Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-02-13 Hearing Examiner Packet
Agenda Edmonds Hearing Examiner REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 13, 2025, 3:00 PM Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda February 13, 2025 Page 1 MEETING INFORMATION This meeting is Hybrid per ECDC ECDC 10.35.010(F) and is located at the Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Ave N, 3rd Floor Brackett Room Zoom Link Meeting Info: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/82688031743?pwd=UER0Wk5hdU5DN1dRK1V3MkR2WTRSdz09 Passcode: 308007 Or join by phone: 253 215 8782 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PLN2024-0040 18500 High Street Preliminary Formal Plat 3. ADJOURNMENT Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/13/2025 PLN2024-0040 18500 High Street Preliminary Formal Plat Staff Lead: Tristan Sewell Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Tristan Sewell Background/History The applicant proposes a preliminary formal plat that would subdivide a 3.3-acre property located at 18500 High Street into seven lots zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12) via conservation subdivision design (ECDC 20.75.048). The existing detached single-family residence would remain on Lot 5. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary formal plat with the conditions listed in the attached staff report. As conditioned, the proposed preliminary plat complies with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Narrative Preliminary formal subdivisions are Type III-A permits requiring a decision by the hearing examiner following a public hearing. Attachments: PLN2024-0040 Staff Report w. Attachments 1 Packet Pg. 2 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REVIEW FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS Project: Preliminary Seven-Lot Conservation Subdivision at 18500 High Street File Number: PLN2024-0040 Date of Decision: February 7, 2025 Reviewed By: Tristan Sewell, Planner I. INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes subdividing a 3.3-acre property located at 18500 High Street into seven lots zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12) via conservation subdivision design (ECDC 20.75.048). The existing detached single-family residence would remain on Lot 5. A. Application 1. Owner: High Street LLC 2. Applicant: Chris Lyon 3. Site Location: 18500 High Street (Tax Parcels 00434600004304 and 00434600004202) 4. Request: To subdivide the 3.3-acre property into seven lots via a conservation subdivision in the Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone. 5. Review Process: Preliminary formal plats are Type III-A decisions according to Section 20.01.003 and Subsection 20.75.065(D) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Following a 14-day public comment 1.a Packet Pg. 3 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 2 of 18 period and then public hearing, the City’s Hearing Examiner issues a decision. B. Attachments 1. Land Use Application 2. Cover Letter 3. Preliminary Short Plat and Site Plans 4. Title Report 5. Edmonds Utilities Consortium Form 6. Tree Protection and Retention Plan 7. Critical Areas Determination (CRA2020-0021) 8. Public Notice Materials 9. Engineering Compliance Memorandum 10. SEPA Environmental Checklist and Determination II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Setting The 3.3-acre project site at 18500 High Street borders Hutt Park. All other properties in the vicinity are zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12) and developed as such with residences and associated improvements (see Attachment 3). The site is the terminus of High Street. B. Topography and Vegetation Situated west of Hutt Park, the site slopes downward to the south and west, which the critical areas determination (CRA2024-0068) identified as potential severe erosion and landslide hazard areas. The submitted critical areas report also mapped a Type F stream coursing through the southern extent of the lot and its southern neighbors. The onsite ravine and Hutt Park support a forest of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, bigleaf maple, and red alder. The understory contains Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry, red elderberry, beaked hazelnut, western sword fern, trailing blackberry, and English ivy. These species represent common constituents of the Puget lowlands, both native and invasive. 1.a Packet Pg. 4 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 3 of 18 C. Environmental Assessment 1. Critical Area: The critical areas determination (CRA2024-0068) identified potential severe erosion and landslide hazard areas on the site. The submitted critical areas report also mapped a Type F stream coursing through the southern extent of the lot and its southern neighbors. 2. Shoreline: The subject property is not within a designated shoreline. 3. SEPA: Formal subdivision (five or more lots) are subject to the State Environmental Protection Act (WAC 197-11-800(6)(d)). See the SEPA determination in Attachment 10. 4. Trees: The tree regulations of Chapter 23.10 ECDC apply to this subdivision. The applicant submitted a tree retention and protection plan (Attachment 6) as required by ECDC 23.10.060. Per the phased tree review process (ECDC 23.10.060(B)(3)), the City reviews the proposal at each step of development for updated tree plans, including civil improvement plan review and associated building permits. Retention ECDC 23.10.060(C)(1) requires subdivisions retain at least 30% of all significant trees in the developable area onsite. ECDC 23.10.005 defines significant trees as those with a trunk diameter of at least six inches at 4.5 feet from existing grade (diameter at breast height - DBH). The developable site includes the gross site area of the lot minus any critical areas and buffers (ECDC 23.10.020(D)). In the context of single-family lots, erosion hazard areas sloped more than 25% count as critical areas rather than the standard 15% or greater classification (ECDC 23.10.040(A)(1)). Other critical areas or their buffers remain unchanged by the tree code. The site contains eleven significant trees in the developable area. The applicant proposes to retain eight of these, which exceeds the 30% threshold and meets the 50% significant tree retention standard in ECDC 23.10.060(G). If a development retains at least 50% of the significant trees on a site, the fees-in-lieu of replanting do not apply per ECDC 23.10.080(E). Fees-in-lieu payments may be required in subsequent phases if the overall retention falls below 50% of the significant trees existing pre-development. Furthermore, the applicant proposes a conservation subdivision pursuant to Section 20.75.048, retaining all trees in the stream buffer and geological 1.a Packet Pg. 5 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 4 of 18 hazard areas. While the applicant provided no inventory of the trees within the critical areas per ECDC 23.10.060(B)(2)(a), because of the nature of conservation subdivisions, the prohibition of tree removal from critical areas, and phased review of tree retention and protection plans (ECDC 23.10.060(B)(3)(a)), staff waives this requirement at this time. The City may request an inventory of these trees during a later development application phase. Replacement Apart from dead, dying, or diseased trees, ECDC 23.10.080 requires replacement of each significant tree removed in association with development. Based on the sizes of the proposed significant tree to be removed, ECDC 23.10.080(A) requires fourteen replacements. The applicant proposes planting these replacements along the eastern perimeter of Lots 1- 4. ECDC 23.10.080(D)(3) requires replacements shall primarily be native species, though the submitted tree retention and protection plan lists no specific choices. As noted above, code requires an updated replacement plan with each future phase of project review to verify consistency with the replacement specifications in Chapter 23.10. The number of removals and thus the number and location of proposed replacements may change at a future development phase. D. Comments 1. Departmental Comment South County Fire and the City of Edmonds Building and Engineering Divisions reviewed this proposal. The Building Division and South County Fire did not have any comments on the proposal. The Engineering Division found the information provided indicates general engineering feasibility. See Attachment 9 - Engineering Memorandum of Compliance. The proposed development requires a public right-of-way dedication to extend High Street south to serve the resulting residential lots. No sidewalks would be required as part of the frontage improvements. See Attachment 9 for the City’s Transportation Engineer’s analysis of vehicular traffic impacts. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 5 of 18 Engineering will review project-specific design, including final utility system design and location, as well as compliance with Title 18 ECDC, during the civil construction phase of this project. 2. Public Notice Mr. Lyon submitted the application on May 21, 2024. Staff determined the application to be complete on July 30, 2024 (Attachment 8). In accordance with Section 20.03.002, a staff issued the Notice of Application and Request for Public Comment on August 16, 2024. Staff posted this Notice onsite, at the Maxwell-McGinness Public Safety Complex, and in the Planning & Development lobby that day. Staff also mailed the Notice to property owners within 300 feet of the site and uploaded the Notice and application materials to the City’s website. The Everett Herald published the Notice the same day. Likewise, staff issued the Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination on January 23, 2025, in the same manner as above, adding any commenters as parties of record not previously included in the initial mailing to the list of recipients as directed by EDCD 20.03.003(C)(1)(d). Staff additionally sent email notices in response to any comments received by email, as not all commenters provided their mailing address. Find all public notice materials, including the notices, declarations of mailing and posting, and an affidavit of publication in Attachment 8. 3. Public Comments Staff received seven comments on this application. Commenters primarily expressed concern about the High Street right-of-way and water utility issues. Specifically, commenters fear the impact increased traffic may have on the vicinity. The Engineering Division’s Memorandum of Compliance (Attachment 9) addresses traffic and right-of-way issues relevant to this preliminary phase in greater detail. Commenters also indicated concern about unauthorized use of the private road east of High Street at the northern boundary of the subject lot. Utility-related comments focused on available water, stormwater management, and fire hydrant access. Other concerns expressed included environmental impacts, such as the retention of the western redcedar at the north end of the property and the presence of wildlife onsite. Conservation subdivisions promote the retention of significant trees and protection of natural resources in exchange for flexibility in site development standards. The proposed conservation area 1.a Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 6 of 18 protects the steep slope, trees, understory, and stream from development beyond the minimum requirements of the critical areas ordinance (Chapter 23.40 ECDC). To address concern over nesting bald eagles in Hutt Park, per ECDC 23.90.040(A)(3), the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act protects bald eagle habitat, and Washington’s bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292) apply only if the State lists them as an endangered or threatened species, which they are not at time of writing.1 All unabridged comments are included in Attachment 8. E. ECDC 20.75.080 General Findings A proposed subdivision may only be approved if staff can make all the general findings listed in ECDC 20.75.080 as approved or as conditionally approved. 1. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter. As conditioned, the proposed seven-lot subdivision is consistent with ECDC 20.75.020 and meets all the requirements of Chapter 20.75 ECDC, including those specific to conservation subdivisions found in Section 20.75.048. The proposed subdivision causes no negative impact to public health, safety, or general welfare, creates no negative impact on congestion on streets and highways, will have adequate access to water, utilities, sewage, and storm drainage, and will provide proper ingress and egress as well as be uniformly monumented. Once approved, subsequent civil improvements, final plat, and permitting for the dwellings will reconfirm compliance with these requirements at each phase as appropriate. 2. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site as within the “Single Family – Resource” designation. The Comprehensive Plan states the following goals and policies for Residential Development that apply to this project: 1 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife – Threatened and endangered species. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 7 of 18 Residential Development A. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic, social, aesthetic and environmental considerations. A.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. A.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. A.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. A.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: A.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. A.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, drainage, vegetation and habitat. The subdivision would create six new buildable lots, which the applicant currently proposes would accommodate six new single-family dwellings and associated improvements, though these lots could become any other uses permitted in the RS zone (ECDC 16.20.010). The City will collect traffic impact fees consistent with Chapter 3.36 ECC with the building permit to mitigate traffic and park impacts. The City expects no adverse impacts from the proposal and finds it consistent with the residential development goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed utilization of the conservation subdivision method sets aside the onsite natural resources, concentrating future development in appropriate areas. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 8 of 18 Vegetation and Wildlife A. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: A.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. A.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. A.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. The tree code (Ch. 23.10 ECDC) requires retention of at least 30% of the healthy significant trees on the site. The lot and site layouts propose retention of more than 50% of viable significant trees across the developable site and all trees within the critical areas. The flexible site development standards offered to conservation subdivisions (ECDC 20.75.048(B)) support the retention of trees and minimization of grading. Staff finds the proposal consistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. 3. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. Zoned RS-12 Single-Family Residential, the site is subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.20 ECDC. According to Section 16.20.030, the development standards for a subdivision in the RS-12 zone are: 1.a Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 9 of 18 Zone Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Density1 Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback Maximum Height Maximum Coverage RS- 12 12,000 3.7 80’ 25’ 10’ 25’ 25’ 35% 1 Density means “dwelling units per acre” determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed by the underlying zoning; the number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. ECDC 20.75.048(B) allows approved conservation subdivisions to utilize reduced site development standards, including setbacks, lot size and width, coverage, and variant parking and access designs. Despite this flexibility, density of primary dwellings cannot exceed that of the applicable zone. Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback 15’ 5’ 10’ Density: With 3.3 acres of lot area available, the maximum density in RS-12 would allow up to twelve lots (3.3 acres X 3.7 dwelling units per acre), any other regulations notwithstanding. The applicant proposes seven lots. Minimum Lot Area: Conservation subdivisions have no minimum lot area, so long as the application of reduced setbacks creates lots with usable building areas (defined by ECDC 21.10.050). All proposed residential lots would contain sufficient building area. Lot Width: As with lot area, after application of the reduced setbacks, all proposed lots must have usable building areas. All proposed residential lots would contain sufficient building area. Lot Coverage: The RS-12 zone establishes a maximum lot coverage of 35% on each lot. “Coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area.” However, a conservation subdivision can increase coverage on individual lots if the total coverage within the subdivision meets the 35% standard across all lots. The maximum lot coverage allowed for all lots is 48,432 sq. ft., which is 35% of the net project area of 138,376 sq. ft. (after subtracting out the ROW 1.a Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 10 of 18 dedication). Lot coverage will be reviewed with subsequent building permit applications. Access and Parking: ECDC 20.75.048(B)(4) allows conservation subdivisions to apply variant parking and access solutions atypical to single-family dwellings with the approval of the City. The required two parking spaces per dwelling per ECDC 17.50.020(A)(1)(a) remain. As submitted, the proposal uses standard single-family parking arrangements. Setbacks: Conservation subdivision setbacks are proposed for the project: Lot Required Setbacks (ECDC 20.75.048(B)(1)) Setbacks Proposed Lot 1 (corner lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ S, 38’ E Lot 2 (standard lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Lot 3 (standard lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ S/SW, 10’ N Rear: 10’ Lot 4 (flag lot) Sides: 5’ Sides: 5’ E/W/N 14.75’ NW 272.5’ SW/SE Lot 5 (standard lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ N/NWbN/E Rear: 74’ SW, 121’ NW Lot 6 (standard lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 44.5’ Lot 7 (standard lot) Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 10’ Street: 15’ Sides: 5’ Rear: 57’ As analyzed above, staff finds the proposal consistent with the zoning requirements for a conservation subdivision in the RS-12 zone, as described in Chapter 16.20 and Section 20.75.048 ECDC. Staff will confirm compliance with all zoning requirements when reviewing future building permit applications. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 11 of 18 F. ECDC 20.75.085 – Review Criteria. The City uses the following criteria reviewing proposed subdivisions: 1. Environmental. a. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact. Refer to the submitted critical areas reports (Attachment 7), which document and delineate the critical areas and buffers on or adjacent to the site. As previously discussed, the applicant proposes retaining trees consistent with Chapter 23.10 ECDC. Phased review requires City approval of any tree removals in later development phases. The applicant may remove hazardous trees (ECDC 23.10.020(H)) in the manner described by ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(b). Tree protection compliant with ECDC 23.10.070 must be implemented in all phases of development. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with this criterion. b. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. The developable area of the site is fairly level, so cuts and fill for the construction of civil improvements can be minimized (1,300 cy of cut and 1,300 cy of fill is indicated on the preliminary clearing, grading, and TESC plan (Attachment 3). The City will review the grading for the proposed improvements at subsequent project phases, including during the required civil improvements and building permit(s). Staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with this criterion. c. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs A(1) and (2) of this section (Section II.F.1.a and II.F.1.b of this staff report). 1.a Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 12 of 18 As established in the critical areas determination (CRA2024-0068 – Attachment 7) and detailed in the submitted geotechnical report, the site contains potential severe erosion and landslide hazard areas. The geotechnical report addresses the applicant’s method of mitigation, as required by Title 23 ECDC. Pursuant to the conservation subdivision and compliance with the critical areas ordinance, the applicant proposes no work in these areas. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with this criterion. d. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and so forth. The proposed development must meet current code and minimize stormwater impacts. Stormwater runoff from all new hard surfaces must be managed onsite as required by Chapter 18.30 ECDC. See Attachment 3 for the preliminary stormwater report and Attachment 7 for the geotechnical report. The Engineering Division will review subsequent project applications for compliance. The Single-Family Residential zone limits building height to 25 feet above average original grade, which minimizes any negative impact to existing territorial views in the vicinity. Beside the height limits, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not contain specific regulations regarding private view protection. The Planning Division would review any forthcoming building permit(s) for compliance with the height limit of ECDC 16.20.030. Staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with this criterion. 2. Lot and Street Layout. a. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed properly. The applicant designed the proposed lots to accommodate a dwelling unit each. The developable area of the parent lot is relatively level, so with the conservation area in mind, the site should not be difficult to develop. 1.a Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 13 of 18 Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with this criterion. b. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards The subject property fronts only High Street and an associated private road. The City classifies neither as a highway, arterial, or collector street. Staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with this criterion. c. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. The subject property is located within the RS-12 zone. Refer to Section II.E.3 of this report for an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable zoning standards. Staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with this criterion. d. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate. Citywide efforts to provide safe transportation include enforcement of traffic regulations, provision of crosswalk and sidewalks for pedestrians, and provision of well-designed streets for safe driving. Safety also involves ongoing coordination with emergency service providers to ensure access for their emergency equipment. Recommendations to address safety issues are based on assessment of historical collision data, focused sub-area or corridor safety studies, or on citizen feedback. The City of Edmonds applies a Walkway Prioritization Process provided in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in assessing where sidewalks should be required or upgraded. Criteria have been developed to evaluate and prioritize walkway improvement projects. These criteria (which include distance from schools) are used to prioritize improvements to walkway sections that are identified based on input from public meetings, Walkway Committee meetings, and deficiencies determined from a review of the existing city walkway inventory. The criteria are weighted according to their importance. A system of points is used to evaluate each proposed project against each criterion. The result is a weighted average score that helps to compare and prioritize proposed projects. The City’s policy is to consider these criteria in 1.a Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 14 of 18 conjunction with City code and the Sidewalk Comprehensive Plan Map in determining sidewalk requirements for subdivisions. High Street is a local street in the RS-12 zone. The Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan map does not show a requirement for sidewalks on High Street and ECDC 18.90.030 indicates that sidewalks are not required in the RS-12 zone. Therefore, sidewalks are not required adjacent to the subject property along High Street. The steep slope down to the stream presents a poor opportunity to provide recreational pedestrian trail access, even if the critical areas ordinance permits such uses (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7)). Providing access to adjacent Hutt Park requires the Parks Department’s review. Staff recommends conditioning approval on the applicant connecting with the City’s Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department about providing access to Hutt Park through the proposed open space tract. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with this criterion, if conditioned as recommended. 3. Dedications a. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. b. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board. c. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary subdivision. The City Engineering Division requires right-of-way dedication to extend High Street south to serve all lots proposed. Refer to Section II.G below regarding park land dedication requirements. 4. Improvements. a. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities. 1.a Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 15 of 18 b. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of: i. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements; ii. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access. This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community development director, the public works director, and the fire chief. South County Fire and the City’s Engineering Division reviewed the subject proposal. Frontage improvements along the street fronts must meet City standards. The details of these requirements will be established during the civil plan review process (see Attachment 9). With the recommended conditions of approval referring to the Engineering requirements provided in Attachment 9, staff finds the proposed subdivision consistent with this criterion. c. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: i. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided. ii. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20. iii. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met. The applicant proposed no septic systems for this subdivision. The City of Edmonds provides the water and sewer service at this site. 5. Flood Plain Management. All subdivisions shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds community Development code for flood plain management. The subject property is not located within a Flood Plain Management area. G. ECDC 20.75.090 – Park Land Dedication. According to ECDC 20.75.090, before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the 1.a Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 16 of 18 subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes. With the adoption of Ordinance 3934 in 2013, the City now addresses park impacts through the assessment of fees in accordance with Chapter 3.36 Edmonds City Code (ECC). Therefore, the City requires no park dedication or fees from this subdivision; the City will assess park impact fees with issuance of the building permits on the new lots consistent with Chapter 3.36 ECC. However, as stated above, staff recommends conditioning approval on coordination with the Parks Department about creating access to Hutt Park via the proposed open space tract. Whether this takes shape as a dedication would be determined by the applicant together with Parks during the civil improvements phase. III. RECOMMENDATION ON PRELIMINARY FORMAL PLAT Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments to this staff report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application for a seven-lot preliminary conservation subdivision at 18500 High Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a. Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans, the following must be addressed: i. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed in “Required as a Condition of Subdivision” in Attachment 9. ii. Protect all trees to be retained and those located on adjacent properties during development according to the standards of ECDC 23.10.070 and consistent with the approved tree retention and protection plan (Attachment 6). iii. The City encourages the applicant to notify adjacent property owners whose trees may be impacted by the proposal. b. Record a protected tree notice on title as required by ECDC 23.10.085. 1.a Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 17 of 18 c. Make the following revisions to the subdivision: i. Ensure that all existing easements are indicated. ii. Indicate the locations of all new easements and provide easement descriptions and maintenance provisions for all new easements. iii. Include the addresses for each of the lots on the final subdivision (new addresses will be assigned following preliminary approval and provided prior to submitting for final review). iv. Add to the face of the subdivision: “Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the approval for the short subdivision located in File No. PLN2024-0040 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division.” v. Include on the subdivision all required information, including owner’s certification, hold harmless agreement, and Planning and Development and Public Works director’s approval blocks. vi. Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor’s requirements for recording. d. Contact the Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department and Planning Division to coordinate whether and how to provide public access to Hutt Park via the proposed open space Tract 998. e. Submit an updated copy of the title report (formal subdivision certificate) with the documents proposed to be recorded. The title report must be prepared within 30 days of submittal for final review. f. Submit 2 copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and Engineering Division’s approval. Once approved, the documents will be recorded by the City Clerk at the Snohomish County Auditor’s office. 2. After recording the subdivision and in conjunction with future building permit applications, the applicant must complete the following: a. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed “Required as a Condition of Building Permit” in Attachment 9. b. Submit an updated tree retention and protection plan with the building permit application for each lot. 1.a Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High Street Preliminary Formal Plat File No. PLN2024-0040 Page 18 of 18 c. A notice to title for tree retention must be recorded for each lot prior to certificate of occupancy, as necessary. IV. APPEAL Pursuant to ECDC 20.06.030, a party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type II decision within 14 days after the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal would be heard at an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner according to the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ECDC 20.75.100(B) provides that an approval of a short subdivision shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant first acquired final short subdivision approval within the specified period. The period for short subdivisions shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short subdivision decision by the hearing examiner or judiciary. VI. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. VII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 planning@edmondswa.gov Chris Lyon High Street LLC 320 Dayton St., #101 Edmonds, WA 98020 chris@westerlyre.com Leigh-Ann and Thomas Hafford 18425 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 lahafford@gmail.com tomkeihaf@gmail.com Geoff McMahon 18416 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Gpgm1959@gmail.com Lee and Mary Hamilton 18415 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 mary@bollah.com lee@bollah.com Mike and Sharon Murphy 18418 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 mssjm@comcast.net Susan Young 18411 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Susanedmn3@comcast.net Chris Cooley 18403 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 cooley@windermere.com Olaf Van Luenen 9232 183rd Pl. SW Edmonds, WA 98020 ovanleunen@aol.com 1.a Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1488715 - High St. 1.a Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Project Contact Company Name:High Street,LLC Name:Chris Lyon Email:chris@westerlyre.com Address:320 Dayton Street Suite 101 Phone #:(425)673-5229 Edmonds Washington 98020 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Land Division Subdivision Project Name:High St. Description of Work:7-lot Residential Plat Project Details Development Activity Subdivision Quantity and Size Specifications Number of lots 7 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF EDMONDS Land Use Application #1488715 - High St. 1.a Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) City of Edmonds May 13, 2024 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: High St. Plat, 7-Lot Plat 18500 High Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Project Summary Narrative To Whom It May Concern: This narrative, accompanying a preliminary plat application, has been prepared to summarize how our proposed plat meets the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Owner/applicant Hight Street, LLC proposes to subdivide the subject site into seven(7) lots constructed all in one phase. The site address is 18500 High Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 and consists of two tax parcels: 00434600004304 and 00434600004202. The total site area is 143,771 square feet (3.301 acres). The current zoning of the property is RS-12 with no change/rezone proposed. The proposed seven(7) lots will create a gross density of 2.12 lots/acre, not exceeding the maximum 3.7 lots per acre for RS-12 zoning (ECDC 16.20.030). The project will preserve and retain existing trees onsite via a phased tree retention and protection plan review. The project proposes to retain more than 50% of the existing significant trees onsite and utilize code provisions allowed in ECDC 20.72.048 Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility. The flexibility design provisions will allow for reduced lot sizes, lot widths, and setback in accordance with City code. The applicant will record a protect trees notice on title in accordance with ECDC 23.10.085. See the below table and preliminary plat map for a detail of the proposed plat design. High St. Plat Conservation Subdivision Design: Gross Site Area: 143,771 sf Gross Average Lot Size (143,771 sf / 7 lots): 20,539 sf Smallest Lot Size (Lot 2): 7,113 sf* (reduced per ECDC 20.75.048.B.2.) Setback Requirements (per ECDC 20.75.048.B.1): Street Setback Minimum = 15 feet Rear Setback Minimum = 10 feet Side Setback Minimum = 5 feet Net Site Area = 138,376 (Site, 143,771 less Road Tract 999, 5,395 sf) Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed = 48,432 sf (35% of 138,376 Sf) (per ECDC 20.75.048 B. 3.) Proposed Lot Coverage = +/-21,000 sf The site also contains steep slopes and a stream along its south and west boundaries. Protective buffers and building setbacks will be provided by the applicant and recorded on the final subdivision map. Thank you for reviewing this project and please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Chris Lyon High Street, LLC 320 Dayton St, Suite 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 673-5229 1.a Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) HI G H S T 00434600004106 CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 00434600004106 00565600101907DAVID ARISTA & RUTH I HAYES-ARISTA 00565600101905 REYNOLDS, KIRBY WILLIAM/JENNIFER 00565600101805COOLEY, CHRISTOPHER F & WHITNEY R00565600100200MCMAHON, GEOFFREY P & VANDERHEIDEBORAH L 00565600100101MURPHY, MICHAEL A & SHARON O 00565600100100ANDERSON, DOUGLAS H & MARY S 00434600300901SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600300802SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600004301SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600006801 MCCALLUM, ROBERT/DEBORAH 00434600006802FIX, TAL 00434600006602PIERCE, MICHAEL F & KAY 187TH ST SW WOOD FENCE 0.3' S WOOD FENCE 0.1' S WEST FACE OF WOODWALL 0.1' NE WEST FACE OF WOODWALL 0.8' NE CENTERLINE OF DITCH FOUND 1" IRON PIPE 0.5' S68°E FOUND REBAR &CAP ILLEGIBLE FOUND REBAR, NO CAP FOUND MAGNAIL & WASHER"7892" FOUND DISTURBED IRONPIPE 6.4' W OF LINE FOUND REBAR & CAP "RMA 4561", 0.2' N88°E FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561" FOUND REBAR & CAP "RMA 4561" 0.2' N73°W FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, 0.4' N14°W FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561"FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561" S88°35'43"E 57.64' N0 3 ° 1 5 ' 5 8 " E 5 8 2 . 0 9 ' S 2 9 ° 4 0 ' 5 6 " E 1 1 3 . 3 7 ' N40°02'47"E 31.93' N 2 9 ° 4 0 ' 5 6 " W 2 2 4 . 8 7 ' N 3 0 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " W 2 5 9 . 0 5 ' N4 0 ° 0 2 ' 4 7 " E 8 6 . 8 0 ' N1 6 ° 0 8 ' 1 7 " E 59 . 8 3 ' S81°50'39" E 1 7 5 . 9 5 ' S16°08'17"W 7.42' S88°35'43"E 41.36' N1 6 ° 0 8 ' 1 7 " E 1 7 6 . 8 9 ' N89°42'43"W 119.04' N0 1 ° 2 0 ' 2 5 " E 8 5 . 1 9 ' S89°42'43"E 38.76' 8 7 . 4 5 ' N0 1 ° 2 0 ' 2 5 " E DISTRIBUTIONEASEMENT(AFN 2408889) WATER LINE EASEMENT(AFN 9110010318) SEWER EASEMENTS(AFN 1964419 & 1964418) 5 1 999 2 4 3 7 6 100 554,699 SF 18,299 SF 27,113 SF 40 1 . 2 2 ' 1 3 . 7 4 ' 44 . 7 0 ' 2 6 . 4 6 ' 59.34' 47 7 . 0 8 ' 15 . 2 5 ' 141.62' 62.27' 70 . 6 7 ' 154.35' 175.95' 26 . 6 2 ' 113.48' 62 . 3 7 ' 136.30' 20 . 1 8 ' 39 . 8 3 ' 67 . 5 7 ' 65 . 0 1 ' 47 . 6 2 ' 10 5 . 0 2 ' 46 . 9 5 ' 37,887 SF 434,330 SF 610,067 SF 710,431 SF TRACT 999 OPEN SPACE/DETENTION5,550 SF R35' 22 0 21 8 21 6 21 6 214 212 21 2 21 4 21 6 21 8 22 0 22 2 22 4 22 6 22 8 23 0 23 2 23 4 23 6 23 8 24 0 232 230 228 226 220 210 200 190 180 190 1 8 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 20 0 210 21 2 214 21 0 BOUNDARY 1 222 22 0 218 21 0 75 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 15 ' BS B L 10' BUFFER TOP OF STEEP SLOPE 15' BSBL 10' PRIVATEDRAINAGEEASEMENT 10' JOINTUTILITYEASEMENT 20' 40' 30' RO W 20' EXISTINGHOUSETO REMAIN 1 0 ' 15' BSBL (TYP) 10' 10' BUFFER TOE OF STEEP SLOPE 15' BSBL R 3 6 ' R O W 15' 5' TYPE FSTREAM TBM - MAG NAILCONTROL PT 201 EX BUILDINGTO BEREMOVED P RS-12 RS-12 RS-12 RS-12 R37.5' ROW PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T PP-01 1 HIGH STREET PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE DATA AGENCIES/UTILITIES CIVIL ENGINEEROWNER / APPLICANT PROJECT TEAM SURVEYOR HIGH STREET LLC320 DAYTON STREET, SUITE 100EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 673-5229EMAIL: JAKE@WESTERLYRE.COMCONTACT: JAKE LYON RAM ENGINEERING, INC.19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 (425) 678-6960EMAIL:ROBL@RAMENGINEERINGINC.COMCONTACT: ROB L. LONG, PE JURISDICTION CITY OF EDMONDS STORM DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS WATER DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER DISTRICT CITY OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICTEDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 FIRE DISTRICT SOUTH SNO CO FIRE & RESCUE RFA TELEPHONE ZIPLEY ELECTRICAL SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 GAS PSE GARBAGE REPUBLIC SERVICE N 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1" = 40' WEST ALLIANCE13614 ASH WAYEVERETT, WA 98204 (509) 630-0783EMAIL: MATRIXSURVEYOR@LIVE.COMCONTACT: DAVID G. WEST, JR, PLS CITY OF EDMONDS SHEET INDEX 1 PP-01 PRELIMINARY PLAT2EC-01 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP Se p 1 8 , 2 0 2 4 - 1 0 : 2 3 a m - U s e r M i k e M N: \ 2 3 - 0 3 4 \ D w g \ P r e l i m i n a r y \ P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t \ 2 3 0 3 4 P P . d w g SHEET: SHT OF JOB NO: WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N BY NO DA T E ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: ENGINEER: 24 x 3 6 RAM ENGINEERING, INC. DE S C R I P T I O N SCALE: AS NOTED Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S ROB L. LONG, PE MIKE MORRIS 5/10/24 23-034 2 9/18/24 THE BOUNDARY ANDTOPOGRAPHY SURVEYSHOWN ON THIS SITEPLAN WERE PREPAREDUNDER THE DIRECTSUPERVISION OF AWASHINGTON STATEPROFESSIONAL LANDSURVEYOR N rDTE JIA NLALA OR VREY . RP DETESEGIR 30442 E F O I S S S R AT N U T O DN SO G ,WA E.G W SDIT HOFSV 6/28/24 G N O LL.TREBOR REENIGNELANOISSE F O R P DERETSIGER N O T GNIHSAWFOETATS 36508 6/ 2 8 / 2 4 1 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M 9/ 1 8 / 2 4 2 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M N CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN AVERAGE LOT SIZE (TOTAL SITE AREA): 20,539 SF 143,771 SF / 7) SMALLEST NET LOT SIZE (LOT 2): 7,113 SF *SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:STREET SETBACK MIMINUM = 15 FEETREAR SETBACK MINIMUM = 10 FEETSIDE SETBACK MINIMUM = 5 FEET* PER EDC 20.75.048(B)(1) **MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED = 48,432 SF (35% X 138,376 SF) ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE = ±21,000 SF **PER EDC 20.75.048(B)(3) LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS VERTICAL DATUM A PORTION OF TRACTS 1 AND 19, BLOCK 3, SEAHURST, ACCORDING TO THEPLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, RECORDS OFSNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OF TRACTS 9, 42 AND43, EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 76, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISHCOUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OF VACATED OLYMPIC AVENUE AS VACATED IN VOLUME 28, PAGE 179 OF COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, INSNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 4, IN SAID BLOCK 1,SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WHOSE RADIAL CENTER BEARS SOUTH 73°03'59" EAST, 1395.40 FEET DISTANT.THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 94TH AVENUE WEST AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°30'01",AN ARC DISTANCE OF 60.89 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN190.41 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN7.43 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE NORTH 89°42'00" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 41.36 FEET TO THEEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 94TH AVENUE WEST; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 176.89 FEETTO A POINT 10.00 FEET SOUTHERLY , MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THENORTH LINE OF TRACT 19, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 88°35'00" EAST, PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAIDTRACT 19, A DISTANCE OF 119.04 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 85.