Loading...
2019-09-04 Architectural Design Board PacketOp E D o Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board snl,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 4, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of August 21, 2019 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. MINOR PROJECTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continuation of District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons located at 550 Main Street (PLN20190024) 2. Public Hearing on proposed 18-Unit Multi -Family Development located at 22810 Edmonds Way and zoned RM-1.5. (Applicant: Kisan Enterprises LLC) (File # PLN20190003) 7. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process 9. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda September 4, 2019 Page 1 2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/4/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of August 21, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the draft minutes Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments: ADB190821d Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Tom Walker Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kim Bayer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Clugston invited each of the Board Members to introduce themselves and share information about their background and training. • Board Member Guenther said he has served on the ADB for several years. Prior to that, he served on the Planning Board for 9 years. He lives in Edmonds and is an architect by training. He has served as chair on both boards. • Board Member Bayer said she is the newest member of the Board, but has lived in Edmonds since 1979. Her background is corporate, but she is now retired and works as a business coach. She joined the ADB because she is passionate about preserving the beautiful aesthetic value of Edmonds as growth occurs. • Board Member Herr said he has been involved in residential construction and design for 46 years and has always been a designer/facilitator of residential construction of all types. • Board Member Strauss said she is an architect, doing primarily industrial and commercial development. For the last 20+ years, her focus has been on sustainable design and construction. She lives in Edmonds and owns her Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a own firm with an office on Main Street in Edmonds. She loves the eclectic downtown and wants to retain that character. • Board Member Jeude said she grew up in Richmond Beach and moved to Edmonds about 30 years ago. She recently retired from the Seattle Times, but while there, she watched the area change from warehouses to a place that attempts to build community. She joined the ADB because she wants to be part of the changes that are happening in the City. • Board Member Owensby said he is also an architect by trade, and his love is urban design. He shared how he has been influenced by the experiences and the environments he has lived in throughout his life. He joined the ADB because he wanted to get involved as the City evolves. MINOR PROJECTS No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING r N There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation) 0 There were no consolidated permit applications. N c ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ROLES OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) 0 Mr. Chave advised that when he was hired by the City 29 years ago, the ADB typically reviewed about 20 projects each 0 meeting, but most of them were small projects such as signs. That changed in 1993 when the Washington Court of > Appeals issued a decision in Anderson vs. Issaquah, which held that the city's generalized standards or guidelines were Q. unconstitutionally vague. Since Issaquah's design code was patterned after Edmonds, it was clear that the City had to 0 change its approach to design review. He explained that prior to 1993, the City's code contained flowery language and applicants didn't have a clear understanding of what was expected at the outset of a project design. There was no predictability as to how long the design review process would take and which projects would eventually get approved. c Mr. Chave explained that Edmonds followed the court ruling with a steady effort to provide more specificity and T o predictability in both the City's design standards and its design review process. As the design standards and codes a became more specific, many of the small projects that used to go to the ADB for design review became staff decisions that were routinely approved as part of a building permit. This sped up the design review process a lot. °' E Mr. Chave reviewed that Ordinance 3636 established the City's current district -based design review process, and the intent was that it would be used as a model for development once specific design standards had been drafted for all areas a of the City. The district -based design review model also included a two -phased design review process, wherein the first stage was intended to occur early, with the ADB looking at conceptual designs. The proponents would then work out the details and present the designs to the ADB a second time for final approval. The problem with this process is that proponents have typically already settled on most of their design solutions before the first phase review is accomplished. Mr. Chave further explained that both the City Council and the ADB have come to realize that the code now provides specific design standards, and developers are generally designing projects according to the codes and standards in place. Because of that, by the time the ADB is presented with a project, it is fait accompli and the Board doesn't have a lot of discretion to require modifications. In order to influence design, the ADB has expressed a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle. In addition, the City Council has stated a desire to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial role. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a Mr. Chave presented a flow chart, outlining a potential design review process that would allow the ADB to provide early input. As proposed, the proponent would be required to participate in a preapplication meeting with the ADB prior to submitting a building permit application. The intent would be for the ADB to review conceptual designs that illustrate how is the site situated, what the code parameters are, what is the context, what design decisions need to be made, etc. No design plans would be reviewed at that time. If the Board wants to retain its review role without being the quasi- judicial decision maker, the City could require proponents to meet again with the ADB after a design is in hand and permit applications have been submitted. This would not be a public hearing, but it would allow the ADB to review the design and provide comments or a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Rather than simply running through the checklist of code requirements, the Board would be able to look more holistically at the design solutions. The Hearing Examiner would review staff reports, ADB recommendations, etc. to make the final quasi-judicial decision. Mr. Chave advised that while the Hearing Examiner would not be required to accept the ADB's recommendation, the Board would have more freedom to share comments and suggestions. It would also help them better identify disconnections between what the Board wanted to see and what was actually developed as code compliant design. He said staff would like the ADB to be the body that clearly understands the design standards and their relationship to what actually gets built. The Board's main job could be to review the design standards and codes against projects that occur and recommend potential code amendments that would have a meaningful impact on what actually gets built in the future. Mr. Chave referred to the Board's recent 10-year review of projects that have occurred in Edmonds and suggested that the review should take place on an annual or semi-annual basis. It will be important for the Board to compare approved building plans to what actually gets built. It will also be important to take note of what a project looks like five to ten years after construction, since maturing landscaping and how the building weathers over time can significantly change the community's view of a project over time. These annual reviews would allow the Board to apply a time element when identifying potential amendments to the landscape standards and other codes. The Board could also use the annual reviews as an educational piece when meeting jointly with the City Council and Planning Board in a public setting. Mr. Chave summarized that there would be some value to the ADB holding a preapplication meeting with proponents, followed by another review later in the process. However, the Board's bigger value will come from reviewing the codes and standards and their overall impact on design and proposing changes over time. City Attorney Taraday said he was invited to the meeting to guide the Board's discussion about the design review process and the ADB's role in land use permitting. He was also asked to talk about the legal context that creates the Board's role. Vice Chair Strauss asked if City Attorney Taraday's firm, Lighthouse Law Group, represents other cities, and City Attorney Taraday answered that his firm represents two other cities in a city attorney capacity. Vice Chair Strauss asked if he lives in Edmonds, and he answered that he lives in Seattle. He said he has represented the City of Edmonds since 2011, City Attorney Taraday explained that code adoption is a legislative activity, but land use permitting is not. Because of that, the discretion a decisionmaker has when deciding a permit application is constrained. The City's code that defines the Board's role is a mixture of legislative, quasi -legislative, and quasi-judicial functions. The Board's capacity to recommend design code changes is a legislative function that has broad discretion. However, that is not the case when reviewing a specific application. He explained that a court has to measure against something in order to review a decision and determine whether it was fairly decided, and that's why having objective decision criteria is important. Not only does it provide guidance to decisionmakers, but it also gives someone reviewing the decision down the road (the court) the ability to determine whether the decision was fairly made or not. However, if the Board's role is changed from decisionmaker to meeting with applicants in preapplication conferences, the decision criteria would not be so limited. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to land use decisions that determine the legal rights of parties in a public hearing and requires decision makers to act as impartial and fair judges, without any preconceived ideas. Because no public hearing is required for administrative decisions, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would not apply. It also doesn't apply to legislative actions. When policies are being adopted, the City Council has extremely broad legislative discretion to determine what policies it wants to adopt. City Attorney Taraday explained that one limitation that applies in a quasi-judicial setting is a prohibition against ex parte communication. As soon as an application is filed there is a pending proceeding, during which members of a decision -making body cannot engage in ex parte communications with either proponents or opponents of the project. The doctrine also limits a decisionmaker's consideration of evidence to what is in the record. A judge can only review a decision if all of the factors that went into the decision are in the record. For example, a Board Member might make a site visit and absorb information about the neighborhood setting, traffic, etc. While that information may affect the decision, it is not part of the record. In addition, he explained that the doctrine prevents decisionmakers from participating in a decision if they have outright bias in favor or against a pending application. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that she often walks by the sites the Board is reviewing. If she happens to mention something that she saw when she walked by, it would be on the record. City Attorney Taraday agreed and explained that this knowledge could be disclosed as ex parte information by putting what you know on the record and letting the parties to the proceeding respond. In addition, any discussions that occur outside of the hearing should also be disclosed as ex parte communications, regardless of whether or not they will have an impact on the final decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that, if the Board ends up retaining its quasi-judicial role, he could provide more in-depth training. City Attorney Taraday advised that State Law requires that any city can have no more than one open -record hearing and one closed -record appeal on any given application. Based on this law, it would be illegal for the ADB to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation or decision on a component of an application and then send it off to the Hearing Examiner or City Council for another public hearing. The one -hearing rule would be violated if people were allowed to provide evidence in support or opposition to an application at each of those stages. Because of this law, the City must decide where it makes the most sense to have the open -record hearing and which body is best situated to be the primary recipient of evidence in support of or opposition to an application. The trend seems to be that the Hearing Examiner is the most appropriate body to hear most applications. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the Hearing Examiner is just one person. Mr. Taraday answered affirmatively and added that it is generally the same person unless there is a conflict of interest. The City retains its Hearing Examiner by contract, and the current Hearing Examiner is a lawyer by training and has the expertise to perform the task he is assigned. However, because he is not an architect or builder, he benefits from the ADB's recommendations with respect to design features. He also benefits from the Board's assistance in drafting an objective design code that gives fellow architects sufficient guidance to design buildings without having to guess at what the City wants. Board Member Owenby requested clarification on the Design Guidelines, and Mr. Clugston advised that they have not been adopted as code. City Attorney Taraday suggested that it will be important for the Board to keep the design guidelines in mind as they review the design standards in the code. However, they are not enforceable or mandatory. It is extremely important to understand where the code mandates something and where it merely suggests something. Board Members with architectural backgrounds can utilize their professional experience to provide guidance on whether or not the design standards go too far. Feedback from the Board will help the City find the right balance between what is mandatory and what is simply a suggestion or guideline. Mr. Chave reviewed that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to come up with Design Guidelines, which contained a number of higher -level objectives, as well as a lot of specificity. The City Council conducted hearings to potentially adopt the Design Guidelines into the code, but there was some push back that they contained too much detail. Ultimately, the high-level design objectives were adopted into the design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and all of the detailed guidelines were eliminated. The Design Guidelines provide vague guidance, but they are not mandatory. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a This sets up frustration by the review body. He suggested it would be valuable for the ADB to review the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and translate them into code as appropriate. He reviewed that the City's overall approach has been to regulate what is important, but figuring out what is important and how to provide guidance and specificity is a challenge. If you go too far in specifying detail, development ends up looking the same. On the other hand, you must regulate what is important to provide overall context within the community. It seems that the ADB would be the best body to accomplish that task. Board Member Owenby asked staff to provide the Board Members with a complete package of everything they need to understand which of the guidelines have been codified, which ones are mandatory, etc. Mr. Chave suggested it would also be helpful for the Board Members to review the 2001 study to learn more about the approach that was considered at that time. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan appear to be a one -size -fits -all approach that doesn't really fit Edmonds. If the ADB wants to undertake this work, City Attorney Taraday cautioned against them getting too hung up on what the current code makes mandatory versus what is not a, mandatory. He suggested it would be more productive to focus on the future. N Board Member Owensby commented that setback requirements are extremely important. A lot of design can be T N controlled by controlling how much setback is required and/or allowed. Traditionally, setbacks in cities were used to create public spaces in front of court houses, post offices, libraries, etc. He expressed his belief that setting buildings back too far from the street can destroy the urban character of a city. He would like a better understanding of all of the zoning standards before he can make any recommendations for change. City Attorney Taraday commented that, as a ° N body that recommends policy change, no changes would be off limits to the Board's consideration, regardless of whether or not they are mandatory at this time. c Board Member Bayer commented that, as a lay member of the Board, it would be very helpful to have additional information that outlines the current code requirements that relate to design. She referred to the scenario where the o Hearing Examiner was the decisionmaker and asked how the ADB would provide feedback for the Hearing Examiner to 0 consider. City Attorney Taraday answered that it depends on whether or not the Board wants to include the review cc meeting component that is shown on the flow chart as an optional part of the process. He noted that this is an optional ° part of the process, which gives the Board Members an opportunity to convey their opinions about a project's design and C ask the Hearing Examiner to impose certain conditions on a development. However, the Board's recommendation -- would be nonbinding and the Hearing Examiner may decide that the code does not support such a condition. On the downside, this additional review could be time consuming and limit the Board's ability to provide policy guidance. He oNo said he doesn't have a recommendation one way or the other. Mr. Chave summarized that staff s intent was to sketch out a process that would take the ADB out of their quasi-judicial MT W a decision -making role, but still keep them involved in design review. However, by retaining their role in design review, the ADB will continue to function similar to the current process. He said he is not sure the ADB will benefit from E continuing with design review if they want to devote their time to the codes, standards and design guidance, which is where they can have the greatest impact. He explained that, in addition to general design standards that apply throughout ;a the City, the City is also trying to do more subtle nuanced design standards based on districts (i.e. Westgate, Five a Corners, Downtown, Highway 99, etc.). Creating district design standards will require a lot of the Board's time. The Board must decide what their most important role is and then allocate their time accordingly. City Attorney Taraday said that if the Board decides not to continue in their design review function, staff would review applications and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with respect to whether or not the project meets the adopted design criteria. However, some may feel that staff would not perform with the same expertise as the ADB. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that staff has been doing a great job of reviewing applications and providing detailed staff reports. She said she supports a process that requires applicants to meet with the ADB in a preapplication meeting. She asked if the Board would favor making the preapplication meeting mandatory or optional. She also asked if the City currently charges a fee for preapplication meetings. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 7 preapplication meetings. One is a higher -level meeting that is free, and the other is a paid preapplication meeting where applicants receive notes, etc. He said staff s initial thought is that preapplication meetings with the ADB would occur during their regular evening meetings. Mr. Chave added that the preapplication meeting could be mandatory for projects that meet a certain threshold, but the format could be less formal. It would be up to the Board to establish the thresholds and decide the meeting format. When considering the option of moving design review earlier in the process, Vice Chair Strauss cautioned that the ADB needs to understand that their role is not to design projects and they must be careful with their suggestions. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the idea of reviewing the current Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and identifying potential changes, as well as opportunities to codify them as standards where appropriate. If the Board's goal is to affect what Edmonds looks like, this will be the best approach. With the current process, the Board does not really have a chance to change anything as long as a project meets all of the design standards. Board Member Guenther agreed that the ADB should still be involved with project review, but the best approach has yet to be determined. He suggested that before working on design guidelines and district -based design standards, it would be helpful for the Board to review the design element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is frequently cited in the Staff Reports and contains all of the policy statements related to design in the City. Board Member Owenby asked staff to describe the process the ADB would follow when recommending changes to the design standards and other code requirements. City Attorney Taraday answered that the way the code is currently written, changes to certain section of the code automatically go before the Planning Board. However, they may want to revisit this provision to try and eliminate some of the redundancy of one recommending board reviewing another recommending board's work. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the Planning Board makes recommendations on certain code chapters to the City Council, and that includes everything related to design standards and zoning. However, he agreed it might be appropriate to change the code so that design -related issues are the purview of the ADB, which means the ADB would make recommendations directly to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that streamlining the process so the ADB could make recommendations directly to the City Council on design related issues would certainly speed up the process. However, he emphasized that the City Council would still be responsible for making the final decision. Board Member Owensby asked if the ADB would be required to conduct public hearings on proposed code changes before sending a recommendation to the City Council, and City Attorney Taraday answered that a public hearing would likely be required. He explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that there be a public participation process for land -use related code changes. Board Member Owensby pointed out that some of the Board's design -related amendments might also involve zoning amendments. For example, creating a walkable community will require less setback. He referred to Highway 99 and observed that the further buildings are set back from the street, the further people will have to walk to get from one business to another. Mr. Chave advised that the setback requirements along Highway 99 were recently revised, and future development will be much closer to the sidewalks. City Attorney Taraday commented that setbacks have historically been within the reahn of the Planning Board. He advised that some code amendments can be under the purview of the ADB, but others might require a joint recommendation from both boards. Board Member Bayer said she supports streamlining the amendment process so that the ADB's recommendation can go directly to the City Council. However, she is curious about how the ADB would work with the Planning Board when joint recommendations are required. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires that the ADB's recommendations go to the City Council via the Planning Board. City Attorney Taraday said his thought is that the process could be changed to allow the ADB to forward recommendation related to design directly to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested that they focus on the most basic changes first (i.e. the Board's role in design review and recommendations to the City Council related to design policy changes). Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a Board Member Guenther suggested that, until the code is changed to allow the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will be important for the Board to follow its recommendations through the Planning Board and City Council public hearings. Recommendations are often changed as they make their way through the process. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', and they would like to meet jointly with the ADB prior to that meeting. This would be an opportunity for the ADB members to voice their thoughts on potential changes that the Planning Board could share with the City Council. The idea is to obtain direction from the City Council before taking the proposed changes any further. He suggested it might be appropriate for a few ADB members to be present at the j oint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board. Board Member Bayer asked if it would be appropriate to draft some ADB Bylaws that outline their processes. This might be particularly important as the Board takes on a different role. City Attorney Taraday responded that the ADB is governed by ECDC 10.05, which creates the ADB and establishes its powers and duties. He recommended they each review this chapter and identify potential amendments. He explained that, in general, whenever the Board is unable to reach a consensus, the majority would rule. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Attorney General's Office has an on-line training video that explains the Open Public Meetings Act and how it applies to bodies such as the ADB. He recommended that all Board Members should view the video as soon as possible. As the Board becomes more involved in policy issues, there will be a temptation to discuss issues with fellow Board members outside of the regular meetings. These discussions can accidently result in illegal meetings. He agreed to email the Board Members a link to the video. He said he can return to a future ADB meeting to discuss any questions the Board Members might have after watching the video. Board Member Owenby commented that some of the ADB's work appears to overlap with work being done by the Economic Development Commission. He commented that urban design and architecture can influence economic development and suggested that a joint meeting might be appropriate. City Attorney Taraday agreed there is some overlap between the various boards and commissions. In the ADB's case, there is some overlap with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and Tree Board. Nothing prevents two boards from meeting jointly. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the ADB's existing Powers and Duties are listed on Page 22 of the Staff Report, and potential Powers and Duties, as well as possible Future Projects are listed on Pages 26 and 27 of the Staff Report. He encouraged the Board Members to review the list of existing Powers and Duties and see how they have morphed into what the Board currently does. He also recommended that they review the lists of potential Powers and Duties and Future Projects and identify additional items. Mr. Chave requested feedback from the Board on whether or not they were ready to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September 11' to share their thoughts on how the ADB's role might change or if more discussion is needed. He summarized that it appears the Board is interested in taking on the role of working on design standards and codes that will determine what kind of design happens in the future. They are also interested in pursuing a preapplication role in design review rather than the current quasi-judicial role. Explaining their thoughts on these two subjects would be valuable to the Planning Board so they can, in turn, highlight the proposed changes and gauge City Council support. If the City Council offers general support, the ADB can work on more specific changes. The Board agreed to place this issue on the September 4' agenda. They asked staff to distill their discussions thus far into a one -page list for them to review. The Board could the discuss any changes and agree upon a proposal to present to the Planning Board on September 11'. They discussed whether groups of Board Members could meet together to discuss ideas, but City Attorney Taraday cautioned that any meeting of four or more Board Members would have to be noticed as a special meeting. The rule applies to email chains, as well. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to email their questions to staff, and staff could forward their responses to all of the Board members. Staff could also meet individually or with two or three Board Members. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a Board Member Guenther said he is not sure he supports taking the ADB out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process. While he understands the advantages of this change, he felt more discussion was warranted before making this recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Owensby concurred. The Board agreed to discuss the pros and cons of this particular change at their September 4' meeting. Board Member Owensby said he would like staff to provide links to all of the plans and codes that the ADB would be responsible for based on the proposed changes. He also requested a link to ECDC 10.05. Mr. Chave commented that the design standards are scattered throughout the code, but staff could provide links to the main policy documents. Board Member Bayer asked staff to share their perspective on the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said staff supports all of the proposed changes discussed by the Board. Staff supports the ADB taking on a much stronger role as design standard policymakers and in reviewing the relationship of projects to codes and design standards to gain an understanding of how they work together and what changes need to be made. The biggest problem with the ADB's role as quasi-judicial decision makers is that the makeup of the Board changes frequently, and Board Members are often not well trained in quasi-judicial decision making and the rules are hard to understand. He said he would really like to see a board of design professionals and interested lay people actually devote their expertise to what they are good at, which is design, rather than quasi-judicial positioning, which is the Hearing Examiner's job. Board Member Juenke asked City Attorney Taraday to explain the Board's current quasi-judicial roles. City Attorney Taraday answered that there are certain types of design review applications that only go before the ADB for approval. Mr. Clugston added that the last two applications that came before the Board are examples of projects in which the ADB makes the decision on design. Mr. Chave advised that, until recently, certain ADB decisions could be appealed to the City Council. However, the City Council decided to retain appeals on variances and conditional uses, but not on design issues. Board Member Owensby recalled that at the ADB's last joint meeting with the Planning Board, there was some discussion about affordable housing and housing variety and types. He asked if it would be appropriate for one or two ADB members to meet with the Planning Board to share their experiences and knowledge. City Attorney Taraday answered that Board Members can approach the Planning Board as individual citizens, but they cannot provide input to the Planning Board as representatives of the ADB. Mr. Chave added that ADB members can submit written commentary to staff related to items on the Planning Board's agenda. Another option is to provide oral comments at their meetings. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no additional Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 10 6.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/4/2019 Continuation of District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons located at 550 Main Street (PLN20190024) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Phase 1 of this two-phase public hearing began on July 3, 2019. At that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until September 4, 2019 for Phase 2. Unfortunately, the applicant was not able to provide a resubmittal in time to make the September 4 agenda. As a result, the Board must vote to continue the hearing again. Staff Recommendation The applicant has indicated the revised materials will be ready to submit within the next week so continuing the hearing until October 2 will allow staff sufficient time to review the proposal again and prepare a staff report for the Board in advance of the meeting. Narrative Packet Pg. 11 6.2 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/4/2019 Public Hearing on proposed 18-Unit Multi -Family Development located at 22810 Edmonds Way and zoned RM-1.5. (Applicant: Kisan Enterprises LLC) (File # PLN20190003) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions. Narrative The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development at 22810 Edmonds Way. The 18 units are proposed to be divided between four structures with each containing a two car garage. Access to the proposed development will be taken at the signaled intersection of 951" Place West and Edmonds Way via a public easement for ingress and egress. The public easement is located on the adjacent property and also serves as access for the Cascadian apartment complex located at 9504/9508 Edmonds Way. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions with the Architectural Design Board issuing a decision following a public hearing. Attachments: PLN20190003 Design Review Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 12 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Kisan Multi -family Development File Number: PLN20190003 (Design Review) Date of Report: ust 28, 2019 j f L� Staff Contact: �.�.� Kernen Lien, En rodnental Programs Manager Public Hearing: Wednesday — September 4, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250-5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 L SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development at 22810 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 — 7). The 18 units are proposed to be divided between four structures with each containing a two car garage. Access to the proposed development will be taken at the signaled intersection of 95th Place West and Edmonds Way via a public easement for ingress and egress (Attachment 13). The public easement is located on the adjacent property and also serves as access for the Cascadian apartment complex located at 9504/9508 Edmonds Way. Design review projects which trigger SEPA review are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). II. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Edmonds Way View 7. Preliminary Civil Plans Packet Pg. 13 6.2.a 8. Drainage Report 9. Geotechnical Report 10. Lighting Plan 11. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis 12. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Comment Response 13. Public Easement AFN 7801230217 14. SEPA Checklist 15. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 16. Shockey Planning Group, Inc. MDNS Request 17. City of Edmonds' response to Shockey retaining DNS 18. Zoning and Vicinity Map 19. Aerial Image 20. Notice of Application Public Notice Documentation 21. Signed Form Letters received during NOA Comment Period 22. Jeffrey Sterling May 3, 2019 Email 23. Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination Public Notice Documentation 24. August 22, 2019 Shockey Planning Group, Inc. Letter 25. City of Edmonds' response to August 22 Shockey Letter 26. Snohomish County PUD Letter 27. South County Fire Review Comments 28. City of Edmonds Building Division Review Comments 29. Engineering Division Memorandum of Compliance III. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: Kisan Enterprises LLC 2. Applicant: Robin Michel 3. Tax Parcel Number: 27033600102300 4. Location: 22810 Edmonds Way (Attachment 18) 5. Size: The subject property contains approximately 31,167 square feet. 6. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM - 1.5) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. 7. Existing Use: The site is currently developed with one single-family residence (Attachment 19). 8. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development. The existing residence will be demolished and the 18 units are proposed to be divided between four structures with each unit containing a two car garage. Page 2 of 17 Packet Pg. 14 6.2.a 9. Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions with the Architectural Design Board issuing a decision following a public hearing. IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under SEPA is required for this project because the project exceeds four (4) multifamily residential units. The applicant submitted a SEPA Checklist for the project which is included in Attachment 14. The City of Edmonds reviewed the SEPA Checklist and other related development documents and 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 local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and issued SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on August 6, 2019 (Attachment 15). During the SEPA comment period, the City of Edmonds received a request from Reid Shockey of Shockey Planning Group to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with the proposed mitigating measures being an alternative circulation plan proposed by the adjacent property owner and a reference to compliance with the City's development codes (Attachment 16). The City of Edmonds responded with the letter provided in Attachment 17 and retained the DNS issued on August 6, 2019. The City did not receive any appeals of the SEPA determination. V. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS A "Notice of Application" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on February 26, 2019. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 20 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Application. Following the issuance of the Notice of Application, the City received sixteen comments via form letter signed by residents of the Cascadian apartments and the property owner. All of the signed form letters and one copy of the map associated with the letter are provided in Attachment 21. The form letter is primarily concerned with the proposed access to the site and potential impact to the Cascadian apartments. A follow-up email also addressing the access issue was also provided by Mr. Sterling (the adjacent property owner) and is included as Attachment 22. Staff Response: Access to the proposed development is through an easement granted to the public for ingress and egress (Attachment 13). During discussions on a previously proposed development of the subject property, the City of Edmonds indicated it would treat the easement as a right-of-way for the purposes of permitting. The proposed layout of the access to the site and Cascadian apartments has been evaluated by Gibson Traffic Page 3of17 Packet Pg. 15 6.2.a Consultants (Attachments 11— 12), as well as the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division and the City's Transportation Engineer. See the discussion in Section VII of this staff report below regarding the Engineering Divisions review of the site access. A "Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on August 6, 2019. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and those who submitted comments following issuance of the Notice of Application. See Attachment 23 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination. Following issuance of the Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination, the City received three additional comment letters. One of the letters requesting the City to issue an MDNS (Attachment 16) is addressed above in Section IV of this staff report. A second letter from Shockey Planning Group received during the SEPA comment period more directly commented on the design of the access to the site (Attachment 24). This second Shockey letter questioned why more analysis was not provided on the circulation alternative proposed by the adjacent property owner. The City of Edmonds responded with the letter included in Attachment 25. The final written comment received to date was from Snohomish County PUD No. 1. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 noted the district has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development; however, the existing facilities in the area may require upgrading. PUD noted any relocation, alteration or removal of district facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the developer and must be coordinated with PUD in advance (Attachment 26). Staff Response: Utilities will be included on the civil portion of the building permit and it will be the responsibility of the developer to coordinate with PUD. VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed by the South County Fire District, and City Building and Engineering Divisions. South County Fire noted that a hydrant will be required at the northwest corner of the property and referenced fire code that applies to the subject project (Attachment 27). Compliance with fire code requirements will be reviewed with subsequent building permit submittals. The Building Division noted that if the structures meet the IRC/IBC definition of townhouse, they must be designed pursuant to the IRC. Building also noted an addendum to the geotechnical report will be required to confirm the geotechnical engineer has reviewed the final design of the project (Attachment 28). The Engineering Division preliminarily approves the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 Page 4 of 17 Packet Pg. 16 6.2.a ECDC (Attachment 29). Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. Access and Frontage Improvements: The proposed development will take access through a public access easement on the south side of the 95th PI W and Edmonds Way at the signalized intersection. One existing driveway approach on Edmonds Way will be eliminated with the proposed development, thereby reducing the number of vehicular access points along Edmonds Way. The proposed development will be required to replace existing pedestrian improvements along the frontage of the subject property in order to meet current City and ADA standards. The specific design of these improvements and any connections to on -site pedestrian facilities will be reviewed during the building permit phase of the project. As noted, access to the proposed development will be taken from an existing public access easement, which is located on the adjacent property to the west, the Cascadian apartment complex (9504/9508 Edmonds Way), and also provides access to the Cascadian. The configuration of the access on this south leg of the 95th PI W and Edmonds Way signalized intersection was the topic of several conversations with both the applicant and the adjacent property owner. A couple different configurations were presented to the City and ultimately the applicant submitted a proposal that includes two ingress lanes and one egress lane. As shown below, the west ingress lane will provide a dedicated lane to the Cascadian apartment complex and the east ingress lane will provide a dedicated lane for access into the proposed development. The western edge of the existing public access easement is highlighted in yellow in the drawing below. FACED IUaWARE' ----s --- -- CURB PER COF- - - _ • STO rR-524 - - ��"� .. - -1�-- SA 1P. ... Iif —if— " II I 11� � � R�OfRCRk'lff7175 F' r 'I �� ! f t PROPWO LAW Sr PAID ' yLrC -JU ` - A A .HQ r d .. ... . .V 1++'• t1 ` I y CONCRUE EXTROXD �Ik I %•+ I �J tvh's P_"R Cfii C(— 7R-522 6 'iLi EDMONDS +, (TYP) U%V1 181 36 I— - C 35 The configuration of both the ingress and egress travel lanes has been reviewed by the applicant's traffic consultant, Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., as well as the City's Page 5 of 17 Packet Pg. 17 6.2.a Transportation Engineer. The following comments are contained within the Traffic Impact Analysis and Comment Response Memo prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultant's, Inc. and dated April 2019 and July 12, 2019, respectively. • The advantage of the second receiving lane is in case an inbound vehicle is blocked by an outgoing vehicle. • Vehicles entering the apartment complex/development would not queue back to SR-104. A level of service (LOS) analysis has been performed for the signalized intersection of SR-104 and 95th PI W to ensure it would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The analysis shows that the site access intersection will operate an acceptable LOS C The development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding intersections. The City's transportation eneineer also found the proposal to be feasible and will further address lane striping, signage, etc. during the building permit phase of the project. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to Page 6 of 17 Packet Pg. 18 6.2.a provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provided in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a detailed analysis on how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. Staff Findings: The driveway that currently provides access to the existing residence will be eliminated and access to the site will be taken at the signaled intersection of 95th Place West and Edmonds Way via a public easement for ingress and egress. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Staff Findings: The projects consists of eighteen dwelling units in four buildings. One of the buildings will be located up to the street setback helping to define the street edge. All of the parking will be located within the structures with each unit containing a two -car garage. Direct pedestrian access is provided within the public easement which directly connects the site to the sidewalk along Edmonds Way. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. Staff Findings: New sidewalks will be installed along Edmonds Way and a pedestrian/bike path will be constructed within the public easement to connect the development site to the sidewalk along Edmonds Way. Transit stops are located just west of the intersection of 95th Place W and Edmonds Way. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. Page 7 of 17 Packet Pg. 19 6.2.a Staff Findings: Entry to the individual units is from the internal drive aisle for the development. No gathering space is intended for the development. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Staff Findings: Project meets the setbacks requirements for the zone and landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the development consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC (Attachment 4). A.5 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. Staff Findings: The perimeter of the property is landscaped which will provide some green spaces. The four separate buildings provide open space in the center of the development. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. Staff Findings: All of the buildings have a similar design and color scheme. Each building is a three story structure with a garage on the ground floor and living space above. The new sidewalk along Edmonds Way and pedestrian connection from the development to the sidewalk will help improve pedestrian access. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Staff -Findings: -Covered -entries -are provided for -each -unit: A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. Staff Findings: A lighting plan is provided in Attachment 10. The lights are mostly interior to the site and will be directed down to minimize spillage from the site. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. Staff Findings: No signage was included with the design review application. The cover letter notes signage will be limited to building addresses and one sign for the project name (Attachment 2). The project name signage will be reviewed under a separate building permit application. Page 8 of 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.2.a A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. Staff Findings: A trash enclosure is located towards the rear of the development and will be screened with landscaping (Attachment 4). The preliminary civil plans indicate electricity will be provided via a vault on the adjacent property to the east. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Staff Findings: No significant natural features exist on the site. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Staff Findings: Landscaping is provided consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. See the discussion on landscaping in Section VIII.D below and the landscape plan in Attachment 4. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings are not repetitive or monotonous. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. Staff Findings: Bulk and mass of the buildings are reduced through use of materials, colors, and building form subdividing the buildings both vertically and horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Page 9 of 17 Packet Pg. 21 6.2.a Staff Findings: A hipped roof separates each of the residential units within the four building and provides for a modulated roof design. Each unit also incorporates a shed roof element over a cantilevered portion of the structure which provides wall modulation and the substantial windows on the cantilevered element allows light into the building. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in colors, materials and projections that help break up the masses of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Staff Findings: The existing development on either side of the development consists of older multi -family developments constructed in 1977 and 1987 prior to being annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1995. The proposed development will be the first on this stretch of Edmonds Way. The proposed buildings will add diversity of design to the streetscape while the scale of the buildings will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of -the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Staff Findings: A variety of window sizes and shapes help define the scale and character of the building. The windows also help provide variation to the facade and should provide light and air into the interior of the residences. