The URL can be used to link to this page

16515 74TH PL W.PDF111111111111 5956 16515 74TH PL W STREET FILE CITY 0` E\PMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington SEPTIC TANK INSTALLATION PLAN (Submit in Triplicate) Por. N. 200 ft. , Tr 88, Meadowdale 16 1 4th Pl Beach ADDRESS OF PROPERTY................5...5. � 7 • W' . PACIS.f....... Lot No....................... Permit No......345. Owner ................ Ed Merrill ......................... ._....._ Address .. _ - Same . ...... -_... -- ......... Phone..7-009... Builder.... ---- ..S.ame.,as_.above. _... Address ........................ _...... .......--------....--------- Phone------......... --....-- Designer ...M...B.. Neyring -- ---- ...... .. __ ----------- Address...P.0. --Box-- _ :0...Tyrmwood-------------- Phone. .7.7.8...3101... Installer .... NOrthend--Septic..... ....... ___ .......... Address ... .MO ---- _2l0tbS.W......Edmonds....... Phone..776-05.58... I hereby certify the accompanying drawing is an accurate representation of the system installed at the listed address. I also certify all recommendations and restrictions (concerning plumbing stub elevations, maintenance of grades, fills, surface drains, etc.) listed by me on my sewage disposal system permit application dated ................ ............. .have been complied with. l ---------------------- ..................... .1... Signature of Designer Date TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY ENGINEER ONLY Accepted ......................... L-'....- o Date...../.- 13C..-�' NotAccepted ................. ........_......................... Date ._.. ..................-----.... Signature of Sanitarian.......�es .Conway, Assistant ty Engineer Remarks:....Based upon digner's certification.. INSTRUCTIONS: Use the reverse side of this form for the drawing. Use a scale which will permit the greatest detail and still contain the entire site on one page. ATTENTION HOME OWNER: Your septic tank has limitations! It was designed and installed to care for an average -size family. Over- loading the septic tank or disturbance of the drain -field inay seriously impair satisfactory operation. Points to remember: 1. Have your tank checked periodically to see if pumping is necessary (2%s-3 years). 2. Do not channel ground water, surface water, footing drains or downspouts into the tank or drainfield. 3. Do not excavate, fill, place a structure, driveway or. patio in, on, or over the drainfield. 4. Limit toilet fixture disposal to sanitary wastes and toilet tissue. 5. Detergents and bleaches used in normal household quantities will not harm the action of the septic tank and disposal field. Builder: As -Built Designer: 'Ed K-10-jll • • M. B.Meyring 165$5 =`74th PL. W.` ED MER'RILL• P. 0. Banc 32 Edmonds, Washington Lynnwood, Wash. Por. of N 200 ft., Tr. 88, Meadowdale Bch. Installer: Northend Septic SNO. CO. WASH. 7220 - 210th S.W. October 1969 • G Edmonds, Washington Address: 16515 - 74th Pl. W. Edm. Wash. _ Permit No,: #345 {.. '/7/. 36 7 NN q N w % Ai N N Fin. FlY 30 Jca/e . l - 30 AL • `-5i�: 4a�d �o.��/ .. emu/ _ ..� PPS/ -,uY /5 Zo t ..(mob 68 //7' /088 Meyring Surveyors, Inc.;' o� T/2�hch Lynnwood, Washington 778-3101 639 • 1' 7:11 `i CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington APPLICATION FOR A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT (Submit 3 Copies) Ed Merrill------------------------------- Permit to be issued to: •--- - - _.-. For installation at: (street address) -------------- 16515..-..%4th..Pl..-W..,... Edmondst-.Wash-...---------------------------.--.------.--- Addition or Subdivision... ein.................................... .... or, --- Of-.N.....200ft..Lot...... 88..... Block....Meadowdale Beach Type of Building: New.--.......-- Existing ----- X.---- Single family residence ..-- I........ Number of bedrooms.-------- 4............. Other: (specify type or use)-----rel/l:Sl!✓l l---._-W --/._�p------ :SVS' ?C17L----------------------------------- Builder.---Ed.Merrill--------------------------------------- ----------- .... --Address.....1..65�5.--.14th--Pl..--W.---9--.Eck. s--Wash Designer----- MO B.•.--Meyring------------------------ -------------- --------- Address._..PO.---Box--- 32-,--- Ly=wood,..Wash -. - Soil Log Hole No. 1---- ___ ..Qro30inch.... sandy.--elay..loam...,..-.30-48 inch. clay •.loam; - ... - -- . ------------------------------------------------------------48inch_,- -"_hard ... pan .----------------- ...... .---------------- ..................................................... SoilLog Hole No. 2------- - -------------------same-------------- --------------...........--- .........----- ---------------..........------------------------•-- Elevation of Water Table, if encountered. (Distance from ground surface) ...................none......................................... Corrections to control surface water if needed ...........................none .................................................................................... Specify if any removing or grading of topsoil in field area ..... ........... none ........ ,.......................................... .................... Percolation: Test Hole No. 1 —Average Rate ............ ...... ................. .... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Test Hole No. 2—Average Rate.........i0.......................................... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Test Hole No. 3—Average Rate .............6 ................... .------------- ...... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hoe) Date Taken.- Average percolation rate on which to base drain field design ...........7 _...._...- ---%------- p Septic tank requirements based on present rules and regulations: �/ ��o /oo0 Septic Tank Size. ..... .- 007 .........gallons. ' Amount of Square Feet of Disposal Field ----------- 564....... ._ .... Signature — Designer i g g �--w-----��'��-L�1/t� ------ - ------ Date....... Ju].y.22nd,--.1968.---- DO NOT WRITE BELOW TH S LINE (To e mpleted¢ Issuing Agency) / y V Permit issued��(ddate)---- 9{/ Permit Number ------ 3s�? Remarks: ...... l/1xti .l.- < � .co ---------------------------•-----------------...-------------------------------------•----••---------------------...:-----•---------------•-----...............•-•----•-------•-----....------•--- SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT Septic Tank./ No. ....... .................... gals. �CITY OF EDMONDS sDepartment of Public Works ft. Disp. Field..�'�.. ........... q. Other............... ................................. 1�7 to install/ -4 ..................................................... is hereby authorized ........ . ............................. Name ....... ............... repair sewage disposal system at ........................................... ................................................................. ............. ........ ...... ... Date issued on ..... •-7 .......... * - --------- ........ ....... Ix ------ ... Permit expires one year from date of issue DO NOT COVER BEFORE APPROVED BY DESIGNER OR SANITARIAN I hereby certify this system was installed under my supervision and control and complies with all provisions of the City of Edmonds Resolutions. Signatureof Installer ..................... ....................................................... Date.................................. Approved Disapproved [-I Date.., .... ........... By.... ...... Remarks: ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................. SANITARIANOR DESIGNER ..................................... .................. ....................................... Date.......-..-..............:.......................-........ This permit shall be pos i ted in a reasonably conspicuous place ..on the job until inspection has been completed. �,7 path rL. W.9 Ed Morrill c Box i Portion cf N 200ft. Tract 88, M nr JV,Iy, � y68 0 Was;; . INSTUL AS SHUs:h fiEnRON NOTE r ArIy d GV ;-U-:-Yi . from this Q la,r' W tho'lt cons e,.tat i ar) w-Ath the ;dos nor t;al'. ry"�ko accSp:tapxc of the in?'ta.11af ? the dosip.t r. Al "I all ,{,rots t.o be eementc-. in Q to tho capt ic Z Task Mar"rr.UI,a.. Meyr°ing Survayo s, -TAQ, Lymvyood. Wash. PR 81 .3101 Builder:' Ed Merrill 16515'= 74th Pl. W.- Edmonds**' Wash. .9 i IRMS10 SANITATION DGN Des gAer: �M.ID . . Meyrin9 ED MRELL* o P.O. Box' 32 Lynnvood, Wash. Portion of N 200.0 ft.,Tract 88,,Meaaowda1e..Bch. WASH., SNO. CO. June 1969 Address:.16515 74th Pl. W., Edmonds, Wash. WrG'. VIA 0 1/15��4 D1 9 aT, D 0: :SPECIFICS 564 qi in. treh, 8k7 -lin. fto- s -at Lines e* too --lin fti' Soil Hole No. 'l-O"-0"S64dy loam .7f No..2-0%48," s64dyjoam No. 3-0"-48" sandy loath No., 4-0"-12" clay losm, 12 %M' SC No. 5-0"-481.1, sc'&. clay.-,--., No . 6 -pll-;-48'� sandy Io lay NOTE: ti I -All ankle joints shall be cemented 2- Batter boards shall be reijutred'- throi 6�6 Ut. for. grade control 3- P-Box shall be located on Sol i Meyring Surveyors,,Inc. Lynnwood, Wash. PR 8-3101 68-117 SnohomishOnllne Government Information & Services County4* Washington Structure Information Close Window General Description Parcel Number 00513100008803 (R01) Structure Class Dwelling Structure Type 2 Story Year Built 1950 Exterior Features Foundation Conc or CB Exterior T l I Plywood ROOF Type: Gable Pitch Medium Cover Built Up Interior Features Bedrooms 4 Full or 3/4 Baths 1 1/2 Baths l Heat Electric Baseboard Fireplace Masonry fireplace Floor Area Floor 1 Base SF 1227 Finished SF 1227 Floor 2 Base SF 931 Finished SF 931 Garage(s) & Carport(s) None Other Features http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.uslpropsyslasr-tr-propinqlPropinfoO5-StructData.asp?parcel... 10/15/2010 Close Window http://web5.co. snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/PropInfoO5-StructData.asp?parcel... 10/15/2010 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES March 26, 1986 Mr. William E. Dunn 16515 - 74th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION AND RATES Dear Mr. Dunn: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I write to inform you that since all property owners in the Meadowdale sewage system L.I.D. now have the ability to connect to the City's sewage system, the bi-monthly utility charge for sewerage will be increased to $14.91 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2551. The City Council took this action at the February 11, 1986 Council meeting. We remind you that the L.I.D. was formed and the sewer system built because of the health district's concerns regarding contamination problems resulting from septic tanks. This is still a concern, and we encourage all owners to connect to the system. If we can be of any assistance, please call. Sincerely, 0;6:0�y 4rv�� ROB= J. ALBERTS, P.E. City Engineer RJA/st PUBLIC WORKS 0 PLANNING 0 PARKS AND RECREATION 0 ENGINEERING CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC TkORKS DEPARTMENT SIDE SEWER PERMIT FOR INSPECTION CALL 2R15112-H/5 Ext. ZZU Permit I� . _ VAN Issue Date •i f A PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE W 70w�,.�;, v %- �� .L;ICNNWOOD LINE 1. Address of Constructio7777An y�� _. .j 2. Property Legal Description (include all, easements) U 3. Single Family Residence Multi -Family No.,of Units Commercial 4. Owner and/or Builder 5. Contractor & License No. ,� �,f _$"'� !J _S �� f c 6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No V Yes (If Yes Right-of- way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig ��3�4� IZ 511M4I) before 1-f0U-�d24-555 excavation). 7. Cross other private property: Yes No Y Easement required - attach legal description and county easement number. READ THE FOL.LOWI.NG AND SIGN: a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each installation for one year. C. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6") side sewer line. d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30") to any structure. e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade. of 2% (1.150) and maximum grade of 100% (450). f. No turn in side sewer greater than 450.(1/8,bend) is allowed between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 450 (1/8 bend) and wye with removable cap. g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to side sewer system. h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than.granular soil. i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. 1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working days notice required. DATE: -7, %CS — rJ q �� ti/•�� I certify that I,-h"ave read and shall comply with the above -+ PERMIT FEE`:' 7,D — DISAPPROVED BY: Date: W :r- tr&-i 11r 40",vS- 0" B Date: CONNECTION FEE: APPROVED By: ,f Date • 0 w * PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO- ------------ ------ NEW CONSTRUCTION Ej REPAIRS El LID NO. -2-10 ----- - ASMT. NO. ------------------ OWNER ..... GRETC-tift _j:).Q?At4 ----------- --------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ---- Lu-T--z-'s JOB ADDRESS ----- 74.7 ................ PERMIT NO. 65- 1- ---_---------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. -A ------------------------------- BLOCK NO. -------- ---------------- --_------------- ------------------------ ---- --------------------------------------------------------- ( NAME OF ADDITION ------------- 35 - V%p.1 Rom PICORMSR K 450 66MV) 41co. t 13.5' st!-! SP 2t 6" 44V C, azd C R L a 45'op or to cl, 01 c P'll 16.515 74W taw t CL; 0 JL.2n Cb -90 Uing WQ Er aI&Q -c 9 crc: wal J22% M AL?r,;c R.-- F'R # , 0.0 �19 4 9 A W cl) -Anroved: V.ft/78) DATE 10 92A ...... B .............. STREET FILE CA FILE NO. vl4'5(p Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 1v25- 1 S --7 `1 ' (. v 2. Property Tax Account Number: S/ 3 j o(,,,n U ri 3 - C) j 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): %k Qt r ,-- `t- 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? i r\!E) � _ a V%I\ � 0 ►^� 2 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a / horizontal distance of 66-feet). V Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): ,2 ro a,rn- e `,►�e 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water:Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: C ,-x ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway r` o e floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? L� e Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested •meadow ;shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Rev oiroaroa 890 ]99- City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: ,)1(11rr 1s�She,r�� Name I �' -> I " -7 4 t' P I . l,"'.) Street Address —7 i3- cj City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Signature Phone Date * City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Morris & Sheryl Melong Determination #: CA-94-56 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16515 74th Place West Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-088-03 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XXX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XXX The.above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: During review and inspection of the subject site on April 5, 1994 it was found that the site contains Alderwood-Everett Series Soils, has been identified as one which has Steep and Unstable Slopes on the Critical Areas Map, is considered Geologically Hazardous pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code, and contains a Category 3 stream. Based on these findings, a Critical Areas Study will be required to determine the extent of the Geologically Hazardous Area. There are two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas present (see 20.15B.070.A3): Erosion Hazard Areas, and Steep Slope Hazard Areas. The preliminary report that the Planning Department requires prior to submission of any developent permit application is a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor combined with a soils report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer which delineates the two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas on site. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas occur with Alderwood Soils located on slopes greater than 15%. 2. Any slope over 30% with more than 10-feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-foot buffer is required from both the top and the toe of the slope. i All Critical Areas Studies must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150. The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval. After the Critical Area Study(ies) are complete, and the location and classification of the Critical Areas are mapped, the applicant may move forward with their development plans. Each Geologically Hazardous Area category has a specific level of information which must be submitted before any development may occur in those areas. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas: An Erosion Control Plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. 2. Steep Slope Hazard Areas: Any development which is not identified as an exception pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception (Variance process pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A). If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Name Signature � "iy�'�f'Sa�`^i':�.i�� .Y:-i47ikxr'`: �.1�� 19 y5. �p�� ik'.iOF`.y's . ,vim '1 {. nJ•4%��._ t .' .>-� �%� `*�u,,�'.t"JY1 '��T�� WM. �'�T '9iji ;1."�A'T�F. '.'S'ti t.ilt�i i,lt!)• � ..'1•- � .'.A City of Edmonds RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number. ra.m STREET*FILE C- 4 i` Issue Date: .l 41 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 16515 74 Pl W ( 9418268 ) 18 9p 1B. Type of Work (be specific): Install New Service -9 C. Contractor: Washington Natural Gas Company Mailing Address: 815 Mercer St, Seattle WA State License #: 98111 D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Contact: Frank Swan Phone: 224-2278 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercil ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project E] Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)' ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: ❑ Yes ®No G Size of Cut, n t' -- t' '- H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND'. I4 INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to h' e the City ojEdmonda har —drte(�n&tdep mages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that maybe made a inst the City of Edmonds, a jartments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense co�ta, and attorney jeer by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. ~I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site atg11es for in prtion purposes. ' 1994 Signature: Date: May 19�,, (Contractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: I AJH RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND 11 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: yA��: to G. C-uTsRESTORATION FEE: „i ;'PERMIT FEE: �12 00 COMMENTS:. , TOTAL.YEE: RECEIPT FEE: DATE: ISSUED BY:c.:� Q. NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991 t -1.. FIELD INSPECTION NOTES 1- Comments: Diaaram CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: FINAL APPROVAL BY: (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) ❑ YES ❑ NO Date: Date: .NI,Pt- 1'NG to window in depth _ nk Q, " gas main Addendum to : City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: ;t TCHELL S. •LANKFORD . Engineering Aide . Washington Natural Gas # 1.521=5246 �C:) c Key: -w- water -g- gas -ss- sewer -6- watex hydrant O . watc.'valve 315 1869), Scald WA SS) I 1 (206) 622-'767 STREET FOIE 16515 74th �' October 31, 1979 M E M O F O R R E C O R D The following is a list of calls received during the heavy rains during.November of 1978 and March 1979. Some were only for covered inlets, others for plugged drains and creeks. During the week of October 22 to October 26, 1979 all of these addresses were checked for possible plugged or trouble problems. Nothing was found to cause a problem. These addresses were checked by Leadman Bill Stroud. I�Ii-'1� s G% y Street Foreman OEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC_ ECEC 10928 — 59th Avenue West Mukilteo, Washington 98275-4813 Attention- Saeed Soleimanpour Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance Proposed Serene Creek Subdivision 166XX — 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Soleimanpour: 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 February 3, 2006 ._ n 6� t;ub PEA'! d JN 05231 We prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study for the proposed project dated August 29, 2005. Several comments, discussions, and recommendations regarding the development were included in the report. Slope stability assessments regarding residences on site slopes were one of the main geotechnical engineering considerations in the study. We did not make extensive assessments regarding streets because their layout was not known when our study was prepared. We recently received a plan, SL-01 that was prepared by Site Development Associates and dated October 31, 2005, that shows the proposed layout of streets for the project. We understand that ..Ibe: City of. Edmonds has requested that an assessment of the streets be done. Our assessment is Tbntairied in this letter. There is one main street that will enter the site at its southwestern corner and extend northeasterly through the site. A smaller side street will branch off the main street near the middle of the site. Only relatively small to moderate excavations are needed for the side street, and we believe that it will have very good stability as planned. Some large excavations are planned for the southern portion of the main street. Very little grading is proposed for the northern portion of the main street. The northern portion will be set back about 15 to 50 feet from the top of the steep slope that exists at the northwestern side of the site. The southern portion of the main street is located on the southwestern portion of the site. This portion is only moderately sloped, and we noted in our study that the stability of the slope was suitable because of the moderate inclination. Based on our previous assessment of this moderate, southern slope (as noted in our study), and because an excavation for the southern portion of the main street will be made to lower the grade of the slope, we believe that the proposed location and grading of the southerr portion of main street is very adequate. However, a rockery that will be 2 to 14 feet in height is proposed along the upslope side of the southern portion of the main street. It is our professional opinion that rockeries for this project be limited to 6 feet in height due to soil conditions. Therefore, a retaining structure will need to be constructed along the upslope side of the main street where a vertical wall of 6 feet or more is needed. We can readily provide specific geotechnical engineering parameters for the wall design once final plans for the plat are completed. We performed a stability analysis of the steeper slope on the northwestern side of the site for the preparation of the study. Our analysis indicated that some soil instability could occur on these steeper slopes, with the top of the instability occurring near the top of the steeper slopes. We ECEC February 3, 2006 JN 05231 Page 2 recommended that the residences located on steeper slopes be designed to buttress the slope and provide stability to the structure. Because the proposed main street will be located behind the buttress -designed residences and away from the top of the slope (where our analysis found was the edge of potential instability), it is our professional opinion that the location of the northern portion of the proposed main road is adequate. In summary, both portions of the proposed main street, which combine to comprise the entire main street, are suitable as planned in our professional opinion. The specific pavement design for the streets on the site will be needed once traffic counts for the streets are known. However, we believe that standard asphalt and crushed rock thicknesses will likely be similar to other subdivision streets in the Puget Sound area. The preparation of the subgrade may have to include the importation of pit -run gravel or similar material if the on -site soil is wet during pavement installation. Weather will likely play a significant role in determining the necessity of the gravel. This is a typical pavement subgrade constraint for the Puget Sound area. We trust that this report meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please contact us if we can be of further service. DRW: esn Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. N D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal Z/3�6 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. As )ciated Earth Sciences, 7 _c. Ltd NJ ad Cegm6ny25 Ve ,of SenAce January 31, 2006 Project No. KE05360A Elite Construction Engineering Consortium, Inc. 10928 59`h Avenue West Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Attention: Mr. Saeed Soleimanpour, P.E., M.S.C.E. Subject: Proposed Roadway Serene Creek 16612 74`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Soleimanpour: At your request, we have prepared this letter to comment on geotechnical issues concerning the proposed location and construction of a roadway through the planned Serene Creek subdivision. It is our understanding that a new roadway will connect 76" Avenue West and 74`'' Place West. The roadway will be two lanes along 76`' Avenue West, but will narrow to one lane when it connects to 74`h Place West. We understand that portions of the roadway will have a gradient of up to 12 percent and will generally conform to existing topographic features. Site conditions and the results of the original subsurface exploration are presented in Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) report entitled "Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Serene Creek, 16612 74`h Place West, Edmonds, Washington" dated September 2, 2005. Geotechnical Issues As documented in our report, the site contains steep slopes and is located within a known slide area. The risks associated with the placement of a roadway can, in our opinion, be mitigated by adhering to the recommendations presented below. Cut Slopes Wherever possible, the roadway should be cut into subgrade soils. Due to the presence of steep slopes, loose fill, and previous slide material, the use of fill material to establish grades should be limited. We.reviewed a preliminary site layout plan, provided by Site Development Associates, LLC, dated October 31, 2005, and observed that proposed roadway elevations to the south of Lots 5, 6, and 7 range between 4 and 16 feet below existing site grades, but are generally less than 3 to 4 below existing grades across the remainder of the property. Kiddand Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kiddand, WA 98033 • P (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911 1/2 HewittAvenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201 • P (425) 259-0522 • F (425) 252-3408 www aeseeo.com Roadways cut into subgrade soils to the depths listed above will likely be supported by native, medium dense soils. Loose pavement subgrade soils, if encountered, should be either removed or recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Where fill is required, we recommend that subgrade soils first be keyed and benched per the recommendations in our geotechnical report. Structural fill should then be placed and compacted as per the Structural Fill section of the geotechnical report. Retaining Walls Grading associated with roadway construction will likely result in steep slopes adjacent to the road that requires retaining wall support. Retaining walls for these slopes may be preliminarily designed using the recommendations found in the Lateral Wall Pressures section of the geotechnical report. We recommend that we be allowed to review our recommendations and modify them, if needed, to reflect actual wall design plans when they are available. Pile foundation systems may be required for support of retaining walls where landslide debris mantles the site (generally anticipated on the west side of the road). The piles must extend through the fill/landslide debris and into the bearing soils. The specific need for pile support and the design parameters for this type of wall can be provided by AESI once the road/wall layout is established. Surface Drainage The silts and silty sands forming the landslide debris are relatively impermeable, and water will tend to perch atop/within this stratum. Perched water below pavement sections can, over time, weaken pavement subgrades and cause damage to the pavements. Final road grades should promote free and positive drainage away from pavements at all times. We recommend that a gradient of at least 1 percent be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the roadway. The preliminary site layout plan provided to us indicates that all storm drainage from the roadways and proposed structures are to be tightlined and conveyed to a water quality and detention facility. We understand that the facility will connect to the existing storm drainage system located in 76`' Avenue West. Underground Utilities It is our understanding that underground utilities will be installed under portions of the proposed roadway. Underground utilities may consist of, but are not limited to, power, water, communication, gas, storm, and sanitary sewer lines. Underground utility trenches should be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations found in the Structural Fill section of the geotechnical report and with applicable City of Edmonds roadway/utility standards. Structural backflll is defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1557 as the standard. Kirk6nd Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • ", WA 98033 • P (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911 1 /2 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201 • P (425) 259-0522 • F (425) 252-3408 WlV W.ae1W VO.rnM Drainage of the pipe zone bedding material may be required if significant ground water seepage is encountered in the utility trench(es). Utility drainage would generally consist of backfilling the trench with free -draining aggregate and providing a continuous perforated collection pipe at the trench base. The perforated pipe would connect to the storm system at the lower end of the roadway. Additional details of the utility drain can be provided by AESI as the road and utility plans are developed. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills and utility backfill should be limited to favorable dry weather and optimum subgrade moisture conditions. The on -site soils generally contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture -sensitive. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. Pavement Design The proposed roadway may be designed using the recommendations found in the geotechnical report and guidelines presented in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993. Alternatively, applicable City of Edmonds standard road sections may be used. Closure If you have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENTCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer BL.B/Id - KE05360A5 - Projects\2005036MEMP Kiddand Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • K"d, WA 98033 • P ( (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911 1/2 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201 • P (425) 259-0522 • F(425) 252-3408 www.aesmo.com • ?/CJf�/ /•✓ �lC 6 �' ��l c l�-d s � d t G �/�U. v/t,�•� —o.� .rho �-�G�cerG�/2C� /vD (�% (/L'/vorwf O-✓fY�r/S�o/� G1/,A'y�1.r �o� aer/G.r .l /9/9ww 2% Anoy, Nwr/off SOX /,qSIiC/t',✓G(1 G — % G o o //p M 1-,Pi4vd jw vlote a �f�ftd A^�(�C/L orc0�✓• SG,� 1I,QG ��C /�'Ir.�GG✓l��Ca/ CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: 2!Lzf TwtA+rttt (10Z Ott/ )) Meg Gruwell Senior Planner Date: APRIL 25, 2006 File: AP-06-35 SERENE CREEK SEPA APPEAL Hearing Date, Time, And Place: May 4, At 3:00 P.M. Council Chambers Edmonds Public Safety Building 250 — 5th Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...:...........................................................................................................2 A. Appellant/Appeal Information...................................................................................................2 B. Recommendations......................................................................................................................2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................2 A. History ........................................................................................................................................2 B. Appeal Issues..............................................................................................................................3 III. APPEALS AND RECONSIDERATION............................................................................ 7 ........................ A. Request for Reconsideration........................................................................... ...7 B. Appeals......................................................................................................................................7 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals..........................................................................7 IV. ATTACHMENTS .... :.......................................................................................................... 8 V. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................8 AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 2 of 8 I. INTRODUCTION A. Appellant/Appeal Information I. Appellant: Carolyn A. Lake of Goodstein Law Group, PLLC, for Saeed Soleimanpour of ECEC, Inc. (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 16515 — 74th Place W. and the two acre lot to the west of it across 741h Place W., which fronts on both 741h Place W. and 761h Avenue W. (see Attachment 1). 3. Request: Appeal of staff determination to issue a Determination of Significance (DS) for the proposed Serene Creek project, which includes a contract rezone to change the existing zoning from Single-family Residential RS-20 to RS-12, together with a Planned Residential Development to develop a 2.84 acre site with nine lots (file numbers R-05-169 and PRD-05-168). The proposal also includes constructing a public through road from the terminus of 74th Place W. to 76th Avenue W., two private access roads, 4,000 cubic yards of grading, street vacation and a formal subdivision (see Attachment 2). 4. Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 21.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.91, Public Hearings and Notice. c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105, Appeals and Court Review. B. Recommendations Based on the statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff recommends DENIAL of the appeal, upholding the issuance of a Determination of Significance for the proposed nine -lot Serene Creek project. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. History 1. Chronology a. Facts: (1) On December 12, 2005, Saeed Soleimanpour, as agent for ECEC, Inc., filed an application for a contract rezone (file R-05-169) and a Planned Residential Development (PRD) (file PRD-05-168) for the proposed Serene Creek project. (2) On January 9, 2006, Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner with the City of Edmonds, sent a letter to Mr. Soleimanpour stating the items needed to complete the application. (3) On January 11, 2006, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting as required by ECDC 20.35.080.A.2 at the Meadowdale Clubhouse and was given several concerns from the neighbors. AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 3 of 8 (4) A letter stating that the application was complete was sent out on March 15, 2006. No hearing dates were set since the letter explained that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would need to be done to address the increased density on the site. (5) On March 16, 2006, the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and request for comments on the scope of the EIS (see Attachment 3). This review was done pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The deadline given to appeal was March 30, 2006. (6) The City has received several letters of comment (see Attachment 6) on the DS, including from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Douglas Grier, the Brookacres Homeowners Association, Janice Conner, Larry Quisenberry, and Robert McCoy. Earlier letters of comment on the project were received from Douglas Grier, Marge Plecki and Michael King. Laurey Tobiason filed a letter on behalf of the applicant after the DS was issued. (7) On March 30, 2006, the applicant delivered a written appeal, together with the fee and adjacent property list, to the Planning Division (see Attachment 2). b. Conclusion: (1) The appeal of the Determination of Significance was a timely appeal. B. Appeal Issues 1. Issues raised by the Appellant: a. Summary of Statements by the Appellant: (See Attachment 2) (1) The appellant wants the city to do peer review instead of an EIS, or would like a reduced scope EIS. (2) The appellant seeks to have the DS withdrawn and a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued. (3) As part of the appeal letter, the appellant has described the project and its location and surroundings. Further, they address how the project in their view provides public benefit, and how they believe it is consistent with the state Growth Management Act the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the City development regulations. (4) In subsection D of the letter, the appellant states why they believe the DS is in error, including that the applicant has proposed measures to ensure the protection of the Earth (slopes), Water, Plants and Animals (critical areas and open space) and Transportation. They believe since the City issued a DS that they did not consider relevant environmental factors before reaching its decision. They believe that the City's decision was clearly erroneous given the applicant's offered mitigation conditions and SEPA's requirements to focus EIS only on actual impacts which have a significant environmental impact. Further, they believe that since their offered mitigation conditions comply with the City's regulations, plans and codes, the requirement for an EIS is an error. They mention that a decision could be "arbitrary or capricious" even if not clearly erroneous, and without support, they state that the City's DS decision is arbitrary and capricious. AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 4 of 8 2. City Attorney Comments: a. Fact: (1) The City Attorney's office has provided a legal brief (see Attachment 5) addressing the above legal points. 