20020249.pdf--I DATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
E�NAUEINAME OF BUSII ESS
f. 6i
IN ADDRESS
�C)'7 J�Ljt LJ
S A 0 3 3
E
ZIP
PERMITEXPIRES
51
ONE
PE M T
UR
N NIVR�/W-- -11V
%SUITEJAPT#
ODRESS 61,
?p -7
PUT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO.
LOT 110,
Ll No
I
LID FEE $
PUDLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
""' —15,
8
EXISTING — PROPOSED—
al -I do. —.1 road,
11-ead owned 13
lor-e—eak a
REQUIRED DEDICATION—
FT —
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF 1DTG.ES
PFIV REQUIRED
I
I
ES 0 NO 0 1
)WNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLID NAGE I
i,,
M1 1pj Bp I�RESENT F:('-
REVIEWEkPTE
ADDRESS
ENGINEER"UK FILL, REI A'
-�-o-
1`755-3
0A),
Fl E REVIEWED By DATE
CITY
ZIP I
TELEPHONE
Out
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
'N DAT
EXPIRATION DATE CHEC1111 BY
SPECTION IPSOND
VAR11 NCE OR C SHORELINE OR ADS# IN RE16 OSTEE
13 " Ac-,e-+ rD H L-2-
-
144 0a, MW
r3YES
-HEQHT
PROP7 TAeA:�.U�E
IN 0
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA
COMPLETE 1) ALLOWED PROPOSED
5
EXP , 7PT
0 NEW
E?`RE6IDi
0 PLUM-BING' I MECHH
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACK$ (Fr.
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE BEAR FRONT LIFIIUE FEW
C MPLIANCE OR
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
o CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
APARTMENT
0 SIGN
PARKING I LOT AREA A�EVI D
RIEDD I F..Vl.tD
0 REPAIR
0 F NCE
0 GRADING LYDS X Fn
REM-1-
0 DEMOLISH
0`TANK
- OTHER
GARAGE
CARPORT
RETAININ WALL
El ROCKERYG
[:1 RENEWAL
(ME OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
L& S -T IZE_V'Ab
VC� I
CHECKED BY ITY COURAN;
=N IC!2 1. Up
NUMBER
OF
NUMBER 11
DWELLING
IIEITAICIL
AR a
SPECIAL INSPECTOR 3CCUPANT
0' STORIES
UNITS
NUMSEd-02--
JAREA
REQUIRED [-] YES LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
yo
6A I
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER USC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REOD
S 'T
'14 Vv�ov,:A
U
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE %
Building
L
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE ORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t: HE COME ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
2
Grading
Recording Fee
M 011i (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
0
SEPARATE PERMiSMARW
,QQUEaS,
Engr. Review
City Surcharge
PE MITAPPLICATION: INDAYS
PERMIT UMM. I YEAR -PROVID 0 WORK ISSTAPTEDWITHIM 100DAYS
Engr. Inspection
State Surcharge
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT MR MORE INFORMATION
ON BEHALF (11 HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIIII, ASIIGNI AND eUCCEsORS
Traffic Mitigation
Plan Chk Deposit
.REST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
IN INTE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 0 WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Fire Review
Receipt III
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
Fire Inspection
Total Amount Due
DEEMED TO MODIF)� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF MY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CRYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION,'
Landscapolnsp.1
Receipt #
IHERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION� THAT HE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE OULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTHUC�
CALL
are., a Parnalt.untila.go.cil by the
TION; AND IN a DING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR ODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
B'111hisappli DP,,Y. a
ding Galicia] a, hicM., are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMEN$ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
OF I DATE
SIGNJUR� (OW�ER OR( DATE SIGNED
(424)
w i
�tul,
7 -0220
71
RELEASED 1Y' DATEf
ATTENTION
EX`r 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
771-0221
I
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPECTOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC SECTION 109
FAX
PINK - OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR
10101
—likN
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII01
z
0
M
C
M0
0
0
C
IT, IT
z
jO--I
Cf)
o -n
M M
y 0)
0
o Fn
C ca
C ED
M 0
z
z
6
IT
Aug 13 02 10:21a Budget Tanks 2OS3069061 F.1
BUDGET ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
(A D"Jon of Baftet Timk Itowmi & Envirsut�ftl Senk9% In&)
5W — 14'b Avenue N.W.
