CANOD.pdfCity of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:t
Property Owner:
J_
-TC k� GJ
Critical Area File #-Permit
Number:
Site Location:
2,&
Parcel Number:
Project Descriptio . n:
AJ5
❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above.
I . There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer.
2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23 A0.220, 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.
EJ 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:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40, 120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. 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. 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.
11
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.
avorable 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).
C
Reviewer
Signature
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 permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
0
Top of retaining wall shall be less
than 3 feet above original grade where
located within a required setback.
P
pof
r =m "VNn"?
APR',', 17" 2014,
�P
1,4
pof
r =m "VNn"?
APR',', 17" 2014,
�P
Zone
Pe�
S" enb a d", s
s /V/;
-75—
Burton Reanier, PE, LS
4832 Black Forest Lane
Everett, WA 98203
April 12, 2014
RE: Treated Timber Wall Construction
820 12'b Ave. N, Edmonds WA
To Whom It May Concern:
On April I Vh, 2014,1 examined the 4 ft. height treated timber wall under construction by the
DJC company at the above address. I found there to be NO apparent, recognizable threat
conditions at the wall, or on this subject property. Furthermore, I found the wall construction to
be satisfactory and appropriate for site conditions in all regards.
In reference to the Edmonds City and Community Code, specifically Chapter 23.80 and its
subsequent contents, the following are my conclusions:
The only evident characteristic to the subject site is the slope grade, which as measured in the
field follows an average of 50% or 1:2. However, taking this grade into consideration, the soil
characteristics are non -threatening and ground water seepage is minimal (there exists no point
load relief areas). The overall run of the subject slope rate is approximately 20 lineal feet, and
once the slope reaches the eastern property line the gradient changes and becomes less. If the
entire slope were to be averaged from 12'h Avenue N. to 12'h Place N. the result would be about
37%, or 1:2.75, which by Edmonds City Cody, Chapter 23.80, Section B-2 does not meet the
minimum grade requirement to be considered a Landslide Hazardarea.
Those points aside, the focus of this letter, and should be the same of the City of Edmonds is not
the inherent and preexisting nature of the slope itself, but the influence that the retaining wall has
on the slope, which by my analysis is positive. The timber retaining wall is constructed at the
very toe of the slope, which at a 1:2 slope does not enter the zone of influence of the upper slope
area. Also, the slope is a 9-12" upper mat of a heavily rooted organic/loarn layer overlaying a
compacted granular sediment and clay (glacial till), with minimal possibility of liquefaction or
slope erosion possibility. It is with these findings that I also rule out this area to be an Erosion
Hazard area, as defined in Section 18-1.
It is also my understanding that the DJC company intends to backfill the entire zone behind the
retaining wall with a 2" clean angular rock, or railroad ballast aggregate encased in a filter fabric
sediment guard. They will also install a 4" perforated drainage line at the base of this aggregate
backfill that will mitigate any groundwater and surface percolation from the slope to a one cubic
yard drywell located near the south side of the retaining wall in the future grass area. This
drainage provision implemented on the back side of the retaining wall will benefit the stability of
the slope in heavy rainfall, or excess groundwater conditions as it will alleviate potential
hydrostatic surcharging of the slope. In summary, given the characteristics of the subject slope,
and lack of factors that would make it a critical area, there should be no reason to object to the
retaining wall construction taldng place at the above referenced address. Furthermore, the
RECEIVED
AFIR 17 2014
DEVKORMENT SERACT,,,;
C0UNTER
retaining wall construction itself has no adverse impact on the integrity of the slope, subject
property as a whole, or any adjacent properties.
PE, LS
425-252-7097
CE.man@comeast.net
d
..... . . . ... ...
NY UR
HAG
AL
TE