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°35'00" WEST, 38.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 87.45 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAIDEDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE SOUTH 89°42'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 57.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°33'41" WEST, 582.09 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THENORTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID 187TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND THENORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF OLYMPIC AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAIDOLYMPIC AVENUE, 113. 37 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THENORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 66 IN SAID EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTSEXTENDED; THENCE SOUTH 38°20'30" WEST ALONG SAID EXTENSION, 31.93 FEET TO THECENTERLINE OF OLYMPIC AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 224.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32°28'24" WEST TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAIDTRACT 43 WHICH IS 125.20 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAIDTRACT 43; THENCE NORTH 38°20'30" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 86.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST 59.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83°32'35" EAST 175.96 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OFSAID 94TH AVENUE WEST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT C OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDERRECORDING NUMBER 8612150123) SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DONE BY INFORMED LAND SURVEY FOR KIM PIERCEDATED: 4/1/2022 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP N 9T H 192ND 80 T H CHERRY 92 N D OLYMP I C V I E W D R AN D O V E R 88 T H 184TH ST SW 84 T H A V E W 188TH 190TH OL Y M P I C V I E W D R 94TH SU N S E T WA Y PUGETSOUND HI G H S T SITE BENCHMARKTBM: SET MAG NAIL CONTROL PT 201ELEV: 212.95DATUM : NAVD 88 SITE ADDRESS:18500 HIGH STREETEDMONDS, WA 98020TAX PARCEL ID NUMBER:00434600004304, 00434600004202 TOTAL SITE AREA:143,771 SF (3.3 AC)EXISTING ZONING:RS-12PROPOSED ZONING:NO CHANGE NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED:7 LOTSPROPOSED LAND USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALMAX BUILDING HEIGHT:25 FEETMAX LOT COVERAGE FOR STRUCTURES:35% TOTAL LOT AREAMAX DENSITY ALLOWED:3.7 UNITS PER ACREPROPOSED DENSITY (7/3.3): 2.12 D.U. PER ACRE PARKING REQUIRED PER LOT:2ROAD AREA (ROW DEDICATION):5,395 SF (0.12 AC) 1.ALL HOUSES WITHIN PLAT OVER 3,000 SF WILL BEREQUIRED TO HAVE 13D TYPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. 2."NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND CUL-DE-SAC AT 50' O.C. FIRE PROTECTION NOTES STREET LIGHTS WILL BE REQUIRED WITHIN THE NEWPUBLIC PLAT ROAD. NUMBER & LOCATION OF STREETLIGHT STANDARDS TO BE DETERMINED AT FINALENGINEERING REVIEW. STREET LIGHTING NOTE 1.a Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) P 22 0 21 8 21 6 21 6 214 212 21 2 21 4 216 21 8 22 0 22 2 22 4 22 6 22 8 23 0 23 2 23 4 23 6 23 8 24 0 232 230 228 226 220 210 200 190 180 190 1 8 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 20 0 210 21 2 214 21 0 BOUNDARY 1 222 22 0 218 21 0 HI G H S T 00434600004106 CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 00434600004106 00565600101907DAVID ARISTA & RUTH I HAYES-ARISTA 00565600101905REYNOLDS, KIRBY WILLIAM/JENNIFER 00565600101805COOLEY, CHRISTOPHER F& WHITNEY R 00565600100200MCMAHON, GEOFFREY P & VANDERHEIDEBORAH L 00565600100101MURPHY, MICHAEL A & SHARON O00565600100100ANDERSON, DOUGLAS H & MARY S 00434600300901SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600300802SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600004301SALAZAR, LEE & KAREN 00434600006801 MCCALLUM, ROBERT/DEBORAH 00434600006802FIX, TAL 00434600006602PIERCE, MICHAEL F & KAY 187TH ST SW CONC ASPHALTDRIVEWAY CONC CONC EXISTINGSTRUCTURE WOOD FENCE 0.3' S WOOD FENCE 0.1' S WEST FACE OF WOODWALL 0.1' NE WEST FACE OF WOODWALL 0.8' NE CENTERLINE OF DITCH DIRT PATH EXISTINGCHICKENCOOP EXISTING RESIDENCE F.F.E.=222.51' FOUND 1" IRON PIPE 0.5' S68°E FOUND REBAR& CAPILLEGIBLE FOUND REBAR, NO CAP FOUND MAGNAIL & WASHER"7892" FOUND DISTURBED IRONPIPE 6.4' W OF LINE FOUND REBAR & CAP "RMA 4561", 0.2' N88°E FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561" FOUND REBAR & CAP "RMA 4561" 0.2' N73°W FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, 0.4' N14°W FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561" FOUND REBAR &CAP "RMA 4561" S88°35'43"E 57.64' N0 3 ° 1 5 ' 5 8 " E 5 8 2 . 0 9 ' S 2 9 ° 4 0 ' 5 6 " E 1 1 3 . 3 7 ' N4 0 ° 0 2 ' 4 7 " E 31 . 9 3 ' N 2 9 ° 4 0 ' 5 6 " W 2 2 4 . 8 7 ' N 3 0 ° 4 6 ' 0 7 " W 2 5 9 . 0 5 ' N4 0 ° 0 2 ' 4 7 " E 8 6 . 8 0 ' N1 6 ° 0 8 ' 1 7 " E 5 9 . 8 3 ' S81°50'39" E 1 7 5 . 9 5 ' S16°08'17"W 7.42' S88°35'43"E 41.36' N1 6 ° 0 8 ' 1 7 " E 1 7 6 . 8 9 ' N89°42'43"W 119.04' N0 1 ° 2 0 ' 2 5 " E 8 5 . 1 9 ' S89°42'43"E 38.76' N0 1 ° 2 0 ' 2 5 " E 8 7 . 4 5 ' DISTRIBUTIONEASEMENT(AFN 2408889) WATER LINE EASEMENT(AFN 9110010318) SEWER EASEMENTS(AFN 1964419 & 1964418) EX CBRIM EL=212.9412" CONC IE=207.64 (S) (UNABLE TO VERIFY N & E) EX CBRIM EL=211.444" PVC IE=209.49 (E) 12" PVC IE=208.79 (S) 12 PVC IE=208.44 (W) EX CBRIM EL=211.6012" PVC IE=208.95 (N) EX CBRIM EL=209.464" PVC IE=206.46 (N)6" PVC IE=207.06 (S)EX YDRIM EL=208.686" PVC IE=207.73 (N) 4" CPP IE=208.03 (S) EX SSMHRIM EL=212.698" CONC IE=208.45 (E) 8" CONC IE=207.97 (W) EX SSMHRIM EL=213.018" CONC IE=204.09 (N) 8" CONC IE=204.42 (E)6" CONC IE=204.36 (S) 30 26 41 42 43 44 4528 29 33 32 31 35 36 37 34 38 46 47 48 49 20 19 18 17 14 15 16 12 24 1 39 3 4 56 7 8 DEAD 2 101 9 10 11 23 22 21 25 27 40 13 2 1 2 21 2 2 1 2 21 4 2 1 6 218 22 0 75 ' S T R E A M B U F F E R 10' BUFFER TOP OF STEEP SLOPE 10' BUFFER TOE OF STEEP SLOPE TYPE FSTREAM P RS-12 RS-12 RS-12 RS-12 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S M A P EC-01 2 N 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1" = 40' Se p 1 8 , 2 0 2 4 - 1 0 : 2 3 a m - U s e r M i k e M N: \ 2 3 - 0 3 4 \ D w g \ P r e l i m i n a r y \ P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t \ 2 3 0 3 4 E C . d w g SHEET: SHT OF JOB NO: WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N BY NO DA T E ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: ENGINEER: 24 x 3 6 RAM ENGINEERING, INC. DE S C R I P T I O N SCALE: AS NOTED Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S ROB L. LONG, PE MIKE MORRIS 5/10/24 23-034 2 9/18/24 THE BOUNDARY ANDTOPOGRAPHY SURVEYSHOWN ON THIS SITEPLAN WERE PREPAREDUNDER THE DIRECTSUPERVISION OF AWASHINGTON STATEPROFESSIONAL LANDSURVEYOR N rDTE JIA NLALA OR VREY . RP DETESEGIR 30442 E F O I S S S R AT N U T O DN SO G ,WA E.G W SDIT HOFSV 6/28/24 G N O LL.TREBOR REENIGNELANOISSE F O R P DERETSIGER N O T GNIHSAWFOETATS 36508 6/ 2 8 / 2 4 1 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M 9/ 1 8 / 2 4 2 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS VERTICAL DATUM BENCHMARK- DATUM : NAVD 88 A PORTION OF TRACTS 1 AND 19, BLOCK 3, SEAHURST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBEDIN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OFTRACTS 9, 42 AND 43, EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED INVOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 76, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OFVACATED OLYMPIC AVENUE AS VACATED IN VOLUME 28, PAGE 179 OF COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, INSNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 4, IN SAID BLOCK 1, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WHOSE RADIAL CENTER BEARS SOUTH 73°03'59" EAST, 1395.40 FEETDISTANT.THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 94TH AVENUE WEST AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°30'01", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 60.89 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 190.41 FEET TO THE TRUEPOINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 7.43 FEET TO THE NORTHLINE OF EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE NORTH 89°42'00" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 41.36 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OFSAID 94TH AVENUE WEST; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 176.89 FEET TO A POINT 10.00 FEETSOUTHERLY , MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT 19, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 88°35'00" EAST, PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 19, A DISTANCE OF119.04 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 85.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°35'00" WEST, 38.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 87.45 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE SOUTH 89°42'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 57.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°33'41" WEST, 582.09 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OFSAID 187TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF OLYMPIC AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID OLYMPIC AVENUE, 113.37 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 66 IN SAID EDMONDSSEAVIEW TRACTS EXTENDED; THENCE SOUTH 38°20'30" WEST ALONG SAID EXTENSION, 31.93 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF OLYMPICAVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 224.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32°28'24" WEST TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 43 WHICH IS125.20 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 43; THENCE NORTH 38°20'30" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 86.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST 59.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83°32'35" EAST 175.96 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 94TH AVENUE WESTAND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT C OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8612150123) SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DONE BY INFORMED LAND SURVEY FOR KIM PIERCE DATED: 4/1/2022 SECTION EX REBAR QUARTER SECTION EX MONUMENT 190 192 GRAVEL CONCRETE ASPHALT CURB FLOW DRIP LINE ROOF SEWER MAIN BURIED POWER LINE BURIED TELEPHONE LINE AERIAL POWER LINE GAS MAIN WATER MAIN STORM DRAIN PIPE TOP OF 40% SLOPE 10' CONTOURS 2' CONTOURS WETLAND BUFFER EDGE OF WETLAND SEWER FORCE MAIN BURIED TV BURIED FIBER OPTIC CABLE RETAINING WALL STEEP SLOPE BUFFER SURFACE FEATURES WIRE FENCE ROCKERY DITCH OR SWALE BURIED CABLE BURIED POWER/TELEPHONE BUILDING FOOTPRINT DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE WETLAND GRAVEL CONCRETE MAIL BOX SIGN ASPHALT SOIL LOG TEST PIT BOLLARD CHANNELIZATION GUARDRAIL CATCH BASIN, TYPE II CATCH BASIN, TYPE I STORM CLEANOUT SD PIPE FLOW YARD DRAIN STORM CULVERT END WATER METER SEWER MANHOLE FIRE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SEWER CLEANOUT WATER MANHOLE SS PIPE FLOW SEPTIC LID AIR/VAC RELEASE VALVE BLOW OFF IRRIGATION VALVE IRRIGATION METER POWER VAULT POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR GAS METER TRANSFORMER GAS VALVE POWER METER TELECOMM VAULT TRAFFIC SIGNAL STREET LIGHT TV RISER JUNCTION BOX POLE LIGHT TELECOMM RISER TELECOMM JUNCTION BOX FIBER OPTICS MANHOLE CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE LEGEND - EXISTING UTILITIES / FEATURES S W P F T TREE LEGEND DRIP LINE( EXISTING TREE XXX(XXX( TREE TAG NUMBER (SEE TREERETENTION PLAN FOR DESCRIPTION)( 1.a Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 5 1 999 2 4 3 7 6 100 BOUNDARY 1 HI G H S T CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 5 1 2 4 3 7 6 TRACT 999 CO V E R S H E E T CV-01 1 HIGH STREET PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS SITE DATA AGENCIES/UTILITIES CIVIL ENGINEEROWNER / APPLICANT PROJECT TEAM SURVEYOR N WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N RAM ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S 23-034 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS VERTICAL DATUM VICINITY MAP N SITE CITY OF EDMONDS SHEET INDEX 1 CV-01COVER SHEET2 TP-01PRELIMINARY CLEARING, GRADING & TESC PLAN3 UP-01 PRELIMINARY ROAD & UTILITY PLAN UTILITY NOTE CONSTRUCTION NOTE LEGEND - EXISTING UTILITIES / FEATURES LEGEND - PROPOSED UTILITIES / SURFACE FEATURES PROJECT CLASSIFICATION FIRE PROTECTION NOTES STREET LIGHTING NOTE 1.a Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) HI G H S T CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 5 1 999 2 4 3 7 6 100 5 1 2 4 3 6 7 TRACT 999 PR E L I M I N A R Y CL E A R I N G , G R A D I N G & T E S C P L A N TP-01 2 N WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N RAM ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S 23-034 3 TREE PROTECTION NOTES “ ” ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ TREE LEGEND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE GRADING QUANTITIES CB INLET PROTECTION NOTE FILTER FABRIC FENCE NOTE TESC NOTE STOCKPILE NOTE SOILS NOTE 1.a Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 5 1 999 2 4 3 7 6 100 HI G H S T CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) (VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 5 1 2 4 3 7 6 TRACT 999 CB 2 CB 3 CB1 CB 4 CB 5 EX CB CB 6 HIGH STREET HIGH ST SCALE: 1"=30' H, 1"=5' V HIGH ST 210 220 210 220 7+008+009+00 PR E L I M I N A R Y RO A D & U T I L I T Y P L A N UP-01 3 N WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N RAM ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S 23-034 3 CONSTRUCTION NOTE IMPERVIOUS / FOOTING DRAIN NOTE IMPERVIOUS AREAS CHART ROAD IMPROVEMENTS LOT 1 LOT 2 STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUTSCHEDULE LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 TRACT 999 1.a Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) High St. 7-Lot Plat 18500 High Street Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN2024-0040 Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Report Prepared for: High Street, LLC Date: May 14, 2024 Revsied: September 18, 2024 9/18/2024 Prepared by: Ethan Long and Rob Long, PE RAM Engineering, Inc. 19109 36th Ave W, Suite 100, Lynnwood WA 98036 (425) 678-6960 RAMengineeringinc.com Job No. 23-034 1.a Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page i High St. 7-Lot Plat Introduction: This summary report provides site design information for a single family 7-lot plat by High Street, LLC. This report includes storm drainage analysis to support permit review and approval. The property is located at the south dead end of High Street, in the northeast 1/4 of Section 13, T 27 N, R 3 E, W.M. Site Address: 18500 High Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Parcel Numbers: 00434600004304 and 00434600004202 Applicant: High Street, LLC 320 Dayton St, Suite 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGES A. Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5 B. Existing Conditions Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 C. Developed Site Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 21 D. Soils Report ....................................................................................................................................... 1 E. Construction SWPPPP Requirements ................................................................................................ 2 F. Operation and Maintenance Guidelines .......................................................................................... 18 1.a Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-1 A. PROJECT OVERVIEW: This report provides engineering information for the proposed construction of a 7-lot single family residence plat on a 3.3-acre parcel; the project is located on the south dead end of High Street in the City of Edmonds. The applicant, High Street, LLC proposes to keep the existing residence on site while adding 6 new lots/single-family residences. This report provides an evaluation of the 7-lot single family residential development. Summary of Minimum Requirements for Category 1 Project: Minimum Requirement #1 – Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan. The proposed site development consists of disturbing about 1.767 acres (site + ROW) creating/replacing about 41,300 sf of hard surface area. Thus, the project is classified as a Category 2 project per the City’s classification system. Per ECDC 18.30, Category 2 projects must comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. The civil site development plans and this report have been prepared to address the project’s impacts. Minimum Requirement #2 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPPP). A construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been incorporated into the site development plans. A summary of the site’s erosion control measures that evaluates the typical 13 elements of a SWPPP are included in section E. The total site disturbance area of the project is greater than one acre, thus a formal Notice of Intent application for NPDES coverage will be made to the Department of Ecology during final construction plan design. Minimum Requirement #3 – Source Control of Pollution. Specific source controls are not required for single family residential sites. General requirements for these sites include preventing the discharge of pollutants to the City’s storm drainage system per Edmonds City Code Chapter 7.200 (Illicit Discharges). This includes common household items such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents and fluids from vehicle maintenance. Single family residences shall incorporate WADOE’s S411 BMPs for landscape and lawn vegetation management. Lawn and vegetation management can include control of objectionable weeds, insects, mold, bacteria, and other pests with pesticides. Examples include weed control on golf course lawns, access roads, and utility corridors and during landscaping; sap stain and insect control on lumber and logs; rooftop moss removal; killing nuisance rodents; fungicide application to patio decks, and residential lawn/plant care. It is possible to release toxic pesticides such as pentachlorophenol, carbamates, and organometallics to the environment by leaching and dripping from treated parts, container leaks, product misuse, and outside storage of pesticide contaminated materials and equipment. Poor management of the vegetation and poor application of pesticides or fertilizers can cause appreciable stormwater contamination. 1.a Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-2 Minimum Requirement #4 – Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls. The site contains two distinct drainage sub-basins, a northerly and a southerly basin. The northern site drainage basin is approximately 71,771 sf (1.6 ac) and contains all the houses and hard surfaces. Additional upstream area from easterly properties as well as from Hutt Park flow to the north site basin. Approximately 74,000 sf (1.699 ac) of upstream area flows on to the site’s northern basin. Runoff from the northern basin discharges to the north into the stormwater pipe system along High St. The High St stormwater system travels in a north/westerly direction following High St until merging into the stormwater pipe system of Olympic View Dr. The system travels south along the east side of Olympic View Dr approximately 0.5 miles to Wharf St (sub-basin merge point) and then is directed west and discharges into the Puget Sound about 0.66 miles from site (via the northerly route). Stormwater runoff from the southern site basin enters Talbot Creek B (a category F stream) that flows westerly along the south boundary of the site. The stream flows west before entering a pipe system that conveys flow to the westerly side of Olympic View Dr. The pipe system flows south along the westerly side of Olympic View Dr to Wharf St about 1,200 ft (0.23 miles) from the site. At Wharf St the south and north sub-basin merge together and flows west along Wharf St. The Wharf St system eventually discharges to Puget Sound 0.37 miles for the site via the south (shortest) sub-basin route. See additional discussions and maps provided in Section C below. Due to the fact the site’s two sub-basins merge within a quarter mile, the project’s basins are considered as one threshold discharge basin. Regardless, all of the proposed site development will occur within the north site sub-basin and will maintain the discharge point to the High St stormwater system; therefore maintain the site’s existing natural drainage system and outfall. Minimum Requirement #5 – Onsite Stormwater Management. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation of the site’s soils demonstrates that infiltration is a not a viable option for stormwater management onsite due to till soils (relatively shallow hardpan) and steep slopes in the area. Additionally, adequate flow length paths with acceptable gradients/slope are not available for dispersion type BMP. Thus, only post construction soil amendment are proposed for onsite stormwater BMP. See Stormwater BMP evaluation table below and the preliminary site development plans for additional stormwater BMP evaluation and construction details. The existing house and adjacent(walks/driveway) hard surfaces (+/- 5,320 sf) onsite are to remain with the development on lot 5 of the plat. Per EDCD 18.30.060.D.5.b.i, existing hard surface shall provide onsite stormwater management BMPs to manage a portion (a minimum of 25 percent) of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after project completion. Conservatively, the project proposes to allocate 6,000 sf of new/replace hard surface for lot 5 and accounted for in the onsite detention vault design (MR #7), therefore exceeding the required 25% retrofit requirement. 1.a Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-3 MR#5 Stormwater Management BMP List No. 2 Evaluation Lawn and landscaped areas: BMP Viable Limitations / Infeasibility Criteria BMP T5.13: Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth (Volume V, Chapter 11) Yes Limitation: Considered infeasible on slopes greater than 33 percent are present., BMP T5.13 shall be applied to the site post construction. Roofs: BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 3) No Infeasibility: A viable vegetated flow path 50 or 100 feet and less than 20% is not achievable onsite. BMP T5.10A: Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (Volume V, Chapter 4) No Infeasibility: No viable area to locate a system that is not within 50 ft of slopes greater than 15%. The project geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion and slope failure of nearby slopes and poor soil and groundwater conditions. Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No Infeasibility: No viable area to locate a system that is not within 50 ft of slopes greater than 15%. The project geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion and slope failure of nearby slopes and poor soil and groundwater conditions. BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems (Volume V, Chapter 4) No Infeasibility: A viable vegetated flow path 50 or 100 feet and less than 20% is not achievable onsite. BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub-out (Volume V, Chapter 4) No Infeasibility: No viable area to locate a system that is not within 50 ft of slopes greater than 15% and poor soil and groundwater conditions. Detention Vaults (Tanks) (Edmonds Stormwater Addendum) No The project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7; thus, a detention vault/pipe is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. Other Hard Surfaces: BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 3) No Infeasibility: A viable vegetated flow path 50 or 100 feet and less than 20% is not achievable onsite. BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavement (Volume V, Chapter 5) No Infeasibility: No viable area to locate a system that is not within 50 ft of slopes greater than 15%. The project geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion and slope failure of nearby slopes and poor soil and groundwater conditions. BMP T7.30: Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No Infeasibility: No viable area to locate a system that is not within 50 ft of slopes greater than 15%. The project geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion and slope failure of nearby slopes and poor soil and groundwater conditions. BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 3) No Infeasibility: A viable vegetated flow path 50 or 100 feet and less than 20% is not achievable onsite. BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion (Volume V, Chapter 3) No Infeasibility: A viable vegetated flow path 50 or 100 feet and less than 20% is not achievable onsite. Detention Pipes (Tanks) (Edmonds Stormwater Addendum) Yes The project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7; thus, a detention vault/pipe is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. 1.a Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-4 Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment. The project proposes to create/replace more than 5,000 sf of pollution-generation hard surface onsite. The project will create about 16,400 sf (7,700 sf onsite driveways + 8,700 sf of road redevelopment) pollution generation hard surfaces. Thus, placement of general use approved basic water quality treatment stormwater filters are included in the proposed site development. Design of the stormwater treatment filters is described in Section C below. Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control. An onsite stormwater detention vault system will provide flow control of the site’s stormwater runoff. The detention vault system has been designed to meet the flow control standards of a Category 2 project in a creek or lake basin (restrict the stormwater discharge duration for half the 2-year to 50-year storm events using a continuous storm event model). The detention vault has been sized using WWHM software; a full overview of the project’s stormwater flow control measures is provided in Section C below. Minimum Requirement #8 – Wetland Protection. No wetlands are known to exist on or adjacent to the site. There is a Type F stream that crosses the southern boundary of the site. A protective buffer and building setback will be provided with the site development. See additional evaluation of the onsite stream in the Stream Delineation and Wetland Assessment Report by DCG Watershed (dated October 27, 2023) prepared specifically for the site. Minimum Requirement #9 – Operation and Maintenance. An operation and maintenance summary is provided in Section F. 1.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-5 Parcel (Vicinity) Map: 1.a Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page A-6 Site Plan: 1.a Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page B-1 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY Existing Conditions. The total site consists of 143,771 sf (3.301 acres) and is currently occupied by an existing single-family residence with access driveway off High Street. The existing house is surrounded by grass lawn and landscape areas with several large mature trees throughout the site as well as a detached garage/shop. The site is surrounded by single family residences to the north, west, and south; as well as Hutt Park to the east. The site is access by High Street from the north (see aerial photo below). The site has two distinct drainage sub-basins; a northerly and a southerly basin. The northern basin slopes to the north towards High Street, and the southern basin slopes in a south and westerly direction to an onsite stream. Slopes in the southern basin reach up to 70% along the south and western side of the site. These onsite steep slopes have been classified as an erosion hazard by the project geotechnical engineer. Stormwater control and site management BMPs will sufficiently cover the erosion risk onsite (see Geotechnical Report by Earth Solutions NW for more detail). The southern basin has a Type F stream that flows westerly along the south boundary of the site; the City has designated the watershed as Talbot Creek B. A 75 ft stream buffer with an additional 15 ft building setback will be provided to protect the stream. No wetlands were discovered on or immediately adjacent to the site. See additional evaluation of the onsite stream in the Stream Delineation and Wetland Assessment Report by DCG Watershed (dated October 27, 2023) prepared specifically for the site. Additional discussion of the local drainage basin and downstream path is discussed in Section C of this report. Soils: In accordance with the project’s site-specific geotechnical engineering study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC the on-site soils consist of Alderwood-Everette of silty sand with gravel (USCS: SM) glacial till deposits. The subject site is underlain by glacial till deposits Alderwood and Alderwood-Everett series soils. Full soils description is included in the project’s site-specific geotechnical engineering study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. 1.a Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page B-2 Aerial Photo (City of Edmonds GIS, 2022 photo): 1.a Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-1 C. DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOTY: Developed Conditions. The proposed project includes the construction of seven single-family residential lots and associated frontage improvements, driveways and utilities. The existing single-family residence onsite is to remain while the detached shed will be razed with the site development. Landscaping and grass lawn around the new residence will stabilize the site upon building construction. An underground detention vault will be installed under tract 998 in between lot 2 and along the easterly boundary of the site. The detention vault system will provide flow control of the project’s stormwater runoff (Minimum Requirement #7). The hydrologic analysis uses WWHM2012 software to model historical storm events in the existing and proposed developed conditions. Per the City of Edmonds (WADOE 2019) drainage manual, the project shall meet the site discharge duration for half the 2-year to 50-year storm events using a continuous storm event model (WWHM). The detention vault system will discharge to an Oldcastle Perk Filter™ located downstream of the control structure; the stormwater filter system will provide basic water quality treatment. Due to the relatively shallow depth of the adjacent stormwater system in High St, the stormwater vault and filter system will utilize pumps to discharge the collected stormwater flows. All of the stormwater pumps and pressurized line system shall be located on private property and covered by drainage easements (no portion of the pump facilities will be located within public right-of-way). Additionally, a gravity overflow system will be provided between the detention vault and the gravity basin to accommodate the full un-detained 100- year peak flows (0.8298 cfs) to prevent flooding of the system in the event of pump system failure. The sizing and specifications of the stormwater pumps will be provided with the final construction engineering design application. The site area consists of 3.301 acres; however, 1.653 acres are non-developed buffers areas to the south and west, 0.119 High St right-of-way redevelopment area, and an upstream offsite basin from the east provides a net site development and collection area of 3.466 acres. The below site areas map and table provide a breakdown summary of the project areas. 1.a Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-2 Site Areas Map: 1.a Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-3 The project proposes to create and/or replace 41,300 sf of hard surface with the complete site development. The existing house to remain will be collected and fully mitigated in the stormwater system. The following is a summary of the existing and developed site and upstream areas. Development Site Basin Areas Pervious Area = Hard Surface Areas: Road = Roof = Driveway = Sidewalks = 35,671 sf (0.819 ac)- Lawn/Pasture 8,700 sf (0.200 ac) 22,870 sf (0.525 ac) 7,700 sf (0.176 ac) 2,030 sf (0.047 ac) Total Hard Surface Area = 41,300 sf (0.948 ac) Upstream Basin Area Pervious Area = Hard Surface Area = 74,000 sf (1.699 Ac) - Forested 0 sf (0.000 Ac) Total Area = 74,000 sf (1.699 Ac) The following summary is a breakdown of the impervious surface allocation per lot: Lot Total D/W Walk/Patio Total 1 3,000 900 300 4,200 2 3,000 900 300 4,200 3 3,000 1,400 300 4,700 4 3,000 1,400 300 4,700 5 4,870 900 230 6,000 6 3,000 900 300 4,200 7 3,000 900 300 4,200 Total Lot Impervious = 32,200 sf (0.739 ac) Tract 998: Additional 400 sf of miscellaneous impervious (hard) surface allocated to Tract 998, conservatively modeled as driveway. Existing Condition Areas Total Site Area = Non-developed Buffer Area = Net Site Development Area = High Street Right-of-way Redeveloped Area = 143,771 sf (3.301 Ac) 72,000 sf (1.653 Ac) 71,771 sf (1.648 Ac) 5,200 sf (0.119 Ac) Upstream Basin = 74,000 sf (1.699 Ac) ___________________________________________________________________ Total Net Development Area = 150,971 sf (3.466 Ac) Modeled as forested Type C soils 1.a Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-4 Stormwater Modeling. Attached below is the stormwater analysis summary table and documentation output from the Washington State Department of Ecology’s WWHM2012 stormwater modeling software as referenced above. Flow Control Summary Table: Project Area: (Site + ROW + Upstream) 3.466 Acres Type of Storage Proposed Underground Detention Vault 24 ft (w) x 64 ft (l) x 10 ft (d) Approx. Detention Storage Volume (cf) 15,360 cf Soil Type(s) (see Geotechnical Report) Alderwood Series Soils (Till) Pre-Existing Runoff Release Rates Q (cfs.) 2 yr. 0.0758 cfs 50 yr. 0.1705cfs 100 yr. 0.1809 cfs Post-development Runoff Rates (without quantity controls) Q (cfs.) 2 yr. 0.3185 cfs 50 yr. 0.7289 cfs 100 yr. 0.8298 cfs Post-development Runoff Rates (with quantity controls) Q (cfs.) 2 yr. 0.0454 cfs 50 yr. 0.2125 cfs 100 yr. 0.2778 cfs WWHM2021 Input/output Data: ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: 23-034 High St Prelim Site Name: 18500 High St Site Address: Preliminary City : 23-034 Report Date: 5/8/2024 MGS Regoin : Puget East Data Start : 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 03 Version Date: 2021/08/18 Version : 4.2.18 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-5 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Site Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 1.767 Pervious Total 1.767 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.767 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Offsite Upstream Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Steep 1.699 Pervious Total 1.699 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.699 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-6 MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Site Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Pasture, Flat .819 Pervious Total 0.819 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.2 ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.525 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.176 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.047 Impervious Total 0.948 Basin Total 1.767 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Vault 1 Vault 1 ___________________________________________________________________ Name : Offsite Upstream Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Steep 1.699 Pervious Total 1.699 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.699 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Vault 1 Vault 1 Vault 1 ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-7 Name : Vault 1 Width : 26 ft. Length : 64 ft. Depth: 10 ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 9.