Loading...
BLD20140454 CANOD.pdfCity of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: Property Owner: El Critical Area File Permit Number: Cq Site Location: Parcel Number: 2-4 0.5'03 0 0 % o 1-4cx> Project Description: ---------- - E] Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. 1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: A??IkIW4- 5G&'4'11+eJ ICAJMr JA'6J "I'll -JJJ1Jq 6 crea4y"Al I V The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance witirECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; I'll" 2. V The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. �,/Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. v The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40, 160 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. ❑ Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). Reviewer . ...... wt igiv e Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the perrnit or approval involved. Revised 1211612010 5 Wil N& WRIAMNUMIMITO MIN 6 W N/ K", 10" 1q, 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 MAY_]_2ZP (425) /47-56 16 FAX (425) 747-8561 f 1r V `J (,,J t,,,.,h —f S r cV" E 0111Y OF El" [ "I �",AIAN D13, Eddie El Sharaway c/o Seaview Business Development 8818 — 2051h Place Southwest Edmonds, Washington 98026 Attention: Steve Gray Subject: Landslide and Erosion Hazard Assessment Modular Block Walls El Sharaway Residence 9231 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Gray: May 9, 2014 JN 14062 via email sc3gray@yahoo.com This letter presents our gootechnical observations and conclusions regarding the landslide and erosion hazards on the property in relation to the modular walls that were constructed on the east side of the lot in 2009, In order to prepare this letter, we have visited the site on two separate occasions. This has allowed us to observe the existing conditions in the areas of both the eastern modular walls and the critical areas, A short rookery existed through the central portion of the eastern property line prior to the 2009 construction of the modular walls. It is obvious that this rookery is older than the modular walls, and was likely constructed at least as long ago as the residence itself. This rockery appears to retain some fill. To the south of the rookery, two short modular walls were built in 2009 to create more level space alongside the driveway, These walls have an exposed height of approximately 3 feet each, and they are set back 3 to 4 feet from each other. We understand that the modular walls were constructed in front of an old short rookery that was pre-existing at this location, At the time of our first visit in February 2014, there were pavers located behind the old rookery in the central portion of the eastern property line. This allowed the potential for vehicles to be parked close to, and create a surcharge on, the rookery. At the time of our May 7, 2014 visit, we observed that the pavers had been removed, and the area within at least 8 feet of the backside of the rookery had been covered with landscape bark, Also, a short fence had been erected along the driveway, These measures will prevent the area behind the old rookery from being used as parking. There is a hedge alongside the driveway through the area of the modular walls, preventing vehicles from driving off the driveway -to park on the area behind the modular walls. Based on our observations, neither the pre-existing rookery nor the modular block walls can be subjected to surcharges from vehicles getting close to them. The eastern portion of the property that is occupied by the residence, yard, driveway, and eastern walls slopes gently toward the northeast. On the western portion of the lot there is a tall, very steep bluff extending down to the BNSF railroad tracks that were installed alongside the Puget Sound, This bluff continues to the north and south for quite a distance. Due to the Inclination of the bluff it would definitely meet the City of Edmond's criteria for both a landslide and erosion hazard area. This bluff is prone to periodic landslides that are most often naturally Occurring "skin" slides that GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. El Sharaway JN 14062 May 9, 2014 Page 2 affect the near -surface few feet of soil that loosens over time due to weathering. These slides typically occur during periods of heavy rainfall, and result in mudflows that can, at times, reach the BNSF tracks. The risk of this type of slope movement exists for all of the nearby lots. The eastern modular walls are located on the opposite side of the residence from the steep bluff. They are over 100 feet from the crest of the bluff. Work associated with the walls did not disturb the bluff itself, or the area within at least 100 feet of the bluff. Considering the extensive distance from the bluff, and the very limited fill that was placed behind the modular walls, they in no way decreased the stability of the bluff. Additionally, because the bluff and the area behind it were not disturbed by the construction of the walls, they have not increased the potential for soil erosion on the bluff. In our professional opinion, the minimum 100-foot buffer maintained between the modular walls and the steep bluff was sufficient to prevent adverse impacts to the critical area on the site or the surrounding lots. The walls have not increased the amount of surface water or sediment being discharged to surrounding lots. In fact, the placement of vegetation and gravel on the ground behind the modular walls has decreased the potential for erosion and sediment transport for any surface runoff that would naturally travel toward the northeast with the slope of the ground. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. XIVI& � WWAA + ' C 27M W OT Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.