3. Planning Division Comments: a. Facts: (1) The site is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20) and is in the Comprehensive Plan as "Single Family — Resource." (2) The Comprehensive Plan states that the three zones which are compatible with "Single Family — Resource" are RSW-12 and RS-12, both of which require a minimum of 12,000 square feet per lot, and RS-20, which requires 20,000 square feet per lot. (3) As seen in Attachment 3, the City is planning for a reduced scope EIS, to address only those issues felt to be pertinent. (4) The City has discussed with the Mr. Soleimanpour that we feel our regulations and codes would provide adequate environmental protection to address a subdivision or PRD on this site, provided that it was developed in accordance with the existing zoning. (5) This site is in an area known as Meadowdale. In February 1979 the Edmonds City Council passed Resolution No. 428, which was a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds (see Attachment 4). This area was described as located generally north of 1681h Street SW. The reasons given were because of the high potential for landslides due to steep slopes, sand and clay soil formations and the quantities of ground water percolating through the soils due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, among others. (6) Subsequent to the moratorium, the City hired Roger Lowe Associates Inc. to study the Meadowdale area, and they wrote the report entitled "Final Report Landslide Hazards Investigation Meadowdale Area," which was published in October 1979. , That report documents the many landslides in the Meadowdale area and the geology and hydrology that led to them. (7) According to the Lowe report, the subject parcels are mapped as having hazards from ground failure in material that has not previously failed, with the type of failure anticipated being debris slides, with a 2 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. (8) In 1984, the city passed Ordinance 2445, which lifted the moratorium. This ordinance notes that the city had addressed the hazards to the extent possible through public works designed to reduce ground water levels by the improvement of public storm and sanitary sewerage. It required that applicants for subdivisions or planned residential developments provide a covenant stating that the applicant will inform those they sell or pass the land to of the risks associated with the area, and a statement waiving the right of the owner to assert any claim against the City by reason of or arising out of issuance of a permit or other development approval by. the City for their property. AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 5 of 8 (9) Despite the efforts to dewater the hillside through the public improvements, landslides have continued to occur in the Meadowdale area. (IO)Landslides have been reported in the last ten years to the north at Lorian Woods, just south of North Meadowdale Road on 73rd Place W; at the far north end of 751h Place W., just before the County Park; and west of 16202 - 72"d Avenue W. (I 1)A landslide was reported by the adjacent property by Mr. Grier at 16431 — 74`h Place W on February 7, 2006, that covered the city's basin #25. In an e-mail to Dr. Grier, Noel Miller, Public Works Director, states that the slide occurred within Mr. Fong's property, which is at 7406 -164`h Place SW, or adjoining private property. (12)Dr. Grier's property to the north has been the site of several landslides, which are outlined in a report by Vince McClure, dated February 20; 1987. These include slides in 1984 and 1985 which occur near the time that a sewer line is discovered to be broken, is bypassed, and the bypass fails. (13)Mr. Soleimanpour has been concerned enough about the ability of this site to support his project that he has hired two geotechnical consultant firms to review the site. (14)On page 4 of the Geotech Consultants Inc. report submitted by the applicant, it states "Based on conversations with the other project consultants, we have decided that it is best not to construct any residences on the very steep northwestern slope. Residences will only be constructed where the slope inclination is 40 percent or less, which is on the western side of the site." (15)The city measures slope for purposes of determining Landslide Hazard areas as defined in ECDC 23.80.020.13, which delineates the slope by establishing its toe and top and averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief or 25 feet of horizontal distance. (16)Using the above method for measuring slope, the slope of proposed lot 8 (which extends down to the 76`11 Avenue W. right-of-way) is a 46-foot drop for a 65- percent slope. (17)The slope on proposed lot 9, which also extends down to the 761h Avenue right- of-way, is a 40-foot drop and a 46-percent slope. (18)When the appellant has discussed which lots would be eliminated if the zone were not changed, lots 8 and 9 have consistently been the lots that would be dropped from the main parcel. The lot at 16515 — 74th Place W. would only have one house on it and not two. (19)The two geotechnical reports submitted by the applicant had field work done in June, July or August 2005. Neither noted substantial groundwater. (20)The City Engineering Division has requested the applicant to loop 74t11 Place W. to meet 76th Avenue W. to provide better access. (21)Neighbors have expressed concerns that additional traffic would be added to 74`h Place W. if the road was looped. (22)The Jay Group was hired by the applicant to study the creek that runs through the site. They determined that is a perennial stream that does not support fish (Stream type Np) and requires a 50-foot buffer. AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 6 of 8 (23)The applicant is proposing a "top of ridge" edge to the buffer that is in places less than the required 50-foot buffer. (24)The current proposal takes access from 76't' Avenue W., and has homes within 25 feet of the right-of-way of 761h Avenue W. on proposed lots 8 and 9. To strengthen that slope, the applicant is proposing to remove the soils along 76`h Avenue W. that are not stable soils and replace them with retaining walls and structural fill. The vegetation along 761h Avenue W. would be removed if this occurs. b. Conclusions: (1) The site is in an area of known geological instability. The site has steep slopes that qualify as landslide hazard areas. The site has a stream and though the geotechnical reports did not find much groundwater on the site, the site exploration was done during the drier summer months. (2) if the rezone were to be approved, the additional two building lots that the RS-12 zone would allow in the larger parcel would be placed on the relatively steep western slope. The city conservatively believes that allowing additional density will result in more marginal land being developed and will increase the chance of homes being damaged. (3) Allowing these additional homes to be added and potentially put in harm's way is a significant adverse environmental impact. (4) The City has discussed with the Mr. Soleimanpour that we feel our regulations and codes would be adequate to address a subdivision or PRD on this site that complied with the existing zoning. It is the environmental impacts of the proposal to add increased density that have not yet been evaluated adequately. (5) The site is currently in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, since the RS- 20 zone is compatible with the "Single Family — Resource" designation. (6) When determining which properties to approve for rezones, physical suitability of the site is one of the factors the City Council must review. Staff would like to have adequate information for them to base their decision on, and would like that information not to have the appearance of bias. (7) Likewise, staff would like to have a review of the proposed looping of the road by a transportation expert to determine the advantages and disadvantages of that proposal. (8) Thirdly, staff would like a qualified consultant to review the proposed stream buffer proposal, to determine if the ridgeline is an adequate buffer. Also, in evaluating habitat and soils, staff would like to consider the proposal to strip the hillside along 76`h Avenue W. and replace it with structural fill and retaining walls. Although it is being touted as a benefit in stabilizing the slope, it also has an environmental cost in removing existing vegetation that likely provides habitat to wildlife. (9) With no rezone, staff would concur with the appellants that current City regulations would adequately address the environmental impacts and allow them to be mitigated so that a mitigated determination of nonsignificance would be a correct determination. Adding three additional lots requires less developable land to be used and potentially increases the likelihood that catastrophic damages would be incurred due to landslides. The solutions proposed to mitigate these AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 7 of 8 hazards may cause environmental impacts in themselves. Staff therefore finds that the proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This is not to rule out that further studies might conclude that the project can be approved with mitigation measures, but only to state that those studies are needed if a rezone is proposed. IIL. APPEALS AND RECONSIDERATION The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information and fee information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals The decision of the hearing examiner on appeals of staff decisions that do not involve project permit applications shall be appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC 20.105.040. Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report Saeed Soeimanpour / ECEC Inc. AP-06-35 Page 8 of 8 IV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning and Vicinity Map 2. Letter of Appeal submitted by Carolyn A. Lake of Goodstein Law Group, PLLC, dated March 30, 2006 3. Determination of Significance and request for comments on the scope of the EIS, issued March 16, 2006 4. City of Edmonds Resolution No. 428 5. Memorandum of Law, prepared by W. Scott Snyder and Bio F. Park 6. Comment Letters received from: Douglas Grier, dated February 4, 2006, and April 3, 2006 Michael King and Margaret Plecki, dated March 1, 2006, and March 28, 2006 Brookacres Homeowners Association, dated April 3, 2006 Larry Quisenberry, received April 6, 2006 Janice Conner, dated April 6, 2006 Ginger Holser of State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, dated March 20, 2006 Robert McCoy (e-mail), dated April 20, 2006 Laurey Tobiason, dated March 17, 2006 V. PARTIES OF RECORD Carolyn Lake Saeed Soleimanpour Edmonds Planning Division Goodstein Law Group LLC ECEC Inc. 1001 Pacific Ave., Suite 400 10928 - 59d' Ave. W. Edmonds Building Division Tacoma, WA 98402 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Robert & Edeltraud Suchert Laurey Tobiason Douglas Grier 540 — 12`h Ave. N. Tobiason & Co., Inc. 16431 — 74`h Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 506 NE 73rd St., Suite I Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98115 Brookacres Homeowners Assoc. Michael King & Margaret Plecki Larry Quisenbeiry 16711 — 76`h Ave. W. 16621 — 76`h Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Janice Conner Ginger Holser Robert McCoy 16525 — 74`h Place W. WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife 16510 — 76'h Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Edmonds, WA 98026 Mill Creek, WA 98012 AP-06-35.doc / April 27, 2006 / Staff Report a O:S ,l'�. N v s� . A. A.� = . RS-20L. Zoning Vicinity Map RS-20 RS-6 RM-3 M BP ® CG2 \\ RS-12::] RSW-12 RM-2.4 10 BN CW MU RS-10 1' RS-MP RM-1.5 W BC � MP P RS-8 CG ® MP2 :{ OS 164Tf .wre pair `t�e;l to west 16�4T RS-20 . N Of E1) A .ti Rezones PRD lac. 199" ATTACHMENT 1 File No. AP-2006-35 ATLOG-35 GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP 1001 Pacific Ave, Ste 400 Tacoma, WA 98402 Fax: (253) 7794411 Tel- (253) 7794000 Hand Delivered Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North - 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 March 30, 2006 Carolyn A Lake Attorney at Law cla��,gondueinluw com MAR 3 p D DEyE[Opm ft6 C!ry 0 R�� S CTR Re: SEPA Appeal - Determination of Significance (DS) for Serene Creek PRD Dear Mr. Examiner: On behalf of our client ECEC, Inc.& Saeed Soleimanpour, we appeal the 16 March 2006 Decision by the City of Edmonds SEPA Responsible Official to issue a Determination of Significance (DS) for the request by ECEC, Inc.; Attention: Saeed Soleimanpour, for the approval of the Serene Creek Planned Residential Development (PRD), along with the proposed Contract Rezone for rezoning from large lot RS-20 to large lot RS-12; Planned Residential Development; Formal Subdivision; Street Vacation of a very small section of the 74`s Place West dead end; and Official Street Map Amendment (cumulatively, "DS"). Parallel to this appeal, and just as important, we also seek dialogue with the City of Edmonds Planning Department. Our goals are two fold. 1. Peer review. First, we seek to explore whether the City and project applicant can reach agreement on a peer review process in lieu of an EIS. We believe that this process fully meetsSEPA's goal of protecting against significant adverse environmental impacts, especially given the Project Applicant's agreement to provide significant proposed environmental mitigation conditions as part of the site's design. The mitigating conditions were previously provided to the City in the form of terms of the project's proposed concomitant Zoning Agreement, and are attached to this appeal for ease of reference. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold determination process. An EIS is required for proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The lead agency decides whether an EIS is required in the threshold determination process, as described below. (1) In making a threshold determination, the responsible official shall: (c) Consider mitigation measures which an agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal, including any mitigation measures required by development regulations, comprehensive plans, or other existing environmental rules or laws. 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc ATTACHMENT 2 File No. AP-2006-35 kobert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 2 - 2. Reduced EIS Scope. Second, to avoid pursuing this appeal, we seek agreement for a reduced EIS scoping which better meets the intent of the EIS process as defined by WAC 197-11-408, "Scoping." (1) The lead agency shall narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures. For example, if there are only two or three significant impacts or alternatives, the EIS shall be focused on those." (2) To ensure that every EIS is concise and addresses the significant environmental issues, the lead agency shall: (c) Eliminate from detailed study those impacts that are not significant See: WAC 197-11408, "Scoping." Emphasis added. We will contact City Planning Staff to explore these appeal alteratives shortly. In the meantime, this appeal is filed to pursue our available remedies in the event agreement can not be reached on these alternatives. This appeal is timely filed pursuant to EMC 20.15A.240 and EMC 20.105.010.5, and the requisite $230.00 filing fee is provided. A. CONTENTS OF APPEAL Pursuant to EMC 20.105.020.A, we provide the following information. 1. The decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision. We appeal the DS issued by the City of Edminds and described above for the Project known as Serene Creek PRD, for which ECEC, Inc.; Attention: Saeed Soleimanpour, is the project applicant, with issue date of March 16, 2006. 2. The name and address of the person appealing, and his or her interest in the matter. Appellant is ECEC, Inc.; Attention: Saeed Soleimanpour, who is the project applicant. The Appellant's representative is: Carolyn Lake Goodstein Law Group PLLC 1001 Pacific Avenue Suite 400 Tacoma WA 98402 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 3 - 3. The reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal grounds are noted in Section B, C and D below. 4. Persons to be notified under EMC 20.105.020.B, including correct names and addresses. EMC 20.105.020.13 provides, "If no public hearing has been held earlier, the person appealing shall also provide a list of property owners as specified in ECDC 20.95.010 and whom must be notified by the community services department." It is our understanding that a public hearing was held on this matter on or about January 11, 2006, in which case the requisite list of property owners to be notified has been previously provided and is on file with the City. Nonetheless, we provide the attached list of the names and mailing addresses, as shown on the records of the county assessor, of the owner of property and the street addresses of the property which is within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project site. S. The specific nature and intent of the relief sought: We seek remand to the City of Edmonds SEPA Responsible Official for withdraw of the DS, and issuance of a MDNS consistent with the comments provided herein. B. GENERAL BASIS FOR APPEAL In its DS, the City's Responsible Official determined that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required pursuant to RCW 43.21.030(2xc). This decision is error, and the appeal should be granted. In addition, the lead agency had identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: EARTH - geology, soils, topography, unique physical features, erosion; WATER — Surface water movement/quantity, runoff/absorption, ground water movement/quantity/quality; PLANTS AND ANIMALS — habitat for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife; TRANSPORTATION — transportation systems, vehicular traffic, and traffic hazards As part of this appeal, we also dispute the Responsible Officials' scoping. This decision also is error, and the appeal should be granted. C. PROJECT LOCATION & OVERVIEW Understanding the context of the proposed project and its substantial proposed mitigation is essential to an accurate analysis of its environmental impacts, and supports the granting of this appeal. Therefore we briefly review the location of the proposed project, and describe our client's 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc va/.W/VO inu i4:Jo i'M L'JJ tfiv%gix wvu_.. - __e ti--- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 4 - proposed environmental mitigation measures in detail before we finther discuss the basis for this appeal. Project Location The project address is 16515 74`h Place West, and in addition includes the two acre lot to the west across 74ih Place West which fronts onto both 74'h Place West and 7e Avenue West in the City of Edmonds. The total area of each parcel is approximately 23,764 and 100,077 square feet respectively. The Serene Creek PRD site is a small isolated area located at the southern boundary of the City of Edmonds designated "Critical Landslide Area." The adjacent streets of 76'h Avenue West, 75 Place West and 74'h Place West, lot pattern, about 30 feet elevation difference of the site relative to the lower 70 Avenue West street, natural landmarks such as stream and the existing sloped contours and vegetation on the southeast open green space, which will remain intact, and define the natural boundaries of the Serene Creek PRD. Surrounding Neighborhood The immediate neighborhood consists of a mixture of large lot RS-20 and large lot RS-12 at present. More specifically, the western adjoining PRD which is a gated community, and is located across the street from the Serene Creek PRD on the west side of 76`h Avenue West; and the bluff properties to the north, along and on the west side of 75'h Place West; and a development two parcels over to the northeast and east of 16515 74`h Place West and many more developments in the area are zoned RS-12 shown on the Zoning Map. Some of these rezoning have been approved very recently. Zoning The Serene Creek PRD site is within the Single Family- Resource on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan map. Serene Creek PRD site is within a Single -Family Residential Large Lot RS-20 zone, next to an existing Contract Rezoned Planned Residential Development which is within a Single -Family Residential Large Lot RS-12 zone. Both Serene Creek PRD site and the existing gated community, which is also based on a "Contract Rezone" planned residential development (PRD) are on a "Critical Landslide Area" map. Historically the RS-20 zone designation was used as a way of controlling development in steep slope areas of the City of Edmonds and hence to reduce hazards of such building activities. With the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) chapter regulating Building Permits in Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, the City has new means of controlling development on steep or critical areas applicable to all zonings, while ensuring that the buildings are built securely enough to stay on the slope if the earth should slide. Therefore, Single -Family Residential Large Lot RS-20 can be rezoned to Single -Family Residential Large Lot RS-12, as long as the development meets all other safety criteria. 060330 SEPA appeal hr CityEdmonds.doc V01 JV/ VV 111U 1Y.J.7 �'I1A LVV • V��aa vvv��.. �.au w•• v v l- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 5 - Slopes The Project proponent has proposed significant environmental measures to ensure the protection of the site's slopes, which measures exceed the City's regulatory requirements. Given these offered mitigation conditions, no EIS should be required. Two prominent local geotechnical engineering consultants have been hired to ensure proper project environmental conditions are included to address the site's slope safety: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI); and "GEOTECH Consultants, Inc.". The two independent geotechnical engineering reports both indicate positive approval for a well engineered residential construction on this PRD site. The Project applicant proposes that the most conservative combined design parameters and recommendations of these two geotechnical engineering consultants will be followed jointly and meticulously to control the rain; stream and underground water; as well as reducing the surcharge load on the hills by shaving off and exporting the top few feet layers of soil. These measure will also serve the purpose of minimizing the slope of the new public access road, "Serene Creek Way". The engineered control and conveyance of surface and underground water, reduction of the soil surcharge loads; along with the construction of new retaining walls, construction of the homes on deep concrete and steel piling system (approximately 45 feet deep in order to lock into the good stable sub -soil) will further enhance the existing factor of safety of the slope stability in the event of an earthquake of high magnitude or any other unforeseen natural event. Furthermore, two elite civil engineering firms, "Cross Sound Engineering" and "Site Development Associates, LLC" have been hired to perform the site development phase of this PRD with the primary objectives of minimizing the environmental impact by allocating over 42% (forty percent) of the total area to open green space, minimizing the impervious road surface, minimizing the road gradients for an easier future use by the emergency vehicles and local residents and an efficient control of the rain and runoff water as well as the underground water collected by the footing drains. Crltkal Areas / Open Space The Project proponent has also proposed significant environmental measures to ensure the protection of critical areas and which exceed the City's regulatory requirements. Given these offered mitigation conditions, no EIS should be required. Watercourse. A very small water course, which is no more than two inches deep and a maximum of one foot wide, flows across the southern portion of 16515 74a' Place West and the southeastern comer of the two acre parcel. The water course is apparently fed by the ground seepage of the surrounding land and generally runs year round although it trickles very little in the dry times. It is non -fish bearing and has been classified as class 11 by wetland biologists at The Jay Group in 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc uaiaviuo--- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 6 - Marysville, Washington. This classification requires a 50 feet setback according to the most recent regulations adopted by the City of Edmonds. Open Space, Approximately 52,000 (fifty two thousand) square feet of the total of 123,841 (one hundred and twenty three thousand and eight hundred and forty one) square feet of the PRD area have been dedicated to common native growth land to preserve the creek and nature as well as providing and preserving a serene natural old growth buffer zone with the neighbors to the, south, east and west. The Jay Group which specializes in wetland biology and landscape architecture will perform the landscaping design, plant selection, the native growth and stream restoration with the primary objective of enhancing the existing overall site condition. Transportation The Project proponent has also proposed significant environmental measures to enhance the area's vehicular and pedestrian safety, and which exceed the City's regulatory requirements. Given these offered mitigation conditions, no EIS should be required. The Serene Creek PRD will enhance traffic and pedestrian safety in the immediate neighborhood. The Project will provide well needed linkage of the 74m Place West which currently is a dead end, under -maintained and hazardous narrow (one lane) public road to the 76th Avenue West which is a two lane main public road The elimination of the dead end will contribute to the saving of lives in the times of emergency by facilitating the traffic for ambulance, police and fire trucks as well as reducing the driving risks for the neighbors, particularly in bad freezing weather conditions. Public Benefits The Project satisfies the criteria of ECDC Sec. 160. 1 0.000.0 and Sec. 16.10.000.1) to provide public gain. These include: 1. The new road (Serene Creek Way), that is a part of the proposed Serene Creek PRD, will link the 764' Avenue West to the 74m Place West and eliminate the 74th Place West dead end, which first and foremost improves the emergency traffic flow and all other vehicular traffic safety, and will enhance the quality of the existing public road system. 2. The construction of the water main loop, that is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will provide continuity between the water mains on the 74a' Place West and 76* Avenue West, respectively. This loop will provide more flexibility for the Water Department repair crews to maintain water service to most of the neighborhood during major repairs in the immediate area of these two roadways. 3. The installation of street lights along Serene Creek Way, which is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will improve public safety in the immediate area. 4. The construction of new retaining walls and sidewalks along the 761s Avenue West, that is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will improve the public roadway and public safety by increasing 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc Val JV/ too LAM lu. Vv ■•tin -.-- ------- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 7 - the sight distance and enabling the pedestrians to keep off the road. However, it must be noted that it seems to be safer if the City of Edmonds would allow the sidewalk to be installed on the west side of the 76'b Avenue West. 5. The construction of the Serene Creek PRD will ultimately further stabilize the slopes on the east side of the 761' Avenue West at no cost to the City of Edmonds. 6. The approval and completion of the Serene Creek PRD will save that portion of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) funds of the City of Edmonds that would have ordinarily been spent for improvement projects, including: develop sidewalks, install street lights, install retaining walls along the east side of 76`h Avenue West and construct the "Serene Creek Way" as a public road; 7. improved neighborhood property value and security. 8.Increased property tax base. Project's Consistency with State GMA The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan support infill development to accommodate the forecasted population growth. 'There is a high demand for residential lots in the City of Edmonds. Therefore, throughout the City of Edmonds there has been pressure to infill areas that are underdeveloped as raw land becomes scarcer. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires 4 dwelling units per acre as the minimum urban residential density in urban areas such as Edmonds; any less than 4 units constitutes sprawl. All land within the urban area must be designated at appropriate urban densities. Any new residential land use pattern within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited. Even at Land Use of Single - Family Residential Large Lot RS-12 zoning, the Density of 3.7 dwellings per acre is less than the minimum GMA requirement of 4 dwelling units per acre. Large Lot RS-20 zoning would allow only 2 dwelling units per acre which is half of the minimum GMA requirement of 4 dwelling units per acre. The Serene Creek PRD includes 9 dwelling units on a total area of 2.845 acres, which results in 3.2 dwellings per acre, hence (9/2.845= 3.2 dwellings per acre). A total of 11.4 dwelling units may be stipulated by the minimum GMA requirement based on the following calculation: (123,841/ 43,560= 2.845 Acres; 2.845x 41dwelling units per acre per GMA] = 11.4). As the Best Available Science Report and updated critical areas regulations indicate, the intent of the City of Edmonds is to take a conservative approach to protecting critical areas. The goal is to obtain enhanced protection of resources within the city, while recognizing infill development must continue to occur. Relatively large buffers are proposed, but these are balanced by the ability of existing developed areas to continue infill activity in exchange for enhancing critical areas buffers, which is the cardinal theme of the Serene Creek PRD design. 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc UJ/JV/VV Inu L'J: V1 rnnv--- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 8 - Project's Consistency with Edmond Comprehensive Plan The proposed Serene Creek PRD is entirely consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan of March 2005. Growth Management sections (A. General) and (B. Goal): 1. Maintain the character of the community while strategically planning for a positive change in this specific area, per section (A). 2. Blend in with the adjacent and neighboring RS-12 zoning hence, not creating an island of a different zoning character, per section (A). 3. Provide and/or exceed the highly sought after residential types and architectural designs, per section (A). 4. Encourage the maximum of citizen participation in the neighborhood meeting which will be monitored by City Officials to incorporate all comments and receive all points of view, per section (B.1). 5. Provide ample Open Green Space, per section (B.2). 6. Increase the residential property tax base which is a long term income for the City of Edmonds and the Snohomish County, per section (B.3). 7. Provide Light (including direct sunlight), per section (B.4a); Privacy, per section (B.4.b); Views, Open Spaces and other natural features, per section (B.4.c); and Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution, per section (B.4.d); and ECDC Sec. 16.10.000.B (Purposes). 8. Promote as much as possible a balanced mixture of income and age groups, per the criteria's of sections (B.5); and ECDC Sec. 16.10.000 A (Purposes). 9. Contribute to the City of Edmonds cooperation with surrounding communities for ensuring that the regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policy, per section (B.6); ECDC Sec. 16.10.000.A (Purposes). State Goals: 1. Encourage development in the urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist and can be implemented and enhanced efficiently per section (A. Urban Growth). 2. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development per section (B. Reduce Sprawl). 3. Encourage efficient traffic flow by providing the linkage between the dead end 74`s Place West and the 76"' Avenue West per section (C. Transportation). 4. Encourage availability and preservation of existing housing stock per section (D. Housing). 5. Encourage economic development, opportunity, all within the capacities of the existing public services, and public facilities per section (E. Economic development). 6. Landowners of the Serene Creek PRD will dedicate and develop a portion of their private land as a public road (called: "Serene Creek Way"), which will not only provide an easier access to the houses in the area, but also it will link the dead end 74`h Place West to the main road 76`h Avenue West and provide a bypass to the narrow one lane and steep 74th 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doe Vai aoi vo inu iu: vi rr%n LJJ / . -AA �+vvuo. _� �^�^ �• v t Ip Robert Cbave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 9 - Place West in the freezing and emergency times; in exchange for the City of Edmonds vacating the most Northern portion of the 70 Place West dead end (without any monetary exchange between the City of Edmonds and the adjacent landowners and/or Serene Creek PRD), to the adjacent neighbors. This proposed vacated portion lies outside the new and improved public road and right of way, and of course after the installation of proper "road curve" signs, warns public from driving into the side yard of the most northern lot in the Serene Creek PRD and the private driveway of the house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Grier, at 1643170 Place West, located at the end of the existing dead end, per section (F. Property Rights). 7. Saeed Soleimanpour and ECEC, Inc. trust that every effort will be made by the officials of the City of Edmonds to minimize the length of time required to process this Land Use Application, and make the dream of "Serene Creek PRD" a predictable reality and allow the undersigned applicant to plan construction in the early spring months of 2006, per section (G. Permits). 8. Discourage the incompatible use of this land, per section (H). 9. Encourage the retention of more than 42% Of the entire Serene Creek PRD area for open green space and recreation of the residents by increasing access to the creek and providing a park like atmosphere by cleaning up and maintaining the creek and its' surroundings within the PRD, per section (I. Open Space and Recreation). 10. Protect the environment by cleaning up the land and improving the water quality by restoring the stream to its' natural condition and maintaining the required SO feet buffer zone around the stream, per section (J. Environment). 11. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process by unveiling and introducing the Serene Creek PRD at the neighborhood meeting. The neighbors within the 300 feet radius of Serene Creek PRD will be notified by the City of Edmonds officials. The comments of the neighbors along with the comments of the City of Edmonds officials will be incorporated in the design to the extent possible, in an attempt to create a win -win situation for all parties involved, per section (K. Citizen Participation). 12. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development of Serene Creek PRD shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards, per section (L. Public facilities and services). In fact, the development of Serene Creek PRD will enhance and improve the existing public facilities and services in the following ways: A. The linkage of the dead end 74a' Place West to the 70h Avenue West by construction of the public road (Serene Creek Way), that is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will enhance the traffic flow and the quality and safety of the existing public road system. B. The construction of the water main loop, that is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will provide continuity between the water mains on the 70 Place West and 76`h Avenue West, respectively. This loop will provide more flexibility for the Water Department repair crews to maintain water service to most of the neighborhood during major repairs in the immediate area on these two roadways. C. The installation of street lights along Serene Creek Way, which is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will improve public safety in the immediate area. 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc UJ/JU/Ud '1'nU la:UL rAA Cod 8/04411 wwaoctu .,on v.vur Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page -10- D. The construction of new retaining walls and sidewalks along the 7e Avenue West, that is a part of the Serene Creek PRD, will improve the public roadway and public safety by increasing the sight distance and enabling the pedestrians to keep off the road. However, it must be noted that it seems to be safer if the City of Edmonds would allow the sidewalk to be installed on the west side of the 7e Avenue West. E. The construction of the Serene Creek PRD will ultimately further stabilize the slopes on the east side of the 76s' Avenue West at no cost to the City of Edmonds. Regional Goats: 1. Maintain more than 42% of the total Serene Creek PRD area as open green space, per section (A). 2. Provide sidewalk which in its' own accord will provide an effective, no cost form of mobility. It is also a long term investment for the neighborhood, since the sidewalk could accommodate a safe city transit or school bus stop in the future and keep the pedestrians off the roads as well, per section (B). 3. Create major short term and minor long term economic opportunities by providing construction and maintenance jobs, while contributing to the urban growth management by optimizing the population density, per section (C). 4. Conserve the environment by devoting over 42% of the total Serene Creek PRD area to open green space, cleaning up and protecting the natural stream by maintaining the required 50 feet buffer zone, per section (D). 5. Avoid concentrating development by allowing one less lot in the Serene Creek PRD, and devoting that extra lot to common open green space, per section (E). 6. Contribute to the Puget Sound region and specifically countywide urban growth management efforts by providing eight additional home sites and hence, preventing sprawling. The Serene Creek PRD will attract potential new residents of the State of Washington, Snohomish County and the existing residents of the neighboring cities and counties who are looking for a better place to live, per section (F). Project's Consistency with City Development Regulations. Per ECDC Section 20.40.010, the Serene Creek project is consistent with the City's development Regulations and criteria for rezone. The Project is consistent with: 1. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan revised in March 2005. 2. Zoning Ordinance of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). 3. Surrounding Area. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the existing zoning of the surrounding and nearby properties. The Serene Creek PRD will harmonize with and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire' to retain. 4. Changes in the character of the immediate and surrounding area which justifies the rezone. 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc u3/3u/ub i'nu la:ua rnA Loa rra4y11 v Wuo-. - v.vur Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page- 11 - 5. Suitability._ The length of time that the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and adjoining neighboring parcels with the same recently approved rezone from Large Lot RS-20 to Large Lot RS-12. 6. Value. The relative gain to the public safety and welfare as well as increase in property value to the surrounding property owners and increase in tax base for the city and county from the tune new houses. The Serene Creek PRD also is consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code, (ECDC); Sections: [16.10.000; 1620.000;16.20.010;16.20.020; 1620.0501; [17.80,000; 17.80.010; 17.80.0301;119.40.000; 19.40.005; 19.40.010; 19.45.000; 19.45.0051; [20.35.090; 20.40.000; 20.40.010; 20.40.020; 20.40.030; 20.60; 20.65; 20.70; 20.75.035; 20.75.040; 20.75.050; 20.75.060; 20.75.065; 20.75.070; 20.75.080; 20.75.110; 20.75.120; 20.75.130, 20.75.1401;123.40.90; 23.80.000; 23.80.010; 23.80.020; 23.80.040; 23.80.050; 23.90.000; 23.90.010; 23.90.0401. D. CITY'S DS AS APPLIED TO THIS PROJECT IS ERROR AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH .SEPA 1. Overview of SEPA. "SEPA is a legislative pronouncement of our state's environmental policy." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 300, 936 P.2d 432 (1997). It requires local. governments to fully consider the environmental and ecological effects of major actions. See RCW 43.21C.030; Lassila v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804, 813, 576 P.2d 54 (1978). Before processing applications for a land use project, SEPA requires local governments to make a threshold determination of whether the project is a "major action[] significantly affecting the quality of the environment." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); see also WAC 197-11-330.1 A major action significantly affects the environment "whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 278, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). 2. EIS Criteria Not Triggered The "lead agency" (here, the City) uses an environmental checklist to review a project's "proposed activities, alternatives, and impacts ... in accordance with SEPA's goals and policies." WAC 197- 11-060(1). The responsible official then renders a "determination of significance" (DS) or a "determination of nonsignificance" (DNS). A DS requires intensified environmental review through preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). WAC 197-11-360. Conversely, a DNS ' WAC 197-11-330 specifies the criteria and procedures for determining whether a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact. For example, the lead agency s "responsible official" must take into account that the proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another; that several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact; and that for some proposals, it may be impossible to forecast environmental impacts with precision. WAC 197-11-330(3). 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc U3/ 3U/ UO AM 10: U" rnn Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 12 - means that no EIS will be required. WAC 197-11-340. SEPA only requires an EIS for "major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact." RCW 43.21C.031(1). Courts recognize that not an actions are "major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment," such that an EIS is required, see Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475, 49I, 513 P.2d 36 (1973). Courts also recognize that "SEPA does not demand any particular substantive result in governmental decision making," Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 118, 508 P.2d 166 (1973); we Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., supra at 497 & n.6. Here, as described above, the Project proponent has proposed significant environmental measures to ensure the protection of Earth (slopes), Water, Plants and Animals (critical areas and open space which exceed the City's regulatory requirements), and Transportation (Roads, and safety). Given these offered mitigation conditions, no EIS should be required. 3. Record Does Not Support an EIS. To support its decision to require an EIS for this project, the City must demonstrate that it actually considered relevant environmental factors before reaching its decision.2 The record must demonstrate that the City adequately considered the environmental factors "in a manner sufficient to be a prima facie compliance with the procedural dictates of SEPA." Lassila v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804, 813, 576 P.2d 54 (1978); see also Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 302,916 P.2d 432 (1997) (citing Norway Hill Pres. & Prof. Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). Further, the decision to issue a DS is to be based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 302, 936 P.2d 432 (1997) WAC 197-11-335. Here, the meticulous design and the applicant's offered mitigation conditions do not support that the City actually "considered the environmental factors" "in a manner sufficient to be a prima facie compliance with the procedural dictates of SEPA". As required. The decision to issue a DS is error. 4. City's decision is Clearly Erroneous. The SEPA Decision is reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard. A decision is clearly erroneous when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 302, 936 P.2d 432 (1997) (citing Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). The clearly erroneous test from subsection (d) involves applying the law to facts. See Samuel's Furniture v Dept of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 451, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002); 7 Wash. State Bar Ass'n, Z WAC 197-11-444 lists relevant environmental elements. 060330 SEPA appeal !tr CityEdmonds.doc U3/3U/Ub *1'HU 1D:U4 MAA L.7J f'f U9411 �avwoa.ctu a.n�r v�vuN v--- Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 13 - Real Property Deskbook sec. 11 l .4(9), at 111-25. Under that test, a decision is clearly erroneous if the revbiewing body is left with a definite and firm conviction that a lower tribunal made a mistake. Citizens to Pres. Pioneer Park LLC v. City of Mercer Island, 106 Wn. App. 461, 473-74, 24 P.3d 1079 (2001) (citing Schofield v. Spokane County, 96 Wn. App. 581, 586, 980 P.2d 277 (1999)). The "clearly erroneous" standard provides a broader review than the "arbitrary or capricious" standard because it mandates a review of the entire record and all the evidence rather than just a search for substantial evidence to support the administrative finding or decision. See Ancheta V. Daly, supra at 259, 260; Department of Ecology v. Kirkland, 8 Wn. App. 576, 580, 508 P.2d 1030 (1973), affd on other grounds, 84 Wn.2d 25, 523 P.2d 1181 (1974); Williams v. Young, 6 Wn. App. 494, 497, 494 P.2d 508 (1972). Judicial review under the "clearly erroneous" standard set out in RCW 34.04.130(6)(e) also requires consideration of the "public policy contained in the act of the legislature authorizing the decision" See Ancheta v. Paly, supra at 260-61. Consequently, that public policy is "a part of the standard of review." See Schuffenhauer v. Department of Employment Security; 86 Wn.2d 233, 235, 543 P.2d 343 (1975). [3-5] We feel that the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set out in RCW 34.04.130(6)(e) provides an appropriate scope of review in the area of "negative threshold determinations" under SEPA. That standard will allow a reviewing court to give substantial weight to the agency determination as required by RCW 43.21 C.090, yet at the same time it will allow a reviewing court to consider properly "the public policy contained in the act of the legislature authorizing the decision or order. " Norway Hill Pres. & Prot_ Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). Here, given the evidence in the record of the Applicant's offered mitigation conditions, the City's decision to require an EIS is clearly erroneous in light of SEPA's public policy to (1) focus EIS only on actual impacts which have a significant, environmental impact (WAC 197-11-402) and (2) which take into account the mitigation measures offered by the project applicant (WAC 197-11- 330). S. City's DS Decision Not Based Adopted Policies and is Error. Under RCW 43.21C.060, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), any governmental action may be conditioned or denied: PROVIDED, That such conditions or denials shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the agency (or appropriate legislative body, in the case of local government) as possible bases for the exercise of authority pursuant to (SEPA).... Such action may be conditioned only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under this chapter. These conditions shall be stated in writing by the decision maker (sic). 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc oJiauioo inu 1u;V% Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 14 - SEPA provides that any governmental action may be conditioned or denied provided that such conditions or denials are based on policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes, which the agency or legislative body designates as possible bases for the exercise of authority under SEPA. RCW 43.21 C.060; Victoria Tower P'ship v. Seattle, 59 Wn. App. 592, 599, 800 P.2d 380 (1990) (citing Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County, I I I Wn.2d 742, 751, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)), cf. Cougar Mountain, l l 1 Wn.2d at 752. Here, given the evidence in the record which verifies the extent to which Applicant's Project and offered mitigation conditions comply with the City's regulations, plans, and codes, the City's decision to require an EIS is clearly erroneous. 6. City's DS Decision is Arbitrary and Capricious In an appropriate case, an administrative decision could be "arbitrary or capricious," e.g., where there is no evidence in the record to support it, and yet not be "clearly erroneous." See Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 114, 508 P.2d 166 (1973). Both standards of review are applicable to " threshold determinations," and therefore, a determination that is "arbitrary or capricious" but not "clearly. erroneous" also is reversible and can not be sustained. Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). E. CONCLUSION The preliminary design of the Serene Creek PRD is based on the two independent geotechnical engineering analyses performed by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., (AESI), and Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.; stream classification performed by The Jay Group, wetland biologists and landscape architects; and three independent civil engineering analyses performed by Saeed Soleimanpour, P.E., Cross -Sound Engineering and Site Development Associates, LLC.. The wealth of this environmental analysis demonstrates that the proposed Serene Creek PRD design will not only avoid any significant adverse environmental impacts, but also will enhance the stability of the slopes on and around the undeveloped land. Furthermore, the Serene Creek PRD once completed will increase the traffic and pedestrian safety in the immediate neighborhood: The well needed linkage of the 74tb Place West which is a dead end, under -maintained and hazardous narrow (one lane) public road to the 7e Avenue West which is a two lane main public road. The elimination of the dead end will contribute to the saving of lives in the times of emergency by facilitating the traffic for ambulance, police and fire trucks as well as reducing the driving risks for the neighbors, particularly in bad freezing weather conditions. The Serene Creek PRD will fulfill the GMA while not building on the critical areas and allowing ample buffer zone for common use and protection of the natural features of the site. The Serene Creek PRD will enable the City of Edmonds to follow its historical trends regarding population, housing units and households growth target to 2025 and hence receive recognition from the State for meeting such growth capacity to meet the projected population growth. 060330 SEPA appeal ltr CityEdmonds.doc uJ/ Ju/ uo Tnu la: ua rAA cao s j v-ti ..----------- -.--•• Robert Chave, Planting Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 15 - SiAcrely, • GtIdstein Law Group, PLLC �—Iolyn A. Lake Attorney for Appellants ECEC, inc.; Saeed Soleimanpour CALAII Acknowledgement. Under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, the appellants ECEC, Inc. and Saeed Soleimanpour have read the appeal including all attachments and the list of persons to be notified and believe the contents to be true. Signed: Saeed S leimanpour, Appellan . f' _ At: h1 t,1 Wi Washington on 30 March 2006. (city) Attachments: 1. Mitigating Conditions Offered by Applicant In addition to Compliance with City Development Regulations 2. Mailing List of Property Owners within 300 feet. 060330 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc UJ/ JU/ VV LJ3U L"J. VJ vvv..Y---- ...... ... .. � .- Robert Chavc, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page - 16 - Attachment One. Mitigating Conditions Offered by Applicant In addition to Compliance with City Development Regulations (The Fundamental elements of the Contract Rezone): All the terms included in the preliminary Serene Creek PRD site plan (SL-01; Approved by Mr. Bill Helsley, P.E., on 10/31/2005), and the following terms are hereby made a part of this Contract Rezone: Serene Creek PRD project promotes high quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following guidelines: a. Architectural design of the Serene Creek PRD will blend in with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. The nonstructural elements of the building such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures, and colors will be coordinated to cant' out a unified and harmonious design concept. b. After completion, no further addition to the existing buildings will be allowed without the review and approval of the City of Edmonds and Serene Creek PRD architectural committees based on the Edmonds Community Development Code and the Serene Creek PRD Covenant and restrictions. c. The Serene Creek PRD will not encroach on view of the existing homes. In fact it will improve their views. Furthermore, although the Washington State Law does not provide any protection against loss of view as a result of any horizontal expansion of a neighboring property by the construction of new additions, the Serene Creek PRD covenant and restrictions will prohibit its resident homeowners from any addition that may obstruct any horizontal and/or vertical views of the neighbors within the PRD; however, the City of Edmonds approved additions that meet the covenant and restrictions are allowed. d. The Serene Creek PRD by maintaining open green spaces within and around the PRD upholds the fundamental protection of residential privacy for its residents and neighbors. e. The Serene Creek PRD will further stabilize and enhance the property values by improving the land, view, traffic and public safety. f. The Serene Creek PRD will protect the private properties from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides and will minimize any momentary inconvenience due to temporary disconnection of utilities for new water, electricity, gas, stone and sanitary sewer hookups. g. The Serene Creek PRD will be designed to be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage; it will also orient the houses in such a way to get the best use of solar energy for natural light and auxiliary heat gain. h. The Serene Creek PRD is a well coordinated development that will preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. i. The houses will be constructed on reinforced concrete and/or steel foundation piling systems with a combination of steel, concrete and timber structural members with a combination of stone, stucco, and wood siding finishes to best blend in the structures with the surrounding nature while providing 060330 SEPA appeal W CityEdmonds.doc Robert Chave, Planning Manager City of Edmonds, Planning Division March 30, 2006 Page -17- a sound structural and foundation strength and stability, as well as creating a far more stable slopes than the existing slopes. j. The shape of the buildings, the orientation of the buildings, the location of the doors and windows will be designed in such a way to optimize the conservation of energy. Also most efficient (highest R-value) building components to control heat loss and/or heat gain will be utilized based on mechanical engineering analysis and application of heat transfer principles. The expertise of the JGL Acoustics Inc. will be used in the noise and vibrations reduction analysis of the houses in the Serene Creek PRD. k. The energy needs of the completed Serene Creek PRD project will be mainly electric; natural gas; efficient wood burning stoves and fireplaces as allowed by the City; and passive solar energy for natural light and heat gain. 1.. The Serene Creek PRD buildings will be engineered to be advanced smart and efficient. 060310 SEPA appeal Itr CityEdmonds.doc 1 a4 E041 O� O CITY OF EDMONDS Fir 1g90 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS) DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS Description of proposal: Application for a contract rezone to change the existing zoning from Single- family Residential RS-20 (minimum lot size 20,000 square feet) to RS-12 (minimum lot size 12,000 square feet), together with a Planned Residential Development to develop a 2.84 acre site with nine lots (File Nos.: R-05-169 and PRO-05-168). The proposal also includes constructing a public through road_ from the terminus of 74"' Place W. in a horseshoe down to 76"' Avenue W. and two private access roads. Grading anticipated for the road and other plat improvements is estimated at 4,000 cubic yards. The final project will include a street vacation and a formal subdivision. The site contains a type Np stream, a category 4 wetland, and landslide hazard areas and is subject to the city's Environmentally Critical Areas provisions_ Proponent: Saeed Soleimanpour, P.E., I ECEC Inc. Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16515 - 74'" Place W_ and the two acre tot to the west of it across 74'h Place W- which fronts on both 74th Place W. and 761" Avenue W. Lead agency: ,CITY OF EDMONDS EIS Required: The lead agency has determined that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impacts on the environment_ An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required pursuant to RCW 43.21.030.(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: EARTH - geology, soils, topography, unique physical features, erosion-, WATER - surface water movement/quantity, runoff/absorption, ground water movement/quantity/quality; PLANTS AND ANIMALS - habitat for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife-, TRANSPORTATION - transportation systems, vehicular traffic, and traffic hazards. Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes and member of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS_ You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving the city comments are: By letter submitted before 4:00 p.m., April 6, 2006. Responsible Official: Meg Gruwell Position/Title: Senior Planner - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220, extension 1330 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 3/ 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 March 30, 2006_ You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Meg Gruwell to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Page I of ATTACHMENT 3 R-05-169 DS DOC 3ASA SEPA Fite No. AP-2006-35 Ii XX Posted on March 16, 2006, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist_ XX Environmental Review Section XX Department of Ecology P_O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX COMCAST XX Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 410 Valley Ave NW #12 Puyallup, WA 98371-3317 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife XX 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Tulalip Tribal Council XX 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX City of Lynnwood Attn.: Senior Planner P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Attachments pc: File No. R-05-169 and PRD-05-168 SEPA Notebook I � IWIO J I16]20 1�0 fQ� Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Bret Cadslad, Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Applicant: Peed Soleimanpour, P.E. 10928 - 59' Ave. W . Mukilteo, WA 98275 Owner: Robert & Edeltraud Sucherl 450 - 1211' Ave. N_ Edmonds. WA 98020 All Page 2 of 2 R-05-169 DS.DDC 3/1 5/06.SEPA CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST St. 18 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 preparatio0& 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 govermnental 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. NOTE: Projects generating new traffic will be required to submit a Traffic Study prepared by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer. Specific requirements for the "Craffic Study may vary depending upon the project, and will be provided by the City Engineer upon request. Please contact the Engineering Division at 425-771-3202 for specific study requirements. City review of the Traffic Study may require assessment of the "Development Project Peer Review" fee of $45 plus the cost of the review. Use of checklist for nonprojeet proposals: Complete this checklist for nonprojeet proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonprojeet 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 paes;k 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: e.re—h PP__DeVe L pMe-*,A 2. Name of applicant: , . rtCe°Ci . l 54,,e�o Lei r+�a✓1PotAr 6C CC , L ki Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: scpa chcckliu - pub ic;8. 30.2001 4. Date checklist prepared: ) ( /1?/ 2,005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed tinting or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Pet-►►i l- j C C o sl&r t tLe— fo- n not (S�ortPL,.-t, ScA6Jiy;5iov\ (Ciy'L/Sewer/S(Xr✓cy"--J) CO^StV't&C 'o� aid Stope 5+oL6 izatioh 5kc tt 6e isstAed in Apr;t of loot &. Tie- SL b([jv ss;;o-, Cohs`►'v..c��or. �ro�eyt S�.a// DP_ �owtn/e.�e� W � �'1.�.� Six (6) ►�on/'iS �ey�tE (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Wore . (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. -7--Ae- .6,s b�.,, CLwss;�,ed as Cafeg0Vy ff (-two) a.L4CRv-d(',j th b-e vnost YrecPJ qu�det�►.Ps o� Ci K or EJk,,.o-1dS, WIS ror 5-0f Fe-t Btu.CEt r on Gott. S2 idsM S. ore./ �L.�,,. ++12 of � totwL a Y' a -A,. A(- �i� i� r.. i a i t �a i1 / . �o / f rn nap-- G✓O�w.. .�G iO I b► (STAFF COMMENTS) i C�V% &,-e ^f.D°'r'' 5b L\w�w�, 35 t-0- Cj . Aqo ;.,nna fit. Ku. K0 r t...,,c-, `rtr �; u _,v;,r .. (�pn•� .. 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. (STAFF COMM Page 2 of 24 xpa chmktist - public8. 30.2001 Cp,n`tY'u.G� 12�Zov.� d 10. List any government a Q Lartie- Lat RS o t pprovals or pernuts that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Cpr� vm , -l2 KGZON� Ero.,. Pr�c;SfiJe5_10 ;0 ror...,.al St�lb�✓;S,oH S; lFeS For w total o F RD; (l+) oFF; UaI Sty - (STAFF COMMENTS) All A-e Y,Y-. . Lots ; ^ a -PCu VA„e d -Ly-e,et Va.cat; o+� 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. } D- Sey-ere C+rP.�K PRD IS Gl Ct LOI.S , COvily GI �ijovke-J Ss"i1e F4—.1y de_to-c,keJ tA,; ts; ,"he koµses w1'11 be 2- S-r e5 w;ii, A"UIL+ 6 Ate" e of 4000 S Q A,,vye Feet" U�ir�s S po ce l.J; A, 3 Ce,,r 66-'t .S ; K0-'x lm ay;ou 4�0 KS�✓aa B —� S S u r �. c.e peer- 1. o us e- � i �nrl �k.d; •-•� -�4.e_ D ri �e.t,.ia.�l , 1 Roof 1;,,e- shalt be 4S00 >:rZg, M,,,�a.,�,., of 380o FTZ; S;-kt y r S aPP ro y;rv%6.4t17 I X3,'7 6 0 ; �-; 4% a F tie. en4ie a rem.. 1 S d" c`.+t to DQ2•-N °►rezM S, ace-; P-eTok e- Would allow /o Cots bui one- lot i S d'eJ"(.- fed -tb o er. rpm S � S. ,r w� f�� R� W;l � L�..l� fi,✓o w�aih'(w�C (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. 11,�1s- --I +t PLaGe I�Jid -Nc parcel IDS OOS-/3/ 0000 8A3 $� ' 910.u''eS ( d�✓e%Ped U64 -1�� P'k 7f el 1.D'e 00s73/0000Sao6 Vlk;Ch iS a.U^roS5 f roy.% l6S(5 �1�t �' A. Wo-s " Dv% ''7Ll-�' PVestANort�, of Ibbl� ��. � J Calvi 1/y..) KV✓ flit SE6Troral g, -T�1t./AI5HJP 9.7NI RRA16E 4C t.% MJ (S"I'AFF COMMENTS) Page 3 of 24 scpa chmkfist - pubhcl 30.2001 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT R. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1_ Earth a. General description of the site (circle one)_ Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: I t i S a C 0,--b; - o..+,o, c, E FLa-t roll%..9 , 1,:11„t $ So ..e Ste�� S(°Pe-S . (STAFF COM M ENTS) tb..,o+,.s.., q.29y�rs; ,tc, t:ti.3,Zoov. t-11 ir,\S �. t,c nl,y y�nc wv a Stie-'s" Z G M; iw 7.i.ti,.e.�, ( lv'�- s.. Ali+"L 1 Lrs(ti Sl .wcc, �M. , •BLit G/t dyF.'l.5'z !'� !Z ,Yt •� 4s, i b_ What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? So / �TtieSe �'reA S GI-r� all y C .Led to opel-, 9►1'e4— ,-'f4er-eb,-e IJo bui lkj S (STAFF COMMENTS) 4 ' - 5 3,7, i 1 c, i� ,,rn, . c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If yop - know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. sa-,,,d , 9 rwveL , 54,. 7 S; l -t , 5a-6 04z, R s; I b G , J No F 6-'r' La,C . (STtU F COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity.? If so, describe. -W -, How eve G e-o tec",h; C.J St-wl ; o. < Cor, (; v VR r , 1/e1r.. 5W19w Ar h, {'l.p Soia o� ►'�.� 5 te heSo,-e-_l9 +�'7 dye Lb UVAGv.+ir41(e) dru_�e` w c kew-. �i s�o Wen, wws F;�d i'� ►� 10 per Snok",, . s!. (STAFF COMMENTS) kl - rt, , :s ��• �t {, x o✓d S il / N? i..4.t � n^.ti l.�sL1 h i- t'y./J 7 �,cA. (\ZL1,r (NMSI'dzti .Ct.ic :i �1� p ypyti, i- tk ten, a, 16-431 -74rfty , .,-k.e— 1 , vtn.d ►K [ �'i S� i.s 2S . 1,mC #, csi N,A.It .f it+ UYLL iwc y� �t Kul _ .{w i nr� h tK A Jcic�, fir -. scpa ch-dust - puHic:8.W2001 Page 4 of 24 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. J L e,,re be h�oS�/ `� So; I e X;>,or-L For g ✓0.J1 M 'L 0 re (e Eke 5 f O SUfC�.aY'y�_ Lo�,.c1, t� F�.r�P.t� �r.._b�t.�Ce� -i�L_ �jg� S`�u,b►1,� � �i.rtiG.�� f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Y ✓-y'Zj�l G �% / 7. L� l.. �:�% C.7 a .9 t e cl, ✓, 1 c, 1 t'-1 ✓\ Air., S (STAFF COMMENTS YO-i. Af, ro Sa.uc dtut g±?! - g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 4 Z o f to-t L o--re-, o L (STAFF COMMENTS) i). Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: YOP�✓' �►�Ut��_e G�d� Stnf �A(� G,r.�- I�(n�y�''oN�nd >„/r-.�i'w- Colle��;p►-. ��c}ew.S for Cortlrol_�hA� Flows (�roPp (0v' cJ 7� d "S;Le- W a. ld Se o ro (STAFF COMMENTS) Velebd *oh�Tip4e-s A tz `s �5;x 4 � ...:,� �... ti-.1 p+a. �; b, �.n'I► �x .tip .-.w-A � �-. �;,,_, �t-e nt� �-.ems+-...,ri .� 1'►K � ka,..'r-.� r�f,�+ - 2. AIR a. What types of ernissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if lknown. ✓t bJ i ll �i�.r� �•�S L rwL c. io tit �Pra o� I here ia� —L h� ho✓��el Ce••S tY t�'o•. Mc. c�,�+�erl Sw.oKe c�a�„t f No;S� g; - )LASt. !?,,t 6e40VJ (STAFF COMMENTS) F� 1 ; S 114.fWla 14S Page 5 of 24 xpa chcckrm - public: 8.30.2001 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, 1i�flany: L1 /f 0 07 }�ri +. �S l ✓ �' b t lS; i t l �n[ ; L h i ►� Fe iYT— ��t1V� �C Yv+;r►irntZ.a� SiTt� I��G.(,�� Irv�_(}Q.✓'✓�a�.( 5�,.1rfr�C� (STAFF COMMEN 3. WATER a. Surface: 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. o VpS. L✓g- wo„tt� t:Ke- % CeOl if Se,re�� G�e�K�`, �,.I�i��. (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. ��,, -jam% I ` /� w� 1� Or f� �y1�l 6!° Qw��—/�C ! '�� I4ti✓ed / 5Q 1 e.-I h u FFe r- � �O f ✓�/e!/ L L.L S-trp ts.,��.�L:_I �__i7� lP1t ti P o f t6a s &C (STAFF COMMENTS _�: r .tw l + l l �wt t. pctY ft,j ✓t A^( v7 f +Y IL/Iv + �^ n c nru tL, Ii h la 1 Afle -j (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) Pagc 6 of 24 sqm ch-Misi - public 8.30.2001 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year Iloodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (STAFF COti1ME (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS b. Cround: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. & - IiNe. Caoti,j dira;r,s lsL�I( Co11P�,f apt ro�� Imo. lA k&y' av-o t&r. J OAj C,gw Stor. A+La ` woa�j --- 'S_S ie ,,,. f-g (STAFF COMME wpa chcckfia - pubk:8.30.2001 Page 7 of 24 (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. NO,n e� . (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): d. (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. A l l 5- ay-' b✓alP.r ►'1,t n t Cro►, -t(.e- roo roz, J Will he Co I (P P,l i,n� _�,� -�.�p S�Is � ., CA.Jo►xe; w;ft, 11 Y2o^ b (F Le'a 1&/; l ( �6'e C4KV9 1-b :&.e 0 Y\ - S ; be a - e.,,ka , 'Zr) I, Sys >`'e" of KS C)r 3-/n J. 11 t Lt....t Z - '0" Irk lP.-.ti,Sed Lb— B�t� , �, �'(/ ✓`n iv.g�( (STAFF COMMENTS)_ (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. / 10- 7�Lo (��-c�t°� ✓► n ✓ .� �A l �a Gt�, . u .-�--� .TPe, h 4. P C (STAFF COMMENTS) (Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: V (STAFF COMMENTS) A1r.t� 5t- -' Ara.� A Page 8 of 24 -p. d.,tnu - pen, s.w.2oo1 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Ydeciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crop or grain _y wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, nulfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS b. What kind and amount of vegetation will he removed or altered? o PRD PV��tzj s (STAFF y 1COMMENTS) A � 6-tf w) � �.-a�,5*�t , lv t A C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. in 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 9 of 24 uW d6 -Uist - pubbc:9.30200I d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: t,J; Cln 'Cl...� o b i P�'f i✓ P S o f rN�'n.i �• . Z ��_(��n, (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: manunals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Do No t Yno t^j (STAFF COMMENTS) Nta,-�., P- Wat 5 ,.,,& ;.6 k C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 7O ND kt� Q t,✓ . (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 10 of 24 S" d--►i-t -w:s.w.xar d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: �] } f3/ �(tiS��/►�-v4 `J'e_ P/X..V.."t N -k,'-' 1_"�'ti-U5 -6 o Y ►tee-►r o F t� J�R! �L A�,, _tz}1 QL/P�rk-- f— otaI PRD (STAFF COMME 6. Energy and Natural Resources 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. ma;hJ!, e-1e ldc- 1,►5-a4 Ga�j, vod Sfo✓e-s if all wed r+ /i,✓ �ork �g__� SS�yP S o LAV- &*.emit-j -1 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMM 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: -Me, SI,a?e 0.4 -d.e 6►.:I�i.� S 1/�hqDtJp�S :Ae- k; 4 L e�s�" 11i la Jaz Coy- a 11 61 I —Set-e[�ly�—lae 12^c-e S -a: �5-�—�-�� e.�t 6 !, ��_��Jeflec�.s+cg w►a.� er, n I i o .. -t�.e y�az.�.. (STAFF COMM F NTS) MKS a� Fitt �iK•)��•, Lsi Page t I of 24 s�pa cbmkW - p,"ica. 30.2001 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? 1f so describe. (STAFF COMMEN (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. CSC abn-s -C (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: use— 0 ( Ste,. S'o 1-4 le- ►n�,nela (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Ia ,-r L&L/ �� (STAFF COMMENTS) _ r—to ,d Page 12 of 24 xV. ch-kfist - puW:8. 30 2001 (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_ �—�-�- o F d.�,.o...J, . occo: a+4s� 1 '� �F G Norse o� (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: L L 1„/orK l�ra_��fi'�o A �,:a4es7 ��6�7 STi�•�ctr� on t—e- S;te - J (STAFF COMMENTS) Mti,f t., 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of of the site and adjacent properties? te, ve LO Ap 6 t k r ALrg_,_) .�c (STAFF COMM ENTS) 1pgy b. Has the site been used for agriculture' If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) L, �cm� zn - o � w� L4ie.A Page 13 of 24 scpa ctak&n - pubGc:8.10.2001 C. Describe any structures on/the site. � 1 — I f .i / „lt __ .— -- ` (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? if so, what? Y&S S"r 7 �r �' jam+. t�e- I,✓es t, dl,w 10 t% M e _A0101 -s_>° . (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LcLge Lot RS4,0 (STAFF COMMENTS) S�lt_fz.n'�. 2c;'s�z,.+.xt ins 20) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? U Y60.v. t71Ye-0. — 12 e S ry .-x fQ S -2. 0 p 1� S -1 2 Z o..;..� (STAFF COMMENTS) '?,-A I, - Fa,•.;L, SoKr C9- g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? -Do (Jot f4yL.) (STAFF COMMENTS) 3V-T a.oA i:c� h;z Page 14 of 24 WP dhcctku - pubbc:8.30.2001 h_ Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. } J 1,& s) � l s 6 -L-, � lr t b (_J u S'� d e- .�((� 7C ✓ a IDS %�YLG . a (STAFF COMMENTS)Ydj - S:re ki ti A4a N,. i �+�a., a c:lcyv,-� d , r�• (u e CT A s t c-,t huA i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? In -b L- o PeoP tp— (Wilt re—s- k-_i,, A Q to s s. (STAFF COMMENTS) JAJ nt ho.aaitaac j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? �ov,\.t° (STAFF COMMENTS) dc4- W A;sp1AuA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIIA (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed. measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) P'apo m •t y� f►�R' h A new hz�✓,r.A Page IS of 24 s" chcckhu.- p+Wrc:8302001 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, muddle, or low-income h/o�using. 1 (�l+^i[S 0.�> GtLl,Ptt t o CoV\'<, %v,� e- +�P it 0,-ti0,0d (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) Age) r 'V4 V-44-A -I►u� M fi r- 1►u,, � 1, e x; \J} M It, 5 tS - 2q-- P,. 1 1 1 : �. c—aa��e - ►• 'u s, � c , C. Proaosed measures to reduce or control housinv imnacts_ if anv- also mv�-t Yc.;,ry i 'Lr n F 67 MA 11 iA L1 1. �'l M /b5^+(��C�Y-�==��R.