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in materials and projections that help break up the bulk of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. Page 10 of 17 Packet Pg. 22 6.2.a Vill. DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Chapter 16.30 ECDC - Multi -Family Residential Zone: The subject property is located with the Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.30 ECDC. ECDC 16.30.010 Uses Staff Findings: Multiple dwellings are a permitting primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1, so the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM-1.5 zone. ECDC 16.30.030 Development Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Subdistrict per Street Side Dwelling Setback Setback Unit (Sq. Ft.) RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10' Minimum Maximum Maximum Rear Height Coverage Setback 15' I25" 1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Staff Findings — Density: The subject property contains 31,167 square feet of lot area. With a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area, a maximum of 20 dwelling units could be constructed on the site. The proposal is for 18 dwelling units among four structures so the proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Setbacks: The subject site has street setbacks along the Edmonds Way property line, side setbacks from the eastern and western property lines and rear setback along the angled southerly property line. The proposal is consistent with the required setbacks (Attachment 3), and will be verified with the building permit application. Staff Findings — Height: All four of the proposed buildings provide roof pitches of 4:12 above 25 feet and are less than 30 feet in height from average grade (Attachment 5). The proposal is consistent with the height requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Coverage: ECDC 21.15.110 defines coverage as 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. The application notes a building ground coverage of 12,396 square feet or 39.77% of the 31,167 square foot lot (Attachment 7). The proposal is consistent with the coverage requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Page 11 of 17 Packet Pg. 23 6.2.a B. ECDC 17.50.020 — Off -Street Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. Type of multiple dwelling unit Studio Required parking spaces per dwelling unit 1.2 1 bedroom I 1.5 2 bedrooms 1 1.8 3 or more bedrooms 2.0 Number of units in proposal 0 0 Number of ' parking spaces required 0 0 0 0 18 36 Total Spaces Required 36 The number of bedrooms in each of the residential units is not indicated in the design review application; however, a two -car garage is provided for each of the units. Given that maximum required parking spaces is two per unit, the proposal would comply with the parking requirements regardless of the total number of bedrooms in the project. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC. C. Chapter 20.11 ECDC— General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. ECDC20.11.030.A Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, - Staff Findings: Building components are harmonious with the existing character of the nearby area. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area, Staff Findings: The proposed colors scheme avoids excessive brilliance or brightness (Attachment 5). Page 12 of 17 Packet Pg. 24 6.2.a 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Staff Findings: The applicant notes that all mechanical equipment is totally screened or situated inside the buildings (Attachment 2). The location of mechanical equipment is not apparent on the preliminary civil plans. A proposed condition of approval requires that all mechanical equipment and other utility hardware be screened from street view. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in materials and projections that help break up the bulk of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not currently propose any signage. Any signage will be reviewed under a subsequent building permit application. ECDC 20.11.030.8 Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Staff Findings: The subject property is relatively level and grading is minimized to retain the existing level portion of the site. The six trees on the subject property will be removed to make room for the proposed structures and access drive. A few trees within the public access easement will also be removed for the construction of the pedestrian/bicycle access and reconfigured vehicular access. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC is being provided with the development. See the discussion on landscaping requirements in Section VIILD below and the landscape plan in Attachment 4. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Staff Findings: Landscaping is being provided consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC and will provide buffers from surrounding properties (Attachment 4). 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Page 13 of 17 Packet Pg. 25 6.2.a Staff Findings: Landscaping adjacent to the internal drive aisle will be protected by curbing. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Staff Findings: A trash enclosure is located towards the rear of the development and will be screened with landscaping (Attachment 4). 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Staff Findings: The landscaping requirements in Chapter 20.13 ECDC for the perimeter include a mix of evergreen and deciduous species that will be effective in screening the site year round. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Staff Findings: Not applicable. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Staff Findings: A lighting plan is provided in Attachment 10. The lights are mostly interior to the site and will be directed down to minimize spillage from the site. ECDC 20.11.030(C) Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict - - with -the -existing -and -planned -character of the -nearby area. Staff Findings: The proposed building is not a community facility. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: No specific street furniture is proposed or required. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the design standards of ECDC 20.11.030. D. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Only one type of landscaping is required for the proposed development. Type III landscaping is required around the exterior of the development. ECDC 20.13.030 provides the requirements for each landscaping type. Page 14 of 17 Packet Pg. 26 6.2.a Type 111 Landscaping. Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Type III landscaping is provided around the exterior of the development (Attachment 4). In addition to the landscape requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC, street trees and ground cover will also be provided in the landscape strip between the new sidewalk and Edmonds Way. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the intent and requirements of the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13. IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE of the design for the proposed Kisan 18-Unit multi -family development, file PLN20190003, with the following motion and conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, Page 15 of 17 Packet Pg. 27 6.2.a X. AND ZONING REGIULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED KISAN 18- UNIT MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. 2: ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS, OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 3. AFIRE HYDRANT IS REQUIRED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPOERTY. 4. FIRE LANES MUST BE MARKED AND SIGNED PER SOUTH COUNTY FIRE STANDARDS. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING CODES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PHASE OF THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED PLANS. 6. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGNREVIEWBY T-HE-ARCHI-T-ECT-URAL DESIGN -BOARD -AS -LONG -AS THEDESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121— 51h Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Robin Michel 7305 Soundview Drive Edmond, WA 98026 Reid Shockey Shockey Planning Group, Inc. 2716 Colby Avenue Everett, WA 98201 Kisan Enterprises LLC 20607 State Route 9 SE Snohomish, WA 98296 Jeffery and Lisa Sterling 901 Westminster Circle Everett, WA 98203 Jeremy Bohannon 9508 Edmonds Way Apt. #205 Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 16 of 17 Packet Pg. 28 6.2.a Aaron Taylor Bekka Zander 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #118 Edmonds, WA 98020 Genie Choi 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Amy Tackett 9508 Edmonds Way Apt. #207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Annie Stephenson Dusty Ellison 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. # 113 Edmonds, WA 98020 Marlita Reed 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #116 Edmonds, WA 98020 Monica Donbin 9508 Edmonds Way Apt. #112 Edmonds, WA 98020 Alisha Stubblefield 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 Christopher Parizi 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #222 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jose & Chris Cruz 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #120 Edmonds, WA 98020 Klye Byrum Raymond Weigold 9508 Edmonds Way Apt. #211 Edmonds, WA 98020 Sara Christensen 9504 Edmonds Way Apt. #122 Edmonds, WA 98020 Arnee & Jeremiah Flores 9508 Edmonds Way Apt. #104 Edmonds, WA 98020 Clayton Earls 9504 Edmonds Way Office Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 17 of 17 Packet Pg. 29 Land Use Application 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE Ll SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: FILE# dV V-U7*ZONE DATE 1 " 73-' REC'D BY L, V FEE HEARING DATE RECEIPT # ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB mil; DB ❑ CC s PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD +t PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 22810 Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Kisan PROPERTY OWNER Kisan Enterprises LLC PHONE # 425-402-9900 ADDRESS 20607 State Route 9 SE, Snohomish, WA 98296 T E-MAIL naeem@a1land.com TAX ACCOUNT # 27033600102300 FAX # SEC. 36 Twp. 27 RNG.3E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 18 unit apartment project 4 buildings RM 1.5 DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSAR Attached APPLICANT Robin Michel PHONE # 206-930-2445 ADDRESS 7305 Soundview Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026 E-MAIL rwmichel@nwlink.com FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Robin Michel PHONE # 206-930-2445 ADDRESS 7305 Soundview Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026 E-MAIL rwmtcnei(L_qnwnnK.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of illy knowledge and that I am authorized fo file this application ri tlme belmalf of the ojvncr as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLiCAN'I'/AGENT .r DATE 1 /23/19 Property Owner's Authorization I, NALigMc BAL- certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. -r7—W'C-- 01 1 Z3 / / Packet Pg. 30 SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE II ` 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Development Project: 18-Unit Apartment Cover Letter The purpose of this cover letter is to: RECEIVElo JAN 2 3 2019 DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, COUNTER (1) Describe, "how the proposal satisfies the applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations." As per the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002 E. (2) Describe how the proposal is "consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the comprehensive plan." ECDC 20.11.020 (3) Describe how the proposal meets the purposes according to ECDC 20.10.000. (1) Standards, requirements and criteria in development regulations. (l.a.) ECDC 16 1. ECDC Chapter 16.30 permitted uses is multiple dwellings. Section 16.30.10 2. ECDC 16.30.030 Proposal meets all Site Development Standards. 3. ECDC 16.30.040 No Site Development exceptions proposed. (l.b.) ECDC 17 1. ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking required is 23 parking spaces. 24 spaces are indicated on proposed Plot Plan. (l.c.) ECDC 20.13 1. ECDC 20.13.020 E. Automatic irrigation will be provided. Attachment 2 1 Packet Pg. 31 6.2.a (l.d.) ECDC 20.11.030 Criteria: A. Building design. 1. All exterior components including windows, doors and eaves are harmonious in style and consistency and do not conflict with homes or other buildings in the neighborhood. 2. Colors are not excessive in brilliance or brightness but show a respect to the neighbors by mirroring the earth tones of the existing trees and other organic material. 3. All mechanical equipment is either totally screened or situated inside the buildings. 4. Each of the four buildings are not long, massive, unbroken or monotonous in and among themselves with the many "bump outs", window details and various roof lengths and roof features. Four separate buildings instead of the traditional one massive building is more fitting of the character of the existing buildings in the area. 5. Any signage will conform to the general design theme of the proposed development. B. Site Development. 1. Grading is minimized to retain the existing level portion of the site. All trees that can be retained add to the overall natural feel of the proposal. Most of the trees that will be required to be removed are located in the building pads, access roads and street right of way in order to install all City of Edmonds required street frontage improvements. New trees are proposed in this area. 2. Landscaping will be provided to enhance the building design, separation of the buildings and other site improvements. 3. Landscaping is proposed to buffer the development from each neighbor and to Edmonds Way. 4. Landscaping will be protected from pedestrians and vehicles. 2 Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 32 6.2.a 5. Dumpster is to be screened by fences and plantings. 6. All screening will be effective in the winter months as well as the summer time. 7. All planting areas will be suitable for plant growth so no other materials will be needed in those areas. 8. Exterior lighting will be provided as only as the code requires and will not be excessive in brightness. C. Other Criteria. 1. No facilities or improvements will conflict with existing or planned character of the nearby area. 2. No Street Furniture is proposed. (2) Techniques and objectives in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the comprehensive plan." ECDC 20.11.020 (2.a.) Urban Design Goal & Polices. Pages 122-125 Comprehensive Plan 1. General Design Goal A: 1. The proposal will improve the physical appearance and character of Edmonds by introducing new structures built to new earthquake and wind load standards that reflect some of the traditional features of many of the residences built through out the decades in the City. 2. The proposal will improve the pedestrian circulation by proving a city sidewalk Edmonds Way connecting to the existing walkway along Edmonds Way. 3. The proposal will provide new business opportunities to the surrounding area businesses with the addition of 18 new families. 4. Sustainable design practices will be used to protect natural environments as feasibly possible as directed by ECDC. 5. The proposal for four buildings instead of the traditional one Attachment 2 3 Packet Pg. 33 6.2.a massive building will protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds. 2. General Design Objectives: A. I. The proposal reduces the number of potential driveways by using the existing entrance at traffic light adjacent to the development. A.2 Proposed access to parking is through the side of the project allowing more landscaping to face neighbors and Edmonds Way. A.3 Installing new city sidewalk will help connect pedestrians to nearby transit. A.4 Access to site will by new city sidewalk to existing access to west of site provides level pedestrian access to buildings. A.5 Buildings are set back from the street providing for outdoor space for activities and community. A.6 The 4 separate buildings provide much desired open spaces for residents for activities and gatherings but also provide open spaces between buildings for neighbors to see through project to the mature evergreen trees that line the south property line. A.7 New buildings will have different sizes and shapes to help pedestrians to identify each building. A.8 Each entry will have weather protection. A.9 Lighting will be provided by code and not over bright to the respect of the neighboring homes. A.10 Signage will be limited to building address and one sign for project name per ECDC. A.11 Site utilities will screen to minimize noise, odor and visual impacts. A.12 Significant trees will be incorporated into the site design as per Attachment 2 4 Packet Pg. 34 6.2.a ECDC. A.13 Landscape buffers and some fences will be used to maintain privacy and soften hard edges. A.14 The proposed building form incorporates 4 smaller buildings instead of one massive building. A.15 The proposed 4 buildings reduce the massing associated with one larger building thus adding to the human scale elements. A.16 The many roof forms help identify functional areas in the residences which allows more light to enter the project. A.17 The variation of materials and wall modulation helps break up the potential for long massive walls. A.18 The proposed facades of the buildings reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns and fits in well with the existing neighborhood. A.19 The variety of the window sizes help define the scale and the character of the buildings in addition to reinforces the streetscape character as well as providing for light and air into the buildings' interiors. A.20 The proposed variation in materials, colors and design help to define the scale and style of the buildings that helps reduce the apparent bulk, if any. (3) Purposes ECDC 20.10.000 A. The proposal encourages the realization and conservation of a desirable aesthetic environment in the City of Edmonds by choosing to provide 4 separate buildings instead of one massive building using modern construction techniques and materials that will serve the owners and community for many decades to come. B. The proposed 4 new buildings feature amenities and excellence in form and function adapting to the existing topography and mature trees that border the site. 5 Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 35 6.2.a C. The proposal has been creative in site placement, 4 buildings and adapted to existing site conditions. D. The proposal enhances the preservation of land and provides use of historical elements to relate to the existing housing elements in the City of Edmonds. E. The new development minimizes the incompatibility and unsightly surroundings and visual blight that prevent orderly community development and reduce property values. 6 Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 36 PWEST RIAN j BIKE PATH W U 10" FIR TO REMOVED T RETAINING WALL LOT COVERAGE BLD A- 1,971.52 SQ. FT. BLD B - 3222.00 SQ. FT. BLD C = 3474.00 SQ. FT. BLD D = 3334.37 TOTAL SQ. FT. = 12,001.89 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE = 12,001.89/31,226.57 SQ.FT. = 38% IMPERVIOUS BUILDING (W/ EAVES) = 13,877.63 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY = 8766.79 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 22644.09SQ. FT. - - - - EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (16) 2 BED = 1.8X16 = 28.8 (2) 3 BED = 2X2 = 4 TOTAL REQ. - 33 SPOTS ACTUAL = 36 SPOTS REFER TO SITE ENGINEERING PLANS FOR AVERAGE GRADE HEIGHTS EDMONDS WAY 10" CHERRY = 21 032' 42" EXISTING ROCKERY O \ _ _ _ TO BE REMOVED \ 3 BL A- 1 ; 2 3 SCAB: , , 0.0Q r, 4 7 ;8 _ J I 5 6 19 - SLAB:35050 Lu 36 �. ;10 :18 35 _ Z '2 A ; 12 t - - - SLAB. 351.50 0.0 17 --33; I _SLD B m j I ?\ I � I 16 ` --- 32 � '14 sLAe:3s,�.so 3� I 15 . 51 1,, LAB:351.50 I 30 8 28 J 17 - I I -; 9- 4 ;18 OI 27 �I _ ------ ' I 12$,00, 19 D — — — _ 1 20 C BLb C 4, �1 21 S 50 N 22 - a 23 2 s 24 1 d H c 25` , 26 --13, S' WOOD FENCE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SHED & CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED 8" FIR TO BE REMOVED VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE & PLOT PLAN SCALE: 1"=30'-0" 0- 0 d a� E m u- c R 00 U J J u) W to .Q `m c w c Y M 0 0 0 rn 0 N Z J d N — LOCATION: n Michel Design � Z 0 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA.98020 BUILDING DESIGN PO Box 1215 Lynnwood, WA 98046 20 Packet Pg. 37 6.2.a kcv� ......... . ............. . So Ro 104 94 T=63-02' FND 112 REBAR _ � ✓' �E-'�1''11�G Y) W/CAP LS19620=1�583� CGRD S 6846, (EDM ONDS Qo 1,9 46' p1 " �- _ r g _ f-~o I o4 _ TRAFFIC SIGNAL ARM f r AND EQUIPMENT BOX ss SD `� 36 'S PER S IAr s5 SS SD UP 4p D' EX. S S.M. H. 5o SO 5�r N rn ,� F = 337 SS ' SOMA TIC 5� 8 D• 1. WA TERMAIN 8 "SAN1 TAR Y rrr rrr rlr f —sf) ^r71 SD ❑ _ ' y ss SEWER MH 15— 68 c - : e ❑ TOP=344.43 , , ° a i 4LE =JJ9.63 {' ' rri WM R 'd sit s WA TER S� :: so 1 A •:_ ..•... ' : v VAL VE TOP ++ ..• I.E. =341. I+ +++ UIVIT 185 rS�D A- —� •M : n:•.. a _ 0 1 ` (n I j ++ �� rrr 7 1 5 r q7 �- �' . +++ FND�1 PIPE � /� ,,1 � :: I � I 4 I I � I 8 I r i �I � I 5 I I UiVIT 4 Irr., ,., Ma'`A t CB RIM 348.86 ,Name EX. S TOP SIGN J I — 1 - X 1 I - X � l l = I L - Common I I I 6 I I I C �Vo P _—44 I I I 10oo r -� 1 1 _ o I �1655'j ® l 1 1 350 —` � I six x. C.B .04 TOP= 341. 58 ' • - RE Q �o S,4B 1NV=34.D9r-6"W -� f 9 `�SD.50 10 + 6 UNIT 181 36 -a Size Will _ r UNIT 16 J2A. ■ JOB •� � ��� �y�f ♦♦fit. )� - .., 3 NIL �. ���. y1H' ~ �1 war►♦♦�" ♦�1�' ham'UNIT 15 29 l n�• . i �Si�' Or A ` �•i / �.. ��.r♦mot_ y �� 1 � 11 11 11 '' ►•fry •f '.'-� !�► t ♦•� 7,�,��1•�i �+�� I:Y ►�♦ ��� fir►' �.•� ■ f'w . + r �►��♦mot♦. ' r♦�w� f _..�. INS 19 A N.. UNIT 14 • 27 20 ♦ rr 1 • 1.1 , . 1.. .--,,,,ROCKER Y Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura Tree 3" cal 5 Taxus baccata 'Fastgiata' Irish Yew 6'-7' 100 Hamamellis'Amethyst' Witch Hazel 4'-5' 8 Cryptomeria japonica 'Bandai-Sugi' Bandai-Sugi Japanese Cedar 4'-5' 10 Azalea'GumpoWhite' Gumpo White Azelea 2gallon 50 Ceanothus'Victoria' California Lilac 5 gallon 19 Abelia grandiflora 'Edward Goucher' Edward GoucherAbelia 5gallon 28� Rhododendron macrophylla Pacific Rhododendron 5 gallon 0 Sarcococca hookeriana var humulis Himalyan Sweet Box 5 gallon 61 Gaultheria shallon Salal 2gallon 79 Cornus 'Kelseyi' Kelsey Dogwood 2 gallon 53 Polystchum munitum Sword Fern lgallon 57 Rubusparviflora Thimbleberry lgallon 40 Hemerocallis'Stella De Oro' Daylily 1 gallon 140 Athyrium felix-femina Lady Fern 1 gallon 115 Helleborus 'Royal Heritage' Royal Heritage Hel lebor 1 gal Ion 105 Carex 'Ice Dance' Ice Dance Sedge 1 gal Ion 116 Gaultheria procumbems Wintergreen 1 gallon 24" spacing Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnkinnick 1 gallon 24" spacing Pachysandra terminalis Japanese Spurpe 1 gallon 24" spacing Gallium odoratum Sweet Woodruff 1 gallon 2411 spacing I I �Y �1 .t .f.►e ►r�I ` it .�' r�- Air. �1�"i •<. � � � � �� i . nseg3. ell CON CRE TE EX. ROCKER � ram._♦♦1F. �� ' F �'��i �A4 1 A_ 1 _ �� y t lt'� �.. ►t♦�♦rw♦.w�i . r I y� a o X CB RIM I351.58 0 o n Edmonds, WA 98020 x ' _ I+� ,II - rl, !I� , err j. lit - , i♦` ram.:.:-: ��: �, ►�•twe.:_, •. ►.•� ? s+'F �i �Kill �,�•e{ �� lid Y� w�� . �►rr +•� kill- �� Mf a .' ■ ��� i 1 � I .q . ,I I � �- rr r ►e FIRE i Ie1 oillo 000 10, Drawn June 26, 2019 acnment jr 9" 10 0 G>s �o x. C.B. +. p POWER � VAULT TOP= 351. ! � _ INV-345. N, INV=344. �N 0 F.=349 f t r/r EX, S S. M. H. TOP= 350.23 INV=343.99 1\-�f Zu ♦ 5 FT WOOD FENCE,- 0. 3' EAST ♦4 l i EDGE OF PA VEMEN T ♦ Al It 1� �O -1 V L O T 1 6 27033600102200 TRIMARK— WESTGA TE APAR TMEN TS LLC 22816 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA. 98020 EXISTING RETIREMENT HOUSING BUILDING SHANNON V 0 TAW DESIGN Packet Pg. 38 ' HT: 380.50' Am .....................P1 C ....... I........... INSULATED GARAGE DOORS- PAINTED SW CITYSCAPE 30 YEAR ARCH COMP ROOF- (BLACK) SABLEWOOD — FASCIA -(GRAY) -SW CITYSCAPE VINYL WINDOWS - (BLACK) PANELS -(GRAY) -SW PEPPERCORN BELVEL SIDING (GRAY) SW GRIZZLE GRAY F11-Elill 1■i � �i � SOUTH • • III NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" I m.. r,i: C e= e- SO ,It m LL 0 7 r+ � J J fn d to �L CL L d Lu (r m E. GRADE: 311.0 M O O SLAB 350.00' O O CV Z J d iv MAX HT: 381.07' z c � C m AC F HT:380.50' ; bx 4A2 N • ^�' Ca i W u G 0 a � D p7 fi } c C Q c z �ano ° z ._ v C p wC U C)C r rj 0 C C C C r Q ` � u G z_ E. GRADE: 351.07' J m S A ......... SLAB 350.00' C C r PRINTED: 4.29.19 I Packet Pg. 39 30 YEAR ARCH COMP ROOF- (BLACK) SABLEWOOD FASCIA -(GRAY) -SW CITYSCAPE VINYL WINDOWS - (BLACK) PANELS -(GRAY) -SW PEPPERCORN BELVEL SIDING (GRAY) SW GRIZZLE GRAY WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=f-o" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" RJ RIII so' 351.07' }C Q � a �a o �a z� H O u oz o �� a W2 N fV LL Q U z C) J CD IPRINTED: 4.29.19 Packet Pg. 40 1 6.2.a HT: 383.19' ==== = ==== = SLAB HT: 350.50' WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" INSULATED GARAGE DOORS— PAINTED SW CITYSCAPE 30 YEAR ARCH COMP ROOF— (BLACK) SABLEWOOD FASCIA —(GRAY) —SW CITYSCAPE VINYL WINDOWS — (BLACK) PANELS —(GRAY) —SW PEPPERCORN -- BELVEL SIDING (GRAY) SW GRIZZLE GRAY SLAB HT: 350.50' NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =i-o" SLAB HT: 351.50' SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-o" m LCL G T V J J fn d �L L d Lu c m Y DE: 354.41' M O CD O HT: 351.50' r 0 N Z J d �c Q� Z a �a o �a z� u Ld o -, C a oo 2 N N LL m u Z J_ 00 PRINTED: 4.29.19 Packet Pg. 41 1 M HT: 384.41' iq ACTUAL HT: 383.19' \ITCH v < < co --------------------- F � N .........{.....................................................................................{....................................................................................,.......................................................................................................................................................................... AVE GRADE: 354.41' .................. ------------------------------- ______________________________________________________------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ `--------------------------------- _________________________ SLAB HT: 35 1.50' SLAB HT: 351.50' @UNIT 8 � SLAB HT: 350.50' SLAB HT: 350.50' @ UNIT 5 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: i/8" =i'-o" d z cn Q •� W � z o a m u � D m N 3 }� m a C z< ovw U o -,C M O oo C O O O N Z m J z a z o � CD m E t u r PRINTED: Q 4.29.19 Packet Pg. 42 MAX HT: I 6.2.a I ACTUAL HT: SLAB HT: 35 zo ED N 11F1 I1 11L611 I I 1" I I I I 11111 � 1111, zo INSULATED GARAGE DOORS- PAINTED SW CITYSCF - YEAR ARCH COMD onnr_ - Ar- CAm -1- FASCIA-(GRAY)-SW VINYL WINDOWS - (I PANELS -(GRAY) -SW BELVEL SIDING (GRA WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1=o" �0 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" tl Fin]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ m ----------------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------------------ --------------- --------- --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- u L7 z_ C) J_ 00 IPRINTED: I 4.29.19 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" Packet Pg. 43 1 6.2aI INSULATED GARAGE DOORS- PAINTED SW CITYSC/ 30 YEAR ARCH COMD Dnnr- (Ri A`-vi cARI FWnnn FASCIA -(GRAY) -SW VINYL WINDOWS - ( PANELS -(GRAY) -SW BELVEL SIDING (GRA SLAB HT: 351.50' NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =i-o" 4/12 0 I ---------------------------- L_______ SLAB HT: 351.50' SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1-o" M HT: 386.11' fV ACTUAL HT: 383.17' v bo fV O ?9.3$f ;1, HT: 351.50' MAX HT: 386.11' ACTUAL HT: 383.17' fV \ / / 4/12 PITCH 60 O ..... .......................................................................... ............................................................................................................................... A i i I L E GRADE: 356.00'_ ,B HT: 351.50' z 2(.i � m •� W � I --I Ci 3 z U Q ] R c� Q N z �00 O z �0 LLJ � o0 O oz a N Q N W v z 0 J_ Co Co PRINTED: 4.29.19 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-o" Attachment S Packet Pg. 44 jq IRV qR 7 JIM �,. `�` _ e'. V 0, rsor-'.­ --- wo"n �-Fv- War- IL III M MENEM W- T. SIMI SIMI 'AL IWANNE p%jTA ON FANNON ED& a Er upw IN 11AMENE I I WN 7 A III M w- w� zh- . vw . .L wry h� WLjL NONE �,�.''� .,(,�'1•�ts±�:�vw,•ai-=.r�!••:e6.•i�wd•�r9'•�--:a.. .:,wl�l 6.2.a 0 104 EDU / \ o ��r440 (, O11NDS FND MON IN CASE R�4 23' frA Y \ \ 0.5' BELOW RIM , _ 01+00 --� - -'-� a61. \ 2" ROUND CONC V =63.0 FND 1/2" REBAR R=410.23'------- - ---�C. BE 29 42" SINGLE DIRECTION qR/rVG INVERTED NAIL 0- -------------- --- W/CAP LS19620 Z=145. �- C0R0 S 68' CURB RAMP PER COE i 8,? -� 419 46' 46 p1 " E DETECABLE TR-540 AND WSDOT �o WARNINC SWFACE SP F-40.16-03 �0 2 7' CONCRETE SPECIES OF TREES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PER WSDOT SP' o i" 6 I WALK THE ROW WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE alpa2p? p4 / i PER CITY OF BUILDING PERMIT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. F-45.10 - EDMONDS TR-531 VERTICAL CONCRETE 3 p?,c pp "C-CURB" DUAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL i SS 4' PLANTER CURB AND GUTTER 6 AND EQUIPMENT BOX SS S so -P 35 PER CITY OF Cc44p FACED MOUNTABLE s �- 36'S PER SURVEY 30' EX. S S.M.H. CURB PER COE SD SD - - - - ss D PEDESTRIAN EDMONDS TR-520 ,..fic LE. =337 STD 7R-524 SD f _ _ E PER C SA _ ESMT 8'D1 WATERMAIN 8"SANITARY W - -S 80 sD ss SEWER_Z of MH 15-88 �- o 4 a - - S, i MATCH NEW CONCRETE SIDEWAL, TOP=344.43 , , "' S - - \ NTO EXISTING ASPHALT WALK A LE.=339.63 �� / Z=139.22 2 /P �D �a 2 �Gq= a � � sp � EAST &WEST ENDS OF WM / - - 3Zp,�- _ 21I242"' �° FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT. ` MH 15-769 - 5�, /V I / ° � / 1 � E EA�-,y1ENT q.. \ � � SO �a vALVE ,, _ TOP =+/ �s---r12'_ 12'- 12MIN 9 / _350 - �W i PAVING N h I ~l (T� % SLi �Aljyr REQUIREME TS / 2 T I PER COE TR-0 \ 1 13 I r 17 I 1 D1 y� I I l 4 5 I 6 18 I� \ rT 4 F�ROPOSED LANE PEDESTRIA SIN69.58 - I PATH 1NV=34&09-6"W�` EX. PUBLIC ACCESS IN GR I - l A.F.�AllEY T __ J EGRESS EASEMENT N0. I I / 7801230217 EX. STOP I / I 35• III � SIGN .04 9 B2 CONCRETE EXTRUDED i A4 /_ B4 DETENT/OVAULT .L CURB PER CITY OF �i r /`- 1 ,� I 10 l EDMONDS TR-522 6 �� UNIT 181 3W I �� � 3 .10 (TYP) I 16" / 35p N/T 5 I 35v a I� 111 li L_-�-_J Z I X350. 7 x ' I o BID lg'/T 6 L _ - - - - - 65.00 - 35� 6\ I I 1- - - - -I PAVING o / 12 _ I x _ UNIT 17 I 34 RE UIREMENTS I , 350.¢5 N 8650'49" W I�i I �� i I P R COE TR-565 I I 133 SZAB=35 50 UN/T J 6 WI \V 1 I I o UNIT 16� - - -I I/ I14 SLAB=35150, 32 \ g EXTRUDED �1 BLD D I 8' J \\ CURBRETE I i I SLAB=351.50 I II ll-5 SLAB-3 p J I Y� i I \ nI lI f -I I 16 1 T 8 I IIz II m UNIT 15 - _ J I c2 ` I� \� EXISTING FIRE w "� �; 2 9 - - _I A3 s 12 0 I = HYDRANT = 1 i r�� UN/T 9 17 B3 10, P POWER VAULT `s t w �5 FT. WOOD FENCE­fO,' EAST OF x - I 28 \I I I / 'P 4 r 1L 0 27033600100300 ``18 I N CF q I EDMONDSWAY LLC I I27I ,_ I = c� 9504 EDMONDS WAY " L- - - - _j J l Fs EDMONDS, WA. 98020 = \ \� \ I I` I 19_ _ / Ik0 I = x = \ ?� \\ UNIT 14 SIABBID C 1 UN/1- 10 / � ` 4//P D4 Id I o -351.5/� ) `n1-100 0 20 I �O F \ _ O EX. C.B. - w C� I Top=j5l. I O N _ _ _ JEX. INV=349.01-6" x ROCKERY IRA NCLOS R /I 21 l Pv \ \ I 22 1 J 6 B RIM 349.81 I "' \ \ \\ I 23 % EDGE OF _ I I I I CONCRETE i UNIT "4" YELLOW PERIME R FIRE LANE I 24 STRIPING (TO BE 0 SET 6" FROM = \ I- - CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT.) _ \ J I 12" MIN LETTERING W/ 2" STROKE. \ \ I // v I -PER COE 7R-567 � \ \ � � � � � LL v LOT 17 i I 25 % l EX. ROCKERY _ \ c U�T 13 = 10 x I 26LLJ I I � I \ 1= 3 1 CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB PER CITY OF = Z EDMONDS TR-522 10, - o 3 i 9» EXTRUDED \ \ CONCRETE \ \ „ CURB \ �\ o \\ CB RIMII351.58 � \ h FIRE- \\ I>wv C11� HYDRANT = o CONCRETE LS: OS I ' 0. . 1`� 124, � TOP=351.44 INV=345.14-36 \ INV=344.74412'lVW \ O.F.=349.54 EX. S. S. M.H. TOP=350.23 INV=34399 L 0 T 1 6 27033600102200 TRIMARK-WESTGATE APARTMENTS LLC 22816 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA. 98020 EXISTING RETIREMENT HOUSING BUILDING 10" NOTE: EXTRUDED CURB SHALL 5" BE LOCATED ON 2 7112" 2 112" PRIVATE PROPERTY. � 1 1 11 ASPHALT EXTENSION HMA PAVEMENTR PLACE 6" COMPACTED J" CSTC BELOW HMA EXTENSION 1. NOT TO BE USED IN RIGHT -OF -WAY EXCEPT TO REPAIR EXISTING EXTRUDED CURB, AS APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER. 2. BONDING AGENT IS THE ONLY ATTATCHMENT METHOD TO BE USED BETWEEN HMA AND EXTRUDED CURB. J. CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR -ENTRAINED CLASS 3000 PER WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 4. NATIVE AND GRAVEL SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 959 MAX DENSITY. EXTRUDED CURB DETAIL N. T. S. SIDWALK AREA TO BE ROUTED TO GRASS OFF -SITE LID BMP MANAGED AREA PLANTER STRIP = 1,260 SF (0.029 ACRES) SIDEWALK ROUTED TO PLANTER STRIPS 1,260 SF (0.029 AC) SIDEWALK BYPASS DRIVING SURFACE IN ROW 138 SF (0.003 AC) BYPASS 505 SF (012 AC) CURB BYPASS 124 SF (0.003 AC) VEGETATIVE PLANTER AREAS OFF -SITE BYPASS IMPERVIOUS AREAS ROUTED TO POC IN WWHM2012 CURB & SIDEWALK: 138 + 124 = 262 SF (0.006 AC) DRIVING SURFACE. 505 SF (0.012 AC) TOTAL 767 SF (0.018 AC) ON -SITE AREAS FOR DETENTION SYTEM SIZING IMPERVIOUS AREAS.• X X ROOFTOP = 13,704 SF (0.315 ACRES) 0 CONCRETE/ASPHALT,) = 8,518 SF (0.196 ACRES) TOTAL = 22,222 SF (0.525 ACRES) PERVIOUS AREA: 8,307 SF LANDSCAPING AREA (0.191 AC) IMPERVIOUS, PERVIOUS, LID AND BYPASS AREA EXHIBIT SCALE: 1 " = 50' EXISTING FEATURES, TOPOGRAPHY, AND BOUNDARY NOTE.• THE EXISTING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND VARIOUS EXISTING FEATURES WERE PROVIDED FROM SURVEY CONDUCTED BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY GREENE LAND SURVEYING, WHICH PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY DATA UTILITY LOCATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL EXISTING FEATURES. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. Know what's below. Call 811 two business days before you dig. SHEET INDEX: 1. SITE PLAN 2. ROAD & DRAINAGE PLAN J. GRADING 4. TESC 5. NOTES & DETAILS VICINITY MAP LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT TO SCALE SURVEYOR'S NOTE COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND DO NOT REFLECT TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES ON OR IN THE VICINITY WASHINGTON, DISTANT SOUTH 88'1433" WEST 800.21 FEET FROM THE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE OWNER SHOULD SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HALF AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG CONTACT ALL UTILITY PURVEYORS IN THE AREA TO ASCERTAIN THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 88.1433" WEST 55.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3.09'11" EAST 523.66 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF THE COUNTY BASIS OF BEARINGS ROAD, THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE THE CENTERLINE OF SR-104 AS MONUMENTED PER RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 380.28 FEET WHOSE TANGENT AT THIS POINT BEARS NORTH 89 00'24" EAST A DISTANCE OF 140.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PLAT OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE 12 40'21 " WEST 510.23 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; NUMBER 2377087, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE BENCH MARK DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.• NORTH RIM OF MONUMENT CASE AT THE PC AS SHOWN HEREON. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE TRACT ELEVATION : 351.66 HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED 160 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST DATUM : OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (M.L.L.W.) CORNER THEREOF AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 2127'50" WEST TO INTERSECT THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE TRACT HEREINABOVE FIRST DESCRIBED, PROJECT CONTACT LIST: EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE STATE OF WASHIINGTON UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2185473. OWNER/DEVELOPER: COVERAGE CALCULATIONS MAX COVERAGE ALLOWED 45Z PER EDC 16.30.030 TABLE A 31,167 SF x 45% = 14,025 SF PROPOSED COVERAGE = 12,396 SF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D Al =349.89 A2 =351.1 A3=356.80 A4=355.15 B1=348.79 B2=352.59 B3=357.35 B4=356.16 C1=352.25 C2=357.20 C3=358.28 C4=357.13 D1 =35334 D2=356.74 D3=357.50 D4=356.00 AEG=351.07 AEG=354.41 AEG=357.48 AEG=356.11 UTILITY CONTACT LIST SANITARY SEWER: OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 8128 228TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 774-7769 WATER: OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 8128 228TH STREET SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 774-7769 ELECTRIC: SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. 21018 HIGHWAY 99, EDMONDS 98026 (425) 670-3200 GAS: PUGET SOUND ENERGY 10885 NE 4TH ST BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (425) 452-1234 CABLE. • COMCAST 12645 STONE AVE N SEA TTLE (877) 824-2288 FIRE DEPARTMENT.• EDMONDS FIRE DISTRICT (SCFD #1) 121-5TH AVENUE NORTH (EDMONDS CITY HALL) FIRE MARSHAL: (425) 771-0213 SCHOOL: EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 20420 68TH AVE WEST LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 (425) 431- 7000 REFUSE/RECYCLE: REPUBLIC SERVICES 1600 127TH AVENUE NE BELLEVUE, WA. 98005 (206) 682-9730 REVISION 2 (8-23-19): RESIZE DETENTION VAULT PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 8-5-19 REVISION 2 (6-27-19). PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 5-30-19 REVISION 1 (4-29-19). PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 2-19-19 L. DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC WASHV,yco�� LAND USE PLANNING & CIVIL ENGINEERING 21 AVE A, SUITE 4 C. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE 360-294-8941 moo_ .o.. 27367 ,c. c�� _ �� www.DONNABRESKE.crm KISAN ENTERPRISE, LLC 7907 212th ST. S.W. EDMONDS, WA. 98026-7571 PHONE: 425-776-2211 FAX: 425-778-9086 CONTRACTOR: MICHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7907 212TH SW, #102 EDMONDS, WA 980226 PHONE. • (425) 776-2211 CIVIL ENGINEER: DONNA L. BRESKE, A 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE. • (425) 334-9980 EMAIL: donnabreske@comcost.net SURVEYORS: LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PHONE. • 425-775-1591 CONTACT JEFFREY TREIBER GREENE LAND SURVEYING 7408 164TH ST SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 PHONE: (206) 498-0979 EMAIL: guy@greenesurveying.com GE07ECHNICAL ENGINEER EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC 1805 1367H PL NE, SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PHONE.- (425) 449-4711 PROPERTY INFORMATION: SITE ADDRESS. • 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 27033600102300 ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM 1.5) AEEA: 31,167 SO. FT. (0.716 ACRES) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION SITE PLAN FOR KISAN ENTERPRISES TAX PARCEL: 27033600102300 ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: 4-12-19 PLN20190003 SCALE: 1 " = 20' SHEET. 1 of 5 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 46 6.2.a DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS THE SURVEYOR DID NOT SEND SURVEY CREW INTO EDMONDS WAY TO OBTAIN INVERT ELEVATIONS OF STORM DRAIN PIPES. CONTRACTOR IS TO EXERCISE STANDARD PRACTICE AND POTHOLE DURING CONSTRUCTION, TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PIPE, AT THE TIME THERE IS TRAFFIC CONTROL IN -PLACE TO ADDRESS SAFETY CONCERNS. / S0MH-1, TYPE- 1 1 INVERT ELEVATIONS OF SANITARY SEWER PIPE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY WERE o CHANNEL LINED MANHOLE PER - OBTAIN FROM SEWER DISTRICT AS -BUILT DRAWINGS. WSD0T SP B-15.20-01 RIM=MATCH EXIST. APPROX EL=348 ,S IE=MATCH EXIST. APPROX IE=340.42 ' �. 04 11 ^^ MAKE PERPENDICULAR PIPE /�� V J E-Di oN FND MON IN CASE _CONNECI TON �` 44p3p. ��[� 0.5' BELOW RIM -, _ \ _ 01+00 2" ROUND CONC W/ INVERTED NAIL 00 /- 9„ L=63.02' - FND 1 2" REBAR R=410.23'------C. 12¢2 - � � BEAR/iy ro W/CAP LS19620 1=145.83��0R0 419 6S 68460j"E MITIGA ON OF SIDEWALVEGETATED PLANTER K RUNOFF VIA P PROWDES a2\ DISPERSION \ O2t = - - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ARM i SS 00 AND EQUIPMENT BOX ss SD 36'S �\ C`¢¢030' PER SURVEY? ss EX. S. S. M.H. so SD - - - - - - sD _ _ I.E. =337 I \ ss - ��� - - TiC - _ _ _S SD8"D.1. WATERMAIN g'SANITARYZ 50 50, w - - - _ ss SEWER ol� . 0 IN MH 15-88 TOP=344.43 a LE.=339.63 L=139.22, P27� " EWp�K WM / / _� -Op 4=213242,,, MEN - _ \ �� + I ss WATER MH 15-769 � / (_ ss T A.F. NO W SD ALVi. TOP =+/-348 WM's 12- 12'� --12' MIN / ° 11 » �- - _ \ 901015 £qg �� a W LE. =3419 B#4 TYPE-1 J ^ _ i \ CONCRETE S CB#3 CONTECH BLD BSBL c CURB RIM=350 STORMFIL TER STEEL $�,�i3 A _- e s _ _ os JE=347.2 1 - 27" PHOSPHOSORB \ - ��_�' ss MEDIA CARTRIDGE n \ REBAR �� \ IM=350.25 \ W/CA LS1 TOP=349.58 E�, -0�C 59, 15%' _ ' -_ L_ - � pRD FOR ;' � � -- INV=348.09-6"W GRD - � 1 SS _ _ BUILDING A EX. PUBLIC ACCESS INGRE I 77GHn1NE FD TEGRESS 12 F os 78012JO217 EASEMENT A.F. N0. i ® I / I I / �_TO ryp=CB SIGN CB TOP / 148" TYPE-ll PER I ¢ =12" p�C ®29, l T_ = _ _ r �O F\R x. GB.M\ I COE SD-300 N - l l POWER TOP=351.44 RIM=351.2 IE=341.25 _ I VAULT 4 ,-6„ C INV=345.14-36 IE=340.76 ,�, 10'-6" l PVC ®2T' INV=344.74-12"NW \ I CONNECT FOOTING / / / O.F.=349.54 DRAINS FOR �,�� 2 FROP-T CONTROL /� PVC ®29 4" PERF / BUILDINGS AND 6 , - STRUCTURE WITHIN / X. SS.M.H. VAULT. VAULT. I SIA,9 PVC FD RIM=350.75 �6" �! \ 35p5p sr, \` NV=34 .99 � ,u o 77GHTONE FD I RISER TOP=347.75 l \ GRAVEL 6 o TO TYPE-2 CB I x IE=341.75 v l l PIPE Z1 I\ z 7 x REgNt/ON �qU1 g / BLD B \ r I 1 = L_------65.00' _- �881 SF o l l' N 863049" W � -ITI j / r I I S(qB= r�' 5 FT. WOOD 351.50 /r FENCE-t0.3' RD FOR \\ i EAST 6I BUILDING D \ 8'-6" SLAB=351.Sp \ A PVC 027Qn \ 8 EXTRUDED BLD D I �' \ _ CONCRETE / SLAB= CURB SLAB=351.50 0) \\ 351.50 � � � i -RD 1 /l RD FOR � l 1 \ ��' _ � �� � ACCESS RISER I _ BR q BUILDING B II EDGE OFPAVEMENT � AND C r l I r \ EXISTING FIRE 1 10'-6" o RCULAR ADJUSTMENT SECTION (TYP.) ;CENTRIC CONE SECTION PRECAST RISER SECTIONS NNEL AND SHELF VFORCING STEEL (TYP.) NOTES SEPARATE BASE INTEGRAL BASE 1. KNOCKOUTS SHALL HAVE A WALL THICKNESS OF 2" MINIMUM TO 25" MAXIMUM. PRECAST PRECAST WITH RISER 2, FOR PIPE ALLOWANCES, SEE STAlMAIR0 PLAN 8-1Q2R TYPE-1 MANHOLE DETAIL 1 N. T. S. - MANHOLE DIMENSION TABLE DIAM. MIN. WALL THICKNESS MIN. BASE THICKNESS MAXIMUM KNOCKOUT SIZE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN KNOCKOUTS 48" 4" 6" 36" 8" 54" 4.5" 8" 42" 8" 60" 5" 8" 48" 8" a 5' FREEBOARD 7 100-YR EL=347.75 HYDRANT PVC 02q "� \ I 220# 3 CB 5 CON �, / 1.O 6.5' RODCAPACITY - STORMFILTER STEEL `� I 'Pi ` 1 L 0 T 1 7 ? \�\ ! 4 1 - 18" ZPG MEDIA it oce Y CLEANOUT SHEAR I ? 27033600100300 CARTRIDGE EDMONDSWAY LLC RIM=350.68 / _ �,Q GATE 8" DIA. MIN. I ' 9504 EDMONDS WAY _ IE=34Z68 ��l I EDMONDS, WA. 98020 ` \ \ / �/ Fs No - LWS = 341.25 ifCO $LABIB C NSF 2 - \ INV=349.01-6'W['*.j \� LOT 17 i i �\ o ' \ CB RIM i351.58 ' I s EX. ROCKER T 1 0 N 9» I o =351.50 l ENSURE DUMPSTERS sy, HAVE OPERABLE COVE/�S AS A MEASURE OF / l / SOURCE CONTROL. / 5'-6" PVC 0290 It I �, 1 ,l NI SLOPE SURROUNDING `IV DRIVE SURFACE AWAY / FROM TRASH ENCLOSURE AS A MEASURE OF SOURCE CONTROL / \ Ir v 1 i� W Nv \ �X I 10" �l 4" PERF \ PVC FD EXTRUDED = CONCRETE \ CURB co 1pO FO 17E APARTMENTS WAY 18020 HANDLE OVERFLOW EL=347.75 NOTCH WIER } WIDTH: 0.14 FT. 11 _ HEIGHT.• 0.99 FT. 7 N U - o 1 " (POLY) SAFETY TYPE MANHOLE j STEPS LOCATED Al 12" O.C. AND AS SHOWN IN PLAN. PIPE SUPPORTS 2 REQUIRED 12" OUTLET, BTM=340.75 CUT HOLE 0.342 INCH "' DIA IN 12 GAUGE PLATE AND WELD TO Z CMP CROSS. HOLE TO BE SHARP -EDGED "' SHOP DRILLED. 4 X STRUCTURAL DESIGN BY OTHERS WIRE MESH BASKET- CONTROL STRUCTURE WITHIN VAULT DETAIL 2 N. T. S. - EXISTING FEATURES, TOPOGRAPHY, AND BOUNDARY NOTE.• THE EXISTING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND VARIOUS EXISTING FEATURES WERE PROVIDED FROM SURVEY CONDUCTED BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY GREENE LAND SURVEYING, WHICH PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY DATA UTILITY LOCATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL EXISTING FEATURES. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXIS71NG UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW U7ILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. Know what's below. Call 811 two business days before you dig. 1" MIN. GAP BETWEEN STRAPS I-9"x1x12GAGALV. 'TRAPS TACK WELD TO VIRE MESH. ATTACH >TRAINER TO CMP CROSS V/ 16xl " SHEET METAL 'CREWS - 2 PER STRAP 5 x 9/16" OR x 16 GA V. WIRE MESH TACK WELD WIRE MESH TO BOTTOM PLATE Vl GALV. BOTTOM PLATE WIRE MESH BASKET X N. T. S. - HOLES 6 PLACES ON 10 3/8" BOLT CIRCLE FOR BOLTING TO WEIR PLATE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE o _3397 339.7 SF 29.5T� h 401.26 SF 212.19 SF 23I14'� 260.35 SW 151712 SF 1153' 115 SF 10, DETENTION TOTAL ARE{ 630 SF VAULT DIMENSION EXHI BI T SCALE: 1 "=20' *NOTE THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXHIBIT IS TO DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE VAULT AREA IS PROVIDED. SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR PRECISE VAULT DIMENSIONS. PROJECT CONTACT LIST: OWNER/DEVELOPER. KISAN ENTERPRISE, LLC 7907 212th ST. S.W. EDMONDS, WA. 98026-7571 PHONE : 425-776-2211 FAX : 425-778-9086 CONTRACTOR. MICHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7907 212TH SW, 1102 EDMONDS, WA 980226 PHONE (425) 776-2211 CIVIL ENGINEER: DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE: (425) 334-9980 EMAIL: donnabreske@comcast.net SURVEYORS.• LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PHONE: 425-775-1591 CONTACT. JEFFREY TREIBER GREENE LAND SURVEYING 7408 164TH ST SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 PHONE (206) 498-0979 EMAIL: guy®greenesurveying.com GE07ECHNICAL ENGINEER EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC 1805 136TH PL NE, SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PHONE (425) 449-4711 HANDLE /W LOCK PIN PROPERTY INFORMATION: O SITE ADDRESS: 22810 EDMONDS WAY FRONT EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 27033600102300 (ADJUSTABLE LOCK HOOK ZONING. • RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM 1.5) O O -- WITH LOCK SCREW AREA: 31,167 SQ. FT. (0.716 ACRES) 0 -- -- 1" ROD (VAR. LENGTH) LIFT HANDLE SHALL BE ATTACHED PER SIDE LIFT HANDLE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS 8" CL FANOU T/ SHFARGA TF 1007� CITY OF EDMONDS N. T. S. REVISION 2 (8-23-19). RESIZE DETENTION VAULT PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 8-5-19 REVISION 2 (6-27-19). PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 5-30-19 REVISION 1 (4-29-19). PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 2-19-19 DATE: 10 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 47 224TH ST SW 224TH ST SW 6.2.a / � o _ R ASY. 104 RDUONDS FND MON IN CASE 440��. 0.5' BELOW RIM I - -, _ _ 01+00 a 41023' 2" ROUND CONC W/ L=63.02' - FND 1/2" REBAR R=410.23' - C. 812942" INVERTED NAIL 00 Q - W/CAP LS19620 L=145.83�t CORD E4�g �S 684601"E ro a2 2204 - ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL ARM ss - ��� AND EQUIPMENT BOX ss SD 1- 36 Sit PER SURVEY ss � o 30' SD - _ � c44p EX. S.S M.H. - - _ - - SD . \ \ sD SD RETE PER C I.E. =337 W_- S _SD 8"D.l. WATERMAIN g SANITARY SEWER i w ss i MH 15-88 s s SD TOP=344.43 . I.E.=339.63 ��, $� � '.�GAS WM Ss E EAS�MENT A.F. NO 90 W S� ss W� TEER MH 15-769 _ _ 1p1� TOP =+/-348 WM's MIN / � 348 - - - _ _ - - 5 33g w a \ \ I.E. =341.9 ss \ W r-� CONCR / 6'3 `� BLDBSBL \ CURB / 3g8 - F 2 I \ \ I 13 I 17 I REBAR �� s 4 / / 5 / / 8\( W/CA Ls/ TOP=349.58 SS ` Iz EX. PUBLIC ACCESS INGRE6"W ss VA�LE� �- l 350.45 `l ti'F\R I 1 I 2% 1 os EGRESS EASEMENT A.F. NO. 7801230217 EX. STOP I / ss�. 350.45 � - - ) 20 so 'F\R SIGN I 351.22 LO P01 - POWER X. C.B.M.H. \ /� TOP=351.44 04 i �' • - / ( VAULT INV=34514-36" I � 6 x 35010 3 I N I I 35 \ L_-�-_l I x x350.12 G 6. 117 x I = 1 L-------_65.00' �5I I- - I J. N 865049" W-- `I 1 x hN I 34 ri W o / I 32 x I � \ g EXTRUDEDCONCI I x 31 BLD D \ CURB RE� LSLAB=351.50 N I --i 351.45 13o o129 x � I 1 1 EXISTING FIRE _ I = HYDRANT I r--- I x = I I 28 I 1 L 0 T 17 I ? 27033600100300 1 EDM27 ONDSWAY LLC \ I 9504 EDMONDS WAY 351. I EDMONDS, WA. 98020 \ \ TOP = 356 TOE = 351.5' I 1 CUT ROCKERY \ \ 351.5 351. ,\ 15 r I I� 1 CB RIM.; x x 4.5 HIGH = EX C.B. 70P=351.25 INV=349.01-6" / ALL PROPOSED , ROCKERIES ARE CUT TOP = 356' ROCKERIES AND TOE = 353 THEREFORE HAVE A \ SETBACK AREA HEIGHT"\ OF 0' AS DEFINED BY \ EMQ 1&40.02aA.6. 4 TC=351. 35 \ BC=351.3 n1 TC=352 � BC=351.5 `\ 3 OUT EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB (LOW POINT) 350.75 3 1.45 10 %48`�501 11 1 � BLD /B 51.45 0 12 SLAB=35 , 1 5 � J \ � ` 0 r SLA8_351.50 351.45 / 14 \ 3 .45 _ l� � SLAB-351.50 / 15 / 16 35 4 J 1 435.45 !' _ • o 5 / 17 1 3 l 18 ,vim L / 1.5 J I = 19 S�ABL�1 51.50,/ 20 / __ _ J EX I� I _' 21 1 / / 22 1 I i51. / 23 Cl) l 24 1 If r I 45 l 25 7 t9 / 26 � I � I his_ cCili ' PP 6 EDGE OF / / I CONCRETE 6 I% v I „W V \ INV=344.74-12"NW \ O.F.=349.54 X. S. S.M.H. TOP=350.23 INV=343.99 5 FT. WOOD FENCE-±O. '. EAST OF L 0 T 1 6 27033600102200 MIMARK-WESTGATE APARTMENTS LLC 22816 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA. 98020 EXISTING RETIREMENT HOUSING BUILDING .,, CONSTRUCTION NOTES: GRADING QUANTITIES CUT.• 5,217 CY FILL: 21 CY GRADING QUANTITIES ARE ROUGH CALCULATIONS THAT DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SHRINKAGE OR SWELLAGE. GRADING CALCULATIONS INCLUDED CUT FOR PLACEMENT OF DETENTION VAULT. EXISTING FEATURES, TOPOGRAPHY, AND BOUNDARY NOTE.• THE EXISTING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND VARIOUS EXISTING FEATURES WERE PROVIDED FROM SURVEY CONDUCTED BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY GREENE LAND SURVEYING, WHICH PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY DATA UTILITY LOCATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL EXISTING FEATURES UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. Know what's below. Call 811 two business days before you dig. 2", WHICHEVER IS GREATER. TEM, 12" COMPACTED SOIL OR INECT TO STORM DRAIN. a 4E EDMONDS WA Y CIO ziz- m SITE AREA (8,720 SF) - INSTALL 8" STOCKPILED SOIL IMPERVIOUS AREA (22,447 SF) ROW OR WEST EASEMENT) POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL PLACEMENT EXHIBIT SCALE. 1" = 50' REVISION 2 (8-23-19): RESIZE DETENTION VAULT PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 8-5-19 REVISION 2 (6-27-19): PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 5-30-19 REVISION 1 (4-29-19): PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 2-19-19 L. DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC �OF WASHep.ct> LAND USE PLANNING & CIVIL ENGINEERING :ol)" 21 AVE A, SUITE 4 707771 SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 Lji PHONE 360-294-8941 27367, UISTE IP �STONAL LNG � www.DONNABRESKE.com 232ND ST SW 228TH ST SW k9L VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 231ST ST SW PROJECT CONTACT LIST: OWNER/DEVELOPER. KISAN ENTERPRISE, LLC 7907 212th ST. S.W. EDMONDS, WA. 98026-7571 PHONE : 425-776-2211 FAX : 425-778-9086 CONTRACTOR: MICHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7907 212TH SW, #102 EDMONDS, WA 980226 PHONE. • (425) 776-2211 CIVIL ENGINEER. DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE. • (425) 334-9980 EMAIL: donnabreske@comcast.net SURVEYORS.• LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19217-36TH AVENUE W. SUITE 106 LYNNWOOD, WA. 98036 PHONE: 425-775-1591 CONTACT. JEFFREY TREIBER GREENE LAND SURVEYING 7408 164TH ST SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 PHONE. (206) 498-0979 EMAIL: guy@greenesurveying.com GE07ECHNICAL ENGINEER EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC 1805 136TH PL NE, SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PHONE. • (425) 449-4711 PROPERTY INFORMATION: SITE ADDRESS: 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX PARCEL NO. 27033600102300 ZONING. RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM 1.5) AREA: 31,167 SQ. FT. (0.716 ACRES) APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION GRADING FOR KISAN ENTERPRISES TAX PARCEL: 27033600102300 ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: 4-12-19 PLN20190003 SCALE: 1 " = 20' SHEET. 3 of 5 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 48 6.2.a NOTE.• INSTALL NAD MAINTAIN ALL TESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD DETAILS CONTRACTOR / IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN, REVISE AND/OR ADJUST ESC MEASURES AS NEEDED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL MAINTENANCE OF SILTATION BARRIERS: >> / - I PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS IMPLEMENTED. �f SILTATION BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. NECESSARY REPAIRS TO BARRIERS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED PROMPTLY. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH -p RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE LEVEL OF DEPOSITION REACHES APPROXIMATELY / ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. FND MON IN CASE �-44030' 0.5' BELOW RIM _ _� _ R_41023. ' a 2" ROUND CONC W/ =63.0 - /I\ - FND 1 2 REBAR R=410.p- _ 4 6129¢2" INVERTED NAIL - I / BEAR/ MG fo W/CAP LS19620 Z=145.83-0RD 419.. 6S 6846b1"E INSTALS TEMPORARY o 1 2 " % CATCH BASIN INSERT 7 5 _ \ - - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ARM AND EQUIPMENT BOX ss S D ss gp 36'S¢pER SURVEa ss - /\ C`44030' EX. S.S.M.H. Sp ODNCRETE PER Cl SD i � I.E. =337 55 - - W S ATIC SD p 8"D.L WATERMAIN 8'SANITARY 50 50, iii iii nu, I i i i i ui iu SS ZSEWER I ��� vv I MH 15-88 EX " ••� ;„ASP S SD � USE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TOP=344.43 "' ,hALT WgSK 78R W \ AS TEMPORARY 2 \\ I.E. =339.63 "' �� - - - - - - _ _ , _ SD So CONS7RUCT70N ENTRANCE 10"CH _ - �� SS WATER MH 15-769 2S, W SD AL VE TOP=+/--348 WM's I RE14OVEEX71?&b �/ _ _-__- 5 _ `----- a 1\9 7 3 10"CHERRY � _ \lam \ Q _ _ �(TgR _ �1� \ CONCRETE / �� 1 ti / ''� EN' CURB i EX. C.B I TOP=349.58 INV=348.09-6"W I REMOVE ENTIRE 2� ' EX. PUBLIC ACCESS INGREI EXTRUDED ll EGRESS EASEMENT A.F. NOREMOVE 78012JO217 I / II CURB EXTRUDED 2 EX. STOP I / I 30061X SIGN I I 1 04 / \ INSTA I TEMPORARY 7 / I \ ­ CATCHBASIN INSERT 6 W I 35o I I L x Z I X350.12 �50 6. 