HE decision Exhibit A (2).pdf��U���A� �
CITY ~�"� ��^^^,^~��,"�.�
l2l5TH AVENUE NORTH, E0MON08,WA 90020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: SEQUQIA RIDGE PARTNERS
From:
Project Planner
Dake: SEPTEMBER 10, 1999
Table wfContents
Section Page
INN 11111p
A. APPLICATION ............................................................................................................................................... 2
B. RECOMMENDATION --------------------------------------------2
� CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................
0LFINDINGS OF FACT AND
A.SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................
4
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (8RYA)...........................................................................................
4
C. EowomonCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (BCDC)COMPLIANCE .......................................................
5
D.xmxrramnFxEVuEmrxnsuraxcxvAnvAmoo------------------------------J
E.xwxLxyISnrxEVuEaTpounnIcxLxmEAvxxwNce---------------------------.V
F.IoumxxLCOMMITTEE ...............................................................................................................................
9
{}. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (BCD[]................................................................................................................
V
D.COMMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................
l0
1UU,RECONSIDERATION'S /&ND APPEALS .........................................................................
l0
A.REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ------------------------------------.lU
VK..........,...,.,..............~.,...,.......,..,..,~.....................,,....,.~,,,,..,,....,...~,..,..,...11
S-98-108SRP.doc / September 10, 1999 / Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 2 of 1 I
I. INTRODUCTION
The original application requested a 4 -lot Short Subdivision with Critical Area Reasonable Use Exception
and Variance. After review of the proposal, it was determined that a Variance from the Critical Area
ordinance is required. Due to the unusual environmental issues with the site, staff felt an Environmental
Impact Statement covering geotechnical and water concerns was necessary. Ordinarily, staff makes the
decision on a short plat with setback modifications, however, this is a consolidated application with a
Critical Area Variance request which must be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. In this situation, the
Hearing Examiner will rule on the entire proposal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners represented by John Thoresen (partner) and Jim Miller of
David Evans and Associates (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 160XX 72nd Avenue West (see Attachment 1)
3. Request: To subdivide a 3.7 -acre parcel into 4 single-family lots. The application also
includes variance requests for the following:
• A critical area variance to allow construction of 4 homes within a Steep Slope Critical
Area and elimination of the required buffer and setback.
• Elimination of the 15 foot building setback from a wetland buffer for lots 3 and 4.
• Reduce the standard flag lot setback (10 feet in the RS -20 zone) for Lots 1 & 2 to allow
construction of the homes closer to the access easement.
4. Review Process: Administrative Review and Approval.
5. Major Issues:
• Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards).
• Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B.
(Critical Areas)
• Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75
(SUBDIVISIONS).
B. Recommendation
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, if the hearing Examiner
feels the proposal meets the various criteria for variances, staff recommends a MODIFIED
APPROVAL of the 4 -lot short subdivision subject to the following conditions.
Prior to recording:
(1) Record a separate easement document on the Johnson property (to the south) for
ingress and egress for Lots 1, 2 and 3.
(2) Add notation to the face of the plat referencing the easement and its recording
number.
(3) Revise the access easement width on the face of the plat to accommodate the required
engineering improvements. If the easement is required to increase in size, it must
expand towards the west, thereby reducing the amount of buildable area for Lots 1-3.
(4) Revise the lot sizes labeled on the face of the plat to exclude the access easement.
Notes regarding gross and net square footage of each lot would be acceptable.
(5) Add note to face of plat referencing the approved setback and critical area variances.
Language is to be approved by planning staff.
S-98-108SRP.doe /September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. 5-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 3 of I I
(6) Complete Engineering requirements contained in the subdivision checklist under
"Prior to Recording" (Attachment 4).
(7) All new property corners are to be staked by a State of Washington licensed land
surveyor.
(8) Remove or legally relocate the shed from Lot 1.
(9) Remove the "building setback line (typical)" note and lines from those portions of
lots east of the access easement or within the NGPE.
(10)Add Endangered Species Act statement to face of plat (language provided with
Attachment 8)
(11) Add Native Growth Protection Easement statement to face of plat (language provided
with Attachment 9).
(12) Receive approval of a draft final recording document prior to drawing up the mylar
for signatures.
As recommended within the FEIS:
a) Add note to face of plat regarding the minimum 25 -foot setback between structures and
the top of slope for Lots 1 & 2. Add note to plat regarding the 15 -foot setback between
structures and top of slope for Lots 3 & 4.
b) A detailed Critical Areas Mitigation Plan, developed by a qualified, City approved,
consultant, is required to design the revegetation of both the disturbed stream critical area,
wetland buffer and wetland/stream buffer enhancement area. The Mitigation Plan is to at
a minimum meet the parameters contained in the FEIS (species, spacing, drought tolerant,
quantities etc).
c) Roadway design must incorporate modular block walls and geogrid reinforcement to
support fills. Rockeries and concrete retaining walls for cut slopes.
d) Analyze raising the roadway elevation which could lessen the grades of the road and
driveways thereby reducing the amount of cut and fill retention required for the west side
of the roadway as recommended by in the EIS.
e) Record a Homeowner's covenant that identifies permissible property uses and structures
following the recommendations found in the EIS. Maintenance agreements for the storm
drainage system, roadway and retaining structure should also be addressed in the
document.
f) As recommended within the EIS, establishment of a native growth, non -disturbance area
for the 15-25 foot wide building setbacks from the top of the west slope. It should be
incorporated into the Homeowners Association covenant and include restrictions on the
outdoor landscaping, no lawn on Lots 2,3 & 4. Prohibit swimming pools, ponds,
sprinkler systems and limitations on tree removal.
Prior to issuance of any clearing or grading permits:
(13) A detailed tree survey must accompany a "limit of clearing" plan for review.
(14) Clearing and grading shall only occur during the dry season of May 1" through
September 30th unless otherwise permitted by the geotechnical engineer of record and
the City Building Official.
(15)A site specific management plan for Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control and
Permanent Storm Water Control must be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
S-98-108SRP.doc /September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 4 of 11
(16)Prior to start of clearing and grading, the stream/wetland buffers and buffer
mitigation enhancement areas are to have their boundaries clearly marked in the field
by a State of Washington licensed surveyor. Temporary, chain-link fencing is
required to protect the buffers with the exception of that portion of buffer area to be
disturbed for the installation of utilities.
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
(17)Individual landscape plans for each lot must accompany the permit application,
modeled after the EIS recommendations.
(18)Prior to issuance of a permit for Lot 4, a copy of the Hydraulic Permit Approval from
the State Department of Fish and Wildlife must be obtained. The crossing is not to
be constructed prior to approval of a building permit for the residence. Protective
fencing and erosion control are to be approved elements of the building permit.
(19)Construction of each lot is subject to Edmonds Community Development Code
Section 19.05 — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas.
(20) Complete the Engineering checklist of requirements for building permits (see
Attachment 4).
1 1
!111 11,11
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Lot Size: approximately 3.7 acres.
(2) Land Use: A shed used by the adjacent property owner exists at the very southern
end of the site.
(3) Zoning: The subject property is located in an RS -20 zone
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Topography can only be described as extremely steep.
There is a ridge running north — south along the west property line where survey
estimates the slope to range between 45-60 degrees on the west side and 24-30
degrees on the east side. The degree of slope tends to flatten as you move east.
Another top of slope can be found in the southern part of the property which slopes
to the northeast. The site is in a natural state with extensive forest and undergrowth.
Several large Sequoia trees can be seen in the southeast portion of the property.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) RS -20 zoning dominates the area. The primary land use is single family residential.
(2) A four lot subdivision was processed in 1995 (S-95-163) at 16202 72nd Avenue West.
No homes have been constructed on the new lots to date.
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Facts:
a) Short subdivisions are typically exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and
ECDC 20.15A.080).
S-98-108SRP.doc /September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 5 of I 1
b) The site is designated as Environmentally Sensitive by the City of Edmonds and therefore
subject to SEPA for all development applications.
c) The site is also mapped as being within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area.
d) Several critical areas as defined by ECDC Section 20.15B. have been identified on the
site. The site is constrained by steep slopes, a Class II wetland and Class II stream.
e) After review of all environmental information, a Determination of Significance and
proposed EIS limited scoping notice was distributed for continent on February 26, 1999.
No comments on the determination or scope were received.
I) After a consultant selection process, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. teamed with B -Twelve
Associates was hired to produce the limited scope EIS under a 3 -party contract with the
City of Edmonds and the applicant.
g) The Draft EIS was distributed for the 30 -day comment period on June 22, 1999.
h) The three letters received during the comment period were forwarded to the consultant for
review and incorporation into the FEIS.
i) The FEIS was distributed on September 1, 1999.
2. Conclusion: The State and City appeal period on the FEIS expires on September 15, 1999.
The City has complied with the requirement of the State Environmental Policy Act.
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a) Facts:
(1)
This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (Critical Areas
Ordinance).
(2)
The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -95-14). A Study
Required determination was issued.
(3)
A survey to determine the top of bank was performed by Robert Heimann, P.L.S. of
David Evans and Associates. It identified the two critical area steep slope "top of
bank" locations (see Attachment 8).
(4)
Tony Roth of Pacific International Engineering performed a wetland delineation and
stream analysis (see Attachment 8).
(5)
Nelson — Couvrette & Associates, prepared a preliminary geotechnical report of the
site (see Attachment 8).
(6)
The applicant has proposed a wetland buffer averaging plan. Typically, buffer
averaging is approved by staff. In no area is the buffer reduced by more than half,
however, there are areas where the 15 -foot required building setback from the buffer
is reduced or eliminated.
(7)
The stream will be crossed by the driveway to Lot 4. This also can be done
administratively if approval for the State Fish & Wildlife is obtained.
(8)
The applicant has shown areas of buffer reduction and buffer mitigation
enhancement. This includes the area in and around the utilities easement through Lot
3 & 4. After installation of the utilities the area will be replanted and restored for use
as a wetland buffer area. The steep slope critical area has been labeld in 2 areas of
the property. The area not affected by the steep slope is constrained by the wetland
and stream.
S-98-108SRP.doc / September 10, 1999 / Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 6 of 11
b) Conclusion: All three documents complete the Critical Area Study required by staff. The
proposals is in compliance with the Critical Area ordinance with the exception of the
buffer and building setback reductions or elimination. Variances will be addresses later
in this report
2. Compliance with RS -20 Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) Proposed number of lots: 4
(2) Approximate size of proposed Lots:
Gross sq. ft ** Net sq. ft.
Lot 1 34,052
Lot 2 46,891
Lot 3 51,222
Lot 4 27,222 27,222
**Due to the uncertainty of the access easement size, the net square footage cannot be
calculated for Lots 1, 2, and 3. It does not appear as though they would be in danger of
falling below the 20,000 square foot size minimums after subtracting the easement.
(3) Setbacks: Due to the unique environmental factors facing this development, the
setbacks are actually measured from the various critical areas identified on the
property verses the actual property lines. The applicant has requested critical areas
variances from the building setback required from a wetland buffer on Lots 3 & 4. A
variance to eliminate the steep slope critical area buffer and building setback has also
been requested. The FEIS recommended a 25 -foot setback from the top of west side
slope for Lot 1 and 2. Only a 15 -foot setback is recommended from the top of that
slope for Lots 3 & 4.
Setbacks in the RS -20 are as follows:
Front: 25'
Side: 10' minimum; 35' combined
Rear: 25
(4) Corner Lots: This proposal does not contain any corner lots.
(5) Flag lot determination: Lot 1, 2 & 3 are considered "flag" lots because they do not
have actual frontage on an open, public street. As proposed, the new homes would
utilize an easement over the adjacent property to the south to access the opened
portion 72 ad
Avenue West.
(6) Lot arrangement to topography: The FEIS is intended to demonstrate the if, how
where and when the 4 homes could be constructed on the site without negatively
impacting the soil stability. The consultant confirmed the geotechnical feasibility of
the site and made recommendations for the design and construction of the roadway
and homes.
b) Conclusion: It appears as if the applicant has proposed a subdivision that could
comply with the RS -20 development standards, however the critical area setbacks and
buffers must be addressed by requesting numerous variances (addressed below).
S-98-108SRP.doc /September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. 5-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 7 of 11
3. Compliance with Subdivision Review Criteria
a) Facts:
ENVIRONMENTAL
(1) The ECDC places an emphasis on protection of environmental resources and design
proposals which minimize the significant adverse impacts. Special restrictions may
be imposed.