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 12 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.7874 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Orifice 2 Diameter: 0.7874 in. Elevation: 5 ft. Orifice 3 Diameter: 1.25 in. Elevation: 7 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 ___________________________________________________________________ Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1111 0.038 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.2222 0.038 0.008 0.007 0.000 0.3333 0.038 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.4444 0.038 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.5556 0.038 0.021 0.012 0.000 0.6667 0.038 0.025 0.013 0.000 0.7778 0.038 0.029 0.014 0.000 0.8889 0.038 0.034 0.015 0.000 1.0000 0.038 0.038 0.016 0.000 1.1111 0.038 0.042 0.017 0.000 1.2222 0.038 0.046 0.018 0.000 1.3333 0.038 0.050 0.019 0.000 1.4444 0.038 0.055 0.020 0.000 1.5556 0.038 0.059 0.021 0.000 1.6667 0.038 0.063 0.021 0.000 1.7778 0.038 0.067 0.022 0.000 1.8889 0.038 0.072 0.023 0.000 2.0000 0.038 0.076 0.023 0.000 2.1111 0.038 0.080 0.024 0.000 2.2222 0.038 0.084 0.025 0.000 2.3333 0.038 0.089 0.025 0.000 2.4444 0.038 0.093 0.026 0.000 2.5556 0.038 0.097 0.026 0.000 2.6667 0.038 0.101 0.027 0.000 2.7778 0.038 0.106 0.028 0.000 2.8889 0.038 0.110 0.028 0.000 3.0000 0.038 0.114 0.029 0.000 3.1111 0.038 0.118 0.029 0.000 3.2222 0.038 0.123 0.030 0.000 3.3333 0.038 0.127 0.030 0.000 3.4444 0.038 0.131 0.031 0.000 3.5556 0.038 0.135 0.031 0.000 3.6667 0.038 0.140 0.032 0.000 3.7778 0.038 0.144 0.032 0.000 3.8889 0.038 0.148 0.033 0.000 4.0000 0.038 0.152 0.033 0.000 4.1111 0.038 0.157 0.034 0.000 4.2222 0.038 0.161 0.034 0.000 4.3333 0.038 0.165 0.035 0.000 4.4444 0.038 0.169 0.035 0.000 4.5556 0.038 0.174 0.035 0.000 4.6667 0.038 0.178 0.036 0.000 4.7778 0.038 0.182 0.036 0.000 1.a Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-8 4.8889 0.038 0.186 0.037 0.000 5.0000 0.038 0.191 0.037 0.000 5.1111 0.038 0.195 0.043 0.000 5.2222 0.038 0.199 0.046 0.000 5.3333 0.038 0.203 0.048 0.000 5.4444 0.038 0.208 0.050 0.000 5.5556 0.038 0.212 0.052 0.000 5.6667 0.038 0.216 0.053 0.000 5.7778 0.038 0.220 0.055 0.000 5.8889 0.038 0.225 0.056 0.000 6.0000 0.038 0.229 0.058 0.000 6.1111 0.038 0.233 0.059 0.000 6.2222 0.038 0.237 0.060 0.000 6.3333 0.038 0.241 0.061 0.000 6.4444 0.038 0.246 0.062 0.000 6.5556 0.038 0.250 0.064 0.000 6.6667 0.038 0.254 0.065 0.000 6.7778 0.038 0.258 0.066 0.000 6.8889 0.038 0.263 0.067 0.000 7.0000 0.038 0.267 0.068 0.000 7.1111 0.038 0.271 0.083 0.000 7.2222 0.038 0.275 0.090 0.000 7.3333 0.038 0.280 0.095 0.000 7.4444 0.038 0.284 0.100 0.000 7.5556 0.038 0.288 0.104 0.000 7.6667 0.038 0.292 0.108 0.000 7.7778 0.038 0.297 0.112 0.000 7.8889 0.038 0.301 0.115 0.000 8.0000 0.038 0.305 0.119 0.000 8.1111 0.038 0.309 0.122 0.000 8.2222 0.038 0.314 0.125 0.000 8.3333 0.038 0.318 0.128 0.000 8.4444 0.038 0.322 0.131 0.000 8.5556 0.038 0.326 0.133 0.000 8.6667 0.038 0.331 0.136 0.000 8.7778 0.038 0.335 0.139 0.000 8.8889 0.038 0.339 0.141 0.000 9.0000 0.038 0.343 0.144 0.000 9.1111 0.038 0.348 0.146 0.000 9.2222 0.038 0.352 0.148 0.000 9.3333 0.038 0.356 0.151 0.000 9.4444 0.038 0.360 0.153 0.000 9.5556 0.038 0.365 0.294 0.000 9.6667 0.038 0.369 0.861 0.000 9.7778 0.038 0.373 1.543 0.000 9.8889 0.038 0.377 2.083 0.000 10.000 0.038 0.382 2.367 0.000 ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-9 ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:3.466 Total Impervious Area:0 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.518 Total Impervious Area:0.948 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.075754 5 year 0.11532 10 year 0.136507 25 year 0.157899 50 year 0.170542 100 year 0.180901 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.045409 5 year 0.077525 10 year 0.108092 25 year 0.160671 50 year 0.212535 100 year 0.277817 1.a Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-10 Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 0.106 0.038 1903 0.037 0.027 1904 0.075 0.033 1905 0.042 0.030 1906 0.025 0.023 1907 0.122 0.062 1908 0.075 0.035 1909 0.083 0.034 1910 0.129 0.056 1911 0.070 0.039 1912 0.194 0.080 1913 0.099 0.111 1914 0.027 0.025 1915 0.037 0.034 1916 0.058 0.037 1917 0.032 0.026 1918 0.069 0.062 1919 0.049 0.047 1920 0.071 0.037 1921 0.072 0.054 1922 0.084 0.052 1923 0.055 0.035 1924 0.037 0.032 1925 0.038 0.030 1926 0.066 0.034 1927 0.085 0.037 1928 0.057 0.032 1929 0.121 0.060 1930 0.070 0.035 1931 0.073 0.034 1932 0.056 0.033 1933 0.061 0.053 1934 0.158 0.137 1935 0.065 0.037 1936 0.097 0.054 1937 0.091 0.049 1938 0.082 0.057 1939 0.008 0.025 1940 0.065 0.052 1941 0.069 0.032 1942 0.095 0.121 1943 0.037 0.031 1944 0.104 0.093 1945 0.069 0.051 1946 0.063 0.034 1947 0.048 0.032 1948 0.154 0.101 1949 0.130 0.116 1950 0.066 0.042 1951 0.073 0.057 1952 0.225 0.197 1953 0.189 0.193 1954 0.065 0.050 1955 0.055 0.030 1956 0.037 0.029 1957 0.080 0.059 1958 0.188 0.339 1959 0.115 0.129 1.a Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-11 1960 0.045 0.031 1961 0.127 0.116 1962 0.071 0.038 1963 0.034 0.032 1964 0.074 0.031 1965 0.144 0.124 1966 0.030 0.027 1967 0.059 0.034 1968 0.074 0.051 1969 0.058 0.033 1970 0.088 0.052 1971 0.159 0.125 1972 0.126 0.066 1973 0.115 0.123 1974 0.070 0.037 1975 0.172 0.130 1976 0.073 0.049 1977 0.045 0.034 1978 0.149 0.109 1979 0.037 0.030 1980 0.069 0.055 1981 0.068 0.059 1982 0.050 0.034 1983 0.117 0.108 1984 0.033 0.031 1985 0.069 0.056 1986 0.059 0.037 1987 0.125 0.128 1988 0.093 0.037 1989 0.072 0.044 1990 0.087 0.059 1991 0.069 0.038 1992 0.105 0.062 1993 0.087 0.055 1994 0.151 0.100 1995 0.038 0.026 1996 0.152 0.222 1997 0.081 0.036 1998 0.075 0.055 1999 0.003 0.021 2000 0.053 0.055 2001 0.045 0.025 2002 0.102 0.045 2003 0.080 0.062 2004 0.087 0.058 2005 0.093 0.041 2006 0.054 0.035 2007 0.056 0.048 2008 0.074 0.054 2009 0.047 0.034 2010 0.039 0.036 2011 0.050 0.034 2012 0.094 0.048 2013 0.054 0.036 2014 0.038 0.030 2015 0.147 0.036 2016 0.022 0.025 2017 0.123 0.061 2018 0.189 0.413 2019 0.227 0.226 2020 0.071 0.035 2021 0.100 0.063 1.a Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-12 2022 0.035 0.028 2023 0.080 0.048 2024 0.166 0.053 2025 0.068 0.055 2026 0.113 0.078 2027 0.054 0.037 2028 0.028 0.026 2029 0.083 0.047 2030 0.163 0.119 2031 0.044 0.030 2032 0.039 0.025 2033 0.039 0.029 2034 0.049 0.029 2035 0.181 0.192 2036 0.090 0.055 2037 0.020 0.025 2038 0.100 0.038 2039 0.008 0.021 2040 0.035 0.033 2041 0.052 0.033 2042 0.196 0.224 2043 0.083 0.065 2044 0.109 0.098 2045 0.068 0.060 2046 0.078 0.082 2047 0.052 0.036 2048 0.077 0.050 2049 0.074 0.037 2050 0.051 0.031 2051 0.083 0.051 2052 0.045 0.032 2053 0.079 0.075 2054 0.095 0.101 2055 0.036 0.025 2056 0.028 0.029 2057 0.047 0.036 2058 0.056 0.047 ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-13 Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.2274 0.4133 2 0.2252 0.3388 3 0.1957 0.2265 4 0.1938 0.2242 5 0.1894 0.2218 6 0.1891 0.1969 7 0.1879 0.1933 8 0.1811 0.1922 9 0.1721 0.1368 10 0.1663 0.1302 11 0.1626 0.1286 12 0.1586 0.1283 13 0.1579 0.1254 14 0.1536 0.1240 15 0.1517 0.1232 16 0.1512 0.1206 17 0.1494 0.1185 18 0.1473 0.1162 19 0.1444 0.1156 20 0.1301 0.1108 21 0.1289 0.1085 22 0.1270 0.1084 23 0.1256 0.1010 24 0.1252 0.1006 25 0.1235 0.0999 26 0.1219 0.0982 27 0.1207 0.0934 28 0.1165 0.0816 29 0.1149 0.0797 30 0.1148 0.0784 31 0.1132 0.0748 32 0.1087 0.0657 33 0.1056 0.0650 34 0.1050 0.0635 35 0.1041 0.0623 36 0.1016 0.0620 37 0.1003 0.0616 38 0.0996 0.0615 39 0.0990 0.0611 40 0.0969 0.0598 41 0.0950 0.0597 42 0.0946 0.0594 43 0.0940 0.0592 44 0.0932 0.0589 45 0.0927 0.0575 46 0.0915 0.0574 47 0.0899 0.0572 48 0.0880 0.0561 49 0.0871 0.0560 50 0.0870 0.0551 51 0.0867 0.0551 52 0.0851 0.0550 53 0.0837 0.0549 54 0.0831 0.0548 55 0.0829 0.0547 56 0.0829 0.0542 57 0.0827 0.0538 58 0.0823 0.0536 1.a Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-14 59 0.0813 0.0530 60 0.0801 0.0527 61 0.0797 0.0524 62 0.0797 0.0519 63 0.0786 0.0517 64 0.0781 0.0515 65 0.0774 0.0512 66 0.0751 0.0508 67 0.0750 0.0503 68 0.0746 0.0498 69 0.0743 0.0494 70 0.0742 0.0486 71 0.0738 0.0482 72 0.0735 0.0478 73 0.0733 0.0477 74 0.0731 0.0472 75 0.0730 0.0472 76 0.0724 0.0468 77 0.0718 0.0453 78 0.0713 0.0438 79 0.0709 0.0420 80 0.0707 0.0410 81 0.0705 0.0391 82 0.0698 0.0384 83 0.0696 0.0382 84 0.0695 0.0377 85 0.0693 0.0376 86 0.0689 0.0374 87 0.0688 0.0373 88 0.0688 0.0373 89 0.0686 0.0370 90 0.0679 0.0370 91 0.0678 0.0369 92 0.0677 0.0369 93 0.0661 0.0368 94 0.0659 0.0367 95 0.0654 0.0364 96 0.0648 0.0362 97 0.0645 0.0361 98 0.0629 0.0357 99 0.0608 0.0356 100 0.0592 0.0356 101 0.0586 0.0355 102 0.0579 0.0352 103 0.0576 0.0351 104 0.0571 0.0350 105 0.0563 0.0348 106 0.0561 0.0345 107 0.0560 0.0344 108 0.0553 0.0343 109 0.0552 0.0343 110 0.0544 0.0341 111 0.0543 0.0340 112 0.0538 0.0338 113 0.0531 0.0337 114 0.0518 0.0335 115 0.0515 0.0335 116 0.0514 0.0333 117 0.0500 0.0333 118 0.0500 0.0330 119 0.0494 0.0330 120 0.0491 0.0330 1.a Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-15 121 0.0482 0.0325 122 0.0475 0.0324 123 0.0467 0.0323 124 0.0455 0.0320 125 0.0454 0.0319 126 0.0454 0.0317 127 0.0446 0.0314 128 0.0442 0.0309 129 0.0424 0.0309 130 0.0393 0.0306 131 0.0392 0.0306 132 0.0388 0.0301 133 0.0379 0.0301 134 0.0378 0.0300 135 0.0376 0.0298 136 0.0374 0.0295 137 0.0373 0.0295 138 0.0371 0.0295 139 0.0370 0.0291 140 0.0368 0.0290 141 0.0366 0.0289 142 0.0363 0.0277 143 0.0351 0.0274 144 0.0350 0.0271 145 0.0339 0.0257 146 0.0334 0.0256 147 0.0322 0.0256 148 0.0300 0.0255 149 0.0282 0.0254 150 0.0281 0.0253 151 0.0268 0.0251 152 0.0253 0.0250 153 0.0223 0.0248 154 0.0202 0.0247 155 0.0085 0.0231 156 0.0084 0.0209 157 0.0032 0.0209 ___________________________________________________________________ 1.a Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-16 Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0379 39719 28516 71 Pass 0.0392 36674 27613 75 Pass 0.0406 33972 26798 78 Pass 0.0419 31428 26011 82 Pass 0.0432 29133 25290 86 Pass 0.0446 27079 24162 89 Pass 0.0459 25169 22813 90 Pass 0.0473 23446 21365 91 Pass 0.0486 21844 19934 91 Pass 0.0499 20413 18657 91 Pass 0.0513 19075 17308 90 Pass 0.0526 17880 16053 89 Pass 0.0540 16752 14660 87 Pass 0.0553 15717 13366 85 Pass 0.0566 14704 12166 82 Pass 0.0580 13785 10983 79 Pass 0.0593 12937 9898 76 Pass 0.0607 12144 9050 74 Pass 0.0620 11412 8219 72 Pass 0.0633 10685 7531 70 Pass 0.0647 9992 6837 68 Pass 0.0660 9342 6061 64 Pass 1.a Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-17 0.0674 8758 5270 60 Pass 0.0687 8236 4603 55 Pass 0.0700 7779 4526 58 Pass 0.0714 7360 4453 60 Pass 0.0727 6969 4374 62 Pass 0.0741 6595 4289 65 Pass 0.0754 6248 4207 67 Pass 0.0767 5929 4148 69 Pass 0.0781 5659 4085 72 Pass 0.0794 5368 4020 74 Pass 0.0808 5087 3964 77 Pass 0.0821 4837 3917 80 Pass 0.0834 4625 3867 83 Pass 0.0848 4432 3799 85 Pass 0.0861 4202 3714 88 Pass 0.0875 3994 3635 91 Pass 0.0888 3787 3554 93 Pass 0.0901 3605 3452 95 Pass 0.0915 3439 3360 97 Pass 0.0928 3299 3273 99 Pass 0.0942 3149 3168 100 Pass 0.0955 3008 3079 102 Pass 0.0968 2885 2984 103 Pass 0.0982 2753 2893 105 Pass 0.0995 2633 2811 106 Pass 0.1009 2553 2733 107 Pass 0.1022 2483 2668 107 Pass 0.1035 2393 2603 108 Pass 0.1049 2295 2534 110 Pass 0.1062 2214 2450 110 Pass 0.1076 2147 2377 110 Pass 0.1089 2083 2286 109 Pass 0.1102 2017 2203 109 Pass 0.1116 1948 2123 108 Pass 0.1129 1886 2047 108 Pass 0.1143 1820 1964 107 Pass 0.1156 1745 1862 106 Pass 0.1169 1674 1756 104 Pass 0.1183 1612 1667 103 Pass 0.1196 1534 1564 101 Pass 0.1210 1470 1485 101 Pass 0.1223 1408 1395 99 Pass 0.1236 1352 1317 97 Pass 0.1250 1291 1240 96 Pass 0.1263 1230 1179 95 Pass 0.1277 1178 1124 95 Pass 0.1290 1133 1049 92 Pass 0.1303 1082 971 89 Pass 0.1317 1044 924 88 Pass 0.1330 1000 869 86 Pass 0.1344 953 826 86 Pass 0.1357 919 794 86 Pass 0.1370 889 756 85 Pass 0.1384 855 727 85 Pass 0.1397 816 696 85 Pass 0.1411 775 665 85 Pass 0.1424 728 627 86 Pass 0.1437 699 573 81 Pass 0.1451 672 524 77 Pass 0.1464 646 465 71 Pass 0.1478 621 422 67 Pass 0.1491 596 382 64 Pass 1.a Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-18 0.1504 562 338 60 Pass 0.1518 526 275 52 Pass 0.1531 472 182 38 Pass 0.1545 438 148 33 Pass 0.1558 405 139 34 Pass 0.1571 379 138 36 Pass 0.1585 357 135 37 Pass 0.1598 334 133 39 Pass 0.1612 315 130 41 Pass 0.1625 299 127 42 Pass 0.1638 280 126 45 Pass 0.1652 259 124 47 Pass 0.1665 243 118 48 Pass 0.1679 229 114 49 Pass 0.1692 208 113 54 Pass 0.1705 196 112 57 Pass ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.1262 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.1137 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1177 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0617 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0639 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2024; All Rights Reserved. 1.a Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-19 Offsite Analysis. The site is located within the City of Edmonds Talbot Park B watershed basin. The Talbot Park B basin is a centralized urban basin that collects stormwater runoff from primarily residential areas in the City Edmonds and ultimately discharges westerly to Puget Sound (see attached watershed map). The site contains two distinct drainage sub-basins, a northerly and a southerly basin. The northern site drainage basin is approximately 71,771 sf (1.6 ac) and contains all the houses and hard surfaces. Additional upstream area from easterly properties as well as from Hutt Park flow to the north site basin. Approximately 74,000 sf (1.699 ac) of upstream area flows on to the site’s northern basin. Runoff from the northern basin discharges to the north into the stormwater pipe system along High St. The High St stormwater system travels in a north/westerly direction following High St until merging into the stormwater pipe system of Olympic View Dr. The system travels south along the east side of Olympic View Dr approximately 0.5 miles to Wharf St (sub-basin merge point) and then is directed west and discharges into the Puget Sound about 0.66 miles from site (via the northerly route). Stormwater runoff from the southern site basin enters Talbot Creek B (a category F stream) that flows westerly along the south boundary of the site. The stream flows west before entering a pipe system that conveys flow to the westerly side of Olympic View Dr. The pipe system flows south along the westerly side of Olympic View Dr to Wharf St about 1,200 ft (0.23 miles) from the site. At Wharf St the south and north sub-basin merge together and flows west along Wharf St. The Wharf St system eventually discharges to Puget Sound 0.37 miles for the site via the south (shortest) sub-basin route. No apparent flooding or system inadequacies within downstream of the site were discovered during site visits or research of the downstream system. See attached watershed and downstream drainage facility map for the local downstream path. 1.a Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-20 Downstream Drainage Facility Map (City of Edmonds GIS) 1.a Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page C-1 Watershed Basin Map 1.a Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page D-1 D. SOILS REPORT: 1. Geotechnical Engineering Study Prepared by: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Date: March 21, 2024 Pages: 74 (not attached, under separate cover) 1.a Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page E-1 E. CONSTRUCTION SWPPP REQUIREMENTS: The project will require grading to construct the proposed building and utilities (including the stormwater control facilities). Standard erosion control measures are proposed to be used during construction. The primary erosion and sediment control BMP during construction will be proper soil stabilization methods. Exposed soils shall be stabilized by application of effective BMPs that protect the soil from the erosive forces of raindrops, flowing water, and wind. Applicable practices include, but not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics, matting, the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control. The contractor shall select a soil stabilization method best suited for the particular situation. Stockpiles must be stabilized and protected with sediment trapping measures. In addition, site containment of exposed soils shall be sustained by using silt fence barriers along the down-slope boundaries of the site’s disturbance areas. See the site development plan for details. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): A WADOE Stormwater Construction Permit (NPDES) will be applied for during the construction design phase of the project and a full SWPPP report using the WADOE template will be prepared. The following is a summary of the site’s erosion control measures that evaluates the typical WADOE 13 elements of a SWPPP. : Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits: Clearing limits have been delineated on the engineering site development plans. Element 2: Establish Construction Access: A construction access has been delineated on the engineering site development plans. Element 3: Control Flow Rates: During construction silt fencing will provide attenuation of site runoff and upon project completion and stabilization (established lawns and landscape of exposed soils). Element 4: Install Sediment Controls: Filter fabric fence has been delineated and detailed on the engineering site development plans. At a minimum, silt fence will be installed along the down gradient perimeter of the disturbed area that will receive sediment-laden runoff. Element 5: Stabilize Soils: Soils will be stabilized per the TESC notes listed on the engineering site development plans. Element 6: Protect Slopes: Exposed slopes shall be stabilized per the TESC notes listed on the engineering site development plans. Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets: Drain inlet protection will be installed on all catch basins that will receive sediment-laden runoff. See the engineering site development plans for locations and detail. Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets: This element is not applicable since there are no temporary channels or outlets proposed. 1.a Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page E-2 Element 9: Control Pollutants: Pollutants shall be managed as described in the TESC notes listed on the engineering site development plans. Element 10: Control De-Watering: Highly turbid or contaminated de-watering water shall be handled separately from stormwater. The water from all de-watering systems for trenches and foundations shall be treated or disposed of prior to discharging from the site. Element 11: Maintain BMP’s: BMPs shall be maintained and removed at the end of the project as follows: i. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be inspected, maintained and repaired in accordance with the Drainage Manual or as approved or required by the City to assure continued performance of their intended function in accordance with BMP specifications. ii. The applicant may remove temporary BMPs when they are no longer needed. iii. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after construction is completed and the City has determined that the site is stabilized. Element 12: Manage the Project: The owner of the site is responsible for managing the installation and maintenance of the site BMPs. Element 13. Protect Low Impact Development BMPs: No LID stormwater BMPs are proposed. Conclusion: The total site disturbance area of the project is greater than one acre, thus a formal Construction Stormwater permit Notice of Intent for NPDES coverage will be made to the Department of Ecology prior to the start of construction. The final site development construction plans shall include specific grading and drainage improvement notes and details. With proper installation, maintenance and inspections of the proposed construction the project should have minimal impact on the surrounding environment. 1.a Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-1 F. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES: These guidelines are intended to provide operation and maintenance instructions for the project’s storm drainage control facilities. The owner is responsible for maintenance of storm drainage facilities within the property (private property owner system); the owner is not responsible for maintenance within the public right-of-way (City system). Private property owners are responsible for properly maintaining the stormwater infrastructure on their property to ensure it operates as designed. The City has developed an inspection program to ensure private property owners are properly maintaining their stormwater systems. This manual is not comprehensive; although it explains the intended operation of the various components of the drainage system, and suggests a routine of inspection and maintenance, it cannot anticipate every problem. Once a historical record of maintenance is established, it may be prudent to alter the routine. It is recommended that maintenance records be kept, and that the records be reviewed periodically. The onsite detention vault system, control structure, storm filter, storm pumps, junction catch basins, and conveyance pipes are to be privately maintained by the project residences (all 7 lots). Maintenance shall include the removal of sediment from the detention vault system, using a vactor truck or equally effective method. Regular inspections of the control structure within the catch basin shall be conducted to detect if non-routine maintenance is required due to sediment or debris blocking or clogging the fixed orifice or standpipe inlet. Regular sediment removal from the catch basins with a vactor truck or equally effective method shall be conducted as determined by regular inspections. Regular inspection and maintenance of the storm filter should occur according to the attached maintenance tables from the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual (Volume V) and the attached maintenance guide from Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions Perk Filter™ system is also attached on the following pages. Semi-annual inspections shall be conducted to ensure proper operations of the drainage system. The inspections should occur prior to the winter rain season (Oct/Nov), leaving sufficient time to correct any detected maintenance problems, and at the end of the season (April/May) to determine the effect of the season’s runoff. Once a historical basis is developed the frequency of inspection may be modified as necessary. Sediment can build up inside control structures and catch basins, blocking or restricting flow to the inlet. To prevent this problem, these structures should be routinely cleaned. Regular inspections of control structures should be conducted to detect the need for non-routine cleanout. 1.a Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-2 1.a Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-3 1.a Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-4 1.a Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-5 1.a Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-6 1.a Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-7 1.a Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-8 1.a Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-9 1.a Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-10 1.a Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-11 1.a Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-12 1.a Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-13 1.a Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-14 1.a Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-15 1.a Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-16 1.a Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-17 1.a Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) RAM Engineering, Inc. High St. 7-Lot Plat RAM No. 23-034 Stormwater Site Plan Report Page F-18 1.a Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SUBDIVISION Guarantee/Certificate Number: Issued By: 500145347c Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 1 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES TBD and TBD herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1.No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2.The Company’s liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company’s liability exceed the liability amount set forth in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Chicago Title Company of Washington 3002 Colby Ave., Suite 200 Everett, WA 98201 Chicago Title Insurance Company By: Countersigned By: Brent Aune Authorized Officer or Agent Michael J. Nolan, President Attest: Marjorie Nemzura, Secretary 1.a Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 2 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 500145347c ISSUING OFFICE: Title Officer: Builder Unit Chicago Title Company of Washington 3002 Colby Ave., Suite 200 Everett, WA 98201 Fax: (866)827-8844 Main Phone: (425)259-8223 Email: evebuilder@ctt.com SCHEDULE A Liability Premium Tax $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Effective Date: April 26, 2024 at 08:00 AM The assurances referred to on the face page are: That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matter relative to the following described property: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Title to said real property is vested in: High St, LLC, a Washington limited liability company subject to the matters shown below under Exceptions, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. END OF SCHEDULE A 1.a Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 3 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c For APN/Parcel ID(s):004346-000-043-04 and 004346-000-042-02 A PORTION OF TRACTS 1 AND 19, BLOCK 3, SEAHURST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 90, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OF TRACTS 9, 42 AND 43, EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 76, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OF VACATED OLYMPIC AVENUE AS VACATED IN VOLUME 38, PAGE 179 OF COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 4, IN SAID BLOCK 1, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE RADIAL CENTER BEARS SOUTH 73°03'59" EAST, 1,395.40 FEET DISTANT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF 94TH AVENUE WEST AND THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°30'01", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 60.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 190.41 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 14°26'00" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 7.43 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE NORTH 89°42'00" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 41.36 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 94TH AVENUE WEST; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 176.89 FEET TO A POINT 10.00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT 19, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 88°35'00" EAST, PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 19, A DISTANCE OF 119.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 85.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°35'00" WEST, 38.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'52" EAST, 87.45 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS; THENCE SOUTH 89°42'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 57.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°33'41" WEST, 582.09 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF 187TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF OLYMPIC AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID OLYMPIC AVENUE, 113.37 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 66 IN SAID EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS EXTENDED; THENCE SOUTH 38°20'30" WEST ALONG SAID EXTENSION, 31.93 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF OLYMPIC AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 31°23'13" WEST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 224.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32°28'24" WEST TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 43 WHICH IS 125.20 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 43; THENCE NORTH 38°20'30" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 86.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°26'00" EAST 59.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83°32'35" EAST 175.96 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 94TH AVENUE WEST AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT C OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8612150123); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 1.a Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 500145347c SCHEDULE B Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 4 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c 1.No search has been made as to property taxes and assessments. Property taxes and assessments will be searched upon request. 2.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, encroachments, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the Plat of Edmonds Sea View Tracts: Recording No:106003 3.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, encroachments, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the Plat of Seahurst: Recording No:258946 4.Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to:Jean Werrbach and William Werrbach, their successors and assigns Purpose:Road Recording Date:February 24, 1951 Recording No.:983249 Affects:Portion of said premises 5.Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to:City of Edmonds Purpose:Sewer line Recording Date:June 12, 1967 Recording No.:1964419 Affects:North 10 feet of East 54 feet of Lot 43, Edmonds Sea View Tracts 6.Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to:City of Edmonds, a Municipal corporation Purpose:Sewer line Recording Date:June 12, 1967 Recording No.:1964418 Affects:North 10 feet of West 50 feet of Lot 42, Edmonds Seaview Tracts 1.a Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 500145347c SCHEDULE B (continued) Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 5 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c 7.Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to:Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County and General Telephone Company of the Northwest Inc. Purpose:Single line of poles Recording Date:October 10, 1975 Recording No.:2408889 Affects:North 10 feet of that portion in Lot 19, Block 1, Seahurst 8.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, encroachments, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the City of Edmonds Short Plat Number S-15-77: Recording No:7706240288 9.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, encroachments, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on Survey: Recording No:7707130191 10.Covenants, conditions, restrictions, recitals, reservations, easements, easement provisions, encroachments, dedications, building setback lines, notes, statements, and other matters, if any, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth on the City of Edmonds Boundary Line Adjustment Number S-18-86: Recording No:8612150123 11.Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, source of income, gender, gender identity, gender expression, medical condition or genetic information, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as set forth in the document Recording Date:October 1, 1991 Recording No.:9110010318 12.Public and/or private easements, if any, in existence, over, under, along and across that portion of the real estate under search lying within vacated Olympic Avenue. 1.a Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 500145347c SCHEDULE B (continued) Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 05.02.24 @ 10:10 AM Page 6 WA-CT-FNRV-02150.624691-SPS-1-24-500145347c 13.A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, Amount:$1,855,000.00 Dated: December 29, 2023 Trustor/Grantor: High St LLC, a Washington limited liability company Trustee:Chicago Title Company of Washington Beneficiary: Goldman Sachs Bank USA Loan No.:LN30015147 Recording Date: December 29, 2023 Recording No: 202312290431 14.The Company's liability for this report is limited to $1,000.00. This report is based on the company's property records, and no liability is assumed for items misindexed or not indexed in the public records, or for matters which would be disclosed by an inquiry of the parties in possession or by an accurate survey or inspection of the premises. This report and the legal description given herein are based upon information supplied by the applicant as to the location and identification of the premises in question, and no liability is assumed for discrepancies resulting therefrom. This report does not represent either a commitment to insure title, an examination of, or opinion as to the sufficiency or effect of the matter shown, or an opinion as to the marketability of title to the subject premises. END OF SCHEDULE B 1.a Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 119 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 120 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 123 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Updated on 3/20/2024 Page 1 of 1 Form #E28 SITE ADDRESS Enter the site address or parcel number if an address has not been assigned. Karl Haack – 425-670-3208 kjhaack@snopud.com # You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service Questionnaire. New Customer Construction Department – 1-888-321-7779 # Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. You will need to provide PSE with the parcel number, contact phone number and mailing address. Mike HaKahan – 425-949-0230 Mike.HaKahan@ziply.com # You will need to provide Ziply with the location of your project, total line requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your development plan may be required. Chad Simpson – 425-319-4937 Chad_Simpson@comcast.com # You will need to provide Comcast with the location of the project, copy of the development and site plan (digital copy if available), the date in which service is required and a list of contact names, phone numbers and mailing addresses. For customers in Olympic View Service Area: 425-774-7769 or chriss@ovwater.com # You will need to provide OVWSD with the survey map of your site and complete a development information form. PERMITTING & DEVELOPMENT ENGINEE RING D I V I S I O N 121 5th Avenue N P: 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov EDMONDS UTILITIES CONSORTIUM EUC Contact Form The Edmonds Utilities Consortium (EUC) is a coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds. This form must be completed and submitted with your permit application. You will be given a confirmation number by each utility once you have informed them of your project. 1.a Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 30 26 41 42 43 44 4528 29 33 32 31 35 36 37 34 38 46 47 48 49 20 19 18 17 14 15 16 12 24 1 22 0 21 8 21 6 21 6 214 212 21 2 21 4 21 6 21 8 22 0 22 2 22 4 22 6 22 8 23 0 23 2 23 4 23 6 23 8 24 0 232 230 228 226 220 210 200 190 180 190 1 8 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 20 0 210 21 2 21 4 21 0 BOUNDARY 1 39 3 4 56 7 8 50 (DEAD) 2 101 9 10 11 23 22 21 25 27 40 13 222 22 0 218 21 0 HI G H S T CITY OF EDMONDSHUTT PARK EDMONDS SEA VIEW TRACTSBLOCK C(VOL 3, PGS 75-76) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) PLAT OF SEAHURSTBLOCK 1(VOL 9, PG 90) 187TH ST SW 5 1 999 2 4 3 7 6 100 7+ 0 0 8+ 0 0 9+ 0 0 5 1 2 4 3 6 7 CLEARING LIMITS/ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP) ( SILT FENCE (TYP) ( EX TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP) ( EX TREES TO REMAIN (TYP) ( TREE PROTECTION FENCING WHERE REQ'D ( EX HOUSE TO REMAIN FF 222.5± 21 6 TREE PROTECTION FENCING WHERE REQ'D ( SILT FENCE (TYP) (TRACT 999 OPEN SPACE/DETENTION GARAGE FF 219.0± (P U B L I C ) RE L I M I N A R Y T R E E R E T E N T I O N P L A N TR-01 1 N 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1" = 40' Se p 1 8 , 2 0 2 4 - 1 0 : 2 6 a m - U s e r M i k e M N: \ 2 3 - 0 3 4 \ D w g \ P r e l i m i n a r y \ T r e e R e t e n t i o n \ 2 3 0 3 4 T R . d w g SHEET: SHT OF JOB NO: WA S H I N G T O N RE V I S I O N BY NO DA T E ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: ENGINEER: 24 x 3 6 RAM ENGINEERING, INC. DE S C R I P T I O N SCALE: AS NOTED Civil Engineering / Land Planning 19109 36TH AVE W, SUITE 100 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 PHONE: (425) 678-6960 WWW.RAMENGINEERINGINC.COM NE 1/4, SEC13, TWP 27N, RGE 3E, W.M. HI G H S T R E E T 18 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T PL N 2 0 2 4 - _ _ _ _ _ _ CI T Y O F E D M O N D S ROB L. LONG, PE MIKE MORRIS 5/10/24 23-034 1 9/18/24 TREE LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED/DROPPED DRIP LINE ( EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING (LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE) ( XXX ( XXX ( XXX ( XXX ( TREE TAG NUMBER TREE INVENTORY TREE CALCULATION *EXISTING TREES IN CRITICAL AREA NOT IDENTIFIED TREE NOTES 1.THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN AS PROVIDED FOR IN ECDC 20.75.048. REDUCED AND CLUSTERED LOTS ARE PROPOSED TO RETAIN AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. 2.EXACT LOCATION & SPECIES TO BE SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE & TREE PLANTING PLAN PROVIDED AT FINAL CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN REVIEW PHASE OF PROJECT PER ECDC 23.10.060(B)(3)(a). G N O L L.TREBOR REENIGNELANOISS E FO R P DERETSIGER N O T G NIHSAWFOETATS 36508 PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES 23 REQUIRED (SEE TREE NOTE 2 BELOW) 6/ 2 8 / 2 4 1 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M 9/ 1 8 / 2 4 2 RE V I S E D P E R C I T Y O F E D M O N D S C O M M E N T S MS M 1.a Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) LAYTON TREE CONSULTING, LLC It’s all about trees…… PO BOX 572, SNOHOMISH, WA 98291-0572 * 425-220-5711 * bob@laytontreeconsulting.com ARBORIST REPORT/TREE PLAN 18500 High Street Edmonds, WA Report Prepared by: Bob Layton Registered Consulting Arborist #670 Certified Arborist #PN-2714A May 10, 2024 1.a Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 2 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Table of Contents Assignment.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Description .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Judging Condition...................................................................................................................................... 4 Judging Retention Suitability .................................................................................................................... 4 Observations ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Discussion/Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 5 Tree Protection Guidelines ........................................................................................................................... 5 Tree Protection Measures ............................................................................................................................ 6 Tree Retention .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Tree Replacement ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Arborist Disclosure Statement ...................................................................................................................... 8 Attachments Photos, pages 9 - 15 Tree Summary Table Tree Locator/Conditions Map Tree Plan Map Overview (Entire Property) Tree Plan Map – Developable Area 1.a Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 3 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Assignment Layton Tree Consulting, LLC was asked to compile an Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan for a property in Edmonds, located at 18500 High Street. The purpose of the report is to satisfy City requirements regarding tree retention and protection associated with the proposed development of the property. My assignment is to prepare a written report on present tree conditions, which is to be submitted to the City with the development application materials. This report covers all of the criteria set forth under the City of Edmonds tree regulations (EMC 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity). The required retention is 30% of significant trees. A significant tree means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. Dates of Field Examination: May 2, 2022 and January 31st, 2024 Description 45 significant trees were identified and assessed on the subject property. These are primarily comprised of native species. Trees are found mostly along the east perimeter of the property and in the northwest corner of the site. A tree summary table is attached which provides detailed information for each assessed tree. Subject trees were identified in the field with a numbered aluminum tag attached to the lower trunk. These tag numbers correspond with the tree numbers on the attached summary table and maps. The property borders City Park property (Hutt Park) to the east. Off-site significant trees close to the east property line were also assessed. There is a small stream and associated steep slopes at the south end of the site. Trees within non-buildable areas were not inventoried or assessed. No overly concerning tree issues were observed within the non-buildable areas. Methodology Each tree in this report was visited. Tree diameters were measured by tape. The tree heights were measured using a Spiegel Relaskop. Each tree was visually examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors: • The crown or canopy of the tree is examined for current vigor/health by examining the foliage for appropriate color and density, the vegetative buds for color and size, and the branches for structural form and annual shoot growth; and the overall presence of limb dieback and/or any disease issues. • The trunk or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insect pests, bleeding or exudation of sap, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects can include but are not limited to excessive or unnatural leans, crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments. 1.a Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 4 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 • The root collar and exposed surface roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insect damage, as well as if they have been injured or wounded, undermined or exposed, or the original grade has been altered. Based on these factors a determination of condition is made. Judging Condition The three condition categories are described as follows: Good – free of significant structural defects, no disease concerns, minor pest issues, no significant root issues, good structure/form with uniform crown or canopy, foliage of normal color and density, average or normal vigor, will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, suitable for its location Fair – minor to moderate structural defects not expected to contribute to a failure in near future, no disease concerns, moderate pest issues, no significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, average or normal vigor, foliage of normal color, moderate foliage density, will be wind firm if left as part of a grouping or grove of trees, cannot be isolated, suitable for its location Poor – major structural defects expected to cause fail in near future, disease or significant pest concerns, decline due to old age, significant root issues, asymmetric or unbalanced crown or canopy, sparse or abnormally small foliage, poor vigor, not suitable for its location Judging Retention Suitability Not all trees necessarily warrant retention. The three retention suitability categories as described in ANSI A300 Part 5 (Standard Practices for the Management of Trees During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction) are as follows: Good – trees are in good health condition and structural stability and have the potential for longevity at the site Fair – trees are in fair health condition and/or have structural defects that can be mitigated with treatment. These trees may require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “good” category. Poor – trees are in poor health condition and have significant defects in structure that cannot be mitigated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for the intended use of the site. Observations The subject trees are found primarily along the eastern property line and on the west of proposed Lots 6 and 7. Species composition is primarily native and includes a mix of bigleaf maple, red alder, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, grand fir and Douglas fir. Oldest or largest trees are estimated at +/- 90 years of age. 1.a Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 5 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Seven of the 45 subject property trees are in poor condition and rated as non-viable. These include four bigleaf maples, two red alder and one bitter cherry. The alder is in decline due to age and past drought stress, evident by dead and dying tree tops. The poor condition maples have broken tops, poor structural form and are covered with English ivy vines. These are not sustainable for the foreseeable future. The southwest perimeter of the site includes a stream and steep to moderate slopes. Trees in this area were not individually assessed. No concerning issues were observed from the top of the slope. Discussion/Recommendations The attached tree plan map indicates the actual driplines of subject trees to be retained near the proposed development area. The Limits of Disturbance (LOD) are also shown. “LOD” means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. The LOD is based on tree species, age, tree condition, side of the tree impacted and overall anticipated impacts to the root system and surroundings. For retained trees west of proposed Lots 6 and 7, setting the Limits of Disturbance at the dripline is appropriate. Ground disturbances up to the driplines on the east side of these trees would not be expected to have any adverse impacts on tree health or stability. The trees selected for retention are well-positioned for successful preservation. In the northwest corner of the site there is a dead hemlock tree (Tree #50). Also in this area, Trees #34 and #40 are non-viable and problematic. All of these trees should be dropped to abate their future hazard potential. Tree #5 located close to the east property line is in incipient decline and problematic. Removal is recommended to abate its future hazard potential to the future house on Lot 4. The removal of trees from the interior of the property is not expected to have any adverse impacts on trees to remain at the site. No impacts are anticipated for trees on the adjacent park property to the east. Tree Protection Guidelines Tree protection fencing shall be positioned around any retained trees or off-site protected trees prior to the start of work or bringing any heavy equipment onto the site. This will help to define clearing limits and protect soils and surface roots. Existing grades within the tree protection fenced area shall not be altered. Position fencing as shown on the attached map. Any excavation within the driplines of retained trees and/or the neighboring trees shall be monitored by the project arborist so necessary precautions can be taken to minimize overall impacts. Any roots damaged during site work outside of the tree protection area shall be pruned clean at sound tissue prior to backfilling or finishing areas. Sound tissue is where the root is undamaged and the bark is completely intact with the root. This will help roots to seal off potential decay and allow them to sprout new growth. Any disturbed areas near protected trees shall be watered weekly during the dry season of June through September. This will help to create a favorable environment for new root growth and reduce the overall stress associated with root loss and disturbance. 1.a Packet Pg. 154 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 6 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Simply finish the landscape within the tree protection areas by cutting/hand-pulling any unwanted vegetation and applying a 2 to 4-inch covering of organic mulch/beauty bark. Existing lawn around the trees could be maintained if desired. Avoid large plantings, irrigation trenches and the construction of hardscapes within the driplines of retained trees. Tree Protection Measures The following guidelines are recommended to ensure that the designated space set aside for the preserved trees are protected and construction impacts are kept to a minimum. Standards have been set forth under EMC 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Please review these standards prior to any development activity. • Tree protection fencing shall be erected prior to moving any heavy equipment on site. Doing this will set clearing limits and avoid compaction of soils within root zones of retained trees. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction. • Excavation limits shall be laid out in paint on the ground to avoid over excavation and unnecessary damage. • Authorized work or excavation within the driplines of protected trees shall be monitored by a qualified tree professional so necessary precautions can be taken to decrease impacts to tree parts. • To establish sub grade for foundations, curbs and pavement sections near the trees, soil shall be removed parallel to the roots (away from tree trunks) and not at 90-degree angles to avoid breaking and tearing roots that lead back to the trunk within the drip-line. Any roots damaged during these excavations shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. • Areas excavated within the driplines of retained trees shall be thoroughly irrigated weekly during dry periods. • Preparations for final landscaping shall be accomplished by hand within the drip-lines of retained trees. Large equipment shall be kept outside of the tree protection zones at all times. Tree Retention Per 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. C. Tree Retention Requirements - 30% of the significant viable trees are required to be retained. There are 38 viable trees within the developable area the property, requiring a minimum retention of 12 trees. The proposal is to retain 25 viable trees which equates to 66% retention of viable significant trees. 1.a Packet Pg. 155 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 7 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Tree Replacement 23.10.080 Tree replacement. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. The project will require 23 new replacement trees for the removal of 13 viable trees. There is ample available planting space on the perimeters of the developable area to sustain the required tree replacement. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: One-and-one-half-inch caliper for deciduous trees; and six feet in height for evergreen trees. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 23.10.080 E. 3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required. There are four trees (Tree #1, #43, #46 and #48) proposed for removal that are greater than 24-inches in diameter. It is my understanding that since the project proposes to retain over 50% of the significant trees on site (25 of the 46 trees, conservatively 54.3% in the developable area); all fees in lieu are waived or do not apply (per ECDC 23.10.060G) and no tree appraisals are required. 1.a Packet Pg. 156 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 8 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Arborist Disclosure Statement Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine and assess trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risks associated with living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that grow, respond to their environment, mature, decline and sometimes fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy and/or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 1.a Packet Pg. 157 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 9 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Photo Documentation Looking south down east perimeter of property Trees #2 and #101 near property corner 1.a Packet Pg. 158 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 10 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Tree #6 on east perimeter of site Trees on east perimeter with major ivy infestations 1.a Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 11 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Trees at back of property on east perimeter Trees in stream corridor on south side of property 1.a Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 12 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Looking west across back of existing house Tree #26 at top of slope 1.a Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 13 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Trees on slope west of existing residence Trees west of proposed Lots 6 and 7 1.a Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 14 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Trees west of proposed Lots 6 and 7 Trees within proposed lot areas (Lots 6 and 7) 1.a Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Arborist Report – 18500 High Street Page 15 Layton Tree Consulting LLC May 10, 2024 Existing access driveway, Trees #47, #48 and #49 on left Existing driveway to house 1.a Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Layton Tree Consulting LLC For:Westerly LLC Site:18500 High ST - Edmonds Tree Summary Table Date: Updated 5/6/2024 # of Tree/Species Species DBH Height Retention Viable Replacement Tag #Common name Scientific name (inches)(feet)Condition Suitability Tree Comments Proposal Trees N S E W 1 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 41 85 20 18 19 19 Fair CBC Yes forked, multiple tops, moderate trunk decay Remove N/A 2 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 9 18 x x x x Poor Poor No broken tops,very poor structural form Leave 3 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 18 60 16 10 12 24 Fair Fair Yes asymmetric crown to west, decent form and vigor Remove 3 4 red alder Alnus rubra 13 60 12 10 0 16 Poor Poor No leans west, dead top,in gradual decline Remove 0 6 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 23,21 90 14 20 12 22 Fair Fair Yes decent form and vigor Remove 3 7 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 30 75 12 14 20 12 Poor Poor No broken top, trunk covered in ivy Leave 8 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 32 80 8 16 0 18 Poor Poor No broken top, trunk covered in ivy Leave 12 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 34 45 x x x x Poor Poor No broken, covered in ivy ,significant trunk decay Leave 13 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 19,9 85 0 22 6 18 Fair Fair Yes asymmetric crown to SW, ivy Save 14 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 12 33 8 10 10 10 Good Good Yes overtopped by maple, good vigor Save 15 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 18 60 10 8 10 12 Fair Fair Yes ivy recently cut at base, lacking vigor Save 16 Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii 15 45 6 10 6 10 Fair Fair Yes diseased, anthracnose Save 17 grand fir Abies grandis 37 105 12 10 10 14 Good Good Yes sound, good vigor Save 18 grand fir Abies grandis 21 85 8 10 6 10 Fair Fair Yes somewhat suppressed Save 19 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 19,14 80 20 16 18 20 Fair Fair Yes on raised mound Save 20 grand fir Abies grandis 36 100 12 10 10 12 Good Good Yes sound, good vigor Save 21 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 6 to 10 55 16 16 16 18 Fair Fair Yes large cluster of 10 young stems, typical Save 22 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 8,6 35 14 10 4 14 Fair Fair Yes small cluster of young stems, typical Save 23 red alder Alnus rubra 7 30 12 6 8 12 Fair Fair Yes young specimen, typical Save 24 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 32 55 12 12 10 14 Good Good Yes forked top, good vigor Save 25 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 7 18 7 7 6 7 Good Good Yes young, no concerns Save 26 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 50 85 18 18 14 16 Fair Fair Yes moderate trunk decay, good vigor Save 27 grand fir Abies grandis 7 40 6 7 5 7 Good Good Yes young, no concerns Save 28 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 14 55 10 16 12 10 Good CBC Yes young, no concerns Remove 2 29 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 15 65 10 12 10 10 Good Good Yes ivy on trunk, mistletoe Save 30 Scoulers willow Salix scouleriana 11 50 8 10 4 12 Fair Fair Yes typical Save 31 red alder Alnus rubra 14 70 10 12 4 18 Fair Fair Yes natural lean west, decent vigor Save 32 red alder Alnus rubra 13 70 14 12 14 4 Fair Fair Yes decent form and vigor Save 33 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 26 80 14 12 12 10 Fair Fair Yes heavy mistletoe infection Save 34 red alder Alnus rubra 11 45 x x x x Poor Poor No top decline, major lean, covered in ivy Drop 35 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 23 75 10 10 12 10 Fair Fair Yes heavy mistletoe infection Save 36 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 12,12,11,10,7 50 20 8 16 10 Fair Fair Yes young cluster, suppressed, asymmetric crown north Save 37 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 9 40 8 8 8 8 Fair Fair Yes suppressed by maple, lacking vigor Save 38 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 18 80 10 10 8 10 Fair Fair Yes mistletoe infection Save 39 Scoulers willow Salix scouleriana 15,14 75 18 6 14 26 Fair Fair Yes mature, asymmetric crown north Save 40 bitter cherry Prunus emarginata 7 55 x x x x Poor Poor No very poor taper,covered in ivy Drop 41 Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii 12 40 6 10 8 8 Fair CBC Yes dead top Remove 2 42 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 17,16 65 18 14 14 14 Fair CBC Yes typical Remove 3 43 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 42 70 18 19 18 17 Good CBC Yes good form, good vigor Remove N/A 44 cherry plum Prunus cerasifera 12 32 12 6 8 8 Fair CBC Yes moderate trunk decay, good vigor Remove 2 45 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 22 37 12 17 14 14 Good CBC Yes good form, good vigor Remove 3 46 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 39 80 14 16 14 18 Fair CBC Yes trunk forked at 16 feet, candelabra top Remove N/A 47 crabapple Malus spp.14 24 10 16 18 6 Good CBC Yes typical Remove 2 Drip-Line (feet) 3/31/2022 1.a Packet Pg. 165 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y Layton Tree Consulting LLC For:Westerly LLC Site:18500 High ST - Edmonds Tree Summary Table Date: Updated 5/6/2024 # of Tree/Species Species DBH Height Retention Viable Replacement Tag #Common name Scientific name (inches)(feet)Condition Suitability Tree Comments Proposal Trees N S E W Drip-Line (feet) 3/31/2022 48 grand fir Abies grandis 29 50 15 14 16 17 Good CBC Yes sound, good vigor Remove N/A 49 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 17,15 90 14 18 20 12 Fair CBC Yes double trunk, codominant stems Remove 3 50 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 20 90 x x x x Dead No Remove 23 101 red alder Alnus rubra 15 60 x x x x Poor Poor No dead top, major lean onto subject property Leave 5 red alder Alnus rubra 14 80 12 10 10 14 Fair Poor No close to property line, problematic, not sustainable 9 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 26 70 12 8 8 10 Fair Fair Yes ivy recently cut at base, lacking vigor Protect 10 red alder Alnus rubra 30 30 x x x x Poor Poor No broken, rotten snag, 90% dead Leave 11 bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum 31 90 14 18 0 24 Fair Fair Yes asymmetric crown to west, decent form and vigor Protect Dripline measurements from face of trunk CBC - Compromised by Construction OFF-SITE TREES Removal Recommended 1.a Packet Pg. 166 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y 1.a Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 5/15/2024 HIGH ST LLC 18500 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2374 Subject: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2024-0068) Site Address: 18500 HIGH ST Dear Applicant/Owner, Please find the enclosed critical area determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted to the City of Edmonds Planning Division. The critical area determination for your property is “CRITICAL AREA PRESENT.” Note that this determination is a site-specific determination and not a project-specific determination. If the critical area determination is “CRITICAL AREA PRESENT,” additional critical areas information or critical areas specific studies may be required for development or alteration of your property depending on the location of the activity. “WAIVER” means no further critical area review is required for development or alteration of your property. If you have any questions regarding this critical area determination, please contact the planner on duty at 425.771.0220. Regards, ROSE HAAS Planning Division Planning & Development Department Enc: Critical Area Determination 1.a Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Critical Area Determination (CRA2024 -0068) Based on a review and inspection of the subject site, staff has determined that o ne or more critical areas are located on or near the site. Critical areas are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are protected in order to maintain their functions and values. Site Description The subject property consists of an approximate 2.31-acre irregular lot which contains a single-family residence to the south (parcel number 00434600004304) and an accessory structure to the north, and another approximate .99-acre vacant lot to the east, just west of Hutt Park (parcel number 00434600004202). Both parcels contain multiple critical areas, including landslide hazard areas, severe erosion hazards, and a stream. According to Snohomish County soils data, the parcels are made up of Site Location 18500 HIGH ST Tax Account Number 00434600004304 Property Owner HIGH ST LLC Applicant CHRIS LYON Critical Area(s) Present ☐ Wetlands (ECDC 23.50): NA ☐ Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70): NA ☐ Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) ☐ Erosion Hazard Areas: Yes ☐ Landslide Hazard Areas: Yes ☐ Seismic Hazard Areas: NA ☐ Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) ☐ Mapped Fish & Wildlife Habitat: ☐ Streams: Yes 1.a Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Page | 2 Alderwood Gravelly sandy loam, 15-25% slopes on the west side of the property; Alderwood-Everett Gravelly sandy loams, 25-70% on the center of the property, and a small portion of Alderwood Urban land complex, 8-15% slopes on the east side of the property. LiDAR data indicates that the western and southern portions of the developed property on the west contains slopes greater than 40%. Slopes greater than 40% are considered Landslide Hazard Areas. LiDAR data also indicates that the southern portion of the developed and vacant properties contain approximate 25% slopes. Slopes greater than 15% with the mapped soil composition are considered Severe Erosion Hazard Areas. According to the City's GIS information, a creek or waterway runs through the south corner of the properties and runs towards Olympic View Drive. During inspection of the subject site, flat terrain was observed in the developed sites and includes most of the northern portion of the property. Steep slopes were also identified on the west and southern portions of the property, sloping downward from east to west. Steep slopes were also identified sloping downward from east to west along the eastern property boundary within Hutt Park. Due to the highly vegetated state of the south and west property boundaries, no stream or waterway was observed. Any land disturbing activity within 50 feet of the landslide hazard areas will require a geotechnical report per requirements of ECDC 23.80, with specific reference to ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. Additionally, an Erosion and Sediment control plan compliant with chapter 18.30 ECDC may be required for development on a site containing an erosion hazard area which would be reviewed as part of a building permit. Streams are considered critical areas pursuant to ECDC Chapter 23.90 and may require development buffer zones of 40ft - 150ft (ECDC 23.90.040(D)). Waterways that are confirmed to contain fish habitat by the Washington Department of Natural Resources are considered fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas within the City of Edmonds (ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1)(b)). A qualified professional will need to assess the area to determine the classifications of the potential stream and its associated fish and aquatic habitats. What does this mean? The critical area regulations are only triggered when an alteration is proposed to a critical area or its buffer. However, once an a lteration in or near critical area is proposed, critical area studies and City review and approval may be required. 1.a Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Page | 3 What is an ‘Alteration’? According to Section 23.40.005 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): “Alteration” means any human-induced action which changes the existing conditions of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading, filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. Unpermitted alteration of a critical area or buffer (including tree trimming or topping, dumping yard waste, or application of pesticides or fertilizers) can lead to enforcement action and fines. Before undertaking any work, please contact the City to verify whether critical area studies and City review is necessary. ROSE HAAS , Planner 5/15/2024 Name, Title Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found at http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions (ECDC 23.40) Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70) Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) Building permits – Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ECDC 19.10) City of Edmonds GIS map tool with approximate location of critical areas: http://maps.edmondswa.gov 1.a Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 2,257 188.1 © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes 18500 High Street Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 126.300 1:1,516 CRA2024-0068 Map 252.6 Creeks Seismic Hazard Areas Earth Subsidence and Landslide Area Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Hazard Wetlands Wetlands Boundary Wetland Boundaries Not Completely Delineated Wetland Known Extents Floodplains A AE VE X Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas QVa Soils 6 Month 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year Buffer Zone Storm Catch Basins Edmonds Private Infiltration Storm Manholes Edmonds Private Infiltration Detention Facilities Culvert <all other values> 1.a Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y Seattle 9706 4th Ave NE, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98115 Tel 206.523.0024 Kirkland 750 6th Street Kirkland, WA 98033 Tel 425.822.5242 Mount Vernon 2210 Riverside Dr, Ste 110 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Tel 360.899.1110 Whidbey 1796 E Main St, Ste 105 Freeland, WA 98249 Tel 360.331.4131 Federal Way 31620 23rd Ave S, Ste 307 Federal Way, WA 98003 Tel 253.237.7770 Spokane 601 Main Ave, Ste 617 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel 509.606.3600 October 27, 2023 Jake Lyon Westerly LLC 320 Dayton St, Suite 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jake@westerlyre.com 18500 High Street, Stream Delineation and Wetland Assessment Report DCG/Watershed Reference Number: 2309.0299.00 / 230919 Summary This report has been prepared to present the findings of a stream delineation and wetland assessment study on two adjoining parcels at 18500 High Street in the City of Edmonds (parcels #00434600004304 & 00434600004202). In addition to the information and findings presented in this report, the following documents are enclosed: • Site Photos • Delineation Sketch One stream (Stream A) was delineated where it crosses the southern portion of the study area. The stream meets Type-F criteria per WAC 222-16-030 but is not listed as an anadromous fish- bearing stream by the City of Edmonds and therefore considered nonanadromous. The City of Edmonds requires a standard 75-foot buffer for Stream A and a 15-foot building setback measured from the edge of the critical area buffer. No wetlands were found on or near the property. Table 1. Summary of Stream A and required buffers per ECDC. Feature Name Type Buffer (ft) Building Setback (ft) Stream A Type F (nonanadromous) 75 feet 15 feet 1.a Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 2 Study Area The study area is defined as the two adjoining parcels at 18500 High Street located in the City of Edmonds (parcels #00434600004304 & 00434600004202). Adjacent public or private property within 200 feet was screened from the edge of parcel or nearest publicly accessible land; no private property was accessed without permission. Figure 1. Study area vicinity map, study area outlined in yellow (source: Snohomish PDS, 2021). Methods Field investigations for the delineation study were conducted on October 20, 2023, by ecologist Sage Yuasa. The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 3 Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). The presence or absence of wetlands was determined based on an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. These parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to determine the approximate wetland edge. Characterization of weather conditions for precipitation in the Wetland Determination Data Forms were determined using the WETS table methodology (USDA, NRCS 2015). The “Everett” station from 1991-2020 was used as a source for precipitation data (http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/). The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present in the study area region. The study area was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220-660-030, and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and guidance documents including Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson 2016) and A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States (Mersel and Lichvar 2014). Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this delineation study. Resources and review findings are presented in Table 2 of the “Environmental Setting” section of this letter. Environmental Setting The study area is in the Puget Sound drainage sub-basin of the Cedar-Sammamish River watershed (WRIA 8); Section 13 of Township 27 North, Range 03 East of the Public Land Survey System. The surrounding land use intensity is dominated by high-intensity residential. The study area is developed with a single family residence, shed, chicken coop, paved driveway, and maintained lawn (Photos 1 and 2). The study area abuts Hutt Park to the east, a small natural area with public use trails (Photo 3). A small ravine is located in the southern portion of the study area with an identified stream (see Stream Section). The ravine and Hutt park are dominated by a forested canopy of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, big-leaf maple, and red alder (Photo 4). The understory is comprised of Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry, red elderberry, beaked hazelnut, western swordfern, trailing blackberry, and English ivy (Photo 5). Areas along the eastern tree line marginally meet wetland vegetation 1.a Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 4 criteria but do not display other wetland indicators. All other areas lack hydrophytic vegetation. No areas of the property show signs of wetland hydrology or hydric soils. Documented soils are a sandy gravelly loam consisting of a 10YR 2/2 upper layer and a 10YR 3/2 lower layer, and both lack hydric soil indicators (see DPs 1 - 5). Public-domain information reviewed for the site is summarized below (Table 2). Table 2. Summary of online mapping and inventory resources. Resource Summary USDA NRCS: Web Soil Survey Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes mapped in western portion of the study area. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes mapped in the eastern portion of the study area. USFWS: NWI Wetland Mapper No wetlands or streams mapped within the vicinity of the study area. WDFW: PHS on the Web No priority habitats within the vicinity of the study area. WDFW & NWIFC: Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution No streams mapped within the study area. WA-DNR: Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool No streams mapped within the study area. Snohomish County PDS Soil erosion hazard map in western portion of study area with Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes mapped. Untyped stream mapped in the southern portion of the study area. Steep slopes are mapped within the study area. City of Edmonds GIS No wetlands or streams mapped within the study area. Landslide and erosion hazard mapped within study area. 25% Slope for trees mapped within study area. Storm ditch mapped in southern portion of the study area. Storm ditch flows into “storm line” with an outlet at Puget Sound off of Wharf Street. WETS Climatic Condition Normal. 1.a Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 5 Findings Streams Stream A is located within the Shell Creek – Frontal Puget Sound basin (HUC 171100191200). Stream A originates off-site where it emerges from a network of pipes at the corner of 94th Avenue West and 187th Street South. Stream A is approximately four feet wide and flows at a gradient of approximately 13 percent per City of Edmonds GIS mapping. The channel is incised by approximately 8 feet as it enters the study area. Midway through the property the stream gradient flattens to an area comprised of silt, sand, and gravel with little or no incision (Photo 6. The channel is incised again by about six feet where it exits the study area to the west (Photo 7). Riparian vegetation is dominated by red alder, big-leaf maple, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, piggyback, and western swordfern. No wetlands were identified along the streambank (see DPs 2 and 3). The City of Edmonds GIS stormwater maps depict the stream as being piped on the neighboring off-site property (parcel #00434600004301) and continues southwest toward Wharf Street where stream and stormwater is discharged into the Puget Sound along the railroad (Photo 8). Local Regulations Streams Streams in the City of Edmonds are regulated by ECDC Chapter 23.90 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The City of Edmonds defines a stream as “those areas where surface water produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year- round” per ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1). Streams are classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system (WAC 222-16-030). Based on observed stream width and gradient, Stream A satisfied the criteria for a fish-bearing stream (Type-F), a stream which contains fish habitat. However, Edmonds further classifies streams based on anadromous fish bearing conditions. Per ECDC, Anadromous fish-bearing streams are streams “existing in whole or in part within the city of Edmonds in which anadromous fish are known to occur. As of 2004, Edmonds fish-bearing streams are known to include Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Perrinville Creek, and Lunds Creek…” Stream A is not one of these six streams. Stream A is an unnamed stream within the City of Edmonds with no connection to a listed anadromous stream. Therefore, the stream is classified as a Type-F nonanadromous stream per 1.a Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 6 ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1). Type-F nonanadromous streams require a standard buffer of 75 feet measured from the ordinary high water mark per ECDC 23.90.040(D)(1)(d). Building Setbacks Except for geologically hazardous areas where setbacks are determined by a geotechnical report, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers per ECDC 23.40.280. The following may be allowed in the building setback areas: a. Landscaping; b. Uncovered decks c. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area; and d. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios; provided, that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations as adopted in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths Per ECDC 23.90.040(D)(2) standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width (56.25 feet for Stream A) concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream Buffer Width Averaging Per ECDC 23.90.040(D)(3) the director may allow modification of a standard stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those potions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within 1.a Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 7 the standard buffer. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent of the standard width (56.25 feet for Stream A). State and Federal Regulations Federal Agencies Many streams are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any proposed filling or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including streams, would require notification and permits from the Corps. Unavoidable impacts to streams are typically required to be compensated through implementation of an approved mitigation plan. If activities requiring a Corps permits are proposed, a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) could be submitted to obtain authorization. Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be demonstrated for activities within jurisdictional wetlands and the 100-year floodplain. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In general, the Corps does not regulate stream buffers, unless direct impacts are proposed or there is another federal nexus (federal permit, federal funding, etc.). When direct impacts are proposed, mitigation and suitable buffers may be required. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Chapter 77.55 of the RCW (the Hydraulic Code) gives WDFW the authority to review, condition, and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters.” This provision includes any in-water work, the crossing or bridging of any state waters and can sometimes include stormwater discharge to state waters. If a project meets regulatory requirements, WDFW will issue a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Through issuance of an HPA, WDFW can also restrict activities to a particular timeframe. Work is typically restricted to late summer and early fall. However, WDFW has in the past allowed crossings that don’t involve in-stream work to occur at any time during the year. 1.a Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 8 Disclaimer The information contained in this letter is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria referenced above. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state, and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Sage Yuasa Ecologist / ISA Certified Arborist Enclosures 1.a Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 9 References Anderson, P.S. et al. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication #16-06-029). Olympia, WA: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2018. July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges. Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version. (Publication #16-06-001). Accessed 8/16/18: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Mersel, M.K. and Lichvar, R.W. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ed. J. S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. National Engineering Handbook, Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19 Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. ed. R. A. Weber. 210-VI-NEH, Amend. 75. Washington, DC. 1.a Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 10 Site Photos Photo 1. Single family residence, paved driveway, and maintained lawn. Photo 2. Shed and maintained lawn in northern study area. 1.a Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 11 Site Photos Photo 3. Public trails in Hutt Park east of the subject property screened for wetlands and streams. Photo 4. Forested canopy in southern portion of study area. 1.a Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 12 Site Photos Photo 5. Understory vegetation within study area and along Stream A. Photo 6. Channel and streambed of Stream A. 1.a Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Jack Lyon; Westerly LLC October 27, 2023 Page 13 Site Photos Photo 7. Incised channel identified west of study area. Photo 8. Stream A and stormwater piped off-site with outlet to Puget Sound (see yellow path). The study area is outlined in purple. 1.a Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Page 1 of 1 Wetland and Stream Delineation Sketch – 18500 High Street Site Address: 18500 High Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds Parcel Number: 00434600004304 & 00434600004106 Prepared for: Jake Lyon; Westerly LLC Site Visit Date: October 20, 2023 DCG/W Ref. No.: 2309.0299.00 Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Stream boundaries are marked with blue- and black-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. The off-site culvert and pipe west of the subject property was not visible from the study area. The culvert and associated “drain line” is as mapped by City of Edmonds GIS. All observations were made from within the study area; adjoining private properties were not entered. LEGEND Delineated Stream OHWM Non-Delineated Stream OHWM Study Area Data Point (DP) Direction of Flow Culvert DP-3 DP-2 DP-1 DP-4 DP-5 Stream A Flags WMA-1L to WMA-18L and WMA-1R to WMA-18R Not visible from study area. Mapped by City of Edmonds GIS stormwater layers as piped in this approximate area. 1.a Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 1 Project/Site: 18500 High Street City/County: City of Edmonds Sampling date: 10/20/2023 Applicant/Owner: Jake Lyon State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): S. Yuasa Section, Township, Range: S13, T27N, R03E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 25% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Concave slope located southeast of single family residence. Mountain beaver activity noted. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Alnus rubra 40 Y FAC 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus bifrons 35 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 35 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Urtica dioica 40 Y FAC 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 50 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy gravelly loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1.a Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 2 Project/Site: 18500 High Street City/County: City of Edmonds Sampling date: 10/20/2023 Applicant/Owner: Jake Lyon State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): S. Yuasa Section, Township, Range: S13, T27N, R03E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 20% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Downhill of concave slope located south of single family residence and along right bank of Stream A. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. Acer macrophyllum 25 Y FACU 2. Alnus rubra 35 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 8 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 38% (A/B) 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus leucodermis 15 Y FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rubus bifrons 40 Y FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. Sambucas racemose 20 Y FACU FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 75 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Convolvulus sp. 20 Y FACU 3. Rubus ursinus 10 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☐ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 45 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 55 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy gravelly loam - 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Sandy gravelly loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1.a Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 3 Project/Site: 18500 High Street City/County: City of Edmonds Sampling date: 10/20/2023 Applicant/Owner: Jake Lyon State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3 Investigator(s): S. Yuasa Section, Township, Range: S13, T27N, R03E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Along left bank of stream Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 10% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Along left bank of Stream A at the bottom of ravine. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. Alnus rubra 60 Y FAC 2. Acer macrophyllum 40 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B) 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus spectabilis 45 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 45 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Hedera helix 50 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Tolmeia menziesii 15 N FAC 3. Geranium robertinum 30 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☐ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 5 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Sandy gravelly loam - 4-16 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - Sandy gravelly loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1.a Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 4 Project/Site: 18500 High Street City/County: City of Edmonds Sampling date: 10/20/2023 Applicant/Owner: Jake Lyon State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4 Investigator(s): S. Yuasa Section, Township, Range: S13, T27N, R03E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Located at the toe of slope where yard transitions to forested slope of Hutt Park. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus bifrons 10 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 10 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Poa sp. 60 Y FAC* Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: *Presumed FAC. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Sandy loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1.a Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 5 Project/Site: 18500 High Street City/County: City of Edmonds Sampling date: 10/20/2023 Applicant/Owner: Jake Lyon State: WA Sampling Point: DP-5 Investigator(s): S. Yuasa Section, Township, Range: S13, T27N, R03E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Toe of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): xx Slope (%): 5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Located at the toe of slope where yard transitions to forested slope of Hutt Park. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ranunculus repens 80 Y FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Poa sp. 20 Y FAC* 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: *Presumed FAC. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 1.a Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-5 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - Sandy loam - 9-16 10YR 4/3 100 - - - - Sandy loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 1.a Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering Construction Observation/Testing Environmental Services 15365 NE 90th Street,Suite 100 •Redmond,WA 98052 •(425)449-4704 3130 Varney Lane,Suite 105 •Pasco,WA 99301 •(509)905-0275 esnw.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 18500 HIGH STREET EDMONDS,WASHINGTON ES-9467.01 1.a Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) PREPARED FOR WESTERLY, LLC March 21, 2024 _________________________ Brian C. Snow, L.G. Project Geologist _________________________ Henry T. Wright, P.E. Associate Principal Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 18500 HIGH STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-9467.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 449-4704 3130 Varney Lane, Suite 105 • Pasco, WA 99301 • (509) 905-0275 esnw.com 03/21/2024 1.a Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept 1.a Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org 1.a Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) March 21, 2024 ES-9467.01 Westerly, LLC 320 Dayton Street, Suite 101 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jake Lyon Dear Jake: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), is pleased to present this geotechnical report to support the proposed residential subdivision. Based on the results of this study, the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our field observations indicate the site is underlain by about 15 to 20 feet of loose to medium dense fill and native silty sand deposits, which in turn are underlain by dense to very dense poorly graded sand with gravel deposits extending to the maximum exploration depth of about 56.5 feet below existing grades. Relatively abundant groundwater was encountered at one boring location in the northeastern site portion within the upper 10 feet of existing grades. In general, the relatively loose near surface soils will need to be reworked prior to supporting new structural loads. Provided earthwork is completed in accordance with the recommendations in this report, suitable soil conditions are likely to be encountered at design subgrade elevations across the site. An ESNW representative should be contacted to confirm suitability of structural subgrades at the time of construction and to provide supplementary recommendations, as necessary. On-site steep slopes meet the definition criteria to be classified as geologically hazardous areas. Based on our evaluation, the site is anticipated to remain stable in the proposed configurations when incorporating the recommended 10-foot buffer and additional 15-foot building setback from the top of slope designation. For the proposed site modifications, it will be critical to ensure site retaining wall stability by preparing a suitable structural subgrade prior to wall construction (where applicable), and to capture and convey as much incoming stormwater away from the adjacent slope as is practicable to an approved discharge location. On-site stormwater infiltration is not recommended. 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 449-4704 3130 Varney Lane, Suite 105 • Pasco, WA 99301 • (509) 905-0275 esnw.com Earth Solutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services 1.a Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Executive Summary – Page 2 Earth Solutions NW, LLC This report provides preliminary geotechnical analyses and recommendations for the proposed construction. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions about this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Brian C. Snow, L.G. Project Geologist cc: Westerly, LLC Attention: Chris Lyon Pacific Craftsman, LLC Attention: Randy Brockway RAM Engineering, Inc. Attention: Rob Long, P.E. 1.a Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents ES-9467.01 PAGE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 General .................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2 Surface ..................................................................................... 