117 x L 350.45 N 86'5049" W �I �11 I 111 x 6 I I \ x EXTRUDED 11 I \ -- 8 CONCRETE 11 x \ - CURB II II hp x II =- I - I 1 I - II I I 0 I 5 BRIM 3 _� L 0 T 1 7 27033600100300 EDMONDSWAY LLC 9504 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA. 98020 INSTALL �':3 EX. C.B. TOP=351.25 _ \ \ INV=349.01-6" x 7 INSTALL TEMPORARY \ \ CATCH BASIN INSERT \ \ 'ORARY \ INSERT \ L O T 1 7 EX. ROCKER Y\ i 5 7EMPORARY STOCKPILE FOR TOPSOIL AND DUFF COVER WITHIN 24 HOURS 11�:������I�l1�aCI�l�1[I�►������1/I CYi�:�al _C� THE FOLLOWING TREE PR07ECT70N MEASURES SHALL BE EMPLOYED FOR ALL RETAINED TREES PER ECDC 18.45.050.H. 1. THE APPLICANT MAY NOT FILL, EXCAVATE, STACK OR STORE ANY EQUIPMENT, OR COMPACT THE EARTH IN ANY WAY WITHIN THE AREA DEFINED BY 7HE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN ROPE BARRIERS ON THE DRIP LINE OR PLACE BALES OF BAY TO PROTECT ROOTS. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE SUPERVISION WHENEVER EQUIPMENT OR TRUCKS ARE MOVING NEAR TREES. J. IF THE GRADE LEVEL ADJOINING A RETAINING TREE IS TO BE RAISED OR LOWERED, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT A DRY ROCK WALL OR ROCK WELL AROUND THE TREE. THE DIAMETER OF THIS WALL OR WELL MUST BE EQUAL TOT HE TREES DRIPLINE. 4. THE APPLICANT MAY NOT INSTALL GROUND -LEVEL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MATERIAL WITHIN THE AREA DEFINED BY THE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED. 5. THE GRADE LEVEL AROUND ANY TREE TO BE RETAINED MAY NOT BE LOWERED WITHIN THE GREATER OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS. • (a) THE AREA DEFINED BY THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE, OR (b) AN AREA AROUND THE TREE EQUAL TO ONE FOOT IN DIAMETER FOR EACH ONE INCH OF TREE CALIPER. 6. THE APPLICANT MAY PRUNE BRANCHES AND ROOTS AND WATER AS HORTICULTURALLY APPROPRIATE FOR ANY TREES AND GROUND COVER WHICH ARE TO BE RETAINED. .QO ' A a a. • .. . 8 x TREE TO BE REMOVED (TIP) EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB AREA��OF CLEARING: 31,167 SF MARK CLEARING LIMITS W17H HIGH / VISIBILITY FENCE / I Pal / / 1 � h I I I I I I I \I I \\ I \ ) EX. ROCKEF / PPE /e 6 EDGE OF I /I CONCRET \s, V 1 r � I IS ■ ■ IS IS VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES: POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL QUALITY AND DEPTH: CONSTRUCTION ST1'PPP 13 ELEMENTS: %12F oos ALL GRADING SHALL COMPLY TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. DESIGN GUIDELINES ELEMENT 1: MARK CLEARING LIMITS. PLASTIC, s O METAL, OR STAKE WIRE FENCE MAY BE USED TO \ THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSIDERATIONS SOIL RETENTION MARK THE CLEARING LIMITS FILTER re nnn SECURED 14 GA. N 2" PLACE 3/4"-1.5" WASHED GRAVEL IN THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. C I N CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN CONTINUOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE. WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE TO SUPPORT FILTER FABRIC. BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL 8" TO 12" 6' MAX. 2" X 2" WOOD POSTS OR EQUIVALENT CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN. FI L TER FABRIC FENCE FILTRATION SYSTEM N. T. S. EDMONDS STD. ER-900 P T 1 TRENCHES. THE DUFF LAYER AND NATIVE TOPSOIL SHOULD BE RETAINED IN AN UNDISTURBED STATE TO THE MAXIMUM 20 SHALL BE LACED ON HE UPHILL SIDE OF POWER X. C.B.M.H.EXTENT PRACTICABLE. IN ANY AREAS REQUIRING GRADING REMOVED AND STOCKPILE THE DUFF LAYER AND (DSEE ELEMENT 2: ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. VAULT TOP=351.44 TOPSOIL ON SITE IN DESIGNATED, CONTROLLED AREA, NOT ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RESOURCES AND CRITICAL DETAIL T E S C MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK 5 FT. WOOD FENCE­f 0.3 EAST EDGE OF INV=345.14-36 INV=344.74-12"Nw AREAS, TO BE REAPPLIED TO OTHER PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE FEASIBLE. SOIL QUALITY O3 ELEMENT J. CONTROL FLOW RATES O.F.=349.54 PUBLIC STREETS ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL AREAS SUBJECT TO CLEARING AND GRADING THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COVERED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, EX. S. S.M.H. INCORPORATED INTO A DRAINAGE FACILITY OR ENGINEERED AS STRUCTURAL FILL OR SLOPE SHALL, AT 4O ELEMENT 4: INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS TOP=350.23 STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED IN SAFE AREAS AND ADEQUATELY PROTECTED WITHIN 24 HOURS TO PROJECT COMPLETION, DEMONSTRATE THE FOLLOWING. INV=343.99 PREVENT EROSION. HYDROSEED PREFERRED. 1. A TOPSOIL LAYER WITH A MINIMUM ORGANIC CONTENT IN TURF AREAS, AND A PH FROM 6.0 TO 8.0 OR MATCHING THE PH OF THE ORIGINAL UNDISTURBED SOIL. THE TOPSOIL LAYER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM ELEMENT 5: STABILIZE SOILS. SOILS TO BE STABILIZED AS DURING PERIODS OF WET WEATHER, THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS TO LIMIT DEPTH OF 8 INCHES EXCEPT WHERE TREE ROOTS LIMIT THE DEPTH OF INCORPORATION OF AMENDMENTS 5 O LISTED IN THE COVER METHOD NOTES. SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND PROTECT THE SITE GRADING AREA FROM EXCESSIVE RUNOFF EROSION. NEEDED To MEET THE CRITERIA. suesolLs BELOW THE roPsoiL LAYER SHOULD BE SCARIFIED AT LEAST 4 INCHES 417H SOME INCORPORATION OF THE UPPER MATERIAL TO AVOID STRATIFIED LAYERS, WHERE ELEMENT 6: PROTECT SLOPES. CUT AND FILL SLOPES FEASIBLE. O SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATTER. 2. PLANTING BEDS MUST BE MULCHED W7H 2 INCHES of ORGANIC MATERIAL. WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. J. QUALITY OF COMPOST AND OTHER MATERIAL USED TO MEET THE ORGANIC CONTENT REQUIREMENTS ALL FILL MATERIALS USED SHALL BE FREE OF VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATTER AND SHALL NOT 7O ELEMENT 7. PROTECT DRAIN INLETS CONTAIN ROCKS GREATER THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER. A. THE ORGANIC CONTENT FOR 'PRE -APPROVED' AMENDMENT RATES CAN BE MET ONLY USING COMPOST 'COMPOSTED THAT MEETS THE DEFINIT70N of MATERIAL' IN WAC 173-350 SECTION 220. THIS CODE IS O ELEMENT 8: STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. N/A AVAILABLE AT THE DEPT. OF ECOLOGYS WEBSITE. STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE PLACED IN 8" TO 10" THICK LOOSE HORIZONTAL LIFTS AND SPREAD HTTP,//WWW.ECY.WA.GOV/PROGRAMS/SWFA/COMPOST/ THE COMPOST MUST ALSO HAVE AN ORGANIC UNIFORMLY. MATTER CONTENT OF 359 TO 659; AND A CARBON TO N17ROGEN RA77ON BELOW 25:1. THE CARBON ELEMENT 9: CONTROL POLLUTANTS. ALL POLLUTANTS, TO NITROGEN RATIO MAY BE AS HIGH AS 35:1 FOR PLAN77NGS COMPOSED EN77RELY OF PLANTS NA77VE INCLUDING WASTE MATERIALS AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 957 OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED TO THE PUGET SOUND LOWLANDS REGION. O OCCUR ON -SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE HANDLED BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST (ASTM D-1557-70). B. CALCULATED AMENDMENT RATES MAY BE MET THROUGH USE OF COMPOSTED MATERIALS AS DEFINED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE ABOVE, • OR OTHER ORGANIC MA7ERIAL AMENDED TO MEET THE CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO CONTAMINATION OF STORMWATER. REQUIREMENTS, AND MEETING THE CONTAMINANT STANDARDS OF GRADE A COMPOST. THE RESUL77NG DISTURBED AREAS TO BE STABILIZED WITH HYDROSEED OR STRAW MULCH WITHIN 24 HOURS OF COMPLETION SOIL SHOULD BE CONDUCIVE TO THE TYPE OF VEGETATION TO BE ESTABLISHED. S ELEMENT 10: CONTROL DE -WATERING. OF FINAL GRADING DURING WET WEATHER. IMPLEMENTA77ON OP77ONS COVER METHODS: O THE SOIL QUALITY DESIGN GUIDELINES LIS7ED ABOVE CAN BE MET BY USING ONE OF THE METHODS LISTED BELow. i ELEMENT 11: MAINTAIN BMP'S. PROTECT DISTURBED SLOPES BY MULCHING (2"-4" THICKNESS). THIS CAN BE DONE BEFORE OR AFTER PERMANENT 1. LEA VE UNDISTURBED NATIVE VEGETATION AND SOIL, AND PROTECT FROM COMPACTION DURING SEEDING. THE TYPES OF MULCHES AVAILABLE ARE DESCRIBED BELOW TAKEN FROM THE D.O.E. MANUAL : ( ) coNsrRucrioN. 'PRE 12 ELEMENT 12: MANAGE THE PROJECT. 2. AMEND EXIS77NG SITE TOPSOIL OR SUBSOIL EITHER AT DEFAULT -APPROVED" RATES, OR AT CUSTOM 15 R� STRAW -MOST COMMONLY USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEEDING. ITS USE IS RECOMMENDED WHERE IMMEDIATE PROTECTION CALCULATED RATES BASED ON SPECIFIES TESTS OF THE SOIL AND AMENDMENT. SELEMENT IS REQUIRED AND PREFERABLY WHERE THE NEED FOR PROTECTION WILL BE LESS THAN 3 MONTHS. THE STRAW SHOULD STOCKPIDEPTH REQUIREMENTS, J. LE EXISTING PSOTO PLAN DURING GRARA7E 1J. PROTECT LID BMP'S 1lolob OR AREALCUSTOMOR TO PRE-APPROIL EITHER RAT /P COME FROM WHEAT OR OATS, AND MAY BE SPREAD BY HAND OR MACHINE. STRAW CAN BE WINDBLOWN AND MUST BE �F` ANCHORED DOWN (ROLLING OR PUNCHING INTO SOIL, COVERING WITH NETTING, SPRAYING TACKIFIER). c�Fs TEMPORARY COVER:O CORN STALKS - THESE SHOULD BE SHREDDED INTO 4 TO 6-INCH LENGTHS. STALKS DECOMPOSE SLOWLY AND ARE ,y RESISTANT TO WINDBLOW. TEMPORARY SEED TO PROVIDE SOIL STABILIZATION BY PLANTING GRASSES AND LEGUMES TO AREAS G ° ��ecl WHICH WOULD REMAIN BARE FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS (FROM MAY 1 TO SEPT. JO) OR 2 DAYS WOOD CHIPS/BARK CHIPS - SUITABLE FOR AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE CLOSELY MOWED, AND AROUND ORNAMENTAL °10 (FROM OCT. 1 TO APRIL JO) WHERE PERMANENT COVER IS NOT NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. A PLANTINGS. CHIPS DECOMPOSE SLOWLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE TACKING. WOOD CHIPS MUST BE TREATED WITH 12 POUNDS MINIMUM OF 2-4 INCHES OF TILLED TOPSOIL IS REQUIRED FOR THE SEEDBED. PLANTING SHOULD Fo NITROGEN PER TON TO PREVENT NUTRIENT DEFICIENCY IN PLANTS (NOT NECESSARY FOR BARK). WOOD AND BARK CHIPS PREFERABLY BE DONE BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND JUNE JO, AND SEPT 1 THROUGH OCT 31. IF PLANTING TEND TO WASH DOWN SLOPES OF MORE THAN 6 PERCENT AND CREATE PROBLEMS BY CLOGGING INLET GRATES, ETC. AND IS DONE IN THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST, IRRIGATION MAY BE REQUIRED. IF PLANTING IS ARE THEREFORE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN THOSE AREAS. DONE BETWEEN NOV 1 AND MARCH 31, MULCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING. THE SEED MIX OF REDTOP(109), ANNUAL RYE(40q), CHEWINGS FESCUE(409), AND WHITE DUTCH WOOD FIBER - USED IN HYDRO -SEEDING OPERATIONS, APPLIED AS PART OF THE SLURRY. THIS FORM OF MULCH DOES CLOVER(107.) SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE (SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO APPROVE SEED MIX). NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION TO ERODIBLE SOILS TO BE USED ALONE DURING THE HEAT OF SUMMER OR FOR LATE "HYDRO -SEEDING" APPLICATIONS WITH APPROVED SEED -MULCH -FERTILIZER MIXTURES MAY ALSO BE FALL SEEDINGS. WOOD FIBER HYDRO -SEED SLURRIES MAY BE USED TO TACK STRAW MULCH. THIS COMBINATION USED. THE SOIL COVER METHODS LISTED UNDER "COVER DURING WINTER CONDITIONS" MAY ALSO BE TREATMENT IS WELL SUITED FOR STEEP SLOPES AND CRITICAL AREAS. USED AS TEMPORARY COVER AT ANY TIME. NETS AND MATS - USED ALONE, NETTING DOES NOT RETAIN SOIL MOISTURE OR MODIFY SOIL TEMPERATURE. IT STABILIZES CLEAR PLASTIC COVERING PROTECT DISTURBED SLOPES BY COVERING WITH CLEAR PLASTIC. THIS THE SOIL SURFACE WHILE GRASSES ARE BEING ESTABLISHED, AND IS USEFUL IN GRASSED WATERWAYS AND ON SLOPES. METHOD OF COVER IS GOOD FOR PROTECTING BARE AREAS WHICH NEED IMMEDIATE COVER AND FOR LIGHT NETTING MAY ALSO BE USED TO HOLD OTHER MULCHES IN PLACE. ITS RELATIVELY HIGH COST MAKES IT MOST WINTER PLANTINGS. IT IS ALSO QUICK AND EASY TO PLACE. THE SHEETING WILL RESULT IN RAPID, SUITABLE FOR SMALL SITES. 1007 RUNOFF WHICH MAY CAUSE SERIOUS EROSION PROBLEMS AND/OR FLOODING AT THE BASE OF PROPERTY INFORMATION: SLOPES UNLESS THE RUNOFF IS PROPERLY INTERCEPTED AND SAFELY CONVEYED BY A COLLECTING MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL ELEMENTS: >> DRAIN. THIS IS STRICTLY A TEMPORARY MEASURE, SO PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS STILL REQUIRED. SITE ADDRESS: 22810 EDMONDS WAY THE PLASTIC MUST BE ANCHORED. EDMONDS, WA 98020 ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE TAX PARCEL NO: 27033600102300 CON77NUED PERFORMANCE OR THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CLEAR PLASTIC SHEETING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 6 MIL AND MEET THE ACCORDANCE W17H THE MANUAL AND UN77L CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND THE POTEN77AL FOR REQUIREMENTS OF WSDOT/APWA SECTION 9-14.5. COVERING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ZONING: RESIDENTIAL MUL77-FAMILY (RM 1.5) ON-S17E EROSION HAS PASSED. TIGHTLY IN PLACE BY USING SANDBAGS OR TIRES ON ROPES WITH A MAXIMUM 10 FOOT GRID SILTATION BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED SPACING IN ALL DIRECTIONS. ALL SEAMS SHALL BE TAPED OR WEIGHTED DOWN FULL LENGTH AND AREA: 31,167 SQ. FT. (0.716 ACRES) RAINFALL. SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE LEVEL OF THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST A 1 TO 2 FOOT OVERLAP OF ALL SEAMS. SEAMS SHOULD THEN BE DESPOS77ON REACHES APPROXIMATELY ON -HALF OF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN ROLLED AND STAKED OR TIED. COVERING SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ON AREAS SEEDED PLACE AFTER THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXIS71NG GRADE, COMPOST AMENDED AND SEEDED AN OR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED BETWEEN NOV. 1 TO MAR 1, AND REMAIN UNTIL VEGETATION IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. WHEN THE OTHER BMPs AS REWIRED BY THE CITY AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED RUNOFF COVERING IS USED ON UNSEEDED SLOPES, IT SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL THE NEXT SEEDINGPERIOD. SHEETING SHOULD BE TOED IN AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE TO PREVENT SURFACE FLOW SHALL BE APPLIED. BENEATH THE PLASTIC. SHEETING SHOULD BE REMOVED AS SOON AS IS POSSIBLE ONCE VEGETATION IS WELL GROWN TO PREVENT BURNING THE VEGETATION THROUGH THE PLASTIC SHEETING. EXISTING FEATURES, TOPOGRAPHY, AND BOUNDARY NOTE THE EXISTING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND VARIOUS EXISTING FEATURES WERE PROVIDED FROM SURVEY CONDUCTED BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. AN ADDITIONAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY GREENE LAND SURVEYING, WHICH PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY DATA UTILITY LOCATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL EXISTING FEATURES. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE U77LI77ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCA77ON OF SAID U77LI77ES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMA77ON AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. Know what's below. Call 811 two business days before you dig. REVISION 2 (8-23-19). RESIZE DETENTION VAULT PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 8-5-19 REVISION 2 (6-27-19). PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 5-30-19 REVISION 1 (4-29-19): PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DA7ED 2-19-19 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION c a� a 0 m > a) 21 R ao U J J in a� y •L a a� c w c M N M 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J a c a) 0 r r a t 3 0 a a� a3i 0 0 M 0 0 0 rn 0 N Z J a c m t Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 49 6.2.a 5-1/2" R=1/2�. � ^ R=1. f 1 " BATTER R=1" 12" 0.05� FTC 1 Q 2' MIN SAWCUT HMA 4" OR MATCH SEE NOTE 10 EXISTING, WHICHEVER IS GREATER 4"-5/8" J 18" STANDARD 16"-5/8" MINUS CSTC L SEE NOTE 11 MINUS CSBC STANDARD TYPE A" CURB/GUTTER NOTES: (NOT TO SCALE) 1. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WORK PRIOR TO POUR. 2 FORMS SHALL BE TRUE TO LINE AND GRADE AND SECURELY STAKED SEE NOTE 12 NOTES I. CATCI15A51N5 TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 475 (AA5HTO M 199) ASTM C 690 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE W500T/APWA SPECIFICATIONS. 2. REINFORCING SHALL BF EQUIVALENT TO WELDED WIRE FABRIC HAVING A MINIMUM AREA OF 0. 12 SQUARE INCHES PER FOOT. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL COMPLY TO A5TM A 497 (AASHTO M221). WIRE FABRIC SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN THE KNOCKOUTS. 3, THE BOTTOM OF THE PRECAST BASE SECTION MAY BE ROUNDED. 4, PRECAST BASES SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH CUTOUTS OR KNOCKOUTS. KNOCKOUTS SHALL HAVE A WALL THICKNESS OF 2" MINIMUM. 5. KNOCKOUTS MAY BE ON ALL 4 SIDES WITH MAXIMUM DIAMETER OF 20". KNOCKOUTS MAY BE EITHER ROUND OR "D" SHAPED. PIPE TO BE INSTALLED IN FACTORY5UPPLIED KNOCKOUTS. J. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO ANY STRUCTURE. KNOCKOUT OR CUTOUT HOLE SIZE IS E PIPE OUTER DIAMETER PLUS EQUAL 4. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE EVERY 10 FEET. E CONCRETE INLET WALL THICKNESS. 5. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL HAVE 1/2" TO 5/8" WIDE PREMOLDED JOINT FILLER. 6. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3000. 7, THE TAPER ON THE SIDES OF THE PRECAST 7. FINISH SHALL BE LIGHT BROOM. 5A5E SECTION AND RISER SECTION SHALL NOT 8. CURB SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH CLEAR CURING COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MOIST FOR 72 HOURS. EXCEED 112" PER FT. 9. REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT OF CONCRETE CURB SHALL BE FROM EXPANSION TO EXPANSION JOINT, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER. B. CONCRETE INLET FRAME AND GRATE SHALL 10. A 2-FT MINIMUM ASPHALT SAWCUT MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY CITY ENGINEER. BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WSDOT/APWA 11. CURB/GUTTER SHALL BE 18" OR AS DIRECTED BY CITY ENGINEER. SPECIFICATIONS AND MEET THE STRENGTH 12. ALL VER77CAL EDGES SHALL BE TACKED. REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL SPECIFICATION 13. NA77VE AND GRAVEL SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 959 MAX DENSITY. RR-F-6210. MATING SURFACES SHALL BE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER FINISHED TO ASSURE NON -ROCKING FIT. N. T. S. PER CITY OF EDMONDS TR-520 PLAN VIEW (NOT TO SCALE) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE i21 N. T. S. EDMONDS STD. ER-901 9. FRAME AND GRATE MAYBE INSTALLED WITH FLANGE DOWN OR CAST INTO RISER. SEE TEXT SECTION 5-06 W5DOT / APWA PLAN I -A 1 CAT01 BAST N TYPE 1 2 NOT TO SCALE 4' CURB/GUTTER SEE COE STD DTL TR-521 SEC77ON VIEW NOTES. (NOT TO SCALE) 1. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WORK PRIOR TO POUR. 2" MIN 5/8" MINUS CSTC 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3000. ON NATIVE BEARING SOIL J. FINISH SHALL BE LIGHT BROOM. SEE NOTE 9 4. SIDEWALK THICKNESS SHALL BE 4". 5. SIDEWALK THICKNESS AT DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE 6" THICKK, 6. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE POURED SEPARATELY FROM SIDEWALK. 7. LIDS FOR JUNCTION BOXES AND UTILITY VAULTS SHALL BE NON-SKID AS SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER. 8. SEE COE STD DTL TR-550 FOR POSSIBLE ROOT BARRIER INSTALLATION. 9. SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 959 MAXIMUM DENSITY. 10. ALL EDGES WITH EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL HAVE 1/2" RADIUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK N. T. S. PER CITY OF EDMONDS TR-531 PROJECT SIZE MIN LENGTH OF (FEET) QUARRY SPALLS* < 1/4 ACRE 30 < 1 ACRE 50 < 3 ACRE 100 > 3 ACRE 100 DETAIL NOTES. t� �`�IQ� 4" MIN LOCKING FRAME AND GRATE (SEE STD DWG 5-180 FOR DETAILS) 2'X4'X8" SOLID BRICK USED FOR FINAL ADJUSTMENT TO GRADE. 6" HIGH MAX. STORMFILTER STEEL CATCHBASIN DESIGN NOTES STORMFILTER TREATMENT CAPACITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE CARTRIDGE SELECTION AND THE NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. 1 CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN HAS A MAXIMUM OF ONE CARTRIDGE. SYSTEM IS SHOWN WITH A 27" CARTRIDGE, AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE WITH AN 18" CARTRIDGE. STORMFILTER CATCHBASIN CONFIGURATIONS ARE AVAILABLE WITH A DRY INLET BAY FOR VECTOR CONTROL. PEAK HYDRAULIC CAPACITY PER TABLE BELOW. IF THE SITE CONDITIONS EXCEED PEAK HYDRAULIC CAPACITY, AN UPSTREAM BYPASS STRUCTURE IS REQUIRED. CARTRIDGE SELECTION CARTRIDGE HEIGHT 27" 18" 18" DEEP RECOMMENDED HYDRAULIC DROP (H) 3.05' 2.3' 3.3' SPECIFIC FLOW RATE (gpm/sf) 2 gpm/sf 1.67* gpm/sf 1 1 gpm/sf 2 gpm/sf 1.67* gpm/sf 1 gpm/sf 2 gpm/sf 1.67* gpm/sf 1 1 gpm/sf CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE (gpm) 22.5 1 18.79 1 11.25 15 1 12.53 7.5 15 1 12.53 1 7.5 PEAK HYDRAULIC CAPACITY 1.0 1.0 1.8 INLET PERMANENT POOL LEVEL (A) 1'-0" 1'-0" Z-0" OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT (B) 4'-9" 3'-9" 4'-9" * 1.67 gpm/sf SPECIFIC FLOW RATE IS APPROVED WITH PHOSPHOSORB ® (PSORB) MEDIA ONLY GENERAL NOTES 1. CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. FOR SITE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STORMFILTER CATCHBASIN STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC REPRESENTATIVE. www.contechES.com 3. STORMFILTER CATCHBASIN WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING. 4. INLET SHOULD NOT BE LOWER THAN OUTLET. INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY 6" OR 12" CONCRETE RISER CONTRACTOR. 5. MANUFACTURER TO APPLY A SURFACE BEAD WELD IN THE SHAPE OF THE LETTER "0" ABOVE THE OUTLET PIPE STUB ON THE EXTERIOR SURFACE SECTION CLA55 4000 OF THE STEEL SFCB. CONCRETE 6. STORMFILTER CATCHBASIN EQUIPPED WITH 4 INCH (APPROXIMATE) LONG STUBS FOR INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING. STANDARD OUTLET STUB IS 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER. MAXIMUM OUTLET STUB IS 15 INCHES IN DIAMETER. CONNECTION TO COLLECTION PIPING CAN BE MADE USING FLEXIBLE COUPLING BY CONTRACTOR. 7. STEEL STRUCTURE TO BE MANUFACTURED OF 1/4 INCH STEEL PLATE. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 LOAD RATING. TO MEET HS20 LOAD RATING ON STRUCTURE, A CONCRETE COLLAR IS REQUIRED. WHEN REQUIRED, CONCRETE COLLAR WITH #4 REINFORCING BARS TO BE PROVIDED ACCESS COVER CONCRETE COLLAR AND REBAR TO MEET HS20 IF APPLICABLE BY - -� _-__-°- d--- _�-= �•- CONTRACTOR FLOATABLES 1. d \, BAFFLE �+.'-4 �' --- -- ----- -- -- -- A ` A PERMANENT POOL vim° add � ELEVATION C. W FINISHED GRADE °l ��� L, N Z T O VANED INLET GRATE FILTRATION BAY INLET (SOLID COVER OPTIONAL) 1' 2'-4" 2'-4" COLLAR INSIDE RIM INSIDE RIM CONTECH INSPECTION NOTE: SPECIAL INSPECTION WILL BE REQUIRED BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE. LOCAL REP: STEVEN COS7ELLO SCOS7ELL000ON7ECHES COM 206-730-8090 LIF77NG EYE \ (TIP. OF 4) OUTSIDE RIM~ INLET STUB PLAN VIEW (OPTIONAL) �4'-4j"OPTIONAL SLOPED LID -2'-0"- - 2'-4"y 2'-0„ B � INSIDE 2'_Oj„ y OUTSIDE - �- -! - � N � SECTION 8-8 - - - BY CONTRACTOR. STORMFIL7ER� 8. FILTER CARTRIDGES SHALL BE MEDIA -FILLED, PASSIVE, SIPHON ACTUATED, RADIAL FLOW, AND SELF CLEANING. RADIAL MEDIA DEPTH SHALL BE CARTRIDGE FILTRATION 7-INCHES. FILTER MEDIA CONTACT TIME SHALL BE AT LEAST 38 SECONDS. BAY INLET 9. SPECIFIC FLOW RATE IS EQUAL TO THE FILTER TREATMENT CAPACITY (gpm) DIVIDED BY THE FILTER CONTACT SURFACE AREA (sq ft). INSTALLATION NOTES A. ANY SUB -BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI -FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE -SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY PERMANENT ENGINEER OF RECORD. POOL ELEVATION PRECAST BASE SECTION B. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE CATCHBASIN (LIFTING CLUTCHES (MEASUREMENT AT THE TOP OF PROVIDED). CARTRIDGE C. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT CARTRIDGES FROM CONSTRUCTION -RELATED EROSION RUNOFF. SUPPORT THE BASE) INLET STUB (OPTIONAL) 2" MIN 5/8" MINUS CSTC ON NATIVE BEARING SOIL SEE NOTE 9 0THE MINIMUM LENGTH SHALL BE EXTENDED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE MATERIAL IS NOT TRACKED OFF SITE AND/OR INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ATB DRIVEWAY RAMP AND/OR SITE ACCESS ROAD 15' WIDE MIN. SEE TABLE BELOW FOR REQUIRED LENGTH. O2 * PROVIDE ATB OR ASPHALT TRANS1170N WHERE FRONTAGE ROAD 1. SURFACE W47ER - ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING OR DIVERTED TOWARD CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE IS AN ARTERIAL. PIPED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE. IF PIPING IS IMPRACTICAL, A MOUNTABLE BERM WITH 5.1 SLOPES WILL BE LLS LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED PERMITTED. A BY CITY INSPECTOR. 2. MAINTENANCE - THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A COND177ON WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR TH FLOWING OF SEDIMENT OFF S17E AND/OR ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL QUARRY SPALLS AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED OFF S17E AND/OR ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. CITY INSPEC77ON REQUIRED ON J. WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE. WHEN WASHING IS USED, IT ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS AND WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. 4. INSPECTION AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH RAIN. E FULL WIDTH RESS/EGRESS 1MP�� CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN. a d a a / GRA TE CB 1FILTER SOCK WITH 4 OVER FLOW HOLES a a. ° CATCH BASIN 4- 'e d STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE DETAIL El. 1.1). THIS APPLICA77ON SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL 77MES DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CATCH BASINS N. T. S. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING U7LITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING U71LI77ES AT THEIR LOCA7IONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. EDMONDS STD. E1.3 Know what's below. Call 811 two business days before you dig. FLOW KIT CLEANOUT CATCHBASIN FOOT B ACCESS PLUG ON TYP. OF 4 SECTION A -A WEIR WALL CONTECH STEEL CATCHBASIN S TORMFI L TER N. T. S. CONTOUR LINE `(TYP) ANGLE TERMINAL END UPHILL 24" TO 48" \ TO PREVENT FLOW PLAN VIEW 7 AREA AVAILABLE FOR SEDIMENT TRAPPING (TYP) - WEIR WALL = -55" FLOW OUTLET STUB OUTLET PIPE FROM FLOWKIT CATCHBASIN FOOT (TIP. OF 4) 1-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTUREID CB#3 CB#5 WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE cfs 0.0169 0.0118 PEAK FLOW RATE <1 cfs 0.0699 0.0487 RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW rs 100 YEAR 100 YEAR CARTRIDGE HEIGHT 27", 18", 18" DEEP 27" 18" CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE pm 11.3 7.5 MEDIA TYPE PERLITE, ZPG, PSORB ZPG ZPG RIM ELEVATION 1 350.25 350.68 PIPE DATA: I.E. DIAM I.E. DIAM INLET STUB 346.4 6" NA NA OUTLET STUB 346.4 6" 347.68 6" CONFIGURATION OUTLET �OUT�LET INLET INLET INLET INLET SLOPED LID NO NO SOLID COVER NO NO NOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: AROUND WATTLE (TYP) 2"x2N24" UN-TREATE WOODEN STAKE (TYP) WATTLE � I TRENCH, SEE NOTE 2 -\ R 3" MIN 4" MAX 2" MIN \`\ 5" MAX 2"x2N24" UN -TREATED WOODEN STAKE (TYP) SEE WATTLE SPACING TABLE (TYP) WATTLE (TYP) SEE DETAIL WATTLE INSTALLATION ON SLOPES 8" DIAMETER MIN WATTLE DETAIL 8" DIAMETER WATTLE SPACING TABLE SLOPE MAXIMUM SPACING 1 H:1 V 10'-0" 2H:1 V 20'-0" 3H:1 V 30'-0" 4H:1 V 40'-0" >4H:lV ONE RUN ONLY NOTES: 1. COMPOST WATTLES RECOMMENDED ON SLOPES. USE STRAW WATTLES IN PAVEMENT APPLICATION. 2. ON SLOPES, INSTALL WATTLES PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW DIRECTION AND PARALLEL TO THE SLOPE CONTOURS. INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 8-01.3(10). 3. RUNOFF SHALL NOT RUN UNDER OR AROUND ROLL. ADDITIONAL STAKING MAY BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT UNDERCUTTING. 4. WATTLES SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER A RAINFALL PRODUCES RUNOFF. REMOVE SEDIMENT AND ACCUMULATIONS WHEN EXCEEDING 1/2 HEIGHT BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE WATTLE AND THE GROUND SURFACE. CONTECH STEEL CATCHBASIN S TORMFI L TER REVISION 2 (8-23-19): RESIZE DETENTION VAULT PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 8-5-19 REVISION 2 (6-27-19): PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 5-30-19 REVISION 1 (4-29-19): PER CITY OF EDMONDS REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 2-19-19 N. T. S. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION C a� 0- O 0 > 21 LL r r 00 T U J J N d y •L a m c LU c N M 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J a c aD t 0 r Q 0 a m r a3i a� c P N (D M 0 O O a) 0 N Z J a r c t R Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 50 6.2.a Donna Breske Associates Revision #2 Date: August 23, 2019, Revise WWHM2012 sizing calcs to account for frontage bypass areas Drainage Report For Kisan Enterprises 18-Unit Original Date Prepared: April 29, 2019 Revision Date: June 26, 2019 Site Address: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020 Parcel Number(s): 27033600102300 Prepared By: Alex White, EIT and by: Donna L. Breske, P.E. Donna Breske & Associates, LLC 21 Ave A, Suite 4 Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: (360) 294-8941 Email: donnab@donnabreske.com 8-23-19 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 51 6.2.a Table of Contents Narrative: ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................Page 3 VicinityMap............................................................................................................................Page 4 Impervious Area Exhibit..........................................................................................................Page 5 Minimum Requirements #1 -#9.............................................................................................Page 6 Post Construction Soil Exhibit...............................................................................................Page 11 SWPPPNarrative...................................................................................................................Page 12 Appendix: A: Detention Vault Calculations B: Water Quality Treatment Calculations C: Geotechnical Report D: Offsite Analysis and Conveyance Map E: Operations and Maintenance Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 52 6.2.a Executive Summary The site consists of a single tax parcel that has a gross area of 31,167 sf (0.716 acres). The site address is 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020, with tax parcel number 27033600102300. This project proposes the construction of 4 residential buildings, and a paved driving surface. The development will provide a total of 18 dwelling units. A house and paved driving surface currently exists on site, and will be removed. A Geotechnical Engineering Study was performed by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The analysis determined that the site's soils primarily consist of fill to depths of approximately two and one- half to three feet. The fill material consists of loose well -graded sand with silt. At lower depths, the soils encountered consisted of slightly gravelly sand. Despite the granular characteristics of the soil, groundwater seepage was encountered at depths between one to two feet, and an infiltration rate was not observed after the soaking period of a small-scale PIT test. Therefore infiltration BMPs cannot be feasibly used in this projects stormwater management design. The site elevations range between 348 and 358 with most of the site mildly sloping downgradient south to north at grades up to 5%. Existing vegetation on site includes a few trees shown on the site plans, grass and shrubs. The existing structures include an existing house, and shed. Paved driving access to the house is provided from Edmonds Way. The existing house, shed, and driving surface are all proposed to be removed as apart of this project. The 13 Elements of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are addressed on the drawing sheet titled TESC and as will be fully addressed in a later revision of this report. Per the City of Edmonds' Chapter 18.30 this project must comply with the drainage requirements listed in the DOE 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Since this project proposes greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, minimum requirements 1- 9 must be evaluated. Since this project proposes more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, flow control is required. Water quality treatment will also require as this project proposes more than 5,000 sf of pollution generating hard surface. This project proposes to route proposed impervious surface runoff into a detention vault designed to meet the flow control stream protection duration standard. Water quality treatment is proposed to be achieved with the use of Contech Stormfilter catchbasins. This project proposes to meet the requirements of on -site stormwater management (Minimum Requirement #5) by providing detention to meet the requirements of flow control. Post construction soil in the disturbed areas, not covered by impervious surface, are to be installed in accordance to BMP T5.13. Topsoil and duff are to be stockpiled separate from other material and shall be spread at least 8" deep. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 53 6.2.a 224TH ST SW 224TH ST SW ZE 228TH ST SW 0 SITEa F m ZE: EDMONDS WAY �aJ, 231 ST ST SW 232ND ST SW a m VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PREPARED BY.- VICINITY MAP DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 A VE A, SUITE 4 TAX NO. 27033600102300 SITE ADDRESS: 22810 EDMONDS WAY SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PROJECT KISAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE. (425) 334-9980 DONNABRESKEOCOMCAST.NET ISSUE DATE. • 3-29-19 Attachment 8 racKei rg. 54 I 6.2.a I V'F—SITE LID BMP MANAGED AREA EWALK ROUTED TO PLANTER STRIPS 1,260 SF (0.029 AC) JRB BYPASS W SF (0.003 AC) OFF —SITE BYPASS IMPERVIOUS AREAS ROUTED TO POC IN WWBM2012 CURB & SIDEWALK: 138 + 124 = 262 SF (0.006 AC) DRNING SURFACE. • 505 SF (0.012 AC) TOTAL 767 SF (0.018 AC) AREAS FOR DETENTION SYTEM SIZING RVIOUS AREAS. - ROOFTOP = 13,704 SF (0.315 ACRES) 0 CONCRETE/ASPHAL O = 8,518 SF (0.196 ACRES) TOTAL = 22,222 SF (0.525 ACRES) IOUS AREA: 8,307 SF LANDSCAPING AREA (0.191 AC) REVISION #2: 8-23-19 IMPERVIOUS & PERVIOUS, LID & BYBASS AREA EXHIBIT SCALE 1 "=50' PREPARED BY.- DRAINAGE AREAS EXHIBIT DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 A VE A, SUITE 4 TAX NO. 27033600102300 SITE ADDRESS. 22810 EDMONDS WAY SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PROJECT KISAN DEIVELOPMENT, LLC EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE (425) 334-9980 DONNABRESKE@COMCAST.NET DATE.8-22-19 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 55 6.2.a Edmonds Chapter 18.30 and 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington 2.5.1 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans 3.1.1 Site Analysis: Volume 1, Section 3.1 Boundary Survey & Topography Map • A survey conducted by Green Land Surveying was used to determine the site's boundary and topography. Vegetation and Utility Infrastructure • The site has a number of existing trees with locations determined by the survey conducted by Green Land Surveying. Utility locations that are shown on the plans were also provided by the survey, and the City of Edmonds GIS map. Soils Report • Earth Solutions NW, LLC. conducted a geotechnical analysis of the site's soils, and prepared a report. In the report it was determined that site soils do not appear to be suitable for infiltration, due to shallow groundwater seepage encountered at depths of 1'- 2' . Site Analysis and Summary of Existing Conditions The site contains a single family house, and paved driving surface. A number of trees exist on site. The site elevations range between 358 and 348 with most of the site mildly sloping downgradient from south to north at grades between 2% and 5%, with steeper grades up to 20% adjacent to SR 104. The permeable ground surface appears to primarily consist of grass. No wetlands, or other critical areas exist on site or appear to be within the site's immediate vicinity. 3.1.2 Preliminary Development Layout: Vol 1, Section 3.1.2 A development layout has been prepared that shows the proposed locations of residential structures, driving surfaces, drainage facilities, and BMPs. LID techniques are used to the maximum extent feasible given the proposed layout. 3.1.3 Off -Site Upstream and Downstream Analysis: Vol 1, Section 3.1.3 • Upstream Analysis: Adjacent upstream properties appear to be developed with stormwater conveyance systems that collect runoff and discharge it into the stormwater conveyance system located within Edmonds Way. It is not anticipated that significant volumes of sheet flow from neighboring properties will enter the site. This project is also not anticipated to negatively impact the upstream properties. • Downstream Analysis: The existing downstream stormwater conveyance piping within Edmonds Way currently conveys runoff from east to west, and ultimately discharges Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 56 6.2.a directly to Puget Sound. The adjacent downstream properties include a developed site to the west, and Edmonds Way to the north. It appears that both of these areas have conveyance systems in place that collect runoff and discharge it through the Edmonds Way conveyance system. The project will collect most of the on -site runoff into a proposed detention facility sized with WWHM2012 to meet the flow control duration standard for its associated basin. A portion of the new hard surfaces within the ROW and 19-23-191, to a single POC. Stormwater management of much of the sidewalk storm water runoff i proposed to be managed with the use of LID flow dispersion to the planter areas. Refer 3. This project proposes greater than 5,000 square feet of hard surface and triggers the evaluation of minimum requirements 1-9. 3.1.5 Preparation of Permanent Stormwater Control Plan: Vol 1, Section 3.1.5 A permanent Stormwater Control Plan has been prepared with relevant elements shown on the drainage plan. Elements of the stormwater control plan include a detention vault, and Contech catchbasin stormfilters. 3.1.6 Preparation of Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Vol 1, Section 3.1.6 A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan has been included in this report with elements shown on the TESC plan. 3.1.7 Completion of Stormwater Site Plan, Vol. 1, Section 3.1.7 A stormwater site plan has been prepared and is included in this project civil plans showing the locations of all proposed drainage elements. 2.5.2 Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) The construction Stormwater pollution prevention plan has been included in this report. Relevant elements include temporary construction entrance, tree protection, silt fences, and straw wattles. 2.5.3 Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source control of pollutants will be satisfied with the implementation of appropriate stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. Elements of source control are indicated on the site plans and in the SWPPP narrative. Source control of garbage and waste, typical of residential development will be satisfied by the use of dumpsters with operable covers, and grading that does not allow runoff from adjacent areas to flow into the dumpster enclosure. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 57 6.2.a 2.5.4 Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls The site's topography indicates that surface flows would travel from the south to the north. The proposed drainage design will collect and detain runoff and discharge it to the Edmonds Way conveyance system. The proposed design is consistent with the current state of the natural drainage system. 2.5.5 Minimum Requirement #5: On Site Stormwater Management This project proposes more than 5,000 sf of impervious surfaces and is required to either comply with the Low Impact Development Performance Standard, or evaluate BMPs in List #2. This project will choose to evaluate the feasibility of items from list #2 for each hard surface. On -Site Roofs: i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW, or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: The flow paths required for full dispersion cannot be achieved. Additionally, groundwater seepage encountered at depths of 1' to 2' does not allow for the use of infiltration BMPs. ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total surface area draining to it. Infeasible: Shallow groundwater seepage was encountered at depths of 1' to 2'. iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: Adequate flow path space cannot be provided for downspout dispersion. iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.IOC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: Shallow groundwater seepage was encountered at depths of 1' to 2'. v. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 58 6.2.a Feasible: A detention vault has been sized with WWHM2012 to meet the flow control standard and demonstrate compliance with Minimum Requirement #7. Other Hard Surfaces: i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: Full dispersion of the driving surface, and walkways are infeasible due to the preserved native vegetation, and available flow path space. ii. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: Shallow groundwater seepage was encountered at depths of 1' to 2'. ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total surface area draining to it. Infeasible: Shallow groundwater seepage was encountered at depths of l' to 2'. iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. Infeasible: Adequate flow path space cannot be provided for much of the driving surface or walkways. A planter strip within the ROW as part of the frontage improvements is proposed to provide some dispersion of the sidewalk runoff. v. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial. Feasible: A detention vault has been sized with WWHM2012 to meet the flow control standard and demonstrate compliance with Minimum Requirement #7. Most of the proposed driving surfaces and walkways will be routed to the detention system. Bypass Area: Due to gravity constraints, approximately +/-2,000 sf area of proposed driving, and concrete surface will bypass the detention system. It is not anticipated that this area will contribute significant runoff volumes that will negatively impact downstream properties or stormwater conveyance systems. Calculations indicate that the increase in runoff from the bypass area combined with the detained flow rates does not exceed the 0.15 cfs threshold increase requiring flow control. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 59 6.2.a 2.5.6 Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment This project proposes more than 5,000 square feet of pollution generating hard surface and requires basic water quality treatment. Water quality treatment will be provided by Contech Catchbasin Stormfilters that use ZPG media to filter runoff pollutants. The filter size selected is anticipated to adequately filter 9 1 % of the runoff volumes given the water quality flow rates. Calculations of the water quality flow rates and Stormfilter capacity are provided in Appendix C of this report. 2.5.7 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control This project proposes greater than 10,000 square feet of total hard surfaces and triggers the evaluation of flow control. The project proposes to route all proposed rooftop runoff, and most of the runoff from on -site driving surfaces and walkways into a proposed detention vault. The vault has been sized to meet the flow duration standard for the detained areas using WWHM2012. Bypass & LID planter strip dispersion discussion A portion of the proposed hard surfaces within the Edmonds Way ROW, and the easement to the west, will bypass the detention facility due to grading constraints and the inability to detain hcmaee rjmnff via nravity flnw 8-23-19 within the WWHM2012 to combine to a single POC. Stormwater management of much of the sidewalk storm water runoff is proposed to be managed with the use of LID flow dispersion to the planter areas..ReferAo .Drainaae. Areas Exhbit which on Pavue 5.of this report for detail. . 2.5.8 Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection N/A- This project does not contain wetlands, and does not appear to be within the vicinity of a wetland. 2.5.9 Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance An operations and maintenance section has been included in appendix D of this report. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 60 6.2.a AREA (8, 720 SF) - INSTALL 8 " STOCKPILED SOIL IMPERVIOUS AREA (22,447 SF) ROW OR WEST EASEMENT) POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL PLACEMENT EXHIBIT PREPARED BY.- DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 A VE A, SUITE 4 SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE (425) 334-9980 DONNABRESKEOCOMCAST.NET SCALE 1 "--50' POST CONSTRUCTION SOIL PLACEMENT TAX NO. 27033600102300 SITE ADDRESS 22810 EDMONDS WAY PROJECT KISAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC EDMONDS, WA 98020 ISSUE DATE. • 6-26-19 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 61 6.2.a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Narrative A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the construction permit requirements. The site is 0.716 acres in size and is located at 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020, with tax parcel number 27033600102300. This project proposes the construction of 4 residential buildings, and a paved driving surface. The limits of disturbance will be 31,167+/- SF with greater than 5,000 sf of impervious surface triggering minimum requirements #1-9. Most of the grading will consist of cut in the areas of proposed construction. The purpose of the SWPPP is to describe all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESL) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed project. This narrative is to be considered a "living document." This project's Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist is to amend this document as needed during construction. Applications of these elements are shown on the TESC Plan Sheet. The specific elements included in the SWPPP are Element #1: Mark Clearing Limits Prior to the beginning of land disturbing activities, the clearing limits are defined on the TESC plan. Applicable BMP's for this project are: • BMP C 101 -Preserving Natural Vegetation, (includes preserving mature trees and their understory outside of the clearing limits). • BMP C 103 -High Visibility Fence Element #2 — Establish Construction Access The existing asphalt driving surface is proposed as the construction entrance and is shown on the TESC plan to provide access to the site from Edmonds Way. A temporary construction entrance is proposed in the location of the proposed driving surface taking access from the easement to the west • BMP C105 -Stabilized Construction Entrance Element #3 — Control Flow Rates Applicable BMP's are shown on the TESC Plan and include: • BMP C 120-Temporary or Permanent Seeding • BMP C235: Straw Wattles Element #4 — Install Sediment Controls Specific controls include: • BMP C 120 -Temporary and Permanent Seeding • BMP C233: Silt Fence Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 62 6.2.a Element #5 — Stabilize Soils Areas that are to remain uncovered for more than 7 days, are to be stabilized with BMPs. Specific BMP's to be implemented include Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120), Mulching (BMP C121), and Plastic Covering (BMP C123). Element #6 — Protect Slopes Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as necessary through use of Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120), Mulching (BMP C 121), and Plastic Covering (BMP C 123). Element #7 — Protect Drain Inlets Inlet protection will be utilized on catch basins down gradient and in the vicinity of the disturbed areas. The necessity to protect stormdrain inlets must be determined in the field. • BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection Element #8 — Stabilize Channels and Outlets It is not anticipated that any flows of significant velocity will leave the site or cause any negative impact to the downstream residential properties, or Edmonds Way. Straw wattles will be used as a means of controlling runoff flow rates on site. Element #9 — Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well -organized, and free of debris. • BMP C 153-Material Storage, Delivery, and Containment Element #10 — Control Dewatering NA- No de -watering is anticipated for this project. Applicability is to be determined during excavation. Element #11— Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP's specifications. Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any rainfall event that causes a discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 63 6.2.a sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. Element #12 — Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: • Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. • Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. • Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed. • Keep runoff velocities low. • Retain sediment on site. • Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures. • Schedule major earthwork during the dry season. Element #13 — Protection of Lid BMP's During the life of the Kisan Enterprises project all proposed BMP's on -site shall fully comply with the DOE's regulations for Element #13. All areas applying BMP T5.13: Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth must be protected from vehicle traffic and compaction upon implementation. Sediment build up within the detention facility during construction should be removed upon completion of construction activities. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 64 6.2.a Appendix A Detention Vault Calculations REVISION #2: 8-23-19 REVISED WWHM2012 CALCULATIONS PROVIDED TO SET UP THE WWHM TO THAT THE BYPASS AND DETAINED FLOW COMBINE TO A SINGLE POC WITHIN THE A R A Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 65 6.2.a WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: default[25] Site Name: Kisan Enterprises Site Address: 22810 Edmonds Way City : Edmonds, WA Report Date: 8/23/2019 MGS Regoin Puget East Data Start 1901/10/1 Data End : 2058/09/30 DOT Data Number: 02 Version Date: 2018/10/10 Version : 4.2.16 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Pre -project Land Cover Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat .734 Pervious Total 0.734 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.734 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Post Development Detained Area Bypass: No GroundWater: No Groundwater Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 66 6.2.a Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod .205 Pervious Total 0.205 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.196 ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.315 Impervious Total 0.511 Basin Total 0.716 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Vault 1 Vault 1 Name Vault 1 Width 50.1 ft. Length 50.1 ft. Depth: 7 ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 6.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 18 in. Notch Type: Rectangular Notch Width: 0.140 ft. Notch Height: 0.988 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.342 in Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Groundwater Elevation: 0 ft. Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0778 0.057 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.1556 0.057 0.009 0.001 0.000 0.2333 0.057 0.013 0.001 0.000 0.3111 0.057 0.017 0.001 0.000 0.3889 0.057 0.022 0.002 0.000 0.4667 0.057 0.026 0.002 0.000 0.5444 0.057 0.031 0.002 0.000 0.6222 0.057 0.035 0.002 0.000 0.7000 0.057 0.040 0.002 0.000 0.7778 0.057 0.044 0.002 0.000 0.8556 0.057 0.049 0.002 0.000 0.9333 0.057 0.053 0.003 0.000 1.0111 0.057 0.058 0.003 0.000 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 67 6.2.a 1.0889 0.057 0.062 0.003 0.000 1.1667 0.057 0.067 0.003 0.000 1.2444 0.057 0.071 0.003 0.000 1.3222 0.057 0.076 0.003 0.000 1.4000 0.057 0.080 0.003 0.000 1.4778 0.057 0.085 0.003 0.000 1.5556 0.057 0.089 0.004 0.000 1.6333 0.057 0.094 0.004 0.000 1.7111 0.057 0.098 0.004 0.000 1.7889 0.057 0.103 0.004 0.000 1.8667 0.057 0.107 0.004 0.000 1.9444 0.057 0.112 0.004 0.000 2.0222 0.057 0.116 0.004 0.000 2.1000 0.057 0.121 0.004 0.000 2.1778 0.057 0.125 0.004 0.000 2.2556 0.057 0.130 0.004 0.000 2.3333 0.057 0.134 0.004 0.000 2.4111 0.057 0.138 0.004 0.000 2.4889 0.057 0.143 0.005 0.000 2.5667 0.057 0.147 0.005 0.000 2.6444 0.057 0.152 0.005 0.000 2.7222 0.057 0.156 0.005 0.000 2.8000 0.057 0.161 0.005 0.000 2.8778 0.057 0.165 0.005 0.000 2.9556 0.057 0.170 0.005 0.000 3.0333 0.057 0.174 0.005 0.000 3.1111 0.057 0.179 0.005 0.000 3.1889 0.057 0.183 0.005 0.000 3.2667 0.057 0.188 0.005 0.000 3.3444 0.057 0.192 0.005 0.000 3.4222 0.057 0.197 0.005 0.000 3.5000 0.057 0.201 0.005 0.000 3.5778 0.057 0.206 0.006 0.000 3.6556 0.057 0.210 0.006 0.000 3.7333 0.057 0.215 0.006 0.000 3.8111 0.057 0.219 0.006 0.000 3.8889 0.057 0.224 0.006 0.000 3.9667 0.057 0.228 0.006 0.000 4.0444 0.057 0.233 0.006 0.000 4.1222 0.057 0.237 0.006 0.000 4.2000 0.057 0.242 0.006 0.000 4.2778 0.057 0.246 0.006 0.000 4.3556 0.057 0.251 0.006 0.000 4.4333 0.057 0.255 0.006 0.000 4.5111 0.057 0.259 0.006 0.000 4.5889 0.057 0.264 0.006 0.000 4.6667 0.057 0.268 0.006 0.000 4.7444 0.057 0.273 0.006 0.000 4.8222 0.057 0.277 0.007 0.000 4.9000 0.057 0.282 0.007 0.000 4.9778 0.057 0.286 0.007 0.000 5.0556 0.057 0.291 0.007 0.000 5.1333 0.057 0.295 0.007 0.000 5.2111 0.057 0.300 0.007 0.000 5.2889 0.057 0.304 0.007 0.000 5.3667 0.057 0.309 0.007 0.000 5.4444 0.057 0.313 0.007 0.000 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 68 6.2.a 5.5222 0.057 0.318 0.007 0.000 5.6000 0.057 0.322 0.019 0.000 5.6778 0.057 0.327 0.038 0.000 5.7556 0.057 0.331 0.060 0.000 5.8333 0.057 0.336 0.087 0.000 5.9111 0.057 0.340 0.115 0.000 5.9889 0.057 0.345 0.146 0.000 6.0667 0.057 0.349 0.179 0.000 6.1444 0.057 0.354 0.212 0.000 6.2222 0.057 0.358 0.247 0.000 6.3000 0.057 0.363 0.282 0.000 6.3778 0.057 0.367 0.318 0.000 6.4556 0.057 0.372 0.354 0.000 6.5333 0.057 0.376 0.472 0.000 6.6111 0.057 0.380 0.963 0.000 6.6889 0.057 0.385 1.667 0.000 6.7667 0.057 0.389 2.499 0.000 6.8444 0.057 0.394 3.385 0.000 6.9222 0.057 0.398 4.247 0.000 7.0000 0.057 0.403 5.014 0.000 7.0778 0.057 0.407 5.632 0.000 7.1556 0.000 0.000 6.079 0.000 Name : Basin 2-off site bypass Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.012 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.006 Impervious Total 0.018 Basin Total 0.018 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Vault 1 Vault 1 ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 69 6.2.a Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.734 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.205 Total Impervious Area:0.529 Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Flow Frequency Return Return Period 2 year 5 year 10 year 25 year 50 year 100 year Periods for Flow(cfs) 0.012342 0.01907 0.02271 0.026405 0.028597 0.030398 Predeveloped Periods for Mitigated Flow(cfs) 0.005504 0.008862 0.012043 0.017491 0.022851 0.029588 Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 0.017 0.005 1903 0.006 0.004 1904 0.011 0.005 1905 0.007 0.006 1906 0.003 0.004 1907 0.019 0.005 1908 0.012 0.005 1909 0.013 0.005 1910 0.021 0.005 1911 0.011 0.005 1912 0.031 0.006 1913 0.019 0.006 1914 0.004 0.004 1915 0.006 0.006 1916 0.010 0.005 1917 0.005 0.005 1918 0.012 0.007 1919 0.009 0.005 1920 0.011 0.005 1921 0.012 0.006 1922 0.014 0.005 1923 0.009 0.006 1924 0.006 0.004 1925 0.006 0.004 POC #1 POC #1 POC #1 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 70 6.2.a 1926 0.011 0.005 1927 0.014 0.005 1928 0.009 0.006 1929 0.019 0.006 1930 0.012 0.005 1931 0.012 0.006 1932 0.008 0.006 1933 0.010 0.006 1934 0.027 0.068 1935 0.010 0.006 1936 0.016 0.006 1937 0.013 0.005 1938 0.013 0.006 1939 0.001 0.004 1940 0.011 0.006 1941 0.011 0.005 1942 0.016 0.041 1943 0.005 0.005 1944 0.013 0.006 1945 0.012 0.006 1946 0.011 0.005 1947 0.008 0.004 1948 0.025 0.005 1949 0.021 0.007 1950 0.011 0.005 1951 0.013 0.006 1952 0.036 0.007 1953 0.032 0.007 1954 0.010 0.006 1955 0.008 0.005 1956 0.006 0.005 1957 0.014 0.006 1958 0.034 0.012 1959 0.021 0.023 1960 0.007 0.005 1961 0.021 0.008 1962 0.011 0.006 1963 0.005 0.004 1964 0.008 0.004 1965 0.025 0.072 1966 0.004 0.005 1967 0.010 0.004 1968 0.013 0.006 1969 0.009 0.005 1970 0.014 0.005 1971 0.027 0.007 1972 0.017 0.006 1973 0.020 0.006 1974 0.011 0.005 1975 0.029 0.007 1976 0.013 0.005 1977 0.008 0.005 1978 0.025 0.031 1979 0.007 0.005 1980 0.012 0.005 1981 0.012 0.005 1982 0.008 0.005 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 71 6.2.a 1983 0.020 0.006 1984 0.005 0.005 1985 0.012 0.005 1986 0.009 0.006 1987 0.020 0.007 1988 0.015 0.006 1989 0.012 0.005 1990 0.015 0.005 1991 0.011 0.006 1992 0.018 0.007 1993 0.014 0.006 1994 0.025 0.006 1995 0.006 0.005 1996 0.028 0.032 1997 0.013 0.006 1998 0.013 0.006 1999 0.001 0.003 2000 0.009 0.006 2001 0.007 0.004 2002 0.015 0.005 2003 0.014 0.006 2004 0.014 0.006 2005 0.015 0.006 2006 0.009 0.005 2007 0.010 0.005 2008 0.013 0.005 2009 0.008 0.005 2010 0.006 0.006 2011 0.008 0.005 2012 0.011 0.005 2013 0.009 0.005 2014 0.006 0.004 2015 0.019 0.004 2016 0.003 0.005 2017 0.020 0.006 2018 0.034 0.056 2019 0.037 0.019 2020 0.011 0.005 2021 0.017 0.007 2022 0.006 0.005 2023 0.014 0.006 2024 0.026 0.005 2025 0.011 0.005 2026 0.019 0.006 2027 0.009 0.005 2028 0.004 0.004 2029 0.014 0.007 2030 0.027 0.006 2031 0.007 0.004 2032 0.006 0.004 2033 0.007 0.004 2034 0.008 0.004 2035 0.030 0.043 2036 0.016 0.006 2037 0.003 0.004 2038 0.016 0.006 2039 0.001 0.003 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 72 6.2.a 2040 0.006 0.005 2041 0.009 0.004 2042 0.031 0.008 2043 0.014 0.007 2044 0.019 0.007 2045 0.012 0.006 2046 0.014 0.020 2047 0.009 0.006 2048 0.012 0.005 2049 0.011 0.006 2050 0.007 0.005 2051 0.012 0.006 2052 0.007 0.005 2053 0.013 0.007 2054 0.016 0.006 2055 0.005 0.004 2056 0.005 0.004 2057 0.008 0.006 2058 0.010 0.006 Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0365 0.0716 2 0.0363 0.0683 3 0.0342 0.0557 4 0.0342 0.0426 5 0.0324 0.0413 6 0.0311 0.0320 7 0.0307 0.0306 8 0.0303 0.0231 9 0.0286 0.0203 10 0.0283 0.0192 11 0.0274 0.0123 12 0.0269 0.0083 13 0.0267 0.0078 14 0.0264 0.0074 15 0.0255 0.0074 16 0.0254 0.0072 17 0.0251 0.0071 18 0.0247 0.0071 19 0.0213 0.0070 20 0.0212 0.0068 21 0.0209 0.0067 22 0.0208 0.0066 23 0.0202 0.0066 24 0.0202 0.0065 25 0.0200 0.0065 26 0.0199 0.0065 27 0.0194 0.0065 28 0.0194 0.0064 29 0.0192 0.0064 30 0.0191 0.0064 31 0.0186 0.0064 32 0.0186 0.0064 33 0.0176 0.0064 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 73 6.2.a 34 0.0175 0.0063 35 0.0174 0.0062 36 0.0168 0.0062 37 0.0163 0.0062 38 0.0162 0.0062 39 0.0157 0.0062 40 0.0156 0.0061 41 0.0155 0.0061 42 0.0154 0.0061 43 0.0153 0.0060 44 0.0151 0.0060 45 0.0150 0.0060 46 0.0144 0.0060 47 0.0143 0.0059 48 0.0142 0.0059 49 0.0142 0.0059 50 0.0140 0.0059 51 0.0140 0.0059 52 0.0138 0.0059 53 0.0138 0.0059 54 0.0137 0.0058 55 0.0136 0.0058 56 0.0135 0.0058 57 0.0135 0.0058 58 0.0134 0.0058 59 0.0134 0.0057 60 0.0134 0.0057 61 0.0132 0.0057 62 0.0132 0.0057 63 0.0131 0.0057 64 0.0128 0.0057 65 0.0127 0.0057 66 0.0127 0.0057 67 0.0126 0.0056 68 0.0125 0.0056 69 0.0123 0.0056 70 0.0122 0.0056 71 0.0121 0.0056 72 0.0121 0.0055 73 0.0121 0.0055 74 0.0121 0.0055 75 0.0120 0.0055 76 0.0119 0.0055 77 0.0119 0.0055 78 0.0118 0.0054 79 0.0117 0.0054 80 0.0116 0.0054 81 0.0114 0.0054 82 0.0113 0.0054 83 0.0113 0.0054 84 0.0112 0.0054 85 0.0112 0.0053 86 0.0112 0.0053 87 0.0111 0.0053 88 0.0110 0.0052 89 0.0110 0.0052 90 0.0110 0.0052 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 74 6.2.a 91 0.0109 0.0052 92 0.0108 0.0052 93 0.0108 0.0052 94 0.0107 0.0052 95 0.0107 0.0052 96 0.0102 0.0052 97 0.0101 0.0052 98 0.0101 0.0052 99 0.0101 0.0051 100 0.0099 0.0051 101 0.0098 0.0051 102 0.0098 0.0051 103 0.0095 0.0051 104 0.0094 0.0051 105 0.0093 0.0051 106 0.0092 0.0051 107 0.0090 0.0051 108 0.0089 0.0050 109 0.0089 0.0050 110 0.0089 0.0050 111 0.0088 0.0050 112 0.0088 0.0049 113 0.0087 0.0049 114 0.0084 0.0049 115 0.0083 0.0048 116 0.0083 0.0048 117 0.0083 0.0047 118 0.0081 0.0047 119 0.0081 0.0047 120 0.0079 0.0047 121 0.0078 0.0047 122 0.0076 0.0047 123 0.0075 0.0047 124 0.0075 0.0047 125 0.0075 0.0047 126 0.0073 0.0047 127 0.0072 0.0046 128 0.0071 0.0046 129 0.0068 0.0046 130 0.0067 0.0046 131 0.0066 0.0046 132 0.0065 0.0045 133 0.0064 0.0045 134 0.0062 0.0045 135 0.0061 0.0045 136 0.0060 0.0045 137 0.0060 0.0045 138 0.0060 0.0044 139 0.0060 0.0044 140 0.0060 0.0044 141 0.0058 0.0043 142 0.0057 0.0043 143 0.0055 0.0043 144 0.0053 0.0043 145 0.0052 0.0043 146 0.0051 0.0042 147 0.0049 0.0041 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 75 6.2.a 148 0.0048 0.0041 149 0.0045 0.0041 150 0.0044 0.0041 151 0.0042 0.0040 152 0.0034 0.0040 153 0.0030 0.0040 154 0.0028 0.0039 155 0.0014 0.0037 156 0.0008 0.0034 157 0.0006 0.0034 Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0062 54379 52799 97 Pass 0.0064 50129 39273 78 Pass 0.0066 46182 28191 61 Pass 0.0069 42741 19339 45 Pass 0.0071 39576 11847 29 Pass 0.0073 36724 5333 14 Pass 0.0075 34098 2397 7 Pass 0.0078 31753 1773 5 Pass 0.0080 29683 1353 4 Pass 0.0082 27762 1313 4 Pass 0.0084 25901 1281 4 Pass 0.0087 24195 1255 5 Pass 0.0089 22609 1228 5 Pass 0.0091 21079 1196 5 Pass 0.0093 19642 1167 5 Pass 0.0096 18326 1137 6 Pass 0.0098 17121 1112 6 Pass 0.0100 16069 1085 6 Pass 0.0102 15095 1061 7 Pass 0.0105 14093 1038 7 Pass 0.0107 13157 1013 7 Pass 0.0109 12337 989 8 Pass 0.0112 11533 967 8 Pass 0.0114 10850 939 8 Pass 0.0116 10261 912 8 Pass 0.0118 9700 883 9 Pass 0.0121 9199 860 9 Pass 0.0123 8654 836 9 Pass 0.0125 8208 812 9 Pass 0.0127 7751 797 10 Pass 0.0130 7349 780 10 Pass 0.0132 6991 770 11 Pass 0.0134 6628 751 11 Pass 0.0136 6314 735 11 Pass 0.0139 6006 723 12 Pass 0.0141 5736 713 12 Pass 0.0143 5462 702 12 Pass 0.0146 5214 692 13 Pass Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 76 6.2.a 0.0148 4989 682 13 Pass 0.0150 4767 669 14 Pass 0.0152 4548 659 14 Pass 0.0155 4353 649 14 Pass 0.0157 4139 637 15 Pass 0.0159 3947 627 15 Pass 0.0161 3795 614 16 Pass 0.0164 3651 601 16 Pass 0.0166 3508 589 16 Pass 0.0168 3379 576 17 Pass 0.0170 3277 563 17 Pass 0.0173 3167 557 17 Pass 0.0175 3073 544 17 Pass 0.0177 2981 537 18 Pass 0.0180 2891 520 17 Pass 0.0182 2804 509 18 Pass 0.0184 2716 499 18 Pass 0.0186 2619 485 18 Pass 0.0189 2519 475 18 Pass 0.0191 2425 462 19 Pass 0.0193 2317 446 19 Pass 0.0195 2215 436 19 Pass 0.0198 2127 427 20 Pass 0.0200 2027 419 20 Pass 0.0202 1961 414 21 Pass 0.0204 1897 407 21 Pass 0.0207 1833 399 21 Pass 0.0209 1761 394 22 Pass 0.0211 1691 391 23 Pass 0.0213 1636 384 23 Pass 0.0216 1573 378 24 Pass 0.0218 1510 371 24 Pass 0.0220 1456 366 25 Pass 0.0223 1396 362 25 Pass 0.0225 1337 357 26 Pass 0.0227 1278 345 26 Pass 0.0229 1218 336 27 Pass 0.0232 1173 329 28 Pass 0.0234 1126 323 28 Pass 0.0236 1081 319 29 Pass 0.0238 1033 313 30 Pass 0.0241 987 304 30 Pass 0.0243 938 298 31 Pass 0.0245 905 293 32 Pass 0.0247 863 287 33 Pass 0.0250 812 281 34 Pass 0.0252 778 269 34 Pass 0.0254 742 259 34 Pass 0.0257 703 251 35 Pass 0.0259 658 245 37 Pass 0.0261 616 240 38 Pass 0.0263 583 230 39 Pass 0.0266 548 228 41 Pass 0.0268 507 226 44 Pass 0.0270 460 224 48 Pass 0.0272 415 219 52 Pass 0.0275 387 214 55 Pass Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 77 6.2.a 0.0277 359 209 58 Pass 0.0279 339 200 58 Pass 0.0281 303 188 62 Pass 0.0284 285 182 63 Pass 0.0286 266 175 65 Pass Water Quality SMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Volume Water Quality Treatment Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft Vault 1 POC N 212.03 0.00 Total Volume Infiltrated 212.03 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Failed Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. Volume Infiltration Cumulative Through Volume Facility (ac-ft.) (ac-ft) 0.00 0.00 Volume Infiltration Credit N 0.00 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. 2005-2019; All Rights Reserved. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 78 6.2.a Appendix B Water Quality Treatment Calculations M O O O O r O N Z J d N C d E t V r r-+ a r L 0 a a� o: Cn 3 m m c a� .N a� 0 M O O O O r O N Z J IL c aD E t r Q Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 79 6.2.a TY 77MIKIrrr BASM 177 SF (0.119 ACRES) 597 SF (0.083 ACRES) WWHM2012 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT BASIN EXHIBIT PREPARED BY.- DONNA BRESKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 A VE A, SUITE 4 SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE (425) 334-9980 DONNABRESKEOCOMCAST.NET SCALE 1 "--50' TAX NO. 27033600102300 SITE ADDRESS 22810 EDMONDS WAY PROJECT KISAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC EDMONDS, WA 98020 ISSUE DATE. • 6-26-19 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 80 T N y � m N C p U O � o d L7 2 o w w C o a g g o r g o a 'm m L n 3 3 3 a a a z z z d o ti 0 0 7 7 7 W W W Y Y Y 0 j o 0 0 0 m¢¢ 0 0 o a¢ a o 0 d d¢ ¢ ¢ o 0 o Ln Ln Ln d d ifl o; L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L d N m � m m N Vj c_ G SI V N L n N o 0 0 T ip T T T T .f 3 C C C N LOLL LOLL L� LOLL L� LOLL ¢ a a a - N o of of o� of o� of of o0 of L� L° L° o d a L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L c 3 o m N m � d N C G L G Q_ LO w w o O CaC g g o g C _ `L N_ O w N w p O N O C a w w w O o 0 o 3 3 3 Y Y Y o j o 0 0 0¢¢ o 0 o a a a o L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L � o L y e N y � m u m c_ o E3 CU m o 61 N m a a m m Lm m C .. Q L0 L° L� a a a m m m ti y y m m L� L� LL m N L� O Li �o d d d J J J d N L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 0 o a _ 2 I a N � m LZ ttac ment n Y In 6.2.a Packet Pg. 81 Q NAnalysis Water Quality 6.2.a Run Analysis do -Line BMP 24 hour Volume (ac-ft) 0.0107 Standard Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0150 15 Minute Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0169 Stream Protection Duration I LID Duration I Flow Frequency Water Quality I Hydrograph Wetland Input Volumes I LID Report I Recharge Duration Recharge Predeveloped Recharge Mitigated Analyze datasets Compact WDM Delete Selected 1 Puget East 36 Evap n 2 Puget East 36 Precip 501 POC 1 Predeveloped flow 701 Inflow to POC 1 Mitigated CB#3 Flow Rate=0.0169 cfs 802 POC 2 Mitigated flow 803 POC 3 Mitigated flow 1000Vault 1 ALL OUTLETS Mitigated Y All Datasets Flow Stage Precip Evap POC 1 POC 2 POC 3 Flood Frequency Method G Log Pearson Type III 17B [' Weibull e' Cunnane C' Gringorten jAnalysis Ru n........ :Analysis Water Quality ❑n-Line BMP 24 hour Volume (ac-ft) 0.0075 Standard Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0104 15 Minute Flow Rate (cfs) 0.011$ Stream Protection Duration LID Duration I Flow Frequency Water Quality I Hydrograph Wetland Input Volumes I LID Report I Recharge Duration I Recharge Predeveloped I Recharge Mitigated Analyze datasets Compact WDM j Delete Selected 1 Puget East 36 Evap n 2 Puget East 36 Precip 501 POC 1 Predeveloped flow 701 Inflow to POC 1 Mitigated CB#5 Flow Rate-0.0118 cfs 801 POC 1 Miti ated flow 803 POC 3 Mitigated flow 1OOOVault 1 ALL OUTLETS Mitigated All Datasets Flow Stage Precip Evap - P 0 C 1 POC 2POC 3 Flood Frequency Method [: Log Pearson Type III 17B f` Weibull r cuAlitachment 8 f Gringorten Packet Pg. 82 6.2.a Peak flow Rates for CB#3, and CB#5 Analysis 0.1 7 Cumulative Probability + x ++++-F++ x x x xxx xx x x x xxx x x x x 0.1 0.01 4.01 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 B0 90 95 98 9999.5 1 Stream Protection Duration I LID Duration Flow Frequency I Water Quality Hydrograph_f Wetland Input Volumes LID Report Recharge Duration Recharge Predeveloped Recharge Mitigated Analyze datasets Compact WDM Delete Selected 1 Puget East 36 Evap n 2 Puget East 36 Precip 501 POC 1 Predeveloped flow 701 Inflow to POC 1 Mitigated 801 POC 1 Mitigated flow 803 POC 3 Mitigated flow 1000 Vault 1 ALL OUTLETS Mitigated %0 All Datasets Flow Stage Precip Evap POC 1 POC 2 POC 3 Flood Frequency Method C- Log Pearson Type III 17B C- Weibull C` Cunnane C` Gringorten Flow Frequency Flow(cfs) 0801 0802 2 Year = C.C296 0.0206 5 Year = C.C390 0.0272 10 Year = C.C458 0.0319 25 Year = C.C549 0.0383 5C Year = C.0622 0.0434 100 Year = C.C699 0.0487 Annual Peaks 19C2 0.C329 0.0229 19C3 C.C369 0.0257 1904 C.C416 0.0290 1905 C.C194 0.0135 1906 C.C219 0.0153 1907 C.C297 0.0207 1908 C.C263 0.0183 1909 C.C339 0.0236 1910 C.C303 0.0211 1911 C.C322 0.0224 1912 C.C523 0.0365 1913 C.C193 0.0135 1914 C.C755 0.0527 1915 C.C203 0.0142 1916 C.C322 0.0225 1917 C.C199 0.0139 1918 0.C294 0.0205 1919 0.C173 0.0121 192C 0.C256 0.0179 1921 C.C189 0.0132 1922 C.C258 0.0180 1923 C.C273 0.0191 1924 C.C354 0.0247 1925 C.C193 0.0134 1926 C.C373 0.025C 1927 C.C266 0.0185 1928 C.C243 0.0169 1929 C.C404 0.0282 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 83 6.2.a April 2017 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS) TREATMENT For CONTECH Engineered Solutions Stormwater Management StormFilter® With ZPG Media at 1 gpm/sq ft media surface area Ecology's Decision: Based on the CONTECH Engineered Solutions' (CONTECH) application submissions, Ecology hereby issues a General Use Level Designation (GULD) for the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter): As a basic stormwater treatment practice for total suspended solids (TSS) removal, • Using ZPGTM media (zeolite/perlite/granular activated carbon), with the size distribution described below, • Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm/ft2 of media surface area, per Table 1, and • Internal bypassing needs to be consistent with the design guidelines in CONTECH's current product design manual. Table 1. StormFilter Design Flow Rates per Cartridge Effective Cartridge Height (inches) 12 18 27 Cartridge Flow Rate ( pm/cartrid e) 5 7.5 11.3 2. Ecology approves StormFilter systems containing ZPGTM media for treatment at the hydraulic loading rates shown in Table 1, and sized based on the water quality design flow rate for an off-line system. Contech designs their StormFilter systems to maintain treatment of the water quality design flow while routing excess flows around the treatment chamber during periods of peak bypass. The water quality design flow rates are calculated using the following procedures: • Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology -approved continuous runoff model. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 84 6.2.a • Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. • Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 3. This designation has no expiration date, but Ecology may amend or revoke it. Ecology's Conditions of Use: The StormFilter with ZPG media shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Design, install, operate, and maintain the StormFilter with ZPG media in accordance with applicable Contech Engineered Solutions manuals, documents, and the Ecology Decision. 2. Install StormFilter systems to bypass flows exceeding the water quality treatment rate. Additionally, high flows will not re -suspend captured sediments. Design StormFilter systems in accordance with the performance goals in Ecology's most recent Stormwater Manual and CONTECH's Product Design Manual Version 4.1 (April 2006), or most current version, unless otherwise specified. 3. Owners must follow the design, pretreatment, land use application, and maintenance criteria in CONTECH's Design Manual. 4. Pretreatment of TSS and oil and grease may be necessary, and designers shall provide pre-treatment in accordance with the most current versions of the CONTECH's Product Design Manual (April 2006) or the applicable Ecology Stormwater Manual. Design pre-treatment using the performance criteria and pretreatment practices provided on Ecology's "Evaluation of Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies" website. 5. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. Typically, CONTECH designs StormFilter systems for a target filter media replacement interval of 12 months. Maintenance includes removing accumulated sediment from the vault, and replacing spent cartridges with recharged cartridges. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 85 6.2.a Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate, as indicated by the scumline above the shoulder of the cartridge. Owners/operators must inspect StormFilter with ZPG media for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post -construction operation to determine site -specific maintenance schedules and requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. • Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer's guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as maintenance triggers: • Accumulated vault sediment depths exceed an average of 2 inches, or • Accumulated sediment depths on the tops of the cartridges exceed an average of 0.5 inches, or • Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or • Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm. Note: If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present, perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not cartridge replacement. 6. CONTECH shall maintain readily available reports listed under "Application Documents" (above) as public, as well as the documentation submitted with its previous conditional use designation application. CONTECH shall provide links to this information from its corporate website, and make this information available upon request, at no cost and in a timely manner. 7. ZPGTM media used shall conform with the following specifications: Each cartridge contains a total of approximately 2.6 cubic feet of media. The ZPGTM cartridge consists of an outer layer of perlite that is approximately 1.3 cubic feet in volume and an inner layer, consisting of a mixture of 90% zeolite and 10% granular activated carbon, which is approximately 1.3 cubic feet in volume. • Perlite Media: Perlite media shall be made of natural siliceous volcanic rock free of any debris or foreign matter. The expanded perlite shall Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 86 6.2.a have a bulk density ranging from 6.5 to 8.5 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from 0.09" (#8 mesh) to 0.38" (3/8" mesh). • Zeolite Media: Zeolite media shall be made of naturally occurring clinoptilolite. The zeolite media shall have a bulk density ranging from 44 to 50 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from 0.13" (#6 mesh) to 0.19" (#4 mesh). Additionally, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of zeolite shall range from approximately 1.0 to 2.2 meq/g. Granular Activated Carbon: Granular activated carbon (GAC) shall be made of lignite coal that has been steam -activated. The GAC media shall have a bulk density ranging from 28 to 31 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from a 0.09" (#8 mesh) to 0.19" (#4 mesh). Approved Alternate Configurations Peak Diversion StormFilter 1. The Peak Diversion StormFilter allows for off-line bypass within the StormFilter structure. Design capture flows and peak flows enter the inlet bay which contains an internal weir. The internal weir allows design flows to enter the cartridge bay through a transfer hole located at the bottom of the inlet bay while the unit routs higher flows around the cartridge bay. 2. To select the size of the Peak Diversion StormFilter unit, the designer must determine the number of cartridges required and size of the standard StormFilter using the site - specific water quality design flow and the StormFilter Design Flow Rates per Cartridge as described above. 3. New owners may not install the Peak Diversion StormFilter at an elevation or in a location where backwatering may occur. Applicant: Contech Engineered Solutions Applicant's Address: 11835 NE Glenn Widing Dr. Portland, OR 97220 Application Documents: The applicant's master report, titled, "The Stormwater Management StormFilter Basic Treatment Application for General Use Level Designation in Washington", Stormwater Management, Inc., November 1, 2004, includes the following reports: • (Public) Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter Treatment System: Data Validation Report and Summary of the Technical Evaluation Engineering Report (TEER) by Stormwater Management Inc., October 29, 2004 Ecology's technology assessment protocol requires the applicant to hire an independent consultant to complete the following work: Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 87 6.2.a 1. Complete the data validation report. 2. Prepare a TEER summary, including a testing summary and conclusions compared with the supplier's performance claims. 3. Provide a recommendation of the appropriate technology use level. 4. Work with Ecology to post recommend relevant information on Ecology's website. 5. Provide additional testing recommendations, if needed." 6. This report, authored by Dr. Gary Minton, Ph. D., P.E., Resource Planning Associates, satisfies the Ecology requirement. • (Public) "Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter Relative to the Washington State Department of Ecology Performance Goals for Basic Treatment," is a summary of StormFilter performance that strictly adheres to the criteria listed in the Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies, Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE). • "Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPGTM Media," is a report showing all of the information collected at Site A as stated in the SMI Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This document contains detailed information regarding each storm event collected at this site, and it provided a detailed overview of the data and project. • "Lake Stevens Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPGTM Media," is a report that corresponds to Site E as stated in the SMI QAPP. This document contains detailed information regarding each storm collected at this site, and includes a detailed overview of the data and project. • (Public) "Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL 106, a standardized silica product: ZPGTM at 7.5 GPM" is a report that describes laboratory testing at full design flow. • "Factors Other Than Treatment Performance." • 'State of Washington Installations." • "Peak Diversion StormFilter" is a technical document demonstrating the Peak Diversion StormFilter system complies with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V Section 4.5.1. Above -listed documents noted as "public" are available by contacting CONTECH. Applicant's Use Level Request: That Ecology grant a General Use Level Designation for Basic Treatment for the StormFilter using ZPGTM media (zeolite/perlite/granular activated carbon) at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm/ft2 of media surface area in accordance with Ecology's 2011 Technical Guidance Manual for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE). Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 88 6.2.a Applicant's Performance Claim: The combined data from the two field sites reported in the TER (Heritage Marketplace and Lake Stevens) indicate that the performance of a StormFilter system configured for inline bypass with ZPGTM media and a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm/ft2 of media surface area meets Ecology performance goals for Basic Treatment. Ecology's Recommendations: Based on the weight of the evidence and using its best professional judgment, Ecology finds that: • StormFilter, using ZPGTM media and operating at a hydraulic loading rate of no more than 1 gpm/ft2 of media surface area, is expected to provide effective stormwater treatment achieving Ecology's Basic Treatment (TSS removal) performance goals. Contech demonstrated this is through field and laboratory testing performed in accordance with the approved protocol. StormFilter is deemed satisfactory with respect to factors other than treatment performance (e.g., maintenance; see the protocol's Appendix B for complete list). Findings of Fact: • Influent TSS concentrations and particle size distributions were generally within the range of what Ecology considers "typical" for western Washington (silt -to -silt loam). • Contech sampled thirty-two (32) storm events at two sites for storms from April 2003 to March 2004, of which Contech deemed twenty-two (22) as "qualified" and were therefore included in the data analysis set. • Statistical analysis of these 22 storm events verifies the data set's adequacy. • Analyzing all 22 qualifying events, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 114 mg/L, 25 mg/L, and 82%, respectively. • Analyzing all 22 qualifying events based on the estimated average flow rate during the event (versus the measured peak flow rate), and more heavily weighting those events near the design rate (versus events either far above or well below the design rate) does not significantly affect the reported results. • For the 7 qualifying events with influent TSS concentrations greater than 100 mg/L, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 241 mg/L, 34 mg/L, and 89%, respectively. If we exclude the 2 of 7 events that exceed the maximum 300 mg/L specified in Ecology's guidelines, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 158 mg/L, 35 mg/L, and 78%, respectively. • For the 15 qualifying events with influent TSS concentrations less than 100 mg/L, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 55 mg/L, 20 mg/L, and 61%, respectively. If the 6 of 15 events that fall below the minimum 33 mg/L TSS specified in Ecology's guidelines are excluded, the average Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 89 6.2.a influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 78 mg/L, 26 mg/L, and 67%, respectively. • For the 8 qualifying events with peak discharge exceeding design flow (ranging from 120 to 257% of the design rate), results ranged from 52% to 96% TSS removal, with an average of 72%. • Due to the characteristics of the hydrographs, the field results generally reflect flows below (ranging between 20 and 60 percent of) the tested facilities' design rate. During these sub -design flow rate periods, some of the cartridges operate at or near their individual full design flow rate (generally between 4 and 7.5 GPM for an 18" cartridge effective height) because their float valves have opened. Float valves remain closed on the remaining cartridges, which operate at their base "trickle" rate of 1 to 1.5 GPM. • Laboratory testing using U.S. Silica's Sil-Co-Sil 106 fine silica product showed an average 87% TSS removal for testing at 7.5 GPM per cartridge (100% design flow rate). Other relevant testing at I-5 Lake Union, Greenville Yards (New Jersey), and Ski Run Marina (Lake Tahoe) facilities shows consistent TSS removals in the 75 to 85% range. Note that the evaluators operated the I-S Lake Union at 5001o, 100%, and 125% of design flow. SMI's application included a satisfactory "Factors other than treatment performance" discussion. Note: Ecology's 80% TSS removal goal applies to 100 mg/l and greater influent TSS. Below 100 mg/L influent TSS, the goal is 20 mg/L effluent TSS. Technology Description: The Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter), a flow -through stormwater filtration system, improves the quality of stormwater runoff from the urban environment by removing pollutants. The StormFilter can treat runoff from a wide variety of sites including, but not limited to: retail and commercial development, residential streets, urban roadways, freeways, and industrial sites such as shipyards, foundries, etc. Operation: The StormFilter is typically comprised of a vault that houses rechargeable, media -filled, filter cartridges. Various media may be used, but this designation covers only the zeolite- perlite-granulated activated carbon (ZPGTM) medium. Stormwater from storm drains percolates through these media -filled cartridges, which trap particulates and may remove pollutants such as dissolved metals, nutrients, and hydrocarbons. During the filtering process, the StormFilter system also removes surface scum and floating oil and grease. Once filtered through the media, the treated stormwater is directed to a collection pipe or discharged to an open channel drainage way. This document includes a bypass schematic for flow rates exceeding the water quality design flow rate on page 8. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 90 6.2.a StormFilter Configurations: Contech offers the StormFilter in multiple configurations: precast, high flow, catch basin, curb inlet, linear, volume, corrugated metal pipe, drywell, and CON/Span form. Most configurations use pre -manufactured units to ease the design and installation process. Systems may be either uncovered or covered underground units. The typical precast StormFilter unit is composed of three sections: the energy dissipater, the filtration bay, and the outlet sump. As Stormwater enters the inlet of the StormFilter vault through the inlet pipe, piping directs stormwater through the energy dissipater into the filtration bay where treatment will take place. Once in the filtration bay, the stormwater ponds and percolates horizontally through the media contained in the StormFilter cartridges. After passing through the media, the treated water in each cartridge collects in the cartridge's center tube from where piping directs it into the outlet sump by a High Flow Conduit under -drain manifold. The treated water in the outlet sump discharges through the single outlet pipe to a collection pipe or to an open channel drainage way. In some applications where you anticipate heavy grit loads, pretreatment by settling may be necessary. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 91 6.2.a 5TQRMGATE ANIIOLE, HIGH FLOW DYFA55 EFFECTIVE CARTRIDGE IIEIGMT 1 2" 16' 27" CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE {gprrdcart) 5 7.5 1 1,3 02MBCOHTECH DGE OW) A.4tLrMO& , STORMFILTFR WITH STORMGATE 14~1% i _~l" SCHEMATIC DETAIL STORMWATER SOUMONS_ PLAN VIEW m nr.�.mm DATE:11011D5 ISCALENONE I FILE NAME, SGMH-SFSlr OT19-SCH OfVWN:MJW CHEONEO:)= Figure 1. Stormwater Management StormFilter Configuration with Bypass Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 92 6.2.a AIR LOCK CAP WITH CHECK VALVE � LIFTING TAB FLOAT VALVE _z OUTER MESH FILTER MEDIA _ a / N _ / H000 CENTER TUBE , SCRUBBING REGULATOR _ UNFILTERED WATER UNDER -DRAIN MANIFOLD FILTERED WATER _ UNDER -DRAIN MANIFOLD CAST INTO VAULT FLOOR Figure 2. The StormFilter Cartridge Cartridge Operation: WATER FILTERED WATER VAULT FLOOR As the water level in the filtration bay begins to rise, stormwater enters the StormFilter cartridge. Stormwater in the cartridge percolates horizontally through the filter media and passes into the cartridge's center tube, where the float in the cartridge is in a closed (downward) position. As the water level in the filtration bay continues to rise, more water passes through the filter media and into the cartridge's center tube. Water displaces the air in the cartridge and it purges from beneath the filter hood through the one-way check valve located in the cap. Once water fills the center tube there is enough buoyant force on the float to open the float valve and allow the treated water to flow into the under -drain manifold. As the treated water drains, it tries to pull in air behind it. This causes the check valve to close, initiating a siphon that draws polluted water throughout the full surface area and volume of the filter. Thus, water filters through the entire filter cartridge throughout the duration of the storm, regardless of the water surface elevation in the filtration bay. This continues until the water surface elevation drops to the elevation of the scrubbing regulators. At this point, the siphon begins to break and air quickly flows beneath the hood through the scrubbing regulators, causing energetic bubbling between the inner surface of the hood and the outer surface of the filter. This bubbling agitates and cleans the surface of the filter, releasing accumulated sediments on the surface, flushing them from beneath the hood, and allowing them to settle to the vault floor. Adjustable cartridge flow rate: Inherent to the design of the StormFilter is the ability to control the individual cartridge flow rate with an orifice -control disc placed at the base of the cartridge. Depending on the treatment requirements and on the pollutant characteristics of the influent stream as Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 93 6.2.a specified in the CONTECH Product Design Manual, operators may adjust the flow rate through the filter cartridges. By decreasing the flow rate through the filter cartridges, the influent contact time with the media is increased and the water velocity through the system is decreased, thus increasing both the level of treatment and the solids removal efficiencies of the filters, respectively (de Ridder, 2002). Recommended research and development: Ecology encourages CONTECH to pursue continuous improvements to the StormFilter. To that end, CONTECH recommends the following actions: • Determine, through laboratory testing, the relationship between accumulated solids and flow rate through the cartridge containing the ZPGTM media. Completed 11/05. • Determine the system's capabilities to meet Ecology's enhanced, phosphorus, and oil treatment goals. • Develop easy -to -implement methods of determining that a StormFilter facility requires maintenance (cleaning and filter replacement). Contact Information: Applicant Contact: Jeremiah Lehman Contech Engineered Solutions 11835 NE Glenn Widing Drive Portland, OR, 97220 503-258-3136 jlehman@conteches.com Applicant Web link http://www.conteches.com/ Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 94 6.2.a Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology Contact: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howiegecy.wa. og_v Revision History Date Revision Jan 2005 Original Use Level Designation Dec 2007 Revision May 2012 Maintenance requirements updated November 2012 Design Storm and Maintenance requirements updated January 2013 Updated format to match Ecology standard format September 2014 Added Peak Diversion StormFilter Alternate Configuration November 2016 Revised Contech contact information April 2017 Revised sizing language to note sizing based on Off-line calculations Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 95 6.2.a Appendix C Geotechnical Report C C6 U J J N d N �L Q L W M O O O O r O N Z J d N C 0 E t V r r-+ a r L 0 a a� o: Cn 3 m m C a� .N a� 0 M O O O O r O N Z J IL C aD E t r Q Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 96 Nr r J } MIL wil `� s. ■ .+ M1 Geotechnical Engineering Geology ' Environmental Services Construction Observation/Testing c Ic +t ff- N r , {' _- c GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY - _ ' C y — PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES # - 22810 EDMONDS WAY _ C, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON r o ES-5932 `_— 4r 1805 - 1 th '1'� e f' Suite_�01 Bellevue'•*, ff0 �425) 449-47�t4ac Fut 425) 449-4 __ s �"Fvy �6a soluetionsnw.co ;' Packet Pg. 97 6.2.a PREPARED FOR KISAN ENTERPRISES, LLC May 29, 2018 Samuel E. Suruda, G.I.T. Staff Geologist Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-5932 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 —136t" Place Northeast, Suite 201 a Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 98 6.2.a r— Geolechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical services Are Performed lop Spedlic Purposes. Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read Selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Ppoject Specific factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, ■ composition of the design team, or ■ project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes ---even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical :i a engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are WHO • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your E parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- z to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual a Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 99 subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines, This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes: To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The Best People on Earth 8811 ColesviIle Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Ina Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.01M Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 100 6.2.a May 29, 2018 ES-5932 Kisan Enterprises, LLC 20607 State Route 9 Snohomish, Washington 98296 Attention: Ms. Yvette Johnson Dear Ms. Johnson: Earth I Solutions NW«< Earth Solutions NW I_I_c Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Family Residences, 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington". Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed single-family residences at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent native soils, suitable for support of foundations, should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. This report includes recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation, foundation and retaining wall design parameters, drainage, the suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ia;m;�ue�IE. �Suruda. G.I.T. Staff Geologist 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • BellAtt aftnWK1t0$ • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Packet Pg. 101 6.2.a Table of Contents ES-5932 PAGE INTRODUCTION...........................................................:........... General.......................................................................... Proiect Description. ........ ...... ......................................... SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................... 2 Surface........................................................................... 2 Subsurface...................................................................... 2 Geologic Setting ..........................................:.......... 2 Groundwater.......................................................... 3 Geological Hazards Assessment ....................................... 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 3 General.......................................................................... 3 Site Preparation and Earthwork ......................................... 3 Temporary Erosion Control......................... .................... 4 In -Situ Soils....................................................................... 4 StructuralFill..................................................................... 4 Excavations and Slopes ........................................... 4 Foundations.................................................................... 5 Seismic Considerations........................................................ 5 Slab -on -Grade Floors ....................................................... 5 Retaining Walls................................................................ 6 Dra_inage.... I . , ,................................................................. Infiltration Evaluation .............................................. 7 Low Impact Development...... ................................... 7 Stormwater Vault Design ......................................... 8 Utility Trench Support and Backfill..................................... 9 Pavement Sections........................................................... 9 LIMITATIONS............................................................................ 10 Additional Services.......................................................... 10 Ear�I�l Mffl,%T d Lc Packet Pg. 102 6.2.a Table of Contents Cont'd ES-5932 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Ea"Mfflb�Vd—LC Packet Pg. 103 6.2.a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-5932 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed single-family residential structures to be constructed at 22810 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds, Washington. To complete the scope of services detailed in our proposal, we performed the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by way of test pits excavated at accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during subsurface exploration; • An infiltration evaluation based on observed soil conditions and two small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITs); • Geotechnical engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation: ■ Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, prepared by James P. Minard, dated 1983; • Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume III Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs, dated August 2014; r Edmonds City Code, Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas), and; • Online Web Soil Survey (WSS) resource provided by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services. Project Description Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the existing single-family residence will be demolished, and 20 new single-family residential structures will be constructed. We anticipate grade cuts of up to four feet will be necessary to establish the planned building alignments and roadway improvements. Site improvements will also include underground utility installations. EarMPSAffi!b� -LC Packet Pg. 104 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC ES-5932 May 29, 2018 Page 2 At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However, we anticipate the proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads of approximately one to two kips per linear foot and slab - on -grade loading of roughly 150 pounds per square foot (psf) will be incorporated into the construction. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 22810 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of one residential tax parcel (Snohomish County Parcel Number 270336-001-023-00) totaling approximately 0.71 acres of land area. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements. The majority of the site is relatively level, with a gently descending slope on the north side of the property adjacent to Edmonds Way. The subject site is bordered to the west, south, and east by residential developments, and to the north by Edmonds Way. The Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the approximate limits of the property. Subsurface Five test pits were excavated in accessible portions of the site for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Fill was encountered at TP-3 and TP-4 to depths of approximately two and one-half to three feet. The fill was characterized as loose, well -graded sand with silt (Unified Soil Classification System: SW). Seepage was observed within the fill layers and was present until the contact with the native soil. Underlying the fill, soil conditions observed at test pit locations consisted of medium dense well - graded sand (USCS: SW), medium dense poorly graded sand (USCS: SP), and silty sand with gravel (USCS: SM). Overall soil relative density increased with depth. Geologic Setting According to the referenced geologic map resource, the subject site is underlain by advance outwash (Qva) and glacial till (Qvt) deposits. According to the referenced NRCS soil survey, the subject site consists of Everett series soils (Map Unit: 17). Everett series soils were formed in glacial moraines and are classified as outwash deposits. Outwash soils are consistent with observations made in the field. Ea'C'ta chi°m e n'�Lc Packet Pg. 105 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Groundwater ES-5932 Page 3 Groundwater seepage was observed at TP-3 and TP-4 beginning at depths of one to two feet during our fieldwork on March 30, 2018. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the winter, spring and early summer months. Geological Hazards Assessment As part of this geotechnical engineering study, the referenced chapter of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) was reviewed. Per the ECC requirements, the site was reviewed for erosion, landslide, and seismic hazards. No such hazards were observed to be present on the site or within 200 feet of the site. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed residential structures at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, temporary excavations, retaining walls, infiltration and drainage, and the suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill. The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kisan Enterprises, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Based on the referenced site plans and given the existing topography, we anticipate grading for the project will involve cuts of up to about four feet to establish building pad and foundation subgrade alignments. Silt fencing and temporary erosion control measures should be placed along the perimeter of the site prior to beginning grading activities. Eart jgle�i�eff,� LC H 25 Packet Pg. 106 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Temporary Erosion Control ES-5932 Page 4 Temporary construction entrances, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, can be considered to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a temporary road surface. Silt fences should be placed along the margins of the property. Interceptor swales and a temporary sediment pond may be necessary for control of surface water during construction. Erosion control measures should conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and City of Edmonds standards. In -Situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill provided the moisture content of the soils is at or slightly above the optimum level at the time of placement and compaction. The site soils were generally in a moist condition at the time of the exploration on March 30, 2018. Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the sandy soils generally have a low sensitivity to moisture. Silty sands observed at TP-5 and underlying the sands at TP-3 and TP- 4 have a higher sensitivity to moisture. If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D- 1557). For soil placed in utility trenches underlying structural areas, compaction requirements are dictated by the local city, county, or utility district, and in general are specified as 95 percent relative compaction. Excavations and Slopes The native soils encountered at the test pit locations primarily consisted of outwash sands in a medium dense condition. Temporary slopes should maintain a gradient of no steeper than 1 Horizontal :1 Vertical (1 H:1 V). If groundwater is present within a cut, the temporary slope gradient should be no steeper than 1.5H:1V. The presence of perched groundwater may cause caving of the temporary slopes due to hydrostatic pressure. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm the soil type and allowable slope inclination are appropriate for the soil exposed by the excavation. If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Ear�S�l�sef�14/��c Packet Pg. 107 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC ES-5932 May 29, 2018 Page 5 Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. A representative of ESNW 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. Foundations The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet bgs across the majority of the site. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. Provided the structures will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of the new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) • 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. 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 settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Considerations The 2015 International Building Code recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual Site Class D should be used for design. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction is low. The soil relative density and the absence of a uniformly established, shallow groundwater table are the primary bases for this opinion. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on firm and unyielding subgrades consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrades 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 material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarters 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 specifications of the manufacturer. Ear htso8ionen 8�"Lc i Packet Pg. 108 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Retaining Walls ES-5932 Page 6 Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters may be used for retaining wall design: Active earth pressure (yielding condition) . At -rest earth pressure (restrained condition) • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) Passive earth pressure Coefficient of friction • Seismic surcharge Where applicable ** Where H equals the retained height (in feet) 35 pcf 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) * 300 pcf 0.40 6H psf ** Where sloping or other surcharge conditions will be present, supplemental recommendations and design earth pressure values should be provided by ESNW. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free -draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall and should be connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed at TP-3 and TP-4 at depths of one to two feet during our fieldwork on March 30, 2018. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated in site excavations, particularly in the winter, spring, and early summer months. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve passive elements such as interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over sloped areas and should not be allowed to pond near the top of sloped areas or retaining structures. Surface grades must be designed to direct water away from buildings. The grade adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a horizontal distance of four feet or more (as setbacks allow). In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4. Ea9gPSMffls 4l,g_LC Packet Pg. 109 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Infiltration Evaluation ES-5932 Page 7 We understand drywells, trenches, or other small-scale methods are proposed for on -site infiltration. For design, the long-term infiltration rate was evaluated using the results of two small- scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITs) completed at a depth of three feet in TP-1 and five feet in TP- 2. No infiltration occurred after the initial soaking period. It should be noted that these are not typical results for infiltration into more granular soils types as those found on site. Infiltration testing was attempted at varying depths at both testing locations. On this basis, we do not recommend infiltration be incorporated into this project. ESNW should be notified of any changes to stormwater management designs. Low Impact Development The following table provides our evaluation and recommendations regarding low impact development (LID) BMPs for the proposed project: Limitations of BMP Viable? Infeasiblifty Criteria Lawns and Landscaped Areas T5.13: Post -construction soil quality and Considered infeasible on slopes of 33 percent or Yes depth Volume V, Chapter 5) greater. Roofs T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter No T5.30: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack 5) of adequate vegetated flow paths. T5.10A: Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 T5.10A: Downspout full infiltration systems No inches per hour. (Volume III, Chapter 3) Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 inches Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No per hour. T5.10B: Downspout dispersion systems No T5.1013: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack (Volume III, Chapter 3) of adequate vegetated flow paths. T5.10C: Perforated stub -out connections Yes No limitations. Volume III, Chapter 3 Other Hard Surfaces T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter NO T5.30: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack 5) of adequate vegetated flow paths. T5.15: Permeable pavement (Volume V, NO T5.15: Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 Chapter 5) inches per hour. I Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 inches Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No ` per hour. I T5.12: Sheet flow dispersion T5.12: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack T5.11: Concentrated flow dispersion No of adequate vegetated flow paths. (Volume V, Chapter 5) EarWfRSARAf-�'c Packet Pg. 110 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Stormwater Vault Design ES-5932 Page 8 We understand a stormwater vault is proposed for this property. Vault foundations should be supported on competent native soil or crushed rock placed on competent native soil. Final storm vault designs must incorporate adequate buffer space from property boundaries such that temporary excavations to construct the vault structure can be successfully completed. Perimeter drains should be installed around the vault and conveyed to an approved discharge point. The presence of perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated during excavation activities for the vault. The following parameters may be used for stormwater vault design: • Allowable soil bearing capacity (dense native soil) 5,000 psf Active earth pressure (unrestrained) 35 pcf Active earth pressure (unrestrained, hydrostatic) 80 pcf • At -rest earth pressure (restrained) 55 pcf At -rest earth pressure (restrained, hydrostatic) 100 pcf Coefficient of friction 0.40 • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf Seismic surcharge 6H* * Where H equals the retained height (in feet) The vault walls should be backfilled with free -draining material or suitable sheet drainage that extends along the height of the walls. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. If the elevation of the vault bottom is such that gravity flow to an outlet is not possible, the portion of the vault below the drain should be designed to include hydrostatic pressure. Design values accounting for hydrostatic pressure are included above. ESNW should observe grading operations for the vault and the subgrade conditions prior to concrete forming and pouring to confirm conditions are as anticipated, and to provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. Additionally, ESNW should be contacted to review final vault designs to confirm that appropriate geotechnical parameters have been incorporated. EaA��M fb�lFdLLC Packet Pg. 111 Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Utility Trench Support and Backfill 6.2.a ES-5932 Page 9 In our opinion, the soils observed at the test pit locations are generally suitable for support of utilities. The on -site soils may not be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations unless the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations 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 City of Edmonds of other responsible agency. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures, such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill or thicker crushed rock sections, prior to pavement. For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to passenger vehicles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections may be considered for preliminary design: • Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRIB), or; Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The HMA, CRIB and ATB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Additionally, city or county Road Standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Road standards utilized by the City of Edmonds may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Ea�httaC`�iment gLLc H Packet Pg. 112 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 LIMITATIONS ES-5932 Page 10 The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. EaAhMoC menI ons N $LLC Packet Pg. 113 Reference: NORTH Snohomish County, Washington [Wop474 8yThe Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32ndEdition NOTE: This plate may contain areas ofcolor. EGNNcannot bo responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation ofthe information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. r Earth Earth Solutions NWLLC Solution NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Vicinity Map Edmonds, Washington Attachment Packet Pg. 114 EpMONDS WAY I � I I � I _ _ I I TP-5 I I I � � — ■ TP-2 TP 1 ■ I TP-4 — / TP-3 LEGEND NORTH TP-1 Approximate Location of — ■ — ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-5932, Mar. 2018 ;4 0 Subject Site Proposed Building NOT - TO - SCALE r - - Existing Building NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design CIIIIJAI IIIIIN purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the NW LLC Observation/Testing 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 Test Pit Location Plan study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes Kisan Townhomes or interpretation of the data by others. Edmonds, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. MRS Date 05/21 /2018 Proj. No. 5932 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked SES Date May 2018 Plate 2 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 115 18" Min. 00 o 0o o o oUoo ® 00 o 00 oo00�0 o 0000 o B 0o o o 0 o00 0 0 0 0° o °�o` o° oo o 00 o 0 oa0 o�00 0 00 8 o 00 ° o 0 0 o o O o O o o o Oo o° o o 0 000 o 0 00 00 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0o0..00 00 00 000 0o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 c oo 00 0 0 00 0o O o0 o 0 0 o O o o ogoo o�000 oo oo o o 6 o o o 0 o00�o0o oo p 0000 0 o o o oo o ° o 0 oo. o o 0 oo0oo 0o 0o0 8 00 NOe o00oo0 0 00° o 0 0 o 0: 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: Oo0o O 0 oo 00 Free -draining Structural Backfill �•������� 1-inch Drain Rock .r.r.r.r. Structural Fill Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions NW L�c RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Kisan Townhomes Edmonds, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 05/21/2018 Proj. No. 5932 Checked SES Date May 2018 Plate 3 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 116 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal: native soil or other low -permeability material. 1-inch Drain Rock �~r:rtir:r ti•ti•ti•ti• SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Drwn. MRS Date 05/21/2018 Proj. No. 5932 Checked SES Date May 2018 Plate 4 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 117 6.2.a Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-5932 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating two test pits at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed on March 30, 2018. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet bgs. Logs of the test pits advanced by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. 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. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 118 6.2.a Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS V�� �� �� �' Gw WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FSAND INES e�a eOo o Oao D Q Q n❑ GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES °� Q ° �° ° a D GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS Sw _ WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION S`+ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS _ `. � _ _ OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 119 Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 VAN Fax: 425-449-4711 6.2.a TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF ' PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes DATE STARTED 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass AFTER EXCAVATION — w a w TESTS U a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION wow- n vi qQJ az 0 , MC = 17.50% SW- SM brown nignly organic TOPSOIL, root intrusions to 1' Gray well -graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist to wet :.I -becomes wet 5 Gray poorly graded SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist I MC = 8.50% A [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] SP 18.0 -becomes wet MC = 16.90% Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Packet Pg. 120 1 Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 6.2.a TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF ' PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes DATE STARTED . 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": grass AFTER EXCAVATION -- w U a~W w g TESTS U (L 6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ov Qz O U) MC = 5.50% MC = 10.30% 5 SP MC = 8.50% MC = 15.60% 10 MC = 13.30% Fines = 3.70% Gray poorly graded becomes dense, wet medium dense, damp [USDA Ciassiiication: slightly gravelly SAND] Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. Packet Pg. 121 1 Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME 6.2.a TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF ' DATE STARTED . 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUNDWATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass _ AFTER EXCAVATION --- }w _ }W C U a g TESTS U a 6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o" Q. v6 �� Mz 0 5 v 0 CD Z) MC = 9.50% Gray well -graded SAND with silt, loose, wet (Fill) SW -groundwater seepage Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, damp MC = 6.90% I SM I I 1 I -weakly cemented SP- SM MC = 10.00% Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense to dense, moist Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at foot during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. Packet Pg. 122 1 Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Wax Fax: 425-449-4711 6.2.a TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes DATE STARTED 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Surface Conditions: fill AFTER EXCAVATION -- w _ �w '6 U ow to TESTS 0_O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o_ Qz 0 Gray well -graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) ISW MC = 8.70%-groundwater seepage Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense damp to moist MC = 7.70% SM Fines = 15.90% [USDA Classification: gravelly loamy SAND] �_ 8.0 -becomes moist MC = 11.30% Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at: feet during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Packet Pg. 123 1 m a+ Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 WAIN Fax: 425-449-4711 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes DATE STARTED 3/30118 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3". duff. AFTER EXCAVATION - TEST PIT SIZE W :r 7 .r C ao T_ U W a J J x w_ W CO TESTS cn U O ayi MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Mc Z L 0 � W P L '- Dark brown highly organic TOPSOIL Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, damp to moist N Y M O MC = 11.60% SM Q -becomes moist 0 N Z J - - a a.5 5 MC = 10.30% Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist r _ Fines = 9.00% [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] a) SP- SM _ _ .r Q 7.5 -becomes wet MC = 13.70% Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during 3 excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet. C a� m m c P .y M O O O O O N Z J a C Q Packet Pg. 124 6.2.a E Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-5932 U J J N d N �L Q L r C W M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d E L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J a. a� E z U 2 r Q Earth Solutions NW, LLC Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 125 iiiijillilillilliilll n INS EEIIIIIIINE INS liiiiiismiiiiiilmmiiilikililli' liiiiiismillillin I iiiiiiinmiiiiiilmmiiiIIILlk ma 111111111111111111 F, in GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS fe m GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY coarse I medium fine ycoarse fine 111 a Specimen Identification Classification Cc C o # TP-1 5.00ft. USDA: Gray Very Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: SP with Gravel. 0.64 9. uj M TP-2 10.00ft. USDA: Gray Slightly Gravelly Sand. USCS: SP. 1.02 2. o N A, TP-4 5.00ft. USDA: Gray Gravelly Loamy Sand. USCS: SM with Gravel. J * TP-5 5.00ft. USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Coarse Sand. USCS: SP-SM with Silt and Gravel. 0.84 18 a. Z% a � y m Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 LL PL PI %Silt %Cla] z w • TP-1 5.0ft. 19 2.673 0.654 0.296 2.5 g m TP-2 10.Oft. 19 0.5 0.318 _ 0.198 3.7 Q TPA S.Oft. 37.5 0.69 0.221 15.9 Z * TP-5 5.Oft. 37.5 1.843 0.396 1 0.101 9.0 CD Packet Pg. 126 6.2.a Report Distribution ES-5932 EMAIL ONLY Kisan Enterprises, LLC 20607 State Route 9 Snohomish, Washington 98296 Attention: Ms. Yvette Johnson Earth Solutions NK LLC Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 127 6.2.a Appendix D Offsite Analysis and Conveyance map Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 128 A 9620 23'00� I N BTltST Sw. . j - r 's• s �o PC15-13 y p_1 o C j` C o C \ C PD15-15 C 22815 T � j gg803 ` 1 ti�%�i \ Amory - °• a 'V .�'/�/ _ �ti o o Pots -is 0 l00"LZ -10030 ©� 1 0016 o I 2WS 23107 9797 PD15i y ] 11 Pot513 P15-19 o 9620 yam_ 07` itL! 5 ICO A,,,1 FV 0®0011 I:+iu� EDMQNDS WAY Pma-ie _�.. ♦ o 'PotSa Z � ♦ti (Z 230 Z3001 ..c C <c J � � ,J➢ 991 j f}p I 23024 �� �l Li027 — 21Q8 23U21 _ ` �5�3- i 4601 I 9 70 / 1 f730,, � 73030 9 Q Pox c ti 2i104 911 i 9707 __ 9507 =TFf 3w - � at C Flows continue west through convevance piping Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 129 6.2.a Nub-[i'u01. -- o a 04 Eo In ❑ Q - m LL 10 ❑ -" = En — - o ° — - 06 2b �' o N a 08 d®❑E9 �$ off❑ �$°m ❑❑�❑❑ 9 Q. t65 V L .J e - ® ❑ a �o Site L _ —... a a� 9 0 EDO ❑ f W ❑ ❑ - "-moo' r ® g�❑ ❑ o Al"ma° m o ❑❑ q7 E) ® Q ❑ ° ❑ ❑ CM C193 all 0 L 13 EE > .a o Gt i�. 000 13 Xyrn oil ILI ice. ':. ®,$• o o Approximate ° discharge location to puget sound. It appears that the conveyance system does not discharge to any crreks prior to the outfall at puget sound. 0 O OOW C Attachment 8Packet Pg. 130 KO 6.2.a Appendix E Operations and Maintenance Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 131 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(3) Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) Results Expec Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is ted When Component Needed Maintenance is Performed Plugged Air One-half of the cross section of a vent Vents open and Vents is blocked at any point or the vent is functioning. damaged. Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the diameter of the storage area for 1 /2 length of storage vault or any All sediment Debris and Sed- point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. and debris iment (Example: 72-inch storage tank would removed from require cleaning when sediment storage area. reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of tank.) Any openings or voids allowing mater- All joint Joints Between ial to be transported into facility. between Storage Area Tank/Pipe Sec- tank/pipe sec- tion (Will require engineering analysis to tions are determine structural stability). sealed. Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of Tank/pipe Tank Pipe Bent shape more than 10% of its design repaired or Out of Shape shape. (Review required by engineer to replaced to determine structural stability). design. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any Vault replaced evidence of soil particles entering the or repaired to VaultStructure structure through the cracks, g or main- design spe- cifications and Includes Cracks tenance/inspection personnel determ- isstructurally in Wall, Bottom, ines that the vault is not structurally sound. Damage to sound. Frame and/or Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint No cracks more Top Slab of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence than 1/4-inch of soil particles entering the vault wide at the joint through the walls. of the inlet/out- let pipe. Manhole Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in Manhole is Place place. Any open manhole requires closed. maintenance. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AIttl /_WS Ig Page 835 Packet Pg. 132 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(3) Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) (continued) Results Expec Maintenance Conditions When Maintenance is ted When Component Defect Needed Maintenance is Performed Mechanism cannot be opened by one Locking Mech- maintenance person with proper tools. Mechanism anism Not Work- Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch opens with ing of thread (may not apply to self-locking proper tools. lids). Cover can be One maintenance person cannot removed and Cover Difficult to remove lid after applying normal lifting reinstalled by Remove pressure. Intent is to keep cover from one main - sealing off access to maintenance. tenance per- son. Ladder meets Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs design stand - Ladder Rungs misalignment, not securely attached to ards. Allows Unsafe structure wall, rust, or cracks. maintenance person safe access. Catch Basins See "Catch Bas- See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). See "Catch ins" (No. 5) Basins" (No. 5). Table V-4.5.2(4) Maintenance Standards - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor Maintenance Component Defect Condition When Main- tenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Trash and Material exceeds 25% of Control structure orifice is not Debris (Includes sump depth or 1 foot below blocked. All trash and debris Sediment) orifice plate. removed. General Structure is not securely Structure securely attached to attached to manhole wall. wall and outlet pipe. Structural Structure is not in upright Structure in correct position. Damage position (allow up to 10% Connections to outlet pipe are from plumb). watertight; structure repaired Connections to outlet pipe or replaced and works as 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V A '/_W Page 836 Packet Pg. 133 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(4) Maintenance Standards - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor (continued) Maintenance Defect Condition When Main- Results Expected When Component tenance is Needed Maintenance is Performed are not watertight and show signs of rust. designed. Any holes - other than Structure has no holes other designed holes - in the than designed holes. stru ctu re. Cleanout gate is not water- Gate is watertight and works tight or is missing. as designed. Gate cannot be moved up Gate moves up and down eas- Cleanout Damaged or and down by one main- tenance person. it and is watertight. y g Gate Missing Chain is in place and works as Chain/rod leading to gate is designed. missing or damaged. Gate is rusted over 50% of Gate is repaired or replaced to its surface area. meet design standards. Control device is not work - Damaged or ing properly due to missing, Plate is in place and works as Orifice Plate Missing out of place, or bent orifice designed. plate. Any trash, debris, sediment, Plate is free of all obstructions Obstructions or vegetation blocking the and works as designed. plate. Overflow Any trash or debris blocking Pipe is free of all obstructions Pipe Obstructions (or having the potential of and works as designed. blocking) the overflow pipe. See "Closed Manhole Detention See "Closed Detention Sys -See "Closed Detention Sys - Systems" tems" (No. 3). tems" (No. 3). (No. 3). See "Catch Catch Basin Basins" (No. See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). 5). 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AItt'1 '/_WW Page 837 Packet Pg. 134 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(5) Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins Results Maintenance Conditions When Maintenance is Expected Component Defect Needed When Main- tenance is performed No Trash or debris loc- Trash or debris which is located imme- ated imme- diately in front of the catch basin opening or diately in is blocking inletting capacity of the basin by front of catch more than 10%. basin or on Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds grate open- 60 percent of the sump depth as measured ing. from the bottom of basin to invert of the low- No trash or est pipe into or out of the basin, but in no debris in the Trash & case less than a minimum of six inches catch basin. Debris clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Inlet and out- let pipes free Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe of trash or blocking more than 1/3 of its height. debris. General Dead animals or vegetation that could gen- No dead erate odors that could cause complaints or animals or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). vegetation present within the catch basin. Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 per- cent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case No sediment Sediment less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance in the catch from the sediment surface to the invert of the basin lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is Damage to inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch. (Intent free of holes Frame and/or is to make sure no material is running into and cracks. Top Slab basin). Frame is sit- 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AIttl '/_WW Page 838 Packet Pg. 135 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(5) Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins (continued) Results Maintenance Conditions When Maintenance is Expected Component Defect Needed When Main- tenance is performed Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., sep- ting flush on aration of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings from the top slab. Frame not securely or top slab attached and firmly attached. Basin Maintenance person judges that structure is replaced or unsound. repaired to Fractures or design stand - Cracks in Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider ards. Basin Walls/ than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the g Bottom joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence Pipe is of soil particles entering catch basin through regrouted cracks. and secure at basin wall. Basin Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, func- replaced or Misalignment tion, or design problem. repaired to design stand- ards. No veget- Vegetation growing across and blocking ation block - more than 10% of the basin opening. ing opening to basin. Vegetation Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No that is more than six inches tall and less veget- than six inches apart. ation or root growth present. Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution and Pollution present. Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin Catch Basin Place Any open catch basin requires main- cover is tenance. closed Cover Locking Mech- Mechanism cannot be opened by one main- Mechanism anism Not tenance person with proper tools. Bolts into opens with 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AIttl /_WS Ig Page 839 Packet Pg. 136 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(5) Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins (continued) Results Maintenance Conditions When Maintenance is Expected Component Defect Needed When Main- tenance is performed Working frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. proper tools. One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be Cover Difficult after applying normal lifting pressure. removed by to Remove (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access one main - tenance per - to maintenance.) son. Ladder meets design stand Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not ards and Ladder Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, mis- allows main - alignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. tenance per- son safe access. Grate open - Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. ing meets Unsafe design stand- ards. Metal Grates Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of (If Applic- Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity. trash and able) debris. Grate is in Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. Table V-4.5.2(6) Maintenance Standards - Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) Maintenance Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected Com- Defect When Maintenance is ponents Needed Performed Trash and Trash or debris that is plugging Barrier cleared to design General Debris more than 20% of the openings in flow capacity. the barrier. Damaged/ Bars are bent out of shape more Bars in place with no Metal Missing than 3 inches. bends more than 3/4 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V A '/_W Page 840 Packet Pg. 137 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(15) Maintenance Standards - Manufactured Media Filters (continued) Maintenance Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected Component Defect Needed When Maintenance is Performed its which would mulation on impede permeability Media. of the compost media. Sediment Accu-Sediment depth exceeds 6-inches No sediment depos- mulation in in first chamber. its in vault bottom of Vault first chamber. Trash/Debris Trash and debris accumulated on Trash and debris Accumulation compost filter bed. removed from the compost filter bed. Sediment in When drain pipes, clean -outs, Drain become full with sediment and/or Sediment and debris Pipes/Clean- debris. removed. Outs Damaged Any part of the pipes that are Pipe repaired and/or Pipes crushed or damaged due to cor- replaced. rosion and/or settlement. Access Cover Cover cannot be opened; one per- Cover repaired to Damaged/Not son cannot open the cover using proper working spe- Working normal lifting pressure, cor- cifications or rosion/deformation of cover. replaced. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch or evid- Vault replaced or ence of soil particles entering the repairs made so that Vault Structure structure through the cracks, or vault meets design Includes maintenance/inspection personnel specifications and is Cracks in Wall, determine that the vault is not struc structurally sound. Bottom, Damage to turally sound. Vault repaired so that Frame and/or Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the no cracks exist wider Top Slab joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or evid- than 1/4-inch at the ence of soil particles entering joint of the inlet/outlet through the cracks. pipe. Baffles corroding, cracking warp- Baffles repaired or Baffles ing, and/or showing signs of failure replaced to spe- as determined by main- cifications. tenance/inspection person. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AIttl '/_W Page 854 Packet Pg. 138 6.2.a Table V-4.5.2(15) Maintenance Standards - Manufactured Media Filters (continued) Maintenance Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected Component Defect Needed When Maintenance is Performed Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, Ladder replaced or not functioning properly, not repaired and meets Access Ladder securely attached to structure wall, specifications, and is Damaged missing rungs, cracks, and mis- safe to use as determ aligned. ined by inspection personnel. Drawdown of water through the Media cartridges Below Media media takes longer than 1 hour, replaced. Ground Cart- and/or overflow occurs frequently. ridge Type Short Circuiting Flows do not properly enter filter Filter cartridges cartridges. replaced. Table V-4.5.2(16) Maintenance Standards - Baffle Oil/Water Separators (API Type) Maintenance Condition When Main- Results Expected Component Defect tenance is Needed When Maintenance is Performed Inspection of discharge Effluent discharge from Monitoring water for obvious signs of vault should be clear poor water quality. with out thick visible sheen. No sediment deposits Sediment depth in bottom of on vault bottom that Sediment Accu- vault exceeds 6-inches in would impede flow mulation depth. through the vault and reduce separation effi- General ciency. Trash and debris accu- Trash and debris Trash and Debris mulation in vault, or pipe removed from vault, Accumulation inlet/outlet, floatables and and inlet/outlet piping. non-floatables. Extract oil from vault by Oil accumulations that vactoring. Disposal in Oil Accumulation exceed 1-inch, atthe surface accordance with state of the water. and local rules and reg- ulations. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V AIttl '/_W Page 855 Packet Pg. 139 C N T E C H° ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CatchBasin StormFilter'" Important: These guidelines should be used as a part of your site stormwater plan. Overview The Catch Basin StormFilterTl (CBSF) consists of a multi -chamber steel, concrete, or plastic catch basin unit that can contain up to four StormFilter cartridges. The steel CBSF is offered both as a standard and as a deep unit. The CBSF is installed flush with the finished grade and is applicable for both constrained lot and retrofit applications. H can also be fitted with an inlet pipe for roof leaders or similar applications. The CBSF unit treats peak water quality design flows up to 0.13 cfs, coupled with an internal weir overflow capacity of 1.0 cfs for the standard unit, and 1.8 cfs for the deep steel and concrete units. Plastic units have an internal weir overflow capacity of 0.5 cfs. Design Operation The CBSF is installed as the primary receiver of runoff, similar to a standard, grated catch basin. The steel and concrete CBSF units have an H-20 rated, traffic bearing lid that allows the filter to be installed in parking lots, and for all practical purposes, takes up no land area. Plastic units can be used in landscaped areas and for other non -traffic -bearing applications. The CBSF consists of a sumped inlet chamber and a cartridge chamber(s). Runoff enters the sumped inlet chamber either by sheet flow from a paved surface or from an inlet pipe discharging directly to the unit vault. The inlet chamber is equipped with an internal baffle, which traps debris and floating oil and grease, and an overflow weir. While in the inlet chamber, heavier solids are allowed to settle into the deep sump, while lighter solids and soluble pollutants are directed under the baffle and into the cartridge chamber through a port between the baffle and the overflow weir. OPERATION MAI NTE NAN C- Once in the cartridge chamber, polluted water ponds and percolates horizontally through the media in the filter cartridg Treated water collects in the cartridge's center tube from wher is directed by an under -drain manifold to the outlet pipe on th downstream side of the overflow weir and discharged. When flows into the CBSF exceed the water quality design value, excess water spills over the overflow weir, bypassing the cartridge bay, and discharges to the outlet pipe. Applications The CBSF is particularly useful where small flows are being treated or for sites that are flat and have little available hydra head to spare. The unit is ideal for applications in which standard catch basins are to be used. Both water quality and catchment issues can be resolved with the use of the CBSF. Retro-Fit The retrofit market has many possible applications for the CB: The CBSF can be installed by replacing an existing catch basil without having to "chase the grade," thus reducing the high c of re piping the storm system. 1% Pagc i URBANGRFFNTM',. www.Contec ,.; Attachment 8 _ti' Packet Pg. 140 stormwater Solutions from Contech'l © 2013 Cont C N T E C H° ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CatchBasin StormFilter'" Maintenance Guidelines Maintenance procedures for typical catch basins can be applied to the CatchBasin StormFilter (CBSF). The filter cartridges contained in the CBSF are easily removed and replaced during maintenance activities according to the following guidelines. 1. Establish a safe working area as per typical catch basin service activity. 2. Remove steel grate and diamond plate cover (weight 100 lbs. each). 3. Turn cartridge(s) counter -clockwise to disconnect from pipe manifold. 4. Remove 4" center cap from cartridge and replace with lifting cap. 5. Remove cartridges) from catch basin by hand or with vactor truck boom. 6. Remove accumulated sediment via vactor truck (min. clearance 13" x 24") 7. Remove accumulated sediment from cartridge bay. (min. clearance 9.25" x 11 ") 8. Rinse interior of both bays and vactor remaining water and sediment. 9. Install fresh cartridge(s) threading clockwise to pipe manifold. 10. Replace cover and grate. 11 . Return original cartridges to Contech for cleaning. Media may be removed from the filter cartridges using the vactor truck before the cartridges are removed from the catch basin structure. Empty cartridges can be easily removed from the catch basin structure by hand. Empty cartridges should be reassembled and returned to Contech as appropriate. Materials required include a lifting cap, vactor truck and fresh filter cartridges. Contact Contech for specifications and availability of the lifting cap. The vactor truck must be equipped with a hose capable of reaching areas of restricted clearance. the owner may refresh spent cartridges. Refreshed cartridges are also available from Contech on an exchange basis. Contact the maintenance department of Contech at 503-258-3157 for more information. Maintenance is estimated at 26 minutes of site time. For units with more than one cartridge, add approximately 5 minutes for each additional cartridge. Add travel time as required. OPERATION MAI NTE NAN C- Mosquito Abatement In certain areas of the United States, mosquito abatement is desirable to reduce the incidence of vectors. In BMPs with standing water, which could provide mosquito breeding habitat, certain abatement measures can be taken. 1. Periodic observation of the standing water to determine if the facility is harboring mosquito larvae. 2. Regular catch basin maintenance. 3. Use of larvicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis israelen (BTI). BTI is a bacterium toxic to mosquito and black fly larvae. In some cases, the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons may interrupt the mosquito growth cycle. Using Larvicides in the CatchBasin StormFilter Larvicides should be used according to manufacturer's recommendations. Two widely available products are Mosquito Dunks and Summit B.t.i. Briquets. For more information, visit http://www. summitchemical.com/mos—cfrl/d efault.htm. The larvicide must be in contact with the permanent pool. The larvicide should also be fastened to the Catch Basin StormFilte by string or wire to prevent displacement by high flows. A magnet can be used with a steel catch basin. For more information on mosquito abatement in stormwater BMPs, refer to the following: http://www.ucmrp.ucdavis.edu/ publications/ma nag ingmosquitoesstormwater8125.pdf s, Pagc c URBANGRFFNTM Attachment 8 www.Contec 141 stormwater Solutions from Contech"' �u, © 2013 Cont Packet Pg. Earth Solutions N W «C _r Geotechnical Engineering Geology. Environmental Services Construction D6servationitesting RIECEIVEID JAN232019 DEVEWPWNT SERACES COUNTER 6.2.a E =S C1 {[ Y± Q 3 0 Y. in ci - o GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY -CD' PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES'.. �.. N 22810 EDMONDS WAY f 'f� -+•: J EDMONDS, WASHINGTON •_ -' a �, ES-5932 - . p uu m Packet Pg. 142 6.2.a r -- Geolechnical Engineering Report — Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Pro]ect-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes ---even minor ones --and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibilily or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Condirlt"ions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinious Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical a engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your E parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- r to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical 26 engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 143 6.2.a subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenviron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer lop Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The Beat 1'evale •n Eer1B 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report Any other firm, individuril, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 144 6.2.a May 29, 2018 ES-5932 Kisan Enterprises, LLC 20607 State Route 9 Snohomish, Washington 98296 Attention: Ms. Yvette Johnson Dear Ms. Johnson: Earth I Solutions NW «< Earth Solutions NW I_l_c Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observationjesting and Environmental Services Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Family Residences, 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington". Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed single-family residences at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent native soils, suitable for support of foundations, should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. This report includes recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation, foundation and retaining wall design parameters, drainage, the suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ia m;;u�e I E. �Su r u d aG.I.T. Staff Geologist 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 0 (425) 449-4704 0 FAX (425) 449-4711 Packet Pg. 145 6.2.a Table of Contents ES-5932 PAGE INTRODUCTION....................................................................... General.......................................................................... Project Description.......................................................... SITECONDITIONS.................................................................... 2 Surface........................................................................... 2 Subsurface...................................................................... 2 Geologic Setting ..................................................... 2 Groundwater.......................................................... 3 Geological Hazards Assessment ........................................ 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................:..... 3 General ..... ........... . Site Preuaration and Ea_rthwork......................................... 3 Temporary Erosion Control ............................................. 4 In -Situ Soils....................................................................... 4 StructuralFill..................................................................... 4 Excavations and Slopes ........................................... 4 Foundations.................................................................... 5 Seismic Considerations........................................................ 5 Slab -on -Grade Floors ....................................................... 5 Retaining Walls................................................................ 6 Draainage......................................................................... 6 Infiltration Evaluation .............................................. 7 Low Impact Development ......................................... 7 Stormwater Vault Design ......................................... 8 Utility Trench Support and Backfill..................................... 9 Pavement Sections........................................................... 9 LIMITATIONS............................................................................ 10 Additional Services......................................................... 10 Ea4tMWbtI3WM1QLLC Packet Pg. 146 6.2.a Table of Contents Cont'd ES-5932 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Eattr fAmPi V9LLC Packet Pg. 147 6.2.a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ES-5932 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed single-family residential structures to be constructed at 22810 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds, Washington. To complete the scope of services detailed in our proposal, we performed the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by way of test pits excavated at accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during subsurface exploration; • An infiltration evaluation based on observed soil conditions and two small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITs); • Geotechnical engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation: • Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, prepared by James P. Minard, dated 1983; • Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume III Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs, dated August 2014; • Edmonds City Code, Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas), and; • Online Web Soil Survey (WSS) resource provided by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services. Proiiect Description Based on our review of the preliminary site plan, the existing single-family residence will be demolished, and 20 new single-family residential structures will be constructed. We anticipate grade cuts of up to four feet will be necessary to establish the planned building alignments and roadway improvements. Site improvements will also include underground utility installations. E °&IU it�r�s LLC Packet Pg. 148 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC ES-5932 May 29, 2018 Page 2 At the time this report was prepared, specific building load values were not available. However, we anticipate the proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads of approximately one to two kips per linear foot and slab - on -grade loading of roughly 150 pounds per square foot (psf) will be incorporated into the construction. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 22810 Edmonds Way, in Edmonds, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site consists of one residential tax parcel (Snohomish County Parcel Number 270336-001-023-00) totaling approximately 0.71 acres of land area. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and associated improvements. The majority of the site is relatively level, with a gently descending slope on the north side of the property adjacent to Edmonds Way. The subject site is bordered to the west, south, and east by residential developments, and to the north by Edmonds Way. The Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the approximate limits of the property. Subsurface Five test pits were excavated in accessible portions of the site for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Fill was encountered at TP-3 and TP-4 to depths of approximately two and one-half to three feet. The fill was characterized as loose, well -graded sand with silt (Unified Soil Classification System: SW). Seepage was observed within the fill layers and was present until the contact with the native soil. Underlying the fill, soil conditions observed at test pit locations consisted of medium dense well - graded sand (USCS: SW), medium dense poorly graded sand (USCS: SP), and silty sand with gravel (USCS: SM). Overall soil relative density increased with depth. Geologic Setting According to the referenced geologic map resource, the subject site is underlain by advance outwash (Qva) and glacial till (Qvt) deposits. According to the referenced NRCS soil survey, the subject site consists of Everett series soils (Map Unit: 17). Everett series soils were formed in glacial moraines and are classified as outwash deposits. Outwash soils are consistent with observations made in the field. Ea�t�iitid�i �p�11�LLC Packet Pg. 149 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Groundwater ES-5932 Page 3 Groundwater seepage was observed at TP-3 and TP-4 beginning at depths of one to two feet during our fieldwork on March 30, 2018. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the winter, spring and early summer months. Geological Hazards Assessment As part of this geotechnical engineering study, the referenced chapter of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) was reviewed. Per the ECC requirements, the site was reviewed for erosion, landslide, and seismic hazards. No such hazards were observed to be present on the site or within 200 feet of the site. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed residential structures at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, temporary excavations, retaining walls, infiltration and drainage, and the suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill. The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet below existing grades across the majority of the site. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, re -compacted native soil, or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kisan Enterprises, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Based on the referenced site plans and given the existing topography, we anticipate grading for the project will involve cuts of up to about four feet to establish building pad and foundation subgrade alignments. Silt fencing and temporary erosion control measures should be placed along the perimeter of the site prior to beginning grading activities. Ea�t6QQe v,9LLC Packet Pg. 150 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Temporary Erosion Control ES-5932 Page 4 Temporary construction entrances, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, can be considered to minimize off -site soil tracking and to provide a temporary road surface. Silt fences should be placed along the margins of the property. Interceptor swales and a temporary sediment pond may be necessary for control of surface water during construction. Erosion control measures should conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and City of Edmonds standards. In -Situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill provided the moisture content of the soils is at or slightly above the optimum level at the time of placement and compaction. The site soils were generally in a moist condition at the time of the exploration on March 30, 2018. Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the sandy soils generally have a low sensitivity to moisture. Silty sands observed at TP-5 and underlying the sands at TP-3 and TP- 4 have a higher sensitivity to moisture. If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D- 1557). For soil placed in utility trenches underlying structural areas, compaction requirements are dictated by the local city, county, or utility district, and in general are specified as 95 percent relative compaction. Excavations and Slopes The native soils encountered at the test pit locations primarily consisted of outwash sands in a medium dense condition. Temporary slopes should maintain a gradient of no steeper than 1 Horizontal :1 Vertical (1 H:1 V). If groundwater is present within a cut, the temporary slope gradient should be no steeper than 1.5HAV. The presence of perched groundwater may cause caving of the temporary slopes due to hydrostatic pressure. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm the soil type and allowable slope inclination are appropriate for the soil exposed by the excavation. If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Eak iffi?N�1H, LLC Packet Pg. 151 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC ES-5932 May 29, 2018 Page 5 Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2HAV, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. A representative of ESNW 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. Foundations The proposed residential structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered beginning at a depth of roughly two feet bgs across the majority of the site. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as necessary. Provided the structures will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of the new foundations: ■ Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) 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. 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 settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Considerations The 2015 International Building Code recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual Site Class D should be used for design. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction is low. The soil relative density and the absence of a uniformly established, shallow groundwater table are the primary bases for this opinion. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on firm and unyielding subgrades consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrades 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 material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarters 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 specifications of the manufacturer. Ea�l�� LLC Packet Pg. 152 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Retaining Walls ES-5932 Page 6 Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters may be used for retaining wall design: Active earth pressure (yielding condition) ® At -rest earth pressure (restrained condition) Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) o Passive earth pressure . Coefficient of friction Seismic surcharge * Where applicable ** Where H equals the retained height (in feet) 35 pcf 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) * 300 pcf 0.40 6H psf ** Where sloping or other surcharge conditions will be present, supplemental recommendations and design earth pressure values should be provided by ESNW. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free -draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall and should be connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed at TP-3 and TP-4 at depths of one to two feet during our fieldwork on March 30, 2018. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated in site excavations, particularly in the winter, spring, and early summer months. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve passive elements such as interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over sloped areas and should not be allowed to pond near the top of sloped areas or retaining structures. Surface grades must be designed to direct water away from buildings. The grade adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a horizontal distance of four feet or more (as setbacks allow). In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4. Eft X@&bff&9LLC Packet Pg. 153 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Infiltration Evaluation ES-5932 Page 7 We understand drywells, trenches, or other small-scale methods are proposed for on -site infiltration. For design, the long-term infiltration rate was evaluated using the results of two small- scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITs) completed at a depth of three feet in TP-1 and five feet in TP- 2. No infiltration occurred after the initial soaking period. It should be noted that these are not typical results for infiltration into more granular soils types as those found on site. Infiltration testing was attempted at varying depths at both testing locations. On this basis, we do not recommend infiltration be incorporated into this project. ESNW should be notified of any changes to stormwater management designs. Low Impact Development The following table provides our evaluation and recommendations regarding low impact development (LID) BMPs for the proposed project: BMP IWO _ Lawns an Landscaped Argas - Umhotlons or Infeasibility Critori■ T5.13: Post -construction soil quality and Considered infeasible on slopes of 33 percent or depth Volume V Chapter 5)_Yes greater.Roofs T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter No T5.30: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack 5) of adequate vegetated flow paths. T5.10A: Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 T5.10A: Downspout full infiltration systems No inches per hour. (Volume III, Chapter 3) Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 inches Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No per hour. T5.10B: Downspout dispersion systems No T5.1013: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack (Volume III, Chapter 3) of adequate vegetated flow paths. T5.10C: Perforated stub -out connections Yes No limitations. plume III, Chapter 3 Other Har d SUrfaces- T5.30: Full dispersion (Volume V, Chapter No T5.30: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack 5) of adequate vegetated flow paths. I T5.15: Permeable pavement (Volume V, No T5.15: Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 j Chapter 5) inches per hour. Infiltration is infeasible with a design rate of 0 inches E Bioretention (Volume V, Chapter 7) No per hour. r T5.12: Sheet flow dispersion T5.12: Dispersion is not recommended due to a lack a T5.11: Concentrated flow dispersion No of adequate vegetated flow paths. Volume V, Chapter 5 - - - — Ear tilili�1�11�LLC Packet Pg. 154 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Stormwater Vault Design ES-5932 Page 8 We understand a stormwater vault is proposed for this property. Vault foundations should be supported on competent native soil or crushed rock placed on competent native soil. Final storm vault designs must incorporate adequate buffer space from property boundaries such that temporary excavations to construct the vault structure can be successfully completed. Perimeter drains should be installed around the vault and conveyed to an approved discharge point. The presence of perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated during excavation activities for the vault. The following parameters may be used for stormwater vault design: e Allowable soil bearing capacity (dense native soil) 5,000 psf e Active earth pressure (unrestrained) 35 pcf Active earth pressure (unrestrained, hydrostatic) 80, pcf e At -rest earth pressure (restrained) 55 pcf e At -rest earth pressure (restrained, hydrostatic) 100 pcf ■ Coefficient of friction 0.40 e Passive earth pressure 300 pcf Seismic surcharge 6H* * Where H equals the retained height (in feet) The vault walls should be backfilled with free -draining material or suitable sheet drainage that extends along the height of the walls. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. If the elevation of the vault bottom is such that gravity flow to an outlet is not possible, the portion of the vault below the drain should be designed to include hydrostatic pressure. Design values accounting for hydrostatic pressure are included above. ESNW should observe grading operations for the vault and the subgrade conditions prior to concrete forming and pouring to confirm conditions are as anticipated, and to provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. Additionally, ESNW should be contacted to review final vault designs to confirm that appropriate geotechnical parameters have been incorporated. EW%6l 1 9. LLC Packet Pg. 155 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 Utility Trench Support and Backfill ES-5932 Page 9 In our opinion, the soils observed at the test pit locations are generally suitable for support of utilities. The on -site soils may not be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations unless the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations 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 City of Edmonds of other responsible agency. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures, such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill or thicker crushed rock sections, prior to pavement. For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to passenger vehicles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections may be considered for preliminary design: Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The HMA, CRIB and ATB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Additionally, city or county Road Standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Road standards utilized by the City of Edmonds may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. Ea4t$t AIAWMMAV LLC Packet Pg. 156 6.2.a Kisan Enterprises, LLC May 29, 2018 LIMITATIONS ES-5932 Page 10 The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. E SMOti10f1l" LLC Packet Pg. 157 6.2.a m m Z w ;7 W () _4 N W �G _ CD CL CD Z =r y � M_� ��O go�` a D m rt Q CD - n� o 3 C y, N 3 � o �. Uo oho 0 � o m n Cr) o v CD m Z A& Z3 00 O w CD (� CD n77, CD Cl m CJ '7 ev m CD cD O v (A Q n 00 c� N � C7D j- O v -o 3-0 n� �3 (Q _ m O .? _ file r Pakw _ All, y w_" STH Ar' pov x to �g• i Ab aN � r rn s. w r ■ _• r z � �s � , Ri1Hp' C �a Y M 0 0 0 o) O N Z .J a Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 158 6.2.a 1.DMONDS \A11"1Y 1 I I / I TP-5 / TP-2 ' I TP-1 f 1 TP-4 r =P-3 ; LEGEND TP-1 I Approximate Location of — ■ — ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-5932, Mar. 2018 ' I Subject Site Proposed Building Existing Building NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NORTH NOT - TO - SCALE Earth Solutions NW ��c Test Pit Location Plan Kisan Townhomes Edmonds, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. MRS Date 05/21 /2018 Proj. No. 5932 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked SES Date May 2018 Plate 2 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 159 6.2.a i moo s TI r 00.0 in N�0 -n Z m �co o _ern cn m O 0 CD G) = m M T M 3m ° om2•m m _— v G o na a0 cJs,� 0 (D 0 N O 7 7 -u Cn a T. : Cn (O 'D 3 w O C) Cn CCU 0 _ Cu 0 N= _�� �COCn� III X C r- a cn W Z y 0 0 0 CD 0 CD o Cn C L = N U) =T CD W ClO CD ar < -0 C 0 CD CD �'D m 7• c N a 0 0 0 O °°�. yn/� 0 °0 o 0 a o 0 0 0 0° 3� (A_ p 7 j 00 0 C+° 0° 000 O 0 o° p Z CD o "' Cn 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0° 0 �v �v a�v; 0 ° 000 000 000 0000 ao 0 0 CD Cr CD .. o° o p O ° 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0° a CD N 0 0� 00 ° 0 OO ° ° ° 0 oQ °� GA o °° O 0 0 0 °°° o0 0 00 0 0 0 00 lJ °o 0 o O � 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° O o Cho c0i O 0�0 0 0° °O o 00000°0° ° ° ° 0 00 CD ?ti tir�f� ° 0 °o oo° 00O°o 0� u 0 80° ° 000 00 0 ° 0 0 80 ° o 0 0 O00 00 uo 0b0 C ;u tirr�00 0 0.0 °°oo O O ° o 000 0 0 m m Z t. o� oo0 0 0 0 0° ° O 0 0 D00 ,wr'r oho 0 0 Qp0 �� ° 000 ° o , o0> 0 °C�v o0 Q- Z D ° o ° ° 0 ° ° 00 0 °0a0 CD CD T � z Cb o Co �' cn O o a� rp C� �a n n o , a �. w " w 3 �. -03 D Z� oa ai CD p � m 00 o v �� o= �> o� w �_ G)m CD w r N I Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 160 I 6.2.a I Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal: native soil or other low -permeability material. ti+4•ti•ti• R ti�tirti�• 1-inch Drain Rock L• SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions NWII( FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Kisan Townhomes Edmonds, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 05/21 /2018 Proj. No. 5932 Checked SES Date May 2018 1 Plate 4 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 161 6.2.a Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-5932 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating two test pits at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed on March 30, 2018. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet bgs. Logs of the test pits advanced by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. 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. EaA%SrMime NMLC Packet Pg. 162 6.2.a Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS ��� P �� FINES AND GRAVELLY SOILS NO FINES) Doti a� GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE (LITTLE OR a oho p - OR NO FINES COARSE `" ° GRAINED GRAVELS WITH GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES o D SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE i� a FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY MORE THAN 50% SAND SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND _ POORLY -GRADED SANDS, LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SANDY SOILS SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED LAYYS LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS, SANDY CCLA SS SILTY SOILS — — OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC — SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT `+I I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS _ • 1 21 —1 2-+• PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS �� 111 DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 163 6.2.a m s Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425- 49-4704 Vol Fax: 425-449-4711 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 O PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME Kisan Towohomes DATE STARTED 3/30/1 B_ COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass T AFTER EXCAVATION -- I w �W TESTS p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 I TPSL '' n y Dark brown highly organic TOPSOIL, root intrusions to V Gray well -graded SAND with sift, medium dense, moist to wet MC = 17.50% SW- SM -becomes wet MC 8.50% Gray poorly g SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist = [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] SP s.0 -becomes wet MC = 16.90% Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 164 6.2.a Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-4494711 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes DATE STARTED 3130/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": -grass AFTER EXCAVATION — W I }W U _ oTESTS I— W a. O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q z (� 0 MC = 5.50% MC = 10.30% SP MC = 8.50% MC = 15.60% Gray poorly graded SAND. medium dense, darnp -becomes dense, wet 10 MC = 13.30% _ -p, fl [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly SAND) Fines = 3.70% Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 165 6.2.a 43Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425- 49-4704 Fax: 425- 49-4711 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 PROJECT NAME_ . Kisa_n Townhomes DATE STARTED 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3130/18 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE "- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SES CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — c NOTES Depth Df To soil Sod 6": amm AFTER EXCAVATION — W _ �W � w W M TESTS vi 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i o 2z 5 0 x m MC = 9.50% Gray Well-grad0d SAND With alit, lo0ae, Wet (Fill) SW -groundwater seepage Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense to very MC = 6.90% I SM I I I I -Weakly cemented Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense to dense, moist SP- SM 8.5 MC = 10.00% ' Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at foot during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 166 6.2.a La rth '-A IItjt11rr1- 111.4 Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 PROJECT NUMBER ES-5932 DATE STARTED 3/30N8 COMPLETED 3130118 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY SEAS CHECKED BY HTW NOTES Surface Conditions: fill _ w a. w o_j g vi TESTS 0 0. z 0 SW MC = 8.70% 5 MC = 7.70% Fines = 15.90% SM MC = 11.30% i TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 O PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes _ GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION AT END OF EXCAVATION — AFTER EXCAVATION — MATERIAL DESCRIPTION gray wefl-grace❑ ZJAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -groundwater seepage Gray silty SAND With gravel, dense damp to moist [USDA Classification: gravelly loamy SAND] -becomes moist Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at. feet during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Packet Pg. 167 1 4MEarth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 . Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-4494711 PROJECT NUMBER ES5932 DATE STARTED 3/30/18 COMPLETED 3/30/18 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD T LOGGED BY SES — _ CHECKED BY HTW _ NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": duff W �W . C.) W TESTS J Z C9 0 Cl) 6.2.a TEST PIT NUMBER TP-� PAGE 1 OF PROJECT NAME Kisan Townhomes GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — AT END OF EXCAVATION — AFTER EXCAVATION — MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dark brown highly organic TOPSOIL _ Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, damp to moist MC = 11.60% ISM I 1 I -becomes moist :i MC = 10.30% Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist Fines = 9.00% [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] SP- SM 7.5 -becomes wet MC = 13.70% — - - Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing fride. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 168 6.2.a E m a_ r Appendix B Laboratory Test Results C6 ES-5932 J J N d N �L Q L W r. M O O O O r O N Z J d N C 0 E t V r r-+ a r 0 a a� Cn 3 m m C a, .N a� 0 M O O O O O N Z J IL C aD E t r Q Ear�l4ui �N�1IQLLC Packet Pg. 169 6.2.a W "limmillililol' 11 MENOMINEE lmmiii lllomil I I liiii4immillil ONE I Ills 111111115M., iiiiiiism 111111111 UNION lllimmillillin DOMINION ilifin '1111 1 llim�Iin'i�liln mm�IIIaIlls ��� i �IlI!!i�ll!`. , ENIIIIII . �Alli..111111111 ��1lismilililits I �iii 11111 MINIMUM iiiiiiinmiiil lllillimmililill§E INS In III Ills 11 u mn■limn lism 111 ismillillimm HIM III MINIMUM lismill INN iiiiiiinm_iiiiilmmiiiillimmililI GRAVEL coarse TP-2 10.0ft.!MMMm1M1=MmG=mm=M 6.2.a Report Distribution ES-5932 EMAIL ONLY Kisan Enterprises, LLC 20607 State Route 9 Snohomish, Washington 98296 Attention: Ms. Yvette Johnson EaAh;ipgL NMLLC Packet Pg. 171 LIGHTI 60 WA HT 7'- LAM PS LED DI EDMONDS WAY LIGHTING PLAN SCALE: 1"=30'-0" z LOCATION: Michel Design n 0 22810 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA.98020 BUILDING DESIGN PO Box 1215 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Attachment TO 20 -r Packet Pg. 172 6.2.a G TC _ Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2813 Rockefeller Avenue Suite B Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared For: Kisan Enterprises Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds April 2019 al 1014Ar Attachment 11 GTC # 19-071 Packet Pg. 173 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 1 3. TRIP GENERATION.............................................................................................................. 4 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................... 4 5. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY ................................................ 6 5.1 Level of Service Analysis............................................................................................... 6 5.2 Collision Summary......................................................................................................... 8 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 8 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 9 8. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Site Vicinity Map........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Development Trip Distribution...................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: 2021 Future with Development Traffic Volumes.......................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections....................................................................... 3 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary................................................................................................ 4 ATTACHMENTS Trip Generation Calculations......................................................................................................... A Existing Turning Movement Counts and Turning Movement Calculations...................................B PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis......................................................................................0 WSDOTCollision Data................................................................................................................. D City of Edmonds Traffic Mitigation Fee Table.............................................................................. E SitePlan........................................................................................................................................ F Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 I Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 174 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 22810 Edmonds Way development is located along the south side of SR-104 (Edmonds Way), east of 95th Place W. A site vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. The 22810 Edmonds Way is proposed to consist of 18 multifamily low-rise units with the existing house on the site to be removed. The units will gain access to the Cascadian In Edmonds apartment complex parking lot to the west of the existing single-family house and the signal at the intersection of SR- 104/95th Place W. The development is proposed to be constructed/occupied before 2021. The development will modify the access to the Cascadian In Edmonds apartment complex by creating two 12-foot ingress lanes and one 12-foot egress lane. The existing c-curbing will be removed. 2. METHODOLOGY The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, loth Edition (2017) is the nationally accepted source for trip generation estimates for specific land uses. The trip generation estimates include trip generation rates and equations for time periods such as average daily traffic, morning and evening peak -hours for typical weekday, Saturday and Sunday. The ITE rates represent the national averages and may vary from area to area as demonstrated by the range of rates included in ITE Trip Generation, loth Edition for specific land uses. The peak -hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the Synchro 10, software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over -capacity conditions. The level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1. The level of service at two-way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level of service values. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 1 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 175 6.2.a M 3AV H1tiL M 3AV H1SL - } T M 3AV H19L M 3AV H19L ~ �C? y N N ~_ V N M 3AV H18L z U T N N ac O N N G /�/y�/ N M 3AV H108 U W LL LL H y y N N N y N H H H Co M 3AV HIM N N y N N N N to a a a Cn M 3" H188 Co y M 3AV H106 ti t M 3AV UNZ6 `" = z M ld 421£6 M Id H1S6 w y M Id H196 P� M 3AV H186 �QO w O N w ~ M 3AV H1006 N z LU w w z M 3AV H1006 O U) w S 3AV H18 y N tl\ _J S3AVH.0 O M NM 3AV HIM IN- LU M 3AV HIM g Q CD J N � J N N M Id H1LOL ZO 00— as 113snHOVM (,) � o ur a d U Q N H z o y LL J H G w Y Z N NI H3awu LL p Z O ~ MLU W J N db H21Vd AVMOOOM M 3AV H1ti66 Cl W LL g O O g N 00 Z m N g J LU m 2 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 176 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Level of 1 Service Expected Delay Intersection Control Delay Seconds er Vehicle Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 Per the June 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan; the acceptable level of service for City of Edmonds intersections is LOS D for arterials and LOS C for collectors. Highways of Statewide Significance, SR-104, are not subject to local concurrency standards; however, WSDOT has established a standard of LOS D for these facilities. The City of Edmonds monitors these roadways and coordinates with WSDOT to address any deficiencies. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2021 baseline conditions, and 2021 future with development conditions during the PM peak -hour. Existing counts were collected by Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) on April 16, 2019 for the PM peak -hour. That count was compared to the count taken at the intersection on September 13, 2013 which showed no growth during the PM peak -hour; however, 2021 baseline turning movements were calculated by applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1% to the existing turning volumes to be conservative. The 2021 future with development turning movements have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2021 baseline turning movements. The traffic volume calculations are included in the attachments. 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6" Edition LOS A: Free -flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. April 2019 infoggibsontraffic.com GTC #19-071 3 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 177 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the 22810 Edmonds Way development are based on national statistics contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, loth Edition (2017). The average trip generation rates for the following ITE Land Uses were utilized: • Land Use Code 220, Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise) — 18 Units • Land Use Code 210, Single -Family Detached— 1 Unit (Removed) The development will generate 122.32 new daily trips, 7.54 new AM peak -hour trips and 9.09 new PM peak -hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Average AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Size Daily Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Trips Multi -Family Housing (Low -Rise) 18 Units 131.76 1.90 6.38 8.28 6.35 3.73 10.08 ITE LUC 220 Single -Family ITE LUC 210 -1 Unit -9.44 -0.19 -0.55 -0.74 -0.62 -0.37 -0.99 Removed TOTAL NEW 122.32 1.71 5.83 7.54 5.73 3.36 9.09 The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips generated by the 22810 Edmonds Way residential development are based on recent PM peak -hour counts performed for the adjacent intersection of SR-104 at 95tn Place W, which included the adjacent apartment complex as the south leg. It has been assumed that distribution for the 22810 Edmonds Way development will be similar to the adjacent apartment complex. The count data showed that approximately 30% of the total inbound and outbound trips travel to and from the west and 50% travel to and from the east. The remaining 20% travel to and from the north through the signalized intersection. This distribution has therefore been applied to the trips generated by the 22810 Edmonds Way development. The distribution of daily and PM peak -hour trips generated by the development are shown in Figure 2. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 4 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 178 6.2.a M 3AV H1tiL M 3AV H1SL M 3AV H19L W ra N rn M 3AV H108 N y y y y y y N y N H H H M 3AV HIM N N y N N N N U) a a a Cn N N N M 3" H188 N N 3 y M 3AV H106 y F- 4 M 3AV UNZ6 M Id 4N£6 M Id H1S6 N Z M Id H196 M9AVI M 3AV H1006 S 3W H18 S 3AV H1L Crd 1L3sni43,dM w a H J Z O O Y 0 N wl M 3AV H19L M 3AV H18L } T ti Z H0 o ~UC14Z H v W Co Op U _U' wN L LL wa U) a LL= O H Q Co �w a ¢a. N oF- a. p �3: a z z F- 0- a Y Q Z LU Q w C J J � D a Cl) M Id H1LM ZO U U Q Cl)N L J H Z NIH38WLL ~ p - Z Z W W M J Cl) W MNVd AVMOOOM M 3AV Hil74 O W M W LL O N � 00 Z oo N J U Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 179 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis 5. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY All the multifamily units will gain access to the Cascadian In Edmonds apartment complex parking lot to the west of the existing single-family house and the signal at the intersection of SR-104/95th Place W. The frontage of the development currently has curb, gutter and sidewalk. SR-104 is a 5-lane section along the development's frontage, which provides two lanes in each direction and a center two-way-left-turn-lane/left-turn pocket. The 50th percentile queuing for the westbound left -turn at the signal is anticipated to be less than 22 feet. 5.1 Level of Service Analysis Level of service analysis has been performed for the signalized intersection of SR-104 at 95th Place W to ensure it would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The analysis has been performed for the year 2021, which is when it would be anticipated the residential units would become fully occupied. The 2021 turning movement volumes are based on the counts performed for the intersection of SR-104 at 95th Place W. These counts were performed by the independent count firm of Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) on Tuesday, April 16, 2019 between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. An annually compounding growth rate of 1 %, which accounts for development in the area, was applied to the existing volumes to determine the 2021 baseline volumes. The 2021 baseline volumes represent the future volumes before the development is constructed. The 2021 future with development volumes were calculated by adding the development trips to the 2021 baseline volumes. The 2021 future with development volumes at the site accesses are shown in Figure 3. The level of service analysis shows that the signalized intersection of SR-104 at 951h Place W will operate at LOS C with 31.6 seconds of delay. The level of service analysis also shows that the 50th percentile queue length at the intersection will be less than 1 westbound vehicle. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 6 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 180 6.2.a M 3AV H1tiL M 3AV H1SL M 3AV H19L M 3AV H19L ~ 4 Q� W 3 W NM 3AV H18L z U �U., Ch CVO a D N N d (� LU CV Q LU O No N N ` M N W/ Lp M 3AV H108 rn U W LL LL LL DC3 LL 3 y 3 y 3 y W LL 2 y y N Co y y N H H H M 3AV HIM N N y N N N N U) a a a U) N N N N N M 3AV H188 H y M 3AV H106 ti t M 3AV UNZ6 `V = Z M ld 421£6 M Id H1S6 w y R M3dH196 �"a0 £ �Z �. w vZ 1 ? P � J O M 3AV H186 QO 896 z w M 3AV H100600M M w 3W H1006 = 0 Y z S 3AV H18 J U)a a M�a QNZo� _ = S3AVH.0 O M NM 3AV HIM � f z w (n M 3AV HIM Z w J D N Cl) M Id H1LM ZO as 113snHOVM (� � o ur a d U Q U)H z o y LL �JH G w Y Z N NI H3awu LL p Z O ~ W J Cl) M MNVd AVMOOOM M 3AV Hil74 LL W LL g 3 O W g U)00 Z m NUJ t� g J LU m 2 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 181 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis 5.2 Collision Summary The latest 5-year collision history from January 1, 2014 through December 2018 was obtained from WSDOT. The development's access is located at MP 26.80 (signalized intersection of SR- 104/95th Place W). There were 16 collisions in the 5-year reporting period that were at the signalized intersection. There were: 1 sideswipe, 1 opposite direction, 1 pedestrian/bike, 5 at angle, 5 rear end, and 3 fixed object collisions. Based on the existing count showing 2,144 PM peak -hour trips, a K factor of 10 to estimate 21,440 daily trips at the intersection; the 16 collisions result in a collision rate of 0.41 collisions per million entering vehicles (MEV). The WSDOT 2011 Washington State Collision Data Summary, the most recent one available from WSDOT, shows that the collision rate for an Urban Principal Arterial in the Northwest Region, which are roadways similar to SR-104, is 2.27 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel. The collision rate at the development's accesses should therefore be considered acceptable since the collision rate is below the state average. 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Future intersection level of service analysis is typically only required at off -site intersections that are impacted with 25 or more PM peak -hour development trips. The 22810 Edmonds Way development will not impact any off -site intersections with 25 PM peak -hour trips. Therefore, off -site intersection level of service analysis would not be required. The level of service analysis at the site access intersection has discussed under section 5.3 Level of Service Analysis. The analysis shows that the site access intersection will operate at acceptable LOS C. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 8 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 182 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Traffic Impact Analysis 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The applicable traffic mitigation fees are from City of Edmonds Code 3.36.125. The City of Edmonds has calculated traffic mitigation fee of $5,530.21 per PM peak -hour trip for 2019 and beyond. The development will generate 10.08 PM peak -hour trips before credit for the existing home which will require $55,744.52 in mitigation fees. The existing house is credited based on the 2004 Impact Fee Rate Table which identified $840.72 as the mitigation fee for a single- family house. With the single-family house credited towards the mitigation fees the 22810 Edmonds Way development would have mitigation fees of $54,903.80. 8. CONCLUSIONS The 22810 Edmonds Way development is a proposed 18 multifamily low-rise unit development with the existing house to be removed. The site is located on the south side of SR-104, east of 95th Place W. However, all the units will access the public road system via the adjacent signal. The development will have an easement to the adjacent apartment complex to the west and the signal of SR-104/95th Place W. The development will have traffic mitigation fees of $54,903.80, based on the City of Edmonds updated traffic mitigation fee. The development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding intersections. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. infog gibsontraffic. com April 2019 GTC # 19-071 9 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 183 6.2.a 2, Trip Generation Calculations U- U J J N d N �L Q L r W M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d E L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J a. r- w E M U 2 r Q A Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 184 c� -0o c d) O E w o 00 N N H Q N Q H 6.2.a C7 T >(0 C O E w C) r 00 N N r- O 0 N ■■ Packet Pg. 185 x km G @ a o a § w f § £ � j , \ g \§ J c c o k$ I gLU o 0 0 0 - w § k $ � 0 m 0 0 0 2 a k k / m } § a z ƒ0®°~ w %LU L2�� �= oa o CD CD ƒ� o LU §��/2/// LU ® § § m + k o 0 0 . § _® 2 k 0. °«tyy aLU 0 0 CM § ? 0 _ - _ (L ® �� ■ /?/000 ) o ® ® / �0 a 2 �0j- C 2 CD oo _ k / % _ _ }� 0 ( e » 1 ®o R\ t @� / § Cl) o � � » � �a .;� � oo / & _ ® J]§ \ m k a § / / k > 3 / z \ a 9 E ?G / \ ) 6 § _ 0 d ) /\ + D E LL a 2¥) A t ch m 4 l\ƒ 0 Packet Pg. 186 x k { § / § w F co/ ) 2 § a e r §§ J c c o k$ I g o 0 0 0 - w k § � $ 0 m 0 0 0 2 � a w ci § a /F- m J % � L2�� �= oa o CD CD ƒ� o LU §��/2/// LU ® § § m + k o 0 0 . § _® 2 k 0. °«tyy aLU CM § ? 0 ° - e (L ■ /?/000 ) o ® ® / �0 a C �0j- 2 2 CD oo _ 0.2 / 0 , + 0 ( e » 1 ®o co co t @� co § Cl) e e » � 02 7f oo / & _ ® J]§ \ � m a § k / / k > 3 / z \ a 9 E ?G / \ ) § 6 _ 0 d ) /\ + D E LL a 2¥) A t ch m 4 l\ƒ 0 Packet Pg. 187 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way GTC #19-071 AM Peak -Hour % New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 1221 21 611 7.54 1 % 1.22 0.02 0.06 0.08 2% 2.45 0.03 0.12 0.15 3% 3.67 0.05 0.17 0.23 4% 4.89 0.07 0.23 0.30 5% 6.12 0.09 0.29 0.38 6% 7.341 0.10 0.35 0.45 7% 8.56 0.12 0.41 0.53 8% 9.79 0.14 0.47 0.60 9% 11.01 0.15 0.52 0.68 10% 12.23 0.17 0.58 0.75 11 % 13.46 0.19 0.64 0.83 12% 14.68 0.21 0.70 0.90 13% 15.90 0.22 0.76 0.98 14% 17.12 0.24 0.82 1.06 15% 18.35 0.26 0.87 1.13 16% 19.57 0.27 0.93 1.21 17% 20.79 0.29 0.99 1.28 18% 22.02 0.31 1.05 1.36 19% 23.24 0.32 1.11 1.43 20% 24.46 0.34 1.17 1.51 21 % 25.69 0.36 1.22 1.58 22% 26.91 0.38 1.28 1.66 23% 28.13 0.39 1.34 1.73 24% 29.36 0.41 1.40 1.81 25% 30.58 0.43 1.46 1.89 26% 31.80 0.44 1.52 1.96 27% 33.031 0.46 1.57 2.04 28% 34.251 0.48 1.63 2.11 29% 35.47 0.50 1.69 2.19 30% 36.70 0.51 1.75 2.26 31 % 37.92 0.53 1.81 2.34 32% 39.14 0.55 1.87 2.41 33% 40.37 0.56 1.92 2.49 34% 41.591 0.58 1.98 2.56 35% 42.81 0.60 2.04 2.64 36% 44.04 0.62 2.10 2.71 37% 45.26 0.63 2.16 2.79 38% 46.48 0.65 2.22 2.87 39% 47.70 0.67 2.27 2.94 40% 48.931 0.68 2.33 3.02 41 % 50.15 0.70 2.39 3.09 42% 51.37 0.72 2.45 3.17 43% 52.60 0.74 2.51 3.24 44% 53.82 0.75 2.57 3.32 45% 55.04 0.77 2.62 3.39 46% 56.271 0.79 2.68 3.47 470X 57.49 0.80 2.74 3.54 48% 58.71 0.82 2.80 3.62 49% 59.94 0.84 2.86 3.69 50% 61.16 0.86 2.92 3.77 H:\2019\19-071\22810 Edmonds Way TG % New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In 1Out Total 100% 1221 21 611 8 51 % 62.38 0.87 2.97 3.85 52% 63.61 0.89 3.03 3.92 53% 64.83 0.91 3.09 4.00 54% 66.05 0.92 3.15 4.07 55% 67.28 0.94 3.21 4.15 56%1 68.50 0.961 3.26 4.22 57% 69.72 0.97 3.32 4.30 58% 70.95 0.99 3.38 4.37 59% 72.17 1.01 3.44 4.45 60% 73.39 1.03 3.50 4.52 61 % 74.62 1.04 3.56 4.60 62%1 75.84 1.061 3.61 4.67 63% 77.06 1.081 3.67 4.75 64% 78.28 1.09 3.73 4.83 65% 79.51 1.11 3.79 4.90 66% 80.73 1.13 3.85 4.98 67% 81.95 1.15 3.91 5.05 68%1 83.18 1.16 3.96 5.13 69% 84.40 1.181 4.02 5.20 70% 85.62 1.20 4.08 5.28 71 % 86.85 1.21 4.14 5.35 72% 88.07 1.23 4.20 5.43 73% 89.29 1.25 4.26 5.50 74%1 90.52 1.27 4.31 5.58 75% 91.74 1.281 4.37 5.66 76% 92.96 1.30 4.431 5.73 77% 94.19 1.32 4.49 5.81 78% 95.41 1.33 4.55 5.88 79% 96.63 1.35 4.61 5.96 80%1 97.86 1.37 4.66 6.03 81 % 99.08 1.39 4.72 6.11 82% 100.30 1.40 4.781 6.18 83% 101.53 1.42 4.84 6.26 84% 102.75 1.44 4.90 6.33 85% 103.97 1.45 4.96 6.41 86% 105.20 1.47 5.01 6.48 87% 106.42 1.49 5.07 6.56 88% 107.64 1.50 5.131 6.64 89% 108.86 1.52 5.19 6.71 90% 110.09 1.54 5.25 6.79 91 % 111.31 1.56 5.31 6.86 92% 112.53 1.57 5.36 6.94 93% 113.76 1.59 5.42 7.01 94% 114.98 1.61 5.481 7.09 95% 116.20 1.62 5.54 7.16 96% 117.43 1.64 5.60 7.24 97% 118.65 1.66 5.66 7.31 98% 119.87 1.68 5.71 7.39 99% 121.10 1.69 5.77 7.46 100% 122.32 1.71 5.831k7.54 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 188 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way GTC #19-071 PM Peak -Hour % New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 1221 61 311 9.09 1 % 1.22 0.06 0.03 0.09 2% 2.45 0.11 0.07 0.18 3% 3.67 0.17 0.10 0.27 4% 4.89 0.23 0.13 0.36 5% 6.12 0.29 0.17 0.45 6% 7.341 0.34 0.20 0.55 7% 8.56 0.40 0.24 0.64 8% 9.79 0.46 0.27 0.73 9% 11.01 0.52 0.30 0.82 10% 12.23 0.57 0.34 0.91 11 % 13.46 0.63 0.37 1.00 12% 14.68 0.69 0.40 1.09 13% 15.90 0.74 0.44 1.18 14% 17.12 0.80 0.47 1.27 15% 18.35 0.86 0.50 1.36 16% 19.57 0.92 0.54 1.45 17% 20.79 0.97 0.57 1.55 18% 22.02 1.03 0.60 1.64 19% 23.24 1.09 0.64 1.73 20% 24.46 1.15 0.67 1.82 21 % 25.69 1.20 0.71 1.91 22% 26.91 1.26 0.74 2.00 23% 28.13 1.32 0.77 2.09 24% 29.36 1.38 0.81 2.18 25% 30.58 1.43 0.84 2.27 26% 31.80 1.49 0.87 2.36 27% 33.03 1.55 0.91 2.45 28% 34.25 1.60 0.94 2.55 29% 35.47 1.66 0.97 2.64 30% 36.70 1.72 1.01 2.73 31 % 37.92 1.78 1.04 2.82 32% 39.14 1.83 1.08 2.91 33% 40.37 1.89 1.11 3.00 34% 41.59 1.95 1.14 3.09 35% 42.81 2.01 1.18 3.18 36% 44.04 2.06 1.21 3.27 37% 45.261 2.12 1.24 3.36 38% 46.481 2.18 1.28 3.45 39% 47.70 2.23 1.31 3.55 40% 48.93 2.29 1.34 3.64 41 % 50.15 2.35 1.38 3.73 42% 51.37 2.41 1.41 3.82 43% 52.60 2.46 1.44 3.91 44% 53.821 2.52 1.48 4.00 45% 55.04 2.58 1.51 4.09 46% 56.27 2.64 1.55 4.18 47% 57.49 2.69 1.58 4.27 48% 58.71 2.75 1.61 4.36 49% 59.94 2.81 1.65 4.45 50%1 61.161 2.87 1.68 4.55 H:\2019\19-071\22810 Edmonds Way TG % New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In 1Out Total 100% 1221 61 311 9 51 % 62.38 2.92 1.71 4.64 52% 63.61 2.98 1.75 4.73 53% 64.83 3.04 1.78 4.82 54% 66.05 3.09 1.81 4.91 55% 67.28 3.15 1.85 5.00 56%1 68.50 3.211 1.88 5.09 57% 69.72 3.27 1.92 5.18 58% 70.95 3.32 1.95 5.27 59% 72.17 3.38 1.98 5.36 60% 73.39 3.44 2.02 5.45 61 % 74.62 3.50 2.05 5.54 62%1 75.84 3.551 2.08 5.64 63% 77.06 3.61 2.12 5.73 64% 78.28 3.67 2.15 5.82 65% 79.51 3.72 2.18 5.91 66% 80.73 3.78 2.22 6.00 67% 81.95 3.84 2.25 6.09 68%1 83.18 3.90 2.28 6.18 69% 84.40 3.95 2.32 6.27 70% 85.62 4.01 2.35 6.36 71 % 86.85 4.07 2.39 6.45 72% 88.07 4.13 2.42 6.54 73% 89.29 4.18 2.45 6.64 74%1 90.52 4.24 2.49 6.73 75% 91.74 4.30 2.52 6.82 76% 92.96 4.35 2.55 6.91 77% 94.19 4.41 2.59 7.00 78% 95.41 4.47 2.62 7.09 79% 96.63 4.53 2.65 7.18 80%1 97.86 4.58 2.69 7.27 81 % 99.08 4.64 2.72 7.36 82% 100.30 4.70 2.76 7.45 83% 101.53 4.76 2.79 7.54 84% 102.75 4.81 2.82 7.64 85% 103.97 4.87 2.86 7.73 86% 105.20 4.93 2.89 7.82 87% 106.42 4.99 2.92 7.91 88% 107.64 5.04 2.96 8.00 89% 108.86 5.10 2.99 8.09 90% 110.09 5.16 3.02 8.18 91% 111.31 5.21 3.06 8.27 92% 112.53 5.27 3.09 8.36 93% 113.76 5.33 3.12 8.45 94% 114.98 5.39 3.16 8.54 95% 116.20 5.44 3.19 8.64 96% 117.43 5.50 3.23 8.73 97% 118.65 5.561 3.26 8.82 98% 119.87 5.62 3.29 8.91 99% 121.10 5.67 3.33 9.00 100% 122.32 5.73 3.36 9.09 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 189 6.2.a Existing Turning Movement Counts and Turning Movement Calculations B Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 190 6.2.a TTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM Peds = 13 Edmonds Way 1,063 u w U-Turn o_ 896 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 2,144 OUT 2,144 47 C m 229 261 m o= 1 0 165 1 1 1 63 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 3 E v F T � u 00 Peds = 3 Edmonds Way 111 0 Bicycles 1,013 U-Turn ii 897 5 0 w a a) a 811 HV I PHF SB 1.7% 0.87 NB 0.0% 0.50 WB 1.1% 0.94 EB 1.6% 0.85 INTRS. 1 1.4% 0.93 PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicle 95th Place W @ Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA COUNTED BY: TDG DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/16/19 REDUCTION DATE: Wed. 4/17/19 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 191 6.2.a e D O U O x U J O Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 192 1 95th Place W @ Edmonds Way Page 1 of 1 6.2.a SynchroID: 1 Existing 229 490 261 Average Weekday 165 1 1 1 63 PM Peak Hour r2 4 b 95th Place W Qff Year: 4/16/19 1,0631,013 r2 Data Source: TDG 1,959 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 2,144 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 1,824 148 896 745 811 3 b Apartment Dwy 1 1 2 1 3 9 15 1 6 Future without Project Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 2021 Growth Rate = 1.0% Years of Growth = 2 Total Growth = 1.0201 233 1 499 266 168 1 1 1 64 t2 b 1,084 1,998 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 151 <;, 914 760 b 3 b 95th Place W '�> 113 a 915 1,033 [2 5 2,186 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 1,860 827 Apartment Dwy a ZI 1 1 2 1 3 9 15 1 6 Total Project Trips 1 2 1 Average Weekday 0 1 1 1 0 PM Peak Hour t�> 4 b 1 3 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 0 2 0 b 2 b 95th Place W aEO a 3 0 10 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 5 2 Apartment Dwy 1 1 2 6 10 4 Future with Project 234 501 267 Average Weekday 168 1 2 1 64 PM Peak Hour t2 4 b 1,085 2,001 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 151 L' 916 760 b 5 b 95th Place W 113 a 915 1,036 �t 8 2,196 Edmonds Way (SR-104) 1,865 829 Apartment Dwy Q Q ZI 2 1 3 1 5 15 25 1 10 I0Pfiiil North North North Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 193 6.2.a PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis C Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 194 6.2.a HA2019\1 9-071 \Synch ro\2021 Future With Conditions.syn 1: Access/95th Place W & Edmonds Way 22810 Edmonds Way Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tip t 4 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 151 760 5 8 915 113 2 3 5 64 2 168 Future Volume (veh/h) 151 760 5 8 915 113 2 3 5 64 2 168 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 162 817 5 9 984 122 2 3 5 69 2 181 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 198 1652 10 20 1132 140 142 217 315 619 17 629 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, vehlh 1781 3621 22 1781 3182 394 249 545 794 1378 43 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 401 421 9 549 557 10 0 0 71 0 181 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1866 1781 1777 1799 1589 0 0 1421 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 15.8 15.8 0.5 28.7 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 15.8 15.8 0.5 28.7 28.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.22 0.20 0.50 0.97 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 810 851 20 632 640 674 0 0 635 0 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.87 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 484 810 851 484 715 724 674 0 0 635 0 629 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 43.2 19.0 19.0 48.9 29.9 29.9 18.2 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 0.5 0.4 15.6 10.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.3 6.3 6.6 0.3 13.5 13.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.2 19.5 19.4 64.5 40.1 40.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 21.6 LnGrp LOS D B B E D D B A A B A C Approach Vol, veh/h 984 1115 10 252 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7 40.3 18.2 20.9 Approach LOS C D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 5.6 49.9 44.0 15.6 39.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.5 27.0 40.0 39.5 27.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.4 2.5 17.8 9.7 10.8 30.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.0 0.4 4.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.6 HCM 6th LOS C GTC (MJP) 2021 Future With Conditions HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 195 6.2.a 2, WSDOT Collision Data U- U J J N d N �L Q L r W M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J a r- w E M u 2 r Q D Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 196 § /!!>7!!!!!!/!!!! {\j\0[5C5 j}}}}\}}}\ ,=:��U:=,=eo:::o §!I Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 197 ))!2 �-!®J�«,!•l,k.,,f Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment 11 Packet P9. 199 6.2.a City of Edmonds Traffic Mitigation Fee Table E Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 200 6.2.a 3.36.125 Street impact fee rates. The street impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for herein, all new developments in the city will be charged the street impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows in the table below. For properties zoned BD - Downtown Business, an ITE Land Use Code of 814 - Specialty Retail shall be applied. 2016 2017 2018 (w/ (with (w/ 2019 and $1,049.41 $2,543.01 4,036.61 beyond (w/ Fee cost per cost per cost per $5,530.21 ITE Land Use Code - Description Calculation trip) trip) trip) cost per trip) per square 110 - Light Industrial foot $1.50 $3.64 $5.77 $7.91 per square 140 - Manufacturing foot $1.12 $2.72 $4.32 $5.92 per square 151 - Mini -warehouse foot $0.40 $0.97 $1.54 $2.10 per dwelling 210 - Single-family house unit $1,196.33 $2,873.60 $4,561.37 $6,249.14 per dwelling 220 - Apartment unit $776.56 $1,881.83 $2,987.09 $4,092.36 per dwelling 230 - Condominium unit $629.65 $1,525.81 $2,421.97 $3,318.13 per dwelling 240 - Mobile home unit $671.62 $1,627.53 $2,583.43 $3,539.33 per dwelling 251 - Senior Housing unit $157.41 $584.89 $928.42 $1,271.95 320 - Motel per room $629.65 $1,525.81 $2,421.97 $3,318.13 per boat 420 - Marina berth $188.89 $457.74 $726.59 $995.44 444 - Movie theater per screens $13,166.00 $31,905.90 $50,645.37 $69,384.85 per square 492 - Health/fitness club foot $2.78 $6.74 $10.98 $14.66 per square 530 - High school foot $0.82 $1.98 $3.15 $4.31 per square 560 - Church foot $0.69 $1.68 $2.67 $3.65 per square 565 - Day care center foot $6.57 $15.77 $25.02 $34.29 620 - Nursing home per bed $199.39 $483.17 $766.96 $1,050.74 per square 710 - General office foot $2.07 $5.01 $7.95 $10.89 per square 720 - Medical office foot $3.81 $9.54 $15.14 $20.74 per square 820 - Shopping center foot $1.34 $3.26 $5.17 $7.08 per square 826 - Specialty retail foot $0.93 $2.06 $3.27 $4.48 per square 850 - Supermarket foot $4.80 $10.50 $16.84 $22.84 per square 850 - Convenience market 15-16hrs foot $5.80 $14.07 $22.38 $30.58 per square 912 - Drive-in bank foot $7.00 $15.97 $25.41 $34.73 -8- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 201 6.2.a 2004 - Impact Fee Rate Table ✓"df onds Rood lmpacr Fee Rate Study TABLE 4 IMPACT FEE RATES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Trip ITE ITE Land Use Trip % New Length Net New Trips per Impact Fee Per Unit P $ Code Cate o Elate' Tri s5 f=actor' Unit of Measure 763.66 per Trip 110 Llght Industrial 0.98 1 l00% 1.59 1.55 1,OU0 sq ft 1,19 per square foot 140 Manufacturing 0.74 100% 1.59 1,16 1,000 sq ft 0,90 per square foot 151 #Hinewarehouse 0.26 10096 1.59 0.41 11,000 -sq ft 0,32 per square foot 210 Single family 1,01 100% 1.09 1.10 dwelling 840.72 per dwelling unit House 220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.15 0.71 dwelling 544.49 per dwelling unit 23Q Condominium 0.54 100% 115 0.62 dwellinq 474,24 per dwelling unit 240 Mobile Home 0.56 100% 1.09 0.61 dwelling 466,14 per dwelling unit 310 Hutel Q.61 100% 1_25 0,76 room 58229 per roorn 320 Flo#el 0.47 100% 1.25 0.59 room 448.65 per room 420 Marina 0.19 100%1 0.97 0.18 berth 140.74 per boat berth 430 Golf coarse 0.30 100% 1.00 0.30 acre 229.10 per acre 444 Movie Theater 3.80 100% 0,72 2.74 1,000 sq ft 1.36 izer square foot 492 Racquex club 1.83 100% 0.97 1 _78 1 r000 sq ft 3.58 per square foot 530 High School 1.02 100% 0,62 0.63 1,000 sq ft 0.48 per square foa# EGO Church 0.66 100% 1.15 1 0.76 1,000 sq ft 0.58 per square foot 610 Hospital 0.92 100% 1.56 1.44 1,000 sq ft 1.10 per square foot 620 Nursing home 0.20 100% 0.07 0,17 bed 132.08 per bed 710 General Office 1.49 100% 1.59 2.37 1,000 ft 1.81 per square foot 720 %2-cical office 3.66 100% 1,50 5,49 1,000 sq ft 4,19 per square foot 820 Sho aping Center 3.74 81% 0.40 1.21 1,000 sq ft 0.93 per square foot 852 Reskaur�int: sit- 10.86 515% 1,06 6,45 1,000 sq ft 4,92 per square foot done 833 Fast food, no 26.15 52% 0.62 8.43 1,000 sq ft 6.44 per square foot drive -up 834 Fast food, wl 33,48 51 % 0,62 10.59 1.000 sq ft 8,08 per square foot drive -up 844 Gas station 14.55 6096 0-53 4.63 purnp 3 535.82 er of 845 Gas station 13.38 47% 0.53 3,33 pump 2,545.26 per vfW w/convenience 850 Supermarket 11.51 55% 0.65 4.11 1,000 sq ft 3.14 per square foot 851 Convenience 53.73 59% 0.40 8.35 1,000sq ft 6.40 per square toot market-24 hr 912 prf.-e-In Bank 54.77 51%1 0.47 1. 13.13 1,000 sq ft 1 10.03 per square foot ITE Trip G anercition (bth Edition): 4-6 PM Poo Hour Trlp Ends a Excludes pass -by trips: see "Trip GenerallorL Handbook: An ITE Praposecl­ Recommended practice (1998) ' Reno to. average trip length. s vfp: V&Icle fueling posrtlon Henderson, City of EdmDnds, yr irtigton YounC & AprH 16, 2003 Company EFFECTIVE 9/12/2004 Page 1 a Revised on 6/24/10 E82 - TWc�a�yjsis Page Packet Pg. 202 6.2.a 2, Site Plan U- U J J N d N �L Q L r W M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J a r_ w E M u 2 r Q Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 203 Ica w �o '\ 3„iZ.06,ti N "---- I'. -� W m� O W —_--_— u. m� —3 Ttft6-EO- � � _______ ❑ - J O 4 LL a 3 w Z 1 z =_ 2 � alar a� v a �- zuo / o L 0 x t .�: mC maau6� 9dmJ Si' 4 1,1H 9<m�o< 1.18.19 Attachment 11 F - 1 FPac 6.2.a COMMENT RESPONSE To: Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer — City of Edmonds From: Matthew Palmer, PE YIIIV Subject: Comment Response Project: 22810 Edmonds Way, City of Edmonds No. PLN20190003, GTC #19-071 Date: July 12, 2019 This response memorandum is to provide additional information to address the comments in the Letter of Completeness and Request of Additional Information dated May 30, 2019. The City comment was provided in bold with the responses to follow. • Provide confirmation that Gibson Traffic Consultants prepared the TIA based on the current proposal. The Site plan included in the packet does not include reconfiguration of the ingress/egress lanes at SR-104. The latest layout is included in the attachments. The plan doesn't change the analysis as there is still a single outbound lane and Synchro doesn't account for two receiving lanes. The advantage of the second receiving lane is in case an inbound vehicle is blocked by an outgoing vehicle. • Under the Project Description it is noted that the existing c-curbing will be removed; however, a c-curb will still be required although the configuration will be modified over the existing condition. Please revise. The c-curbing is included in the updated layout and extends for approximately 20 feet. Revise the report to include signal detection requirements — verification of existing placement/requirement to relocate. Verification of existing signal detection is addressed by others. From the level of service analysis, the northbound 95th percentile queue with the development is less than 20 feet. With a future volume of 15 vehicles from the signal entering the apartment complex/development the demand of 1 vehicle every 4 minutes would note queue back to SR-104 with the outbound queue being less than 20 feet not blocking the ingress. • Revise the report to address turning movements. Upon entering the access easement area off SR-104, the east ingress lane should be striped to indicate left turns only into the proposed development. In addition, when exiting the proposed development turning movements should be limited to a right -turn only into the access easement area. The updated layout shows the striping from the c-curbing into the proposed development. 2813 Rockefeller Avenue - Suite B - Everett, WA 98201 Tel: 425-339-8266 - Fax: 425-258-2922 - E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 205 6.2.a 22810 Edmonds Way Comment Response • Address sight distance coming out of the proposed development driveway assuming there are vehicles in the parking lot. The development access to the private parking lot/private roadway was looked at for possible sight distance obstructions. Per the latest layout the parking along the east property line that would obstruct the sight distance for an exiting vehicle has been removed. Per a previous comment, the vehicles exiting the development would be limited to right -turn only; therefore, only sight distance to the south would need to be met. Assuming a 15-mph speed within the parking lot the stopping sight distance required is 80 feet from the plans there is more than 100 feet of unobstructed stopping sight distance which would allow for a vehicle to safely stop before interacting with a vehicle going into or out of the proposed development. In section 5.2 Collision Summary, add note that protected LT phasing for EB & WB traffic was added in 2017. This has been noted; it doesn't change the overall summary of the collisions. It would be anticipated that the 5 at angle and 1 opposite direction collisions would be reduced with this signal modification. • Please review Section 7 - Mitigation Recommendations. The current development proposal is apartments, in which case the fee associated with the ITE Land Use 220 for apartments should be applied. This development is not building apartments, we are building town homes. Using the trip generation of 10.08 PM peak -hour trips and the fee of $5,530.21 per PM peak -hour trip is the most appropriate way of calculating the mitigation fees before credit for the single-family unit. Under the code the use of LUC 230, condominium, would be the next closest with a fee of $3,318.13 per unit. Attachments Site Layout A-1 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. July 2017 infoggibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #17-112 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 206 �V o mu 6 Y ZO OOo Wil ` �'I. 3 I�g May`y z _ a SIR����rn k O K g yy g; 4� O z O O k $o R n R SmSB E V ��m a lup a a^ d d $ym � €� � O f3°i �le-inkk� H 7x�s � 8 gR5t 4 ti'�y��geI, i eRg o i"d'J'o Zo ro W $ 5 J �p9yV dd k€e Noll5 111. 1$$�2 ' �`2�` C Packet Pg. 6.2.a e boo � EnscMLN•r rl For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the brnntnr:__-__ C:) GENERAL COMMPItCIAL CORPORATION _______ _ _-_--___-_ ____________________________________________ V ... .-1 ____________________________________________________-____.____ ___________________________ ' _ hereby grant a -_-_-and convey-8 _____to thclO'+YRGuYC--- ORW.C.------------ TbIEO._ successors and assIM the right, privilege and authority to construe . prove, repair and Q F.asamant for Ingroas and ECroas _____________ ` Snohomish over and Upon the following land, located ln------------------------------minty, State of Washington, to, Attached That porton of teNortheasttquarterhofNSectionl 36,fTovnsh I pt 27the Norheallorth. Range f}the East, WM „ Described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said subdivision E00.21 feet Westerly from Southeast corner of said subdi— P1°27�i0t"hliest ce North 195North O81feet;2 thencetNorth 3009111"rrEnstcfor cry ` SteteOnd OHlehway l— rthe ILr6 point ofhbeginning; thencecSouth erly margin of 3°09111" Nest for 100 feet; thence North 66050149" West or 65 feet; thence North j°0911111 East for 100 feet more or leas to the said Southerly marBia of Secondary State Rlghvay I—W; thence Easterly along said Southerly margin of Secondary State Highway 1—N for 65 feet more or lees So the true point of beginning. IS ONOW03 t 0 Ig �01245 :<,I CW7 Alf 0 .f Packet Pg. 208 6.2.a 06 T V J J N 0) N �L CL L d W N Y M O O O CA O N Z J IL c m E n3 Q 3 0 Q. a� cn 3 m m c P y CD M O O O CA O N Z J IL c a� E z r Q Packet Pg. 209 6.2.a 06 T V J J N 0) N �L CL L d W N Y M O O O CA O N Z J IL c m E n3 Q 3 0 Q. a� Cn 3 m m c a� .N m 0 M O O O CA O N Z J IL c a� E z r Q Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 210 6.2.a f� ED40 #P%I RECEIVED tp CITY OF EDMOND S JAN 2 3 2019 [)EVELOPMENT SERVICES E St. 1 ,Za ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST oi1k TER Kisan Project Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. 