(2) Proposals should be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveway and by
relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
(3) Hazardous conditions to future residents of the site or adjacent property owners is
cause for denial.
LOT LAYOUT
(4) Lots are to contain a usable building area.
(5) Lots are not to front on highways, arterials or collector street. Shared driveways,
turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
(6) Each lot is to meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is
located.
DEDICATION
(7) Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land
for streets, including those on the official street map.
IMPROVEMENTS
(8) Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to: streets, curbs,
pedestrian walks, bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage
systems, drainage systems and underground utilities.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The steep slopes, wetland and stream were important factors in determining the need
for the Environmental Impact Statement. The City was concerned with determining
if it were feasible to develop a 4 -lot short plat without significantly impacting the
natural environments. The FEIS demonstrated that the 4 homes could be constructed
without having a significant negative impact to those specific geotechnical and water
issues (see Attachment 5).
(2) Each lot has a proposed building footprint that was used by the consultant in
reviewing the project feasibility. Both the top of slope setback recommendations by
the geotechnical engineer and the location of the access easement (outside of the
wetland buffer) will limit the overall buildable area per lot. The flag lot
determination of Lots 1,2 & 3 (side setbacks from all property lines) allows more
flexibility in terms of buildable area.
(3) The EIS stipulated specific setbacks, construction techniques (pile foundations,
geogrid reinforced retaining walls etc), activity limits are intended to prevent the
possibility that the development could create hazardous conditions for adjacent
property.
(3) The Engineering Division has indicated that an emergency vehicle turnaround be
installed at the end of the 72"d Avenue right-of-way. There may be the need to
require additional right-of-way, but it is unclear at this time and will be determined
with the civil site improvement drawings.
(4) If the property were void of the critical areas, the development would easily meet the
dimensional standards of the zoning district. After application of the additional
S-98-108SRP.doc / September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 8 of I 1
setbacks and buffers from the steep slope, stream and wetland, the applicant is forced
to demonstrate that a reduction in the requirements is necessary but will not be
detrimental.
(5) Utilities for the project must be brought down from 72"d Avenue West through the
project site and connect to service in North Meadowdale Road. Other improvements
required by the Engineering Division can be found in Attachment 4.
D. Analysis of Requested Setback Variance
The applicant has requested a side setback reduction for Lots 1 & 2 to allow flexibility in
construction of the homes in relation to the access easement road. Typically, access easement
lines are treated similarly to property lines in terms of setback application. Since Lots 1 and 2
are flag lots, the setback requirement is 10 feet. Although house plans have not been created,
the applicant would like the ability to locate the homes as far away from the top of slope on
the west side and push them towards the easement:
The following is the variance criteria directly from the ECDC.
a) Special Circumstances:
That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be
predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense
which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor
resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
b) Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property
in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning.
c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located.
d) Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and the same zone.
e) Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
2. Staff Response:
a) Special Circumstance: The steep slope and wetland boundaries are the special
circumstances surrounding this request. The applicant is having to work between steep
slope requirements on the west and south sides of the site plus a Class II wetland
occupying space on the north side. The access road is to be designed to minimize
encroachment into the wetland buffer to the greatest extent feasible, this in turn reduces
the building envelope.
b) Special Privilege: Variances for setbacks in this RS -20 zoned neighborhood is not very
common. A search of the database shows several height variances granted to nearby
properties and setback variances have been granted to properties on 164`h St SW. Not all
S-98-108SRP.doc / September 10, 1999 / Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 9 of I I
of the adjacent neighbors have as many environmental constraints facing development of
their properties.
c) Zoning and Comprehensive Plan: The zoning of the property is Residential Single Family
-RS-20 and the comprehensive plan designation is Residential Single Family Large Lot.
The development proposed would be in compliance with both the zoning and
comprehensive plan designations.
d) Not Detrimental: The FEIS provided some of the documentation that can be applied to
this criteria. It was stated that if Lot 2 maintains a 25 -foot setback from the top of slope
on the west side and be constructed on piles instead of a standard foundation it would not
decrease the soil stability. The location of the roadway was chosen because it preserves a
larger wetland buffer area. The two homes would be encroaching on an access easement
which services themselves and Lot 3. The setback variance from the easement would not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
e) Minimum Necessary: The applicant has requested the setback variance to allow
construction of the homes on Lot 1 & 2 closer to the access easement due to the limited
amount of buildable area remaining after application of the wetland buffer and top of
slope requirements. It would be the minimum necessary for the property to provide an
adequate building area similar to others in the immediate vicinity.
E. Analysis of Requested Critical Areas Variances
1. The applicant has specifically requested the following:
® Elimination of Steep Slope critical area setback and buffer requirements
®Reduction of the 15 -foot building setback from a wetland buffer for Lot 3 & 4.
The following is the Critical Area Variance criteria directly from the ECDC Section
20.15B.170:
a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, or the size or nature of the critical area, the strict
application of this title would deprive the subject property all reasonable use of the
property.
b) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development
proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, or
contrary to the goals and purposes of this chapter.
2. Staff Response
a) The topography and size of critical areas are the obvious special circumstances of this
property. The development is attempting through wetland buffer averaging and wetland
and steam mitigation enhancement areas to make up for portions of disturbed critical
area. All 3 critical areas combine to eliminate all use of the property. With all buffers
and setbacks taken into account, no buildable areas would be left on this 3.7 acre site.
Although the property has been identified as being within the Meadowdale Landslide
Area, the field data compiled by the EIS consultant confirmed the soil suitability for
single family residential construction in the approximately building foot print locations.
b) A 3.7 acre parcel, zoned RS -20 in theory could sustain 8 single family lots. The applicant
has proposed what they believe is reasonable use of the property — 4 single family lots
with preservation of the wetland and documentation of stable slopes. The FEIS
demonstrated that 4 homes, if constructed in accordance with their recommendations
could be developed at this site without impacting slope stability (Appendix A of FEIS)
S-98-108SRP.doc /September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 10 of 1 I
and with minimal impact to the stream and wetland. The public welfare and public safety
will not be compromised by the development of this site.
c) The concept of determining "minimum necessary to accommodate the development" in
the context of a subdivision is not an easily definable effort. In this instance, the subject
property theorectically could accommodate 8 lots based on the total lot area. However,
since the site is so heavily constrained, this effort is to determine how this should be
applied. The FEIS appears to indicate that 4 homes is safe from a geologic perspective
and that through significant mitigation and protection the wetland and stream will not
significantly suffer. It did also review alternative proposals for fewer lots (0-4 lots) and
their resulting impacts.
F. Technical Committee
1. Fact: The short plat application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation
Division. Engineering has provided their requirements checklist (see Attachment 4).
G. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the
comprehensive plan.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential
Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below.
(1) Residential Development Goal, "High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and
promoted".
(2) Policy B.6. "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage".
b) Conclusion: The documentation provided for the short plat, the FEIS and the
preliminary conditions of approval are consistent with the above adopted goals and
policies of the City.
H. Comments
No comment letters have been received at the writing of this report during the official 10 -
day comment period.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.95.050.B.2. provides for Staff to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written
request for reconsideration is filed by the applicant within fourteen (14) working days of the date
of the initial decision. 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.
S-98-108SRP.doe / September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Sequoia Ridge Partners
File No. S-98-108 & V-98-109
Page 11 of I 1
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.010.A describe how appeals of a Staff decision 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. Appeals are presented to the Hearing
Examiner. Appeals of the Hearing Examiner are to be heard by Superior Court of Snohomish
County.
C. Timeframes
The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
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 continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration 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.
Section 20.75. 100 (as amended by Ordinance No. 3190) states "A preliminary approval of a subdivision or
lot line adjustment will expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has
acquired approval of the final plat or final short plat approval within the five year period."
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by Planning Division request a change in the
valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
1. Vicinity
2. Revised Application
3. Plat Map dated received 9/2/99
4. Engineering Requirements
5. Final Limited Scope EIS (only sent to Hearing Examiner)
6. SEPA Determination and Scoping notice (includes original wetland delineation and
preliminary geotechnical report
7. Draft EIS and comment period notice
8. Endangered Species Language
9. Native Growth Protection Language
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
1. Staff
2. Applicant
3. Agent
4. Meadowdale Beach Community Council President
S-98-108SRP.doe / September 10, 1999 /Staff Report
Vicinity
Map
Sequoia Ridge 4 -Lot Short Plat
160XX 72nd Avenue West
TF
i
city ' ,
landuse
application
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD • - ••
C3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE #
❑ HOME OCCUPATION
9
ZONE 'Z
FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE
SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE
El LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE
RECD BY
RECEIPT#
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / 10 HE ❑ STAFF
STREET VACATION
❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ REZONE
El S E PERMIT ACTION TAKEN:
VARTI&ANCE PREASONABLE USE
❑
EXCEPTION APPROVED El
DENIED El APPEALED
❑ OTHER APPEAL#
Applicant J�l�c�di/� ���� %�/�`n��2S Phonei2S��zy
Address
Property Address or Location
Property Owner d60-1 Ele4i-'544 0'7v,6 ' / l�� Roy��Phone
Address
Agent Phone
Address
Tax Acc # Sec. •
Twp. Rng..
Legal Description
Details of Project or Proposed Use
6x? ?7, ,4�F� Vi,�✓c_ �2 s:-,� s�.��s�}�✓y w�;,�
:J�f=-c2 f,�,.� �� S �� �4e" X �- Jam« c�,✓S Y'�/� G�71 ' / :z.
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials arto the staff of the City of Edmonds to
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attend o thisapplicat'
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ A °F -
145. 'gTOP 151 LEGEND
CATCH BAST AT B IN
TOP 154.76 TOP 167.16 Exploratory Soil Boring Drilled by Geo Group
I.E. CP 168,81 Northwest, Inc. (Approximate Location)
B -i
Hand -Auger Soil Boring by Nelson-Couvrette
Assoicates, Inc. (Approximate Location)
CATCH BASIN
TOP 171.90 NC -I
CAT H BASIN
TOP 171.90 WATER MANHOLE
2IREAM BUFFER (PRV) S
A MANHOLE
A HJF 200.7L
175,31 IE 192.09-8'N
AT H BASIN
IE 192.04-8*E
TOP 197.71 IE 191,94-8'W
15
4,� CAT BAST
TOP 202.08
2PO OR11CYeW19 EXISTING HYDRANT
200,.ti LB 109
TV
Igo n B-4
VDP-2QX CATCH RA
> DP 6 11i r400 TOP 215.4
7�,222, SF/
C13 TYPE,1 255
WE TLAU11366NID Y 2'
52.248, SF
C
y
\oo S
o SEMENT. FOR
DRANA b
IDE SEWER
CS
-51,222 SF
DP 6 No
. 1.... . ... 5'
75,
Ce
W W OIL_
To, S
TER SE
`-FF 260
B-3 BSMT-j
CB E
NC.4
46,891 SF
O
—A
SED
SE
> 4 ION
AL) 8-2 813'47TW_
3.00'
43 Nr -5 NC -3,
>
06.
3 01 LEAN 41
4<
w %
a a CD z
9's
0
Y(
z
122.07'
NC -2
_TOP OF N%
BANK
'G
JOHN L JOHNSON NC -11
rn
10
r)
LEGEND
0 �z
W G ARFFER RED CROON EDGE OF
2. 911 IDEA -2298 SF' COCOO ROCKERY ASPHALT
> ® BUTTER AGGIT"'/COMPENSATION FENCE %
> 0 AREA -5750 SF
LOSS MITIGATION 0 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
TIGATION MEA -1283 SF
PO -11 "RIAM 11 —1 FIRE HYDRANT
TOP OF
0 M CATCH BASIN —SS— SANITARY SEWER LINE BANK
< WATER VALVE ---OP— OVERHEAD POWER LINE 4
a GAS VALVE —So— STORM DRAIN LINE
C)
U11UTY POLE W1 GUY WIRE —W— WATER UNE
TELEPHONE CLOSURE EDGE OF ASPHALT
8108.doc
1. Rights-of-way for public streets.
Dedicate right-of-way on N. Meadowdale Rd. as described in
X
Ordinance No. 1853.
Dedicate right-of-way at end of 72nd Ave. W. for emergency
X
vehicle turnaround.
2. Easements (City utilities, private access, other utilities):
Provide minimum 20 feet wide easement for access and
X
easements as needed for utilities.
