Sales data is based solely upon excise affidavits processed by the Assess()r. No sales for this parcel have been recorded since 7/31/1999 Go to top of page Property Maps Township/Range/Section/Quarter, links to maps Neighborhood 1605000 Explanation of Neighborhood Code (opens as new window) Township 27 Range 03 Section 24 Quarter SE Find parcel maps for this Township'Range/Section jj View Map of this parcel (opens as new window) http://web5.co. snohomi sh.wa.us/propsys/Asr-Tr-PropInqlPrpIngO2-ParcelData.asp?PN=004... 6/9/2005