2 Subsurface .............................................................................. 2 Topsoil and Fill ............................................................. 3 Native Soil ..................................................................... 3 Geologic Setting ........................................................... 3 Groundwater ................................................................. 4 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS – MICC 19.07.160 ............. 5 Erosion Hazard Areas – ECDC 23.80.020(A) ......................... 5 Landslide Hazard Areas – ECDC 23.80.020(B) ..................... 5 Slope Reconnaissance & LiDAR Review ................... 6 Slope Stability Analysis ............................................... 7 Setbacks and Buffers ............................................................. 8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 8 General .................................................................................... 8 Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................. 9 Temporary Erosion Control ......................................... 9 Excavations and Slopes .............................................. 10 In-situ and Imported Soil ............................................. 10 Subgrade Preparation .................................................. 11 Structural Fill ................................................................ 12 Foundations ............................................................................ 12 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................. 13 Seismic Design ....................................................................... 14 Liquefaction .................................................................. 14 Retaining Walls ....................................................................... 15 Drainage................................................................................... 15 Infiltration Feasibility ................................................... 16 Utility Support and Trench Backfill ....................................... 16 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 16 Additional Services ................................................................. 17 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 17 1.a Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents Cont’d ES-9467.01 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Slope/W Computer Output 1.a Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 18500 HIGH STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-9467.01 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed residential subdivision to be located at 18500 High Street in Edmonds, Washington. To complete this study, ESNW performed the following services: Subsurface investigation through a series of exploratory borings to characterize the soil and groundwater conditions within accessible areas of the site. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected at the exploration locations. Review of on-site geologically hazardous areas in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code. Engineering analyses and recommendations for the proposed construction. Preparation of this report. Project Description The subject site is located at 18500 High Street in Edmonds, Washington. Specific grading and development plans were not available at the time of this report; however, we understand site development will include a new subdivision adding six new residential lots and associated improvements. The existing residence will remain, with proposed lot improvements including a new retaining wall and raised grades to create a level backyard area on the west side of the structure. At the time of report submission, specific building load values were not available for review; however, we anticipate the proposed residential structures will be two to three stories in height and will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate perimeter wall loads of about 1 to 2 kips per linear foot, column loading of up to about 20 kips, and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf) will be incorporated into the final design. 1.a Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 2 Earth Solutions NW, LLC ESNW was provided a copy of the referenced geotechnical engineering report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI), hereafter referred to as the “GER,” to review and incorporate into our evaluation of the project site. If the above design assumptions either change or are incorrect, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review final designs to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 18500 High Street, in Edmonds, Washington. The site consists of one tax parcel (Snohomish County Parcel No. 00434600004304) and totals about 2.31 acres of land area. The property is currently occupied by a single-family residence and associated improvements, and undeveloped portions of the site are surfaced primarily with grassy lawn areas and landscaping elements. Based on available topographic data and site reconnaissance, site topography across the bulk of the property is relatively level to gently undulating. However, steep slopes are present immediately to the east and west of the project site. East of the site, relatively steep topography ascends approximately 50 feet in elevation into Hutt Park. West of the site, similar steep topography descends approximately 40 to 70 feet to Olympic View Drive. Subsurface An ESNW representative observed, logged, and sampled two soil borings advanced at accessible locations within the property boundaries on February 29, 2024, using a track-mounted drill rig and operators retained by ESNW. The maximum exploration depth was approximately 56.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs), and both borings were terminated within very dense undisturbed native deposits. RGI previously observed five test pits excavated throughout the property on February 2, 2022. The approximate locations of the explorations are depicted on Plate 2 (Subsurface Exploration Plan). Please refer to the subsurface logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative soil samples collected at the boring locations were analyzed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods and procedures. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix B. 1.a Packet Pg. 208 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 3 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Topsoil and Fill Neither topsoil nor existing fill material were observed or delineated at the boring locations. However, the referenced GER indicates topsoil may be present within the upper 4 to 12 inches of existing grades based on the test pit observations. Furthermore, fill was delineated at test pit locations TP-2 and TP-5 extending between one-and-one-half to four-and-one-half feet bgs, respectively. The fill was characterized as loose silty sand with gravel at both test pit locations. Six inches of relic topsoil was documented beneath the fill at TP-5. Based on the relatively low blow counts (density) observed within the upper five feet at both boring locations and the observations of fill included in the GER, the surficial soils may be fill that was not distinguishable in composition (based on the split spoon samples) from the native soil deposits. Native Soil Native soil observed at the boring locations chiefly consisted of near-surface silty sand with and without gravel (USCS: SM) and poorly graded sand with gravel (USCS: SP) at depth. In general, silty sand soil extended from the surface to depths of about 25 to 45 feet bgs. Underlying the silty sand, poorly graded sand with gravel extended to the termination depth of both exploratory borings. The native soil was characterized in a loose condition within the upper 5 feet of existing grades, becoming medium dense at depths between about 5 to 15 feet bgs, and transitioning into a very dense condition by about 20 feet bgs and below. Trace indications of sedimentary bedding were observed beginning between about 5 and 20 feet bgs at both boring locations, indicating deposition by fluvial and/or lacustrine processes. However, sections of the soil profile were characterized as non-sorted and well-graded (e.g., B- 2 between 10 and 15 feet), consistent with typical glacial till deposits in the Puget Sound region. Laboratory analyses of select soil samples indicates fines content within the upper 34 feet of existing grades ranges between about 13 and 37 percent. The native soil conditions documented in the referenced GER appear to be consistent with the conditions observed and documented by ESNW personnel. Geologic Setting Local geologic mapping of the project vicinity identifies Vashon glacial till (Qvt) as the primary geologic unit underlying the site. Both advance (Qva) and recessional (Qvr) outwash deposits of Vashon age, as well as transitional bed deposits (Qtb), are identified immediately west of the site on the descending hillslope. 1.a Packet Pg. 209 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 4 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Vashon glacial till is described as a non-sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel in variable amounts that was deposited directly beneath the glacier as it advanced over older sediment and bedrock. Advance outwash typically consists of clean pebbly sand but also commonly contains fine-grained sand and some silt, is often well-sorted and stratified, and was deposited by meltwater flowing from the advancing Vashon glacier. Recessional outwash deposits are characterized as mostly clean, well-stratified, and unconsolidated sand with variable silt and gravel content, deposited as bar and channel sediment in and along meltwater streams emanating from the receding Vashon glacier. Transitional bed deposits are characterized as both glacial and non-glacial deposits comprising mostly of massive, thick, or thin beds and laminae of clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand deposited in lakes beyond the ice front and in fluvial systems prior to the advance of glacial ice. The referenced Web Soil Survey (WSS) identifies Alderwood gravelly sandy loam on 15 to 30 percent slopes across the relatively level majority of the project site. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams on 25 to 70 percent slopes are identified on the steep western slope complex. Alderwood series soils formed atop glacial till deposits beneath conifer trees; the mapped Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is characterized in the referenced USDA soil survey with medium surface water runoff and moderate hazard of water erosion. Alderwood-Everett association is on till plains, terraces, and outwash plains and formed beneath conifers and hardwoods; the mapped Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams are characterized with rapid surface water runoff and moderate to high hazard of water erosion. Based on conditions encountered during the fieldwork, we interpret the native soils to be generally representative of medium dense glacial till atop advance outwash sand deposits which extend to the maximum exploration depth of about 56.5 feet bgs. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at one boring location (B-2) within the upper approximately 10 feet of existing grades. While direct observation is obscured by drilling equipment, the volume of water returning to the surface by the spinning auger shaft and within the split-spoon samplers suggest heavy seepage flow rates and/or significant accumulations of groundwater within the upper 10 feet. Groundwater was documented in the referenced GER within explorations advanced along the eastern site margin at test locations TP-3, TP-4, and TP-5. The seepage was identified between about three-and-one-half to four feet bgs, and was characterized in the GER as “seasonal perched groundwater collecting above the very dense glacial till/advance outwash.” In our experience, groundwater seepage is typical of the local geologic deposits and should be expected within site excavations, particularly during the wet season. Groundwater flow rates and elevations may fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter, spring, and early summer months. 1.a Packet Pg. 210 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 5 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS – MICC 19.07.160 ESNW reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.80 – Geologically Hazardous Areas – to evaluate and classify geologically hazardous areas at the subject site. The City of Edmonds designates geologically hazardous areas to include areas susceptible to erosion, landsliding, and seismicity. Based on our review of the ECDC, the subject site contains areas meeting the definition criteria to be classified as both erosion and landslide hazard areas. Erosion Hazard Areas – ECDC 23.80.020(A) As described in the Geologic Setting section of this report, the site is surfaced with Alderwood and Alderwood-Everett series soils. Based on local topography, the identified soil types are present on the slope gradients that exceed 40 percent around the southern and western site margins. As such, in accordance with the ECDC definition criteria, the steep slope areas in the southern and western site portions are classified as erosion hazard areas based on USDA soil mapping and local slope gradients. In our opinion, other definition criteria for erosion hazard areas are not applicable to this site. The subject site is not exposed to lateral erosion caused by coastal and stream processes, is not in an area where slopes exceed 15 percent with interbedded soils and groundwater seepage, and does not contain historic landslide deposits or significant groundwater seepage. In our opinion, typical construction stormwater management methods are anticipated to be adequate for mitigating erosion potential during the earthwork and construction phases of the project. At a minimum, silt fencing should be placed along the appropriate site margins, and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting when not in use. If construction occurs during periods of wet weather, methods to control surface water runoff will be necessary. Construction stormwater should neither be allowed to collect at the top of slope nor flow over steeply sloping areas. Final drainage plans should be designed such that stormwater is collected and diverted away from slopes exceeding 15 percent to an approved discharge location. Erosion control measures should be actively maintained to ensure proper performance. Landslide Hazard Areas – ECDC 23.80.020(B) The landslide hazard areas definition listed in ECDC 23.80.020(B) includes numerous criteria for designation of landslide hazard areas. In our opinion, definition criteria (2) and (4) will apply to the subject site, which has been determined to contain landslide hazard areas. Criterion (2) Criterion (2) states that landslide hazard areas include coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas. 1.a Packet Pg. 211 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 6 Earth Solutions NW, LLC We reviewed the referenced Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas map, which illustrates an “unstable slope” is present within about 150 feet of the northwest portion of the project site. The steep slope area immediately west of the site is mapped as an “intermediate slope,” and the southern and eastern portion of the property is identified as a “stable slope.” The Coastal Atlas resource indicates that steeply sloping topography off the northwest side of the property is a landslide hazard area. Criterion (4) Criterion (4) states that landslide hazard areas include any slope of 40 percent or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of 10 feet over a 25-foot horizontal run. Based on our review, the following areas meet this definition criterion and are classified as landslide hazard areas: Descending topography along the west side of the project site, generally below about 204 feet of elevation. Descending topography along the south side of the project site, generally below about 216 feet of elevation. Ascending topography along the east side of the project site, generally above about 214 feet of elevation. Slope Reconnaissance & LiDAR Review During the February 2024 fieldwork, an ESNW representative performed a slope reconnaissance to look for signs of potential slope movement and instability. In general, the steeply sloping areas surrounding the west, south, and east site margins are heavily vegetated with blackberries and mature trees. The following features, which are potentially indicative of historical landslide activity or increased risk of future landslide activity, were not observed: tree trunk deformation, emergent seepage, tension cracks, reversed slope benches, hummocky terrain, and vegetation patterns. LiDAR data available through Washington’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Information Portal illustrates relatively consistent, planar, steep slope faces surrounding the subject site which do no exhibit obvious signs of erosion and/or mass wasting processes (such as headscarps and hummocky terrain). 1.a Packet Pg. 212 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 7 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slope Stability Analysis We evaluated slope stability across the subject site with primary focus on areas likely to be influenced by the proposed modifications. Global slope stability analyses were completed using the GeoStudio Slope/W modeling program to reflect existing and proposed geometries in both static and seismic scenarios, including future foundation loading where applicable. The analyses focused primarily on deep-seated rotational failures and were completed using a combination of topographic data available on the referenced stream delineation exhibit and through the online City of Edmonds GIS resource. The cross-section line (A-A’) is depicted on Plate 2 (Subsurface Exploration Plan). Slope stability models and related modeling parameters are attached to this report. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, soil stratigraphy beneath the subject site was modeled as three unique soil units. Soil strength parameters were based on observed conditions and relatively conservative estimates using published correlations in the referenced Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM). Soil cohesion values were applied for short- term seismic loading applications, consistent with the guidelines outlined in the referenced GDM. Soil strength parameters utilized in the stability models are outlined in the table below. Soil Unit Density or Consistency Unit Weight (pcf) Cohesion (psf) Internal Friction Angle (deg) Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand Loose 125 0 (static) 0 (seismic) 30 Glacial Till-like Silty Sand Medium dense to dense 125 0 (static) 150 (seismic) 36 Advance Outwash Sand Very dense 130 0 (static) 175 (seismic) 40 Groundwater was modeled in the vicinity of boring B-2, closest to A’, in the eastern portion of the slope cross-section. As noted earlier in this report and in the attached boring logs, relatively significant volumes of groundwater were encountered at B-2, but not at B-1, which is reflected in the slope models. Per the referenced GER, a 10-foot landslide and erosion hazard area buffer and an additional 15-foot building setback was recommended from on-site steep slopes. As such, and based on our understanding of the proposed site layout, we modeled new foundation loading at the 25-foot building setback line and the proposed retaining wall with modified grades at the 10-foot buffer line to create a level backyard area. Our analyses indicate the proposed redevelopment and site modification have little to no influence over global slope stability – the project as planned will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site. Consistent with ECDC requirements, our models suggest that the slope complex will maintain factors of safety against catastrophic failure of at least 1.2 in dynamic loading conditions and 1.5 in static conditions. 1.a Packet Pg. 213 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 8 Earth Solutions NW, LLC In our opinion, the proposed development is considered feasible and acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint, and additional landslide hazard area mitigation measures are not necessary for this project. However, the most pertinent recommendations with respect to global slope stability for this site are regarding retaining wall foundation support and overall site drainage. It will be critical to ensure site retaining wall stability by preparing a suitable structural subgrade prior to wall construction, and to capture and convey as much incoming stormwater away from the adjacent slope as is practicable to an approved discharge location. On-site stormwater infiltration is not recommended. See the Subgrade Preparation, Retaining Walls, Drainage, and Infiltration Feasibility sections below for additional narrative. Setbacks and Buffers Development standards for specific hazard areas (listed in ECDC 23.80.070) rely heavily upon the site-specific evaluation, as prepared by a licensed geotechnical professional. Based on our analyses, the recommendations provided in the referenced GER, including the 10- foot buffer and additional 15-foot building setback, are considered acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint. Stability models of the proposed condition indicate the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, and will not cause an increased risk of landslides on adjacent properties compared to the existing condition. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Our field observations indicate the site is underlain by about 15 to 20 feet of loose to medium dense fill and native silty sand deposits, which in turn are underlain by dense to very dense poorly graded sand with gravel deposits extending to the maximum exploration depth of about 56.5 feet below existing grades. Relatively abundant groundwater was encountered at one boring location in the northeastern site portion within the upper 10 feet of existing grades. In general, the relatively loose near surface soils will need to be reworked prior to supporting new structural loads. Provided earthwork is completed in accordance with the recommendations in this report, suitable soil conditions are likely to be encountered at design subgrade elevations across the site. An ESNW representative should be contacted to confirm suitability of structural subgrades at the time of construction and to provide supplementary recommendations, as necessary. On-site steep slopes meet the definition criteria to be classified as geologically hazardous areas. Based on our evaluation, the site is anticipated to remain stable in the proposed configurations when incorporating the recommended 10-foot buffer and additional 15-foot building setback from the top of slope designation. 1.a Packet Pg. 214 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 9 Earth Solutions NW, LLC For the proposed site modifications, it will be critical to ensure site retaining wall stability by preparing a suitable structural subgrade prior to wall construction (where applicable), and to capture and convey as much incoming stormwater away from the adjacent slope as is practicable to an approved discharge location. On-site stormwater infiltration is not recommended. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation activities should consist of installing temporary erosion control measures and performing site stripping within the designated clearing limits. Subsequent earthwork activities will likely involve grading, subgrade preparation, drainage improvements, and infrastructure and utility installations. Temporary Erosion Control The following temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) BMPs are offered: Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, should be considered to both minimize off-site soil tracking and provide stable surfaces at site entrances. Placing geotextile fabric underneath the quarry spalls will provide greater stability, if needed. Silt fencing should be placed around appropriate portions of the site perimeter. When not in use, soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected to reduce the potential for soil erosion, especially during periods of wet weather. Temporary measures for controlling surface water runoff, such as interceptor trenches, sumps, or interceptor swales, should be installed prior to beginning earthwork activities. Dry soils disturbed during construction should be wetted to minimize dust and airborne soil erosion. Additional TESC BMPs, as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans, should be incorporated into construction activities, as necessary. Temporary erosion control measures must be actively managed and may be modified during construction as site conditions require, as approved by the site erosion control lead to ensure the BMPs are performing as intended. Special care should be provided given the sloping surface grades and identified landslide and erosion hazard areas around the margins of the site. Enhanced erosion control measures may be required to provide an adequate level of protection for adjacent properties during construction. Water must not be allowed to collect atop steeply sloping areas of the site, and should be diverted to an appropriate temporary holding or discharge area. The contractor must be prepared to employ additional TESC BMPs during construction depending on soil conditions encountered and actively manage BMPs to ensure proper performance. 1.a Packet Pg. 215 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 10 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Excavations and Slopes Excavation activities are likely to expose loose native soils and/or fill within the upper 5 feet of existing grades, transitioning to medium dense conditions by about 7.5 feet bgs, and further increasing in density at depth. Very dense native soils are not expected within the upper 15 to 20 feet of existing grades. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within site excavations depending on the time of year, necessitating Type C soils as described below. Based on the soil conditions observed at the subsurface exploration locations, the following maximum allowable temporary slope inclinations may be used. The applicable Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act soil classifications are also provided. Areas exposing groundwater seepage 1.5H:1V (Type C) Loose or previously disturbed soil, fill 1.5H:1V (Type C) Medium dense to dense native soil 1H:1V (Type B) Permanent slopes should be planted with vegetation to both enhance stability and minimize erosion and should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V or flatter. The presence of perched groundwater may cause localized sloughing of temporary slopes; groundwater seepage should be expected within site excavations, particularly if excavations take place during the wet season. An ESNW representative should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. If the recommended temporary slope inclinations cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. In-situ and Imported Soil The in-situ soils observed and anticipated to be disturbed during construction at the subject site have a high sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of exploration. Soils anticipated to be exposed on site will degrade rapidly if exposed to wet weather and construction traffic. Compaction of the soils to the levels necessary for use as structural fill may be difficult or impossible during wet weather conditions. Soils may be encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content, and will likely require aeration or treatment prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are substantially below the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. An ESNW representative should determine the suitability of in-situ soils for use as structural fill at the time of construction. 1.a Packet Pg. 216 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC In our opinion, a contingency should be provided in the budget for the export of fine-grained soil cuttings and import of suitable structural fill material, as needed. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. The imported soil must be workable to the optimum moisture content, as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D1557), at the time of placement and compaction. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter-inch fraction). Subgrade Preparation Following site stripping and foundation subgrade excavation activities, ESNW should observe the exposed subgrades to confirm soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplementary recommendations for subgrade preparation, as necessary. In general, soils exposed at foundation subgrade elevations on native cut surfaces should be compacted in situ to a minimum depth of one foot below the design subgrade elevation. Uniform compaction of structural fill and the foundation and slab subgrade areas will establish a relatively consistent subgrade condition below the foundation and slab elements. Where competent native soils are exposed at foundation subgrades, additional in-situ compaction is unlikely to be necessary. Where existing fill is encountered at new structural subgrades (e.g., for new retaining walls and foundation loads), overexcavation and replacement will likely be necessary. Based on our understanding of current project objectives, a retaining wall will likely be constructed west of the existing residence at the 10-foot landslide hazard area buffer line to create a level backyard area. Nearby subsurface explorations suggest that fill soils will be encountered at subgrade elevations within the retaining wall alignment. Given the proximity of the proposed wall to the adjacent landslide hazard area, foundation subgrades may require additional preparation/remediation prior to wall construction. An ESNW representative should observe structural subgrade surfaces as they are exposed prior to structural loading. Supplementary recommendations for subgrade improvement may be provided at the time of construction and would likely include further mechanical compaction or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill. 1.a Packet Pg. 217 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 12 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, roadway, permanent slope, retaining wall, and utility trench backfill areas. Structural fill placed and compacted during site grading activities should meet the following specifications and guidelines: Structural fill material Granular soil Moisture content At or slightly above optimum Relative compaction (minimum) 95 percent (Modified Proctor) Loose lift thickness (maximum) 12 inches The existing soil may not be suitable for use as structural fill unless the soil is at (or slightly above) the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Soil shall not be placed dry of the optimum moisture content and should be evaluated by ESNW during construction. With respect to underground utility installations and backfill, local jurisdictions may dictate the soil type(s) and compaction requirements. Unsuitable material or debris must be removed from structural areas if encountered. Foundations The proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil, recompacted native soil, recompacted existing fill (where deemed suitable) or new structural fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, medium dense or better native soils suitable for foundation support are at least seven-and-one-half feet below existing grades. However, provided foundation preparation activities are completed in accordance with the recommendations included in this report, soil suitable for support of foundations can be prepared at the design foundation subgrade elevations. Because the shallow native soils were primarily encountered in a loose condition (i.e., N<10), we recommend that soils exposed at foundation subgrade elevations on native cut surfaces are compacted in situ to a minimum depth of one foot below the design subgrade elevation. Where existing fill, loose, organic-rich, or otherwise unsuitable soil conditions are encountered at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill will likely be necessary. A representative of ESNW should confirm suitability of foundation subgrades at the time of construction. 1.a Packet Pg. 218 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 13 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Due to the high moisture sensitivity of the site soils and the observed, shallow, in-situ groundwater condition, foundation subgrade areas should be protected from wet weather and saturation, or areas of remediation should be anticipated; a layer of crushed rock can be considered to protect foundation subgrade areas during wet weather conditions and to promote drainage where existing groundwater is exposed. If structural building pads are disturbed during wet weather, remediation measures such as cement treatment or overexcavation and replacement with rock may be necessary in some areas. Provided the structures will be supported as described above, the following parameters may be used for design of the new foundations: Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf Passive earth pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of friction 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The passive earth pressure and coefficient of friction values include a safety factor of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of new structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted, or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill, prior to slab construction. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free-draining crushed rock or gravel material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (defined as the percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter-inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a material specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. 1.a Packet Pg. 219 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 14 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Seismic Design The 2018 International Building Code (2018 IBC) recognizes the most recent edition of the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual (ASCE 7-16) for seismic design, specifically with respect to earthquake loads. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the parameters and values provided below are recommended for seismic design per the 2018 IBC. Parameter Value Site Class C* Mapped short period spectral response acceleration, SS (g) 1.299 Mapped 1-second period spectral response acceleration, S1 (g) 0.459 Short period site coefficient, Fa 1.2 Long period site coefficient, Fv 1.5 Adjusted short period spectral response acceleration, SMS (g) 1.559 Adjusted 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SM1 (g) 0.689 Design short period spectral response acceleration, SDS (g) 1.039 Design 1-second period spectral response acceleration, SD1 (g) 0.459 * Assumes very dense native soil conditions, encountered to a maximum depth of 56.5 feet bgs during the February 2024 field exploration, remain very dense to at least 100 feet bgs. Based on our experience with the project geologic setting across the Puget Sound region, soil conditions are likely consistent with this assumption. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon that can occur within a soil profile as a result of an intense ground shaking or loading condition. Most commonly, liquefaction is caused by ground shaking during an earthquake. Sand or silt soil profiles that are loose, cohesionless, and present below the groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. During the ground shaking, the soil contracts, and porewater pressure increases. The increased porewater pressure occurs quickly and without sufficient time to dissipate, resulting in water flowing upward to the ground surface and a liquefied soil condition. Soil in a liquefied condition possesses very little shear strength in comparison to the drained condition, which can result in a loss of foundation support for structures. In our opinion, and consistent with the depiction on the referenced liquefaction susceptibility map, site susceptibility to liquefaction may be considered very low to low. The absence of a uniformly established shallow groundwater table and the relative density and composition of the native soil were the primary bases for this opinion. 1.a Packet Pg. 220 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 15 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. Where appropriate, retaining wall foundation subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the Subgrade Preparation and Foundations sections of this report. Loose or otherwise unsuitable soils exposed at retaining wall subgrades shall be remediated prior to wall construction. An ESNW representative should be requested as retaining wall construction activities begin on this site. The following parameters may be used for retaining wall design: Active earth pressure (unrestrained condition) 35 pcf At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf Traffic surcharge* (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) Passive earth pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of friction 0.40 Seismic surcharge 8H psf** * Where applicable. ** Where H equals the retained height (in feet). The above passive earth pressure and coefficient of friction values include a safety factor of 1.5. Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free-draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper 12 inches of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. A perforated drainpipe should be placed along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Drainage Groundwater seepage will likely be encountered within site excavations, particularly during the wet season and within the eastern site portion. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve passive elements such as interceptor trenches, interceptor swales, and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and provide recommendations to reduce the potential for seepage-related instability. 1.a Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 16 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Finish grades must be designed to direct surface water away from the new structures and/or slopes for a distance of at least 10 feet or as setbacks allow. Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to the new structures and/or slopes. In our opinion, drainage should be provided along the building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided on Plate 4. If buildings will incorporate crawl spaces rather than slab-on-grade, in our opinion, a crawl space drain system will provide adequate drainage in lieu of perimeter footing drains. The crawl space drain must provide positive drainage to an appropriate outlet. Infiltration Feasibility Near-surface soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the exploration sites generally exhibited poor infiltration characteristics. Additionally, in consideration of the identified landslide hazard areas, on-site infiltration of stormwater is not recommended from a geotechnical (and global stability) standpoint due to potential impacts to adjacent slope areas. Utility Support and Trench Backfill The soils observed at the subsurface exploration locations are generally suitable for support of utilities. Use of the native soil as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations will depend on the in-situ moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. If native soil is placed below the optimum moisture content, settlement will likely occur once wet weather impacts the trenches. As such, backfill soils should be properly moisture conditioned, as necessary, to ensure acceptability of the soil moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Native soil will be difficult or impossible to use as utility trench backfill during extended wet weather conditions. In this respect, aeration or treatment of the soils may be necessary prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report or to the applicable requirements of the presiding jurisdiction. Where existing fill is exposed at utility trench subgrades, remedial measures may be necessary to provide adequate support for new utility lines. Organic-rich soils and other unsuitable materials should be removed from trench subgrades where encountered. Trench subgrade remediation may include overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and/or installation of geotextile fabric. LIMITATIONS This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Westerly, LLC, and its representatives. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. 1.a Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.01 March 21, 2024 Page 17 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services as needed during design and construction phases of the project. REFERENCES The following documents were reviewed in preparation of this study: GER, Pierce Property, prepared by RGI, Project No. 2021-819-1, dated April 19, 2022 Planning Feasibility Report, Pierce Subdivision, prepared by CG Engineering, Project No. 22314, dated March 20, 2023 Stream Delineation Flag Location, prepared by West Alliance Professional Land Surveyors, dated November 15, 2023 Preliminary Road & Utility Plan, High Street Plat, prepared by RAM Engineering, Inc., Job No. 23-034, dated February 7, 2024 Geologic Map of the Edmonds East, and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541, prepared by Minard, J.P., U.S. Geological Survey, dated 1983 WSS, maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the USDA Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by Debose, A., and Klungland, M.W., USDA Soil Conservation Service, issued July 1983 Washington Geologic Information Portal (online mapping resource), provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Department of Ecology, online Coastal Atlas Map Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Snohomish County, Washington, prepared by Palmer, S.P. et al., dated September 2004 Washington State Department of Transportation GDM – Chapter 5 ECDC 1.a Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drawn MRS Checked BCS Date Mar.2024 Date 03/06/2024 Proj.No.9467.01 Plate 1 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Vicinity Map 18500 High Street Edmonds,Washington Reference: Snohomish County,Washington OpenStreetMap.org NORTH NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. SITE Edmonds 1.a Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Plate Proj.No. Date Checked Drawn Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NWLLC Earth Solutions NW LLC Subsurface Exploration Plan 18500 High Street Edmonds, Washington NORTH LEGEND Approximate Location of ESNW Boring,Proj.No. ES-9467.01,Feb.2024 Approximate Location of RGI Test Pit,Proj.No. 2021-819-1,Feb.2022 Subject Site Proposed Building Existing Building Cross-Section NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and /or proposed site features.The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Sc ale in Feet1"=1 0 0 ' MRS BCS 03/06/2024 9467.01 2 B-1 TP-1 A A’ B-1 B-2 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 HIGH STREET OLYMPIC ViEw DRIVE 187TH STREET S.W. 9 4 T H A V E N U E W. 200 210 220190 180 170160150140 130 200 210 220190170160150140130120 120 180 210 210 210 230 240 250 260 270 270260250 240 230230 1.a Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drawn MRS Checked BCS Date Mar.2024 Date 03/06/2024 Proj.No.9467.01 Plate 3 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC NOTES: Free-draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing No.4 sieve should be 25 to 75 percent. Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free-draining Backfill,per ESNW recommendations. Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch Drain Rock. LEGEND: Free-draining Structural Backfill 1-inch Drain Rock 18"Min. Structural Fill Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING Retaining Wall Drainage Detail 18500 High Street Edmonds,Washington 1.a Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drawn MRS Checked BCS Date Mar.2024 Date 03/06/2024 Proj.No.9467.01 Plate 4 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Slope Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) 18"Min. NOTES: Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. Surface Seal to consist of 12"of less permeable,suitable soil.Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal:native soil or other low-permeability material. 1-inch Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAW ING Footing Drain Detail 18500 High Street Edmonds,Washington 1.a Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Logs ES-9467.01 Subsurface conditions on site were explored on February 19, 2024, by advancing two exploratory borings at accessible locations within the property boundaries using a machine and operators retained by our firm. The approximate locations of the borings are illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The subsurface exploration logs, including those provided in the referenced GER, are provided in this Appendix. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of about 56.5 feet bgs. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. 1.a Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) > 12% Fines < 5% Fines Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or More Silts and Clays Liquid Limit Less Than 50 Fine-Grained Soils - 50% or More Passes No. 200 Sieve Coarse-Grained Soils - More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Sands - 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve Gravels - More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve > 12% Fines < 5% Fines GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Well-graded gravel with or without sand,little to no fines Poorly graded gravel with or without sand,little to no fines Silty gravel with or without sand Clayey gravel with or without sand Well-graded sand with or without gravel,little to no fines Poorly graded sand with or without gravel,little to no fines Silty sand with or without gravel Clayey sand with or without gravel Silt with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly silt Clay of low to medium plasticity;lean clay with or without sand or gravel; sandy or gravelly lean clay Organic clay or silt of low plasticity Elastic silt with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly elastic silt Clay of high plasticity; fat clay with or without sand or gravel;sandy or gravelly fat clay Organic clay or silt of medium to high plasticity Peat,muck,and other highly organic soils EEaarrtthh SSoolluuttiioonnss NNWW LLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services EXPLORATION LOG KEY Fill FILL Made Ground Classifications of soils in this geotechnical report and as shown on the exploration logs are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations,which include density/consistency,moisture condition,grain size,and plasticity estimates,and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification methods of ASTM D2487 and D2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency Coarse-Grained Soils: Fine-Grained Soils: SPT blows/foot SPT blows/foot Test Symbols &Units Fines =Fines Content (%) MC =Moisture Content (%) DD =Dry Density (pcf) Str =Shear Strength (tsf) PID =Photoionization Detector (ppm) OC =Organic Content (%) CEC =Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/100 g) LL =Liquid Limit (%) PL =Plastic Limit (%) PI =Plasticity Index (%) Component Definitions Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number Smaller than No.200 (0.075 mm) Boulders Modifier Definitions Percentage by Weight (Approx.) <5 5 to 14 15 to 29 >30_ Modifier Trace (sand,silt,clay,gravel) Slightly (sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly) Sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly Very (sandy,silty,clayey,gravelly) Moisture Content Dry -Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to the touch Damp -Perceptible moisture,likely below optimum MC Moist -Damp but no visible water,likely at/near optimum MC Wet -Water visible but not free draining, likely above optimum MC Saturated/Water Bearing -Visible free water,typically below groundwater table Symbols Cement grout surface seal Bentonite chips Grout seal Filter pack with blank casing section Screened casing or Hydrotip with filter pack End cap ATD =At time of drilling Static water level (date) _>50 Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard <4 4 to 9 10 to 29 30 to 49 <2 2 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 14 15 to 29 _>30 LLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Cobbles Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt and Clay Larger than 12" 3"to 12" 3"to No.4 (4.75 mm) 3"to 3/4" 3/4"to No.4 (4.75 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm)to No.200 (0.075 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm)to No.10 (2.00 mm) No.10 (2.00 mm)to No.40 (0.425 mm) No.40 (0.425 mm)to No.200 (0.075 mm) 1.a Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 198.0 SS SS SS SS SS 100 100 100 100 100 3-3-3 (6) 3-4-5 (9) 9-9-11 (20) 7-7-12 (19) 9-14-18 (32) MC = 11.7 Fines = 25.6 MC = 14.1 MC = 13.2 MC = 12.8 Fines = 24.7 MC = 7.5 Fines = 13.9 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist [USDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM] -trace iron oxide staining -rig chatter -becomes medium dense [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly loamy SAND] -decreasing gravel content [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly coarse SAND] -begins to resemble advance outwash, slight cm-scale bedding -becomes dense 20.0 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 PAGE 1 OF 3 BORING NUMBER B-1 CHECKED BY HTW NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Lawn grass AT TIME OF DRILLINGAT TIME OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 218 ft LOGGED BY BCS LATITUDE 47.83098 LONGITUDE -122.35953 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - 9 4 6 7 - 1 . G P J - G I N T U S . G D T - 3 / 2 1 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA RE C O V E R Y % BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) TESTS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G 1.a Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 178.0 SS SS SS SS 100 100 89 100 18-32-33 (65) 18-26-35 (61) 16-24-27 (51) 11-24-28 (52) MC = 7.8 MC = 7.9 Fines = 16.3 MC = 12.5 MC = 13.2 MC = 8.7 Fines = 36.9 SM Gray silty SAND, very dense, moist -resembles advance outwash [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly loamy SAND] -minor interbedding [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly sandy LOAM] 40.0 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 PAGE 2 OF 3 BORING NUMBER B-1 CHECKED BY HTW NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Lawn grass AT TIME OF DRILLINGAT TIME OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 218 ft LOGGED BY BCS LATITUDE 47.83098 LONGITUDE -122.35953 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - 9 4 6 7 - 1 . G P J - G I N T U S . G D T - 3 / 2 1 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA RE C O V E R Y % BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) TESTS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G 1.a Packet Pg. 231 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 173.5 173.0 161.5 SS SS SS SS 100 100 100 100 15-23-31 (54) 16-44-39 (83) 29-36-45 (81) 21-31-40 (71) MC = 17.8 MC = 28.7 MC = 5.5 MC = 4.7 MC = 6.7 SM ML SP Gray silty SAND, very dense, moist to wet Gray SILT, very dense, wet Gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, very dense, damp Boring terminated at 56.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 44.5 45.0 56.5 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 40 45 50 55 PAGE 3 OF 3 BORING NUMBER B-1 CHECKED BY HTW NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Lawn grass AT TIME OF DRILLINGAT TIME OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 218 ft LOGGED BY BCS LATITUDE 47.83098 LONGITUDE -122.35953 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - 9 4 6 7 - 1 . G P J - G I N T U S . G D T - 3 / 2 1 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA RE C O V E R Y % BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) TESTS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G 1.a Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 192.0 SS SS SS SS SS 100 100 100 100 100 3-2-2 (4) 3-3-2 (5) 2-6-11 (17) 4-10-16 (26) 14-18-21 (39) MC = 25.9 MC = 20.7 MC = 20.5 MC = 6.9 MC = 10.0 SM Brownish gray silty SAND, loose, wet -trace organics -becomes gray -becomes blue-gray -inch-scale interbeds of silt and sand -becomes medium dense -slight rig chatter, scattered fine gravel -several discrete seepages within upper 10' -heavy iron oxide staining -becomes gray, moist, resembles glacial till -abundant water returning to surface -zones of heavy iron oxide staining 20.0 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-2 CHECKED BY HTW NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Lawn grass/moss AT TIME OF DRILLINGAT TIME OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 212 ft LOGGED BY BCS LATITUDE 47.83138 LONGITUDE -122.35845 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - 9 4 6 7 - 1 . G P J - G I N T U S . G D T - 3 / 2 1 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA RE C O V E R Y % BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) TESTS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G 1.a Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 187.0 180.5 SS SS SS 100 100 100 50/4" 17-30-26 (56) 14-20-31 (51) MC = 10.7 MC = 7.2 MC = 20.4 SM SP Gray silty SAND, very dense, moist -trace laminations/bedding -resembles advance outwash Gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, very dense, damp to moist -becomes wet Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 10.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. LIMITATIONS: Ground elevation (if listed) is approximate; the test location was not surveyed. Coordinates are approximate and based on the WGS84 datum. Do not rely on this test log as a standalone document. Refer to the text of the geotechnical report for a complete understanding of subsurface conditions. 25.0 31.5 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-2 CHECKED BY HTW NOTES SURFACE CONDITIONS Lawn grass/moss AT TIME OF DRILLINGAT TIME OF DRILLING AFTER DRILLING DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geologic Drill Partners DATE STARTED 2/19/24 COMPLETED 2/19/24 GROUND WATER LEVEL: GROUND ELEVATION 212 ft LOGGED BY BCS LATITUDE 47.83138 LONGITUDE -122.35845 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GE N E R A L B H / T P / W E L L - 9 4 6 7 - 1 . G P J - G I N T U S . G D T - 3 / 2 1 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA RE C O V E R Y % BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) TESTS U. S . C . S . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GR A P H I C LO G 1.a Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 236 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 237 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 238 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 239 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 240 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-9467.01 1.a Packet Pg. 241 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 LL B-01 B-01 B-01 B-01 B-01 3/4 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS GRAVEL SAND 37.5 19 9.5 4.75 9.5 %Silt B-01 B-01 B-01 B-01 B-01 2 2003 Cc CuClassification %Clay 16 PID60 D30 coarse SILT OR CLAYfinemedium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 3/8 50 2.5ft. 10.0ft. 15.0ft. 25.0ft. 34.0ft. 2.50ft. 10.00ft. 15.00ft. 25.00ft. 34.00ft. PL 3 D100 140 Specimen Identification 1 fine 6 HYDROMETER 304 25.6 24.7 13.9 16.3 36.9 101/2 COBBLES Specimen Identification 4 coarse 20 401.5 8 14 USDA: Gray Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM with Gravel. USDA: Gray Slightly Gravelly Loamy Sand. USCS: SM. USDA: Gray Slightly Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: SM. USDA: Gray Slightly Gravelly Loamy Sand. USCS: SM. USDA: Gray Slightly Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM. 6 60 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T D10 0.11 0.127 0.236 0.213 0.465 0.404 0.543 0.382 0.294 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 100 PROJECT NUMBER ES-9467.01 PROJECT NAME 18500 High Street GR A I N S I Z E U S D A E S - 9 4 6 7 . 0 1 1 8 5 0 0 H I G H S T R E E T . G P J G I N T U S L A B . G D T 3 / 4 / 2 4 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Office (425) 449-4704 | esnw.com Branch Office: Pasco, WA 1.a Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 243 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 244 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 245 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 246 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 247 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Appendix C Slope/W Computer Output ES-9467.01 1.a Packet Pg. 248 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.2 Distance (ft) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 A A' 18500 High Street ES-9467.01 Existing Geometry Seismic Condition Horizontal Acceleration = 0.333 A-A' Color Name Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Cohesion (psf) Effective Friction Angle (°) 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 125 0 30 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 125 150 36 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) 130 175 40 Ol y p m i c V i e w D r i v e Ap p x . P r o p . L i n e Ap p x . T o p o f S t e e p S l o p e 10 - f t L H A B u f f e r 25 - f t S t r u c t u r e S e t b a c k Existing Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf Existing Garage Surcharge = 150 pcf N- V a l u e s N- V a l u e s B-2 B-1 6 9 201932 65 61 51 52 54 83 81 71 4 51726 39 50/4" 56 51 1.a Packet Pg. 249 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y 1.6 Distance (ft) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 A A' 18500 High Street ES-9467.01 Existing Geometry Static Condition A-A' Color Name Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Cohesion (psf) Effective Friction Angle (°) 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Static) 125 0 30 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Static) 125 0 36 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Static) 130 0 40 Ol y p m i c V i e w D r i v e Ap p x . P r o p . L i n e Ap p x . T o p o f S t e e p S l o p e 10 - f t L H A B u f f e r 25 - f t S t r u c t u r e S e t b a c k Existing Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf Existing Garage Surcharge = 150 pcf N- V a l u e s N- V a l u e s B-2 B-1 6 9 201932 65 61 51 52 54 83 81 71 4 51726 39 50/4" 56 51 1.a Packet Pg. 250 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y 1.2 Distance (ft) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 A A' 18500 High Street ES-9467.01 Proposed Geometry Seismic Condition Horizontal Acceleration = 0.333 A-A' Color Name Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Cohesion (psf) Effective Friction Angle (°) 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 125 0 30 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 125 150 36 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) 130 175 40 Ol y p m i c V i e w D r i v e Proposed Stormwater Vault Proposed Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf Ap p x . P r o p . L i n e Ap p x . T o p o f S t e e p S l o p e 10 - f t L H A B u f f e r 25 - f t S t r u c t u r e S e t b a c k Existing Foundation Load (To Remain) Surcharge = 150 pcf Pr o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l & L e v e l e d B a c k y a r d A r e a Proposed Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf 692019 32 65 61 51 52 54 83 81 71 4 51726 39 50/4" 56 51N- V a l u e s N- V a l u e s B-2 B-1 1.a Packet Pg. 251 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y 1.9 Distance (ft) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 A A' 18500 High Street ES-9467.01 Proposed Geometry Static Condition A-A' Color Name Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Cohesion (psf) Effective Friction Angle (°) 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Static) 125 0 30 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Static) 125 0 36 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Static) 130 0 40 Ol y p m i c V i e w D r i v e Proposed Stormwater Vault Proposed Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf Ap p x . P r o p . L i n e Ap p x . T o p o f S t e e p S l o p e 10 - f t L H A B u f f e r 25 - f t S t r u c t u r e S e t b a c k Existing Foundation Load (To Remain) Surcharge = 150 pcf Pr o p o s e d R e t a i n i n g W a l l & L e v e l e d B a c k y a r d A r e a Proposed Foundation Load Surcharge = 150 pcf 692019 32 65 61 51 52 54 83 81 71 4 51726 39 50/4" 56 51N- V a l u e s N- V a l u e s B-2 B-1 1.a Packet Pg. 252 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y Existing , Seismic Report generated using GeoStudio 2021.3. Copyright © 1991-2021 GEOSLOPE Interna onal Ltd. File Informa on File Version: 11.02 Title: 18500 High St Created By: Brian Snow Last Edited By: Brian Snow Revision Number: 45 Date: 03/14/2024 Time: 01:19:26 PM Tool Version: 11.2.0.22838 File Name: 9467.01 Slope.gsz Directory: G:\# Brian's ESNW Inbox\# WorkFlow\00 - Project Files\00 - Geotechnical\9467.01 - (SLOPE) 18500 High Street\Slope Meehoff\ Last Solved Date: 03/14/2024 Last Solved Time: 01:19:30 PM Project Se ngs Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Se ngs Exis ng, Seismic Kind: SLOPE/W Analysis Type: Morgenstern-Price Se ngs Side Func on Interslice force func on op on: Half-Sine PWP Condi ons from: Piezometric Line Apply Phrea c Correc on: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direc on of movement: Right to Le Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Op on: Entry and Exit Cri cal slip surfaces saved: 1 Op mize Cri cal Slip Surface Loca on: No Tension Crack Op on: (none) Distribu on F of S Calcula on Op on: Constant Advanced Geometry Se ngs Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 10 Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Se ngs Maximum Number of Itera ons: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 Under-Relaxa on Criteria Ini al Rate: 1 Minimum Rate: 0.1 Rate Reduc on Factor: 0.65 Reduc on Frequency (itera ons): 50 Solu on Se ngs Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between star ng and converged F of S: 3 Maximum itera ons to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 1.a Packet Pg. 253 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Materials 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 150 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 175 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Le Type: Range Le -Zone Le Coordinate: (100.34153, 148) Le -Zone Right Coordinate: (176.24149, 167.20087) Le -Zone Increment: 27 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Le Coordinate: (179.20382, 168.94342) Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (388, 218.02632) Right-Zone Increment: 68 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Le Coordinate: (0, 148) Right Coordinate: (634, 212) Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 445 207 Coordinate 2 634 207 Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.333 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal 1.a Packet Pg. 254 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Coordinates X Y 341 220 351 220 389 219 407 218 Surcharge Load 2 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 539 213 567 213 Geometry Name: Exis ng Geometry Se ngs View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 Points X Y Point 1 0 148 Point 2 22 148 Point 3 101 148 Point 4 142 152 Point 5 151 154 Point 6 164 160 Point 7 181 170 Point 8 198 180 Point 9 218 190 Point 10 236 198 Point 11 264 206 Point 12 280 212 Point 13 318 218 Point 14 351 219 Point 15 389 218 Point 16 414 216 Point 17 476 214 Point 18 530 212 Point 19 629 212 Point 20 629 135 Point 21 0 135 Point 22 634 212 Point 23 634 135 Point 24 634 204 Point 25 530 204 Point 26 476 206 Point 27 414 208 Point 28 389 210 Point 29 351 211 Point 30 307 210 Point 31 634 195 Point 32 530 195 Point 33 476 197 Point 34 414 199 Point 35 389 201 1.a Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Point 36 351 202 Point 37 307 201 Point 38 265 199 Point 39 620 212 Point 40 620 204 Point 41 564 212 Point 42 564 204 Point 43 272 209 Regions Material Points Area Region 1 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic)41,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,43,30,29,28,27,26,25,42,40,24,22,19,39 2,734 ² Region 2 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic)6,5,4,3,2,1,21,20,23,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,10,9,8,7 30,718 ² Region 3 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic)42,25,26,27,28,29,30,43,11,10,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,24,40 3,435 ² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 7411 of 9660 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 5,992 Factor of Safety: 1.2 Volume: 936.01146 ³ Weight: 121,565.81 lbf Resis ng Moment: 16,804,017 lbf· Ac va ng Moment: 14,610,667 lbf· Resis ng Force: 90,327.886 lbf Ac va ng Force: 78,487.081 lbf Slip Rank: 1 of 9,660 slip surfaces Exit: (150.06416, 153.79204) Entry: (251.85763, 202.53075) Radius: 167.7666 Center: (132.7321, 320.66094) Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Fric onal Strength Cohesive Strength Suc on Strength Base Material Slice 1 150.53208 153.84196 0 psf -4.7080773 psf -3.9505459 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 2 152.625 154.08595 0 psf 86.838307 psf 72.865991 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 3 155.875 154.50636 0 psf 250.84825 psf 210.48667 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 4 159.125 154.99157 0 psf 412.85902 psf 346.42985 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 5 162.375 155.54218 0 psf 569.14787 psf 477.57177 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 6 165.7 156.17464 0 psf 744.54816 psf 624.75009 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 7 169.1 156.89289 0 psf 931.86718 psf 781.92941 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 8 172.5 157.68523 0 psf 1,094.1662 psf 918.11444 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 9 175.9 158.55274 0 psf 1,225.4632 psf 1,028.2857 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 10 179.3 159.49664 0 psf 1,322.0318 psf 1,109.3164 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 11 182.7 160.51829 0 psf 1,383.0276 psf 1,160.498 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 12 186.1 161.61917 0 psf 1,410.5552 psf 1,183.5964 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 13 189.5 162.80096 0 psf 1,409.1992 psf 1,182.4585 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) 1.a Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Slice 14 192.9 164.06548 0 psf 1,385.1822 psf 1,162.3059 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 15 196.3 165.41475 0 psf 1,345.3832 psf 1,128.9106 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 16 199.66667 166.83607 0 psf 1,284.4609 psf 1,077.7907 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 17 203 168.3301 0 psf 1,209.5699 psf 1,014.9497 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 18 206.33333 169.91264 0 psf 1,137.093 psf 954.13435 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 19 209.66667 171.58651 0 psf 1,069.3693 psf 897.30737 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 20 213 173.35482 0 psf 1,007.5235 psf 845.41264 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 21 216.33333 175.22102 0 psf 951.66955 psf 798.54557 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 22 219.8 177.27203 0 psf 891.97349 psf 748.45462 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 23 223.4 179.52134 0 psf 827.84311 psf 694.64285 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 24 227 181.9005 0 psf 765.87267 psf 642.64348 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 25 230.6 184.41633 0 psf 703.09416 psf 589.96605 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 26 234.2 187.07655 0 psf 636.22828 psf 533.85892 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 27 237.93579 190.00246 0 psf 535.2516 psf 449.12942 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 28 241.80737 193.21791 0 psf 392.88491 psf 329.66959 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 29 245.67894 196.6376 0 psf 226.83026 psf 190.33318 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 30 249.73618 200.46563 0 psf 38.7658 psf 28.165002 psf 150 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 1.a Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Existing , Static Report generated using GeoStudio 2021.3. Copyright © 1991-2021 GEOSLOPE Interna onal Ltd. File Informa on File Version: 11.02 Title: 18500 High St Created By: Brian Snow Last Edited By: Brian Snow Revision Number: 45 Date: 03/14/2024 Time: 01:19:26 PM Tool Version: 11.2.0.22838 File Name: 9467.01 Slope.gsz Directory: G:\# Brian's ESNW Inbox\# WorkFlow\00 - Project Files\00 - Geotechnical\9467.01 - (SLOPE) 18500 High Street\Slope Meehoff\ Last Solved Date: 03/14/2024 Last Solved Time: 01:19:32 PM Project Se ngs Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Se ngs Exis ng, Sta c Kind: SLOPE/W Analysis Type: Morgenstern-Price Se ngs Side Func on Interslice force func on op on: Half-Sine PWP Condi ons from: Piezometric Line Apply Phrea c Correc on: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direc on of movement: Right to Le Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Op on: Entry and Exit Cri cal slip surfaces saved: 1 Op mize Cri cal Slip Surface Loca on: No Tension Crack Op on: (none) Distribu on F of S Calcula on Op on: Constant Advanced Geometry Se ngs Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 10 Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Se ngs Maximum Number of Itera ons: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 Under-Relaxa on Criteria Ini al Rate: 1 Minimum Rate: 0.1 Rate Reduc on Factor: 0.65 Reduc on Frequency (itera ons): 50 Solu on Se ngs Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between star ng and converged F of S: 3 Maximum itera ons to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 1.a Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Materials 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Le Type: Range Le -Zone Le Coordinate: (100.34153, 148) Le -Zone Right Coordinate: (176.24149, 167.20087) Le -Zone Increment: 27 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Le Coordinate: (179.20382, 168.94342) Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (388, 218.02632) Right-Zone Increment: 68 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Le Coordinate: (0, 148) Right Coordinate: (634, 212) Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 445 207 Coordinate 2 634 207 Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal 1.a Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Coordinates X Y 341 220 351 220 389 219 407 218 Surcharge Load 2 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 539 213 567 213 Geometry Name: Exis ng Geometry Se ngs View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 Points X Y Point 1 0 148 Point 2 22 148 Point 3 101 148 Point 4 142 152 Point 5 151 154 Point 6 164 160 Point 7 181 170 Point 8 198 180 Point 9 218 190 Point 10 236 198 Point 11 264 206 Point 12 280 212 Point 13 318 218 Point 14 351 219 Point 15 389 218 Point 16 414 216 Point 17 476 214 Point 18 530 212 Point 19 629 212 Point 20 629 135 Point 21 0 135 Point 22 634 212 Point 23 634 135 Point 24 634 204 Point 25 530 204 Point 26 476 206 Point 27 414 208 Point 28 389 210 Point 29 351 211 Point 30 307 210 Point 31 634 195 Point 32 530 195 Point 33 476 197 Point 34 414 199 Point 35 389 201 1.a Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Point 36 351 202 Point 37 307 201 Point 38 265 199 Point 39 620 212 Point 40 620 204 Point 41 564 212 Point 42 564 204 Point 43 272 209 Regions Material Points Area Region 1 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c)41,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,43,30,29,28,27,26,25,42,40,24,22,19,39 2,734 ² Region 2 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c)6,5,4,3,2,1,21,20,23,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,10,9,8,7 30,718 ² Region 3 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c)42,25,26,27,28,29,30,43,11,10,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,24,40 3,435 ² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 7501 of 9660 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 5,617 Factor of Safety: 1.6 Volume: 527.22685 ³ Weight: 68,539.49 lbf Resis ng Moment: 7,621,536.2 lbf· Ac va ng Moment: 4,619,864.3 lbf· Resis ng Force: 45,695.421 lbf Ac va ng Force: 27,693.776 lbf Slip Rank: 1 of 9,660 slip surfaces Exit: (147.18648, 153.15255) Entry: (233.44715, 196.8654) Radius: 147.19101 Center: (127.47501, 299.01774) Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Fric onal Strength Cohesive Strength Suc on Strength Base Material Slice 1 149.09324 153.4357 0 psf 17.495291 psf 14.680292 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 2 152.3 153.94129 0 psf 82.965931 psf 69.616682 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 3 154.9 154.41029 0 psf 176.97993 psf 148.50379 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 4 157.5 154.92773 0 psf 266.63033 psf 223.72941 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 5 160.1 155.49413 0 psf 350.57894 psf 294.17066 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 6 162.7 156.11007 0 psf 427.52141 psf 358.73306 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 7 165.41667 156.80847 0 psf 521.4898 psf 437.5819 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 8 168.25 157.59489 0 psf 630.08542 psf 528.70444 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 9 171.08333 158.44282 0 psf 726.04874 psf 609.22723 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 10 173.91667 159.35336 0 psf 808.35942 psf 678.29409 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 11 176.75 160.32776 0 psf 876.53225 psf 735.49789 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 12 179.58333 161.36737 0 psf 930.60229 psf 780.86804 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 13 182.41667 162.47369 0 psf 971.06336 psf 814.81891 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) 1.a Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Slice 14 185.25 163.64835 0 psf 998.7743 psf 838.07114 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 15 188.08333 164.89314 0 psf 1,014.8485 psf 851.559 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 16 190.91667 166.21004 0 psf 1,020.5415 psf 856.33603 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 17 193.75 167.60121 0 psf 1,017.1479 psf 853.48841 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 18 196.58333 169.06906 0 psf 1,005.9135 psf 844.06168 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 19 199.42857 170.62304 0 psf 975.40021 psf 818.45796 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 20 202.28571 172.2668 0 psf 927.35773 psf 778.14553 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 21 205.14286 173.99745 0 psf 875.19863 psf 734.37885 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 22 208 175.81868 0 psf 819.26821 psf 687.44765 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 23 210.85714 177.73456 0 psf 759.64177 psf 637.41513 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 24 213.71429 179.74966 0 psf 696.12149 psf 584.11529 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 25 216.57143 181.86911 0 psf 628.23104 psf 527.14844 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 26 219.54471 184.19421 0 psf 544.39853 psf 456.80461 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 27 222.63414 186.74204 0 psf 443.18383 psf 371.87538 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 28 225.72357 189.43622 0 psf 332.71986 psf 279.18511 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 29 228.813 192.28785 0 psf 210.4129 psf 176.55738 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 30 231.90243 195.30996 0 psf 73.029009 psf 61.278615 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) 1.a Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Proposed, Seismic Report generated using GeoStudio 2021.3. Copyright © 1991-2021 GEOSLOPE Interna onal Ltd. File Informa on File Version: 11.02 Title: 18500 High St Created By: Brian Snow Last Edited By: Brian Snow Revision Number: 45 Date: 03/14/2024 Time: 01:19:26 PM Tool Version: 11.2.0.22838 File Name: 9467.01 Slope.gsz Directory: G:\# Brian's ESNW Inbox\# WorkFlow\00 - Project Files\00 - Geotechnical\9467.01 - (SLOPE) 18500 High Street\Slope Meehoff\ Last Solved Date: 03/14/2024 Last Solved Time: 01:19:28 PM Project Se ngs Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Se ngs Proposed, Seismic Kind: SLOPE/W Analysis Type: Morgenstern-Price Se ngs Side Func on Interslice force func on op on: Half-Sine PWP Condi ons from: Piezometric Line Apply Phrea c Correc on: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direc on of movement: Right to Le Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Op on: Entry and Exit Cri cal slip surfaces saved: 1 Op mize Cri cal Slip Surface Loca on: No Tension Crack Op on: (none) Distribu on F of S Calcula on Op on: Constant Advanced Geometry Se ngs Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 10 Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Se ngs Maximum Number of Itera ons: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 Under-Relaxa on Criteria Ini al Rate: 1 Minimum Rate: 0.1 Rate Reduc on Factor: 0.65 Reduc on Frequency (itera ons): 50 Solu on Se ngs Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between star ng and converged F of S: 3 Maximum itera ons to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 1.a Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Materials 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 150 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 175 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Slip Surface Entry and Exit Le Type: Range Le -Zone Le Coordinate: (100.34153, 148) Le -Zone Right Coordinate: (272, 209) Le -Zone Increment: 61 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Le Coordinate: (292, 213.89474) Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (407, 216.56) Right-Zone Increment: 38 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Le Coordinate: (0, 148) Right Coordinate: (634, 212) Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 445 207 Coordinate 2 634 207 Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.333 1.a Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 494 214 530 213 554 213 Surcharge Load 2 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 341 220 351 220 389 219 407 218 Surcharge Load 3 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 308 221 341 221 Geometry Name: Proposed Geometry Se ngs View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 Points X Y Point 1 0 148 Point 2 22 148 Point 3 101 148 Point 4 142 152 Point 5 151 154 Point 6 164 160 Point 7 181 170 Point 8 198 180 Point 9 218 190 Point 10 236 198 Point 11 264 206 Point 12 280 212 Point 13 318 218 Point 14 351 219 Point 15 389 218 Point 16 414 216 Point 17 476 214 Point 18 530 212 Point 19 629 212 1.a Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Point 20 629 135 Point 21 0 135 Point 22 634 212 Point 23 634 135 Point 24 634 204 Point 25 530 204 Point 26 476 206 Point 27 414 208 Point 28 389 210 Point 29 351 211 Point 30 307 210 Point 31 634 195 Point 32 530 195 Point 33 476 197 Point 34 414 199 Point 35 389 201 Point 36 351 202 Point 37 307 201 Point 38 265 199 Point 39 620 212 Point 40 620 202 Point 41 620 204 Point 42 564 202 Point 43 564 212 Point 44 564 204 Point 45 272 209 Point 46 341 218.69697 Point 47 341 220 Point 48 293 220 Point 49 293 214.05263 Regions Material Points Area Region 1 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic)12,45,30,29,28,27,26,25,44,43,18,17,16,15,14,46,47,48,49 2,311.3 ² Region 2 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic)6,5,4,3,2,1,21,20,23,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,10,9,8,7 30,718 ² Region 3 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic)24,22,19,39,41 112 ² Region 4 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic)11,10,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,24,41,40,42,44,25,26,27,28,29,30,45 3,323 ² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 10378 of 12090 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 2,757 Factor of Safety: 1.2 Volume: 2,226.4209 ³ Weight: 287,552.93 lbf Resis ng Moment: 55,583,146 lbf· Ac va ng Moment: 47,711,956 lbf· Resis ng Force: 208,839.07 lbf Ac va ng Force: 179,130.89 lbf Slip Rank: 1 of 12,090 slip surfaces Exit: (142.49277, 152.1095) Entry: (302.13735, 220) Radius: 246.33402 Center: (132.08805, 398.22369) Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Fric onal Strength Cohesive Strength Suc on Strength Base Material Slice 1 144.61958 152.21784 0 psf 50.862334 psf 42.678566 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) 1.a Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Slice 2 148.87319 152.47145 0 psf 164.4997 psf 138.03164 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 3 154.25 152.91032 0 psf 404.54353 psf 339.45233 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 4 160.75 153.5847 0 psf 770.20844 psf 646.28161 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 5 166.83333 154.36917 0 psf 1,144.7493 psf 960.55871 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 6 172.5 155.24411 0 psf 1,515.9742 psf 1,272.0534 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 7 178.16667 156.25491 0 psf 1,844.9204 psf 1,548.072 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 8 183.83333 157.40326 0 psf 2,117.1619 psf 1,776.5098 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 9 189.5 158.69117 0 psf 2,322.9141 psf 1,949.1563 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 10 195.16667 160.12088 0 psf 2,458.9004 psf 2,063.2624 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 11 200.5 161.59427 0 psf 2,502.7324 psf 2,100.0418 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 12 205.5 163.0976 0 psf 2,473.7584 psf 2,075.7298 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 13 210.5 164.71767 0 psf 2,413.0773 psf 2,024.8123 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 14 215.5 166.45692 0 psf 2,330.4791 psf 1,955.5042 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 15 221 168.51786 0 psf 2,209.3381 psf 1,853.8548 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 16 227 170.9318 0 psf 2,061.1372 psf 1,729.4995 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 17 233 173.53187 0 psf 1,919.7001 psf 1,610.8197 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 18 238.8 176.22514 0 psf 1,756.3134 psf 1,473.7219 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 19 244.4 179.00558 0 psf 1,574.2442 psf 1,320.9477 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 20 250 181.96678 0 psf 1,406.0302 psf 1,179.7994 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 21 255.6 185.11627 0 psf 1,247.6176 psf 1,046.8754 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 22 261.2 188.46253 0 psf 1,094.0656 psf 918.03002 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 23 264.5 190.50471 0 psf 1,008.6634 psf 846.36911 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 24 268.5 193.15161 0 psf 919.65312 psf 771.68059 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 25 274.90163 197.54473 0 psf 774.14449 psf 649.58436 psf 175 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Seismic) Slice 26 278.90163 200.42493 0 psf 698.93041 psf 507.80266 psf 150 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slice 27 282.60887 203.25428 0 psf 568.02223 psf 412.69231 psf 150 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slice 28 287.8266 207.39756 0 psf 339.25629 psf 246.48413 psf 150 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slice 29 291.71774 210.61778 0 psf 217.61984 psf 125.64287 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slice 30 295.28434 213.72946 0 psf 483.92113 psf 279.392 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) Slice 31 299.85301 217.87505 0 psf 172.53691 psf 99.61423 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Seismic) 1.a Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Proposed, Static Report generated using GeoStudio 2021.3. Copyright © 1991-2021 GEOSLOPE Interna onal Ltd. File Informa on File Version: 11.02 Title: 18500 High St Created By: Brian Snow Last Edited By: Brian Snow Revision Number: 45 Date: 03/14/2024 Time: 01:19:26 PM Tool Version: 11.2.0.22838 File Name: 9467.01 Slope.gsz Directory: G:\# Brian's ESNW Inbox\# WorkFlow\00 - Project Files\00 - Geotechnical\9467.01 - (SLOPE) 18500 High Street\Slope Meehoff\ Last Solved Date: 03/14/2024 Last Solved Time: 01:19:34 PM Project Se ngs Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Se ngs Proposed, Sta c Kind: SLOPE/W Analysis Type: Morgenstern-Price Se ngs Side Func on Interslice force func on op on: Half-Sine PWP Condi ons from: Piezometric Line Apply Phrea c Correc on: No Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Unit Weight of Water: 62.430189 pcf Slip Surface Direc on of movement: Right to Le Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Op on: Entry and Exit Cri cal slip surfaces saved: 1 Op mize Cri cal Slip Surface Loca on: No Tension Crack Op on: (none) Distribu on F of S Calcula on Op on: Constant Advanced Geometry Se ngs Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 10 Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Se ngs Maximum Number of Itera ons: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.001 Under-Relaxa on Criteria Ini al Rate: 1 Minimum Rate: 0.1 Rate Reduc on Factor: 0.65 Reduc on Frequency (itera ons): 50 Solu on Se ngs Search Method: Root Finder Tolerable difference between star ng and converged F of S: 3 Maximum itera ons to calculate converged lambda: 20 Max Absolute Lambda: 2 1.a Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Materials 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Effec ve Cohesion: 0 psf Effec ve Fric on Angle: 40 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Le Type: Range Le -Zone Le Coordinate: (100.34153, 148) Le -Zone Right Coordinate: (272, 209) Le -Zone Increment: 61 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Le Coordinate: (292, 213.89474) Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (407, 216.56) Right-Zone Increment: 38 Radius Increments: 4 Slip Surface Limits Le Coordinate: (0, 148) Right Coordinate: (634, 212) Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Coordinates X Y Coordinate 1 445 207 Coordinate 2 634 207 Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal 1.a Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Coordinates X Y 494 214 530 213 554 213 Surcharge Load 2 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 341 220 351 220 389 219 407 218 Surcharge Load 3 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 150 pcf Direc on: Ver cal Coordinates X Y 308 221 341 221 Geometry Name: Proposed Geometry Se ngs View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 Points X Y Point 1 0 148 Point 2 22 148 Point 3 101 148 Point 4 142 152 Point 5 151 154 Point 6 164 160 Point 7 181 170 Point 8 198 180 Point 9 218 190 Point 10 236 198 Point 11 264 206 Point 12 280 212 Point 13 318 218 Point 14 351 219 Point 15 389 218 Point 16 414 216 Point 17 476 214 Point 18 530 212 Point 19 629 212 Point 20 629 135 Point 21 0 135 Point 22 634 212 Point 23 634 135 Point 24 634 204 Point 25 530 204 1.a Packet Pg. 270 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Point 26 476 206 Point 27 414 208 Point 28 389 210 Point 29 351 211 Point 30 307 210 Point 31 634 195 Point 32 530 195 Point 33 476 197 Point 34 414 199 Point 35 389 201 Point 36 351 202 Point 37 307 201 Point 38 265 199 Point 39 620 212 Point 40 620 202 Point 41 620 204 Point 42 564 202 Point 43 564 212 Point 44 564 204 Point 45 272 209 Point 46 341 218.69697 Point 47 341 220 Point 48 293 220 Point 49 293 214.05263 Regions Material Points Area Region 1 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c)12,45,30,29,28,27,26,25,44,43,18,17,16,15,14,46,47,48,49 2,311.3 ² Region 2 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c)6,5,4,3,2,1,21,20,23,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,10,9,8,7 30,718 ² Region 3 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c)24,22,19,39,41 112 ² Region 4 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c)11,10,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,24,41,40,42,44,25,26,27,28,29,30,45 3,323 ² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 10308 of 12090 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 3,346 Factor of Safety: 1.9 Volume: 943.66025 ³ Weight: 121,415.24 lbf Resis ng Moment: 1.1523322e+08 lbf· Ac va ng Moment: 60,578,720 lbf· Resis ng Force: 83,452.478 lbf Ac va ng Force: 43,870.008 lbf Slip Rank: 1 of 12,090 slip surfaces Exit: (151.32863, 154.15167) Entry: (305.35678, 220) Radius: 1,270.3429 Center: (-269.93407, 1,352.6127) Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Fric onal Strength Cohesive Strength Suc on Strength Base Material Slice 1 154.49647 155.27461 0 psf 38.343414 psf 32.173945 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 2 160.83216 157.53939 0 psf 113.38022 psf 95.137304 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 3 166.83333 159.71865 0 psf 221.8149 psf 186.1248 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 4 172.5 161.80875 0 psf 363.93632 psf 305.37883 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) 1.a Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Slice 5 178.16667 163.92954 0 psf 502.65239 psf 421.77544 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 6 183.83333 166.08119 0 psf 637.41082 psf 534.85118 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 7 189.5 168.26385 0 psf 767.70123 psf 644.17782 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 8 195.16667 170.47771 0 psf 893.08431 psf 749.38672 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 9 200.5 172.58913 0 psf 981.57006 psf 823.63508 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 10 205.5 174.59476 0 psf 1,033.8465 psf 867.50024 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 11 210.5 176.62507 0 psf 1,082.1081 psf 907.9965 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 12 215.5 178.68019 0 psf 1,126.4182 psf 945.17707 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 13 220.25 180.65506 0 psf 1,151.1538 psf 965.93276 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 14 224.75 182.54741 0 psf 1,156.9997 psf 970.83802 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 15 229.25 184.46016 0 psf 1,160.2118 psf 973.53329 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 16 233.75 186.39341 0 psf 1,160.9506 psf 974.15325 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 17 238.57523 188.49008 0 psf 1,111.7315 psf 932.85351 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 18 243.7257 190.7535 0 psf 1,013.0375 psf 850.03936 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 19 248.87617 193.04422 0 psf 912.54954 psf 765.71999 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 20 254.02663 195.36239 0 psf 810.36602 psf 679.97783 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 21 259.1771 197.70819 0 psf 706.51778 psf 592.83881 psf 0 psf 0 psf 3. Advance Outwash Sand (Sta c) Slice 22 262.87617 199.40725 0 psf 634.20686 psf 460.77826 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 23 266 200.85713 0 psf 594.91752 psf 432.23288 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 24 270 202.72688 0 psf 556.98586 psf 404.67392 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 25 274 204.61361 0 psf 517.79837 psf 376.20254 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 26 278 206.5174 0 psf 477.25767 psf 346.748 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 27 281.9339 208.40633 0 psf 392.54969 psf 285.20404 psf 0 psf 0 psf 2. Glacial Till-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 28 286.15085 210.45063 0 psf 256.26843 psf 147.95665 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 29 290.71695 212.68505 0 psf 98.664562 psf 56.964011 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 30 296.08919 215.34543 0 psf 491.57265 psf 283.8096 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) Slice 31 302.26758 218.44147 0 psf 166.85956 psf 96.336409 psf 0 psf 0 psf 1. Fill, Glaciolacustrine-like Silty Sand (Sta c) 1.a Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 15365 NE 90th Street, Suite 100 • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 449-4704 3130 Varney Lane, Suite 105 • Pasco, WA 99301 • (509) 905-0275 esnw.com Earth Solutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services June 27, 2024 ES-9467.02 Westerly, LLC 320 Dayton Street, Suite 101 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jake Lyon Subject: Response to Comments Proposed Residential Subdivision 18500 High Street Edmonds, Washington Dear Jake: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter responding to the City of Edmonds review comments. The comments pertinent to the geotechnical aspects of the project are provided below, followed by our responses. ESNW prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. Mitigation Sequencing: Describe the reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing as required by ECDC 23.40.120. ESNW Response: The proposed project meets the preferred mitigation option (number 1 in the sequencing) by including a buffer from the landslide hazard area and not proposing any alterations. Landslide Hazard: Provide an estimated chance of the landslide hazard area expansion and address landslide runout risks on downslope properties (ECDC 23.80.050(F)(2)(e) and (f)). ESNW Response: As part of the referenced geotechnical engineering study, ESNW completed quantitative slope stability analysis of the existing and proposed conditions through a representatively critical cross-section of the landslide hazard area. Seismic considerations were included in this analysis, which assumed the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) per ASCE 7-16. The MCER PGAM is representative of a seismic event with an estimated 1 percent in 50-year occurrence risk. The results of the analysis show suitable safety factors for this type of seismic loading in both the existing and proposed conditions. Therefore, the results of our analysis indicate a less than 1 percent in 50-year risk that the landslide hazard area will be expanded as a result of a landslide event. 1.a Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Westerly, LLC ES-9467.02 June 27, 2024 Page 2 Earth Solutions NW, LLC The run-out hazard of landslide debris is highly dependent on the type of landslide event. Based on our analysis, a deep-seated failure (with greater potential run-out hazard) is highly unlikely for the analyzed slope condition. A shallow skin-slide would likely result in landslide debris that is primarily contained within the shallow ravine-type feature downslope of the subject site. Should you require additional information, or have questions, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Henry T. Wright, P.E. Associate Principal Engineer cc: Westerly, LLC Attention: Chris Lyon RAM Engineering, Inc. Attention: Rob Long, P.E. References: Review Comments, provided by City of Edmonds, dated June 7, 2024 Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by ESNW, ES-9467.01, dated March 21, 2024 Preliminary Road & Utility Plan, prepared by RAM Engineering, Inc., dated February 7, 2024 06/27/2024 1.a Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Page 1 of 2 July 30, 2024 Chris Lyon, High St. LLC Via email: chris@westerlyre.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETENESS FOR YOUR PRELIMINARY LONG SUBDIVISION APPLICATION LOCATED AT 18500 HIGH ST. FILE NO. PLN2024-0040 Dear Mr. Lyon: Thank you for submitting additional information on June 28, 2024, regarding your land use application for a preliminary long subdivision located at 18500 High St. Your application (File No. PLN2024-0040) is now considered complete pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.003(E). Please accept this letter as the City’s notice to the applicant that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. The City will mail a Notice of Application pursuant to ECDC 20.03.002 within two weeks and request comments from adjacent properties. The Notice will also be published in The Everett Herald, posted at City Hall and the Public Safety Building, and available on the City’s website. I will also install a small blue project notification sign onsite. Comments will be accepted for fourteen days from the date the Notice is published. Although staff determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and is therefore complete, the City requires the below additional information. Staff will contact you if any additional information is necessary. Provide the requested information within 90 days or request one 90-day extension, otherwise the application will lapse (ECDC 20.02.003(D)). At this time, please address the topics below and in attached letters: Tree Replacements: Removed viable trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of >24” generate fees in lieu of replacements (ECDC 23.10.080(E)(3)). Trees with multiple leaders measure DBH cumulatively (ECDC 23.10.020(R)). Given that the proposal retains more than 50% of viable significant trees, trees #1, 6, 42, 43, 46, 48, and 49 require no replacements and fees in lieu were waived (ECDC 23.10.060(G)). As such, the requirement for 14 replacement plantings stands. Most replacements shall be species native to Edmonds. Refer to the Urban Forest Management Plan for an incomplete list of native species. Staff acknowledges that replacement details are subject to change during phased review. 1.a Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Page 2 of 2 Critical Ares: Trees 34 and 40 are within a critical area (>25% grade) and must be retained unless they are hazardous (ECDC 23.10.050(D)). If they are currently hazardous, documenting the hazard in the arborist report and submit a replanting schedule (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(b)). Tree Protection: If you wish to retain trees #2, implement compliant tree protection measures. Alternatively, remove this tree along with the other removals of non-viable trees. Offsite Removal: Please reach out to Parks, Recreation, and Human Services’ arborist, Debra Dill (debra.dill@edmondswa.gov) regarding the proposed removal of tree #5 from Hutt Park. I will be the main staff contact for your application. If you have questions at any point during the review process, you may reach me at 425-771-0220 or via email at tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Tristan Sewell Planner Cc: File No. PLN2024-0040 1.a Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD NAME OF APPLICANT: Chris Lyon, High Street LLC DATE OF APPLICATION: May 21, 2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 30, 2024 DATE OF NOTICE: August 16, 2024 FILE NO.: PLN2024-0040 PROJECT LOCATION: 18500 High St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for preliminary formal subdivision. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12). REQUESTED PERMIT: Preliminary formal plat - Type III-A. Information on this application can be viewed at the Planning & Development Department, 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020, or on the City’s development notices webpage via the QR code above. Search for PLN2024-0040. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: N/A REQUIRED STUDIES: Critical Areas Report EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRA2024-0068 DOCUMENTS: COMMENT PERIOD: Comments due by 4:30 pm on August 30, 2024. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre-decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre-decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220, Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov PUBLISH: August 16, 2024 1.a Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 4,957 413.0 © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes High Street Preliminary Formal Subdivision Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 277.360 1:3,328 PLN2024-0040 554.7 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 OR WMU BP BN FVMU BC BC-EW CG CW MP1 MP2 1.a Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y File No.: PLN2024-0040 Applicant: Chris Lyon DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 16th day of August 2024, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the City of Edmonds Council Chambers/Public Safety Complex and Planning & Development Department, as well as on the City’s website. I, Tristan Sewell, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 16th day of August 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: 1.a Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) File No.: PLN2024-0040 Applicant: Chris Lyon, High Street LLC Preliminary Formal Subdivision DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 15th day of August 2024, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 15th day of August 2024, at Edmonds, Washington. 1.a Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) MAGNUSON JOHN W & BONNIE B 10317 INTERLAAKEN DR SW LAKEWOOD, WA 98498 FOSTER CAMERON TTEE 12020 PHINNEY AVE N SEATTLE, WA 98133 CURRENT RESIDENT 18319 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2347 LEIGH MATTHEW & ALLISON 18401 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2341 CURRENT RESIDENT 18401 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2348 COOLEY CHRISTOPHER F & WHITNEY R 18403 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 SHIELDS TIMOTHY 18404 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2348 OTNESS JOANNE N 18410 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2348 YOUNG JAMES A 18411 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2341 HAMILTON COLIN L & MARY F 18415 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 MESLANS DENIS L 18415 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 MCMAHON GEOFFREY P & VANDERHEI DEBORAH L 18416 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 ALOBAIDI MOHAMMED K/SAM SIOWFONG TTEES 18416 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 MURPHY MICHAEL A & SHARON O 18418 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2341 REYNOLDS KIRBY WILLIAM/JENNIFER 18423 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 BODINE BRIAN L & SARAH 18424 92ND AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2312 HAFFORD THOMAS 18425 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 ANDERSON DOUGLAS H & MARY S 18427 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 CURRENT RESIDENT 18429 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 YAO YUTIAN & WU LILIN TRUST 18430 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2348 MOREY JERRY L 18430 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 ARISTA DAVID & HAYES-ARISTA RUTH I 18431 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2341 HIGH ST LLC 18500 HIGH STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 LOW JANICE D 18506 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 NILON CATHERINE 18509 SOUND VIEW PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2355 CURRENT RESIDENT 18510 OLYMPIC DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 SKUTT KENNETH D & GRACELYN K 18510 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 SALAZAR LEE & KAREN R 18515 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 ELLIS WILLIAM H JR 18516 SOUND VIEW PL EDMONDS, WA 98020-2355 BROWN NATHANIEL R 18529 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2349 1.a Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) REIMER CRAIG T & ANGIE 18607 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2350 MCCALLUM ROBERT/DEBORAH 18620 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2369 FIX TAL 18624 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 LOUDEN VERNON 18625 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2350 CURRENT RESIDENT 18626 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 LEACH JAMES / SHARMA TARA 18628 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 LETTENGARVER JOHN ALLISTER & RHONDA ANNE 18631 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020-2350 HEVLY MICHAEL & REBECCA 18701 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 CURRENT RESIDENT 18702 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 MARTIN RAYMOND J & MARJORIE C 18704 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 SILVERSTEIN ALAN G & JOANNE M TRUST 18716 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 GIFFORD DANIEL WILLIAM & GAIL BUTLER 18719 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 SIMMEN JEFFREY A & ELENA 18723 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 BURKHARDT RICHARD/MILLER- BURKHARDT CHERI 18727 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 CURRENT RESIDENT 18730 94TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020-2320 HIGH ST LLC 320 DAYTON ST STE 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WISEMAN EVELYN R 3221 STONECROP LANE BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 WISEMAN EVELYN R 3606 13TH AVE W SEATTLE, WA 98119 HALL TEENA L 4232 156TH ST SW UNIT 5-B LYNNWOOD, WA 98087-6139 ULLMANN JOHN & LOUSIE 665 E BAY AVE BARNEGAT, NJ 08005-2463 ELLIS WILLIAM H JR & CONNIE M 7103 48TH AVE NE SEATTLE, WA 98115 RIEBLI NICHOLAS & APRIL 9134 184TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 MACILVAINE CALEB & ELIZABETH G 9222 183RD PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-2392 HUGHES NICOLE 9224 187TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-2328 HARRIS ANGELA M 9228 183RD PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 SHANNON DAVID N 9228 187TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 NICKEL SCOTT/COURTNEY 9229 187TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-2328 VANLUENEN OLAF & DARYL L 9232 183RD PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 TRAVIS JAMES R & SHRIANE FIONNA M 9232 187TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-2328 ULLMAN JOHN F/LOUISE E 9400 HIGH ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-2394 1.a Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) PIERCE MICHAEL F & KAY PO BOX 249 EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARTIN RAYMOND J & MARJORIE C PO BOX 452 EDMONDS, WA 98020 POLL JASON H/JENNIFER PO BOX 942 MUKILTEO, WA 98275 SIMMEN JEFFREY A UNIT 4280 BOX 1913 DPO AP, 96507-1913 1.a Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 1.a Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) You don't often get email from gpgm1959@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Chris Cooley To:Sewell, Tristan; Geoff McMahon Cc:Deborah VanDerhei Subject:RE: 18500 High St Notice of Development , PLN2024-0040 Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 3:19:06 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Hi Tristan, My wife and I live across the street as well, and we agree to Geoff’s comments. Most notably, the proposal of moving the open space/detention pond to the north, as outlined in Geoff’s document. Furthermore, we have young children and are concerned about the additional traffic and agree that a stop sign or speed bump would slow traffic into this new development and help keep the kids safe, this is a busy corner and it would benefit the neighborhood to have the new residents ease in and out of the new development. Thank you, CHRIS COOLEY Real Estate Broker WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE 2065958861 cooley@windermere.com https://cfcooley.com/ From: Sewell, Tristan <tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:57 PM To: Geoff McMahon <gpgm1959@gmail.com> Cc: Deborah VanDerhei <deb.vanderhei@gmail.com>; Chris Cooley <cooley@windermere.com> Subject: RE: 18500 High St Notice of Development , PLN2024-0040 Mr. McMahon, Thank you for your comment on the preliminary conservation subdivision at 18500 High Street (PLN2024-0040). Per ECDC 20.06.020(B)(3) and 20.06.140(A), you are a party of record with standing to initiate an administrative appeal or request reconsideration. Your comment will be included and addressed in the staff report issued in advance of the public hearing. You will receive the Notice of Public Hearing 14-30 days in advance of the hearing, and access to the staff report one week prior to the hearing. Subdivisions are reviewed using the criteria of Section 20.75.085 ECDC and the Hearing Examiner must be able to make the findings of Section 20.75.080. Many of the issues (utilities and right-of-way) you identified will be reviewed in the subsequent civil improvements phase, should this preliminary plat be approved. Preliminary plats result in little to no physical work onsite beyond boundary marking or minor investigation. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this application or process. Kind regards, Tristan Sewell | Planner | he/him/his City Hall | 121 5th Ave. N | Edmonds WA 98020 425.771.0220 x1332 (office) | 425.218.7991 (mobile) Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov Planning Division - City of Edmonds, WA (edmondswa.gov) NOTICE: All emails, and attachments, sent to and from the City of Edmonds are public records and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) From: Geoff McMahon <gpgm1959@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:33 PM To: Sewell, Tristan <tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Deborah VanDerhei <deb.vanderhei@gmail.com>; Chris Cooley <Cooley@windermere.com> Subject: 18500 High St Notice of Development , PLN2024-0040 Tristan, My wife and I are residents of the High St. neighborhood affected by the proposed development. We offer the following comments/concerns about the information included in the Notice of Development.. Please reach out if you have any questions about the information below. 1. Water Pressure- Low water pressure has been an issue in the neighborhood for many years. Current static pressure is barely above 40 psig as measured at our High St. residence. This situation will no doubt get worse with the load on the system imposed by the additional 6 houses. It was our understanding from previous discussions with the City of Edmonds that if this property were to be developed another gridded connection to the municipal system would be required to provide the appropriate capacity and address the pressure issues. 2. Please identify any impacts to existing trees, wildlife, plants and materials on the west side of High Street caused by the new proposed paving. 3. What are the anticipated impacts to the electrical service in the neighborhood? 4. We are concerned about the increased car traffic in and out of the cul de sac given the number of children playing in the neighborhood. We would like to see some sort of traffic control - stop sign, speed bump, etc., just south of the entrance to the cul de sac where the new paving is proposed. 5. The large existing Western Red Cedar in the northwest corner of the site is an iconic and important tree in the neighborhood for both residents and for the dozens of Edmonds residents who pass by on a daily basis on their way to and from Hutt Park. It supports wildlife including local eagles and osprey who sit in the upper branches when hunting and smaller birds for nesting and roosting . The removal of that tree would be a significant loss to our local citizens as well as to wildlife. It appears that by relocating the proposed storm detention vault from its current position to the north side of the site (as indicated below) and shifting lots 1 and 2 to the south would provide a reasonable accommodation to maintain this important fixture in the neighborhood. 1.a Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Regards Geoff McMahon 206 250 3439 1.a Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:Leigh-Ann Hafford To:Sewell, Tristan Subject:Comments regarding Preliminary Formal Subdivision - Type III-A Permit Seven-lot conservation long plat @ 18500 High St. PLN2024-0040 Date:Wednesday, August 28, 2024 3:49:16 PM Attachments:18500 High street.pdf You don't often get email from lahafford@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From: Leigh-Ann and Thomas Hafford, 18425 High Street lahafford@gmail.com (206) 954-8631 tomkeihaf@gmail.com (206) 954-7986 Comments regarding Preliminary Formal Subdivision - Type III-A Permit Seven-lot conservation long plat @ 18500 High St. PLN2024-0040 The comments below may or may not be relevant to the application at this stage and therefore may not be in the current purview. However, we wish this information to be on record and with public access as they may be pertinent at a later point. Fire One fire hydrant on north end of property which is inadequate for current houses, let alone six additional. Extreme risk during summer construction. Private Road on North Side of 18500 This road is a private road whose maintenance is the responsibility of the six houses on the upper east side of 18500. Concern over construction traffic, worker traffic, utilizing this road with possible wear and tear or damage. Concern for emergency access of fire and other emergency services due to construction traffic / blocking access to this road. Traffic The application documents state a small volume of additional peak-hour traffic, yet with six new houses the potential for twelve-plus additional vehicles appears to be inconsistent. The possibility of a much greater volume is likely, given the number of vehicles at the current homes in the area. Residents Documents state an average 3.1 inhabitants per house. Question how this number is determined given the potential for four-plus people to live in these single-family homes. High Street Road-Widening and Sidewalks As the public right-of-way will be widened from its existing status, this likely will involve additional loss of greenery and trees. Has this been accounted for in the studies? In addition, sidewalks that the city requires will drastically alter the beautiful and unique feel of the neighborhood. They are completely unnecessary and unwanted and will result in even more loss of greenery. As it’s not a through-road, it seems highly unnecessary. The dollars that would be spent on sidewalks could be reallocated to somewhere where sidewalks are wanted and essential. Is it possible instead for sidewalks to be bermed/ verged or consistent with current look, possibly saving some of the existing greenery/trees? Access With only one access in and out of this area, what mitigation will be in place to prevent blockage to current residents by both construction traffic and workers’ vehicles? 1.a Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Wildlife The study appears to show minimal wildlife on the property, yet the following have been noted in, on, and around the property in the last few years: Hawks, eagles, owls, deer, coyotes, mountain beavers, and a variety of smaller birds. Storm Drain Will the existing stormwater drains on the private road be impacted by changes to the drain on the subject property? One or more of these were installed after flooding in the area in the 1990s? Leigh-Ann Hafford lahafford@gmail.com 206-954-8631 1.a Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From: Leigh-Ann and Thomas Hafford, 18425 High Street lahafford@gmail.com (206) 954-8631 tomkeihaf@gmail.com (206) 954-7986 The comments below may or may not be relevant to the application at this stage and therefore may not be in the current purview. However we wish this information to be on record and with public access as they may be pertinent at a later point. •Fire •One fire hydrant on north end of property which is inadequate for current houses, let alone six additional. Extreme risk during summer construction. • •Private Road on North Side of 18500 •This road is a private road whose maintenance is the responsibility of the six houses on the upper east side of 18500. •Concern over construction traffic, worker traffic, utilizing this road with possible wear and tear or damage. •Concern for emergency access of fire and other emergency services due to construction traffic / blocking access to this road. •Traffic •The application documents state a small volume of additional peak-hour traffic, yet with six new houses the potential for twelve-plus additional vehicles appears to be inconsistent. The possibility of a much greater volume is likely, given the number of vehicles at the current homes in the area. •Residents •Documents state an average 3.1 inhabitants per house. Question how this number is determined given the potential for four-plus people to live in these single-family homes. •High Street Road-Widening and Sidewalks •As the public right-of-way will be widened from its existing status, this likely will involve additional loss of greenery and trees. Has this been accounted for in the studies? •In addition, sidewalks that the city requires will drastically alter the beautiful and unique feel of the neighborhood. They are completely unnecessary and unwanted and will result in even more loss of greenery. As it’s not a through-road, it seems highly unnecessary. •The dollars that would be spent on sidewalks could be reallocated to somewhere where sidewalks are wanted and essential. •Is it possible instead for sidewalks to be bermed/ verged or consistent with current look, possibly saving some of the existing greenery/trees? •Access •With only one access in and out of this area, what mitigation will be in place to prevent blockage to current residents by both construction traffic and workers’ vehicles? •Wildlife •The study appears to show minimal wildlife on the property, yet the following have been noted in, on, and around the property in the last few years: •Hawks, eagles, owls, deer, coyotes, mountain beavers, and a variety of smaller birds. •Storm Drain •Will the existing stormwater drains on the private road be impacted by changes to the drain on the subject property? One or more of these were installed after flooding in the area in the 1990s? Comments regarding Preliminary Formal Subdivision - Type III-A Permit Seven-lot conservation long plat @ 18500 High St. PLN2024-0040 1.a Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:Mary Hamilton To:Sewell, Tristan Subject:Comments regarding Preliminary Formal Subdivision - Type III-A Permit Seven-lot conservation long plat @ 18500 High Street, PLN2024-0040 Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 1:04:35 PM You don't often get email from mary@bollah.com. Learn why this is important Comments regarding Preliminary Formal Subdivision - Type III-A Permit Seven-lot conservation long plat @ 18500 High Street, PLN2024-0040 Comments submitted by Lee and Mary Hamilton lee@bollah.com 425-922-1396 mary@bollah.com 206-992-4529 As residents on High Street we would like our comments regarding the development at 18500 High Street to be on the record. Traffic Traffic is already a concern with the current number of residents on High Street. The road is narrow with no sidewalks. Many residents park their vehicles along the road which makes getting through challenging. The application documents state that there will be a small volume of additional peak-hour traffic. The average number of vehicles per household of the current homes is 3. Based on averages that will be an additional 18 vehicles, at a minimum. The impact of additional vehicle traffic both during construction and once construction is complete is of great concern and needs to be addressed with residents. The upper part of High Street (northeast of the construction site) is a private road maintained by the 6 residents at the top of the hill. In 2002 our home at 18415 High St was built. The road was torn up badly by construction vehicles. My husband and I paid to have the road repaved. We’ve very concerned that construction vehicles for the 18500 development will cause damage to our private road. In the event of damage to the road, who is responsible for repairs? Will the City ensure that all damage will be repaired? Another concern is construction vehicles blocking the road. High Street is the only access to Olympic View Drive for all residents. I’m told that new sidewalks will be required by the city. As residents we do not want sidewalks. More trees and greenery will be removed for the sidewalks impacting the serenity of the street. Fire There is 1 fire hydrant on the north side of 18500 for all our homes. This is inadequate for the current residents. An additional 6 homes make it unacceptable. What plans are in 1.a Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) place for adequate access for water for the fire department. Wildlife The study shows a minimal amount of wildlife in the property however that is not accurate. In and around the property there are eagles, hawks, deer, racoons, a variety of squirrels, deer, owls, and many smaller birds. What is being done to minimize impact to wildlife? Water The property at 18500 High Street is notorious for flooding in heavy rain despite the storm drain on the street just north of the property. What measures are in place to ensure that the flooding doesn’t impact both new and existing homes? We are concerned with the number of people that will move into the 6 new homes and the impact that will have on our lovely neighborhood. The statement suggests that it will be 3.1 persons per home but that seems very unrealistic. Mary Hamilton mary@bollah.com 206-992-4529 1.a Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:Geoff McMahon To:Sewell, Tristan Cc:Deborah VanDerhei; Chris Cooley Subject:18500 High St Notice of Development , PLN2024-0040 Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 12:33:06 PM Attachments:image.png You don't often get email from gpgm1959@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Tristan, My wife and I are residents of the High St. neighborhood affected by the proposed development. We offer the following comments/concerns about the information included in the Notice of Development.. Please reach out if you have any questions about the information below. 1. Water Pressure- Low water pressure has been an issue in the neighborhood for many years. Current static pressure is barely above 40 psig as measured at our High St. residence. This situation will no doubt get worse with the load on the system imposed by the additional 6 houses. It was our understanding from previous discussions with the City of Edmonds that if this property were to be developed another gridded connection to the municipal system would be required to provide the appropriate capacity and address the pressure issues. 2. Please identify any impacts to existing trees, wildlife, plants and materials on the west side of High Street caused by the new proposed paving. 3. What are the anticipated impacts to the electrical service in the neighborhood? 4. We are concerned about the increased car traffic in and out of the cul de sac given the number of children playing in the neighborhood. We would like to see some sort of traffic control - stop sign, speed bump, etc., just south of the entrance to the cul de sac where the new paving is proposed. 5. The large existing Western Red Cedar in the northwest corner of the site is an iconic and important tree in the neighborhood for both residents and for the dozens of Edmonds residents who pass by on a daily basis on their way to and from Hutt Park. It supports wildlife including local eagles and osprey who sit in the upper branches when hunting and smaller birds for nesting and roosting . The removal of that tree would be a significant loss to our local citizens as well as to wildlife. It appears that by relocating the proposed storm detention vault from its current position to the north side of the site (as indicated below) and shifting lots 1 and 2 to the south would provide a reasonable accommodation to maintain this important fixture in the neighborhood. 1.a Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Regards Geoff McMahon 206 250 3439 1.a Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:Murphy, Mike To:Sewell, Tristan Subject:File # PLN2024-0040 Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 4:11:01 PM You don't often get email from mike.murphy@hubinternational.com. Learn why this is important Attn: Tristan Sewell, Planner, City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Sewell: Michael and Sharon Murphy, owners of the property at 18418 High St, provide the following comments regarding the proposed subdivision development by High Street LLC, under file # PLN 2024-0040. Our property/residence is the last home on High Street before entrance to the development property and the existing residence on the development property, we are located directly across High Street from the property where new homes will be built. Our residence was built around 1996 and the existing driveway, landscaped island, and underground irrigation system for the island and each side of the driveway entrances have existed since then. One would assume the location of the above was approved then by the existing city planning department, as respects its proximity to High St. These improvements have apparently now existed for nearly 30 years, with no objections from the City. Review of the plans for the proposed subdivision development are unclear, but the ultimate location and width of High Street along our area, once completed, could very well eliminate the entire driveway island and reduce by as much as half or more the existing length of our driveway, as well as result in the demolition and relocation of the underground irrigation system. We presently have 2 full-time residents and 2 part-time residents (college students) in our home with 4 cars coming and going, even with a 2 car garage, elimination of that much of our driveway will make it very difficult to manage parking vehicles in such a short driveway. It would seem a shift of the resulting street towards the side where the new homes will be constructed, perhaps with the width of the street being limited given it will be accommodating a limited number of residences and will not provide nonresident traffic access through to another street, would be an acceptable solution with respect to existing home owners on that stretch of High St. The other street on the north side of the development property which runs up the hill to the residences above, is a private road. Assuming the owners of that road may very well not grant access from that street to the property for construction vehicles, that construction traffic will be directed on to High St in front of residences directly opposite from the construction. We hope careful consideration will be given to where construction vehicles will access the property, hopefully they can enter and exit close to the intersection of High St and the private road, so we and our neighbors can have reasonable daily exit from and access to our residences. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments for consideration, and look forward to clarification relating to our observations. We also look forward to welcoming new neighbors into our neighborhood, and provide our comments so the quality and best attributes of our 1.a Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) neighborhood are preserved. Hopefully all our neighbor's questions and concerns will be addressed and resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Regards, Mike and Sharon Murphy (425) 678-0731 Mssjm@comcast.net 1.a Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:OLAF VANLUENEN To:Sewell, Tristan Subject:Fwd: Planning Department PLN20240040 Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 3:47:16 PM [You don't often get email from ovanluenen@aol.