3. Street improvements (ACP with curb and gutter):
Construct emergency vehicle turnaround to City of Edmonds
X
standards at end of 72nd Ave. W.
Any retaining walls built in public right-of-way shall be
X
designed per WSDOT standards and approved by geotechnical
engineer and structural engineer.
Proposed access to lots 1, 2, and 3 is to be paved a minimum
X
width of 16 feet plus curbs and gutters to control drainage.
Slope of roadway is not to exceed 12%.
X
Provide barricades/guardrails as needed for safety.
X
Maintain minimum 2' clear zone from rockery face to face of
X
curb/edge of roadway.
Driveway to proposed lot 4 is to be located so as to provide the
X
X
greatest possible sight distance on N. Meadowdale Rd.
4. Street turnaround:
Provide turnaround to meet City standards at end of proposed
X
access road.
Provide on-site turnaround on proposed lot 4.
X
5. Sidewalks and/or walkways:
N/A
X
6. Street lights:
N/A �
X
7. Planting strip:
N/A
X
8. Water system improvements (pipelines, fire hydrants, pump
stations, telemetering, D.S.H.S., etc.):
Upgrade existing water line in 72nd Ave. W. to 8" ductile iron.
X
Meet Edmonds Fire Dept. requirements for hydrant location.
X
Provide service to each lot.
X
Connect to public water system.
X
9. Sanitary sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations, telemetering, health district, etc.):
Provide service to each lot.
X
Connect to public sewer system.
X
10. Storm sewer system improvements (pipelines, pump
stations, DOE, fisheries, etc.):
Construct one storm detention system sized to provide
X
adequate storage for all proposed lots and roadway in
accordance with the preliminary drainage plan.
R.
Connect to public storm drains e system:
, - xiv.
8108.doc
W
ENGINEER, CITY OF EDMONDS ' DA
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded
Authorized for recording by: Date:
8108.doe
Req'd prior to
Req'd w/bldg.
Bond posted
Complete
recording
Permit
11. On-site drainage (plan per Ord. 3013):
Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system.
x
12. Underground wiring_ (per Ord. 1387):;
Required for all new services
x
13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70):
N/A
X
14._ Signage (per City Engineer):
Install fire and aid signs for proposed lots 1, 2, and 3.
X
15. Survey monumentation (per Ord., Section 12.10.120):
N/A
X
16. As -built drawings (per City Engineer):
Required for all utility construction.
X
X
17. Other requirements:
a) Utility development plan
X
18. Fees
a) Drainage system design review at $30 per lot
x
b) Sewer connection charge/LID fees paid in full.
x
c) Subdivision improvement inspection fee (2.2% of approved
X
construction cost estimate)
d) Other related fees
ENGINEER, CITY OF EDMONDS ' DA
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded
Authorized for recording by: Date:
8108.doe
L OF E°M
O
CITY OF EDMONDS
FS/ ago 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
RCW 197-11-980 Determination of Significance (DS) and scoping notice
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS
Description of proposal: Subdivision of a 3.7 acre, vacant site into 4 single family residential lots. The property is
designated environmentally sensitive and contains the following critical areas: Steep slopes in excess of 30 degrees,
a Class 2 wetland and Class 3 stream. Application for a variance to develop within the steep slopes and wetland
buffer is also part of the short plat application. The applicant is also proposing to use wetland buffer averaging and
reserving portions of each lot within a Native Growth Protection area. The property is zoned Single Family
Residential RS -20. City of Edmonds File No. S-98-108 / V-98-109.
Proponent: John Thoresen
15621 48`s PI W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 160XX 72°a Avenue West
Tax Account No. 5131-000-053-0007
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
EIS Required: The lead agency has determined there be significant adverse impacts on the environment from this
proposal. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c) and will be prepared.
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: EARTH — geology, soils
topography, erosion; WATER — surface water movement/quantity/quality, runoff/absorption, ground water
movement/quantity/quality;
Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You
may comment on alternative, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other
approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us you comments is:
Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson
Position/Title: Planning Supervisor, Department of Development Services - Planning Division
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Date: Signature �2 �A
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than�Q,�()f /9 , 1999, by filing a written appeal citing the
reasons.
Page 1 of 2 AI-ICHTTA
N
•rHORESEN•EIS.DOC
2/26/99.SEPA
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals. ., i
XX Posted on QQ , ' (� D . 1999, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services
Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist.
Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist:
XX Environmental Review SectionDepartment of
Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
XX Department of Fisheries
Attn.: Richard E. Johnson
Regional Habitat Manger
Hill Crest Plaza
430 91st Avenue NE, #7
Everett, WA 98205
XX Tulalip Tribal Council
Attn.: Peter Mills
6700 Totem Beach Road
Marysville, WA 98270
XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
XX Stevens Memorial Hospital
21601 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
J
Attachments
pc: File No. S -98-108N-98-109
SEPA Notebook
Page 2 of 2
THORESEN-EIS.DOC
2/26/99.SEPA
XX Edmonds School District No. 15
XX Department of Wildlife
Attn.: Bret Carlstad, Planning and Property
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Manager
Mill Creek, WA 98012
20420 68th Avenue West
Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400
XX Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
P.O. Box 9863
XX Community Transit
Seattle, WA 98109
Attn.: Brent Russell
7100 Hardeson Rd
XX Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Everett, WA 98203
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
10
XX Snohomish County Soil Conservation
630 Vernon Road
Everett, WA 98205
J
Attachments
pc: File No. S -98-108N-98-109
SEPA Notebook
Page 2 of 2
THORESEN-EIS.DOC
2/26/99.SEPA
r
—4
THORESEN SCOPEOF WORK
The City of Edmonds has received a four -lot subdivision request for a 3.7 acre
piece of property located within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area. The
site itself is designated as Environmentally Sensitive by the City and the
applicant has confirmed that the majority is eligible for a Critical Area designation
as defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.15B.
The preliminary geotechnical report describes the property as having an average
31 degree slope over 140 feet of vertical relief. A wetland delineation was
performed and a 1.12 acre mixed palustrine and riverine forested, scrub -shrub
and emergent Category 2 wetland was determined. An unnamed stream of
Category 2 quality was also found, however, the City has reclassified the stream
as a Category 3 due to the lack of salmonids. Critical Areas Ordinance Chapter
20.15B defines all three environmental factors as critical areas. Development is
subject to additional buffers and building setbacks from the defined critical area
boundaries.
As currently proposed, the subdivision would require intrusion or alteration of the
three critical areas. Building footprints for the four proposed homes, driveways (if
any) and access easement would be constructed within the steep slope critical
go area. Wetland buffer averaging and elimination of the wetland building setback is
shown, as is a stream culvert and driveway within the stream critical area.
The City is requesting environmental review regarding whether development of
this site can be accomplished with minimal negative environmental impacts.
Because the property is located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area, SEPA
is automatically required. The SEPA official has determined that a limited scope
EIS is necessary to provide the information needed to approve a subdivision that
creates stable, buildable lots.
Geotechnical/Structural The consultant will review the proposed development,
site improvement (access and utilities) plans, construction techniques and
options for future home construction to determine feasibility of development for
each building site. Each lot must eventually comply with the requirements found
in ECDC Chapter 19.05 for development. The installation of roads, driveways
and other infrastructure as well as eventual lot development must be
accomplished in a manner which maintains a stable slope within the definition of
ECDC Chapter 19,05. Detailed plans demonstrating the ability of the proposal to
meet the engineering standards for driveway slope and storm drainage will also
be required. Analysis should also be made of potential impacts of development
on the wetland and stream. Recommended mitigation and suggested
construction techniques are to be included in the final report.
Wetland Study The consultant is to analyze the proposed development and
report the potential impacts the downslope wetland may experience as a result of
the construction into the steep slope to support the new home(s) and the access
drive. Outline measures needed to protect the quality and function of the
wetland. Provide detailed plans and specifications on the proposed wetland
buffer addition/compensation area.
Stream Study Identify the impacts of the proposal on the Category 3 stream
and recommend protection measures and replanting suggestions.
The following items expected to complete this task would include:
1. Creation of development alternatives for the site, ranging from 1 up to 4 new
lots.
2. Define specific building sites, if any, suitable for single family construction
activities. Recommendations of outdoor residential uses (i.e. in ground
sprinkler systems, swimming pools, tree removal etc) to determine site
compatibility in relation to maintaining slope stability.
3. Determine use limitations of the home sites if necessary to prevent future
impact to the wetland and slope stability.
4. Geotechnical review of the proposed home and road construction for their
ability to meet the City of Edmonds Engineering Division standards.
5. Review of potential construction techniques necessary to achieve compliance
with ECDC Chapter 19.05 as necessary to preserve the stability of the steep
slope environment.
6. Analysis of the proposed storm drainage plan for the development.
7. Recommend .construction techniques and materials to safely develop the site
without negatively impacting the critical areas.
8. Review applicant proposal for wetland replacement and/or buffer alterations.
9. Remedial measures proposed during construction phase to minimize
environmental impacts.
10. Post -construction monitoring and contingency plan.
11. Replanting plan, including species, installation specifications for the wetland
and stream.
12. Analysis of potential downslope impacts of construction to the wetland and
stream.
C7
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision
2. Name of applicant:
John Thoresen
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: John Thoresen
17003 72nd Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
(425) 743-4567
4. Date checklist prepared:
June 12, 1998
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Edmonds
Contact: Jim Miller
David Evans & Associates, Inc.
1716 W. Marine View Dr., Suite C
Everett, WA 982101
(425) 259-4099
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Short Subdivision approval and construction of utilities and access to the site in 1998;
construction of individual residences within one to three years.
(STAFFCOMMENTS)
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Environmental Checklist
Geotechnical Reconnaissance
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.
No other applications are pending on the subject property.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Short subdivision; grading permit; engineering plan approval for drainage and utilities; HPA;
FPA permit; individual building permits.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on
project description.)
The instant proposal is short subdivision to divide the 3.7 acres of the subject property into 4
single family residential lots.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
West side .of 72nd Avenue West north of North Meadowdale Road in the City of Edmonds,
Washington, in the south half of the Southwest Quarters of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range
4 East, W.M., Snohomish County, Washington.
19
7
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision
2. Name of applicant:
John Thoresen
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: John Thoresen Contact: Jim Miller
17003 72nd Place W. David Evans & Associates, Inc.
Edmonds, WA 98026 1716 W. Marine View Dr., Suite C
(425) 743-4567 Everett, WA 982101
(425) 259-4099
4. Date checklist prepared:
June 12, 1998
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Edmonds
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Short Subdivision approval and construction of utilities and access to the site in 1998;
construction of individual residences within one to three years.
(STAFFCOMMENTS)
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10
S. List an environmental information you know
y y about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
1
Environmental Checklist
Geotechnical Reconnaissance
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.
No other applications are pending on the subject property.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Short subdivision; grading permit; engineering plan approval for drainage and utilities; BPA;
FPA permit; individual building permits.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions Iater in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on
project description.)
The instant proposal is short subdivision to divide the 3.7 acres of the subject property into 4
single family residential lots.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
West side .of 72nd Avenue West north of North Meadowdale Road in the City of Edmonds,
Washington, in the south half of the Southwest Quarters of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range
4 East, W.M., Snohomish County, Washington.
�7
.7
(STAFF COMMENTS)
TO BE COMPLETED. BY THE APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (underline one):
mountainous, other:
flat, rolling hilly, steep slopes,
Slopes on the site range from zero to one hundred percent slope.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope)?
The steepest slopes on the subject property are located in the east central, north central and along
the western border portions of the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Nelson-Couvrette &
Associates, consulting geotechnical engineers and geologists, the site soils include Esperance Sand
(Qe) overlying the Whidbey Formation (Qw). The sediments classified as Whidbey consist of well
sorted beds of clay, silt or sand. The Esperance is a unit within the advance outlwash which is
generally a medium coarse sand with trace amounts of finds and varying gravel content. The
Esperance sand contains a low percentage of fine grain particles. It has moderate to high strength
when confined. In sloping areas the outer portions can become loose. Advance outlwash was
deposited at the base of advancing glaciers. The Whidbey and Esperance, therefore, have been
overidden by past intrusion of continental glaciation. Soil layers overidden by the ice sheet were
compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
.3
Nelson-Couvrette indicated that they did not observe signs of deep seated instability on the slopes.
They indicated that the native soils are expected to be stable with respect to deep seated failures.