��"-1-(-�{ fP►� � b1`� b 1 t `4-� �.ifC�-i--�� (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? /� J ��inC�w_,__:r__..,,.. n f �.5 �O,v f�� fl Ve Z �L P��a � �i .`r, � ►��d� (STAFF COMMENTS) Ct -4 Gd Page 16 of 24 sepa checklist - pubtic8.30200I b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? II �p.rig j �. ��rf So.�„p V'��ls r•tiu,�i b �pv. h � ,AC�_I (STAFF COMMENTS) wQ c Lfn4 j. 11.E OCT-tr ... !( ��a t l� `' ✓�Wr � 11 uicd l3ll�+i< �� is < S l cam' S k �c Y C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ,, / ) B e,st A r� � � e-(� + A.NC& ` �%S�ia�tALt_�v,�a h...,&4 r'r; p- d 1 N (STAFF COMMENTS) / 'fH I,-:. LS Gr. A� k�.►� t Q��:f,. B� 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Do KIA %v�4- -.) - (STAFF COMMENTS) S trcz, l�►,t t (; i 1 cvci I:.yi ry a� ,•c h„. c, . , ,4, Aw- - b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) AQArl j*4- ,••arc itzr ,y.o< 4./4,-W. C. What existing off-si(e sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 7 o N of V-",) (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 scpa cb«kfio - ";c:8. 30.2001 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: (STAFF COMME 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Q'o c' ,X\ P KS &I 6e f «-k FN I Span y\'e 19 (STAFF COMMENTS) 1----a1 6-1,1, (n22tti o41K k�A MIA0,+As4 &, ",q A" u�ttfr. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. 01) (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS Page 18 of 24 scpa checklist - public:8.302001 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/ 0 (STAFF COMMENTS)_ b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No _ (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: A) /A (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Ayeht&e 1..1eSt ov. tLe- WgSlLe►-n be uy4eLni i-y pa, �AVe�ue � weSt ,-,A " Serene Ay ` w��U� t 7'v be developed 1 ,7 rl• �(�- 4 �t o►a t-ke- e . ate r,,. r-Ae,,r&l 1011L., (STAFF COMMENTS) Ar ,— o s Mcu }, e�r�r� .�, n, •�P.. /�lr� r.�, �s c ,ti.¢zn+� fl.�,r;,, Page 19 of 24 s" d ckfia - pubticl.30 2001 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? (STAFF COMMENTS) ' L ,Y-Itt C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? (STAFF COM M ENTS) S,L< (z,,.l, ho.•ci arc ,�4�rca h lw.c L SQacri av , J -5- lit n.hc lot? M,ia tare 19 F�v palci ,i+ti a.: ;,i, lac ex:if,y,n k-S iF le&&,- Z &.,A 41A-< ;.�i ►sc e+.r., d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). a �.► r76 r4 ✓ w t z hest J -' I &Ue t 's1, (LC(PiSS QQ . A lS o 41, e PQ.D_G✓+ 11 Jinx- no>:!Ler' ey'lt�� ire '74 T� �L��e� t �s S�u.n o-{'l.e_ S.fe-?� - (STAFF COMMENTS) A1aM >G ;ter .�+� be aurrn.n.�p Imo. A+te P,.c pQa+-A fti,,.,; 4,, I, -a i4 t GmJA1 At ct l e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMM ENTS) ,r l.1px �•, ty,- Iwai ra:1 -H,I hru+ t :. c to I-&< -w-f, r �k f"t ��j A'C Li Page 20 of 24 wp d— tiu - puw;L-. a 301001 How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. (STAFF COMMENTS) A��I:G�r ;S �t.Ly pc L''h,� �✓" kid ,n u, �ui.,t=G�c.. pa,w.. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: hfsi_w_i_,_-� tt �pYemp CrP� (�_ "" a.Cr�,',-�► 1-b `4 Lu liC >a��_�a h eLi—d S r 1 FT �._yP Q t L�i10 t'1 T L; v` k�'.tis 110 . 7c FT ; �t s 7P_ 7 fwe; -ems N (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Yli - mod, i✓ y, { wA.y:� ,, s b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public serv!c7 , ' ny: 1� Not K� j s %Ya t,✓ewe✓ t l.� a d1� �: Qua n � L z e C-4111 S �. a I Plro v; f��S o,.r,e A � o F ,1-1A. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of 24 xpa cbecklist - public:8.30.2001 16. Utilities a. C s ilable at the site: 01"t'i'i (IDIr'ls, valet, refuse serNice telephone, sanitary sewer Ji st , other: All tA- A 4"e-s Are—A,Va I� �12 O►n � %�f! � 1 `A GP wYiS� (STAFF COMME I). 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 inunediate vicinity which night be needed. P, res o�. ��' �L�� i,,��-t wall ► ey�L�vx F� �--1 I'M Aw i-rr�— ��—t . • r �✓�r, e �� G�� (STAFF COMME C. SIGNATURE The above answers are hue and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature of Proponent I / /a- t/� o o �— Date Submitted op, s" checklist - pubbc:8.30.2001 Page 22 of 24 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of (tie extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 11 �S Pile- t+,-i L"_t Piv. P �� e a- G 1�� B w� /� l A �•. �` f Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: V S e, O [ AC; GI 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Al o -Ln 2 r o fa( P- 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? iD ID Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Serre�e- Page 23 of 24 wpa cl-&b t - pudic:8.30.2001 4. flow would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A �pc:.:,i,.q- ,J,tl � :�..�'�A � �ll.�✓ ��.,,1 £1�,�.,,,-�,1-� Lnh•s�! A+`�� r�gw�+--ry:_ 5. [low would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? / / I Lt Wtl1 0.�iOt.✓ a ��rj�2tr �P�.St O(- hOw\.PC 0ry �a•-ye- I.o�" Z�►�i� bay; LA 2.S — k-)- e UV 6, Fab- LIe a LS . Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: / � A (t O Cr��; r.A, 4�a� � � -6 8�a � Ck, no A O I- Ile FR P Y-01 e ct -- Z'P�P r� �(►�2►n cirG,� d 6. How would the proposal be likely )to increase /demands on transportationor public services and utilities? e. In cy-ec se d 42mllvsdS ,Lv(e- rnai,,L1 '' or" + -,v u-b-16 e--s of Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 24 of 24 xpa chccldiv - public:9.30-200l O.S RS-1�22� 'CO :W A� Jk .: 4_ RS-20 Zoning Vicinity Map zj RS-20 NO RS-6 aY RM-3 ✓ 6 BP ® CG2 \\ RS-12 RSW-12 RM-2.4 BN ® CW MU RS-10 Y RS-MP RM-1.5 BC 8 MP1 P RS-8 OM CG ® MP2 Q OS i� 164TH N yOF EOy0 = Rezones C--.J PRO zoc. i ayo He R-05-169/PRD-05-168 Attachent 1 i --NW1/4,-- W1/4 ".SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 4E, W.M. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGEND - . - NORTH 200 FEET Of TRACTS) 88. MEADOWDALE BEACH. THER E)EXISTINGR.O.W" 10 BE VACA7fD .-"""_". RESERVED AREA FOR BLDG ACCORDING TO THE' PUT (OF RECORDED IN VOLUME S OF PLATS. PAGE(S) 7 ® FOOTPRINT ANYWHERE WITHIN THIS WASHINGTTON, EXCEPT 7HEED RECORDS FEET.SNOAS MEASURED MGC� D. O ZONE ASPHALT CONCRETE w 3 200 SOUMELOTS t AND 1 WILL BE ALONG THE NORTH LINE Of RIMER 88: AND EXCEPT THE TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 88,R OR ROAD PURPOSES;ED A] RIGM ANGLES 10 C AND `� ^• \ 1 CONCRETE EXCEPT THE fOLLOWMG DESCRIBED PORTION: THENCE AT ...�... ....:.. _ Q Of SAID TRACT 88 NC TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN THE NORTHWEST CORNER HE E 1 - - . - / \• N `:%z, -CONCRETE RElweauG wn[l STORMBRAIN EASTERLY ALONG P.K NORTH LINE FOR 50 FEET: THENCE SOUDiWES1FJRLY 10 A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE Of TRACT 88. SO FEET SOURfEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST w `o RA= RESERVED FOOTPRINT AREA CORNER OF TRACT BB: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE z - -- - CONIFEROUS TREE 10 Of RCMOV[D WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT 88 FOR SO FEET TO THE O -+�`� 1 _ _- -"- - - - ' 1 CONIFEROUS NORfFIWESf CORNER Of TRACT 88 AND THE POINT OF jJ ` D ..I _ 1 LA.- LOT AREA BEGINNING. a { AND �� V A. ` g CIPEN GREEN 1 J DECID[/OUS TREE 10 B[ REMMD N - O - _ SPACE MATCH THAT PORTION2orNTTRAACT 990.T PLAT Of MEADOWDAL BE EACH. �' /f __F A ° 3.170 Sf -_ - �jZ> ROCKCRY WALL 1 1 ss /!i' ( O LYING SOUTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE- �efL A = 8.713 SI _. ___ .0 7.429 .f �`/ [l 7•j f EXISTS 4Q 4/ '• ROAD BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY MARGINAL -+: X ^ 4 ( //�\� �` ��i� / ', , LINE M 75TH PLACE WEST WITH THE NORTH LINE Of SAID (TRACT 90'. p.( - — r'l / 1 _-_ r L� 1 �'�" " -x -.} THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGINAL LINE Of 75TH PLACE WESf.ANO THE ARC OF A CURVE 10 THE RIGHT. ( fi RA-S.[III SF.-- SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 145229 FEET. AN MC (y` . (►L_.' DISTANCE 137 W FEET. `Jp•2' C Gf M VF. i �,` THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY T T p� " 1 - WWGAI LINE OF 75TH PLACE WEST AND THE ARC Of SAID m w m �' CURVE 70 THE RIGHT_ AN ARC D151ANCE OF 123.36 FEET TO O THE POINT Of TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE. SAID ANGENT V 1 sE BEARING SOUTH 24'AN 15' WEST; 0 0 THENCE SOUTH 2CIS' WEST D CONTINUING ALONG THE i a r l O •�'.: / i \ O EASTERLY MARGINAL UNE OF 76TH AVENUE WEST. 55.2 FEET: \,, �•- - t�,y Y _ THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID BOUNDARY LINE. -- - rr THENCE NORTH 6fi26'19- EAST 132.84 FEET 70 THE END OF a w a -� I', SAID LINE. AS PER PUT RECORDED M VOLUME 5 OF PLATS 7 0 . .,S ^!t �� e _ 1 ' ON PAGE 38. RECORDS OF S SNOHOMH COUNTY: o w oo i ' 1 \ EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITT1M THE RIGHT OF w 1 i WAY of 767H AVE. W. 2 > l SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMSH. STATE Of WASHINGTON- XXXX''"�j�j t Q • I\ EXISTING R.0"ED w. f — VERTICAL DATUM:EXISTING TO BE VACAT- - -•�' ` - • .. - CRf f K BASED ON CRY Of EDMONDS SANITARY SEWER PLANS. SHE _ -� BENCHMARK 5 THE INVERT ELEVATION OF A 10' DUCTILE \ X ( IRON PIPE MEASURED AND THE CENTER OF PIPE CHANNEL OF MANHOLE NO. 22 PER CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER PLAN 'LID 210 PAGE 15. v4 f ..� OPEN/GREEN lJ� ( SPAOPEN/GREEN¢ ELLv: 150.00' _ R.D. � 172 ZTItERY BASIS OF BEARING' :� \•, •. \ WAI76.187 Sr I .0 i './ �.... \ (TIP) THE BASS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CENTERLINE .. �� AS `� ? \ \ OF 76TH AVENUE W. PER SURVEY RECORDED UNDER REC- - NO. 9411D15DD2 m OPEN/CAR N \ \ z '•1 4 \' \ • ` \ ,oD \ o $ \ SPACE \' ` p4..91 sF, \ \` I c � O o ' , \ i b 1 -0.966 Sr h AQ ��\ 1 f' 1 PRD NOTES_ + r \ 6 454 S B I. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WILL BE 7WO-STORY WITH A DAYLIGHT _ i /�1 BASEMENT WHERE POSSIBLE (MAXIMUM THREE LEVELS). EACH m c \ --Tb\ O \ RESIDENCE WILL HAVE A THREE CAR GARAGE. \RA-3.SB3 ST ` l _ Qni . \ U.-7 `.J - - ^_4 lB0. \ ^ - \ ..� 2. THE HOUSE FOOTPRINTS HAVE BEEN SITUATED WITH THE OBJECTIVE O z -1` \\ -1 OF MINIMIZING THE SHE IMPACTS AND THE AMOUNT OF PROPOSEDID ' '! \ \ m \ 'z1.' �. \\� ,� ; f �,♦ \ J- ROAD SURFACING. �; 9 r ' \• /� 3" PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR THE PRD ARE THE FOLLOWING: $ - -. \ • • ` - \:y2 /o ` -- 7 w \. \ I. FRONT: IW SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD WITHIN THE PRD m a e FROM: 15' SETBACK FROM PUBLIC ROAD WITHIN THE PRD > \�. 't SIDfWALX \_ OS •\\ '-- \ 6. SIDE 5- MINIMUM (TO- FROM ADJACENT STRUCTURES) h - O _ _ -A c REAR: 10' MINIMUM FROM PROPERTY LINE z 7eB i .\. RA=3.165 sr o _ " RUNE \ \\ \ •. ) �- ' ( REM. 15' MINIMUM FROM PUBLIC ROAD R.O.W. \ \ . \ ' 1 DRIVEWAY: 20' SETBACK FROM THE ROAD rI A h 2 PUBLIC ROADS: 25- SET BACK FROM EXISTING PUBLIC ROADS OCfENTUN7 \� \ 4. MAXIMUMIMPERVIOUS SURFACE PER L07 SMALL BE 4.500 SOVARE i- FEET. M "VAULT LOCATION _ .\\\\` �1 \\;\•MINIMUM 3,800 SUME FEET- MNERVIOUS SURFACE N„ w t (if REQUIRED) �\ ` 1 V+ \A\ \ \\ k �� IF'Fi� \ ). ) INCLUDES HOUSE. DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAYS- t %� \ • J 25. 1. 5. ALL STORY DRAINAGE FROM THE ROADWAYS. RETAINING WALLS AND { s - \J THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES w41 BE TIGHT -LINED AND CONVEYED 70 p e 3 « a �� ` - o o 6•- . GREEN �--��FF�� R=3.388 Sf _ BUFFER A WATER DUALITY AND DETENTION FACILITY- THIS FACILITY WILL w e . - \' CI \� \ • \ R A-2,897 Sf I LA • 7.7tA SF - �"� A CONNECT 70 THE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM LOCATED IN 76TH AVENUE W. - vt ;� PA-3.573 Si N LA=5.314 St - = V p A - 6.350 5/ \ b F r �\; 1 6" STREET LIGHTS well BE IS7ALED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, _ �� •\ _ , `i -'yam s/ �l \ 7. A 5- SOOI ALX WITH CURB AND GUTTER WILL BE ADDED TO 76TH A R.A : 7,677 sf ` �\\• 1 1 A 5 913 SF \' AVENUE W. A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ADJACENT TO THE z SIDEWALK WILL ALSO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE 4 THE EXISTING GRADES ADJACENT 10 THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK. Q 1 \ A WATER J o <O + [ NC 8. PROPOSE MRfND1NAY BECONSTRUCTED CONNECT THE E7t{STWG NA ER HMNN$TIN .\ \ _ -• RETAINING OETEN 110N/ a•,-8.�< ta- F •:; _ - 1 MOLL 747H PLACE W. AND 76TH AVENUE W. WATFFt`OUALiTY \ n - sz� 9" THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LACE LOCATED IN RITE PROPERTY WILL U aEOiw NO VAULT - - r •; { \' f -� _ ,3, ._ - - BERELOCATED IN THE PROPOSED ROADWAY AND WILL CONNECT 70 THE EXISTING SYSTEM IN 76M AVENUE W" \ wALI O 10, MAXIMUM ROAD SLOPE 5 12-OOX FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. i 11, A 5W BUFFER IS PROPOSED FROM THE EXISTING CREEK- BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CRY OF EDMONDS. THIS DUFFER WILL BE < - SER o .. �CK Of 50 OR Al THE TOP Of THE RIDGE ADJACENT DCFINEDI T THEO THE REE' 12. RETAINING WALLS SHALL B ROCKERY WALLS OR CONCRETE RETAINNG I _ WALLS" CONCRETE WALLS SHALL BE SIMILAR IN TMSH TO THE _ - CONCRETE RETAIMNG WALLS LOCATED Al THE NORTH AND WEST OF i^ q� 191ST STREET S.W. AND 76TH AVE. WEST INTERSECTION IN EDMONDS. � PERMIT Fes. fI li\.? -- CwALK 76TH AVE W. Z 13. THE TOTAI L07 COVERAGE FOR ER7KDtNG FooTPRINfs WILL BE LESS 1 ) 11«S TAINT OREOtlAt TO 4200 SF MICR 5 EOUNKIM 10 35% Of 0 _. _ .. .. ." ." 12.000 SOLIARE FEET" 14. ALL UTILITIES WILL BE UNDERGROUND WITH THE ASSOCIATED 20 .0- 20 40 EASEMENTS AS REOUIRED FOR LFHL_TY COMPANY ACCESS _V t -O scale feet I R:\P.o}ecls\170 (CCCC)\001-05 (Se•ene C.ee�}\G-a ,sne e+s �S�-CIO I.e�g - Sc ate: 70 I I RESOLUTION NO. 428 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A MORITORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS AND APPROVALS OF PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, SUBDIVISIONS AND SHORT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE MEADOWDALE AREA OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, large undeveloped areas of the City located generally north of 168th.Street Southwest, and known as the "Meadowdale area" are not presently served with sanitary and/or storm sewers, and WHEREAS, there exists a high potential for landslides in the Meadowdale area due to such factors as the steep slopes, the sand and clay soil formations, and the quantities of ground water percolating through the soil due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, and WHEREAS, previous landslides have been reported in the Meadowdale area and the geological and hydrological conditions present suggest that there will be future land- slides unless corrective action is taken, and WHEREAS, human factors may aggravate conditions as a result of excavations, removal of vegetation, diversion of water and introduction of more water into the ground in the absence of sewers, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has conducted a study based on available data and has concluded that no new construction or development should occur in the Meadowdale area until ATTACHMENT 4 _1_ File No. AP-2006-35 adequate study and planning have been done including the follows: 1. Detailed analysis of landslide hazard areas and potential for damage. 2. Designation of areas contributing directly and in- directly to existing and potential landslide hazards. 3. Study of feasibility and costs estimates for minimizing hazards through construction of: a. Sanitary sewers; b. Storm sewers; C. Subsurface drains; d. Mechanical stabalization; e. On site and non-structural solutions possibly including grading/excavation control zones, low density (hazard) areas, clearing control zones and landscaping guidelines, and WHEREAS, the City Council, after notice having been duly given, held a public hearing on February 27, 1979, to consider imposing a moritorium on issuance of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions, and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area until adequate study and planning had been done to prevent and/or minimize the .hazards in the area, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons who desired to speak were afforded an opportunity to do so, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that any additional -2- development in the Meadowdale area presents a high potential of contribution to potential landslides and thus constitutes a real and immediate danger to the public health, safety, welfare, property and lives., and . WHEREAS, until detailed study of the hazardous areas and solutions for controlling and eliminating the hazards are made, no building permits or approvals for planned residential developments, subdivisions or short subdivisions should be granted by the City, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. No City Department or official shall issue, approve or process. an application for any building permit, planned residential development, subdivi- sion or short subdivision which has been filed with the City on or after February 27, 1979, for that area commonly known as the Meadowdale area, located generally north of 168th Street Southwest in Edmonds and more particularly depicted on the map which is labeled Exhibit "A", attached to this Resolution, and incorporated in full by this reference, until the study authorized hereinafter is completed and remedial action is implemented. Section 2. The Department of Public Works and - the City Engineer shall conduct a detailed study and analysis of the landslide potential in the Meadowdale area and possible solutions therefor, including but not limited to the following: CRIC 1. Detailed analysis of landslide hazard areas and potential for damage. 2. Designation of areas contributing directly and/or indirectly to existing and potential landslide hazards. 3. Study of feasibility and costs estimates for minimizing hazards through construction of: a. Sanitary sewers; b. Storm sewers; C. Subsurface drains; d. Mechanical stabalization; e. On site and non-structural solutions which may include grading.and/or excavation control zones, low density (hazard) areas, clearing control zones and landscaping guidelines. Said study shall be completed and the results thereof reported to the City Council not later than October 16, 1979. Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to place this matter on the October 16, 1979, agenda for review of the continuing necessity of the moritorium imposed by this Resolution. APPROVED: MAYOR, H. H. HARRISON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: T ` CLERK, FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 27, 1979 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: February 27, 1979 -4- MEADOWDALE -. ,.,1 •., � PARK r / ' h / I5 TN' ST r?� 157XN•Sl Z. r / J ~ I //.� i/•/:��•'. SW ./- • 16oiHPLSW PL SW ingDockSDOfl Fish '� 16h '! 162Nb/ •� // /i-yj ''/�� // ? � 162N0 PL SW 1163RD ,.^ %�,•;;' // /'�/4 / ST SW /// 164T�t ST SAY � -�— 164TH j/I ST d,' // SW (� 3 / /i�•/ /� 165711 P ` o Q 3 6TH PL SW MEADOW DALE a ELEM SCHOOL iJ:ei . __ ) Q r i •� (n y r I OO IA i ST SW h! City of Lynnwood: _ Treatment Plant s r AyA .f,• r 168TH Sewage Mfg0Ok a l BERTOL� •� z> JR HID�OCH 1* l' O (}f' i Atth�l.tt'ccFeelld F . j• 9`f �u � O .... w � 't 76TH AVE W 3 ; 6 TH p . MEADOWDALE 6 IV Q s W o� c^90 I ; CL <J .� S 172ND ST SW � ^ D a PVp?N J sfq s� i PR p • 09 17zND ST SW ny 173R0 ST SW 173RD ST SW "' Q IlZ N�Y0/ - P�°Ty sT SW a 174TH ST SW DT z 3 4 u 175TH ST SW ,ERICK PL n m 175TH&TSW f t a _ 4 z FIGURE 6 CRITICAL AREA, INITIAL DELINEATION (CROSS —HATCHED) 1" c 1000 I The applicants/appellants seek a contract rezone and approval of a Planned Residential 2 Development ("PRD") to develop 9 dwelling units on a 2.84 acre site in the Meadowdale area of the 3 City. The site is located on lots now known as 16515 74th Place West and the two acre lot to the 4 west of it, across 74th Place West fronting both 74th Place West and 76th Avenue West. Most of the 5 6 lots sit on slopes with the steepest being approximately 83%. Part of the site has been designated as 7 "landslide hazard area" because it is located within an geologically hazardous area, and is subject to 8 the City's Environmentally Critical Areas provisions. The landslide hazard and geologically 9 hazardous areas, which are defined in and governed by Chapters 19.10 and 23.80 ECDC, are areas in 10 which large scale earth movement and smaller scale sloughing are historical and geological facts. 11 12 They have been the subject of numerous studies and evaluations. Photographs and video tapes of 13 historic and recent landslide events will be presented at the hearing. 14 The site is currently zoned as Single-family Residential RS-20, and the applicants/appellants 15 seek to change the underlying zoning through a contract rezone to a Single-family Residential RS-12. 16 The project also includes construction of two private access roads and a public through road from the 17 terminus of 74th Place West in a horseshoe down to 76th Avenue West. Grading anticipated for the 18 19 road and other plat improvements is estimated at 4,000 cubic yards. In addition, the 20 applicants/appellants seek a street vacation and formal subdivision. The site contains a type Np 21 stream and a category 4 wetland. 22 On December 12, 2005, applicants/appellants submitted the SEPA Environmental Checklist 23 and application to the City. After reviewing the Environmental Checklist and attached information, 24 25 the City issued a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS. In the 26 DS, the City identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: EARTH - geology, soils, 27 topography, unique physical features, erosion; WATER - surface water movement/quantity, 28 runoff/absorption, ground water movement/quantity/quality; PLANTS AND ANIMALS - habitat for (629459.D0C;1/./) OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 2 1601 Fifth Avenue, suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife; TRANSPORTATION - transportation systems, vehicular traffic, and traffic hazards. The DS was issued on March 16, 2006, and pursuant to ECDC 20.15A.240, ECED, Inc. and Saeed Soleimanpour timely appealed its issuance to the Planning Manager on March 30, 2006. III. ISSUE Under RCW 43.21C.031, will the contract rezone and PRD of appellants' Serene Creek project have a probable significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment when the project seeks to increase density and develop areas some of which are located within landslide hazard area? IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND PROTECTION ARE THE STATED POLICIES AND PURPOSES BEHIND SEPA. SEPA was enacted with environmental protection in mind. See RCW 41.21 C.010 and 41.21 C.020. It commits our state to policies of environmental concern and protection. Id. SEPA is our legislature's recognition that human survival and satisfaction depend on the biological and physical environment, that environmental components are fragile and interdependent, and that human behavior, particularly population growth, high density, urbanization, industrial expansion, resource utilization and exploitation, and new technology, threaten environmental quality. Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act § 3.01 (Rel. 14 Dec. 2002). SEPA encourages harmony between man and environment, seeks to prevent or eliminate damage to the physical environment, fosters public health and welfare and enriches understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. Id. Under SEPA our courts have recognized that the maintenance, enhancement and restoration of our environment is the pronounced policy of this state, 1629459.D0C;1/./I CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 3 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PI L_C- 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 li 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deserving faithful judicial interpretation. Id. at § 6.01. SEPA's policy is not only to prevent environmental degradation but restore environmental health. Id. The City in issuing a DS and requiring preparation of an EIS for this Project is complying with the stated policies and purposes of SEPA. It seeks to prevent further harm to the fragile landslide susceptible land on and near the Project by thoroughly and carefully reviewing the affects that higher density and development would bring to this fragile area. Just as SEPA was enacted to protect the environment, public health and welfare, the City is requiring an EIS for this Project for the same reasons. A wide range of factors qualify as probable significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment requiring preparation of an EIS. Settle at § 13.01. Therefore, wide discretion should be afforded to the Responsible Official making a positive threshold determination in good faith. E.g., I id. B. THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY MUST BE ACCORDED SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT IN THIS PROCEEDING. The threshold determination by the City must be given substantial weight by the Hearing Examiner throughout this proceeding. See RCW 43.21C.090; WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). This is an action challenging a determination by a governmental agency to require an EIS; therefore pursuant to RCW 43.21C.090, the decision of the governmental agency must be accorded substantial weight. Moss Y. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13-14, 31 P.3d 703 (2001); Indian Trail Property Owner's Assn v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 442, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). The City determined that an EIS is required under SEPA before any other approval may be given to appellants' Project. While applying the proper standard of review, the Hearing Examiner must be mindful throughout this proceeding of settled practice during review to accord substantial weight and deference to a responsible official's good faith threshold determination. See Id. s629459.DOC;I/./) CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 4 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.44 7.7000/Fax: 206.4 4 7.0215 PA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A POSITIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION IS DIFFERENT THAN ONE FOR A NEGATIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. A different standard of review applies when reviewing an agency's positive threshold determination (requiring an EIS) than when reviewing a negative threshold determination (not requiring an EIS). See Short v. Clallam, 22 Wn. App. 825, 829-30, 593 P.2d 821 (1979). Whereas "clearly erroneous" is the proper standard of review for negative threshold determinations, the proper standard of review for positive threshold determination is "arbitrary or capricious." Id. at 831. Considering SEPA's central policy of environmental full disclosure and deliberation, courts have held that scrutiny of determinations of nonsignificance requires closer scrutiny than determinations of significance. See Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The court in Norway Hill established the `clearly erroneous' � standard of review for negative threshold determinations only. Id. at 275. The court's reason for so doing was that an incorrect determination of no probable significant impact is contrary to SEPA's mandated public policy of environmental consideration, and thus a higher standard of review was justified. Id. The court in Norway Hill did not establish new standard of review for positive threshold determinations. See Short v. Clallam, 22 Wn. App. at 830. The standard of review for positive threshold determination has always been and remains the highly deferential arbitrary or capricious standard. Id. Unlike in negative threshold determinations, the City has not acted contrary to SEPA's mandated public policy of environmental consideration when it issued a DS and required preparation of an EIS for this Project. Id. In analyzing the appropriate standard of review for a positive threshold determination, the court in Short distinguished the standard of review set by the Norway Hill court, and explained that positive threshold determinations actually "foster the environmental full disclosure goals of SEPA." Id. Therefore given the substantial weight that must be accorded to (629459.D0C;1/./) CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 5 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 governmental agencies' threshold determinations, the court concluded that the proper standard of review for a positive threshold determination remained arbitrary or capricious. Id. at 832. Likewise, the standard of review during this appeal of the City's positive threshold determination must be arbitrary or capricious. See Id. As petitioners in this appeal, the appellants have the burden of proving that the City acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it issued a DS and required preparation of an EIS for this Project. Basing a decision on disputed evidence is not arbitrary or capricious. Saldin Sec., Inc. v. Snohomish County, 134 Wn.2d 288, 297, 949 P.2d 370 (1998). Where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration though it may be felt that a different conclusion might have been reached. Buechel v. State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wash.2d 196, 202, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). For appellants to prevail, they must show that the positive threshold determination issued by the City's Responsible Official was `willful and unreasoning, taken in disregard of facts and circumstances,' and nothing substantial in the record supports it. See Id. This the appellants cannot do. D. THE CITY'S POSITIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION MUST BE UPHELD BECAUSE THE SERENE CREEK PROJECT WILL HAVE A PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 1. The Serene Creek Project is partly located within an area of the city of Edmonds that is designated as "Critical" and known for catastrophic landslides. The proposed location for the Project is partly within an area of the city of Edmonds that is designated not only as an earth subsidence and landslide hazard area, but also as an environmentally I critical and geologically hazardous one. See Staff Report. Recent landslides have been frequent in the area, including one on the property just to the north of the Project at 16431 74th Place West. Id. It is undisputed that the Project is proposed on areas that are prone to landslides. 1629459.DOC;1/./I CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 6 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.44 7.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although the City has codes in place regulating residential developments in such areas, a SEPA review and threshold determination is a condition precedent to any such development. See RCW 43:21C.031. Compliance with City development codes is in addition to, rather than in lieu of, compliance with SEPA requirements. Id.; see, e.g., ECDC 19.10.030(B)(2) and 23.40.020(C) and 23.80.070(B). Likewise merely because appellants are proposing mitigation measures to comply with codes, it does not mean that such measures are sufficient to forgo preparation of an EIS when their Project still poses a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Furthermore, accepting mitigation measures in a vacuum provides no administrative basis to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures proposed. Appellants are seeking a contract rezone of the site from RS-20 (one dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet) to RS-12 (one dwelling unit per 12,000 square feet), which would permit increased density in the area. An increase in density through a rezone would affect traffic, adequacy of roads and capacities for sewer as well as other public utilities; therefore, an EIS is needed to evaluate their adverse significant impact on the quality of the environment. The additional road sewer improvements will themselves have to be constructed in the landslide hazard area, some perhaps on offsite areas yet to be determined or evaluated. In addition due to the critical nature of the area in which the Project is proposed, the City's Responsible Official has correctly determined that increasing density in the area poses a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Higher density will augment pressure on an already fragile surrounding environment through both development of residences and the infrastructure necessary to support them. And although appellants claim their development will in fact increase stability of the slope, preparation of an EIS is nevertheless required in this situation to substantiate I such a claim. 1629459. DOC;1 /./) CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 7 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Preparation of an EIS is required to determine how significantly will appellants' proposed measures to increase soil stability for the Project adversely impact the environment. Appellants have proposed several innovative measures that they claim will increase stability of the Project site, however they failed to consider the adverse impact of these same measures on the environment. They claim that they will be jointly and meticulously following the recommendations and design parameters of their geotechnical engineering consultants "to control the rain, stream and underground water; as well as [to reduce] the surcharge load on the hills by shaving off and exporting the top few feet layers of soil." See Appellants' SEPA Checklist at 5; see also Appellants' SEPA Appeal Letter at 5. The City rightfully would like an EIS prepared to examine the consequences to the surrounding environment as a result of "shaving off and exporting the top few feet layers of soil." Additional measures proposed by appellants to enhance safety of the slope stability are control and conveyance of surface and underground water; construction of new retaining walls; and construction of the homes on deep concrete and steel piling system approximately 45 feet deep into the sub -soil. Id. Again, all of these proposed measures have probable significant adverse impact on the quality of the surrounding environment, and required the preparation of an EIS. SEPA rules do not permit the set-off of a proposal's favorable environmental effects against its independently significant adverse environmental impact. WAC 19-11-330(5). Under WAC 19- 11-330(5), a threshold determination must not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, must consider such adverse impacts independently in the determination. For example, proposals designed to improve the environment, such as sewage treatment plants or pollution control requirements, may also have significant adverse environmental impacts that must be considered during a threshold determination for the same. Id. 1629459. DOC;10) CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 8 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.44 7.02 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is the case on point withrappellants' plans to "shave off' and export the top few feet layers of soil, to control and convey surface and underground water, to reduce the soil surcharge loads, to construct new retaining walls, and to construct the homes on deep concrete and steel piling system approximately 45 feet deep into the sub -soil. These measures have their own probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment supporting the Responsible Official's decision to issue a DS and require preparation of an EIS under SEPA. See Id. Examples of such potential impacts are the effects on vegetation, ground and storm water caused by the removal of "the top few feet layers of soil" and the noise and vibrations caused during the construction of "deep concrete and steel piling system." In this case, one of the purpose for an EIS is to provide the scientific information necessary to evaluate appellants claims of benefits and mitigation. 