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. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Kisanl2 2. Name of applicant Kisan Enterprises, LLC, Michel Design, Agent 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Kisan Enler rises I.L.0 20607 State Route 9 SE Snohomish WA 98296 425-402-9900 Contact Person: Robin Michel 7305 Soundview Drive Edmonds W11 980Z6 206-930-2445 4. Date checklist prepared: Januga 15 2019 5. Agency requesting checklist: CityofEdmonds Revised on 9116116 ED WAXtJgyff"�1r4klW.doc Packet Pg. 211 6.2.a 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction star•! Summer 2019 (STAFF COMMENTS) C 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 'i Vu. -- - s (STAFF 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related o to this proposal. CI?,420170211 Waiver from crilrca_l_ areas_►eport regurtetrrents i (STAFF COMMENTS) — 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. u None (STAFF COMMENTS) c c Revised on 9119116 ED WAA &Whfeist doc Packet �212 6.2.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Edmonds ADB, Engineering, Drainage, and buildingpermit approvals (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and 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. Demolish existing sin leery house. Construct 4 new buildings, one containing 3-dwelling units and 3 containing 5-dwelling units.. Total 18 units _ Building to have enclosed parking for each unit located at the ground floor. New curb, gutter and sidewalk install along street frontage. _ Extensive landscaping throe h out the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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. Address: 228101 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020 The site lies to the south of HWY 104 (Edmonds Way) near 95u' Place W Section 36 Qtr, Township 27 Range 3 Tax Parcel # 27033600102300 Legal Description: SEC 36 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-1R) BEG SE CORN1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 TH W ALG S LN SD N1/2 800.21FT TH N12*40 21E 160 FT TO TPB TH N21*27 50W 159.09FT TH NO3*09 11E TO S LN CO RD TH SELY ALG CO RD TAP BEARING N12*40 21E OFTPB TH SWLY TO TPB LESS ST HWY (STAFF Revised on 9119116 ED WA&W&WMhrelist.doc Packet Pg. 213 6.2.a TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Flat. small area Slone at HWY v J J N d - - N (STAFF COMMENTS) L Q- d c w a M N b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Y Small section (600 sg ft) at the NW corner of the site at about 25% slope. Majority of site at about M c 1% slope. 0 0 N Z J a (STAFF COMMENTS) c m E M Q C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term '3 commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. NRCS Mapping shows it to be Everett series soils_ formed in glacier moraines and are classified as ouiwash 0 deposits. See Earth Solutions NW, LLC report of May 29;, 2018. ,� _ M .r rn 3 m m (STAFF COMMENTS) .y - M O O O d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. cn None. 0 N Z J a c a� E z (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 9119116 ED WAKtj1J�1C4}"WAghF4klist.doc Packet Pg. 214 6.2.a 2. 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. Buildings: 12.000 sq ft area, driveways at 10,100 sg ft area and a total area of approximately 22,100 sq ft. Grading: average of approximately 3 feet in depth for a total of 2,600 cubic yards of cut and fill. (STAFI! COMM f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary gradinpcould create apotential for some soil erosion._A erosion con_trol plan will be prepared by a Licensed engineer and appraved by the City of Edmonds and implemented to curtail any erosion potential. (STAFF COMM g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Buildings: 42% and driveways: 33% , (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: BMPs for tempoLa1y erosion control and drainage facilities will iml2lernented during, construction with final drainage facilities installed along with permanent landscaping. (STAFF COMMLtNTS) AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Minimal amounts of dust and vehicle exhaust durine dry months. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 ED WAK &We"g klist.doe Packet Pg. 215 6.2.a b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: BMPs for construction activity include waterier if dust production is detected Comply with any applicable Puget Sound Clean Air regulations (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (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, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. NA ' (STA F FCOMMENTS) (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. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ Revised on 9119116 ED WAAJf je�gdrj 4141ist.doc Packet Pg. 216 6.2.a b. (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None _ (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) i (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? N so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Ground: (1) Will ground water 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 ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAAN48�9 ft lisl.doc Packet Pg. 2 6.2.a (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (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. The Lnneipal source of water runoff will generated by rainwater and snow welt. En ineered draina a plans will include storm water collection and dispersion to meet current DOE requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Engineered drainage plans meeting City of Edmonds requirements will incIude bio filtration ineasures to prevent waste materials to enter ground or surfaces waters as designed. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAAfNeIqffe4rfJi 41'It.doc Packet Pg. 21 8 6.2.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Temporary_ measures will implemented during construction to control runoff and water quality. Completed project will include bio filtration measures. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:_ X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMM b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most shrubs and trees will be removed and new landscaping installed. (STAFF Revised on 9119116 ED WAA fede�g f2�list.doc Packet Pg. 219 6.2.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscape plans will be submitted meeting City of Edmunds landscape requirements that will include use of native plants. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Black berry Wants to be removed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals 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, othe small typical native birds mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: quirre fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, oche none (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAXtjok 'T f*#Iist.doc Packet Pg. 220 6.2.a b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Pacific Flyway (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Tree preservation and new landscaping (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources Revised on 9119116 ED WAA g1C9 le *1ist.doc Packet Pg. 221 ti.2.a 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. Natural gas will be used for cooking, cleaning and heating Electrical for elevators lighting and security (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 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: Enewy conserving techniques will In i nplenicnted in the construction. All structures will conform to the IBC provisions for efficiency. Solar cells will be an option (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. None (STAFF COMMENTS) _ Revised on 9119116 ED WAA &V6"j�ilist.doe Packet Pg. 222 6.2.a (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) 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. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None just typical residential emergency services such as police. fire and medical (STAFF COMMENTS)_ _ (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The VLoposal will meet all City of Edmonds and District i provisions for fire and life safety, Revised on 9119116 ED WAXtI~2` qhr klist.doc Packet Pg. 223 6.2.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic. Site is adjacent to SR-104 (Edmonds Way) (STAFF COMMENTS) (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 hour's noise would come from the site. Temnorary residential construction noise - minimal (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction Activity will be limited to the City of Edmonds requirements for noise curtailment. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ Revised on 9119116 ED W.4)'t akffWAghPklist.doc Packet Pg. 224 6.2.a 8. Land and Shoreline Use 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. u Current use is single family residential. _ North is HWY 104 • East is retirement housing s South is residential single family e West is 48 unit apt building (STAFF COMMENTS) i 'i s s 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 as a result 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? c No c c (STAFF COMMENTS) (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: o Y Y No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. C e C Single family residence and detached garage. c (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED W%~6fhr4klist.doc Packet Pg. 225 6.2.a d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? SinLyle family residence (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RM 1.5 (STAFF COMMENTS)� f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Multi -Family High Density (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? NA (STAFF CO h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAA"0WeK fOisi.doc Packet Pg. 226 6.2.a M j• Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 36 (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 3 (STAFF COMMENTS) _ k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, N any: This project will increase the amount of housing units for the gly of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Meeting requirements of the City of Edmonds for multi -family housing devOg meet. RM 1.5 zoning development standards i (STAFF COMMENTS) - in. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: ; None (STAFF COMMENTS) _ Revised on 9119116 ED WAfg" API- klisi.doc Packet 7P97,22777] 6.2.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. i 12 units for middle income (STAFF COMMENTS) A b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income ' housing. One unit of middle income (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: This project will increase the amount of housing units for the City of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics ` a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 30 feet (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAXtItYaS AYhreist.doc Packet Pg. �228 6.2.a b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None i (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ; Meet City of Edmonds bulk requirements and ADB. approval and compliance with applicable design guidelines of Edmonds Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. i (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Minimal glare from residential lighting at night and compliance with applicable design guidelines of Edmonds Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. (STAFF COIVIlVIENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None (STAFF COMMENTS) _ _ Revised on 9119116 ED WAAMelggMhfglklist.doc Packet Pg. 229 6.2.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All building lighting will be shielded and/or directed toward the interior of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) c 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? L There are narks within walking distance. c c c c c c c (STAFF COMMENTS)_ a b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. a No a i (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: A per unit Park fee will be paid to the City of Edmonds for park building and maintenance consistent with ECC 3.36 i (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WAAfie�K44 list.doc Packet Pg. 230 6.2.a 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 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. No. There are no buildings or sites in the immediate vicinity of the subject site on any national state or local (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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 date, etc. WISAARD — Washin ton Information System for Arcliilectural & Archaeological Records Data website and found nothing at 22810 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED W4ttot if ff*#lisi.doe Packet Pg. 231 6.2.a 14. Transportation 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. Access to site iprovided directly from HWY 104 (STAFF COMMENTS) 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? Communitv Transit has a bus stop on HWY 104 very close (STAFF COMMENTS)- C . How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How ' many would the project or proposal eliminate?_ A minimum of 36 news aces and eliminate 2 spaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state i transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). i Frontage improvements will be re uired along Hwv 104 - Public (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 ED WWttAt*q*"C4p41Hist.doc Packet Pg. 232 ti.2.a e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? H so, generally describe. There is rail service on Dayton Street near the Edmonds Waterfront. Approximately 2 miles There is ferry service to Kingston on Main Street near Edmonds Waterfront. Approximately 2 miles (STAFF f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? 90 New taps Wr day. PM Peak 5 in and 3 out. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. 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 (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The City of Edmonds has a traffic coneutrency iiziIigation Mgram whereby the City has identified projects designed to maintain acceptable levels of service. Mitigations will be paid according to City of Edmonds codes and policies. ECDC 18.82 (STAFF COMMENTS�- T�' Revised on 9119116 ED W4tJ%JftI$WVIr4kIist.doc Packet Pg. 233 6.2.a 15. Public Services 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. Yes (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Mitipotion fees will he paid to the Cily of Edmonds according codes and policies. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Electric Power, water, SanitM sewer, storm water astem, phone,cable natural gas, refuse service (STAFF COMIMNTS)— _ 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 PUD #1 Gas: PSE — Puget Sound Energv Water: Olympic View Water District Sewer: Citv of Edmonds Revised on 9119116 ED WA,II;tJWPefi4F44k[ist.doc Packet Pg. 234 6.2.a Telephone: Frontier (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature of Proponent u�r 1117/19 Date Submitted Revised on 9119116 ED WA,KR04WITOist.do, Packet Pg. 235 6.2.a 05 F�Mr 4 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development. The units will be spread between four buildings with one building containing three units and the other three buildings containing five units each. Landscaping and frontage improvements will also be provided with the development. The site is zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -family residential; one dwelling unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area). Proponent: Kisan Enterprises LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27033600102300 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. XX This DNS is issued under 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 August 20, 2019 Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: must 6, 2019 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than August 27, 2019. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on August 6, 2019, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.goy). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at littps://permits.edrr:onds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20190003. These materials are also Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION Attachment 15 7/30/19 SEPA Packet Pg. 236 6.2.a available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Distribution List: Notice of the 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 ❑ NMFS ® 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 Dist. ❑ 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 ® Comcast ® Tulalip Tribe ❑ Other ❑ BNSF pc: File No. PLN20190003 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION Attachment 15 7/30/I9.SEPA Packet Pg. 237 6.2.a SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP, Inc. August 9, 2019 Land Use Environmental Analysis Permitting Public Policy Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Manager City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, 2716 Colby Avenue Everett, WA 98201 p: 425.258.9308 f 425.259.4448 www.shockeyplanning. com RE: PLN 20190003 Kisan Enterprises LLC SEPA Review Celebrating service excellence since 1980! I serve as planning consultant to Jeff and Lisa Sterling dba The Cascadian in Edmonds, owners of property at 9504 Edmonds Way, which lies adjacent to the Kisan Enterprises property at 22810 Edmonds Way. They have asked that I review the various elements of their neighbor's request for SEPA and Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval for its townhouse project. This letter addresses the City's issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on August 6th. We request that a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) be issued instead. Both properties share access to an easement lying on the Sterlings' property. The easement is depicted as the "Access" area on the Kisan Preliminary Drainage and Plot Plan. The easement was established in 1978 and was granted to "The Public". This is peculiar language, seeming to suggest that a public dedication of right of way was intended. Why it was instead conveyed in the form of an easement is unknown. Regardless, it is one of four approaches to a signalized intersection, the other three being public rights of way. Access to the easement should be designed to meet the objectives of EMC 18.80.060 and the City's engineering design standards as is required of the other corners of this signalized intersection. My clients have tenants with young children. Others tenants are senior citizens. Mobility needs run the gamut from bicycles to strollers; walkers to wheel chairs. Maneuvering across and along Edmonds Way demands close attention to the street and sidewalk designs necessary to assure convenience and safety. Curb returns, sidewalks, ADA ramps, etc. should be completed on each side of the driveway. And while the driveway width may be narrower than a public road, it should align properly with the centerline of 95th Place W. The 95th Place intersection lies two blocks east of the Westgate Mixed Use zone (EMC 16.110), which encourages "walkable community centers" with auto, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. It highlights the need for private investments which contribute to infrastructure capacity for the benefit of surrounding neighborhoods. Completion of the driveway comers fits these objectives. Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 238 6.2.a In terms of on -site traffic circulation, we will be asking that the attached easement design be used instead of the Kisan proposal. The SEPA checklist did not discuss on -site traffic circulation. In our opinion, our design will better serve both properties. We will have additional comments as the Kisan application moves forward to the ADB. For SEPA purposes, our request is that the City issue an MDNS with the key mitigating conditions being development of on -site circulation as shown in our plan; and completion of sidewalk, crosswalk and ADA ramps as required by City code on the other corners of the intersection. The Sterlings have no objection to the townhouse development itself. Theii concern is only with the access and circulation design in the easement area. Please add me to the Parties of Record list. If you have any questions, contact me anytime. SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP Reid H. Shockey, AICP President cc: Jeff and Lisa Sterling ! C. Michael Kvistad, Anderson Hunter Law Firm Enclosure Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 239 6.2.a C-CURB PATHWAY MARKED PEDESTRIAN PATH ' r L EASEMENT CDMO DS WAY A10 U t } \ - Y•w�.. 7itisa. ltf a '3 a A5 5]4Al li /{ rj �5 (..•]3� IO' FIR TO BE j ) ' - °"•� EXISTING BUILDING *1 ?: °p' �- ;:fTAININC a �v l O ? M EASEMENT ACCESS THE CASCADIAN IN EDMONDS ©SHOCKEY PLANNINGGROUP.1- 0 0 30 Feet Date: 8/8/2019 GIS data obtained from Snohomish Co. GIS. This data is not to survey accuracy and is meant for planning purposes only. Document Path: F:W-miscUSTER\GIStArcMapDoclSitePlanConcept.mxd Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 240 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION August 19, 2019 Reid Shockey Shockey Planning Group, Inc. 2716 Colby Avenue Everett, WA 98201 RE: PLN2019003, Kisan Enterprises LLC Design Review Application SEPA Comments Dear Mr. Shockey, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the August 9, 2019 letter you submitted on behalf of Jeff and Lisa Sterling regarding the City's issuance of a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the Kisan 18-unit multi -family development located at 22810 Edmonds Way. The letter requests that the City issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with suggested mitigating measures being compliance with City Code and an alternative circulation design than the one currently proposed by the applicant. With regards to the application of the City's development regulations and required improvements: the proposed project is required to comply with the City's development regulations, including ECDC 18.80.060 referenced in your letter. Compliance with the City's regulations is already part of the SEPA review and consideration when issuing a threshold determination. As noted on the DNS, "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..." As the project is required to comply with City of Edmonds development regulations, and since those development regulation adequately mitigate the impacts, it is not necessary to issue an MDNS stating that a project must comply with the development regulations. As to the alternative design proposed by the Sterling's, you note that in your opinion the design would "better serve both properties." A SEPA analysis is not to determine which design best serves a property, but rather whether a proposed design has significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and thus requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared. Given the Traffic Impact Analysis subsequent response to questions from the City's Traffic Engineer, it was determined that the layout proposed by the applicant does not result in a significant environmental impact. The proposed development will be adequately mitigated by the City's development regulations and specific mitigation measures are not required for the project to not result in significant environmental impacts. As a result the City will retain the Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the project. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments related to this proposal. Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 241 6.2.a Sin ely, ernen Lien vironmental Programs Manger Cc: Jeff Sterling M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d E L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� cc Cn 3 m m C a1 N a� 0 M O O O Cn T- O N Z J a a� E z u 2 r Q Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 242 6.2.a Q O 22618 22627 22623 22612 22628 22629 22620 3 22710 22711 RS 8.706 9 22718 T LO Q CD S ti N N ti `- `V— CM F22721 9505 228TH ST SW a . 1 , . •�I FOP i • �, 1 2609 N 22609 22608 22613 22612 22613 22612 22619 22620 22619 22704 2705 22708 22706 22705 22706 Project Locatio N N aM o Cn IC,2 003 23001 3009 � 9 � 23006 ��,p0 00� CD O 3017 N 9529 �J 9 `�� N N O^� 027 9601 Q�, 9 8508 9609 9S Rom$-8 of �O �'� 9321 9307 9507 3 `�o `dip T s 92z M N O� e� 09 9610 cc°' 0' `VA'O 23109 0 23109 9302 N N M N N en Zoning and Vicinity Map PLN20190003 Kisan Multi -Family Design Review 'nc. 18y1 Attachment 18 d E a Scale 1 inch = 200 feet Packet Pg. 243 6.2.a 'nc, t 8y1 Aerial Photo PLN20190003 Kisan Multi -Family Design Review Attachment 19 a Scale 1 inch = 100 feet Packet Pg. 244 6.2.a FILE NO.: PLN20190003 Applicant: Kisan DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 26' day of February, 2019, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 26"' day of Febru ry, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. / Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 245 6.2.a M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J IL a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 246 6.2.a FILE NO.: PLN20190003 Applicant: Kisan DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 261h day of February, 2019, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced 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 26th day of February, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 247 6.2.a M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J IL a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 248 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development. The units will be spread between four buildings with one building containing three units and the other three buildings containing five units each. Landscaping and frontage improvements will also be provided with the development. The site is zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -family residential; one dwelling unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 27033600102300 NAME OF APPLICANT: Rob Michel on behalf of Kisan Enterprises LLC FILE NUMBER: PLN20190003 DATE OF APPLICATION: January 23, 2019 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: February 20, 2019 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: February 26, 2019 REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review (Type III-B Permit Process). Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Building Permits EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Area Determination, Geotechnical Report, SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: March 12, 2019 Any person has the right to comment on this application during 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 predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at https://permits.edrnonds.wa.us/citizen through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20190003. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 249 6.2.a 4 i 1a11 ' 3so N LU w V V Q g A 10" FIR TO BE REMOVED rAnidl phyllum jCPanlpum Katsu ra Tree 3"cal 7 tffi a baccata'Fasl%iatA (Irish Yew iY.7' 54 H—rnellis'Atrrethyel' lNitch Hazel •1-5' 9 Cry 6mlriajapnnlu'6andal j5 Bandai-Sugi Japanese Ceda•4.5' 7 Aaaka'Gumpo White' Sumpo White Azelea lgallon 4$ Ceanothus'Victoria' California lilac 'S allon 11 Ahe[i.dlpeta'E Gourher' (Edward Goucher Abelia 'S allon 28 Rhndada RdreRm yl4 Sarcoepccah—ken—Varb=dlis PaCifie Rhododendrpn Hilnelyeb Sweet b& :Sgallon 5 Ion 13 68 Wubhvia ihallon Salal lgallon 77 Cornus'Kfrwyl' Kelsey Dogwood lgallon 39 PWyrhthum munitum Sword Fern lgallon 60 Rubus pamlflwa Thimbleberry lgallon 36 Herogr lRs"Sin Ila De Qrd OWN 11wian 112. Athyrlum rollix-Femina Lady Fern lgallon 1D9 Hell eborus'Ruvxl HBN IRo al Heritage Hellebor lgallon 97 Carex'Im Dance' •Ice Dance Sedge 1 allon 57 Wultherl a procumbe ms Wintergreen lgallon A![tustaphylpyyya�Wri Finnkinnick lgallon Paehyfandra [erminalis Japanese Spurpe 'lgallon 6AIIWm odoratum - eet Woodruff 1 allon 35{ � �■Ja. 35 EDMONDS WAY RRY— — 352 )F4 Slb*o 'OZTW,HOld TO BEREMOVE 7 ! gt y. .• E311E1ING SHED& CONCRETETD I!f _ BE REMOVED FIR TO BE REMOVED W ti N O 4 Z 4 H a 22810 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 1 Attachment 20 Ib' 20 40' I, 1"= 10' Packet Pg. 250 Drawn lanua le-201. 6.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH846100 PLN20190003 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 02/26/2019 and ending on 02/26/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $75.6 . ��pu>,uiug� 11 Subscribed and sworn before me on this h.,ll ►, fir r Cy day ' TA/0 Y of � i SU N% A 'Z �A Z. U 110, 'Z C9 111�� OP WAS'�',�� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 251 6.2.a M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V a r L 0 a a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J IL a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 252 Classified Proof 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is PrWslnq toconstruct an t$-uhh muid•famey development. The Smite Wilt be spread between four buildings with ono building containing three Uiuta 8^d lh- nihee tmfPP MJHoDri fn[AalninngB five urns each. Landscaping and frontage improve0lenl9 v%at also to provided with the dbcalopment. The elte Is zoned RM-1.5 IMuhl.famlly reE]peneal; one dwellingg unll par r,50D sq. rl. of tot area) PROJECT LOCATION: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tag ParcalNumber 2703$400102300 NAME OF APPLICANT. Rob Michel on behalf of Kilian Enterprises LLC FILE NUMBER: PLN20190003 DATE OF APPUCATION. January 23, 2019 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: Fatrusry 7l?. 2019 DATE OF PUBLIC NO'rICE: Fabruary 2S. 2p19 REQUESTED PERMIT, Design Review (Type 111.8 Permit ProCase). Nolke of pubile Haaring w01 be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS- SUli&ng Pom'Ali EXISTING ErWIRONMENTAL DMMENTB. Critical Area Determination, GeotochnBcal RePon SEPA Checklist COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE. Oni h 12.2019 Any person hell the nol to comment on Shia a{p�p.1kation dwing putile comment pen receive notice and pa 11clpats In any hearings, and fegLia 1. a eopy of the C!" %on on the Ppplkaeon. The City may aCCCp1 public CUMMents al any time Prtdt lb the closing of e record o Via in open record pleClacislon heanng, If any, or, It rod n record pledactslon hearlrr Is revided, pnar to the decipon A�11a prated Permit O' panion of record an dsfined in ECDC 20-07-OW havd slandin0 to miller an sdmiNstralrve appeal Information on This development application can be viewed or oblalned at the City or Eftanda D3valiDPmanl ServICW Ddpartmenl, 121 - bth Ave Norm, Edmonds, WA 09020 between the hours of $:00 A.M and 4;30 P M. Monday. Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the haws or 830 AM and Noon on Wadneeday; ar on9ne Through the Clyr. wabelta at roll, ed n-wa.ue! III7.gn through the Online Permits link Search rar ermti PLN2 590003 DITY CONTACY'. Kamen Lleh, Epwonmenlai Programs Manager "man."" edmoodsws.gov 425.77111 0 Pubi shed: February 26. 2019. EDH846100 Proofed by Boyd, Maggie, 02/26/2019 12:25:53 pm 06 J J fit d to .L IZ L d C W C A Y M O O O O N Z J a fA C (v L V W W Q t 3 0 a a� ..t rn 3 m m c a� .y CD M O O O O O LV Z J (L a a) E z n: r Q Page: 2 Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 253 6.2.a M M O O O O� O N Z J d N r C d L V Q t 3 0 Q. a� c� 3 m m c N a� 0 M O O O M O N Z J IL a� E M u 2 r Q Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 254 6.2.a RIECIEIVED 14AR 12 2019 DEVELOPA4ENT SERVICES COUNTER To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From:esidemt t 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am-aTeaddeRt at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [S-ik gTTA C4 0 m Prq Further, work on the public easement needs to be �ismpp=lacing efore general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are no and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thankyou, PS AS' owf�-5 OF ,�r� B , ro 9r PAQ7 of -04E -Tr A0D C-005& p Q1l M P Party otF recur c)01 k� � STMW STEP, Address Print Nai 1-6 4 Print Name if�zR , O� 4$ 3 hzkc1 Date 3 '� Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 255 Raised curb raf vith sidewalk, avoid signal pole 4"" 3y 34&B SMH ti Marked pedestrian path - - - - y 347,0 x -5k8 .3 —'T't' - `Ir k�s x T 49,58 / =348-09-6"W Z / .'i 00 x CB RIM 348. t 00 a t N Q b � � I 41 o 349x5 f I ~ G! - - LL Provide pedestrian • connection to ` existing sidewalk C ---�, ao Provide gap in Ccurb to allow Cascadian resid y tc re -circulate fn L (this replaces the existing re -circulation opt (3 P M 349.58- f r W 349,9 C' fr ri L Y M 1 1 II ll I 35 I 15 N Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc Mark J Jacobs, PE, PTOE 2614 39th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98116-2503 206.762.1978 o 206.799.5692 c JTE, Inc. FIGURE 1 gepr� In�Galot only + 1 QD - Future Access Loc cD I EASEMENT- ,: D AFN 78 least 50' ' z Provide a minimum of at of J 'Ccurb, typical NB queue storage from the stop bar f • � ti aN+ E 65.00' + + rf t' a f i r f t f r + 35 t f La + = 3 G a x35 -7a 351 351,3 k 9504 PUBLIC ACCESS SR - 104 CONCEPTUAL ACCESS ENHANCEMENTS Attachment 21 0 k t P 256 ac a g. 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 RECEi r EE) MAR 12 2019 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik RTTA 040 m Pr j Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 95011 f Edmonds Way, Apt #ia' Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Name Signed Signed Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 257 6.2.a i,-Ceiv eo DE AR 12 201,9 VELOPO yr To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and i am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik ATTA 040 MRq Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record p Ff 1 CC, Address: 9504 Edmonds Way, Apt # Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Name Sign Date Print Name Signed Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 258 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Th n�you, P y'of re ord Address: 9504.-Edmonds Way, Apt #123, Edmonds, WA 98020 Alisha Stubblefield March 8, 2019 Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 259 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [sip. PTTA C.40 ff\f r� Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950 t Edmonds Way, Apt Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Nam Print Name oignea Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 260 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and i am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik A TTA C90 m R�j Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950 q Edmonds Way, Apt # 11 � , Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Name & �t ct zx Print Name Signed 04, Signed �r Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 261 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [sip. VtTTA Cgo ('n(-�O Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950L-L Edmonds Way, Apt #fL:�"'.Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Name Print Name Signed Signed Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 262 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Dane: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PL IN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sig. {ITTA c14CD (Y\R} ] Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950_ Edmonds Way, Apt # , Edmonds, WA 98020 J a(k�on Print Name Print Name Signed Signed Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 263 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik 4TTA C.14CP (Y\ R�j Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 9501 Edmonds Way, Apt #2K, Edmonds, WA 98020 Print Name Print Name 1 1 Signed Signed --�..'�''-2� 101, Date D6te Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 264 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). BEE {}TTA C14W fy\Rj Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950 q% Edmonds Way, Apt# 17-0, Edmonds, WA 98020 •j6.sy j ppju?'- Print Name Print Name 3 !G ' /) I Date Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 265 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [5EC ATTA 04W fnsr� Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950_a_ Edmonds Way, Apt #202, Edmonds, WA 98020 F1(nQ ACC . - L)[`-` Print Name Signed Date Print Name Signed Date Attu ge Init 21 Packet Pg. 266 6.2.a RIME WO MAR 13 2019 DEVELOPMENT sERVICES To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950_L Edmonds Way, Apt # A/ I , Edmonds, WA 98020 i2 I'. ev►-w., PhAt Name rvv� Si ned Date Print/Name Signed Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 267 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 RIECIEIVIED MAR 12 2019 DEVEL P "T sERWC S coukr R Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). Esjk ATTA 040 m Pr� Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 9501 Edmonds Way, Apt #,, Edmonds, WA 98020 d d d') P '5 1 pole Q� A( ka4' � Print Name Signed Do's Mso hi F Print Na a "j9 d off- Date 03 11- 9 Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 268 6.2.a RECEIVIEja To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager 0EVELOPAjENr SEF?Wcl:sCOUNTER From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). Esjk J}TTA 040 (n Pr� Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950-�— Edmonds Way, Apt # 11"', Edmonds, WA 98020 /-% "�' Vol rLiA&AA41^j -511thq Print Name Signed Date Print Name Signed Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 269 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 MAR 12 2019 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik ({TTA 040 m R�j Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950 qEdmonds Way, Apt #A4, Edmonds, WA 9 20 -C" L Print Name Signed Date Print Name Signed Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 270 6.2.a To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager From: [Concerned resident at 9504-9508 Edmonds Way] Date: March 8, 2019 MAR 12 2019 o vELC� ' SF+Wcr S Re: Traffic flow and safety concerns regarding permit #PLN20190003 Hello Kernan, I am a resident at the rental property located 9504-9508 Edmonds Way and I am mailing you regarding concerns I have about upcoming development as described in the permit #PLN20190003. Specifically, I am concerned that work done on the public easement in our parking lot will create unsafe traffic flow conditions and harm my ability to access my home. Any future development of this easement needs to, as part of its improvements, channelize flow to allow safe access for all users (pedestrian and car). [Sik OTTO C140 (Y\Rr j Further, work on the public easement needs to be completed before general construction begins so that contractors and construction crews are not displacing and endangering myself, my fellow community members, and our personal property (vehicles/pets). Kernan, it is my understanding this public easement was established for the benefit of current residents as well as future residents. Given the concerns outlined about, the needs of current residents have not and are not being duly considered. As you continue in your process, please, keep the interests of current residents in mind and make decisions which will benefit the public good. Thank you, Party of record Address: 950 8' Edmonds Way, Apt # /Of , Edmonds, WA 98020 rr,�e Far,--s Print Name 3-e re►m i s� FL re.$ Print Name 3.12•/I Date 3-IZ•IIi Date Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 271 6.2.a Lien, Kernen From: Jeffrey Sterling <jeffreygsterling@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 3:54 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Lisa Sterling; McConnell, Jeanie Subject: Re: Update on the Kisan project Kernan, Thank you for the update on the Kisan project. I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the current proposal. Here are the reasons: 1) The entire premise that the City and our adjacent property owner can determine the future traffic flows and public safety thru our property without our collaboration or consent is totally unacceptable. We ought to be treated as a primary stakeholder in designing a solution that is acceptable to all parties. This public easement is as much a public easement for the residents of our property as it is for anybody. 2) The City does not have a policy to deal with public easements. We do not accept the conclusion that all the City can ask for is what the code says, because it does not consider the negative impacts of allowing minimum standards that impact the other users of the easement. The policy ought to be to allow access to a new user while mitigating all impacts on existing users thru better design. 3) Forcing three streams of traffic thru the choke point at the entrance to our property is completely unacceptable. For our traffic to make a 180 degree turn off of SR104 at highway speed, we need a minimum of a 16 foot lane. The inside radius of that turn is essentially unusable. I request that the City meet me at the property to understand the negative impacts of the proposed access plan. Pulling out the c curb and replacing it with paint doesn't cut it. 4) We hired a traffic engineer to propose a solution to access. The solution we proposed is in alignment with one of the alternatives that Kisan proposed in 2016. We offered this alternative as an olive branch to get thru this process. Anything short of our proposed alternative will result in unnecessary delays because we will appeal any proposal that falls short of what we are recommending. Respectfully, Jeff Sterling i Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 272 6.2.a Jeffrey G Sterling ieffteyp,sterling@p,mail.com terling@p,mail.com 425 299 1969 Interconnected Associates, Inc. Connecting communities through vision and compassion. On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:09 AM Jeffrey Sterling <jeffreyg`sterlink(i7gmail.com> wrote: I will come by around 10:30am. We have been thru so much on this project, I would prefer to retain you as our point of contact. Jeffrey G Sterling jeffreyp,sterling@gmail.com 425 299 1969 Interconnected Associates, Inc. Connecting communities through vision and compassion. On Wed, May 1, 2019, 11:43 AM Jeffrey Sterling <jeffreygsterling(i�gmail.com> wrote: Thank vnii T XNAII 1-nma by tmmr%rrn,u Jeffrey G Sterling jeffreygsterling@p,mail.com 425 299 1969 Interconnected Associates, Inc. Connecting communities through vision and compassion. On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 7:08 AM Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien cr.edmondswa.g2v? wrote: You can always stop by and speak with the planner on duty anytime (except Wednesday afternoons when were closed). If you want to speak with me specifically, I'm fairly open tomorrow and am on counter Friday morning. Kernen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division 425-771-0220 2 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 273 6.2.a From: Jeffrey Sterling <ieffreygstf-. .,,lg@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:35 PM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien edmondswa. ov> Subject: Re: Update on the Kisan project Thank you for the update. I would like to schedule a meeting to discuss another property that is up for sale Jeff Jeffrey G Sterling j effreygste rl i n g(e� gma i 1. co m 425 299 1969 Interconnected Associates, Inc. Connecting communities through vision and compassion. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 4:26 PM Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Licn a( 7,edrnondswa.gy'v> wrote: Hi Jeff. Still no resubmittal. They have until May 215t to resubmit or ask for an extension. Kernen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager City of Edmonds — Planning Division 425-771-0220 From: Jeffrey Sterling <ieffreygsteriing@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:48 PM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.goy> Subject: Update on the Kisan project 3 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 274 6.2.a Hi Kernen, It's been a while and I am interested in what's going on. Can I have an update on the Kisan project please. Jeff Jeffrey G Sterling j effrey_gsterl inrnai 1. cv m 425 299 1969 Interconnected Associates, Inc. Connecting communities through vision and compassion. 4 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 275 6.2.a FILE NO.: PLN20190003 Applicant: Kisan DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 61h day of August, 2019, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of August, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. f� Signed: - -.��— {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 276 6.2.a FILE NO.: PLN20190003 Applicant: Kisan DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 61h day of August, 2019, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application and parties of record. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of August 019, at Edmond Washington. Signed: ��-- {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 277 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION `11C. 189v PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit multi -family development. The units will be spread between four buildings with one building containing three units and the other three buildings containing five units each. Landscaping and frontage improvements will also be provided with the development. The site is zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -family residential; one dwelling unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area). The proposed development is subject to the zoning standards in Chapter 16.30 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and general design standards in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. PROJECT LOCATION: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 27033600102300 NAME OF APPLICANT: Rob Michel on behalf of Kisan Enterprises LLC FILE NO.: PLN20190003 REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review (Type III -A Permit Process) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 4, 2019 Any person has the right to comment on this application during 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 anytime prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision 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. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at htt S: edmorids.wa.us/citizen. Search for permit PLN20190003. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Architectural Design Board on September 4, 2019 at 7 p.m. In the Council Chambers located at 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE: August 6, 2019 SEPA COMMENTS: Comments regarding the SEPA determination are due August 20, 2019. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than August 27, 2019 by 4:00 p.m. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 278 6.2.a M O O O O N Z J d N r C E L V a 3 0 a a� 3 m m c a� .N m 0 M O O O Cn T- O N Z J IL CD E z r Q Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 279 6.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Leanna Hartell being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH868385 PLN20190003 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/06/2019 and ending on 08/06/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publicati is $101.36. Subscribed and sworn b r me on this day of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmon& - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN VVV- Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington MYAPPpIDlmcnt Espires 08/2912021 Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 280 Classified Proof 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18-unit mu Hi -family development The units will be spread between four build n9it with one betiding containing three units and the other Ines buildings coNatning We units each. Landscaping and fronlege improvements will also be provided wah the dnvelopment. The site is zoned RM-1.5 (Multi3mnrly resrdenllal; one &+alling unit per 1,500 sq it of lot area). The propaaad devsWpmani Ire sul Jcct to Thu zonng standards in t rnoplpr 16-30 Edmonds Community Onvalopmmrit Code (ECDC) and general design standards in Chapler 20. 11 ECDC PROJECT LOCATION: 22810 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 27033600102300 NAME OF APPLICANT: Rob Michel on behalf of Kisan Enterprises LLC FILE NO PLH2O190008 REQUESTEOPERMIT: DolonRevhm (Type IIl -A Parma process) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE. Sopfember •1. 2019 Any person has tna rtgtt 0 commenm an this apphratlon during pubik comment period. racefvt mike and pantkipapf in any hlanT,ja ana coquest a Copy of the docl5kon on Inc application The Ctly moy accopt public eommoms at any lima prior to the doting at aria recartlul an operr recorU preMmai9n haanng, if any, or, if no open record predcimon hearing Is provned, prior to the des d en an Sna lojecl permil Only parties of record 89 defined in ECDC 20.08.0 have standng to Irdliato an admrNstreuve appeal. Infofmation on this davakpmokll appfl=-• On car. lx +hawed on obtained at the Crfy At Ed*wnas Development Services Deparbnonl, 121 51h Ave North. Edmond, WA 98020 between the I1ows of 8:00 A M and 4 30 P M reansmy, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon ark Wednesday; or online 111rouph the Gily'n webslla et hl 7s'rl b mi .a n nds.wa.us7ci6xen. Search for parry? . 2 1 copy OF he slat! report will be avallable at feast seven days prior To the hearng. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION. A pubtC heating will he hold before the Architectural Design Beard on Seplambar 4, 2019 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers Waled at 250 - Rh Avenue Narin, Edmamis, WA 90020 SEPA DETERMINATION, Naar:a rs Nareby Given That the City of E*rmnds has issued a a mklnnti of Nonslani5cance under WAC 197-11-340 for Ina a ova projett DATE OF ISSUANCE: August 8, 901 $EPA COMMENTS: Comments regarding The SEPA dalarmfnaiion are due August 20, 2019, SEPA AF AL: This SEPA dotdrmmobon may be appealed by ferng a wr41en appeal crony gle spent reasons for appeal vath The required Wee tea no IaWr than Airgusl 27. 2019 by 4:po p.m. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kemendlerQedmondswa. gov 425-771.02 0 Published: August 6, 2019. EDH868385 -.."j Q Proofed by Hartell, Leanna, 08/06/2019 08:36:24 am Page: 2 Attachment 23 Packet Pg. 281 6.2.a 2716 Colby Avenue Land Use Everett, WA 98201 S H O CKEY Environmental Analysis Permitting p: 425.258.9308 Celebrating service excellence since 1980! PLANNING GROUP, Inc. Public Policy f•' 425.259.4448 www.shockeyplanning.com August 22, 2019 Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Manager VIA E-MAIL AND USPS City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5t' Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 RE: PLN 20190003 Kisan Enterprises LLC SEPA Review Dear Mr. Lien, Following up on your Monday e-mail, in discussing this with the Sterlings, they would much prefer to resolve the frontage improvement and on -site circulation issues without having to go through the appeal process but they do have concerns with the SEPA and ADB reviews. 1. The access easement is located entirely on my clients' property. While they acknowledge the likelihood that Kisan Enterprises has a right to enter the easement from its property, Kisan has been allowed to design the circulation within the easement and upon my clients' property. My clients object to the design and question why its design authority is allowed to extend to the Sterling's business property. 2. You note in your e-mail that "Given the Traffic Impact Analysis subsequent response to questions from the City's Traffic Engineer, it was determined that the layout proposed by the applicant does not result in a significant environmental impact. " The discussion of ingress, egress and circulation within the easement apparently occurred between Kisan and the City with no involvement by my clients upon whose property the easement lies. 3. There has been no analysis of whether the Sterlings' preferred plan meets City requirements. Especially because the access easement lies on my clients' property and serves their existing business, some deference should be given to their preferred plan as long as it provides adequate access to their neighbor. 