Seattle, Washington 98107
206-789-5500; 800-545 -9228 - Fax: 206-306-9091
June 24,2002
Annie Carney
z
9307 - 230 Street S.W.
M
Seattle, Washington 98020
=i
RE: CONTAMINATED SOIL/WATER REMEDIATION REPORT AND SITE
ASSESSMENT FOR:
PROJECT SITE: 9307 - 23,ff STREET S.W., EDMONDS, WA
M
M a
Dear Ms. Carney:
0
C
Budget Environmental Services (Budget) is a licensed, bonded and insured environmental
m rn
construction and consulting firm, specializing m environmental issues surrounding sod and
>
water contantination caused by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). Budget
r- -4
contracted dimctly with Annie Carney to perform professional services on the above
referenced Project Site. Budget's services regarding the Site included a preliminary
0 -n
contaminated site assessment, pumping petroleum contraninated ground water from the
excavat ion, excavating the area ofconturninated soil, taking soil and water samples in several
m M
t "
different locations ofthe excavation, having the soil and water samples analyzed for
backfill
065
0
contamination, backming the excavation with rock and/or other clean material and
0
compacting the backfill material.
C
C Q)
Excavation activities were directed at removing soil which contained concentrations oftotal
petroleum hydrocarbons MM exceeding the Model Toxics Control Act's (MTCA) soil
cleanup level of2,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg1k&) or parts per million, ppm.
z
Backaround Idonnation:
On April 10, 2002, Budget removed a 300 gallon UST that previously contained heating oil
z
(diesel ofl) from the Project Site. Budget determined that the 300 gallon UST had leaked
diesel oil Into the soil and the ground water underneath the UST, The determination that
In
20630GS061 P.2
Ms. Carney
June 24, 2002
Page 2
the oil tardt had leaked was visually obvious due to the bluish -gray discoloration of the soil in
YWOUS area ofthe excavation. Upon kspection, Budget observed several holes in the UST.
In addition, when the tank was removed, a diesel oil sheen could be seen on top of the water
within the excavation. Moreover, a haW grab of the sod underneath the tank smelled heavily
of diesel oil.
Through field observations and experience, the heavy small of diesel oil in the soil was
presumed to exceed NICTA's 2,M ppm, cleanup leveL Following the tank removaL Budget
pumped all the ground water from the excavation. Budget allowed the excavation to remak
open so that it could collect ground water for water sampling purposes.
On April 11, 2002, Budget collected a ground water sample from the excavation and labeled it
asH.I. See SoillWater Sample Site Map attached hereto as Schedule A. Thewatersample
was preserved and transported according to standard chain of custody procedures. The
sample was talmn to Friedman & Bruya, Inc. which is a Washington State Certified Testing
Laboratory qualified to perform a Northvvesl Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Diesel Extended
(NWTPH-DX) analysis. The water sample indicated a TPH concentration of 3,300 parts per
billion or 3.3 ppm. See Schedule B. Soil and Water Sample Analysis attached hereto.
U rider Washington's Model Toxic Control Act, TPH concentrations cannot exceed .5 plan in
the ground water According to Washington law, the ground water is the property of the
State of Washington, Because the ground water was negatively impacted with TPH
concentrations above the .5 ppin threshold, an environmental cleanup was required to get the
TPH concentraflons to levels below.5 ppm
Budget had also extracted a soil sample and labeled it as B-1. The soil sample was preserved
and transported to Friedman & Bruya, Inc. to be analyzed for TPH concentrations. The Soil
sainple indicated a TPH concentration of4,100 ppm. See Schedule B, Soil and Water Sample
Analysis.
Removal Of -ContaminaW Soil and C
-11round Wat
From June 6, 2002 through June 7, 2002, Budget removed 5 t.32 tow ofpettokum
contaminated soil (.PCS) containing diesel oil was excavated from fite Site and transported to
Rabanco, Recycling Company in Seattle, Washington. Robanco tramported and disposed of
the PCS at their Roosevelt Regional Landfill Center located in Roosevelt, Washington.