They further indicate that the site is mapped as being part of the Meadowdale slide complex that
has not moved in the recent past, with the site designated as having a small potential for debris
slide type movements or sloughing events. They further indicate that in their opinion that if proper
drainage and erosion control measures are taken, the potential development should have a minimal
impact on the stability of the slopes on the site. Their report outlines those measures.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
It is anticipated that a balanced cut and fill operation will be carried out for the access roadway
and building sites on each of the four lots. The vast majority of the site will remain in its current
topographic condition. Since detailed grading plans are not yet available, the amount of cut and
fill has been estimated using professional engineering judgment. It is estimated that approximately
3,000 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill would be required to prepare the site for
development.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Site filling and grading will expose soils, thereby creating a temporary increase in erosion
potential. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP) will be prepared and
necessary controls will be installed prior to any grading activity on the proposed project site in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements. Depending on specific site and construction
conditions, typical temporary measures employed during construction could include placement of
straw bale barriers across drainage channels, placement of riprap and use of silt fences and
siltation/detention ponds to control runoff.
Following construction, permanent erosion/sedimentation control measures will include oil/water
separation to reduce and remove particulates and lighter -than -water fractions, biofiltration in the
wet pond and controlled discharge from the detention facility into the existing drainage channel in
the northerly portion of the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 20 percent of the site will be covered by impervious surface areas of buildings and
pavement.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
4
J
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to earth, if any:
During preparation of the roadway, building pads and installation of utility systems, temporary
drainage and erosion control devices such as silt fences, temporary holding/siltation ponds and
straw bales will be installed where necessary to the TESCP and monitored to provide protection.
Measures that could be employed include hydroseeding of cleared areas prone to erosion.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
Z. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
During construction, emissions will include those typically resulting from the use of automotive
and construction equipment. Odors from construction materials will be present during
construction and dust and smoke may be generated during short term clearing and grading
activities. Upon project completion and occupation, increased motor vehicle use on the site will
produce automotive emissions.
go (STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Construction will be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 7 PM. Watering of cleared areas
will be performed when necessary to control dust. Idling equipment will be turned off to reduce
total emissions.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
3. WATER
6 a. Surface:
l
(1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
around and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
A wetland exists on the subject property as described in the attached wetland delineation report.
(2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No. The wetland area and its required buffer will be covered by a Native Growth Protection
Easement.
(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.
M
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed as part of project construction or
operation. Public water service will be provided by the City of Edmonds.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(5) Does the proposal He within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No portion of the site lies within a 100 year floodplain.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(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.
The project does not involve any discharge of waste materials. Public sewer service will be
provided by the Olympic View Sewer District.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
3
J
b. Ground:
(1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No ground water will be withdrawn as part of the project. Public water service will be provided
by the City of Edmonds. No discharge from the project will be made to ground water.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(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.
In concert with concerned agencies, a program of contractor education and spill contingency and
response plan compliance will be instituted to reduce the potential for discharge of waste
materials to the construction activities.
The instant project will construct an internal public sanitary sewer collection system to serve the
development, serviced by the Olympic View Sewer District. No domestic waste material will be
discharged into the ground on the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
(1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters? if so, describe.
The principal source of runoff will be rainwater and snow melt from impervious surfaces such as
roofs, driveways, parking areas and other paved areas. Stormwater from pavement and building
areas is or will be collected and treated with mechanical oil/water separation in restrictor catch
basins and combined with stormwater from roofs and other impermeable surfaces and conducted
to a detention and water quality control facility on the property.
(2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Typical components of stormwater from pavement areas are petrochemicals and the products of
internal combustion engines. Stormwater runoff from the instant proposal's impervious surfaces
will be collected and treated with oil/water separation and biofiltration. Oil/water separation and
10 biofiltrationd is an effective means of treating and reducing particulate loads and associated
pollutants in such drainage waters and providing final polishing prior to discharge into the
existing drainage in the northern portion of the site.
STAFF COMMENTS
d. Proposed measurers to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
During construction, temporary measures will be employed to control runoff and water quality,
including use of silt fences, straw bales across drainageways, placement of riprap and
construction of temporary siltation/holding ponds. The limits of clearing and grading will be
posted prior to any site disturbance.
Oil/water separation, detention and water quality treatment in the completed project will control
impacts of runoff from new impervious surfaces, including those subject to vehicle use.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
4 PLANTS
a. Underline types of vegetation found on the site:
_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other:
x shrubs
x grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup , bulrush, skunk cabbage, other:
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:
x other types of vegetation: natural and exotic trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcovers, See
Wetland Delineation Report.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Clearing of trees, shrubs and groundcover will take place during development of the site for
multiple family use. All such clearing will be regulated within the grading and permit approval
process.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 41
,) 1
0
No threatened or endangered plant species are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
The applicant will landscape all graded areas that remain unpaved. Trees, shrubs and groundcover
will be planted in the designated planting areas within and around the perimeter of the site,
buildings and parking areas.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
r
a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk; heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals (mice, shrews, gophers,
opossum, etc.)
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:
No threatened or endangered animal species are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No portion of the site is known by either the applicant or the contact person to be a migration
route.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
0 d. proposed measurers to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
6
Additional food resources on the site will be provided by plantings of ornamental trees and other
vegetation which produces seeds, fruits and berries. 40
(STAFF COMMENTS)
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.
Electrical energy will be used for lighting, appliance and possible space and water heating. Natural
gas will also be available for space and water heating.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties, If so,
generally describe.
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None beyond energy code requirements for energy demand, insulation and infiltration.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
Review of site development and building permit applications by the Fire Marshall will include
identification of any proposed use and storage of any hazardous or toxic chemicals and any risk of
fire and explosion or exposure to hazardous waste. Gasoline and diesel fuel in heavy equipment
will be present on site during grading and paving operations. Some fuel storage in fuel trucks or
stationary tanks may occur during site preparation and building construction.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10
9
(1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Standard police, fire and medical emergency services in the event of accident, fire or unusual
emergency event. Police, fire and emergency medical services are provided by the City of
Edmonds.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Meet all fire and building code provisions for fire and life safety.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Noise
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, aircraft, other)?
Traffic on local streets will provide the principal sources of noise.
10 (STAFF COMMENTS)
(2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site?
Short-term: Limited to Monday through Friday 7 AM to 7 PM, sources of noise will be
construction activity and related traffic.
Long-term: None anticipated.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
(3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Short-term: construction activity and related traffic will be limited to Monday through Friday 7
AM to 7 PM. Vehicles and heavy equipment will use properly maintained exhaust systems, and
engines will be turned off when not in use.
Long Term: None necessary.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Single family residences adjoin the site on all four sides.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No agricultural uses appear to have occurred on this site in the recent past.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
C]
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The subject property is occupied by a single greenhouse structure.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 49
Removal of the single greenhouse structure.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The site is currently zoned RS 20.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Single Family.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
There are no sites designated by a shoreline master program within 200 feet of the instant proposal.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
12
�7
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Yes, the aforementioned wetland portion of the site.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Based on 2.7 people per residence, approximately 11 people will eventually reside on the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displaced?
None.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Since there are no impacts, no mitigation is appropriate.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any?
Development will be consistent with City of Edmonds codes and ordinances.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
Four single family residences.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
113
b. Approximately how many units, if any will be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
None.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Since there are no impact, no mitigation is appropriate.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building.material(s) proposed?
25 feet; wood, concrete, glass and masonry or masonry veneer.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
No existing views will be impacted by the proposed development.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Conformance to all City of Edmonds Codes and ordinances.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What types of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Glare will be produced by parking lot and grounds lighting and vehicle headlights during non -
daylight hours.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
14
7
D
0
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any?
None are warranted.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
5 12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Meadowdale Park and the playfields at Meadowdale High School.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe?
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any?
None.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
15
\) 7
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.
There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for local, state or federal preservation registers
on or near this site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of. historic, archeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
The best knowledge of the applicant and contact person, no landmarks or evidence of historic,
archeological, scientific or cultural importance exist on or near the site.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None are proposed. In the event that construction activities encounter historic or cultural artifacts,
construction will be halted and a qualified archeologist consulted. is
(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.
Access to the site is from 72nd Avenue West.
(STAFF COMMENT
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
No. 6 blocks to the corner of Meadowdale Road and 68th Street SW.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
c. How many parking spaces would the completedJ
ro'ect have? How many would the project 41
P
eliminate?
16
7
i
No parking spaces will be eliminated. Each residence will have at least,2 off -parking spaces.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not includin25
g driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
No.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
f. How many vehicle trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
10 indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Based upon 9.55 ADT, the four residential units will generate approximately multiple residential
development of the site with 4 dwelling units, the completed project would be anticipated to
generate approximately 38 ADT. The peak hour traffic volumes are expected to occur between 7
and 9 AM and between 3:30 and 5:30 PM weekdays.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Conformance with City of Edmonds codes and regulations.
(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.
10 The project will result in an incremental increased need for fire and police protection.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
17
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None, except for compliance with fire and building codes.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
16. UTILITIES
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
(STAFF COMMENTS)
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electricity: Snohomish County PUD No. 1
Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy
Water & Sewer: Alderwood Water District
Telephone: General Telephone
Refuse Service: Waste Management Northwest, Inc.
(STAFF COMMENTS)
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers
t=ature:e-101'
yi
S
JO T ORESEI
Date submi June 2,1998
are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand
ag on thpm to make its dee- ion.
s
APPLICANT ` JIIjq'IvIILLER, P.L*4NING CONSULTANT
18
7
C]
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
Sequoia Ridge
1. INTRODUCTION
The subject property is a vacant 3.70 acre site located west of and adjacent to the unopened right-
of-way of 72nd Avenue West and south of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area, in
the SWIA; of Section 5, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, W.M., Edmonds, Washington (See Figure
1). The applicant, John Thoresen, proposes to develop the site for a 4 -lot short subdivision.
A Critical Areas Determination performed by the City of Edmonds on January 31, 1995 found
that the site contains a Wildlife Habitat and Geologically Hazardous Areas pursuant to Chapter
20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), and that the Geologically
Hazardous Areas contained two categories: Erosion Hazard Areas and Steep Slope Hazard
Areas. Subsequent site evaluation and contact with City staff has revealed that the Wildlife
Habitat is comprised of wooded areas and an unnamed stream and associated wetlands. The
purpose of this report is to present site-specific findings of a geotechnical evaluation and an
analysis of water resources.
EMN m 5151 URS LIN Mill
Appendix A contains a preliminary geotechnical engineering report from Nelson-Couvrette &
10 Associates, Inc. evaluating the Sequoia Ridge (John and Delaine Johnson property) from the
standpoint of the stability of the steep slopes, erosion and geologic hazards. The report evaluates
proposed development on the north -facing slopes of the subject property that are considered
environmentally sensitive areas by the City of Edmonds sensitive areas regulations. The study
found that the site was suitable for the type of development proposed, provided a setback was
maintained from the top of bank along the west property boundary adjoining the Lorian Woods
development. The report finds the north facing slope where development is proposed to be
stable. The report references and discusses the location of the subject property within the
Meadowdale slide area and designation of the site as 3B02, a classification identifying the site as
being underlain by material that has not failed in the past and in 25 years, has a 2 percent
probability of debris slides occurring due to the steep slopes.
2.1 SLOPE STABILITY
J
The geotechnical report indicates that no signs of deep-seated instability were found on the
slopes. The report further notes that soils exposed on the moderate to steep slopes are a clean
sand that the geotechnical consultant would expect to be susceptible to slough types failures and
erosion; however, the consultant concludes that this type of slope movement is typically shallow.
The consultant further concludes that the project should be compatible with the proposed
development, provided that site grading and construction are designed and implemented to
maintain and/or increase the existing site stability. The consultant expects the native soils to be
stable with respect to deep seated failure.