4. Regarding Item 3, there is no evidence in the record that Kisan will be harmed by an adjustment to the circulation plan on the Sterling's property. Your e-mail notes that the City intends to apply its design standards for frontage improvements and traffic circulation to provide sufficient impact mitigation. We have a general concern that the City is not requiring frontage improvements typical of other corners of this signalized arterial intersection and ask that you confirm that ADA ramps, curb returns, and pedestrian ways will be required. Attachment 24 Packet Pg. 282 6.2.a Also, we have a specific concern over ECDC 18.80.060(B)(4) which requires that striping within the parking lot provide adequate circulation and parking access. We believe our plan is suitable for my clients' needs and see no reason why their preferred design cannot supplant the Kisan design. Finally, it appears we will not see what the specific onsite and frontage improvements will be until issuance of the Staff recommendation, which is scheduled for issuance on August 28, one day after the SEPA appeal deadline. This is the central reason an appeal is being considered by the Sterlings to protect their rights. Again, the Sterlings only want assurances that this "Public" easement will be designed to public standards. Your assurances in this regard would obviate the need for further action. Sincerely, SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP Rei . Shockey, AICP President cc: Jeff and Lisa Sterling C. Michael Kvistad, Anderson Hunter Law Firm Attachment 24 Packet Pg. 283 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `t) c. 189%3 August 23, 2019 Reid Shockey Shockey Planning Group, Inc. 2716 Colby Avenue Everett, WA 98201 RE: PLN2019003, Kisan Enterprises LLC Design Review Application SEPA Comments #2 Dear Mr. Shockey, The City of Edmonds has received your August 22, 2019 follow-up letter regarding the City of Edmonds retention of the Determination of Nonsignificance for Kisan multi -family development at 22810 Edmonds Way. The comments in the August 22, 2019 letter are more generally related to the design of the proposed project rather than any SEPA specific issue. However, understanding Mr. Sterling is considering an appeal of the SEPA DNS, I am providing a response so you and Mr. Sterling have time to consider before the August 27th SEPA appeal deadline. There are several references to Mr. Sterling's preferred circulation design. You also acknowledge that Kisan Enterprises has a right to use the public easement located on Mr. Sterling's property. Kisan Enterprises is the entity that has applied for design review and thus it is their application that is being reviewed. While Mr. Sterling obviously has a vested interest in the proposed development, he is not the applicant and that is why Mr. Sterling's preferred design has not been the focus of the City's analysis. It should be noted that the proposed layout currently under consideration was originally suggested by Mr. Sterling as well. Your letter concludes that you will not see the specific onsite and frontage improvements until the issuance of the staff recommendation. The project is at the design phase, and specific onsite and frontage improvements are not yet the subject of City review. The plans that are posted on the online permit website(https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen under file number PLN20190003) are the plans that will be included as attachments to the staff report. The detailed civil plans that include the frontage improvements are developed with the subsequent building permit application. The letter also seeks assurances that the project will be designed to public standards. Every development within the City of Edmonds is required to comply with the City's development standards. For example, a standard condition added to the City's design review approvals is: The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. Attachment 25 Packet Pg. 284 6.2.a Additionally, one of the Engineering Division's standard conditions for design review permits includes: Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The SEPA appeal deadline on August 27th is related to the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The City of Edmonds' having followed the threshold determination process of WAC 197-11-330 has determined that the project does not have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment and has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance. The SEPA determination is not an approval of the project. The Architectural Design Board will issue the decision on the design of the project, after a public hearing. The ADB's decision is appealable to Superior Court. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments related to this proposal. Sincerely, O �ernen Lien Environmental Programs Manger Cc: Jeff Sterling Attachment 25 Packet Pg. 285 6.2.a IPProviding qualit , water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value August 19, 2019 Michael Clugston City of Edmonds 1215111 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Clugston: Reference No.: PLN20190003 Kisan District DR Number: 19-160 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. The developer is required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements on all parcels where electrical facilities must be installed to serve the proposed development. It is unlikely that easements will be granted on District -owned property, or consents granted within District transmission line corridors. Existing PUD facilities may need relocations or modifications at the developer's expense. Any relocation, alteration or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the project developer and must be coordinated with the PUD in advance of final design. Please include any utility work in all applicable pernuts. Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Please contact the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, llrb'k Jason Zyskowski, Senior Manager Transmission & Distribution System Operations & Engineering 1802 — 751h Street S.W. • Everett, WA • 98203 1Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA . 98206-1107 425-783-4300 • Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 • www.snopud.com Attachment 26 Packet Pg. 286 6.2.a 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds WA. 98020 12425 Meridian Ave, Everett, WA 98208 Serving the cities of Brier, Edmonds, and Mountlake Terrace Department of Fire Prevention Comments To: Kisan Enterprises LLC - Rob Michel From: Assistant Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer Date: January 31, 2019 Re: PLN20190003 - 22810 Edmonds Way - 18 Unit Apartment 1. A fire hydrant will be required at the Northwest corner of the property 2. Apartments are considered R-2 occupancies and are required by IFC 903.2.8 to have a 13R automatic sprinkler system with fire department connection (FDC). Fire riser rooms need to be accessible from the outside and a Knox type key box is required. A deferred submittal will be required. 3. Apartments with a 13R automatic sprinkler system are required to have a monitored fire alarm installed. System needs to be an addressable type and can monitor more than one fire suppression system. A deferred submittal will be required. 4. Fire lanes will be marked and signed per South County Fire Standard (separate attachment) Karl Fitterer CFI Assistant Fire Marshal City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention kfitterer@southsnofire.org Attachment 27 Packet Pg. 287 6.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION STAFF COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance 8 Building Project Number: Applicant's Name: Property Location: PLN20190003 KISAN ENTERPRISES / ROB MICHEL 22810 EDMONDS WAY Date Application Received: 01.23.19 Date Application Routed: 01.24.19 Zoning: RM-1.5 MULTIFAMILY Project Description: DESIGN REVIEW FOR 18-UNIT APARTMENT If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: BUILDING OFFICIAL LEIF BJORBACK ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and I do not have any comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Ext._1223 Date: 2/14/2019 8 I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have the following comments or conditions: Submittal requirements for the subsequent building permits will include the following: 1. If the structures meet the IRC/IBC definition of townhouse, they shall be designed per the IRC. 2. Provide an addendum to the geotechnical report confirming that the geotechnical engineer has reviewed the final design of the project. Attachment 28 Packet Pg. 288 6.2.a Date: To: MEMORANDUM August 28, 2019 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN20190003 — Design Review Kisan — 22810 Edmonds Way Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. It is requested that the following be included as a condition of project approval: Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Stormwater Management: A preliminary stormwater plan has been submitted to the City to confirm project feasibility. While it has been determined that the project is feasible, the system design and sizing has not been finalized. Any changes to the proposed detention system will be addressed during the building permit phase of the project. Stormwater management shall be provided consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Refer to Stormwater Addendum, Appendices and Checklists for additional information. Access and Frontage Improvements: The proposed development will take access through a public access easement on the south side of the 95th PI W and Edmonds Way at the signalized intersection. One existing driveway approach on Edmonds Way will be eliminated with the proposed development, thereby reducing the number of vehicular access points along Edmonds Way. The proposed development will be required to replace existing pedestrian improvements along the frontage of the subject property in order to meet current City and ADA standards. The specific design of these improvements and any connections to on -site pedestrian facilities will be reviewed during the building permit phase of the project. As noted, access to the proposed development will be taken from an existing public access easement, which is located on the adjacent property to the west, the Cascadian apartment complex (9504/9508 Edmonds Way), and also provides access to the Cascadian. The configuration of the access on this south leg of the 951h PI W and Edmonds Way signalized Attachment 29 Packet Pg. 289 6.2.a intersection was the topic of several conversations with both the applicant and the adjacent property owner. A couple different configurations were presented to the City and ultimately the applicant submitted a proposal that includes two ingress lanes and one egress lane. As shown below, the west ingress lane will provide a dedicated lane to the Cascadian apartment complex and the east ingress lane will provide a dedicated lane for access into the proposed development. The western edge of the existing public access easement is highlighted in yellow in the drawing below. FACED U MTAST. CURB PER CLE 57V TR-524 ss ,., — YAO / -�--- ! 11f .y •. .r �IR£4UfR£►IEMTS V ;i�� ! �.�/TYA1 I PER COE PROPOSED LANE I S7RAWNG PATH r - -- B[1C ACCESS MIt34 osi �► r Na � ' VAL` 1 !! Ex. STOP f ! ~ -06 70A=34.�59 y ! \ INV-JT9-6-W j cayo?Uf IX E74EaTRfIf7ED, ` EDMOhNS TR-522 6 (TYP) 4 9wT f8y 361 The configuration of both the ingress and egress travel lanes has been reviewed by the applicant's traffic consultant, Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., as well as the City's Transportation Engineer. The following comments are contained within the Traffic Impact Analysis and Comment Response Memo prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultant's, Inc. and dated April 2019 and July 12, 2019, respectively. • The advantage of the second receiving lane is in case an inbound vehicle is blocked by an outgoing vehicle. • Vehicles entering the apartment complex/development would not queue back to SR-104. • A level of service (LOS) analysis has been performed for the signalized intersection of SR-104 and 95t' PI W to ensure it would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The analysis shows that the site access intersection will operate an acceptable LOS C • The development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding intersections. The City's transportation engineer also found the proposal to be feasible and will further address lane striping, signage, etc. during the building permit phase of the project. Thank you. Attachment 29 Packet Pg. 290 8.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/4/2019 Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History After a joint meeting with the Planning Board on July 24, the ADB again discussed potential roles and scope on August 21 - see Attachment 1. (Staff Recommendation Develop a recommendation for presentation to another joint meeting with the Planning Board on September 11 (tentative). Narrative This is a continued discussion by the ADB regarding its broader role in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. The goal is to develop a consensus proposal to present to the Planning Board at a possible joint meeting on September 11, 2019. Documents for discussion include: 1) A table of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with desired roles that have been discussed recently (Attachment 2). In the end, more time is intended to be spent on policy, guidance and standard development but it would be useful to refine the 'proposed' list to accurately reflect the Board's desires. 2) A flowchart outlining revised Board involvement in project reviews (Attachment 3). As has been noted, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of the project review cycle is not the best use of Board member time and expertise. The City Council recognized this too, passing Resolution 1367 which states their intent to remove volunteer boards like the ADB from the quasi-judicial decision making role. As envisioned, the Board would have two possible touches of a project during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development. The second would be if the Board wants to remain within the project decision cycle by reviewing submitted projects and making recommendations on their design to the final decision maker (likely the Hearing Examiner). There was some discussion about this topic on August 21 so this will need to be resolved. Doing the recommendation will require more project review work but it would also allow the Board to take another look at a project to see if it addressed the Board's design vision discussed at the pre -application phase. Packet Pg. 291 8.1 On a separate note, the Board asked for codes, guidelines and standards that govern design review in Edmonds. That information and links to codes and the Comp Plan was provided under separate cover. For additional context, Attachment 5 is a 1999 report describing proposed improvements to the design review process and ADB roles considered at that time. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Recommendations on ADB Roles in Design Review (draft) Attachment 2 - Possible Design Review Process Flowchart Attachment 4 - Design review and the ADB summary slides - Aug 212019 Attachment 3 - Minutes from the August 21 ADB meeting Packet Pg. 292 8.1.a Recommendations from the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on Design Review Introduction The Architectural Design Board (ADB) has served in Edmonds for several decades. Over the years, the ADB has observed certain concerns about design in Edmonds. Notably, the ADB believes that design standards are incomplete and, in some cases, are not necessarily yielding the results either the Board or the Edmonds Community would like to see. In general, the Board feels it has spent too much time "approving" already -designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process, particularly before applications have been submitted. This can be accomplished in two ways, by having a role earlier in the process (at the pre -application stage before a design solution has been arrived at), and by having a role in the review and development of design standards that are the principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Current ADB Powers and Duties (adopted in ECC 10.05) The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department: A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. Desired roles expressed by ADB (2019) • Develop and recommend city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99) Packet Pg. 293 8.1.a • Review projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and, if not, recommend refinements to adopted design guidelines and standards • Do pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and provide recommendations to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how consolidated permit reviews operate now) • Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council • Provide decision support to staff (which may relate to various design -related topics) Recommendations To implement these desired roles, the ADB recommends that its meetings change in emphasis, focusing more on: • Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example); • Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and at, for example, 3-5 years after the project has been built); • Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effectively, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Packet Pg. 294 Projects that Require SEPA Projects > 75' Projects that (Outside HWY 991 0 in Height Within Do Not Require Planned Area) HWY 99 Planned Area SEPA Review Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) ' Preapplication ' Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Staff Report SEPA / Public Hearing Notice Public Hearing Type III -A Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision Optional Preapplication Meeting With City Staff Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Type I Design review by Staff Staff Decisio esign Review may coincide with Building Permit Approval Building Permit Approval 8.1.c 0 a n K P.. v i ej Packet Pg. 296 8.1.c ► To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; ► To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; ► To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; ► To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; ► To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. [ECDC 20.10.000 — Purposes] Packet Pg. 297 8.1.c "...any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored." [ECDC 20.10.020.A - Scope] Packet Pg. 298 8.1.c 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council. 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in IRS - single-family residential districts. 3. Detached single-family homes or duplexes in RM - multiple residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds historic preservation commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Signs that meet all of the standards contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. [ECDC 20.10.020.13 - Scope] Packet Pg. 299 8.1.c A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate architectural design plan and the goals, established design district. the implementation of the comprehensive objectives and policies for each E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [ECC 10.05.040, Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973] Packet Pg. 300 8.1.c ► District -based design review in BD & CG zones (ECDC 20.12) ► General design review in all other zones (ECDC 20.11) ► ADB quasi-judicial decisions ► Projects where Environmental Determination (SEPA) is required (except Hwy 99) ► Public hearing w/notice (Type III -A) ► Staff decisions ► All other projects (including Hwy 99 buildings under 75 feet in height) ► No notice (Type 1) Packet Pg. 301 8.1.c The ADB has basically functioned as a strictly quasi-judicial decision making body. The ADB has very rarely dealt with design standards and how design has - or has not - worked within the community. Packet Pg. 302 8.1.c ► ADB has noticed that it has less meaningful input at the decision -making level; there is a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle where it can have more influence on building design. The board would also like to review and influence the development of design guidance and standards that are the primary drivers of how buildings are designed ► Council Resolution 1367 (2016): update codes with the general goal to remove quasi-judicial decision making from city council and other volunteer boards ► Council revised their quasi-judicial participation in July 2019 Packet Pg. 303 8.1.c ► Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council. ► Provide decision support to staff. ► Establish guidelines and standards city-wide and for special design districts. ► Review selected projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and recommend refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants. ► Provide review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Packet Pg. 304 8.1.c ► Review existing policy guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards (ECDC) and update as necessary ► Create multifamily guidelines and standards ► Develop or modify special district design standards as needed Packet Pg. 305 8.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Tom Walker Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kim Bayer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Clugston invited each of the Board Members to introduce themselves and share information about their background and training. • Board Member Guenther said he has served on the ADB for several years. Prior to that, he served on the Planning Board for 9 years. He lives in Edmonds and is an architect by training. He has served as chair on both boards. • Board Member Bayer said she is the newest member of the Board, but has lived in Edmonds since 1979. Her background is corporate, but she is now retired and works as a business coach. She joined the ADB because she is passionate about preserving the beautiful aesthetic value of Edmonds as growth occurs. • Board Member Herr said he has been involved in residential construction and design for 46 years and has always been a designer/facilitator of residential construction of all types. • Board Member Strauss said she is an architect, doing primarily industrial and commercial development. For the last 20+ years, her focus has been on sustainable design and construction. She lives in Edmonds and owns her Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 306 8.1.d own firm with an office on Main Street in Edmonds. She loves the eclectic downtown and wants to retain that character. Board Member Jeude said she grew up in Richmond Beach and moved to Edmonds about 30 years ago. She recently retired from the Seattle Times, but while there, she watched the area change from warehouses to a place that attempts to build community. She joined the ADB because she wants to be part of the changes that are happening in the City. Board Member Owensby said he is also an architect by trade, and his love is urban design. He shared how he has been influenced by the experiences and the environments he has lived in throughout his life. He joined the ADB because he wanted to get involved as the City evolves. MINOR PROJECTS No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation) There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ROLES OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) Mr. Chave advised that when he was hired by the City 29 years ago, the ADB typically reviewed about 20 projects each meeting, but most of them were small projects such as signs. That changed in 1993 when the Washington Court of Appeals issued a decision in Anderson vs. Issaquah, which held that the city's generalized standards or guidelines were unconstitutionally vague. Since Issaquah's design code was patterned after Edmonds, it was clear that the City had to change its approach to design review. He explained that prior to 1993, the City's code contained flowery language and applicants didn't have a clear understanding of what was expected at the outset of a project design. There was no predictability as to how long the design review process would take and which projects would eventually get approved. Mr. Chave explained that Edmonds followed the court ruling with a steady effort to provide more specificity and predictability in both the City's design standards and its design review process. As the design standards and codes became more specific, many of the small projects that used to go to the ADB for design review became staff decisions that were routinely approved as part of a building permit. This sped up the design review process a lot. Mr. Chave reviewed that Ordinance 3636 established the City's current district -based design review process, and the intent was that it would be used as a model for development once specific design standards had been drafted for all areas of the City. The district -based design review model also included a two -phased design review process, wherein the first stage was intended to occur early, with the ADB looking at conceptual designs. The proponents would then work out the details and present the designs to the ADB a second time for final approval. The problem with this process is that proponents have typically already settled on most of their design solutions before the first phase review is accomplished. Mr. Chave further explained that both the City Council and the ADB have come to realize that the code now provides specific design standards, and developers are generally designing projects according to the codes and standards in place. Because of that, by the time the ADB is presented with a project, it is fait accompli and the Board doesn't have a lot of discretion to require modifications. In order to influence design, the ADB has expressed a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle. In addition, the City Council has stated a desire to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial role. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 307 8.1.d Mr. Chave presented a flow chart, outlining a potential design review process that would allow the ADB to provide early input. As proposed, the proponent would be required to participate in a preapplication meeting with the ADB prior to submitting a building permit application. The intent would be for the ADB to review conceptual designs that illustrate how is the site situated, what the code parameters are, what is the context, what design decisions need to be made, etc. No design plans would be reviewed at that time. If the Board wants to retain its review role without being the quasi- judicial decision maker, the City could require proponents to meet again with the ADB after a design is in hand and permit applications have been submitted. This would not be a public hearing, but it would allow the ADB to review the design and provide comments or a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Rather than simply running through the checklist of code requirements, the Board would be able to look more holistically at the design solutions. The Hearing Examiner would review staff reports, ADB recommendations, etc. to make the final quasi-judicial decision. Mr. Chave advised that while the Hearing Examiner would not be required to accept the ADB's recommendation, the Board would have more freedom to share comments and suggestions. It would also help them better identify disconnections between what the Board wanted to see and what was actually developed as code compliant design. He said staff would like the ADB to be the body that clearly understands the design standards and their relationship to what actually gets built. The Board's main job could be to review the design standards and codes against projects that occur and recommend potential code amendments that would have a meaningful impact on what actually gets built in the future. Mr. Chave referred to the Board's recent 10-year review of projects that have occurred in Edmonds and suggested that the review should take place on an annual or semi-annual basis. It will be important for the Board to compare approved building plans to what actually gets built. It will also be important to take note of what a project looks like five to ten years after construction, since maturing landscaping and how the building weathers over time can significantly change the community's view of a project over time. These annual reviews would allow the Board to apply a time element when identifying potential amendments to the landscape standards and other codes. The Board could also use the annual reviews as an educational piece when meeting jointly with the City Council and Planning Board in a public setting. Mr. Chave summarized that there would be some value to the ADB holding a preapplication meeting with proponents, followed by another review later in the process. However, the Board's bigger value will come from reviewing the codes and standards and their overall impact on design and proposing changes over time. City Attorney Taraday said he was invited to the meeting to guide the Board's discussion about the design review process and the ADB's role in land use permitting. He was also asked to talk about the legal context that creates the Board's role. Vice Chair Strauss asked if City Attorney Taraday's firm, Lighthouse Law Group, represents other cities, and City Attorney Taraday answered that his firm represents two other cities in a city attorney capacity. Vice Chair Strauss asked if he lives in Edmonds, and he answered that he lives in Seattle. He said he has represented the City of Edmonds since 2011, City Attorney Taraday explained that code adoption is a legislative activity, but land use permitting is not. Because of that, the discretion a decisionmaker has when deciding a permit application is constrained. The City's code that defines the Board's role is a mixture of legislative, quasi -legislative, and quasi-judicial functions. The Board's capacity to recommend design code changes is a legislative function that has broad discretion. However, that is not the case when reviewing a specific application. He explained that a court has to measure against something in order to review a decision and determine whether it was fairly decided, and that's why having objective decision criteria is important. Not only does it provide guidance to decisionmakers, but it also gives someone reviewing the decision down the road (the court) the ability to determine whether the decision was fairly made or not. However, if the Board's role is changed from decisionmaker to meeting with applicants in preapplication conferences, the decision criteria would not be so limited. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 308 8.1.d City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to land use decisions that determine the legal rights of parties in a public hearing and requires decision makers to act as impartial and fair judges, without any preconceived ideas. Because no public hearing is required for administrative decisions, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would not apply. It also doesn't apply to legislative actions. When policies are being adopted, the City Council has extremely broad legislative discretion to determine what policies it wants to adopt. City Attorney Taraday explained that one limitation that applies in a quasi-judicial setting is a prohibition against ex parte communication. As soon as an application is filed there is a pending proceeding, during which members of a decision -making body cannot engage in ex parte communications with either proponents or opponents of the project. The doctrine also limits a decisionmaker's consideration of evidence to what is in the record. A judge can only review a decision if all of the factors that went into the decision are in the record. For example, a Board Member might make a site visit and absorb information about the neighborhood setting, traffic, etc. While that information may affect the decision, it is not part of the record. In addition, he explained that the doctrine prevents decisionmakers from participating in a decision if they have outright bias in favor or against a pending application. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that she often walks by the sites the Board is reviewing. If she happens to mention something that she saw when she walked by, it would be on the record. City Attorney Taraday agreed and explained that this knowledge could be disclosed as ex parte information by putting what you know on the record and letting the parties to the proceeding respond. In addition, any discussions that occur outside of the hearing should also be disclosed as ex parte communications, regardless of whether or not they will have an impact on the final decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that, if the Board ends up retaining its quasi-judicial role, he could provide more in-depth training. City Attorney Taraday advised that State Law requires that any city can have no more than one open -record hearing and one closed -record appeal on any given application. Based on this law, it would be illegal for the ADB to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation or decision on a component of an application and then send it off to the Hearing Examiner or City Council for another public hearing. The one -hearing rule would be violated if people were allowed to provide evidence in support or opposition to an application at each of those stages. Because of this law, the City must decide where it makes the most sense to have the open -record hearing and which body is best situated to be the primary recipient of evidence in support of or opposition to an application. The trend seems to be that the Hearing Examiner is the most appropriate body to hear most applications. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the Hearing Examiner is just one person. Mr. Taraday answered affirmatively and added that it is generally the same person unless there is a conflict of interest. The City retains its Hearing Examiner by contract, and the current Hearing Examiner is a lawyer by training and has the expertise to perform the task he is assigned. However, because he is not an architect or builder, he benefits from the ADB's recommendations with respect to design features. He also benefits from the Board's assistance in drafting an objective design code that gives fellow architects sufficient guidance to design buildings without having to guess at what the City wants. Board Member Owenby requested clarification on the Design Guidelines, and Mr. Clugston advised that they have not been adopted as code. City Attorney Taraday suggested that it will be important for the Board to keep the design guidelines in mind as they review the design standards in the code. However, they are not enforceable or mandatory. It is extremely important to understand where the code mandates something and where it merely suggests something. Board Members with architectural backgrounds can utilize their professional experience to provide guidance on whether or not the design standards go too far. Feedback from the Board will help the City find the right balance between what is mandatory and what is simply a suggestion or guideline. Mr. Chave reviewed that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to come up with Design Guidelines, which contained a number of higher -level objectives, as well as a lot of specificity. The City Council conducted hearings to potentially adopt the Design Guidelines into the code, but there was some push back that they contained too much detail. Ultimately, the high-level design objectives were adopted into the design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and all of the detailed guidelines were eliminated. The Design Guidelines provide vague guidance, but they are not mandatory. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 309 8.1.d This sets up frustration by the review body. He suggested it would be valuable for the ADB to review the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and translate them into code as appropriate. He reviewed that the City's overall approach has been to regulate what is important, but figuring out what is important and how to provide guidance and specificity is a challenge. If you go too far in specifying detail, development ends up looking the same. On the other hand, you must regulate what is important to provide overall context within the community. It seems that the ADB would be the best body to accomplish that task. Board Member Owenby asked staff to provide the Board Members with a complete package of everything they need to understand which of the guidelines have been codified, which ones are mandatory, etc. Mr. Chave suggested it would also be helpful for the Board Members to review the 2001 study to learn more about the approach that was considered at that time. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan appear to be a one -size -fits -all approach that doesn't really fit Edmonds. If the ADB wants to undertake this work, City Attorney Taraday cautioned against them getting too hung up on what the current code makes mandatory versus what is not mandatory. He suggested it would be more productive to focus on the future. Board Member Owensby commented that setback requirements are extremely important. A lot of design can be controlled by controlling how much setback is required and/or allowed. Traditionally, setbacks in cities were used to create public spaces in front of court houses, post offices, libraries, etc. He expressed his belief that setting buildings back too far from the street can destroy the urban character of a city. He would like a better understanding of all of the zoning standards before he can make any recommendations for change. City Attorney Taraday commented that, as a body that recommends policy change, no changes would be off limits to the Board's consideration, regardless of whether or not they are mandatory at this time. Board Member Bayer commented that, as a lay member of the Board, it would be very helpful to have additional information that outlines the current code requirements that relate to design. She referred to the scenario where the Hearing Examiner was the decisionmaker and asked how the ADB would provide feedback for the Hearing Examiner to consider. City Attorney Taraday answered that it depends on whether or not the Board wants to include the review meeting component that is shown on the flow chart as an optional part of the process. He noted that this is an optional part of the process, which gives the Board Members an opportunity to convey their opinions about a project's design and ask the Hearing Examiner to impose certain conditions on a development. However, the Board's recommendation would be nonbinding and the Hearing Examiner may decide that the code does not support such a condition. On the downside, this additional review could be time consuming and limit the Board's ability to provide policy guidance. He said he doesn't have a recommendation one way or the other. Mr. Chave summarized that staff s intent was to sketch out a process that would take the ADB out of their quasi-judicial decision -making role, but still keep them involved in design review. However, by retaining their role in design review, the ADB will continue to function similar to the current process. He said he is not sure the ADB will benefit from continuing with design review if they want to devote their time to the codes, standards and design guidance, which is where they can have the greatest impact. He explained that, in addition to general design standards that apply throughout the City, the City is also trying to do more subtle nuanced design standards based on districts (i.e. Westgate, Five Corners, Downtown, Highway 99, etc.). Creating district design standards will require a lot of the Board's time. The Board must decide what their most important role is and then allocate their time accordingly. City Attorney Taraday said that if the Board decides not to continue in their design review function, staff would review applications and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with respect to whether or not the project meets the adopted design criteria. However, some may feel that staff would not perform with the same expertise as the ADB. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that staff has been doing a great job of reviewing applications and providing detailed staff reports. She said she supports a process that requires applicants to meet with the ADB in a preapplication meeting. She asked if the Board would favor making the preapplication meeting mandatory or optional. She also asked if the City currently charges a fee for preapplication meetings. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 310 8.1.d preapplication meetings. One is a higher -level meeting that is free, and the other is a paid preapplication meeting where applicants receive notes, etc. He said staff s initial thought is that preapplication meetings with the ADB would occur during their regular evening meetings. Mr. Chave added that the preapplication meeting could be mandatory for projects that meet a certain threshold, but the format could be less formal. It would be up to the Board to establish the thresholds and decide the meeting format. When considering the option of moving design review earlier in the process, Vice Chair Strauss cautioned that the ADB needs to understand that their role is not to design projects and they must be careful with their suggestions. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the idea of reviewing the current Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and identifying potential changes, as well as opportunities to codify them as standards where appropriate. If the Board's goal is to affect what Edmonds looks like, this will be the best approach. With the current process, the Board does not really have a chance to change anything as long as a project meets all of the design standards. Board Member Guenther agreed that the ADB should still be involved with project review, but the best approach has yet to be determined. He suggested that before working on design guidelines and district -based design standards, it would be helpful for the Board to review the design element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is frequently cited in the Staff Reports and contains all of the policy statements related to design in the City. Board Member Owenby asked staff to describe the process the ADB would follow when recommending changes to the design standards and other code requirements. City Attorney Taraday answered that the way the code is currently written, changes to certain section of the code automatically go before the Planning Board. However, they may want to revisit this provision to try and eliminate some of the redundancy of one recommending board reviewing another recommending board's work. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the Planning Board makes recommendations on certain code chapters to the City Council, and that includes everything related to design standards and zoning. However, he agreed it might be appropriate to change the code so that design -related issues are the purview of the ADB, which means the ADB would make recommendations directly to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that streamlining the process so the ADB could make recommendations directly to the City Council on design related issues would certainly speed up the process. However, he emphasized that the City Council would still be responsible for making the final decision. Board Member Owensby asked if the ADB would be required to conduct public hearings on proposed code changes before sending a recommendation to the City Council, and City Attorney Taraday answered that a public hearing would likely be required. He explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that there be a public participation process for land -use related code changes. Board Member Owensby pointed out that some of the Board's design -related amendments might also involve zoning amendments. For example, creating a walkable community will require less setback. He referred to Highway 99 and observed that the further buildings are set back from the street, the further people will have to walk to get from one business to another. Mr. Chave advised that the setback requirements along Highway 99 were recently revised, and future development will be much closer to the sidewalks. City Attorney Taraday commented that setbacks have historically been within the reahn of the Planning Board. He advised that some code amendments can be under the purview of the ADB, but others might require a joint recommendation from both boards. Board Member Bayer said she supports streamlining the amendment process so that the ADB's recommendation can go directly to the City Council. However, she is curious about how the ADB would work with the Planning Board when joint recommendations are required. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires that the ADB's recommendations go to the City Council via the Planning Board. City Attorney Taraday said his thought is that the process could be changed to allow the ADB to forward recommendation related to design directly to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested that they focus on the most basic changes first (i.e. the Board's role in design review and recommendations to the City Council related to design policy changes). Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 311 8.1.d Board Member Guenther suggested that, until the code is changed to allow the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will be important for the Board to follow its recommendations through the Planning Board and City Council public hearings. Recommendations are often changed as they make their way through the process. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', and they would like to meet jointly with the ADB prior to that meeting. This would be an opportunity for the ADB members to voice their thoughts on potential changes that the Planning Board could share with the City Council. The idea is to obtain direction from the City Council before taking the proposed changes any further. He suggested it might be appropriate for a few ADB members to be present at the j oint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board. Board Member Bayer asked if it would be appropriate to draft some ADB Bylaws that outline their processes. This might be particularly important as the Board takes on a different role. City Attorney Taraday responded that the ADB is governed by ECDC 10.05, which creates the ADB and establishes its powers and duties. He recommended they each review this chapter and identify potential amendments. He explained that, in general, whenever the Board is unable to reach a consensus, the majority would rule. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Attorney General's Office has an on-line training video that explains the Open Public Meetings Act and how it applies to bodies such as the ADB. He recommended that all Board Members should view the video as soon as possible. As the Board becomes more involved in policy issues, there will be a temptation to discuss issues with fellow Board members outside of the regular meetings. These discussions can accidently result in illegal meetings. He agreed to email the Board Members a link to the video. He said he can return to a future ADB meeting to discuss any questions the Board Members might have after watching the video. Board Member Owenby commented that some of the ADB's work appears to overlap with work being done by the Economic Development Commission. He commented that urban design and architecture can influence economic development and suggested that a joint meeting might be appropriate. City Attorney Taraday agreed there is some overlap between the various boards and commissions. In the ADB's case, there is some overlap with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and Tree Board. Nothing prevents two boards from meeting jointly. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the ADB's existing Powers and Duties are listed on Page 22 of the Staff Report, and potential Powers and Duties, as well as possible Future Projects are listed on Pages 26 and 27 of the Staff Report. He encouraged the Board Members to review the list of existing Powers and Duties and see how they have morphed into what the Board currently does. He also recommended that they review the lists of potential Powers and Duties and Future Projects and identify additional items. Mr. Chave requested feedback from the Board on whether or not they were ready to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September 11' to share their thoughts on how the ADB's role might change or if more discussion is needed. He summarized that it appears the Board is interested in taking on the role of working on design standards and codes that will determine what kind of design happens in the future. They are also interested in pursuing a preapplication role in design review rather than the current quasi-judicial role. Explaining their thoughts on these two subjects would be valuable to the Planning Board so they can, in turn, highlight the proposed changes and gauge City Council support. If the City Council offers general support, the ADB can work on more specific changes. The Board agreed to place this issue on the September 4' agenda. They asked staff to distill their discussions thus far into a one -page list for them to review. The Board could the discuss any changes and agree upon a proposal to present to the Planning Board on September 11'. They discussed whether groups of Board Members could meet together to discuss ideas, but City Attorney Taraday cautioned that any meeting of four or more Board Members would have to be noticed as a special meeting. The rule applies to email chains, as well. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to email their questions to staff, and staff could forward their responses to all of the Board members. Staff could also meet individually or with two or three Board Members. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 312 8.1.d Board Member Guenther said he is not sure he supports taking the ADB out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process. While he understands the advantages of this change, he felt more discussion was warranted before making this recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Owensby concurred. The Board agreed to discuss the pros and cons of this particular change at their September 4' meeting. Board Member Owensby said he would like staff to provide links to all of the plans and codes that the ADB would be responsible for based on the proposed changes. He also requested a link to ECDC 10.05. Mr. Chave commented that the design standards are scattered throughout the code, but staff could provide links to the main policy documents. Board Member Bayer asked staff to share their perspective on the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said staff supports all of the proposed changes discussed by the Board. Staff supports the ADB taking on a much stronger role as design standard policymakers and in reviewing the relationship of projects to codes and design standards to gain an understanding of how they work together and what changes need to be made. The biggest problem with the ADB's role as quasi-judicial decision makers is that the makeup of the Board changes frequently, and Board Members are often not well trained in quasi-judicial decision making and the rules are hard to understand. He said he would really like to see a board of design professionals and interested lay people actually devote their expertise to what they are good at, which is design, rather than quasi-judicial positioning, which is the Hearing Examiner's job. Board Member Juenke asked City Attorney Taraday to explain the Board's current quasi-judicial roles. City Attorney Taraday answered that there are certain types of design review applications that only go before the ADB for approval. Mr. Clugston added that the last two applications that came before the Board are examples of projects in which the ADB makes the decision on design. Mr. Chave advised that, until recently, certain ADB decisions could be appealed to the City Council. However, the City Council decided to retain appeals on variances and conditional uses, but not on design issues. Board Member Owensby recalled that at the ADB's last joint meeting with the Planning Board, there was some discussion about affordable housing and housing variety and types. He asked if it would be appropriate for one or two ADB members to meet with the Planning Board to share their experiences and knowledge. City Attorney Taraday answered that Board Members can approach the Planning Board as individual citizens, but they cannot provide input to the Planning Board as representatives of the ADB. Mr. Chave added that ADB members can submit written commentary to staff related to items on the Planning Board's agenda. Another option is to provide oral comments at their meetings. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no additional Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 313