3. Even though some of the measures proposed by appellants may be beneficial to the public and environment, and EIS is still required if elements remain that will have probable significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment. Appellants claim that the Project will create open space and benefit transportation, utility service, street lighting, pedestrian and emergency access, public safety, save the City money, increase property value and tax base. See Appellants' SEPA Appeal Letter at 6-7. Some of these benefits are not factors to be considered in a threshold determination. Nevertheless as referred to in the above paragraph, none of these benefits, alone or combined, eliminates or mitigates the probable significant adverse impact on the environment that the Project will create. None will alleviate the higher density created by the rezone, and none will ensure future Serene Creek PRD residents and neighbors against the threat of erosions and landslides that this development could increase. Measures proposed by appellants may prove to be sound and indeed enhance the stability of the surrounding slopes. However a rezone will increase density, which will not only multiply any adverse impact on the environment, but also diminish the benefits resulting from such measures. Increase in density will result in more pilings in the sub -soil and more houses on steeper dangerous {629459. D0C;1 /./I CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 9 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 slopes which are less suitable to building and more prone to landslides. An increase in density through a rezone will have probable significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment. As a result, even if all the benefits that appellants claim the Project will create are considered, they cannot mitigate many of the probable significant adverse impacts presented by the Project to eliminate the need for an EIS. See Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 84, 569 P.2d 712 1(1977). Balancing benefits against negative impacts is appropriate during the permitting process, but not during threshold determination. Cf. id. 4. Significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment may be on either "relative" or "absolute" basis. Our courts have recognized that adverse impacts on the environment may be "significant," thus triggering the need to prepare an EIS, on either `relative' or `absolute' basis. See Narrowsview Pres. Ass'n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 526 P.2d 879 (1974). `Relatively,' appellants' Project might significantly affect the environment because it will produce adverse environmental impacts not produced by existing activities and uses in the area. See Settle at § 13.01. `Absolutely,' appellants' project might significantly affect the environment because of the quantitative extent of its impacts, including the cumulative effects of the action together with existing activities. Id. Likewise on an `absolute' basis, the fact that there are nearby areas zoned RS-12 with approved PRD is neither dispositive nor persuasive evidence that appellants' Project will have no probable significant adverse impact. Even actions that qualitatively conforms to existing uses and impacts, may be environmentally significant because its impacts, alone or in combination with those of other similar actions already in existence, might be the "straw that breaks the camel's back." Id. Either relatively or absolutely, in this case SEPA requires preparation of an EIS before appellants can proceed with their Project. 1629459.DOC;1/./I CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 10 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel- 206 447 7000/Fax 206 447.0215 I E. THE GMA NEITHER REQUIRES 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AS THE MINIMUM URBAN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NOR FINDS THAT LESSER 2 DENSITIES CONSTITUTES SPRAWL. 3 Nothing in the GMA establishes a bright line rule that urban residential density requires 4 4 5 dwelling units per acre and that anything less constitutes urban sprawl. See Chapter 36.70A RCW; 6 cf. RCW 36.70A.3201. The 4 dwelling units per acre ("dua") rule for urban density was created by 7 the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board (the "Board") in Bremerton v. Kitsap County. 8 See CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039, 1995 WL 903165 (Oct. 6, 1995). The Washington Supreme Court 9 rejected this bright line rule and declared that "growth management hearings boards do not have 10 authority to make "public policy" even within the limited scope of their jurisdictions, let alone to 11 12 make statewide public policy." Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wn.2d 112, 129, 118 P.3d 322 13 (2005). 14 Since the Viking. Properties decision, a Superior Court has signed an order reversing a 15 decision by the Board that had found that the city of Normandy Park's R-20 land use designation 16 failed to meet the GMA requirements. City of Normandy Park v. CPSGMHB, No. 05-2-27090-0 17 KNT. Normandy Park's R-20 land use designation is similar, if not identical, to Edmonds' RS-20 18 19 land use designation for purposes of comparative use in this appeal. Therefore, Edmonds' RS-20 is 20 not per se inconsistent with the GMA. 21 Furthermore even if the 4 dua were still the standard for urban density, a rezone from RS-20 22 to RS-12 would not result in 4 dua. Appellants concede that even at RS-12, 4 dua cannot be 23 achieved. See Appellants' SEPA Appeal Letter at 7. RS-12 would also constitute urban sprawl 24 25 under the bright line rule, and any argument that appellants' Project is consistent with GMA would 26 equally fail. 27 F. NEITHER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT NOR THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRE THEIR LISTED GOALS TO BE MET AT 28 THE EXPENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 1629459.DOC;1/1/ OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 11 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Like SEPA, policies and purposes of both the Growth Management Act (the "GMA") and the City's comprehensive plan include concern and protection of our environment. See RCW 36.70A.010 and 36.70A.020(1). Even under the old 4 dua bright line rule, environmentally sensitive areas were exempt. See Futurewise v. natcom County, WWGMHB No. 05-2-0013, 1995 WL 2341612 (2005). Compliance and consistency with the GMA and the City's comprehensive plan are not substitutes for compliance and consistency with SEPA. Cf. RCW 43.21C.031. Again as similarly stated above, the Project must comply and be consist with the GMA and the City's comprehensive plan in addition to, not in lieu of, complying and being consist with SEPA. Id. No statute or rule lists consistency and compliance with GMA or comprehensive plan as an exception to SEPA. See Chapter 43.21C RCW and 19-11 WAC. G. POLICIES AND PURPOSES OF SEPA IS TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THEREFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF REQUIRING AN EIS. In light of the directive in RCW 43.21C.030, that policies, laws and regulations be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in SEPA, doubt whether the issuance of the DS was proper or not must be resolved in favor of "concern and protection for the environment." This is consistent with the wide discretion afforded to Responsible Officers, substantial weight accorded to the governmental agency's decisions and the `arbitrary or capricious' standard I established for reviewing positive threshold determinations. I values: The court in Sisley noted the following on the issue of full consideration of environmental The most important aspect of SEPA is full consideration of environmental values, RCW 4321C.030(2) and this policy is carried out by the EIS procedure. However, the need for an EIS does not mean a proposed project cannot be built. It merely assures a full disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of the project. (629459.D0C;1/./1 CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 12 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.447.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 89 Wn.2d at 89. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the court in Norway Hill, in acknowledging the legislature's directive that concern and protection for the environment be fully considered by governmental decision -makers, set a low threshold for positive determinations: an EIS must be prepared whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. 87 Wn.2d at 277-78. V. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above and based upon the Staff Report, testimony and exhibits that the City expects to produce at the hearing, the City respectfully submits that the appeal must be denied. Not only has the City of Edmonds met the procedural requirements of SEPA, but the City's Responsible Official has also correctly determined that appellants' Serene Creek Project will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Given the burden of proof and standard of review for this proceeding, the appellants cannot prove otherwise. The appeals should be denied and the DS for the Project should be upheld. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of April, 2006. (629459.D0Q1./) CITY'S MEMORANDUM - 13 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. By: W. Scott Snyder, WSBA # Bio F. Park, WSBA # Attorneys for Respondent City of Edmonds OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, Washington 98101-1686 Tel: 206.44 7.7000/Fax: 206.447.0215 Douglas Grier, MD 16431 74th Place West r< T"Edmonds, WA 98026 2006 February 4, 2006 Edmonds City Planning Board 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Planning Board Members - A recent information meeting was held in the Meadowdale area for a proposed rezoning of the undeveloped property on 74th Place West in Meadowdale. Robert Suchert is the owner of the properties and has a site lay out plan now called Serene Creek. The proposed development is in contradiction to the desires of the all of the surrounding neighbors, as was expressed at the meeting, and directly threatens my property. The proposed plan reveals two houses to be constructed on a small plot just south and east of my house. The two houses to be constructed are approximately 5 feet from my property line and has the potential of undermining the ledge that my house currently resides upon. The building and excavation of a foundation that is directly above the slope of my property places my house ' at substantial risk of destabilization. The proposal reveals the excavation of the toe of the slope above my residence and the ensuing potential of increased water drainage and slope destabilization is unpredictable. The neighbors and myself oppose this property development based on rezoning from RS20 to RS12 without any benefit to its surrounding neighbors. High density housing developments in Edmonds in an area where houses enjoy greater surrounding properties is counter to the reasons that homeowners choose Edmonds to live. Placing two houses that undermine and jut out over the slopes above my property is threatening and unpredictable in its resultant soil destabilization. My foundation and property was constructed in 1982 and there were no problems with my property until the mid 80's when the LID was placed through my property and due to design flaws, failed at the first rainy season. This caused significant solid erosion below my foundation and was mitigated by the City after a three year litigation. The second event that has troubled my property occurred when the City allowed Mr. Fong to build a residence above the slope of my property and did not insure that he maintain his slope and without permitting tied into the City's LID using brittle PVC pipe instead of polyethylene. The ensuing break in the pipe above my property caused a second landslide in 1996 resulting in water and soil runoff onto my residence. This event led to a second litigation which again the City required1egal defense and settled eventually. Continued... ATTACHMENT 6 File No. AP-2006-35 Page 2 February 4, 2006 I am asking that the City prevent creating two new excavations that are directly within feet of my property line and would potentially lead to a third litigation if damages ensue. Please notify me when the Planning Board or City Council hears these proposals as I would like to be included in the deliberations prior to granting permits for the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Douglas H. Grier, MD cc: Mayor Haakenson cc: Karen Willie, Esquire Gruwell, Meg From: Douglas Grier, MD Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:26 AM To: Gruwell, Meg Cc: Haakenson, Gary Subject: R-05-169/PRD05-168 This letter is composed to provide input toward the proposed zoning change and development of the property 16515 74th pl, w. Robert Suchert/ Saeed Solieimapour. The planning board meeting is scheduled for April 6th. I reside at 16431 74th place, west, directly adjacent to the development. I attended the informational meeting 2 months ago and would like to clarify my position on the development and to state that I am vigorously opposed to the development as it is proposed. During the meeting several assumptions were made that my neighbors and myself oppose. Not once prior to or subsequent to that meeting has residents feedback or concerns been addressed. I have no intention to vacate the right of way at my driveway, feel that high density housing is not in my interest, nor that this development improves the neighborhood. Any statements by the developer about communication or agreement with the proposed plan is untrue. Mr. Solieimapour's statement that the vacant property as it now stands is hazardous in its current state is disingenuous at best. As the property has been owned by Mr. Suchert for 30 years without a dollar put toward maintenance or improvements speaks for itself. They are not "white knights" coming to improve the property, but rather trying to maximize profits_ His personal assurance that the best measures will be taken to develop the site is negated by their actions to see off plates to other builders. Adding a sidewalk on 76th Avenue from nowhere to nowhere for a couple hundred feet does nothing for the neighborhood. Changing the zoning to high density RS-12 serves only to maximize his profits at the expense of every residence surrounding. The reason I chose to live in Edmonds in this location was for its privacy and low car traffic. Shoehorning 9 houses on the lot is a business plan best suited for other communities where large developments on small lots is the norm. The site plan is incomplete in that it has intentionally left my house off the map. My foundation is a mere 20 feet below the proposed excavation of the upper site where one house now resides. My foundation rests on a ledge in a hazardous slope zone. The plan to dig back into the slope above my house is inherently unsafe and can create earth movements in the near or distant future. Who will be responsible for damages when the developer has left the project? The unwary future homeowners? The city for granting permits? One house placed over the existing foundation appears reasonable but squeezing in another house within feet of my residence is unconscionable. The plans as they now exist are not even based on soil borings to determine depth required for the foundations. Six weeks ago, a 15 cubic yard bluff slide occurred just north of my property on my neighbor Mr. Fongs' bluff. The cause was devegitation and excessive water runoff during this rainy season. The planning board granted Mr. Fong the right to clear off the trees in 1994 by deceiving the city that he had permission from his downhill neighbor. Subsequent slope and LID drain failures led to litigation. Assurances by Architects and soil geologists have not prevented further damages. I am requesting that the city deny the proposed zoning change and proposed plat development in the interest of the surrounding neighbors, the city, and the Great Blue Herons who are currently nesting on the site. Thank you for your consideration. Douglas Grier, M.D. 16431 74th pl, w Edmonds, WA 98026 1 Page 1 of 1 Gruwell, Meg From: Marge Plecki Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 8:13 AM To: Gruwell, Meg Cc: daveandmartha.orvis@verizon.net-, Haakenson, Gary; Spellman, Jana; Moore, Maud; michaelppp98@yahoo.com; electpeggy@comcast.net; Marge Plecki; rrwambolt@msn.com; deannadawson@yahoo.com Subject: proposed Serene Creek PRD Dear Ms. Gruwell, We spoke to you about the notification we received regarding the proposed Serene Creek PRD. Attached is a letter describing our concerns about the this proposal and our request to be notified of all meetings, hearings, and decisions regarding this request for change in the City's zoning ordinances concerning the properties involved in this project. If you require a hard copy of this letter, please let us know and we will be happy to provide one. Thank you, Marge Plecki and Michael King 16711 76th Avenue West . Edmonds 3/ 1 /2006 Michael King &Margaret Plecki 16711 76`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA98026 425-787-6728 February 24, 2006 Ms.Meg Gruwell City of Edmonds Planning Department Edmonds, WA Subject: Serene Creek PRD Dear Ms. Gruwell, We wish to comment on the proposed Serene Creek PRD on parcel numbers 0051300009006, 0051300008803, and 0051300008804. We were unable to attend the public meeting on January 11, 2005, and request that we be included on the notification list of any application filings, public meeting notices, and decisions made by the City of Edmonds concerning this project. We are extremely concerned about the planned Serene Creek PRD. It is our understanding that under current zoning, the subject properties could create five single- family parcels. It is also our understanding that the ECEC, Inc/Saeed Solemanpour group would like to change both the City's Comprehensive Plan and current zoning to nearly double the density of housing to 9 very large single family homes. We cannot identify any benefit to the general public or local community that would warrant such an extreme change in zoning and land use. Except for the older Brook Acres PRD, 20,000 square foot or larger parcels surround the project and defines the character of the community. We believe a major change in the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance should require a significant benefit to the local community. This project only creates problems for the community. This density of housing is particularly unwarranted with the limited street access and traffic conditions, the lack of sidewalks, and the lack of any traffic controls. The 76`h Avenue West access road to the property is problematic in that it is located in close proximity to a blind curve on a hill. Increased road traffic and the increase in pedestrian traffic is a safety issue for the community. Also, there is limited space for a turn lane, which would be warranted for this project. The limited sidewalk development will only create a hazardous condition for pedestrians. Recent sidewalk studies by the City place a priority need for a sidewalk from Meadowdale Beach Road to Meadowdale Road. The addition of a short segment of sidewalk on this road, as shown on the proposed site plan, will force pedestrians to cross the road at a hazardous location to utilize the new sidewalk. It would create a segment of sidewalk rather than a continuous walkway. The project site is located in the City's special landslide hazard study area. An increase in housing density in this area will only serve to magnify the problem. Not too long ago the City held a public meeting about this landslide area and at that time the City was suggesting that the construction of a fence or even a small tool shed would require specific geotechnical studies in this area. A major subdivision in this hazardous landside area would require significant site mitigation efforts with no guarantee that an engineer can adequately reduce the risk of a landslide. The site plan shows a number of houses located on steep slopes. The topographic map for these houses show the need for significant cut and fill operations on potentially unstable hillsides. We are concerned for the safety of residences down slope from these planned homes. The planned new sidewalk will require the construction of a major retaining wall along the road with a steep slope up -gradient. Unstable soil conditions up -gradient of this retaining wall could be an issue. We are also concerned about a large retention pond in a hazard area. It is never a good idea to pond water in a hazard zone. There are a number of other issues that this project raises, such as emergency vehicles on the 76`h Avenue West access road, which appears to have a 12% slope. There is also a negative impact on residents regarding the proposed streetlights at the top of the highest points in the area. These streetlights will result in significant unwanted artificial lights that will block the views of the stars and disturb the current tranquility of the area. For the reasons outlined above, and others not listed, we feel the City should reject this project and maintain the current RS-20 zoning. Under current zoning, there is adequate profit to be realized by this corporate entity that now owns these parcels. We also feel the notification area for commenting on this project should be increased because of the impact the project will have on the greater community. For example, our neighbors who live on the same block of 76`h Avenue West as we do did not receive a public notice of this proposed change, and they will be as impacted as anyone else who lives on this block. We would appreciate knowing what the specific benefit to the community is that would warrant such an extreme change in zoning and in the City's comprehensive plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael King &Margaret Plecki Email: mplecki@u.washington.edu, hydrodynamics@rconnect.com cc. Mayor Gary Haakenson Council President Deanna Dawson Mr. Michael Plunkett Mr. Richard Marin Mr. David Orvis Mr. Ron Wambolt Ms. Peggy Pritchard Olsen Ms. Deanne Dawson Ms. Mauri Moore Michael King &Margaret Plecki 16711 76`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA98026 425-787-6728 March 28, 2006 Ms.Meg Gruwell City of Edmonds Planning Department Edmonds, WA Subject: Serene Creek PRD: Request to expand scope of EIS Dear Ms. Gruwell, 00 We wish to comment on the scope of the EIS for the proposed Serene Creek PRD. As we noted in a letter to you on February 24, 2006 we have specific concerns about this proposed PRD. We feel that the current draft of the EIS scope is inadequate. Specifically, we believe that the EIS needs to include the following items: 1. Impact of water retention pond: Please include the impact that a water retention pond will have on the landslide area. An underground retention pond will increase the likelihood of a landslide due to increased water saturation of unstable soils. If the retention pond is above ground, there is a critical visual impact. Please address both of these possibilities in the EIS. 2. Pedestrian safety: There is a well -established record of pedestrian safety issues on this portion of 76`h Avenue West. A study was done by the City of Edmonds as part of the Comprehensive Plan and this section of 76`h Avenue West was identified as a number one priority. The addition of a short segment of sidewalk on this road, as shown on the proposed site plan, will force pedestrians to cross the road at a hazardous location to utilize the new sidewalk. It would create a segment of sidewalk rather than a continuous walkway. Please address the impact on pedestrian safety in the examination of the pedestrian walkway. 3. Access for emergency service vehicles: It is our understanding that access roads for emergency service vehicles should not exceed a 12% grade. The current plan for this project indicates that the slopes will be greater than 12%. Please address this issue in the EIS. 4. Visual impact: The EIS should address the negative visual impacts of the project. Specifically, the retaining wall on 76`h Avenue West, the water retention pond location, and the streetlights located on the highest point in the neighborhood are some of the features of this proposal that have negative visual impacts and need to be included in the scope of the EIS. 5. Economic impact: This proposed subdivision in the midst of an RS-20 zoning area and will have an impact on the property values of the surrounding parcels in the neighborhood. Please address this economic impact specifically in the EIS. 6. Public benefit: It is our understanding that a re -zoning requires the establishment of benefits to the public. We cannot identify any such benefit, and the scope of the EIS should specifically include what the benefit to the public is that would warrant such a change in zoning. We request to be informed of any decisions or changes in the scope of the EIS. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to go over what support documentation for the above issue. We also request copies of the City of Edmonds Landslide maps and studies that cover the subject property, and copies of Soil Engineer Reports that have been prepared for the subject property. Please let us know the cost of coping the reports, and when we may come to your office to pick them up. Sincerely, Michael King &Margaret Plecki Email: mpleckina u.washin tog_n.edu, hydrodynamicsna.rconnect.com � APR 0 4 pLA 2006 ING p pf. �o�a Cep � HTML editor Senior Planner Gruwell, APR 0 6 2006 EDMONDS CITY CLERK ff'¢® APR 1 0 2006 PLANNING DEPT. My name is Larry Quisenberry and I would like to address the proposed land use action being considered by your department, File number R-05-169/PRD- 05-168. The proposed land use is described as follows; Application for contract re -zone to change from RS-20 to RS-12 and to develop 2.84 acres with 9 lots. I would like to address the application not only as a member of the immediate neighborhood which will be affected by the proposed changes and plans for development, but as a concerned resident of the community of Edmonds. There are 3 main points I have that I think are salient to the argument against granting this proposed action. First and foremost is the impact this will have on the environment in this pristine and unique corner of Edmonds. My family and I were fortunate enough recently, to view an eagle soaring above the proposed development location. I am not relating this to illustrate the majestic nature of this scene, but to demonstrate a real and pragmatic reality of the impact development on this property will have. This eagle was hunting on this land; if this land is developed, the eagle's native habitat will be adversely affected and it will, at best, have to find other hunting grounds on which to rely. Additionally, there is a stream that runs through this area which doubtlessly supports its own unique ecosystem.. Development of this 2.84 acre piece of land can only have negative consequences on this ecosystem and the flora aid fauna that make it up. My second point goes to the unfettered nature of the exploitation that this development will represent. Clearly; this application belies a plan to maximize to the fullest extent the amount of proceeds that can be realized with the development of the land. The desire to cut the minimum lot size the land is currently zoned for almost in half is clearly exploitive in nature. The city of Edmonds has an opportunity to take a stand for doing the right thing by declining the application on the grounds that the city is not interested in lining 6 developer's pockets with gold at the expense of the charm and environmental collective consciouess its citizens. My third anf nal point relates to the pragmatic implications this http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wm/toolbar/notheme.html 3/29/2006 HTML editor rage L or l development will have on the immediate neighborhood as well as those neighborhoods that lie near this proposed land use. The proposal to connect 76th Avenue with the road that runs above 76th will not only increase the traffic burden of the area from the proposed 9 new residents and probable addition of 18 more vehicles, but other vehicles traveling this area as well. This area of 76th Avenue is already very dangerous to navigate due to several blind corners and a complete lack of sidewalks. People taking walks and those riding bikes quite literally risk their lives navigating this section of 76th Avenue. There are very few "escape" routes should a car come around one of these corners at the wrong time - if more cars are added, probabilities of these occurrences taking place will naturally increase and someone will end up getting hurt. In summary, I urge the Planning and Land Use department of the City of Edmonds to deny this application. I appeal to the City's sense of responsibility to its citizens and neighbors to do the right thing and disallow this attempt to exploit some of the most precious resources the city of Edmonds has; its land and its charm. Thank you for your attention in this matter, Sincerely, .Larry Quisenberry 16621 76th Ave. West Edmonds, WA 98026 LarryQ&Amgen.com LarrvO(&comcast.net (425) 835-0335 (206) 930-4817 http://mailcenter.comcast.net/wm/toolbar/notheme.html 3/29/2006 Janice Conner 16525 74" PI. W Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 742-6069 April 6, 2006 Ms. Meg Gruwell Senior Planner — Planning Division City of Edmonds 121 51h Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 APR 0 6 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RE: Serene Creek PRD, Saeed Soleimanpour, P.E./ECEC, Inc. File Nos.: R-05-169 and PRD-05-168 Dear Ms. Gruwell: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the areas for discussion in the EIS and to oppose the contract rezone to change the existing zoning from Single-family Residential RS-20 to Single-family Residential RS-12. EIS: l . 741h Place W as shown on the attached site map is designated by sign to be a "Private Lane" and is a narrow lane that allows for only one vehicle to travel in either in or out direction at any one time. The Serene Creek PRD, if given the rezone will severely impact this lane and will only compound the traffic hazard at the intersection where the lane meets the traffic coming up off of Meadowdale Beach Road and the local traffic coming down 741h Place W. 2. 741h Place W topography on the downhill side is extremely steep, and would require considerable footage of retaining walls in both height and length along the east side of the proposed development. 3. The area is habitat for a number and diversity of species of plants, fish and other wildlife including residential nesting Blue Herons. 4. The development is situated in the previously designated 2% Meadowdale Slide Zone, thus the few homes, the better. Rezone: While there are a few RS-12 zones in the surrounding area, the majority have a single road in/out with a turnaround. The area that the developer uses to substantiate his argument for the rezone is the PRD-1976-1 known as Brook Acres and is a one way in/out and a gated community, thus impacting no one other than those in the development. 2. I oppose the density of this development and the traffic impact it would provide on 74` Place W. 3. I specifically chose to build in the Meadowdale area because it was RS-20 and the privacy that the lane affords was also a major factor in the decision. I own two lots, which were aggregated to only one parcel now being 1.5 acres - 16525 74`h Pl. W. One house on 1.5 acres versus the developers plan of seven on two acres! . 4. The one way in/out lane also gives a measure of security against theft as someone looking to steal from or damage property does not choose a location with such limitations on escape. I do not oppose the right of an owner to build on his or her property, but do oppose the impact of higher density on the other neighbors/owners and the adverse impacts on the community and immediate environment. Leaving the zoning as is would still give a reasonable return on investment to the developer even with fewer Single-family homes. In my opinion, while I do not suggest that I speak for Dr. Grier, I believe he will be impacted on two sides, one of the homes planned referenced as #1 at 5,455 SF is directly above his residence at only 10 feet from his property line. The mass and excavation for this home is of serious concern. Construction a few years ago, once again above his residence directly northeast caused major erosion of his property. A win -win solution could be provided by the planned residential development being a gated community accessed only off of 761h Avenue W. The planned residence referenced as #4 could be re -sited or eliminated to provide for an adequate turnaround. Location known as 16515 74'h Place W remaining at RS-20 still allows for demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a larger residence. Even when taking into account the initial purchase, demolition and construction of a residence priced in the high $900,000 range, if not more would provide a return on investment. The developer is showing a platting of reasonably large homes, several of which are only 10 feet apart! The neighbors that attended the recent briefing held by the developer at the Meadowdale Club House left with the impression the developer was only interested in "just maximizing profits". I believe a profit can be realized under existing zoning. All of the mitigation he planned would be required by the City in order to build in a slide -prone area. The neighborhood is solidified against any such rezone. Sincerely, 4an onner Enclosures Cc: Mayor Gary Haakenson RECEPWrz) DEVELOPL4ENT SERVICES OjRID 1 tour 16612 16621 16630 K 14 1,, 2-ds 14"/ �16515 16711 16706 16717 16721 7421 16827 1 16901 16525 7314 7306 1 16520 \ 16510 116500 I 16605 16618 16612 16606 16611 — r 16623 16624 16622 16620 16616 16703 c: c� G4rcl ctSe-c 16742 16711 16719 7417 16727 L16748 \ 7307 RM-2.4 7440 7411 L 16833 16905 7414�6 16907 1691g 10 16917 7418 1 7227 OS 7217 7211 7203 Zonis and VicinityMa RECEIVED g p APR 0 fS, 2006 w P< iv6kv ? La,, e ' el lk Gil DEVELOP!. ENT SSA!l1S=S ram', ` °=., R - •'°` � L� c"�-G, ',�.✓� y:�,fct c�I� ci J Attachment 1 V-2004-100 STArF a " m i 44Rn ,3= n 3y1 /889 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard • Mill Creek, Washington 98012 • (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066 March 20, 2006 4�4F City of Edmonds Meg Gruwell 121 5`h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Gruwell: SUBJECT: Determination of Significance; Serene Creek PRD (R-05-169/PRD-05- 168), Snohomish County The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reviewed the above - referenced Determination of Significance (DS) on March 20, 2006 and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses. Item 3.a.2 states that the stream will be cleaned of trash and restored. WDFW will require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) be obtained for this work. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 379-2305. Sincerel , i Ginger Holser Area Habitat Biologist GH:gh Page I of I Gruwell, Meg From: Kyra McCoy Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:55 PM To: Gruwell, Meg Cc: Haakenson, Gary Subject: rezoning of the Suchert property on 76 Ave West Dear Ms. Gruwell, My name is Robert McCoy and I live at 16510 76th Ave. West. My property is directly west of the Suchert property. I am very concerned over the rezoning of this property and have several issues. First and foremost is the prospect of additional water runoff. I am directly downstream of this property and am fearful of the adverse effects of additional runoff. It is April 20th yet portions of my yard are to wet to walk on. My yard and bank can not absorb any additional water_ Secondly, I am concerned about public safety. This stretch of road has no sidewalks, a hill, and a sharp corner with low visibility. Several neighbors and myself jog here as well as my children biking. I'm afraid the additional traffic high density housing will bring will also make this stretch more dangerous. Thirdly, high density housing will certainly violate the rural quality of our neighborhood. Rezoning does not fit the character and likely will decrease all of our property values. Overall, high density housing can only hurt the safety and quality of our neighborhood as well as destabilize the slide area further. I see no benefit in this rezone other than for the developer. Thank you, Robert McCoy 4/21 /2006 Tobiason & Company, Inc. Land Use Consulting / Landscape Arcbitectztre March 17, 2006 Meg Gruwell City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Proposed Serene Creek PRD Subdivision; Response to March 15, 2006 Letter Dear Ms. Gruwell: I am assisting Saeed Soleimanpour and ECEC, Inc. in their efforts to obtain approval of the Serene Creek PRD Subdivision. It was a pleasure meeting you Thursday morning to discuss the project, and your letter to him. I'm hoping we can agree to an alternative to the preparation of an EIS for this project. The proposal is a rezone from RS20 to RS 12, and it was agreed that the comprehensive plan supports this rezone. The purpose of an EIS would be to fully assess the environmental impacts of the project. In this case, the primary concern is the structural capacity of the soils on site, as well as impacts to soil stability on adjacent sites. This has been extensively studied by two reputable geotechnical firms; you have these reports in your possession (Associated Earth Scientists, Inc. and Geotech Consultants). While there is no reason to doubt the adequacy of these studies, the applicant agrees to finance additional peer review by the City's own geotechnical engineer to verify that the proposal will not cause significant, unmitigatable environmental impact. A full and proper review of the environmental impacts of this project on the stream, the steep slopes, the soils, and the existing road system can be accomplished through conventional project review and the issuance of an MDNS. The extraordinary effort required to prepare an EIS is unmerited for a small and common project such as this. We urge you to hold your Determination of Significance, and allow us the opportunity to address your concerns outside of the EIS process. We have reviewed the opposition letter from the neighbor to the north, Dr. Grier, whose home is located at 16431 74`h Place West. His concerns regarding landslide are understandable and we share them. This is a problem shared by all property owners in this area, and in much of the Puget Sound region. Any development of this site will require careful analysis of its structural capacity and hydrology. It is inaccurate to suggest that an increase or decrease in the number of units alone has a direct relationship with impact to the stability of the slope. A lower density project could easily have greater impact to the slopes; it is not necessary to perform an EIS to 506N.E. 73rd Street, Suite 1A • Seattle, WA 98115 • (206) 522-1024 • Fax (206) 522-1049 • Laurey@Tobiason.biz demonstrate this. The geotechnical reports demonstrate that the proposal can be safely constructed. ' Density is relevant in terms of compatibility. The homes in this area can be characterized as "single family detached residences on large urban lots". The 9 lot proposal is compatible with this. While this project would represent a higher density than some adjacent lots, the proposed density is similar to the newer plats nearby, such as Brookacres Estates, Haines Wharf and Haines Point. It must be expected that, as land values have increased, newer subdivisions will utilize the land more intensely. We discussed better ways of addressing project impacts at our meeting with you. In addition to funding peer review of the geotechnical and hydrological studies, we agreed to develop cross sections of the site and elevations to demonstrate and further analyze the appearance of the final product. Additionally, we can provide a full discussion of the treatment of the slopes to maintain the existing character, the prevention of erosion and landslide and the preservation of views for adjacent properties. Importantly, the changes this project brings to the neighborhood are not simply the addition of more homes and people. This project will provide significant benefits: a safe exit and an alternative route for fire and emergency vehicles to 74`h Place West, which is currently a hazardous, substandard dead end road; safe pedestrian sidewalks within the plat and along its frontage on 76`h Ave. W.; resolution of existing landslide and sink hole concerns which compromise the safety of the adjacent public roads and properties; looping of utilities; adding of street lights; providing geotechnical and hydrological review of the area to determine methods of protecting the hillsides; the provision of retaining walls necessary to accomplish this; the dewatering of the hillside to prevent potential landslides; and the placement of the stream and buffers (including buffering beyond the code requirements) in permanent Native Growth Protection Area tracts. We appreciate your attention to this request, and look forward to hearing from you. We urge you to initiate the peer review of the geotechnical reports in a timely manner as time is of the essence. Feel free to call me directly if you have any questions I might answer. incerely, OBIA & COMPANY, Inc. Laurey Tobi on, President Principal Planner/Landscape Architect Cert. #305 Cc: Saeed Soleimanpour = Associated Earth- Geotechnical Engineering Science's,�' Inc. _iO ,- Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, �:'�` and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Water Resources SERENE CREEK 'V.c`� �14-Ui✓.. f`�sw ` Edmonds, Washington Prepared for Solid and Hazardous. Waste ® Elite�Construction Engineering Consortium, Inc. ,r Project No. KE05360A September 2, 2005 Ecological/Biological Sciences Geologic Assessments 0 y Associated Earth, Sciences,•Inc. September 2, 2005 Project No. KE05360A.' . Elite Construction Engineering Consortium, Inc. 10928 59"' Avenue West ` Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Attention: Mr. Saeed Soleirnanpour, P.E., M.S.C.E. Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and - Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Serene Creek 16612 74" Place West Edmonds, Washington _ Dear Mr. Soleimanpour: We are pleased to present the. enclosed copies of the above -referenced report.. This report summarizes the results of ' our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and preliminary geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the preliminary design and development of the proposed project. At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and'construction methods have not been finalized and the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful _completion of your project. If you "should have any questions or if we can be of additional help -to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Bruce L. Blyton, P.E.' Principal Engineer BLB/Id - KE05360A4 - Projects\2005360\KE\WP _Kirkland 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 -,Fax 425 827-5424 Everett 291 11/2 Hewitt Ave., Suite 2, • Everett, WA 98201 • Phone 425 259-0522 • Fax 425 252-3408 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SERENE CREEK Edmonds, Washington Prepared for: Elite Construction Engineering Consortium, Inc. 10928 59' Avenue West Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5' Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 . September 2, 2005 Project No. KE05360A c Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and preliminary geotechnical engineering study for subdividing the subject property .for construction of new single-family residences. The property is located at 16612 74`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). We were provided with a conceptual development plan that proposed between six and seven single-family residences to be constructed on the property. At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized and the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. As the nature, design, and locations of the site improvements and lots are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the preliminary design and construction of the residences and site improvements at the above -referenced site. Our study included a review of available geologic literature, observing the excavation of 10 exploration pits and 6 exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. A geologic hazards assessment and a geotechnical engineering study were also completed to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable foundations, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated foundation settlements, erosion considerations, drainage considerations, and construction recommendations. This report summarizes our fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Saeed Soleimanpour of Elite Construction Engineering Consortium, Inc. (ECEC). Our study was based on multiple site visits and accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letters dated June 1 and June 17, 2005. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ECEC and their agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/(d - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KD WP Page 1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on our discussions with Mr. Saeed Soleimanpour with ECEC. The number of lots to be placed on the property has not yet been established. We understand that six or seven multi -story, single-family residences are to be constructed on -site. We anticipate that the residences along the western property boundary will not extend more than one story above grade, but will contain daylight basements. The proposed residences are expected to utilize slab -on -grade floors and wood - frame construction. We expect that the development will be accessed via 76`' Avenue West and utilize a single -lane roadway with a turnaround at the north end of the development. We anticipate that rockery walls will be constructed along the roadway due to steep slopes along the proposed alignment. The property is located between 740' Avenue West and 76`h Avenue West, adjacent to 16612 74`h Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The approximately 2-acre parcel generally slopes down to the west and is situated within the previously mapped Meadowdale Slide Area. The total elevation change across the property was on the order of 60 feet. The property contains steep slopes, defined by the City of Edmonds as slopes greater than 15 percent, in the southeast corner of the property and along the north and west property boundaries. Locally, we observed slope faces on the order of 40 to 50 percent. The middle third of the property was relatively flat. Topographical features can be observed on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The property is accessed via a roughly graded road entering the southwest corner of the property from 76`h Avenue West. A sewer alignment crosses the property on the north end of the site. Visual observations indicate that the sewer is about 8 feet deep. Also observed on - site was a shallow, approximately 3-foot-wide creek crossing the southeast quarter of the property. The creek is located at the toe of a 50 percent slope forming the southeast corner of the property. The site contains a moderate growth of native vegetation consisting of maple and evergreen trees, ferns, and overgrown weeds and short grass. We did not observe significant erosion or landslide features while we were on -site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included excavating 10 exploration pits and 6 exploration borings to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on the undated site plan and survey provided by ECEC. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. WIN - KE05360A4 - Projects 00053601KEIWP Page 2 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the subsurface explorations completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits Exploration pits were excavated with a trackhoe. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. 3.2 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 4'/4-inch, inside -diameter, hollow - stem auger with a truck -mounted drill rig. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The exploration borings were continuously observed and logged by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained from the exploration borings by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2- inch, outside -diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140- pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached exploration boring logs (Appendix). The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/Id - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Page 3 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions on the parcel were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. As shown on the field logs, subsurface soils generally consisted of medium dense silty sands and stiff to hard sandy silt interpreted as landslide debris overlying very stiff to hard silts and dense sands interpreted to be the Whidbey Formation. Fill was encountered overlying these soils in exploration boring EB-4 and in exploration pits EP-6, EP-7, and EP-8. Fill is expected to be encountered across most of the flat portion of the property. The following section presents more detailed subsurface information. 4.1 Stratigraphy Topsoil Topsoil consisting of loose, moist, dark brown, silty sand was encountered in most of the explorations. The topsoil ranged in thickness from about 6 to 12 inches. This material is unsuitable for structure or pavement support. Fill We observed uncontrolled fill soils on the flatter portion of the site. Fill was observed between 2 and 10 feet below existing site grades. The fill appeared loose and generally consisted of sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Relic topsoils were generally observed at the fill/native ground contact indicating that the topsoils had not been stripped prior to the importation of the fill. This material, as well as the relic topsoils, is generally unsuitable for structure or pavement support. Landslide Debris Sediments encountered below the topsoil layer generally consisted of stiff to hard silts with interbedded fine sand layers and medium dense, fine to medium sands with varying quantities of silt and silt interbeds. We interpret these sediments to be representative of old landslide debris observed throughout the Meadowdale Slide Area. Area landsliding generally consisted of large slumps that occurred during the ablation of the Puget Lobe of the Vashon ice sheet and lowering of the level of Puget Sound. Smaller landslides have been active in the area since original movement, but no evidence of recent movements were apparent on this site. The landslide sediments were encountered in all of our explorations and generally extended between 13 and 20 feet below existing grades. Landslide debris is not expected to be suitable for the support of foundations. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/!d - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Page 4 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions Whidbey Formation Below the slide material, we encountered stiff to hard silts and dense sands with interbedded silt deposits. Exploration borings EB-1 through EB-5 all encountered the above sediments to the bottom of our explorations. We interpret these sediments to be representative of the Whidbey Formation. Whidbey Formation soils consist of medium -bedded sand, silt, and clay with the particle size of the material varying from clay to coarse sand. The sorting is generally good within each individual bed. We consider the clean, free -draining sands we observed within the formation to be suitable for use in structural fill applications if suitable moisture conditions are achieved. The silty soils we observed in the lower portion of the formation are considered to be moisture -sensitive and are not recommended for use as structural fill. The silt and silty sands can only be used in non-structural fill applications and only if suitable moisture conditions are achieved. Wet soils will require drying during favorable dry weather or admixture treatment to be considered for use as structural fill. We consider the Whidbey Formation to be suitable for support of pile foundations, but piling will be required to reach this geologic unit. 4.2 Hydrology Shallow ground water was not encountered in the exploration pits except for in the location of EP-8 where seepage was encountered at a depth of 11 feet. The local ground water surface was encountered at depths of approximately 22 to 25 feet in exploration borings EB-4 and EB- 6 at the time of our field study in June/July 2005. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of the year, variations in the amount of precipitation, and changes in site development. Seepage may also occur at random depths and locations in unsupervised or non -uniform fills and slide debris materials. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/td - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Page 5 f Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Serene Creek and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on review of the City of Edmonds maps of environmentally critical areas, and upon our site explorations and landslide analyses. The subject site is classified by the February 28, 1985 GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) supplemental Landslide Hazard Map as having hazards from debris slides with a 2 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period in material that has not previously failed. No hazard was assigned to previously failed landslide debris located within the interior of the site. Visual observations of the existing slopes did not show evidence of recent slope movement, such as bowed trees or landslide scarps. We find the GeoEngineers' site assessment to be in general conformance with our on -site observations. As shown on Figure 2, the site contains steep slopes along the northern and western property boundaries. As with most steep sites, the potential for moderate to severe erosion hazards or shallow debris flow landslides are high if site slopes are devegetated or surface water runoff is diverted onto or concentrated on the slopes. The recommendations in the following sections address landslide and erosion hazards. 5.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION 5.1 Slope Stability Reconnaissance Based on our reconnaissance, the slopes in question appear to have a low to moderate risk of movement in their current configuration and show no obvious indications of recent deep-seated instability. Several large -diameter fir and deciduous trees likely exceeding 50 years in age are established on the slopes and do not show bowing at their base, indicating the downslope creep rate of the colluvium is relatively slow. In our opinion, based on the current observed slope conditions and the lack of ground water seepage from the slopes, the City steep slope buffer may be reduced to allow for construction of lightly loaded, single-family residences on or adjacent to the slopes located within the east - central and western portions of the site, provided that the residences are founded on deep foundations extending at least 15 feet into the Whidbey Formation. Pile foundations should be designed as discussed under the section on Foundations. 5.2 Stability Analysis To evaluate the stability of the slopes under the existing and post -development conditions, the computer program Slope W, Version 3 by Geo-Slope International was utilized. The model used the Bishop method of a rotational failure mechanism. Input parameters for the analysis consisted of slope geometry, geology, and ground water conditions of the slopes interpreted September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/ld - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KEI WP Page 6 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Serene Creek and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations from our field reconnaissance, explorations, and estimated soil strength parameters. The slope geometry was developed from a topographic map of the site prepared by Pacific Geomatic Services, Inc. In general, the calculated factor of safety is the ratio between the available soil shear resistance and the gravitational forces that tend to produce a slide. When the soil strength is equal to the slide -producing forces, a factor of safety of 1.0 would exist, and the slope would be in a state of incipient movement. An acceptable factor of safety would depend on the level of risk deemed acceptable by the owner and the City of Edmonds. A static factor of safety of 1.5 would be considered suitable with respect to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. During short-term seismic loading, considering a potential ground acceleration of 0.2g, a dynamic factor of safety of 1.1 is generally considered acceptable. The soil stratigraphy for the stability model is based on the geologic field reconnaissance and exploration logs completed for this project. The locations of the cross sections studied (Sections A -A', 13-13% and C-C') are shown on Figures 3 through 5, respectively. The Section A -A' location chosen to be representative of the general overall slope conditions for the northern portion of the property and Section B-B' representative of the southern portion of the slope were evaluated. Section C-C' through the steepest portions of the property (north of Section A -A') was also evaluated. The soil properties used in the slope stability analysis employ the Mohr -Coulomb model and are presented in Table 1. The soil densities and other soil properties are estimated based on our experience with similar soils and correlation with published information. Table 1 Soil Properties Used in Slope Stability Model Angle of Internal Moist Unit Cohesion Friction Seismic Ground Soil Type Weight (lbs/ft') (lbs/ft2) (phi) Acceleration de Material 120 100 26 0.2g FS'i Whidbey Formation 130 300 34 0.2g In general, our slope stability analysis evaluated the risk of landsliding within the surficial fill and landslide debris, and deep-seated global landsliding extending through the underlying Whidbey Formation. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/1d - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KDWP Page 7 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Serene Creek and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations Our computer analysis generally showed factors of static safety of at least 1.5 for shallow - seated slip surfaces through the existing fill and landslide debris along Sections A -A' and B-B'. Static factors of safety between 1.1 and 1.5 were calculated for the fill/landslide debris along Section C-C. The stability analysis indicates that static factors of safety are well above 1.5 for deep-seated slip surfaces passing through the Whidbey Formation. The analysis indicates seismic factors of safety are near incipient movement, and shallow -seated landsliding within the landslide debris is possible during strong earthquakes. Seismic factors of safety greater than 1.1 against landsliding are present within the Whidbey Formation during strong earthquakes. In general, the factors of safety determined by the computer model are likely conservative when compared to actual field conditions. This conservatism comes from the compounding of "worst -case conditions" (i.e., slope angle, unit weight, and phi angle) in the computer model, and the inability to model the positive effects of weak soil cementing, tree roots, established drainage, and other features. Based on the results of our analysis, it is our opinion that stability of the existing slopes during static conditions will support construction of the proposed residences, with the exception of the steeper sections of the slope near Section C-C. Regrading this slope to shallow angles similar to those of Section A -A' will likely result in suitable static factors of safety. The analysis also indicates that during strong seismic events, factors of safety against slope instability are near incipient movement and landsliding is possible. Therefore, site grading and foundation construction would need to be designed such that the slopes are both unloaded and buttressed sufficiently to improve seismic factors of safety to 1.1 or above. This could be accomplished by restraining slopes with foundation and retaining walls, and by removing soil from slope crest areas and filling near the toe of the slopes. The proposed daylight foundation cuts will act to unload the slope and increase stability. These issues will require further slope stability modeling and analysis as the design plans are refined. The site slopes should be suitably stabilized during construction provided that shoring walls or shallow cut slopes (1.5HAV [Horizontal: Vertical]) are utilized. To provide sufficient long- term slope stability will require that foundation walls for the western residences adjacent to the steep slopes are designed to account for both static and seismic earth pressure loads, and that retaining wall and foundation loads are carried by augercast pile foundations. The augercast piles should extend through the fill/landslide debris and into the Whidbey Formation. Recommendations for shoring and pile support are included in the Preliminary Design Recommendations section of this report. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/!d - KE05360A4 - Projects 12005360WDWP Page 8 il Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Serene Creek and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations 5.3 Slope Stability Mitigation The aforementioned slope geometry and geologic conditions present a moderate landslide hazard risk for the site. To mitigate landslide hazards at the site, we recommend that the construction plans also include the following measures: 1. Control of storm water crossing the site to prevent discharge of water on or above the steep slopes. 2. Structural fill should not be added to or placed above the crest of site slopes. Proper grading, compaction, and benching of subgrade soils where fill soils are placed. 3. Permanent slopes in cut and structural fill must be limited to 21-1:1V. In areas where it is not feasible to construct a 21-1:1V slope, engineered walls should be constructed. 4. Limit site clearing only to areas to be developed. 6.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The subject property has a moderate to severe potential for erosion when the area is devegetated. To mitigate and reduce the erosion hazard and potential for off -site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. Surface water should not be allowed to flow across the site over unprotected surfaces. 2. All storm water from impermeable surfaces, including driveways and roofs, should be tightlined to a suitable system that does not discharge water on or above steep slope areas. 3. Silt fences should be placed and maintained around the downslope perimeter of the proposed construction areas throughout the entire construction phase of the project until permanent landscaping and permanent storm water collection facilities have been installed. 4. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner. as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of straw bales and/or additional silt fences around pile perimeters. 5. Areas stripped of natural vegetation during construction should be replanted as soon as possible or otherwise protected. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects 1200536011M WP Page 9 e Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Serene Creek and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations 6. Temporary construction entrances should be constructed with quarry spalls to mitigate tracking of sediments onto adjacent streets in accordance with City of Edmonds regulations. 7. Interceptor swales with check dams and/or sumps should be constructed to help control storm water runoff. 8. Temporary sediment catchment facilities should be cleaned out and maintained periodically, as necessary, to maintain their capacity and function. 9. Site development should occur during the dry season, if possible. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Rage 10 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.0 INTRODUCTION Our explorations indicate that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. Near -surface soils generally consisted of loose silts and sands or medium dense to stiff landslide debris. Due to the relatively deep depths required to encounter bearing soils, we anticipate the use of piling for foundation support. We understand that the distribution of foundations loads of the proposed residences will be typical; loads on the order of 2 kips per lineal foot of foundation can be expected. In our opinion, the Whidbey Formation soils observed at depth are suitable for providing suitable bearing support provided that piles are sufficiently embedded within these soils. Due to the presence of landslide debris mantling the site, foundation excavations will require the use of shoring or shallow excavation cuts to maintain the current stability of site slopes. Grading on and adjacent to site slopes should be limited to cuts to avoid impacting site stability. To achieve adequate factors of safety against site slope instability during seismic loading may require grading improvements and use of retaining structures. The need for these improvements should be based upon additional slope stability modeling incorporating the planned site grading and building foundations. 8.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road areas should include removal of all trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Loose topsoil and non-structural fill should be stripped down to the underlying, medium dense silty sand and stiff to hard silt soils. Since the density of the soil is variable, random soft pockets may exist and the depth and extent of stripping can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. We recommend that road areas be proof -rolled with a loaded dump truck to identify soft spots; soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 • Projects120053601KEIWP Page I I Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations 8.1 Temporary Slopes In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the unsaturated, medium dense sands and stiff to hard silts can be made at a maximum slope of 1.5H :1 V . As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. 8.2 Moisture -Sensitive Soils The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material which makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near -surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 9.0 STRUCTURAL FILL Due to the slopes on the site, structural fill will likely be required to establish desired grades. However, placement of fill above or on the upper portion of site slopes is not recommended. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement, and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. 9.1 Subgrade Keying and Benching Where fill is approved to be placed on slopes steeper than 5H:1V, the base of the fill should be tied to firm, stable subsoil by appropriate keying and benching, which would be established in the field to suit the particular soil conditions at the time of grading. The keyway will act as a shear key to embed the toe of the new fill into the hillside. Generally, the keyway for hillside fills should be at least 8 feet wide and cut into the lower, dense sand or stiff silt. Level September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/!d - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KE1WP Page 12 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations benches would then be cut horizontally across the hill following the contours of the slope. No specific width is required for the benches, although they are usually a few feet wider than the dozer being used to cut them. All fills proposed over a slope should not exceed a depth of 2 feet or should be restrained by use of a retaining structure. All fills should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. We also recommend that fill areas on site slopes be equipped with subfill drains. Subfill drains may consist of a 1- to 2-foot-thick section of free -draining aggregate placed below the fill and covered with a geotextile fabric. The aggregate should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard or to a firm and unyielding condition as determined by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. The subfill drains will prevent development of hydrostatic forces beneath or behind the fill body. 9.2 Fill Subgrade Preparation After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard or to a firm and unyielding condition as determined by the geotechnical engineer or his representative. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining layer by silt migration from below. 9.3 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction After the recompacted ground is tested and approved or a free -draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 10-inch loose lifts with each lift being compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local or county codes and standards. Where fill is placed on sloping ground, the top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the locations of structures or pavement edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:IV, 1 September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/ld - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KDWP Page 13 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations 9.4 Moisture -Sensitive Fill Materials Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. The on -site soils generally contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture -sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non - organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. 9.5 Structural Fill Testing The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance of filling activities to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in -place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing frequency. 10.0 SHORING RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations can be used for design of cantilever soldier pile walls. We anticipate that soldier pile walls will be required during planned excavations along the western property boundary. Soldier pile walls would allow for top down construction and would retain the slope during construction. We recommend that a conventional shoring wall be designed to withstand lateral soil pressures based on "active" lateral earth pressure conditions. This design pressure, based on a level backslope, can be modeled by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight equal to 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) triangular distribution. The 40-pcf load acts over the lagged portion of the wall above the excavation level and over 2 pile diameters for the portion of the pile shaft embedded in the slide debris sediments below the excavation level. Due to arching effects, timber lagging can be designed for 60 percent of the calculated lateral earth pressure. Lateral loads imposed by traffic, equipment, or backslope surcharges adjacent to the shoring should be September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/!d - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KEIWP Page 14 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations added to these values. The use of active lateral earth pressure for design does assume lateral displacement on the retained side of the shoring system equal to approximately 0.01 times the slope height. Some lateral deflection of the shoring walls should be expected and corresponding slight settlement of structures located within a horizontal distance of two times the shoring wall heights could occur. If settlement -critical structures are present within a lateral distance equal to twice the wall height or if the shoring is structurally restrained from yielding, at -rest lateral earth pressure should be used for design. The at -rest lateral earth pressure can be represented by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of 60 pcf assuming no surcharges and a level backslope. Careful pile installation, excavation, and lagging installation to minimize ground loss will reduce potential movements. Further, complete backfilling of the lagging is essential to the successful performance of the shoring system. Structural concrete should be used in the bottom of the soldier pile holes up to the bottom of the planned excavation if the soldier piles are to support permanent building loads. Lean concrete or controlled density fill (CDF) with at least 100 pounds per square inch (psi) compressive strength can be used above the planned excavation base where it will need to be removed to install lagging between the beams. Once the beams and concrete are in place and the concrete is cured, the excavation can proceed. Timber lagging should be installed from the top down as the excavation progresses. Excavation should be just adequate to allow installation of lagging; overexcavation should be avoided. Any void spaces between lagging and the cut face should be filled with pea gravel or CDF as soon as practical. Lateral "passive" soil resistance of 350-pcf equivalent fluid may be relied upon to resist lateral movement of the piling within the Whidbey Formation. This resistance acts over 2 pile diameters. If desired, the soldier piles used for shoring could be incorporated into permanent structures and could be used to support compressive and uplift loads in addition to lateral loads. Axial load capability of the piles will be dependent on pile diameter, length, pile tip elevations, and other factors that are not known at this time. Soldier piles should be installed at least 15 feet into the Whidbey Formation. Axial compressive capacities of soldier piles 18 to 24 inches in diameter of 20 to 50 tons per pile are typical. Higher compressive capacities could be achieved with larger -diameter piles. We recommend that we be allowed to observe shoring installation operations as they are completed. In that way, we can confirm that the soil conditions encountered are consistent with our observations and assumptions used to formulate our recommendations. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Page 15 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations 11.0 FOUNDATIONS To mitigate post -construction settlements, pile foundation systems are recommended for support of the proposed structures above the landslide debris mantling the site. We evaluated several pile types, including both driven and drilled pile foundations. For this project, we recommend the use of drilled augercast piles along the western property boundary to support the structures while resisting lateral forces in the slide material encountered during our explorations. Structures on the eastern half of the property may be supported with either augercast or small -diameter pipe piles. In all cases, the piles must extend through the fill/landslide debris and into the bearing soils observed at depth. For foundation design in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the following geotechnical parameters should be used: Site Class C from Table 1615.1.1 Ss = 122% (Figure 1516[l]) Si = 43 % (Figure 1516[2]) Fa = 1.0 (Table 1615.1.2[1]) F,, = 1.4 (Table 1615.1.2[2]) The following sections provide both small -diameter pipe and augercast pile recommendations based on preliminary development plans provided by the client. 