Critical Area Study Page 1
Sequoia Ridge Pacific Intemational Engineering 990.35
NORMEp,CH <' NO
�® — ® 148TH
_®
t FISHERS a1R =� L�9 > �' ; PL ;
SH PL �� 1 —
_ _ �'� I Q
151ST
150TH Z 3 a- 1 1 �a
STq 152ND ST '`®m SW a� SW
H
r: 0. 31 t RD
S
3•�......... _ .�...^_. Q 153kD PL SW 1
L w 156TH - r 56TH <1 ST
_®°.'' MEAD®WDALE--•:;�'i ;
MEADO
i 7TH P ®' ''•' >I BEACM.::•::`
I T Wi SW y (' PARK: =f157T PL SW
>' a a z
IL
Es
L4 UGTON ' ^ fi= t TH ®~5T ® F i ~
ARf i , ; < n TH T-- P` sw ( i s'" J1
D �161 t®PL 6.W t$ I ICL
V t D IPL SW
II < <� Imo, i 3164TH I
164TH ST
ST W
-� ®---- N t L
166TH PL
sw
T:w 68THsw
CU ST
—
�® pig
tP�Sh,
SW + ® `�i _ ' Q m a 171ST i i< i t PL
; 172ND ST ® t
ST
73R Q mer SWair.RD yST I i S 1 i J
ST SW z sT J 9 0
Z._
174TS1N ^ 17 s 5W �y -j �
T t �/ sz F
U1,
� � I
a I D A1�STy,
T
76TH VL • � la 3 d x' a t 1 PL SW
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Critical Area Study Page 2
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.33
17
C7
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
Sequoia Ridge
The subject property is a vacant 3.70 acre site located west of and adjacent to the unopened right-
of-way of 72nd Avenue West and south of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area, in
the SWIA; of Section 5, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, W.M., Edmonds, Washington (See Figure
1). The applicant, John Thoresen, proposes to develop the site for a 4 -lot short subdivision.
A Critical Areas Determination performed by the City of Edmonds on January 31, 1995 found
that the site contains a Wildlife Habitat and Geologically Hazardous Areas pursuant to Chapter
20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), and that the Geologically
Hazardous Areas contained two categories: Erosion Hazard Areas and Steep Slope Hazard
Areas. Subsequent site evaluation and contact with City staff has revealed that the Wildlife
Habitat is comprised of wooded areas and an unnamed stream and associated wetlands. The
purpose of this report is to present site-specific findings of a geotechnical evaluation and an
analysis of water resources.
Appendix A contains a preliminary geotechnical engineering report from Nelson-Couvrette &
Associates, Inc. evaluating the Sequoia Ridge (John and Delaine Johnson property) from the
standpoint of the stability of the steep slopes, erosion and geologic hazards. The report evaluates
proposed development on the north -facing slopes of the subject property that are considered
environmentally sensitive areas by the City of Edmonds sensitive areas regulations. The study
found that the site was suitable for the type of development proposed, provided a setback was
maintained from the top of bank along the west property boundary adjoining the Lorian Woods
development. The report finds the north facing slope where development is proposed to be
stable. The report references and discusses the location of the subject property within the
Meadowdale slide area and designation of the site as 3B02, a classification identifying the site as
being underlain by material that has not failed in the past and in 25 years, has a 2 percent
probability of debris slides occurring due to the steep slopes.
2.1 SLOPE STABILITY
The geotechnical report indicates that no signs of deep-seated instability were found on the
slopes. The report further notes that soils exposed on the moderate to steep slopes are a clean
sand that the geotechnical consultant would expect to be susceptible to slough types failures and
erosion; however, the consultant concludes that this type of slope movement is typically shallow.
The consultant further concludes that the project should be compatible with the proposed
development, provided that site grading and construction are designed and implemented to
maintain and/or increase the existing site stability. The consultant expects the native soils to be
stable with respect to deep seated failure.
Critical Area Study
Sequoia Ridge
Page 1
Pacific International Engineering 990.35
►j
` . • f ,NMEADOWDAL
I PARK*
I
,
EA
1 �^ :' ..
RF
_111 H PL SW
iST ZSISW164TH _j I ST
`I l
3 W 172ND ST II
7"
a' SW
ST SW ® sT
174TUTz
SW
_ N
T
OL
twin
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
v
N
f
PIP i4LDS:- (D f
168TH • � T L
S
T® AC
,mr►, 1 p!. a
Q6S1a
0
a
L
Q
FIM
N,
Critical Area Study Page 2
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 9%.39
r�
C7
C]
2.2 EROSION HAZARD
10 The Nelson-Couvrette report notes that on-site soils have moderate to high erosion potential
when disturbed and exposed on slopes. The report therefore recommends that, to reduce erosion,
all slopes where the soil is exposed should be compacted and re -vegetated after construction.
The consultant notes that where existing vegetation is not disturbed, erosion potential should not
be significant.
2.3 SETBACK FROM WESTERN TOP OF BANK
The Nelson-Couvrette report recommends that foundations for the planned residences should be
supported on the underlying medium dense or better glacial deposits and that the foundations on
the hillside should have minimum 15 foot horizontal buffer between the slope surface and the
outside edge of the footing.
2.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
Since ECDC Section 20.15B.120.B requires a 50 foot buffer from a steep slope and ECDC
Section 20.15B.090.0 requires a 15 foot building setback from any buffer, a Reasonable Use
Exception under ECDC Section 20.15B.040.0 is requested from these requirements to substitute
the specific recommendations of the Nelson-Couvrette report, including allowing development
on slopes, reduction of buffers with compensation and allowing elimination of buffer to west
boundary slope.
3. WATER RESOURCES
10 3.1 INTRODUCTION
In May 1998, Pacific International Engineering staff performed on-site investigations to
determine the presence, type and extent of water resources on the subject property. The primary
objectives of the site evaluation were: 1) the identification of any streams and wetlands under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and 2) the delineation of all water
resources subject to land use review and regulation by the ECDC Section 20.15B.
Approximately 52,248 square feet (1.12 acres) of water resources were found on the subject
property, generally associated with seeps along the northerly slopes down to North Meadowdale
Road and associated with the unnamed stream (See Figure 2). Representative data sheets from
that evaluation are provided in Appendix B.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOS has jurisdiction over the waters of the
United States, including streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Only a 210 square foot segment of a
small stream is proposed for fill. Direct contact with ALOE is not required and the City of
Edmonds will be the lead regulatory agency.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting field evaluation, a number of sources were consulted.
As designated in the Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Survey and Map Atlas (1989), the
property lies within the Southwest Coastal watershed. This publication identifies the thread of
the stream on the subject property, but does not locate associated wetlands (Figure 3).
Critical Area Study Page 3
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.35
0
7
7
`•:"/'...._/;\ �•< /
h.
.v it .t' c'•%'''� POWH
UF
IL
• `\
' ' r ��� � �;I. :.��ij-��- \`:'..� ;`:."`��•. 4�''I IIS �.
°�r � �• ( I � � � `.�` (' r x•11.
rte:, 'J(i �= c—�e,.nx: S\• L—
l'Ieadowd le
S l>A�2 %r
r 1 -p fc, 7 I, •� /q 1( y P
\ Pale '-
us
Brow p-8 .� oma... _—."^�/�n, '— r �.�•.:..
Ba
J 1 , +fir \ •r 4- o: i'� .:y
- —.Res •,`. - ' ( _.. - -
jf
'): I If
l '� 1 � QI • 1 r �'�
'�--' -,i' /i/ ' O / r, lj;. �` � '^I u � it (�--�z !! cam,-�v�'•
�`� • ... - _ E:; tier :� - -. '* u ( 4 NAPIr'crk
. ;^� I , — .l(• ter—• � ""`i:'� .
rte,=. "'"'-r ; � , . •� , _ LJ . � ,� � . " ;� •I � . __ ...... -
� � y\ i s � I r'1 ` `yy4� �' r/:' ` . �y�"f •� f >IF'�'='r � =f .� -- t=J=' r ..'.
FIGURE 3. NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
SCALE. 1":2000', FROM USFWS NWI EDMONDS EAST QUADRANGLE
Critical Area Study Page 5
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.75
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) has evaluated wetlands throughout the Edmonds East
USGS quadrangle, using the system described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979). The NWI map indicates no occurrence of
wetlands on the site (Figure 4).
Soils on the site have been mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and Everett gravelly sandy
loam series by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and appear in the 1983 Soil Survey of
Snohomish County (Figure 5).
To perform the wetland delineation for the site, the 1997 Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) was used. The methodology in this
manual recognizes that the three parameters of hydrology and wetland plants are generally found
in wetlands and that these parameters are important in the establishment and maintenance of
wetland communities. Within the methodology, indicators are evaluated in the field to determine
satisfaction of each of the three parameters for establishment of wetland boundaries:
1. Hydrophytic Plants - The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed, 1988 and 1993) has
established a rating system which has been applied to commonly occurring plant
species on the basis of their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. Species indicator
status expresses the range that plants may occur in wetlands and non -wetlands
(uplands). Within the State and federal methodology, satisfaction of the hydrophytic
plant community criterion is satisfied when the plant community is comprised of 50
percent or more of the dominant species which are adapted to or tolerant of saturated
soil conditions: an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW)
or obligate (OBL) wetland (Table 1).
Modifiers are used with the Facultative Indicator categories to more specifically
define the frequency of occurrence. A positive (+) sign indicates plants are more
frequently found in wetlands than the category indicates, whereas a negative (-) sign
indicates plants are less frequently found in wetlands than the indicator signifies. A
status of FAC- does not meet the hydrophytic plant community criterion.
2. Hydrology - Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation, or (at least) soil saturation
to within 12 inches of the surface for one week or more during the growing season
(soil temperatures above 41'F); indicators other than standing water or soil saturation
include stained leaves, soil surficial cracking or water -borne litter.
3. Hydric soils - Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons, or to the depth of
12 to 18 inches; indicators include high organic content, low soil chroma (Munsell'
matrix chroma of 2 with mottles or less than 2 without mottles) or gleying.
l Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland
Critical Area Study Page 6
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.35
FIGURE j. SOILS MAP
SCALE: 1 ":2000', FROM USDA SOIL SURVEY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
2,4: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam 17: Everett gravelly sandy loam
Critical Area Studv Page S
Sequoia Ridge Pacific lntemational Engineering 990.95
Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status
Indicator
Plant Indicator Status
Status Category Abbrev'n Definition (Probability of Occurrence)
OBLIGATE UPLAND UPI, Occur rarely in wetlands (less than 99 percent) and
almost always in uplands (greater than 99 percent)
FACULTATIVE FACU Occur sometimes in wetlands (1 to <33 percent), but
UPLAND more likely in uplands (>67 to 99 percent)
FACULTATIVE FAC Equal likelihood in uplands and wetlands (33 to 67
percent)
FACULTATIVE FACW Occur sometimes in uplands (1 to <33 percent), but
WETLAND more likely in wetlands (>67 to 99 percent)
OBLIGATE WETLAND OBL Occur rarely in uplands (less than 99 percent) and
almost always in wetlands (greater than 99 percent)
NOT LISTED NL Not listed in USFWS National List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands
For the analysis of this site, the presence of dominant hydrophytic vegetation was used for the
principal delineator of the boundary between wetland and upland areas, supplemented on a case-
by-case basis with organic content or soil color evaluation to verify presence of hydric soils and
in the absence of a positive indicator of wetland hydrology, use of professional judgement.
At several locations which supported uniform or homogeneous plant cover within the delineated
wetland areas, sample plots were established for recording of wetland characteristics and for an
assessment of wetland functions, including those described in Table 2.
3.3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Site visits were conducted on May 27 and 28, 1998 to determine the presence, type and extent of
critical areas (wetlands and streams) on the subject property. Sample plots were established in
areas of homogeneous vegetation within the areas evaluated. For each habitat type, the dominant
vegetation (in addition to the common and infrequently -occurring species) was recorded for each
vegetation layer and the soil type/soil color and depth of soil saturation recorded (See Appendix
1b B).
Critical Area Study Page 9
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.35
.>'
p , .ate.
ca °
I1 c e
'o 5 3 ° c
OCC
ii rd
aile
g
°
� �• ° •O
'O
030
�� O� a� c
c
0
E 3
•�
VVyyyyyy v 2
.® + Q
`-
N •�
.L'
N � >
mil
Lei I
'
_•o
v
Eck°
a
Baa
��.?9���
° oa
3
'
J
o ecp
N
'C
0 .T
L N d C .�_ u7 O
3
o
a
bq D.
5
- .�.•J a
•
y v
6�
eJ
s
•�
'li d O U
>
N� C
E 3
O'
O� •H � •C
�.
f
O
v .g
E 4 c� a •-
Q
o0 h
a°
N o
C > I g ei
L
> G
3
•0
::.a
N
u
G rJ
E L°
E
0
U ; , o
[ C y .Ce..