Rabanco Recycling Company is a Washington State licensed and registered waste disposal
Z
3:
Om
C
MO
0
80
C
m To
F
i;'
0 4
O,n
ME
mm
0
0
0
C 0'
m 0
Z
Z
-4
CD
Z
0
0
m
Aug �3 02 10:22a But at Tanks 20030GSOBI p.3
Ms. Carney
June 24, 2002
Page 3
After excavating the Site ofPCS, it was determined that all ofthe contaminated sod at
:p
21
actionable levels under the MTCA standards was removed frozatbe excavation. See Schedule
Z:
A and B. Throughout the excavatioI36 the soils encountered consisted ofsmall gravels, fine to
9�
course sand and clay
0
m
V4.
After the excavation recharged with water, a water sample was extracted and labeled as 2-
=4
'Honppbor.250ppmof
H2o water sample 2-H20 revealed that less than 250 parts per bd
5
TPH was in the sample. See Schedule B. Accordingly, under the MTCVs cleanup threshold
0 M
and under the standards established by the Washington State Department ofEcology, which
C
M D
are unplemented during petrokum contaminated sod and ground water remediation, no
is for Project Site.
-40
0
0 C
further cleanup action required the
M
M
ate Amssmat—
Based upon the observed conditions� the cleanup procedures and standards utili2ed and the
soil and water sample test results for the Site at issue heWma, it is Budget's professional
55
unaccept
opinion that all TPH contaminated sod and ground water at able levels of
0 -n
11
P�
contarnination under the Washington State Department ofEcology (WA -DOE) and the
JW,
MCTA guidelines have been removed from the exc avation at the Prqject Site and that no
M M
further cleanup action is required.
V)
0
�O
Limitations ofSM& And Assessment
C o)
M 0
The observations ofthe excavation and the soil mid water sample test analysis was limited to
7-4
theexcavatedarea. Conditions outside the excavation may vark from those observed. A
potential always remains for the presence ofunknown, unidentified, unexpected, or
unforeseen surface or subsurface contamination, or adverse sulonfice conditions. Further
z
evidence against such potential site contamination or adverse conditions would require
x
z
0
M
Rug 13 02 10:23a Budget Tanks 2063069061 p.4
Ms. Carney
June 24,2002
Page 4
appropriate subsur6ce exploration and testing. The conclusions, expectations and
'R
recommendatiorug presented in this report are our proftsiond opinion based on our
I
interpretation ofifforniation available to us, No warranty, express or implied, relating to our
z
01.
opinion herein is made.
m
Very truly youts,
BUDGET ENVIRONMOMAL SERVICES
(a
in
M
C:
Matthew P. Vecdar /Washington State Certified Site Assessor
m
Enclosures
-Dick WA
C z
cc Storey, -DOE
om�
M
m
0
0
a m
r C&
M
X
i��
Z
0
?
m
4
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
NEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: —FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE_q:_��O
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PROJECT
SITE ADDRESS --q-34-0 a ?!q
PERMIT 9- OLI,-). 2-a_�_ADBit_DATF INSPECTED� Z(--7 d_::!�
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED_U&!_������
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORAWCE BQNDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
'if, Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAMED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
a Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
1.
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date_ Sign,
ocaprvl.doc.l:tenip:bldg:fonnsIO/OI
z
9
0
C M
MO
-1 0
0 0
C
--i ?.
= M
M�
z
0 -n
M M
0
0
a 'Mo
M 0
Z
X
z
CD
z
0
i
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
'Footing ............
Wall ...........
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
�n
Underground .............
-4
M
Rough -In ...................
M
0
Commercial Final
0,
C
-4
HEATING:
M
ITI
Gas Test ....................
Z,
C —
Gas Piping ...............
Equipment .............
'n
Commercial Final
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
M
NAILING .. ........................
0 r-
FRAMING ...............
0 171
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
Q 0
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
z
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
z
SPECIAL INSPECTION
M
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY
Ek
............ ....
w