11.1 Pipe Pile Foundations Pipe pile foundations should only be considered for structures on the east side of the property. Vertical foundation loads can be supported by steel pipe piles driven through the fill and landslide debris, and gaining bearing support within the underlying Whidbey Formation. Lateral soil pressures will be accommodated by passive pressure against foundation grade beams or through use of battered piles. Because of the variable nature of the subsurface soils, we estimate pile lengths to be on the order of 15 to 30 feet for the proposed residential structures. However, pile lengths could vary considerably from this range depending on pile size, hammer size, soil density, moisture, and consistency, and other factors. We recommend that an experienced contractor install all piles. Axial Pile Capacities Table 2 presents allowable axial capacities for different pile sizes. Pipe piles should consist of 3- or 4-inch nominal diameter, galvanized steel pipe driven to the prescribed refusal criteria during sustained driving with the noted hammer type. Allowable design loads may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlements of pile - supported structures will generally be on the order of 3/ inch. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects 120053601KEIWP Page 16 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations Table 2 Pipe Pile Design Parameters Allowable Axial Pipe Minimum Refusal Compressive Diameter Wall Hammer Size Criteria(') Load') (inches) Thickness (Ibs) (seconds) (kips) 3 Schedule 40 650 12 12 4 Schedule 40 850 16 30 Refusal is defined as less than 1 inch of penetration in "X" seconds under constant driving. Allowable load may require verification by load tests. Pile Inspections The actual total length of each pipe pile may be adjusted in the field based on required capacities and conditions encountered during driving or drilling. Consequently, use of the presented soldier and pipe pile capacities in the design requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and examine the contractor's operations. AESI, acting as the owner's field representative, would determine the required lengths of the pipe piles and keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed following completion of pile installation. The City of Edmonds will likely require pile inspections and possibly load tests, especially for pipe piles as they are considered a "code alternate" within most Puget Sound municipalities. 11.2 Augercast Piles Augercast piles may be used to support vertical foundation loads and will also provide limited lateral foundation resistance. If obstructions are encountered at depths where removal is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Edmonds will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction in the Whidbey Formation beneath the slide debris. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed, reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEMP Page 17 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and soft, yielding soils can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine -sack, minimum 4,000 psi grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the proposed augercast piles are given in Table 3. Allowable design axial compressive loads may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile -supported foundations will generally be on the order of t/2 inch. Table 3 Augercast Pile Recommendations Minimum Embedment Into Vertical Whidbey Compressive Lateral Depth of Uplift Pile Diameter Formation Capacity Capacity Fixity Capacity (inches) (feet)(') (kips) (kips)() (feet)13l (kips)(4) 14 15 50 3.4 7 10 18 15 75 6.5 9 20 24 15 100 10.4 12 35 "' Thickness of old slide material was observed to be up to 20 feet. al Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed -headed conditions (incorporation_ into pile caps and grade beam system), and 'h inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. rit The depth of fixity does not include the code -required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. 1'1 Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 35 feet. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is critical to the design of the structures, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEIWP Page 18 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center -to -center and are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 diameters center -to -center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the 'Y' and "y" directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 4 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 4 Lateral Reduction Factors Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4 Lateral Soil Forces on Augercast Piling The augercast piles for the western residences should be designed to resist lateral, downhill soil forces equal to a 40-pcf equivalent fluid density within old slide material. This soil force acts over 2 pile diameters on the portion of the pile shaft that is embedded in the slide debris. Below the slide debris in the Whidbey Formation, lateral passive soil resistance equal to 350-pcf equivalent fluid may be used. The passive resistance acts over 2 grouted pile diameters. 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT We understand the floor slab will be structurally supported on piles and grade beams. Crawl space -type construction may alternatively be used. Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on a 4-inch layer of washed pea gravel to act as a capillary break. The capillary break rock should be covered with a 10-mil plastic vapor barrier. These features are recommended to September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Mid - KE05360A4 - Projects 00053601KE1WP Page 19 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations reduce the potential for wet slab conditions. If crawl space construction is used, the soil below the floor system should be covered with a vapor barrier to reduce dampness. 13.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 40 pcf. Similar walls with up to 2H:1V slopes above the walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 55 pcf. Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled, rigid walls which ,cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 60 pcf. Restrained walls with up to 2H:1V slopes above the walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid of 75 pcf. If parking areas are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces. Due to the presence of steep slopes and landslide debris encountered across the property, we recommend adding a seismic surcharge to the walls. We recommend that a seismic surcharge equal to a uniform pressure distribution of 5H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the height of the wall and the resultant force is applied at one-half the wall height. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill consisting of structural fill compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on the walls. A lower compaction may result in settlement of the slab -on -grade above the walls. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against retaining walls. This would involve installation of a minimum, 1-foot-wide blanket drain for the full wall height to within 1 foot of the final grade using imported, washed gravel or an approved drainage mat against the walls. 13.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factor on Grade Beams Due to the presence of landslide debris, foundation walls, and retaining walls used to support cut slopes should be constructed on pile foundations. Lateral forces may be resisted by a combination of the lateral pile resistance and passive earth pressure acting on the foundation grade beams. September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. WIN - KE05360A4 - Projects 12005360WEI WP Page 20 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations For the east residences (away from steep slopes), grade beams cast against medium dense soil or compacted structural fill may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 250 pcf. The passive resistance value includes a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to reduce the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. We do not recommend relying on passive soil resistance in the landslide debris for the western residences adjacent to the steep slopes. For the western residences, passive soil resistance should only be relied upon for the portion of the piling embedded within the lower Whidbey Formation sediments. Since the structures will be pile -supported, we do not recommend using base friction to resist lateral loads. 14.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The silts and silty sands forming the landslide debris are relatively impermeable and water will tend to perch atop/within this stratum. Additionally, traffic across these soils when they are damp or wet will result in disturbance of the otherwise firm stratum. Therefore, prior to site work and construction, the contractor should be prepared to provide temporary drainage and subgrade protection, as necessary. All retaining and foundation perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set down approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the grade beam and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge to an appropriate discharge point away from steep slopes. In addition, all retaining walls should be lined with a minimum, 12- inch-thick, washed gravel blanket or approved drainage mat provided over the full height of the wall to within 1 foot of final grade and which ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structures to achieve surface drainage. The 2003 IBC specifies the ground surface should be sloped away from the buildings at a minimum gradient of 12H:1V for a distance of at least 6 feet measured perpendicular to the walls. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized and the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/ld - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KE1WP Page 21 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Serene Creek Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. This plan review is not included in the current scope of work and budget. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundations depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a cost proposal. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington 4 Edwardo Garcia, P.E. Senior Staff Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3: Section A -A' Figure 4: Section B-B' Figure 5: Section C-C' Appendix: Exploration Logs Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer Z1,15- September 2, 2005 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. EG/td - KE05360A4 - Projects120053601KEIWP Page 22 APPENDIX .0 .Y O gg - —g!, [P L 'S V 1-7 to —7� fm f� '3T ';,V i6 !4T FL 1.32111., rL -,v LW ZA- --f L L S' Z 6 23. 112 I 4A F'L. < P L I- , M 01 S1 I QF. PL SV i65i! PL SV 163TH PL PL ITE A L YFIELOS, I A, r L ','j 77 rt, PM _ '� _ +6'Z .:• , .t4:, p �7 _� ifi,i„ �� J ( t-. \l`h. jet' -J Z. XE10010AL; i PL SU AZAFIELOS C", 'Z' PL ijl 6PTil PL j 6, PL ST 1721Jl;isr SV D N�- ----------- . . ............. L 17221,0 E:: 17' P.L v) `v r- PL L su 4TH ST P L sle" Z 74711 S, T 175 T11 J F=, 4 1757 777777-7-77 ils is P LL PL Ll -j vi. w COUNTY.17 "Til C) Will r.— im Ile �Tlj tf fit Pt PL 14- IL SV 1781 PL EJSW L '� PL tin N NOT TO SCALE Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 SERENE CREEK DATE 7/05 C' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJ. NO. KE05360A 0 o 'o p Well -graded gravel and Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency LL $�$o cw gravel with sand, little to. Densi SPT4blows/foot d 5' in '. o no fines V Loose 0 to 4 Coarse > o > W) Loose 4 to 10 Grained Soils ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Poorly -graded gravel m _0 v ° o ° ° ° GP and gravel with sand, Medium Dense 10 to 30 Test Symbols 0 0 Nt 6 00 0..j 00° o ° little to no fines Dense 3o to 50 Very Dense >50 G = Grain Size `V o Z k" ° ° ° ° ° M =Moisture Content Consistency SPT(%lows/foot A ' p • Z Silty gravel and silty = Alterberg Limits o (a t • GM gravel with sand Very Soft 0 to 2 C = Chemical Fine- —`° cc • , p Soft 2 to 4 DO =Dry Density Grained Soils c oar jT Cr Medium Stiff 4 to 8 K = Permeability = Stiff 8 to 15 tY H t2 Clayey gravel and Very Stiff 15 to 30 M oc clayey gravel with sand I Had >30 o u Component Definitions `o Well -graded sand and t Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number CD : SW sand with gravel, little Boulders Larger than 12" uc_.... ::-:-:-: to no fines Cobbles 3' to 12' —' d LL = Gravel X to No. 4 (4.75 mm) ' =' ' Poorly -graded sand o > U = SP and sand with gravel, Coarse Gravel T to 3/4' Fine Gravel 3/4' to No. 4 (4.75 mm) m o It m 0 little to no fines Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) � o 0 Z Coarse Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) H y SM Silty sand and Medium Sand No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) silty sand with Fine Sand No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) v o a i .:.: gravel Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm) u� in �' _ SC Clayey sand and (3) Estimated Percentage Moisture Content RH rn clayey sand with gravel D Absence of moisture, Percentage by Dry Component dusty, d to the touch Weight ry. dry Trace <5 Slightly Moist - Perceptible Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, > o ML silt with sand or gravel Few 51010 moisture > Little 15 to 25 Moist - Damp but no visible U) L With Non -primary coarse water Clay of low to medium N U constituents: > 15% Very Moist - Water visible but C _j CL plasticity; silty, sandy, or Fines content between not free draining Z H v, E gravelly clay, lean clay 5%and 15% Wet -Visible free water, usually (a from below water table a 3 _ — == Organic clay or silt of low Symbols m _3 _ — oL plasticity Blows/6' or 0 o Sampler P portion of 6" Type Cement grout / j Sam surface seal clayey silt, silt o jElastiCsilt, MF1 with micaceous or ler T 2'� OD • p yPe Split -Spoon a Description 8entonite g diatomaceous fine sand or , at Sampler P seal H silt 3.0' OD Split -Spoon Sampler (SPT) ' : Filter pack with Clay of high plasticity, rn C7 o 3.25' OD Split -Spoon Ring Sampler t.I : blank casing v -o to CH sandy or gravelly clay, fat Bulk sample _ 3.0' OD Thin -Wall Tube Sampler = section =Screened casing m y J clay with sand or gravel (including Shelby tube) orH drotp C9 v Grab Sample filter k i01iOrganic clay or silt of o Portion not recovered End cap t` J off medium to high t11 plasticity Percenta e d wei ht t°l Depth of ground water �► (SPT) Standard Penetration Test 1 (ASTM D-1586) ATD = At time of drBGng >, y Peat, muck and other (3) $z Static water level (date) In General Accordance with 2 76 PT highly organic soils Standard Practice for Description t� Combined USCS symbols used for and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) fines between 5% and 15% -b ul sues in rms report are oasea on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual and/or laboratory classification methods of ASTM 0-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Sol Classification System. a 3 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. FlcuRe (Exploration Log Key A_1 n 1 2 3 4 4i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil _Loose, moist dark brown silty SAND. Old Slide Material Very stiff to hard, moist, gray -brown, SILT with sand, trace to few gravel (blocky texture). Grades to trace gravel. (thin fine sand interbeds) Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No caving. No ground water. a20 0 N Serene Creek E Edmonds, WA co Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. project No. KE05360A Logged by: EG Approved by: � June 2005 a F- U, Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 F L This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be that for interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the a read together with report complete time Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o of excavation. a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Fill/Old Slide Material 1 Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND, few gravel. 2 3 Medium dense to dense, moist, orange -brown to gray, silty SAND, few gravel, some thin roots. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very stiff, moist, gray with orange mottling, fractured silt with sand, trace gravel. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Medium dense, moist to wet, gray -brown, SILT, few sand, gravel (possible ash, volcanic debris at 16'). 16 17 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 17 feet 18 - No water. No caving. 19 0 26-- N E Serene Creek N Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A Logged by: EG a Approved by: June 2005 U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3 L This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary apn plies only to the locatioof this trench at the a read time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Old Slide Material Dense, moist, SAND with gravel, few silt. 2 3 Dense to very dense, moist, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles. 4 5 6 Whidbey Formation Very dense, moist, silty SAND with gravel. 7 8 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet 9 No caving. No water. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Serene Creek E Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A Logged by: EG Approved by: June 2005 N U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-4 x L This log is partof the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the n. time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Loose, moist, dark brown -black, silty fine SAND, few gravel. 1 Fill/Old Slide Material Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND, few gravel, frequent thin roots, some buried trees. 2 3 4 5 Old Slide Material Medium dense/stiff, moist, tan -brown, silty SAND/sandy SILT, few gravel. 6 7 8 9 Very stiff, moist, mottled orange -brown, SILT, few sand, trace gravel (blocky to fractured structure). 10 11 12 Few gravel. 13 Stiff, moist, orange -brown (oxide staining), sandy SILT, few gravel. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 18 feet No water. No caving. 0 0 N d E m V) 'a 0 to C3 0 U U Y Serene Creek Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc Logged Approvedd by:: Project No. KE05360A June 2005 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-5 i L This log is part of the report Prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the C.time read of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are p a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Old Slide Material Stiff, moist to wet, gray, SILT with sand, few gravel, fractured. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very stiff, moist, brown, SILT, few fine sand, trace gravel. 8 9 10 11 12 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 12 feet 13 No water. No caving. 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 0 N E Serene Creek Edmonds, WA a Q Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A N Logged by: EG a Approved by: ® ® ® June 2005 U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-6 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o a simpification of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Fill Soft, wet, dark brown, SILT, few fine sand. 1 Topsoil 2 Old Slide Material Very stiff, moist, tan -brown, SILT, few fine sand, trace gravel (fractured). 3 4 5 6 Stiff, moist, tan/brown, SILT with sand and some gravel. 7 8 9 10 Medium sand and fractured silt. 11 12 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 12 feet 13 No water. No caving. 14 15 16 17 18 19 020 0 N E Serene Creek Edmonds, WA 'a Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A Logged by: EG Approved by: June 2005 0. U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-7 L This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for com lete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the C time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o a simpification of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Fill Loose, wet, gray -brown, silty, medium SAND, few gravel, occasional thin roots. 1 2 3 Fill Stiff, moist, tan, SILT, few sand, trace gravel (old pipe in sidewall of trench). 4 5 Old Slide Material Stiff, moist, tan, SILT, few sand, trace gravel. 6 7 8 Buried tree roots. 9 10 Grades to with sand and gravel. 11 (jumbled - sand, silt, gravel) 12 13 14 Very stiff, moist, mottled orange -brown, SILT, with sand and gravel. 15 16 Grades to sandy. 17 . Bottom of exploration pit at depth 17 feet 18 No water. Slight caving of trench. 19 020 o E Serene Creek Edmonds, WA a' Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A 0 Logged by: EG Approved by: June 2005 U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-8 L This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the The o time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Fill 2 Medium dense, moist, red -brown, gravelly SAND, few silt. 3 4 5 Fill 6 Stiff, moist, gray, SILT, some sand and gravel. 7 Relic Topsoil Old Slide Material 8 Medium dense, moist, orange -tan, gravelly SAND, few silt. 9 10 Grades to gravelly, wet. 11 12 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 12 feet 13 Seepage observed at 11'. No caving. 'Fills observed to —10' between exploration pits EP-8 and EP-1, brick, wood debris. 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 2^ - N E Serene Creek Edmonds, WA a Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Logged by: EG Project No. KE05360A o ii Approved by: June 2005 L) U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-9 L This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be location the read together with that report for com Fete interpretation. This summary applies only to the of this trench at time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are o a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Old Slide Material Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel, some thin roots. 2 3 Very stiff, moist, gray -brown, SILT, some sand, trace gravel (fractured). 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet 10 No caving. No water. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 020 a N E Serene Creek U) Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE05360A Logged by: EG N M Approved by: June 2005 U Y LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-10 r n This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the Subsurface may change at this location with the of time. The data presented are o time of excavation. conditions passage a simpification of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Old Slide Material Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel and thin fibrous roots. 2 3 4 Dense, moist, gray, silty SAND with gravel. 5 6 Very stiff, moist, gray, SILT, some sand, trace to some gravel. 7 8 9 10 Stiff, moist, gray -brown, mottled, sandy SILT, few gravel. 11 12 13 14 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 14 feet 15 No water. No caving. 16 17 18 19 Serene Creek Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Logged Approvedd by:: MURNU Project No. KE05360A June 2005 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Log ® RN N a Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-1 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (ft) Location Edmonds WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment Date Start/Finish 7/12/05 7/12/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) t N a .276 n� c O 6 > `m Blows/Foot 2 tq F� n S E T m% �E 0 o m a� o rn DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 O Topsoil Loose moist dark brown silty fine SAND few gravel. Recent Slide Material Stiff, moist, brown, sandy SILT, few gravel and interbedded medium sand. 5 S-1 s ♦1 10 -------------------------------- Old Slide Material 10 Hard, moist, brown, SILT, some sand, trace gravel. 9 S-2 16 40 24 15 Hard, moist, mottled gray/red-brown, SILT, few sand, trace gravel. 10 S-3 1s A L57 38 Hard, moist, mottled gray with oxide staining, sandy SILT, trace gravel. 9 S-4 15 A3 20 20 ----------- Whidbey Formation------------ S-5 Very stiff, moist, gray, massive SILT with interbedded sand lenses_ 10 2 11 15 S-6 7 12 29 17 25 Medium dense, moist, gray, silty medium SAND with sandy silt interbeds. 12 S-7 19 40 21 30 Hard, moist, blue -gray, sandy SILT with thin sand interbeds, trace 9 S 8 organics. 11 �2 14 - 35 S-9 8 14 40 26 Bottom of exploration boring at 36.5 feet No free ground water encountered. Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG m Y OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ❑ Ring Sample S? Water Level() Approved by: ® Grab Sample Q Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Log 0W ® N U Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-2 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (it) Location Edmonds WA Datum NIA Driller/Equipment Date Start/Finish 7/12/05,7/19/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) L a a� c �, a� N Blows/Foot ►� n S E m� � E ar 0 T (ry DESCRIPTION O 5 m m L O 10 20 30 40 Topsoil Loose moist dark brown silly fine SAND few gravel. Recent Slide Material Medium dense, moist, light brown, gravelly silty SAND. S-1 8 A 18 10 5 Grades to silty fine SAND, trace gravel, scattered cobbles. 8 S 2 1 Ali 8 Grades to very stiff, wet, brown, sandy SILT, trace gravel. 8 S-3 s . 1 10 10 -------------------------------- Old Slide Material S-4 Hard, moist, brown -gray, sandy SILT, trace gravel. 10 7 1s 21 -------------- Whidbey Formation 15 Hard, moist, blue -gray, sandy SILT, trace gravel. 14 S-5 21 �44 23 20 Very stiff, moist, blue -gray bedded SILT with few sand and thin fine sand 10 S-6 interbeds. 11 �24 13 25 Dense, blue -gray, silty fine SAND with some organic debris. 14 S-7 23 4 22 30 S-8 11 12 30 18 Bottom of exploration boring at 31.5 feet No free ground water encountered. 35 Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) n No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG m Y OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) U Ring Sample Q Water Level Q Approved by: ® Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Log ® ® MN U Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-3 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (ft) Location Edmonds, WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment DateStart/Finish 7/19/05,7/17/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) � tD cL L c — N a> � J tD N Blows/Foot N a 0 S E T m rn 5, 0 cn 9 E a m o m `m t DESCRIPTION 3 10 20 30 40 ° Topsoil Old Slide Material Medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND, some gravel and organics. S-1 10 12 • 28 16 5 Hard, moist, brown, SILT, some sand, trace gravel. 18 S2 18 AL30 22 S-3 s • 8 17 10 S-4 7 e A 19 11 --------------y -- Whidbey Formation 15 Dense, wet, gray, silty fine SAND, trace gravel with thin silt interbeds. 11 S 5 12 • 3 23 20 S-66 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND. 10 • 2 12 -------------------------------- 14 25 Hard, moist, blue -gray SILT, with fine sand and thin sand interbeds, trace 18 S'� organics. 22 A 88 46 30 Dense, blue -gray, medium to coarse SAND with thin silt interbeds. 15 S $ 24 49 25 Bottom of exploration boring at 31.5 feet No free ground water encountered. 35 Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) 0 No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG 01 Y OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) U Ring Sample Q Water Level (). Approved by: IN Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) As§ociated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Log ® ® NN a Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-4 1 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (ft) Location Edmonds WA Datum NZA Driller/Equipment Date Start/Finish 7/19/05,7/19/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) r y T U— —0 0-a c O �-� a> > J = N Blows/Foot N cL S E m> �E T �' DESCRIPTION o " m ° 10 20 30 40 Fill Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, gravelly silty SAND. S-1 9 6 11 5 5 Loose, moist, brown, medium SAND with gravel, few silt. 3 S 2 2 . 5 3 S-3 2 •3 1 10 -------------------------------- Recent Slide Material S-4 Medium dense, wet, brown/black, silty SAND, little gravel. 2 5 1 11 Grades to brown, medium SAND with few silt and gravel. 6 S-5 5 . 7 12 15 Old Slide Material 13 S-6 Dense, wet, brown, silty SAND with gravel. 14 41 27 Scattered cobbles. 20 Dense, wet, brown, medium SAND with sandy silt interbeds (possible 2 S7 perched groundwater).---------------------1 8 A38 Whidbey Formation = 30 25 S-8 Very dense, wet, medium to coarse SAND, some sandy silt interbeds. 014 50/ Cobbles, hard drilling. 30 S-9 0/ 5oi Bottom of exploration boring at 31 feet Perched water at 21'. 35 Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG Y OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) D Ring Sample SL Water Level Q Approved by: ® Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample -T Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Askciated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Log ® ® MN ® Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-5 I 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (it) Location Edmonds, WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment Date Start/Finish 7/12/05,Z/12/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) N _ �o t c o az >= J N Blows/Foot 2 to ,- n S E N 5, � n E d ' m T In 0 rn DESCRIPTION f0 _o m t ° 10 20 30 40 Fill Medium dense, brown, silty SAND with gravel. -------------------------------- Old Slide Material Medium dense, moist, light brown, silty SAND with gravel. $ 1 12 13 30 17 5 S-2 1 � ♦2 15 Grades to medium SAND, trace gravel with silt interbeds. 7 S 3 8 . 1 8 10 S-4 Stiff, moist, light brown, sandy SILT. 7 11 A24 13 15 S-5 ——————————— — — — — —— — — — —— — Whidbey Formation 13 29 A L60 Very dense, wet, gray, bedded silty SAND. 31 20 Dense, moist, gray, interbedded SILT and fine SAND, trace organics. 5 S-6 13 �44 31 25 Grades to silty SAND with interbedded SILT and sandy SILT. y S-7 13 29 16 30 S 8 Hard, moist, blue -gray, sandy SILT with thin sand interbeds, trace 8 organics. 14 30 16 35 S_9 13 27 53 26 Bottom of exploration boring at 36.5 feet No free ground water encountered. Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample V Water Level () Approved by: ® Grab Sample Q Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Astociated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Loci ® ® NN U Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE05360A EB-6 1 1 of 1 Project Name Serene Creek Ground Surface Elevation (ft) Location Edmonds, WA Datum N/A Driller/Equipment Date Start/Finish 8/1 D/05 8/10/05 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) N U O C O n N > m 3 BIOWS/FOOL V1 a S E `` > C� cn o m m t 0 T im DESCRIPTION 6 3 O 10 20 30 40 Forest Duff Old Slide Material 5 S-1 Dense, moist, brown to gray, gravelly silty SAND. 16 (Dense, moist, brown, gravelly silty SAND [landslide debris)) 23 •43 20 10 S-2 Medium dense, moist, brown, sandy SILT with fine sand interbeds. 7 10 �23 13 15 S 3 Brown, gray, with inclined bedding. 6 5 A 7 12 Whidbey Formation Moist, brown, medium SAND, trace silt. 20 S 4 Medium dense, moist, gray, sandy SILT with fine-grained sand lenses. 7 6 . 12 6 25 S-5 Wet. i 4 s A1 10 30 S-6 Green/gray. 7 8 19 = 11 35 S-7 Dense, wet, gray, fine-grained SAND with thin silt lenses. y 14 �23 19 Bottom of exploration boring at 36.5 feet Ground water seepage at 26' and 32'. Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: EG 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) U Ring Sample S_Z Water Level Q Approved by: ® Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) A -uxao lye i sa i n � - ' i ._.-c9 —i•. E-rcca}etn,w) _---__. ��--.-. (\'J � �.�.� `,- --,` '. __ '—� ss- 1 f -_ ca pli I .-% •� -, �'' l � !fir � I � - \-�_-_ '-`_. \, \ ---- _.. -�\ .� i � WNCNwax l O 60 Mar a 9 ■ EP-8- ----- ---- EP-5` _ j , \ O 1 _1Ad 0 LEGEND ■ EP-10 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Oer l EXPLORATION PIT ., -■ EP-4 _E6-3 -- - `• • EB-4 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ■ EP-1 EXPLORATION BORING nmT /1• , � I,* ER-6- ---' � ?yam...--- _CEP- -rl.a(2<?vN)—J.?t— 86A99• ml /34YE(g4= of ) d — -- ewe amc —rorru, / t amen) ads• • Q wiw rvurm I/ Reference: PGS, Inc. Lv 1 - Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE z ® ® ® ® SERENE CREEK SATE 8105 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. KE05360A 190 180 170 160 p w UJ 150 z 0 140 w J w 130 120 110 '7 N � to D wOOO N T T T T HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 1x B' i 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 m Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' FIGURE 4 SERENE CREEK ' DATE 08/05 ® ® ® ® EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. KE05360A i E .3 CV C 190 190 � O w 180 180 LL LU w W tO wZ coL W� �O W?Ch 170 170 160 Fill _"_ 164 Hard, Moist, 16 ,-. Tan Silt, few Sand, Trace Gravel with 40 w scattered Fine Sand Interbels 150 w 150 v (Old Slide Material) 57 i 35 z — \ I 140 140 Very Stiff to Hard, Blue -Gray Silt, 4U \ W some Sand with Fine Sand Bedding ASSUMED SOIL 25 \ CONTACT LINE \ 130 130 (Whidbey Formation) 7YP 40 \ 120 \ 120 110 110 N C(D CD O f�V �' Q CD CEO co N N N HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET) VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 1x Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C' FIGURE 5 ® ® ® ® DATE 08/05 �• SERENE CREEK �'' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. KE05360A OEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 August 29, 2005 JN 05231 ECEC 10928 — 59th Avenue West Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Attention: Saeed Soleimanpour Subject: Transmittal Letter — Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 16612 — 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Soleimanpour: We are pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the proposed residential development to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this preliminary report with regards to the stability of the site slopes and foundation considerations. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-6764, dated June 1, 2005. The attached preliminary report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this preliminary report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. DRW: esn Respectfully submitted, W LTANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal AT- �� C !4 /►dill 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Residential Development 16612 — 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington This preliminary report presents the findings and recommendations of our preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residential development to be located in Edmonds. No formal plans for the development were available at the time this report was prepared. However, based on discussions with Mr. Saeed Soleimanpour, we understand that the property will be platted into seven residential lots. A driveway for the lots will access from 76th Avenue West at the southwestern corner of the property. The southeastern corner and northern tip of the property will be left undeveloped. It is likely that four lots will be located in the more flat to gently sloped, central portion of the site, with three lots located on the western, sloped portion of the site. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. The site is nearly four sided, having longer dimensions on the western and eastern sides. The southern end is wider than the northern end. The western side of the site is bordered by 74th Place West, while the eastern side is bordered by 76th Avenue West. One distinguishing site feature is a stream that flows downward to the south/southwest on the southeastern portion of the site. Near the southeastern corner of the site, a steep slope descends westward approximately 20 to 45 feet down to the stream. An approximate 10-foot-tall, moderate slope rises to the west/northwest from the stream on the western side of the stream. A relatively flat ridge nearly parallels the stream, and descends gently to moderately from 74th Place West to the southwest to the southern property line. The area west of this ridge is somewhat flat to gently sloped. Adjacent to this area, along the western side of the property, the ground slopes mostly moderately downward to the west to the western property line, having inclinations less than 40 percent. At the north end of the site, a steep slope having an inclination of approximately 60 percent declines to the northern property line from the somewhat flat area. A very steep, approximately 8- to 15-foot-tall slope. declines downward to the west and north below the western and northern property lines. The very steep slope to the west ends at 76th Avenue West, while the very steep slope to the north ends in an adjacent residential property. It is very apparent that these very steep slopes were created because of an excavation. We found a topographic map for the area from the 1940's that indicated that 76th Avenue West was in -place when the map was published. Therefore, the steep slope near this street is likely at least 60 years old. We did not observe indications of instability of this steep slope. Most of the site is generally densely vegetated. The western slope and the ridge area near the south and central portions of the site are mostly covered with a mature forest that includes some large evergreen trees. These trees appear to be growing very vertically, indicating that the slopes they are growing on are relatively stable. Several deciduous trees are growing in other areas. However, the flat area on the northeastern portion of the site contains few trees; it may have been cleared recently. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC JN 05231 August 29, 2005 Page 2 Although the site is not developed, a sanitary sewer is located at the top of the moderate and steep slope on the northwestern portion of the site. This sewer extends down the moderate slope near the western -central portion of the site, connecting to a sewer in 76th Avenue West. There are no other formal developments on the site, but it appears to us that grading was done on the central portion of the site in the past. In addition, a small dirt trail, wide enough for a vehicle, traverses the moderate western slope near the southwestern portion of site; also an indication of past grading. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating ten test pits and six borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. No explorations were done on the steep slope areas at the southeastern or northern portions of the site due to access difficulties and because these areas were not in a development plan at the time this report was prepared. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, subsurface conditions encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on June 3, 2005 with a trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 10. The borings were drilled on July 11 and August 10, 2005 using a track -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill and a portable Acker drill (this drill system utilizes a small, gasoline -powered engine to advance a hollow -stem auger to the sampling depth.) Samples were taken at 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 11 through 16. Soil Conditions The explorations encountered three generalized soil strata. One soil type, generally the uppermost soil found in the central and the ridge area of the site, is unengineered fill. This soil was found to mostly consist of silty sand and sand. It was found as deep as 10 feet. Below the fill, and/or near the ground surface in the explorations, was a native, medium -stiff to stiff, sometimes medium -dense, mostly sandy silt soil with intermixed sand. This silt was mostly found to depths of about 12 to 15 feet, although it was only found to be approximately 6 feet deep near the top of the steep northern slope in a test pit and approximately 30 feet deep in a test boring near the base of an approximately 35-percent slope near the northwestern portion of the site. This soil was found to have some significant fracture planes and inclined bedding; therefore, we believe that this soil layer was involved in an ancient landslide (thus geologically termed colluvium). The soil below this colluvium was very similar in composition to the colluvium, but was much stiffer/denser and did not appear to have been involved in a landslide. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC August 29, 2005 Groundwater Conditions JN 05231 Page 3 Little groundwater seepage was observed in a few of the explorations at depths greater than 10 feet. The explorations were left open for only a short time period, thus the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. Groundwater levels encountered during drilling can be deceptive, because seepage into the boring can be blocked or slowed by the auger itself. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. It is possible that groundwater could be found between the fill soils and the less permeable silt soils, or near the lower levels of the colluvium, or in sand layers in the colluvium during the normally wet winter and spring months. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. Where a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture. descriptions indicated on the test pit and boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation and drilling. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. STABILITY ANALYSIS As noted earlier, we believe that the upper native soils at the site was likely involved in a landslide. Based on our experience and published geotechnical information, native silt soils are found to have a low cohesion value and a low friction angle. However, the colluvium silt at this project site appears to have more shear strength than a typical, newer colluvium material. We assumed that it has a low cohesion value of 50 psf. To determine soil friction angle of the colluvium at the site, we performed a slope stability analysis of the approximate 15-foot-tall, steep slope that is just above 76th Avenue West. Because this slope has apparently been relatively stable for at least 50 years, we assumed that it has at least a safety factor of 1.1 (a safety factor of 1.0 is considered borderline stable). Using the WINSTABL computer program, which was developed by Purdue University and uses a Modified Janbu analysis, we determined that the friction angle for the colluvium soil to be 26 degrees for a safety factor of 1.1. We then performed stability analyses on two areas of the western slope; one where the slope inclination is just less than 40 percent near the northwestern portion of the site, and another near the southwestern portion where the slopes are in the range of 25 percent. The soil parameters assumed and determined for the colluvium soil was used in the analyses, along with much higher soil parameters that we assumed for the very stiff/dense lower soils. The assumed cohesion and friction angle for the very stiff/dense soils are 100 psf and 38 degrees, respectively. We found that for a static condition, a safety factor of approximately 1.3 exists for the northwest slope, while a safety factor of approximately 1.8 exists for the southwest slope. A printout of these two analyses are included with this report GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC August 29, 2005 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 05231 Page 4 THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The explorations conducted for this study generally encountered up to 10 feet of relatively loose fill soil in the flatter, central portion of the site. Below the fill in the central area and near the ground surface in the more sloped western side, the explorations generally encountered up to 15 feet of a mixture of native, medium -stiff to stiff silt and medium -dense sand; however, one test boring revealed this soil to a depth of approximately 30 feet. Although the stiffness/density of this soil was moderate, it appears, based on its appearance and consistency, that this soil was likely involved in a landslide (colluvium). The forest cover on the western slope indicates that it has been stable for quite some time. Based on the forest cover, and the moderate stiffness/density of this soil (which is much stiffer/denser than most colluvial soils that we have encountered in the Puget Sound region), we believe that the landslide occurred quite some time ago, likely 500 to 10,000 years ago. The soil encountered in the explorations below this likely colluvial soil consisted of very stiff/dense silt and sand. It is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for a residential development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. However, there are some significant geotechnical engineering issues that need to be addressed to make the project safe and suitable from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The most significant issues are addressed below. The colluvial soil is suitable to support loads associated with residences in areas where the ground is relatively flat, which is in the central portion of the site. It appears that this soil is located near the ground surface in a portion of this central area, but some unengineered fill soil up to as deep as 10 feet is located over the colluvial soil. The fill is not suitable to support residence loads. Therefore, where the fill is located, either it should be removed and replaced with structural fill below the foundation level of the new residences, or it could be left in place and the residences supported on a pile foundation. Because the area of the fill is relatively flat, we believe that the most economic pile foundation in the fill area is driven steel pipe piles. These piles provide a very good vertical capacity in relation to the weight of a residence. The piles provide only minimal lateral capacity, but only little is needed because of the flatness of the area. Another significant geotechnical engineering consideration for this project site is the northwestern and western slopes. Although competent soil was revealed relatively close to the ground surface near the top of the northwestern slope, it has a very steep inclination. Based on conversations with the other project consultants, we have decided that it is best not to construct any residences on the very steep northwestern slope. Residences will only be constructed where the slope inclination is 40 percent or less, which is on the western side of the site. Although the western slope has more moderate inclinations, it is underlain by the colluvial soil. Our stability analyses indicate that a concrete pier foundation is needed for all or most of the residences on the western slope. It may be possible to support the southernmost residence where the slope inclination is the least on . a more conventional foundation, but that cannot fully be determined until the actual residence layout is completed. At least the two northernmost residences on the western slope will have to be supported on concrete piers, with the one furthest to the north likely having the most and/or largest piers. Due to the colluvial soil and the potential for soil movement of the residence if it were placed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC JN 05231 August 29, 2005 Page 5 on a conventional foundation, the downslope piers will have to be closely spaced and extend well into the stiff/dense soil below the colluvium. The actual spacing and depth of the piers will need to be determined after the residence layout is completed. The closely spacing of the piers will provide lateral support for the residences, deterring any downslope or lateral movement of the residences. The amount of steel in the closely spaced piers will be considerable. However, this foundation system will provide for the welfare and safety of the residence and its inhabitants if any movement of the slope were to occur. As noted earlier, it does not appear as though the western slope that is inclined less than 40 percent has moved in the recent past; however, the residences need to be designed for this potential, (but probably unlikely) movement. The existence of the fill soil on the central portion of the site and the colluvium on the western slope portion will increase foundation costs for a residence in comparison to a site where competent soil is located approximately 3 to 4 feet below the ground surface and conventional footings can be used (which is relatively common). Although estimating the additional costs of foundations at this site is very difficult at this stage of development, and contractors should be consulted for more accurate costs, we estimate that the foundation costs of half of the residences in the flat, central area will be approximately $20,000.00 more than a conventional foundation. For the western residences, the southernmost foundation may be approximately $20,000.00 more than conventional, but the northernmost residence's foundation will likely be approximately $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 more than conventional. More accurate costs can be determined by a contractor once the residence layouts are completed and a more thorough geotechnical engineering analysis can be done. The City of Edmonds has a potential soil movement map of the Meadowdale area, of which this site is at its southern end. This map was apparently updated in 1984. The map indicates that most of the site, with the exception of the northwestern end, has a 2 percent potential for shallow soil movement in a period of 25 years. This calculates to a return period of approximately 1,200 years. Because we did not observe indications of surface soil movement, we believe that the map is relatively accurate. However, the map indicates that for the northwestern slope, there is a 30 percent chance of deep soil movement in 25 years. This calculates to a return period of approximately 75 years. Based on competent soil found near the ground surface in explorations located near the top of the northwestern slope, we do not believe that this assessment of soil movement for this area is accurate. Where on -site soil is sandy, it may be reused as structural fill and/or wall backfill. However, the colluvial soil will generally not be suitable for these uses. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review more specific development plans and to then provide more specific foundation and other recommendations. Such a review and further design study would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sp (Stiff Soil). Under the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) the Soil Class would be D. The site soils are not GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC JN 05231 August 29, 2005 Page 6 susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their relatively dense and fine-grained nature, and the absence of near -surface groundwater. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above -recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the. inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand and loose soils can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Topsoil is often placed on regraded slopes to promote growth of vegetation. Proper preparation of the regraded surface, and use of appropriate topsoil is necessary to prevent the topsoil from sliding off the slope. This is most likely to occur following extended wet weather if a silty topsoil is used. On steeper slopes, it may be necessary to "track walk" the slope or cut small grooves across the slope prior to placing the topsoil. Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC August 29, 2005 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS JN 05231 Page 7 Foundation drains should be used for residences where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. LIMITATIONS The analysis, conclusions, and. recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits and borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits and borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ECEC, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing plans for the project, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented. in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ECEC August 29, 2005 JN 05231 Page 8 During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 10 Test Pit Logs Plate 11 -15 Test Boring Logs Appendix Slope Stability Analysis We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. DRW: esn Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. yBpO 20 T" Qy �j.GN 4 S�AI'N.W15H COUNTY AIRPORT HINT 0R 21 • oq y9 t'� 22 IlH 5T SN nv� 1N z HARBOUR: POINTEa Q` o pal P V r^ LT E ,Rl ]2157 Sl �`D> POINj� 41� A 2 SWNAftBOUR a 5'-" r as" ri qqW 27 y sI HAIINEY RD- Rr m d1c ' CyrC � x:: ��, 'q' •► y115'L � wn Sh ST PU7ET s'Iw ' 137TN P " �.sr �'N PL H ' 136TH - A mr ~ Psni SN •IP < a (" � a PL'Sv r ) AA t(�� 7 ) Sr L�f', L' c rt sr d ' s n.� : Knl ar10 n 1 ': 1'%9N'y1 1 iunauu a - p i PS SERENE 34 32 >y sr +'+ 140 ST PICNIC PO N R �J4�� EfroEA 1ao $ a; < t ` tsr sr sN 33 uxF 51 142M N ST NORMA ,E Q EACH' 44 1T ., ..�,� = 200 5lu SERENE ;i ,,� � ' _ = .6<N S< O y faa' : Aa a Q U < f FL �•,n wsi s z FISHER 1 ' > 1 Q R nn r< ar 5200 SY v ^ Sw 9 t S1 Sf 50TH <�� __ '� <' 1N PL SN <' rm. Y 1. a ,� SE 1 1�yTH sM 1191T PL Sll /2W BEM SM PL 'CT;' 1� Rz a 170Ii(• P< i s L 3 1 1 bFAoo►n1LE $ _ t <TZ 152 Fs a ST a' SM ISZND Is2m 1 PL SW.. tdl. �3 ---- 15671sw < 1s.� sErH sr sw 51,8 1 a s .. ,` 17 _ _.• - sN g N 14 k f Y PL SY N , rr [ p. = PARY t 3 v i < > 157TN ST SW 1 �y7 3 � 6BTH _._.. d 1I 158rN rt > < a V NEALI KWE �t 14M 4F,C7dN� SITE F6 NST s a a Sw C I61Sf P(Iq�l L E 1 �pN,.LIY - NR , - , �, �+ 3 B:4I' /' . T Sw $ --- 0 163RD L SW 614 RSw 165TH PL Sr.�:.�,:. > g a 1 N 164 ST - i Sy J} Q I nhL-_ Tt91f� _ 16 ,Pl165 tstN _ IrA Cl) L GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source: The Thomas Guide, Snohomish County, Washington, N 1998) VICINITY MAP 166xx - 74th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 05231 1 August 2005 I NO, '00.. .00 .• .000•' C TP-4 TP-6 0 B-6 B-2 •' j venve�est �••�''�-•�'• P ; U TP-7 TP-8 j 0 TP-9 � 1 1 i 1 B-3 TP-1 1 0 1 j �TP-10 B-5 1 1 i TP-3 j 0 TP-2 0 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 166xx - 74th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 05321 August 2005 No Scale 2 5 10 15 `IO< TEST PIT 1 �1ti��yoPti��a�ti� cc:, 6 -5 Description n-brown SILT, blocky, low plasticity, very moist, stiff (Colluvium) becomes less blocky, with occasional rusted fracture planes with bedding planes, occasional fine sands * Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: I Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 JMJ 3 5 10 04'`�o�ti��aa,�ti� 5G5 G TEST PIT 2 Description FILL Brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, occasional roots, moist, loose (FILL) Orange -brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense SM - becomes tan -brown, medium -dense to dense - becomes dense, partially with gravel und Tan -brown with orange mottling SILT, fractured, non -plastic, very moist, mixed with moist, tan -brown SAND (Colluvium) ML - silt becomes fine, more sandy SP - becomes clayey, hard (not colluvium) * Test Pit was terminated at 17 feet on June 3, 2005. * Slight groundwater seepage was observed at 17 feet during excavation. * Slight caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: I Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 JMJ 4 5 10 15 TEST PIT 3 45 Description Tan -brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose 7SP IGray-brown, silty SAND, with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, ��e_dium- dense, fractured, mixed with tan -brown SAND (Coiluvium) !_Pm 1,11,11 Gray -brown, silty SAND, with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, dense Test Pit was terminated at 8 feet on June 3, 2005, due to trackhoe reach limit No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. Slight caving was observed above 3 feet during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by. Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 I imi 1 71 {��,\�l < o oe,� o-� �a�ti G 5 10 15 5 TEST PIT 4 G �5 Description Brown, silty SAND, with large tree roots, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, loose (FILL) FILL Gray, sandy SILT to silty SAND, non -plastic, fine-grained, with lenses of sand, fine- SM to medium -grained, very moist, loose (landslide debris?) ML Gray -brown with orange mottling SILT, low plasticity, blocky with iron stains on fractures, very moist (Colluvium) ML - becomes massive (not colluvium) - becomes sandy, non -plastic, stiff - becomes silty, low plasticity, very stiff " Test Pit was terminated at 18 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by. Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 I JMJ I 6 5 10 15 5 10 15 CICD 9�4 Go 1 a0 �5 0 TEST PIT 5 12" of Topsoil Description Tan -brown SILT, highly fractured, low plasticity, very moist, stiff (Colluvium) becomes more brown, massive, very stiff (not colluvium) * Test Pit was terminated at 12 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. SILT TEST PIT 6 Description moist. medium -stiff )rown SILT, massive, low plasticity, fractured, very moist, stiff, mixed with rown SAND, fine- to medium -grained (Colluvium) * Test Pit was terminated at 12 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. " No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 I JMJ 7 5 10 TEST PIT 7 Description rown, silty SAND, trace gravel, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, loose (FILL) Orange -brown SILT, low plasticity, slightly fractured, very moist, stiff (Colluvium) becomes tan -brown, occasional sand lenses - tree root - becomes very stiff, with heavy orange mottling (not colluvium) - no mottling, more sandy * Test Pit was terminated at 17 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * Moderate caving was observed above 7 feet during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 1 JMJ f 8 5 10 15 10 15 4o��a�roti� G5 Go 12" of Topsoil TEST PIT 8 Description Orange -brown SAND, with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose (FILL) FILL FILL pray 61L 1, low plasticity, very moist, stiff (FILL) nge-brown SANU, tine- to medium -grained, moist, loose sp - becomes tan -brown, wet, medium -dense w^r o ti� aa%%e, 5 * Test Pit was terminated at 12 feet on June 3, 2005. * Moderate groundwater seepage was observed at 11 feet during excavation. * Moderate caving was observed during excavation. TEST PIT 9 Description nge-brown, silty SAND, with roots, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose an -brown SILT, fractured, low plasticity, very moist, stiff (Colluvium) becomes massive, very stiff * Test Pit was terminated at 9 feet on June 3, 2005. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: I Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 I JMJ 9 5 10 15 ° o��e� a�'0%G �G5 9 G TEST PIT 10 Description range -brown, silty SAND, with trace gravel, roots, moist, loose - becomes gray -brown, dense Gray -brown SILT, low plasticity, slightly fractured, very moist, stiff Gray -brown SILT, low plasticity, fractured, very moist, stiff, mixed with tan -brown SAND (Colluvium) * Test Pit was terminated at 14 feet on June 3, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 05231 Aug.2005 1 JMJ 1 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 <� o� BORING 1 � SSG Description 16 40 57 35 26 29 40 1 25 1 40 ML Gray -brown, sandy SILT, with shards of very stiff gray silt, fractured, low to 1 non -plasticity, very moist, stiff (Colluvium) 20 Gray SILT, with occasional thin sand lenses, low plasticity, very moist, very stiff ML 3 1 - with orange mottling -i 9 - becomes hard I * Test boring was terminated at 36.5 feet during drilling on July 11, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job IDAauqust te: Logged by: Plate: 05231 2005 JMJ 11 5 1 10 1 15 1 20 1 25 30 BORING 2 Description II1111 IIIIII 111111 111111 18 1 K ; SM Orange -brown, silty SAND, trace gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense II IIII 16 2 II I111 - becomes tan brown, no gravel II I111 II1111 22 3 ML Tan -brown SILT, distorted bedding, fractured, low plasticity, very moist, medium -stiff (Colluvium) 37 4 loll ' ' Tan -brown, silty SAND, fine-grained, moist, dense 1 SM 1 I II IIII II1111 44 51 Gray -brown SILT, laminated, low plasticity, very moist, very stiff ML 24 6 IIIIIII Gray SILT, low plasticity, interbedded with silty sand, fine- to 24 7 ' ' ' ' ' medium -grained, very moist, stiff IIIIIII IIIIIII 1 I SM I I IIIIIII I I11111 1111111 IIIIIII 24 8 * Test boring was terminated at 31.5 feet during drilling on July 11, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: I Logged by: Plate: 05231 August 2005 JMJ 1 12 41 G° 1�0 �a 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 35 40 28 40 28 19 BORING 3 456, Description 1 M Tan -brown SILT, low plasticity, very moist, medium -stiff (Colluvium) 2 ML - becomes very stiff, laminated 11M, m 1 49 - becomes less stiff, with steeply inclined bedding planes Tan -brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, dense - becomes gray 7 Dark gray -brown SILT, low plasticity, very moist, hard ML 8 SF Gray SAND, fine- to medium -grained, wet, dense * Test boring was terminated at 31.5 feet during drilling on July 11, 2005. * Groundwater seepage was encountered at 30 feet during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: I Logged by. Plate: 05231 1 August 2005JMJ 1 13 BORING 4 4�':CYO CP Description Topsoil 5 FILL Tan -brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose (Fill) 3 3 Gray to brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, wet, loose 10 16 41 17 5 Tan -brown SAND with sift, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense 15— . ........ 41 6 f becomes silty, very moist, dense SP SM J 20 38 7 Gray -brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, dense 25— 50/4" 8 L! _PJ: 77:77. becomes coarse, wet, very dense 3050/5" — * Test boring was terminated at 30 feet during drilling on July 11, 2005. * Groundwater seepage was encountered at 28 feet during drilling. 35 40 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job jDate: Logged by. Plate: 05231 August 2005 imi 1 14 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 o til'(( a'`e, o�y{400ti e BORING 5 4Go�ti `�,Saro� �� 4� 5a � �SG� Description 30 26 16 26 1111111W11111 44 29 30 53 1 11111 11 1 1 1 1 II1111 1 SM Tan -brown, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense to dense IIIIIII IIIIIII 2 'IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII Gray SAND with silt, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense to SP very dense SM 6 111111 111111 IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII . IIIIIII IIIIIII 7 IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII II II SM ML 11 8 II IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII 9 IIIIIII IIIIIII * Test * No gi Gray, silty SAND, interbedded with sandy silt, very moist, medium -dense to dense boring was terminated at 36.5 feet during drilling on July 11, 2005. -oundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: I Logged by. Plate: 05231 August 2005 JMJ 1 15 5 I r 10 15 20 25 30 1 35 40 1 43 BORING 6 Description 11111110 SMI Brown to gray, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, slightly moist, dense EN111r!M!" 1 17 1 12 1 15 19 33 Brown, sandy SILT, with fine-grained sand interbeds, fine-grained, moist, medium -dense (Co/luvium?) 3 I I I (I I I - becomes brown/gray with inclined bedding planes 411 Brown SAND, medium- to coarse -grained, moist, medium -dense SP vray, sanuy an- i , wim nn"rameu sanu lenses, non-plasuc, moist, medium -dense (Colluvium?) 5 111 rMjI I- becomes wet g 111111111- becomes green/gray Gray SAND, fine-grained, wet, dense 1 7 ......... - silt lenses * Test boring was terminated at 36.5 feet during drilling on August 10, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 16612 - 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logoed by: Plate: 66 05231 Au ust 2005 GDB vto U Stem dope Salty factors 1131 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 Profile.out l� ** PCSTABL6 ** by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin -Madison —Slope Stability Analysis — Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION full steep slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 Top Boundaries 7 Total Boundaries Boundary X Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 125.00 100.00 125.00 1 2 100.00 125.00 122.00 140.00 1 3 122.00 140.00 186.00 164.00 1 4 186.00 164.00 301.00 168.00 1 5 0.00 95.00 100.00 95.00. 2 6 100.00 95.00 186.00 150.00 2 7 186.00 150.00 301.00 154.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Page 1 Profile.out 3 !D Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 135.0 50.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 130.0 145.0 100.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 50 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 95.00 ft. and X = 103.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 185.00 ft. and X = 192.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.06 125.04 2 105.04 125.55 3 109.99 126.24 4 114.91 127.10 Page 2 Profile.out �/O 5 119.81 128.13 6 124.66 129.33 7 129.47 130.70 8 134.23 132.24 9 138.93 133.94 10 143.57 135.81 11 148.14 137.84 12 152.63 140.03 13 157.05 142.37 14 161.38 144.87 15 165.62 147.51 16 169.77 150.31 17 173.81 153.25 18 177.75 156.32 19 181.58 159.54 20 185.30 162.88 21 186.47 164.02 *** 1.310 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.39 125.26 2 105.33 126.01 3 110.25 126.91 4 115.14 127.96 5 120.00 129.15 6 124.81 130.49 7 129.59 131.98 8 134.31 133.61 9 138.99 135.38 10 143.61 137.30 11 148.16 139.35 12 152.66 141.54 13 157.08 143.87 14 161.44 146.33 15 165.71 148.93 16 169.91 151.65 17 174.02 154.49 18 178.04 157.46 19 181.97 160.56 20 185.80 163.76 21 186.07 164.00 *** 1.315 *** Page 3 Profile.out �D Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.71 125.49 2 105.69 125.97 3 110.65 126.64 4 115.58 127.48 5 120.47 128.50 6 125.32 129.70 7 130.13 131.07 8 134.89 132.61 9 139.59 134.33 10 144.22 136.21 11 148.78 138.26 12 153.26 140.47 13 157.67 142.84 14 161.98 145.37 15 166.20 148.05 16 170.32 150.89 17 174.33 153.87 18 178.24 156.99 19 182.03 160.25 20 185.70 163.65 21 186.05 164.00 1.317 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.55 125.38 2 105.50 126.10 3 110.42 126.98 4 115.32 128.00 5 120.18 129.17 6 125.00 130.48 7 129.78 131.94 8 134.52 133.54 9 139.21 135.28 10 143.84 137.16 11 148.41 139.18 Page 4 12 152.92 1, 34 13 157.37 143.63 14 161.74 146.06 15 166.04 148.61 16 170.26 151.29 17 174.40 154.10 18 178.45 157.03 19 182.41 160.09 20 186.28 163.25 21 187.18 164.04 *** 1.318 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.88 125.60 2 105.87 125.93 3 110.84 126.46 4 115.79 127.19 5 120.70 128.11 6 125.58 129.22 7 130.40 130.51 8 135.18 132.00 9 139.89 133.67 10 144.53 135.53 11 149.10 137.56 12 153.59 139.77 13 157.98 142.16 14 162.28 144.72 15 166.47 147.44 16 170.55 150.32 17 174.52 153.36 18 178.37 156.56 19 182.09 159.90 20 185.67 163.39 21 186.27 164.01 *** 1.320 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Page 5 Profile.out No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.04 125.71 2 106.03 126.09 3 110.99 126.66 4 115.94 127.43 5 120.84 128.38 6 125.71 129.52 7 130.53 130.85 8 135.30 132.36 9 140.00 134.05 10 144.64 135.93 11 149.20 137.98 12 153.68 140.20 13 158.06 142.60 14 162.36 145.16 15 166.55 147.89 16 170.63 150.77 17 174.60 153.81 18 178.45 157.01 19 182.17 160.34 20 185.77 163.82 21 185.90 163.96 *** 1.321 *** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.20 125.82 2 106.19 126.18 3 111.16 126.73 4 116.11 127.48 5 121.02 128.42 6 125.89 129.55 7 130.71 130.87 8 135.48 132.38 9 140.18 134.08 10 144.81 135.96 11 149.37 138.01 12 153.84 140.25 13 158.22 142.66 14 162.50 145.24 15 166.68 147.99 16 170.75 150.89 17 174.70 153.96 18 178.53 157.17 Page 6 Profile.out 19 182.23 160.54 20 185.59 163.85 *** 1.323 *** Failure Surface, Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.04 125.71 2 105.99 126.44 3 110.91 127.33 4 115.80 128.36 5 120.66 129.55 6 125.48 130.89 7 130.25 132.37 8 134.98 134.00 9 139.65 135.77 10 144.27 137..68 11 148.83 139.74 12 153.32 141.94 13 157.74 144.27 14 162.09 146.74 15 166.36 149.34 16 170.55 152.07 17 174.65 154.93 18 178.67 157.91 19 182.59 161.01 20 186.13 164.00 *** 1.323 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.23 125.15 2 105.21 125.59 3 110.17 126.19 4 115.11 126.97 5 120.02 127.91 6 124.89 129.02 7 129.73 130.29 Page 7 Profile.out 8 134.52 131.73 9 139.25 133.34 10 143.93 135.10 11 148.55 137.02 12 153.09 139.10 13 157.57 141.34 14 161.96 143.72 15 166.27 146.26 16 170.49 148.94 17 174.62 151.76 18 178.65 154.72 19 182.57 157.82 20 186.39 161.05 21 189.78 164.13 *** 1.323 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.71 125.49 2 105.63 126.38 3 110.53 127.41 4 115.39 128.57 5 120.22 129.86 6 125.02 131.27 7 129.77 132.82 8 134.49 134.49 9 139.15 136.29 10 143.77 138.21 11 148.33 140.26 12 152.83 142.42 13 157.28 144.71 14 161.66 147.12 15 165.98 149.64 16 170.23 152.28 17 174.40 155.03 18 178.50 157.89 19 182.53 160.86 20 186.47 163.94 21 186.57 164.02 *** 1.323 *** Page 8 Profile.out Y A X I S F T 0.00 37.63 75.25 112.88 150.50 188.13 X 0.00 37.63 + A 75.25 + - * ..14 X 112.88 + .....1. - 10.* - 12.. - ......12. - 31.. - 18.. 1 150.50 + .......912.. - 61.. - ........512. - 31.. - .......911. - ........12 S 188.13 + ...*..1* 225.75 + F 263.38 + Page 9 V�D S:My F�cton 1.77 1.77 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 LtsS Srf-EP, sa�� 1� oIr Sw� Profile.out ** PCSTABL6 ** by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin -Madison -Slope Stability Analysis - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 136.00 100.00 136.00 1 2 100.00 136.00 114.00 142.00 1 3 114.00 142.00 127.00 144.00 1 4 127.00 144.00 143.00 152.00 1 5 143.00 152.00 196.00 166.00 1 6 196.00 166.00 242.00 172.00 1 7 242.00 172.00 275.00 172.00 1 8 0.00 120.00 100.00 120.00 2 9 100.00 120.00 127.00 129.00 2 10 127.00 129.00 199.00 153.00 2 11 199.00 153.00 226.00 164.00 2 12 226.00 164.00 242.00 166.00 2 13 242.00 166.00 275.00 166.00 2 Page 1 Pxofile.out V�D ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 135.0 50.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 130.0 145.0 100.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 50 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 50.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 170.00 ft. and X = 250.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf Page 2 Profile.out No. (ft) (ft) 1 98.98 136.00 . 2 103.91 135.19 3 108.89 134.67 4 113.88 134.44 5 118.88 134.50 6 123.87 134.86 7 128.82 135.5Z 8 133.74 136.46 9 138.58 137.69 10 143.35 139.20 11 148.02 140.99 12 152.57 143.06 13 157.00 145.38 14 161.28 147.97 15 165.40 150.80 16 169.35 153.87 17 173.11 157.16 18 176.67 160.67 19 176.93 160.96 *** 1.771 *** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 96.94 136.00 2 101.91 135.43 3 106.90 135.11 4 111.90 135.05 5 116.69 135.25 6 121.87 135.70 7 126.82 136.41 8 131.73 137.37 9 136.58 138.59 10 141.36 140.05 11 146.06 141.76 12 150.66 143.70 13 155.16 145.88 14 159.55 148.29 15 163.80 150.92 16 167.91 153.77 17 171.87 156.82 18 175.66 160.08 19 176.47 160.84 Page 3 Y/, Profile.out v6z *** 1.772 *** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 94.90 136.00 2 99.74 134.77 3 104.66 133.86 4 109.63 133.27 5 114.62 133.02 6 119.62 133.09 7 124.60 133.50 8 129.55 134.23 9 134.44 135.28 10 139.24 136.66 11 143.95 138.35 12 148.54 140.34 13 152.98 142.63 14 157.26 145.21 15 161.37 148.07 16 165.27 151.19 17 168.96 154.56 18 172.43 158.17 19 174.16 160.23 *** 1.776 *** Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.02 136.44 2 106.02 136.31 3 111.02 136.43 4 116.00 136.80 5 120.97 137.41 6 125.89 138.27 7 130.77 139.37 8 135.59 140.71 9 140.33 142.28 10 145.00 144.09 11 149.56 146.12 Page 4 Profile.out 12 154.02 148.38 13 158.37 150.85 14 162.59 153.54 15 166.67 156.43 16 170.16 159.17 *** 1.780 *** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 94.90 136.00 2 99.72 134.69 3 104.62 133.70 4 109.58 133.04 5 114.57 132.71 6 119.57 132.71 7 124.56 133.04 8 129.51 133.71 9 134.41 134.70 10 139.24 136.02 11 143.96 137.65 12 148.57 139.60 13 153.04 141.84 14 157.34 144.38 15 161.47 147.20 16 165.41 150.29 17 169.12 153.63 - 18 172.61 157.21 19 175.48 160.58 *** 1.783 *** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 94.90 136.00 2 99.82 135.14 3 104.79 134.54 4 109.78 134.20 5 114.78 134.12 Page 5 Profile out 6 119.77 134.31 7 124.75 134.76 8 129.70 135.47 9 134.60 136.45 10 139.45 137.68 11 144.23 139.16 12 148.92 140.89 13 153.51 142.87 14 157.99 145.09 15 162.35 147.54 16 166.57 150.22 17 170.64 153.12 18 174.56 156.22 19 178.31 159.53 20 180.81 161.99 *** 1.783 *** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101.02 136.44 2 105.96 135.69 3 110.94 135.22 4 115.94 135.03 5 120.94 135.13 6 125.92 135.51 7 130.88 136.17 8 135.79 137.12 9 140.64 138.34 10 145.41 139.83 11 150.09 141.60 12 154.66 143.63 13 159.11 145.91 14 163.42 148.44 15 167.58 151.22 16 171.57 154.22 17 175.39 157.45 18 179.02 160.89 19 179.81 161.72 *** 1.784 *** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Page 6 Profile.out Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 92.86 136.00 2 97.67 134.64 3 102.56 133.60 4 107.51 132.88 5 112.49 132.49 6 117.49 132.42 7 122.49 132.67 8 127.45 133.26 9 132.37 134.16 10 137.22 135.38 11 141.98 136.92 12 146.62 138.76 13 151.14 140.91 14 155.51 143.34 15 159.71 146.05 16 163.72 149.03 17 167.54 152.27 18 171.13 155.75 19 174.49 159.45 20 175.36 160.55 *** 1.788 *** Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 94.90 136.00 2 99.83 135.18 3 104.80 134.60 4 109.79 134.27 5 114.78 134.19 6 119.78 134.35 7 124.76 134.77 8 129.72 135.43 9 134.64 136.35 10 139.50 137.50 11 144.30 138.89 12 149.03 140.53 13 153.67 142.39 14 158.21 144.48 15 162.64 146.80 16 166.95 149.34 Page 7 Profile.out 17 171.13 152.08 18 175.16 155.03 19 179.05 158.18 20 182.77 161.52 21 184.13 162.86 *** 1.790 *** *0 Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 96.94 136.00 2 101.72 134.55 3 106.60 133.45 4 111.55 132.70 5 116.53 132.31 6 121.53 132.28 7 126.52 132.61 8 131.47 133.30 9 136.36 134.34 10 141.16 135.73 11 145.85 137.47 12 150.41 139.53 13 154.80 141.92 14 159.01 144.62 15 163.01 147.62 16 166.79 150.89 17 170.32 154.43 18 173.59 158.22 19 175.31 160.54 *** 1.790 *** Y A X I S F T 0.00 37.84 75.68 113.52 151.36 189.20 X 0.00 Page 8 Pzofilo'nnt --- ---' 2 ........ 31' —.—.31.° ---31.. ........ *314^ ......... 314.. -.-.--124.' .......... 544.*. ........... 314.. .----'124. ............114. ............. 611 ...'....''... 611 ............... � Page 9 �yo