'�N
QQ 5q�
..7 =• .� O
w T
E oQu
.0 '� N
O
j=
O .'rp7 C Gam• d
C
.>'
p , .ate.
ca °
I1 c e
'o 5 3 ° c
OCC
ii rd
'C
A 3
G
� �• ° •O
'O
N T
�� O� a� c
c
0
E 3
eC°
VVyyyyyy v 2
N N
Q�]
1p"
o
cy�To5o3
zp coq n' y
'
_•o
v
Eck°
a
��.?9���
° oa
a�.
E
J
o ecp
N
'C
0 .T
L N d C .�_ u7 O
d
o
a
bq D.
5
- .�.•J a
•
y v
6�
eJ
s
•�
'J' q
•� pp
a
C
:7 N
o
E 3
O'
;
�.
yyC
a v O. O
O
v .g
E 4 c� a •-
e v
�' �.
a°
N o
C > I g ei
> G
3
•0
::.a
N
3 C N d
•C
G rJ
E L°
0pD OppA
U ; , o
[ C y .Ce..
'�N
aP., •3
p
C a
.bi
.0 '� N
O
DD n 'd E
O .'rp7 C Gam• d
C
,�C
CD N
0 0
ro
w e
o.a
u°
u' °0 u
a=5
ds
r a
v v
C
tJ
s o. >
ca °
'C
A 3
G
� �• ° •O
'O
N T
�� O� a� c
5 C
0
E 3
eC°
VVyyyyyy v 2
N N
Q�]
1p"
aN
zp coq n' y
�
_•o
v
Eck°
a
��.?9���
° oa
U
'JC G
p O •y
�.b•Q
'C
0 .T
L N d C .�_ u7 O
d
g�
a
bq D.
5
- .�.•J a
�
�
y v
6�
'vCC � �Q,a� �
d N� E V•C
a
340
g
y
eC
y m
N o
C > I g ei
::.a
4.3
o
0 0
ro
w e
o.a
u°
u' °0 u
a=5
ds
r a
v v
C
a c fl o0
s r c
0
•o
c
o
U
N
aC NE
y3
OC
Ca°
,^ beag
Ey
r.0
5
^
Uc
C°
v
0
18
.eG5b
°C�
wo `o�
c�a
e u .°
e
a
U
O
V p
c
w
a
•5
c =
E
ao
o
b
> _ p
a
y,a
r
v
zc
`�_
°c o
3
V p
D 0
a
..
r •� a
�°
�
a
lu
•v
� p,
0
� � lu
The on-site water resource is a 1.12 acre mixed palustrine and riverine forested, scrub -shrub and
emergent wetland and unnamed stream, generally located south of North Meadowdale Road,
along and at the toe of steep northerly -trending slopes, with some influences from seeps flowing
out of the slopes. Although the site's water resources are directly associated, since the City of
Edmonds regulates wetlands and streams differentially, the wetland and stream components will
be described separately.
3.3.1 Stream
The unnamed stream enters the site from the east, where flows are supported by a stormwater
outfall within the unopened right of way of 72nd Avenue West and seeps. Flowing through an
man-made, incised channel at the northwestern corner of the site and immediately south of North
Meadowdale Road, the stream terminates, as it discharges into a catchbasin, and flows into a
culvert under the right-of-way of North Meadowdale Road (see Figure 2). Ultimate discharge is
to Brown's Bay (Puget Sound). Data Plot No. 6 (See Appendix B) is representative of site
streamside conditions.
Understory wetland vegetation within the margins of the stream includes lady -fern (Athyrium
filix-femina, FAC+), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), piggy -back plant (Tolmeia
menziesii, FAC), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL) and field horsetail (Equisetum
arvense, FAC). In addition to these species, portions of the stream bank and higher areas in the
midst of the stream contain sword fern (Polysticum munitum, FACU) and stinging nettle (Urtica
dioica, FAC+), as well as red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC). Upland understory vegetation is
deerfem (Blechnum spirant, FAC+), salal (Gaultheria shallon pursh., FACU), red huckelberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium, FACU), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FACU), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus, FAC-). Red alder and
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU-) form the upland overstory vegetation.
In general, the where the stream flows through site areas of relatively gentle topography (see Lots
2 and 3, Figure 2), the streambed widens, velocities slow and sediments are typically very dark
gray (IOYR 3/1) silt loam. Predominantly in response to placement of fill adjacent during the
construction of North Meadowdale Road, the stream narrows in Lot 4, where the main flows
narrow to widths of three feet or less and rate of flow increases in the deeply incised and man-
made channel in the northwest comer of the site. In this channel, and in response to the flashy
nature of flows here, the streambed is comprised of sorted gravels over grayish brown (lOYR
5/2) gravelly silt loam.
No fish were noted during site visits in late May 1998. The silt loam streambed in the Lots 2 and
3 do not provide good fish rearing habitat. The markedly increased velocities in the narrow
channel in Lot 4 decrease the fish habitat value where substrates would otherwise support fish
use. Downstream barriers to fish passage have further eliminated the potential that anadromous
fish -rearing (e.g., salmon and sea -run cutthroat trout) could take place on site.
The stream receives hydrologic support from seeps and from a storm drainage outfall and the
IDhydrologic function of the stream is principally in groundwater and surface water reception and
discharge; due to the perennial nature of the stream, this function is considered moderate. Wider
Critical Area Study
Sequoia Ridge
Page 11
Pacific Intemational Engineering 99o.35
areas of the stream provide limited function in floodwater attenuation and desynchronization
functions, as well as some retention of sediments and nutrients. While not significantly greater
than the adjacent uplands, biologic functions include moderate primary productivity and food
chain support, as well as bird habitat and sanctuary and refuge. The stream corridor provides
moderate habitat functions for invertebrates and amphibians. Barriers to fish passage and lack of
quality streambed habitat have eliminated fisheries functions. Socioeconomic functions are
aesthetic in nature and are judged to be moderate.
3.3.2 Wetland
Within the area of direct hydrologic support from the stream,. wetlands are classified by
Cowardin (1979) as riverine forested, scrub -shrub and emergent. On the slopes outside of the
stream corridor, and hydrogically supported by seeps, wetlands are classified as palustrine
forested and scrub -shrub. Due to the general absence of standing water in the sloping areas,
emergent wetlands are an insignificant component.
Supported by data plots 26 and 41 (Appendix A), the shrub component of understory wetland
vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, with devil's -club (Oplopanax horridus, FAC+)
interspersed in some steeper areas where saturation further from the surface. The herb layer is
generally dominated by piggy -back plant, with lady -fern, skunk cabbage, field horsetail and
stinging nettle as lesser constituents. The wetland overstory is comprised of red alder. In some
locations with slight elevation and in adjacent uplands, sword fern (Polysticum munitum, FACU)
is found. The wetland vegetation criterion is satisfied.
Where a mosaic of higher areas occur within the wetlands, vegetation trends to upland
vegetation. For delineation purposes, such higher areas were included within the boundaries of
the wetlands.
Upland overstory is dominated by red alder, with big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU) as
a lesser constituent. Shrub vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, with red elderberry, indian
plum (Oemlaria cerasiformis, FACU) and thimbleberry. Herb vegetation is dominated by
swordfern.
Surface soils to a depth in excess of 16 inches at data plots 26 and 41 are very dark gray (10YR
3/1) black silt loam and sandy loam. This soil color, along with other indicators, such as clear
presence of an aquic moisture regime, satisfies the hydric soil criterion. A data plot on the slope
immediately adjacent to a seep (DP 26X, Appendix A) displays non -hydric soils: dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam and brown (10YR 5/3) loamy sand.
As noted above, hydrologic support for the wetlands on the sloping areas is from surfacing
groundwater in seeps, while wetland areas adjacent to the stream are supported by stream flows.
and surface water via the adjacent ditch. At the time of sampling, depth of saturation was from 0
to 8 inches below the surface. The hydrology criterion is satisfied.
The wetlands on the site provide hydrologic functions such as flood storage, recharge and
discharge and some water quality improvement (in stream -associated wetlands due to their
Critical Area Study Page 12
Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 990.35
location downstream from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use). These functions are
limited by position in the watershed as well as occurrence in sloping areas; the latter is due
largely to. Groundwater recharge is limited due to underlying hardpan. Biologic and habitat
functions are similar to the stream corridor and not significantly different in value from functions
of the adjacent uplands.
3.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS
Section 20.15B.070 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) classifies streams
and wetlands as critical areas. ECDC 20.15B.070.4b classifies the on-site stream as a Category
2 stream. The stream is subject to 25 foot buffers from the top -of -bank under ECDC 20.15B.090
B and 20.15B.130.G. Based on size, presence of two or more wetland classes (including a
forested class), ECDC 20.15B.070.5b rates the on-site wetlands as Category 2. Under ECDC
20.15B.090 B and 20.15B.140.C, 50 foot buffers are required. ECDC Section 20.15B.090.0
requires a 15 foot building setback from any buffer.
Since the unnamed stream on the site has mean annual flows of less than 5 cubic feet per second
(cfs), a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 applies to the fill identified in
Section 3.5.2 below and direct notification to the ACOS is not required.
3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS
The short subdivision has been designed to minimize impacts to on-site, regulated water
resources and their buffers. Since the regulatory requirements regarding topography and critical
10 area pose a hardship for development of this site, Reasonable Use Exception under ECDC
Section 20.15B.040.0 is requested to reduce wetland buffers with compensation. Beyond those
described below, no impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers are proposed.
3.5.1 Wetland Buffer
The project seeks a site-specific reduction of a portion of the southwesterly wetland buffer within
proposed Lots 2 and 3 (see Figure 2). In the area of reduction, buffer less than 50 feet, but
greater than or equal to 25 feet will be maintained; the area of buffer reduction is approximately
2,300 square feet.
3.5.2 Stream
A driveway is proposed to provide for access to Lot 4 see Figure 2). Driveway construction will
result in placement, within the stream, of a culvert of sufficient size to maintain hydrologic
capacity of that stream section. Fill for the stream crossing will result in the loss of
approximately 210 square feet of in -stream habitat.
3.5.3 Stream Buffers
As portrayed in Figure 2, construction of the driveway will result in the loss of stream buffer on
either side of the stream totaling approximately 800 square feet.
Critical Area Study
Sequoia Ridge
Page 13
Pacific intemational Engineering 990.33
3.6 IMPACTS MITIGATION
For preliminary approval, the following sections outline a conceptual approach in compensation
of unavoidable impacts to critical areas on the site through either retention of addition areas of
equal functions and values or through creation of replacement with water resources of equal or
better function and value.
Upon concept approval and during preparation of final engineering documents, a final mitigation
plan will be prepared which identifies goals and objectives and specifies details of construction
of created mitigation areas, including grades, substrates, plant materials and specifications for
installation, construction management and protection measures for adjacent critical areas during
construction, plus a plan for three-year post -construction monitoring and a contingency plan.
Since such a final mitigation plan should be considered schematic in nature and actual field
conditions might require adjustment in planting in response to actual conditions, a qualified
biologist should be consulted prior to implementing the future mitigation. Following
construction, a site visit should be coordinated with the project biologist for review of post -
construction conditions by City of Edmonds staff to ensure that goals and objectives established
in the final plan, as well as conditions of approval, have been met.
3.6.1 Wetland Buffer
As compensation for approximately 2,300 square feet of buffer reduction, the applicant proposes
to retain approximately 5,750 square feet of additional buffer throughout the proposed lots. The
limits of the buffers will be contained within an easement area on each lot and no future
development will occur in such areas.
3.6.2 Stream and Stream Buffers
As compensation for a loss of stream habitat and associated buffer habitat totaling approximately
1,100 square feet, the applicant proposes to widen the stream corridor as shown conceptually in
Figure 2 and create additional stream habitat in the amount of approximately 1,730 square feet. A
substratum of gravels and finer materials will be established and native, non-invasive plantings
will be installed to encourage establishment of habitat similar to that of adjacent areas.
Following construction of driveway access to Lot 4, any disturbed areas outside the limits of the
driveway will be replanted with native, non-invasive trees and shrubs consistent with those found
in the adjacent buffer.