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > This is concerning the development plan on High Street. > Widening of High Street. Exactly where does that start and end? Likely within the development lines. > The increase in traffic on High street is a big concern. From High Street to Olympic View Drive there are blindspots northbound and southbound due to the limited visability. Having > (per the developer) 47 more car round-trips a day is a huge increase. Poor visibility on High St and no center line around a blind curve and people turning into 183rd Pl SW are current problems that will be increased with this development. > > The concern for the eagles nesting in Hutt Park and in the trees close to the development. There are restrictions and limitations for cutting trees around eagles. > > The concern about water pressure coming up High Street. How will it impact the rest of the houses? > > Thank you, > Olaf Van Luenen 9232 183pl sw 1.a Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) From:SUSAN YOUNG To:Sewell, Tristan Subject:Land Use Application #1488715 Date:Thursday, August 29, 2024 2:59:26 PM You don't often get email from susanedmn3@comcast.net. Learn why this is important Attn: Planning Dept. I would like to be noted regarding some concerns I have about the above mentioned proposed development. Our community on High Street is accessed by the road entrance from Olympic View Drive. The road services an adequate number at present to go into and out of our development. Increased traffic will congest the road and make it more difficult for emergency as well as daily traffic to flow freely. Also, it should be noted that the road along the northern edge of the land in question for construction is a private road. It too being the only available road for the residents to access their homes and receive services. If construction should occur, it would be imperative that this road not be used for any construction vehicles, parking, nor blocked at any time. The study also noted that there would be little to no affect on the wildlife in the area. The park and surrounding green belt areas are home to nesting eagles, hawks, owls, coyotes, and many bird species. A more thorough study would be advisable before proceeding with development. Thanking you for acknowledging my concerns, Susan Young 18411 High St. Edmonds, WA 98020 1.a Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION NAME OF APPLICANT: Chris Lyon, High Street LLC DATE OF APPLICATION: May 21, 2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 30, 2024 DATE OF NOTICE: January 23, 2025 FILE NO.: PLN2024-0040 PROJECT LOCATION: 18500 High St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for preliminary formal conservation subdivision. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12). REQUESTED PERMIT: Preliminary formal plat - Type III-A decision by the Hearing Examiner. Reviewed using the criteria of ECDC 20.75.085. Information on this application can be viewed at the Planning & Development Department, 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020, www.edmondswa.gov/developmentnotices, or via the QR code above. Search for PLN2024-0040. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Civil improvements, final plat, residential building permits REQUIRED STUDIES: Critical Areas Report EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRA2024-0068 DOCUMENTS: SEPA: The responsible official has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under the applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. View the threshold determination via the development notices link above. PUBLIC HEARING: 3 pm on Thursday, February 13, 2025 Brackett Room, City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxITG9LZkc3K0huS0l4QT09 Or via phone by dialing (253) 205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner (425) 771-0220 Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov PUBLISH: January 23, 2024 1.a Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) 4,957 413.0 © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes High Street Preliminary Formal Subdivision Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 277.360 1:3,328 PLN2024-0040 554.7 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 OR WMU BP BN FVMU BC BC-EW CG CW MP1 MP2 1.a Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y File No.: PLN2024-0040 Applicant: Chris Lyon DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 23rd day of January 2025, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the City of Edmonds Council Chambers/Public Safety Complex and Planning & Development Department, as well as on the City’s website. I, Tristan Sewell, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 24th day of January 2025, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: 1.a Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) File No.: PLN2024-0040 Applicant: Chris Lyon, High Street LLC Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 23rd day of January 2025, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Heather Lakefish, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 23rd day of January 2025, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: vi::)_~~ 1.a Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) NAM E O F APPLI CANT : DATE O F APPLI CATI O N : DATE OF CO M PLETENESS : DATE O F NO TI CE: FILE NO .: PROJ ECT LO CATI O N : PROJ ECT DESC RIPTI O N : REQ UESTED PERM IT : OTHER REQ UIR ED PERM IT S : REQ UIR ED STUD IES : EXISTI N G ENV IR O NM ENTAL DO CUM ENTS: SEPA: CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Chris Lyon, High Street LLC May 21, 2024 July 30, 2024 January 23, 2025 PLN2024-0040 18500 High St. Application for preliminary formal conservation subdivision. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12). Preliminary formal plat - Type III-A decision by the Hearing Examiner. Reviewed using the criteria of ECDC 20. 75.085. Information on this application can be viewed at the Planning & Development Department, 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020, www.edmondswa.gov/developmentnotices, or via the QR code above. Search for PLN2024-0040. Civil improvements, final plat, residential building permits Critical Areas Report CRA2024-0068 The responsible official has reviewed the proposed project for probable adverse environmental impacts issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under the applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. View the threshold determination via the development notices link above. PUBLIC HEARING: 3 pm on Thursday, February 13, 2025 Brackett Room, City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- qov.zoom.us/i/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIOmxITG9LZkc3K0huS0l4OT09 Or via phone by dialing (253) 205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 CITY CONTACT: Tristan Sewell, Planner ( 425) 771-0220 Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov PUBLISH: January 23, 2024 1.a Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) City of Edmonds PLN2024-0040 ~(;' .· ·, ·/,:' \:\\_\ c1'~ I. ' .. , ' ,~ ... ,. ·"b.,.,.J\_,: ~ .. \ \ . :-. - __ :. \· .. If..?~,.,·- '•\:--- • .\- \" \, \ ·~, '·-"~'\. .... , .. -~ .' ,_. . .- I • .:> ·1·\\'· /.\-,,,·c '~-,._-.\·,,.z. -:, , ·~,-::-....;•_.~ .' ',·- ~~,: ·, _,i.- '---9,\_~-=?_· ... ~~ ·--: i .( :--._ 1st \ \ \_, , \' \_ --. , --- P..,\J < " 1 )\ . . ,..-.:~\ ,s-},1~.-·~ -. ,! {~\·,':(!9\·~ . .:;..:~-~i·~·;-~~-:...-~:.:~, ~ .. -~ . --.--' '11, t \Q'~(- \~ }\~ 't (\ \ • :;- ,;_-\, \' ·- 1-...._-t'"e _ \· , ( -,1~•?, \ •, ... I, \ l Sl> ; \ 1 ,1 ?!£~ •• t.., - l'..--\ •:! 'l .1.. ,,('r•-\.\'e>t_;,r, ·. ' \ \, ♦ '. :. •. \ _' ,' - " L ,...,_; -~♦ -~.1 ··\ - -tft \_ _.l... '"'1)1~1"°~-$~ ·s\\/ -· \ .(,_' i '\\ '; \ ,• /\ \ ' ,. ,. •I , •--- _,.l -~T-i-·•· • "> ,. ' .._ . I "' . · ' ·"""' \ · ,·. , · \·•1:, , r , ,.. , · 7fh0-' " ...-.••• - 1,\\' .' \ 1~•-i ~' ·! 1• 1Pqf'.14"' ·:"l,..:.•1,.\ i ;.---, ,_/·_t-- ,~},:~\-• .'. ;,,/""> - ;> ::'\ •~ '.-,'.._ \~'. \'. ->> ,;: I ·,! \ : .,,. ,,.. .. . _.1. . .,, \, ,·'\·~·-:\'°~-) ~-\ ,/\ t \ • y' 1.t~p·,.,... \'-:/ !!'.. '· n,w· \,\ ~s,,iz}, , .. · 1 "i...__,_,.1 / .:,_-1 . \ - ' '-. \' .. \ \.. \_,,_ \ 11 , i <'-------·"· .. _/ ,... /\·,~!\-.·\I<, ',-/ ~= ·1c:.=_<;._.,,--::.:::i:--\, ?r.·· OJ ., \ ~ \ \ • ~ ~ ,._ . > · • ·-......,.)' s. _ ' 1 ~.1 • • • · · ' 1 I • I ' '1\ • .:' 'i I· •-~·.,-..·.,._:. \' ~\ f,4L•1 ', 11-4,: . · 1, ,1 ,,· ,.. ,_. rt~1t,?. \_) \f:_7 ,,_ t/ ,( \ \ \ \ - ;,1 :--··. ,:.. •. -.r---\·.,. \' i' \ _•_!\ \ 18<11_ !' _ ,u~, • ._,_ W .l. . . \ • J. . , . ,, ' • , . . . I- ~ , ,./'-,_\ - ~ \ , ·-. ·;J'J--~#,1,.-2'+.--}/ /, 'a,,-~ \ J\ •&f~1 \ \ \' \ \ :.,T" -:-:-.-~- ~ '~ \ ,;-; I ~ --' ~ ~ •· - - ~ ... \ •\-:_·,._.,,./!\\', __ \,•1,,~.,,, . .., i\ '·1 ,,, _,· ,I. 1 l'""\\·I, ll4l'> ,.1 .- I ,,. • .•,·v. ••. >.•,,, ~-- ... · . • I , .( :· ••~• -(--:,-:::t,~~;i /';';_:_ _';_~ .J . ~\(\•~-~. - ~= .......... ;.,C _.,.....ti'\; 71 I I , I\:\ •. ~ 'I A •. ,;.,,_, • '-~- .· .' . ,-, ,\ \ I. • \ ~ ' •• I' - " ' • 1. ,J,:,)f,li-,\ I • \. \ ' \ ' \ I ,.... \,:, I C, < - ,i ' I \ 'I . ,I'·,;·,.· ... ·I . -~ j ,i. ,, \ ' • \ ' J ' \ .. \ \: ., - • _:)-· ,C-'•t,-,, ':'·-,_ ;_,.,.:,•/ ( ,_\,' \\ \\\/~ ~----~: ifj <';j"f'?l-3;•,/ /'.~,,( ~.}'~ '.:· . \J t" . ' " . ' ' . ., . ' .. -·'\?) \--. \ . .\ \ . ._•-. ,:,;.;.,. -.•1 \ F •"-♦I /' · .. -. ~y~--- ~,~ \\ .. ~ \ \/; { :{\ ~. /\ . ', ,.t,,,-. \"' \ I..-~,_., . ._ t • .. a. ','-. I \ '\ \ \· ,5•. ,''~,.'>~:~, , l \.(' '"t•1, \ •·. ,: \t \ , i <:, ""c . '<;;, ·:·- ·) ';"1 •) . • . ', ·- . "c, r ~ /\ '"" ' . .>' -<1,,- ,}· ~ :~·',., ,--(p· \ \,_·. ,- '• \_~•, ·' ·, y ~-/--~-. \ -~~'\ \,,\ . ,-.. ,,, . I ', ' (°'./:1\\'•\),Ac\··\<. \, /· .. ·;;, , '.~c_-_1 ·.,'.'\' ! i i n·. - .• _ \ .y·· 7P._.. \ i:. ~ \. _,. ,. .t_ i·°' .· Wf..,t..~ ' - .~ .. ' ' ); ' I -?2~1 ~ ~~~~'°- i '··\°•' ./' \-' ··Q_'v: 'f'1_,;~ •./ ,·.$;,. ,·,->. ·\ .··~J:: ,;,;,N '< .f 'fili_~ . ·•·. ·! ,·! • ' ., ' . ~i .! · .. ' .• ' ' I I~ ·- . • . ' . • .• • "9,, . \ '· l \ h ' 1 ' \ •,, \ ~'-.-- • •·· ,. < • .' -~--- ... ;. •, '"'.:'.\ ,_ --~~·-- ---- . --~6, ' .,_,-~ . ' '-~-- ·~~ . ~ -. ' ";.' • ,.;·, \-.•, ·, ,· .. ,.., ,_ \"'~-..; .. : •tv \:· ;/ ~ : . ' ' . \><'•"7'<"-'' ·.-,,,,._ , \ ;5, i B / r'i i ?~ SVJ ,,, '· \ . '~"°!O"",,' " ·" \.. ;:,,..~'\ '' ,.,_ ·--~ • I _,.. ..,._.,.l -~ -- ,-;-··-..._. j ...... - .. ,1~ ~ '-~ ':\-, ··•,,./.;;;,.~',7.\••, . \ _,' \~_\__~/'·•I:' .. :,,..'\ (,_.;, ~''.. '·/ ' ."• J} ~!' I \ .. ): . ' 0, e,,, .-..., .. ' .....:, .,,, .. \ , ,'° ~ , ' ./ . -,, I\~ ' 1 •, I • \ <'< i ~~'-,'~- ·, - :, Cj . ",!t, I, \ "{ ~ · · .~- '· '. -~-" ·, j .-.i"-'°• ~6/,~' \ •• / I ,,:, • ', ~i '_. : ~ &° ·1: ~::. ,..\ ~--~/ \,.;,/ ,(.-.'h;,,"'.\.• 't-_ ,. 01 \, ·., ,.,\ ., ,. ~ ',.'f:!1 ~,'' :-1• \ / /-~..'!' __ \ -l J• , \~ 1 ,•· l ~1- ' ·:- 'c:, / . / . '):A,,-......,. - .. i . A,e \ \ ~1\ ~.,..~ ' •,· ,..,_ } ,. \ \ i ,. \ - , ..o (lo'\ "' __, ,... -- -r-1 .\\'-'I).::,\~ ·,;:<?§,.;;.\. ,j .£·,1:.,\--,.,.'_,\\I ', ,-.•·~.-._:.---"'-'.i 11;;·1 ,I\ 'j/.',' \; ion '•j >,.y' ,I ./·._J;"'t\~\J".,i·,:., \/ i•_\··,.-_:.\:,_1._\,· .\. . \--r-~-tr,-,< f- ,._--~~.L ,-•..-1_,~~~~----'~-: I ·.\ ;, ,' \ .... ' .. \, \ '• >· ·, I • ' • ' ~... • • _.... \ ,. ' \ \ I ' \J \ ~~ ,,·-'~~- >--~\ _ ... , ,). .... _ - 1 i--:.._t:•:j. 1;, -... \ ~?:. , ·e-;, J 1 •--~->" '\ _ . \ \ 11 , 1 ,~4- v.,,.,\.\-\J-. ',/\· ,r- .. \1~t.,,,,) ..,. ' \, ,· f3!7,,v I'\ _!1~',' I 1",•~c-.\ r1E.72t'._ ,1 A, .... • ' I'>\ " \. . I • ' \ ' ' •/ \ . . • . / \ . ' I • ' -;; ,, •.•-··-·-..:!:..,,. · .. I·,_,_ ( __ ,,,...,._. -L.·-L>-.:.,..4 .. ··--r-·•-'·----- __ )~.,--- '_, - -, _,._._ ·'--'·--,·---L ' 'a_}_;...:,._. ...., -<. >::, ~, \ •\ '- ·\ '\ \ · .· \&) - ~ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ 1 - • • ·, \ --. \\ -, , \ ~ • l I i r ,--1 ·-~~-~.z,, _.\,~-=~-.-~;,.,_:,_:~~~--=~·\..::--~ i\ \ \ .. l • \ ,\ \\ \ - \ , '·•. 1:1,,~1~ ,j I ! 1?,71? I ,3.G,~'.;_ ./ i -,~-\ '.•'\ ,1 .',. I [\ ~ " 'I' 1st·· 1 I .. '!:' -- J r:JS 1- ,,. ' '' • • ·' \. · , ' J I - ' \ • •. " ' ~ ~ I ' i\ - 1,,,~t· ~~ \/ ~ ~ , .\ ! •. ~\ L · i:-.i:~0<~~ \ •. ... ..J ~- ~ ·- - --'·i ;!5 ~ l ! ' - \ \~'\\. ,,/\:0• .. -' .. '\;~~~1(1 , \~~~~It \ j !~- -- - c!- ,- .o~ -·\J,-!.-\._---\__·~--\=: ~\,~~\~\ \] t::-:--·- -~ _f . -~--- l~~,~-·---~-•I ~ 4- ++-' ,.4 ++-+ A-+++ f- + + +-· r1~++++ r++++ ++++,. -+++-1· '1 1 _j I j .. +RS\~f-+12 :.C....--L+-= + ...i- + '·-.1 ,\\: ·\-1.•,1 .A '* --~ .q-.J• + + + .. 1•·1 .l \ ~:'!l>.~ .. • ' J ' ! ·, '· ··1 I I i ~h .. -~ ;:=, ~::::- d.1 (' E ~\ a ~i •:..f.' I o =[ : ~ I - ~ H,~. \i ,-----· f''"' \S:1 ,, - \ ;;\ '~ f .f·i\ , l -, , ;:, ,, ,.f I l.j 1-r· ;, i \ ; i. \i • ..... \__)_ ! 5'. ;"'\i 1,-,., i"' 0 ''° r- ·- 1,~~, ..:.. ;\ a. ·r _..-; ~ -., 105T--! ~L s~./•i ---i-···- 'tr· '"\r--· I ., ":~ \\ "' ~ ~ •i 9,·,n, ____ .L_ . l. :\ \' h, ~- ·: ... ,:~ \ ·.,,_ l_\\.,· l\\,\\i' \ \ '· l ~~'.! --~-;., \ '~t > \ 1· 'J\ \;. . ~ ~~~:-~- - - t - __ :_~_1 _:_ __ ~ _$ -: as n ... s·, s.v,: ~ j._~ - ,_. 0-'• ·< ·.) :::.: 9 ,. _,, ::"'T 1....L~!:_ 1: 3,328 ot 0 277.36 554.7 Feet 4,957 413.0 WGS_ 1984_ Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © City of Edmonds This m ap is a user generated static output from an Intern et m apping site and is fo r reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 0 ~ - bi~ ['.ffi Legend □ Rezones -· PRO L • Row Zoning II RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 \\ RS-12 □ RSW -12 □ RS-20 □ RS-MP • RM-3 • RM-2.4 II RM-1.5 rJ RM-EW ~.! 801 Ml 802 Ml 803 r+! 804 w 805 ~~ DR W MU - ~ BP □ BN ~ FVMU - BC --- Notes High Street Preliminary Formal Subdivision 1.a Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y City of Edmonds Date: November 15, 2024 To: Tristan Sewell, Planning Division From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN2024-0040, High St 7-lot Plat 18500 High St Engineering has reviewed the preliminary plat application for the High Street Plat at 18500 High St. The information provided indicates general engineering feasibility. As part of the preliminary plat review, requirements regarding development of the property and adjacent public infrastructure were determined. Street Right-of-Way Dedication: High Street, a public road, will be extended to the south to serve the subject development. The road extension, including a cul-de-sac, will be dedicated to the public as street right-of- way. Lot and Street Layout and Sidewalks: The subject property is located at the southerly dead end of High Street. Access to all 7 lots in the subject development shall be from High Street, a public road. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.90 regulates the construction of sidewalks to ensure implementation of the comprehensive sidewalk plan. The Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan map does not show a requirement for sidewalks on High Street. In addition, ECDC 18.90.030 states that sidewalks are not required in the RS -12 zone. Therefore, sidewalks are not required adjacent to the subject property along High Street. The City’s Transportation Engineer has reviewed the intersection of High Street and 183 rd Pl SW and concluded that no intersection enhancements will be required. Based on ITE Land Use Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), a SFR generates approximately (9) daily trips. Considering a total of (6) SFR’s are being added along this street (converting from 1 SFR to 7 MEMORANDUM ENGINEERING MEMO OF COMPLIANCE 1.a Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SFR), the traffic volumes will increase by about 54 new trips per day. Currently, this stretch of High St / 183rd Pl. SW has about 20 dwelling units, generating about 180 daily trips when applying the same daily trip assumption. As such, the traffic volumes will increase from 180 daily trips to 230 daily trips. This is about a 25% increase throughout the day, which equates to very limited impact on hourly volumes since volumes are spread throughout the day. In addition, speeds entering the intersection are also low due to small length of each road segment. The City’s evaluation indicates this proposed development won’t impact the intersrection of High St. and 183rd Pl SW and therefore, no intersection enhancements are required. The intersection of High Street and Olympic View Drive was also reviewed by the City’s Transportation Engineer for any sight distance concerns . It has been concluded that the development won’t have any impacts on intersection sight distance. The sight distance issues at this intersection are existing due to roadway curvature on both sides of the street (looking north and south). The only way to improve this concern is through m ajor roadway reconstruction by aligning the roadway, which would require ROW acquisition from private residential properties and potential home relocation. This option is simply infeasible. As part of the 2024 Traffic Calming Program, a petition form was submitted for the inclusion of Traffic Calming Devices along OVD from High St. to 76th Ave. W. The selection of which stretches will be funded in 2025 is still being evaluated (to be determined in December 2024). If selected, traffic calming devices would be installed along this stretch and the vehicle speed reduction would create safer access conditions since necessary sight distance would be reduced. Speed tables were installed in 2024 as part of the 2023 Traffic Calming Program (just south of High St). Even though those are not yet permanent (to be determined following a post installation resident survey results), those might have already improved the access with lower vehicle speeds, especially in the northbound direction. Improvements: Improvements within the public right-of-way are regulated by Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18. Public: • High Street, adjacent to the subject development, is partially improved. High Street will need to modified and/or constructed to meet City code and standards as a condition of development. This will include widening of travel lanes, extension of the road and installation of street lights and storm drainage features. • The public water and sewer mains will need to be extended to serve the new plat. • The details of these requirements will be established during the civil construction plan review phase of the subject subdivision. • Water and sewer availability certificates have been completed fo the proposed development. 1.a Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) Private: • Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.80.060 regulates the construction of driveways. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 14 percent and the current proposal indicates driveway slopes of less than 14 percent. • Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.80.070 regulates the construction of streets. Street slopes shall not exceed 12 percent and the current proposal indicates a street slope of less than 12 percent. Public Comments: Several comment letters were received from residents along High Street regarding access and utility concerns. With regards to access to the proposed development, High Street will be extended to the south and will be dedicated to the public as street right -of-way. The proposed road as shown on the preliminary plans is consistent with the minimum Engineering and Fire Department code requirements. Following preliminary plat approval and during the subsequent civil plan review phase of the project, the city wil l ensure compliance is met with regards to road layout and construction standards. The City’s Transporation Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat development and as concluded above, no intersection enhancements will be required at the intersection of High Street and 183rd Pl SW. Sight distance concerns at the intersection of High Street and Olympic View Drive are also addressed above. Utility improvements will also be reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards during the civil plan review phase of the project. The residents concerns have been noted with regards to low water pressure. Stormwater management will be required with the proposed development and the preliminary design includes construction of a detention vault on private property. Catch basins will be installed in High Street, within the public road extension, as needed to ensure collection of stormwater runoff from the plat road. In addition, all new impervious surface areas constructed on individual lots will discharge to the plat stormwater management system. Please find attached the Engineering Requirements for the subject development. The applicant will be required to satisfy these requirements as a condition of plat approval. In advance of obtaining final plat approval from the Planning Division, the applicant will be required to submit civil construction plans addressing all plat conditions. 1.a Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) • Civil plans are to be submitted electronically through MyBuildingPermit.com. Contact engineeringpermits@edmondswa.gov with any questions related to this submittal process. • A civil plan review fee is to be paid at the time of submittal. Currently the civil construction plan review fee for plats is $5333. Upon submittal of civil construction plans you will be prompted to make payment so review of the project can commence. Thank you. 1.a Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 15 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. 1.a Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 15 A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 18500 High St Edmons WA, 98020 2. Name of applicant: High St, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant/Contact: 320 Dayton St Ste 101 Edmonds WA 98020; Chis Lyon (425) 673-5229 4. Date checklist prepared: May 14, 2024 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): No phasing; construction starting upon plan approval, estimated Winter/Spring of 2026 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. SEPA checklist, Stormwater Report, SWPPP, Geotechnical report, and Critical Areas report. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. WADOE Stormwater Construction Permit. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary Plat, Civil and Grading Permit Plan Approvals, Detention Vault Building Permit, WADOE Stormwater Construction Permit, Final Plat, and individual Building Permits. 1.a Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 15 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) We are proposing a residential 7 lot subdivision on a site that totals 3.3 acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Site Address: 18500 High Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Parcel Numbers: 00434600004304 and 00434600004202. NE ¼ of Section 13 T 27N R 3 E WM B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Rolling hilly with steep slopes along south and west boundaries; steep slopes to the east. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 70%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Alderwood-Everette type soils. Please refer to the March 2024 Geotechnical report of the site from Earth Solutions NW LLC for more detailed information. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No; See geotechnical report evaluating onsite and adjacent steep slopes. 1.a Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 15 e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will be with onsite materials except some imports for structural fill, gravel and compost. Any historic fill with unsuitable compact on-site soils will be removed or reconditioned as necessary. The approximate Grading quantities will be 1,300 CY fill and 1,300 CY cut. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There is risk of erosion to potentially exposed soils during construction, and uncontrolled or concentrated runoff to adjacent steep slopes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approx 30% of the site will be covered in impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. City/DOE Best Management Practices will be employed with Construction. TESC plan and SWPPP will prepared for anticipated project conditions. 2. Air Find help answering air questions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction activities, there would be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions to the ambient air. Objectionable odors could be caused by the roofing of homes or the paving of roadways and driveways. After construction, the principal source of pollution would be exhaust from vehicular traffic. The increase in automobiles associated with the development would contribute CO, NO and SO2 emissions to the ambient air. Fireplaces installed in homes would contribute emissions to the ambient air. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Water will be used to control fugitive dust emissions during dry weather construction. Equipment will have in good operating order all vehicle emission control devices. Cars do have emission standards they have to meet. 1.a Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 15 3. Water Find help answering water questions a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is an existing category F type stream in the southern boundary of the site. See project critical areas report for more information . 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No work proposed within the adjacent stream; however, clearing and grading within 200 feet of the stream is proposed. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None proposed. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposed development area of the project does not lie within a 100-year floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any alteration to the direction or rate of flow of ground water due to grading operations should be localized on-site. Release of groundwater onto adjoining properties would not vary from the present condition. 1.a Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 15 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals…; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Wastewater will be discharged to the public sanitary sewer system (City of Edmonds). If found, any existing septic systems will be decommissioned per Health Department criteria. Any existing septic and drain-field onsite will be decommissioned per Health District requirements. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Through the construction of residences, roads and driveways; the existing runoff pattern would be locally modified. Runoff from the project would be generated by building roofs, driveways, walkways, and roadways. Runoff will be collected by the stormwater pipe system and directed to an onsite stormwater detention facility. The project stormwater system will discharge to the City stormwater system in High Street. The High Street stormwater system flows westerly to Olympic View Drive and then south and eventually discharges to the Puget Sound. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Hydrocarbons from automobiles, herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer excess from landscape areas. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. On-site stormwater will be collected, detained(controlled), and released to the City’s stormwater conveyance system in High Street that flows northerly. Existing site runoff that sheet flows north and west across neighboring properties will be reduced. The southern sub- basin drainage on the project site will be maintained. 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. Temporary erosion control devices would be installed during construction. After construction, storm water runoff will be collected and directed to detention/ retention (underground detention vault) facilities and water quality treatment (storm filters) by the storm drainage system. 1.a Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 15 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☒ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☒ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☒ shrubs ☒ grass ☒ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing vegetation (grass and trees) will be removed as necessary for roadway and building pads. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Urban landscaping (lawn, shrubs, trees) will be planted around the houses upon construction completion. Existing trees and native vegetation will be retained in open space areas along the west and north boundaries of the site. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Himalayan blackberry. 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known 1.a Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 15 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Puget Sound Basin is part of the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Retention and planting of trees and landscape will provide habitat for urban wildlife upon project completion. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None Known 6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity would be the primary source of heating, lighting and other household purposes b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. None known. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The inclusion of energy conservation measures would be per the energy code and the choice of individual residents. 7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. a. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. An accidental fuel or oil spill from construction equipment is possible, though highly unlikely 1.a Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 15 b. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None known. c. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Only that associated with any single-family home and construction of the proposed infrastructure. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Conformance with Labor and Industries requirements and any other Health Dept. Standards. The project SWPPP as recommendation for spill prevention and control of potential hazardous materials used during construction. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None known. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? During permitted hours of work only, noise will be created by grading and excavation equipment during development and saws and hammers from carpenters when building homes. There may be increased ambient noise from the residential community by the increase in number of homes on the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction work will be performed during allowed hours of operation only. Equipment will be in good working order. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site and adjacent properties are developed for residential use. Hutt Park, a small natural urban City park is located along the east boundary of the site. The proposed project will not change the current land use. 1.a Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 15 b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? No farming or forests uses of the site are known 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? None known. c. Describe any structures on the site. One existing single family home and associated detached garage/shop. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The detached garage/shop will be razed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-12 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family - Resource g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None known. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. There is an existing category F stream and steep slopes found on site along the south and westerly boundaries. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 22 people (3.1 per household). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, the existing house on site is proposed to remain. 1.a Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 15 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. There are no anticipated displacements impacts. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Proposal is consistent with Zone Code, Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. None proposed. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Seven high to middle income housing units (6 net). b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any structure would be in accordance with the building code (current code limit is 25 feet). Exterior building materials are expected to be of wood and masonry. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Tree replacement planting will be provided to mitigate tree removal by the project. 1.a Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 15 11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There could be some glare from car mirrors and windows and windows from the homes. Night lights on homes and from windows in homes at night would be increased. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None Known. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The same type of glare and light from the surrounding community would be seen, not likely impactful. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The types of community glare and light produced are typical to existing communities and growth and impacts are accounted for or are very marginal. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Hutt Park (City of Edmonds) exists on the easterly boundary of the site. Southwest County Park (Snohomish Park) is located about 0.6 miles northeast of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreation uses will be displaced. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. None Known. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. None Known. 1.a Packet Pg. 321 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 15 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None Known. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. WISAARD website was researched for the application. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. If any archaeological artifacts were discovered during construction, activity in that area would be halted and the City would be contacted. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site will be accessed by a new cul-de-sac road off of High Street. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The closest community transit runs along Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive about one mile south of the site. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). High Street (public) will be widened, and a new turnaround cul-de-sac street end will be constructed by the project. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 1.a Packet Pg. 322 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 15 e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? New trips will be generated by the six net new houses. About 47 new average daily trips; 4 new AM peak hour trips; and 6 new PM peak hour trips will be created by the new net 6 residences. AM peaks are projected to occur between 7AM and 9AM, and PM peaks are projected to occur between 4 PM and 6 PM. Less than 5% are anticipated to be trucks. ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to make these estimates. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No known affects. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Traffic impact fees per City code will be paid to mitigate traffic impacts to the City’s transportation system. 15. Public Services Find help answering public service questions a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal would place additional demands on public services; however, facilities are generally in place to handle these additional demands. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Mitigation impact fee payments for traffic, parks and utility connections will be made at building permit issuance. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity - Snohomish County PUD; Communications – Ziply and Comcast; Sanitary Sewer and Water- City of Edmonds; Natural Gas – Puget Sound Energy 1.a Packet Pg. 323 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 15 C. Signature Find help about who should sign The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. X SEPA Responsible Offical Type name of signee: Rober Long, PE Position and agency/organization: RAM Engineering, Inc. Date submitted: 5/14/2024 1.a Packet Pg. 324 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) CITY OF EDMONDS SEPA ENVIRNMENTAL CHECKLIST COMMENTS PLANNING DIVISION 425.771.0220 DATE: January 16, 2025 FROM: Tristan Sewell, Planner Tristan.Sewell@EdmondsWA.gov RE: PLN2024-0040 18500 HIGH ST. Preliminary Conservation Formal Plat On behalf of the Planning Division, I have reviewed the SEPA Checklist for the proposed High Street preliminary plat and have the following comments relative to the information provided by the applicant: A.6 and 7: As a preliminary plat, development of this lot into six more single-family dwellings requires future permits, which serve as project phases. Should the City approve the preliminary plat, the following permits would be required: civil improvements, final plat, and then associated building and right-of-way permits. B.1.f, g, and h: Title 18 and Chapter 23.80 ECDC regulate erosion control requirements onsite. The City’s Planning and Engineering divisions review for compliance. Refer to the geotechnical report submitted to satisfy ECDC 23.40.090 for proposed erosion control. B.3.a.2: See the stream report submitted to satisfy ECDC 23.40.090. B.4.d: See the site plan for proposed conservation areas pursuant to ECDC 20.75.048 and the tree retention and protection plan submitted pursuant to ECDC 23.10.060. B.5.a: Both the applicant via the Environmental Checklist and public comments indicated the presence of bald eagles onsite and/or in the vicinity. The bald eagle is not on the State’s list of threatened and endangered species and were removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in 2007. However, bald eagles remain protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. B.5.e: As a known invasive urban species in Washington, one can presume the presence of eastern gray squirrels on or in the vicinity of the site. B.7.a.1.b: During the preliminary phase, no toxic or hazardous chemicals should be stored, used, or produced onsite. Later phases that involve physical work onsite and the ongoing residential use could expose the site to toxic or hazardous chemicals typically associated with residential development and use. B.7.b.2: Noise associated with construction activity as well as the resultant residential use are regulated by Chapter 5.30 ECC. B.8.b.1 and B.14.f: Agriculture and silviculture are not permitted uses within the vicinity. B.9.i: The City reviews the application for code compliance and will only approve a compliant 1.a Packet Pg. 325 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) preliminary plat. As the application is not yet approved, its code compliance remains under review. B.13.a: The residence, built in 1959 per County records, is over 45 years old. ECDC 20.45.010 requires candidate structures be at least 50 years old (among other criteria), which this residence also satisfies. B.14.c: Engineering reviews the proposed right-of-way improvements to High Street, which has a 40’ right-of-way, except at the corner of 183rd Pl. SW, where it widens to 50’ for the length of one lot – 9228 183rd Pl. SE B.14.e: Engineering reviews traffic studies and assesses traffic impact fees on development proposals. B.15.a: The proposal must provide sufficient utilities and emergency response access, which Engineering and South County Fire review. 1.a Packet Pg. 326 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) PLN2024-0040 High Street Preliminary Plat 1/17/25.SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Application for preliminary formal conservation subdivision. The site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12). Proponent: Chris Lyon, High St. LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 18500 High St. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. X This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by February 4, 2025. Project Planner: Tristan Sewell, Planner Responsible Official: Mike Clugston, AICP, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds | 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 | 425-771-0220 Date: January 17, 2025 Signature: XX Consistent with RCW 43.21C.495, adoption of ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.680 and 36.70A.681 are not subject to administrative or judicial appeals. XX Posted on January 21, 2025, at City Hall and the Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Uploaded to the Department of Ecology’s SEPA records portal. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and any associated documents can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public_involvement/public_notices/development_notices under permit number PLN2024-0040, by emailing the project planner (tristan.sewell@edmondswa.gov), or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 1.a Packet Pg. 327 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t ) PLN2024-0040 High Street Preliminary Plat 1/17/25.SEPA Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ☐ Applicant ☒ Dept. of Ecology ☐ City of Everett ☐ Parties of Record ☐ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ☒ City of Lynnwood ☒ Dept. of Natural Resources ☒ City of Mountlake Terrace ☐ US Army Corps of Engineers ☒ Dept. of Commerce ☐ City of Mukilteo ☐ US Fish and Wildlife ☒ WSDOT ☒ City of Shoreline ☐ WSDOT – Ferries ☒ Town of Woodway ☒ Puget Sound Energy ☒ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ☒ Snohomish PUD ☒ Dept. of Health – Drinking Water ☐ Snohomish Co. Public Works ☒ Olympic View Water & Sewer ☒ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ☒ Snohomish Co. PDS ☐ Alderwood Water District ☒ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ☒ Snohomish Co. Health Dept. ☒ Edmonds School District ☐ Port of Edmonds ☒ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ☐ King County - Transit ☒ South County Fire ☒ Puget Sound Regional Council ☐ King County – Environ. Planning ☒ Swedish Hospital ☒ Puget Sound Partnership ☒ Community Transit ☒ Tulalip Tribe ☐ Other pc: File No. PLN2024-0040 SEPA Notebook 1.a Packet Pg. 328 At t a c h m e n t : P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 S t a f f R e p o r t w . A t t a c h m e n t s ( P L N 2 0 2 4 - 0 0 4 0 - 1 8 5 0 0 H i g h S t . P r e l i m i n a r y F o r m a l P l a t )