Critical Area Study
Sequoia Ridge
Pacific International Engineering 99o.3s
U
l l
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Catalog of Washington Streams, Volume 1, Washington Department of Fisheries, 1975.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region
9). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.9).
et al. 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). U.S. Dept. Interior Fish Wildl. Serv. December 1993
Snohomish County Department of Public Works. 1987. Aquatic Resources of Snohomish
County, Volume I: Stream and Wetlands Survey Map Atlas. Snohomish County
Department of Public Works and Planning Division, Department of Planning and
Community Development. January, 1987.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of
Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetland
Inventory, Edmonds East Quadrangle, Washington. Prepared for the Office of Biological
Services for the National Wetland Inventory.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. March 1997
Critical Area Study
Sequoia Ridge
Page 15
Pacific International Engineering 990.35
7
3
J
�3
xJ
3s� a
a3 j 3
�3�3aa3�
-i _j a�3 Z
22JJ�� T� zJ�aa3J ® J
p
cr.
mew 6Z �'—�=v �;iv�J3a
Z 2:9
�J
U` gym®Iias
Zo ItJ 3 3 5
oil 1 3 3 m m¢ �i =�" H� v = w
® ® �a �~ 8Z
= fill
-(Bi ��u.�3 uj
c3z��i�cz� _ � y . ¢a u.¢
MW
iu.
�7
to
z
3
a
Z -j 3
<< a gra
x� a
3J<aJxZ��o3v3 a"� 3z
0O <3 ® -+
N�=" c'�x_ x m as _zo
c m en In
W02 �j
m H o i -,-
ak o� A?
a�3�r r44 IQZ psac < `U'� i x ��
333 a M �- EME
LA
ui
�3
xoornmm u. X cc►-3Za$l ®z L z C V Rt a
.ac x<. it < o
7
E
-
T
E
C
z
3 '
J
�3
xJ
<3 J a N J
m— c r��x��J� <a v a a
(Moil H, x 22
8idjAM98---WI 2�1 ISS a 0 -a
3 rr3a$600zu._ u. m8zga 1U.IZI
-®
C�
z
p
.7
w
co
z
O
H
z
D
LL
•
MEE
•,` fit - - _ .., -
ME Off
i
1
RZ
U
Ub(JUWJyJd by: 29 4254812b'Jfi, .__._NELSON-COUVRETTF_, FAUE _ 163
� 1
17311.135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA
(206) 46&1689 0 FAX 481-2510
Mx. John Johnson
16122 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 980264517
Edmonds,Residential Development
Washington
NCA Vk, No. 145995
L. - iAT' , INC.
CONSULTING GGOTECNNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
WenatcheelChelan (5W 784-2758
Dear Mr. Johnson: is
o 111101 V COM
■ ■..... potent6illy developed. _,1 site is• •%1 i.• at 16122 72nd X11 West 1 the
of Edmonds, as
shown on the Site Vicinity Map in Figure 1. You have requested that we preparr, a preliminary
geotechnical report to evaluate the site for development of potential residential homing, Mr. Jim Miller, of
Lovell-Sauedand .:. Associates, Inc.,has provided - •.1 PRD
Preliminary Grading Plan," dated March 9, 1995 by Levell-Sauerland & Associates, I=, showing tbe
proposed
1i t V: i■site, layout • " the project. You desire anevaluation:• slope stability and generalcarthwork
parameters.havebeen 1 • i• that thistime v 1/•... •:Ir... ••.. evaluating developmea
potential of the property is desired. Additional work may be required regarding specific sensitive area
issues, prior to pLatting. That additional work is beyond the scope of this =port.
The site slopes moderaWy to steeply down towards North Meadowdale Road. The site layout provided to
us indicates 1 potentiallyseven t • ! alongwith 1.:' Ir...• .road,areproposed • •t1 • M •'.1.
• 1 1. theupper • •f._! 4/ of theslope and the .!1 • 1 1 -=! • 1 the plan provideA it
appears .:... . to an foot • • need to bemadefor•L_'.accessroadway.The w 1 r. =s may
`.
incorporate daylight • :..t ' . intotheirdesign.
06LUJ1998 09:29 4254812x'9 NELSON-COUVRE" PAGE 04
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
March 28, ••
NCA File • ••
1
age 2
COPE
characterizeThe purpose of this sb* is to explore and w:.e1 general
...'11 ,:.
gootechnical =Y1,1"..1 =f • .It •,! ' fbr sito development.- 1 • 1/ w1 • i• to identify •`. 11 • f •: 1. Wil
•'i'. and • 1.'.' 1 evaluation ofslopestability 1 general earthworkparanjet=sfor &-velopment.
Specifically, our scope of services indude ft following:
1. Pteview available geologic or soils data for the site from published geologic maps.
2 Explore the subsurface conditions at the site with hand explorations to identify su
soils and hydrologic conditions.
3. Measure cross-sections through the site in the field using a hand level and a 100 foot tape..
4. Provide an evaluation of slope stability of the site.
5. Provide preliminary earthwork guidelines.
10 6. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommendations.
--7
The trapezoidal shaped site is located on the south side of North Mcadowdale R64 as shown on the Site
Plan in Figure 2. We
have labeled the proposed residence locations for descriptive purposes. An existing
residence is located on the upper level portion of the site. The 'hillside then slopes moderately to steeply
down
to the
J • tl and ,• thenahnuldrainagearea alongside the ' •.:: 1 :.y. 1 fL. 1 ♦ ..1 s portion 1 h
... G: '_.1 1 1 /1.11:. - Ii:�► • 1 .!: t1 ' ' :.. - 1
of the site, 1. 1_vicinity•units' i and The preliminary planwe werey 1 •. i 1 ideatiAes
the drainage area as a wetland with an associated 50 That buffer I area. TU total vertical relief within the
site is :G. • • • 1 .1 -ly 4 feet. The •p.-anglesasinterpreted •. • the topographicgrading plan 1. • • the
hillside slopes at approximately 31 degrees over most of the slope, and approximately 27 degrees below the
knob at the west end of the site. The steeper areas incline
.approximately 35 •:,.t{:i.: We performedtwo
slope surveys at the site using a clinometer and a 100 fbot measuring tape, These surveys measured the
steeper portions of theslope• be • 1. the order • degrees.*
=G 1 1 general
agreement:...1 the
topographic plan.
kTA
PrellmiliaryGeotechWcal En&eering
Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
March 28, ..
NCA File • /•
Page 3
The slope is vege with medium to LvZo diameter trees along with thick underbrush of f6ros and
blackberry bushes. We obscrvcd two Men trees and a few trees with slightly bowed trunks. Howe=, the
11 •.: 1 ofthetrees were straight.There series i trails on; t1 _ slope, -..f. 1 1 places hawbeen Y...
1 • 11 _ hillside. Light brown mediumsand 1 1wasobserved / these "cnt arms.Portions 1 the slope;
coveredre
t1 :11•6 M: . { ! debris 1 as branches 1 :C : f • cut •_vegetation had • :.+:f
pushed over the top of the slope and/or was cut and left on the slope when the trails were created. We did
1 ■ obscm obvious r of fill.1 - lower wetland area is • :1 -. • 1 with blackberry bushes, 1 e 1 and
scattered U=. 1,' ' fS...1... t . water1 t1:- 1 .. •... • draw 1/:•' f 1:;.... of our 1.
1'
was referenced• .. infbnnation about the e : :. geology. i delineates the soilsin the
vicinity of the
site as Esperance Sand Q' overlying t Whidbey Formation QQ:..• An area defined Old I ::{.• •.'
(Qols) is mapped to the west
We reviewed the City of F-,dn=ds critical areas ordinance (No.' 2874) and have reviewed the associated
reports by GeoEnginoers, Inc. and Rodger Lowe & Associates, Inc. with regard to the Moadowdale Slide
area. This site is mapped as being associated with the Meadowdale slide complex. R is classified as a
r arm This classification identifies / beingunderlain 1material that has not f9 :A 1 11...'
past and has a 2 percent probability of debris slides O=rring due to - x..13.«•slopes, it 25 years.
TU sedinients classified as Whidbey consist of well sorted beds -of clay, silt or sand. TIW Espera= is a
i within 1•. " advance :..1 Y- •:: 1. which generally medium
to coarse sandwith ► :._Y" amuntsof 111.•;
and varying gravel content. The Fsperance sand contains a low: percentage of fine grain particles. It has
moderate - • highstrengthsi :(1confined..
• 1 ! 1. w.1 HOwevez, :{slopingareasthe outer portions ._.1 became • •
Advance outwash was deposited at the base of advancing glaciers'. The Whidbey and E%)=ice,, Omufore,
have _ i e:wl overridden by pastintrusion •continental glaciation.: .-1 period of glaciation, h 1 • a.
Stade,ended :{• •da 0L to 13,000 years:_• During the VashonStade,1 Puget •• 1. region
was overridden by over 3,000 fed of ice. Soil layers overridden by tho ice sheet were compacted to a much
greater extentthan dimthat werenot.
U
bb/;fib/lyy8 09:29 4254812510 NELSON-CODURETTE PAGE 06
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
March 28, •9
NCA File No. 145995
Page
1 _ • •_'. subsurface ••'/ 1 • • - explored • i March f 1995 with five shallow hand 1 :... ' - borings
on the slopingportion • the site. The hand f - t• i NI • fY.( e■ in the field 1 • a geological :•/ r i ::C"
representing this
• _.. / who nudntained • `J, of the conditions encountered. The locations f the hand
explorations are shown • 1 the Sit- Plan 1 Fig= 2. The soils:w - classified 1 general :f..:: f / 1 r.' • • *_.1
1,' Unified • Classification system,: copy ofwhich : presented a1 teJ •'1 Figure3.1. " hand auger logs,
laboratory,edited to reflect examination of soil samples in our - presented as Figure 4.
Our hand 1.• - l• .t1.•:1 were advanced to depths of to 4.5 `.:: below existing grade.depth, in Hand
a
• ,, through .zweencountered unit•. loose to c.! 1 dense,brown e 1 sand • 11 trace
1 • finegmvel, • i of whichextended • to • ._s 1 or • 1 fed below grade. 1 Msoils-..
interpreted 1 be
the FsperanceSand. • 1 1 ■Auger this / was observed • •.1 Y.. /. gTeater amount
ofsilt,possibly indicating •!+it ispart of the advancesandsequence.7 la g.+; through 3. 11
Esperance sand ::. ` overlain r ,. 1.3 to 1 feet of • •d ` brown 1 f tomediumsand 1: 1 tsome• •
This 1it interpreted to be weatheredEsperancesand. In Hand / - - the •..1 n i / Y." sand
overlain by 0.6 fi)et of dark brown organic sandy silt, interpreted to be a buried topsoil horizon. This
horizon was overlain by 0.4 feet of loose, brown medium sand, interpreted to be slope wash. Slope wash is
material deposited by erosional processes. Hand Augers 1, 4 and 5 were capped with a surficial layer of
forest duff, approximately 0.6 to 0.2 feet thick. Our explorations were shallow in depth. The types of soils
observed on the site typically grade to a more dense condition with de
Hydrologic
We did not observo ground water seepage within any of our explorations, Surface water was observed in
Obe drainage draws within the wedand area. We, expect that this water is perched on a less perm�cablc
underlying a • Although we• f not find • - 1I of ground : 1 theslope, local ar=with perched
:.■
aroundabove silt lenses or that can G • `, within this deposit. • :. t w .Li• ground
If !
water isnot • .":a ita regionalground water table, and will vary depending upon the amount and
duraf= of precipitation.
SLOPESTABUITY
. ■ 1 1•' ••.. sips of •:'f seated instability f'1 =■1e •1:.: observed numerous o•f fir trees,
approximattly 1.0 to 1.5 foot in diameter, on the slope. Their prqscnce is = indication that the slope is not
activewithregard to • :n•seated •'.significant shallow! 1nwvemants.
U0/OU/ 1770 rj7. 4L��VCj[�j_U ._NtLbUN-UUUVKt11t_ rHVt. b�
Preliminary Geotechnical Eng4wering Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
March. 2$, 1995
AICA File No. 145995
Page 5
11 Iw.fl • 1 1 !/ { 1. ..➢. 11 r..a •U 1. .. •./1:':11•:.. f. `:i M
�.. ..:•I • �. 1'1 1 ' 1 • { w..: • .:f • 1 � ... : r: 1 `:.1.:.• 1 •. {.. , •• �Y 1.. 1 '•Vi•. • 1 :.:•
CONCLUSIOAD RECOM3MNDATIONS
Geneml
The project sito 1 .. 1 P:'compatible 1 the proposed 1.._ - ... 1 G11 providing thatsite grading Y. and
constructionamdesigned _. :. f ..implemented `..• maintain : 1.. •. . ,.....:.. ., 1 existing
.. 1 • sitestability-
soilscanstruction. The native soils arc expected to be stable with respect to deep seated Wurcs. The upper
✓. 1. 1 :1 and A.. dense . 1 • should 1 . 1.` • " }.• near 1 - natural :..• • ofrepose • 1theslope
face. Once t.' i • r • these -sodshave :moderate to high 1. '4 oferosion. Werecommend 1/ erosion . • • i
• ithese slopes be c4ontrolled. This discussed l .. Erosion
.1:. ! e 3... - • ! fl would expect sloughing
typt: failures from cuts in the upper loose to medium dense soils.
The site is mapped as being a part of the Meadowdale slide complex that has not moved in the recent past.
It is mapped as having a small potential for debris slide type movements or sloughing events. It is our
opinion that proper drainage ._:1..erosioncontrol measures = taken, LI {I:_• potential development • 1..• :1
have: minimal
prwented in the Erosion and Drainage sub -sections.
Foundations \•1. • •.' planned w 11m should besupported
glacial deposits. a. foundations • / 11:.' 1 • ' should 1 :
the slope,l:. andtheoutside edgeof the footing, This may 1 accomplished • extending 1 g I ' • 1 .1,
below grade.It ispossible 1 .thisbuff-er could be reduced :. - site
pe f conditions.
]Based on i.- Preliminary 11... • {'. plan provided,appearsthata cut up to fa high will 1'madeforthe
ce + roadway
-• : • and 1. •1 '. buildings incorporate :. daylight basement .1 • their design. Ile road cut will
require .• 1' type,of .. \:...i ••structure.Based •1 the f conditions encountered we 1.• notrecommend
the use.ro6wries greater than 'feetin height specifically t..-. U/ .f as a retaining structure.Types
of retaining structures applicable for this site are concrete retaining waUs or a gravity
retaining strucbm
,061-3011998 09:.29 425481251 q.. NELSON-COUVRETTP PAGE 08
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
Much 28, 1995'
NCA File No. '''
Page `•
,- Y. -: • Ir. •i«.. ♦ : '.� 1 :•1 Ie.•11 • •. • 1 If: • i . i11 3. 1„��• 1:} • 1st :.1! it :...:' : - Y.: f 1 •
F,rosion Control
The on-sitesoilshavemoderate to tJlerosion potentialwhen disturbed : 1.1. exposed •1.1. • r :
duringconstruction is to take place recommend +1 .1 slopes • • .1 e/ during
construction protected • • 1 erosion. r: ` :.” taken may t : ♦ . diverting , l: -water • • !i l:
the top of slopes., and covering slopes with straw or plastic shecting. Erosion ftum may be constructed at
the
... i• base ofconstructionareasto prevent run • •. fium
cntenng the w-:+/ 1=,i
is exposed, should Ic=pacted andre-vegetated, afterconstruction, toreduce erosion.11m vegetation
should r maintained andrepaireduntil established. h _ /•:."existingvegetation1.••. disturbed,
Site Preparation and Grading
Areas to receive pav=ents, slabs -on -grade or structural fill should be stripped of any sufficial topsoils
layer or duffi Foundation subgrades should be prepared as outlined in the Foundation sub -section. After
stripping,pavement areasshould • 'compactedwitha large vibratory
under compaction equipment should be repaired prior to paving or casting slabs -on -grade.
The on-site soils are slightly to moderately moisture sensitive. TU need for a blanket of rock spalls at do
access roadway1 ••_.. f ieevaluated thetimeof construction.'
...• • t.1 1 For estimating purposes,we re=nmwd
using a minimum one foot thickness of rock spalls for the access roadway. The amount and thickness of
/1..spall blanket will vary,depending • •II the • ! • • 1 when the site isdeveloped.
!�
got " Op: '..'
All fill placed beneath buildings, paverncnts or other sefflement sensitive fmtures, should be placed as
strucUmalfill. • r fill, by definition, is placed inaccordance11 prescribed methods and stmdards,
and monitored ♦ anexperienced geotechnicalprofessional r soils:1. 1 ...1. Field 1 •:1 .•
} • fr i.• A • 1. 1 / ' 1.{'. 1 " • i • : .. . w �1 :i• t •.' • 1 • r' •,ri :.: ' \ • • M 1 :+11:.
theattainmentof the desired degreeofrelativecompaction, I' degreeofcompaction to be obtained
dependent • 1 the type ofstructure• be ph" on the structural fill. I'he degree of compaction to be
-• --• - - YLJYl71 GJ! Ivr.LbUN-000VKL I I t__- NAGE .10
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Development - Edmonds
March 28, 1995
NCA File No. 145995
Page 8
•-•`x.1•:.1 '..f1:1M.Ingrim,..W, I W I• 1. ;,. f �!. 1 •'..1 • 1•: ••:1. a •w, ,.:•!11 f' •' 1..
• M. 1. • •�1.: :+ .:
For foundationsconstructedasoutlined e.!above/ and • 1 1 e.1. • 1 "1undisturbed native :.:• we er•^:1 t 11.1.
an allowable design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per squm* foot (psf) to be used for the footing
design. •.. foundation ♦,e..I. g •il I • . /eevaluated 1'', irep'resentatiw of our1 11 1..... Puget
♦ f.1.
regionis classified as : Zone by the 1 •. 1BuildingCode.one-third increase :1. the above allowable
Drainage
The finished 1 V •u.1 • surface 1 • • be
graded i• ` 1 that stormwater collected and directed off the t1`
Concentratedwaterrun •■ •.. • 10 be allowed ....1 discharge onto11'slopes. Finalgrades should
allow for drainage away from the building. We suggest the finish ground be sloped at a gradient of 3
percent minimum
ff " f ( for_ distance 1 r' •atleastfeet awayfrom the building, except 1 1..` areas thata= to be
paved. • _. . e should not be drained onto 11.' sloped v.♦areas of the site.Y.. -water
should
1 1• It"
collected e• • ', permanent .•. 1 basins . 1 • drain 1 w and i •' dischMed intoa stormdrainsystem.
1311.._ ♦.•••fc 1'_.3:should be installed at1r • •. of
perimeterfix)bngs. IS ubsurEace
walh should
be provided withwalldrainage 6:1 • •.• '. drains should 1 • be r• 1 1. _. : • " • perimeter footing 1 :1. ♦ `
wall drain systems.
We have prepared 11 ri{ •:r •11. • f'•1. :11. his agents,foruse 31 preliminary JS=Ub-
conditions.
•.3nIf i. !_.1 I • 3Nt. _..f v • 1 •. f■_. • 1 • ♦ \ - ■ • i 9.1. • ►1. • 1 \ N { ! 1 • •!" af • _. 1 \ • 1 `•�t ' : 3 1• i :.1• 3 1 • fI •'/ _ •! 1..' 1 G• : t _.. •
111C Purpose Of this ti• • _.. to provide preliminary, general F• - • • . 1 ••/ for development O
ur
work wasbased onIY• number shallow - • • :..{. • 1 :_f. ♦ our recommendations 11. • • l>• be
considered :,.dc• : _ for i • : design.is likelythat.. • •
nal: explorations and geotechnical evaluatm
will • " requiredasdevelopment 3 . 1. proceed.
Ile scope of our work does not include servicet r&ted to construction
WL&ty Precautions, and our
riecommendationsamnot intended ♦ ed • direct 1. " contractors'w• • •. techniques, sequences•.... procedures,
/ uto/ .717/ 177tl UId: ly 4154812510 NELSON—COUVRETTc
Preliminary Gwtechnical Engineering Report
Residential Develop - Edmonds
March 28, 1995
NCA ]File No. 145995
Page 7
PAGE 09
Temporary and Permanent Cut Slopes
We =.Y•11 i 1 J that temporary • 1.w' be 1_• :- I -' than 1. dem sand 1 1:•. 1.51 11 the
upper ••,- 1 medium. densezone.Slopes• - to 11 1e!'' `:11,:1willhavu better
We
performance. 1 e1.usingthe steeper •^ there S risk of some • `ll 1 ' We haw observed 1... 1t.
preliminary grading plan Mcates: to foot Wallis to 1.::' constructed below •.w 11 -existing w I ino
tbc toc of the cut for the wall lies withiu a 1.5:1 (H -.V) line :
temporary
a: i i•i shoring
.J. • 1 ' measures
r 1 beneeded- We ...♦ not rOMUW-=dvertical slopes for " deeper 11 . '
feet, if workeraccess necessary. - recommend that cut slope heights .111 inclinadons conform to
appropriate loca.1, state and federal regulations.
Becauseof 1.:-manyvariables involved, 11 ' aboveestimates for temporarycutslopes • :.: i. •' { •'• 1 h`
general ' 1'1+ The actualslopes S.1g should be made 11. responsibility • 11:. ,..1.1•...• 1,'
continuouslypresent _I 1.- job t ' to observe t' nature : 1..1:condition • " theexcavationsoils.?11 •W=/
slope
•. _• • 1 protection ../ ■raveling nmintenan=
should i,' expected during •11 1 •'• • i
Permanent new • 1 i,: constructed ofcut slopes or •should steeper a ttt 1
slope angle .. : 1 1..•1•:.1 tominimize• •JI. failures :111 excessive f =., ..] c- • /..
compacted fills, orcommon ..• 1 •...::should be,
:1. ♦steeperthan Common / - defimnedf
material potentially _J some organics that: 1..: cf • •. r' �f • 1 They • i not f t 11
requirecompaction specification of structural fill. Flatter slopes would MI less maintenance:. All slsl OPCI
should he vegetated with a suitable cover and the vegetation maintained until it is well established. Ju
LJu
netting • r sh• • f be
d to reduce erosion while _I..'. vegetation is being r... • : 1 'r 1 We ha -
observed that the preliminary grading plan
indicates •.. a: 1 permanentslopessteeperthan,
These areas are the slopes just south of unit A, and bawem units C and A Tbm slopes should be
back to 2: 1, or an appropriate retaining system should be used.
Foundations 1 1 1 1: 1 1 1
We c,.. • i 5.:/^• that the structures be fbimded • 1 conventional spread footings-• • 1.1 should bear •:..1.
the underlying Medium dense ,' • .. better ' .. / : • ., soils or R... Mf • extending to '.f1 h soft. f
foundations onthehillside1 • fi. have a miniinum 15 foot 1 ! •./ buffer between «1 . 1.... slopesurface6.1
theoutside edgeof the footing. This bufferbe achieved 1'.extending
Ilk gmund surfiwe. It is possible that this buffer could be reduced after review of site specific con&ions.
Minit num foundationwidths1' 18 ,1 • ' inches .-a • 1 beused for /.:•isolatedspread
footings, wilts• `1•,. •. t_ •:/•.1 '
Footings 1. 1. 1 of inches • " frost protection.
Ube jU/ 1 �'jti nIJ: Zy 4'25481251 Vl, NELSON-CODURETTE_ raUL ,11
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
idential Development - Edmonds
March 28, 1995
NCA File No. 145995
Page 9
imcept as specifically desm-bed in our report for camderation m design. There are possible vuanfimaboas iT
submirfwe •'1 ■ f ♦tl : We :r•€m=1. that project 1 .1111 ! inclitdo I budgetand.
should •• d C :a 1 1• 5.•with conditionslf..:vary• •.1.. :1 m described 1 this report.
Within the lim�ons of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we havo strived to take caTe that our
• ':. has !:...ni done 1 .. h♦ / ...1 1.. 'Ii.1 t.:Uy accepted practices
,Y r..; followed in this area at the tim this
report was prqparcd. No other conditions, -'K♦1 v: ei or V. i1 should ,:-understood.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If fluze an any quesfions c4wzming this report or
if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
William B. Benzer
Projoct Engineer
EXPIRES
William M. Uc c, PE
Senior Engineer
Three Copies Submitted
Four Figizres
srxp�AEs x•1'7• �b
:f 1 1 ... V-7 67.1 c'
�7
06/3E•/1998 09:29 4254812F'9 NELSON-COUVRET-
y
i
I
PROJECT I
SITE
Z
kmI xeJ
NELSON-COUVR TTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING GEOTECNNiCAL. ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTSFILE
61Mail,•
O,. �.. 99
PAGE 12
URE 1
I
MARCH 1995
b // b1_/ 1 yy8 10: 22
1
42548125Ia} NELSON-COUVREI
>Z d
a
a
d
LL
C3 2
\•z w®
Q
� �
I t� ,�® o � 16% X95 Taw a
LU m
X70 ,�,� , �`�\ / • . \
ol
vj
♦ t
Id
l -W
25"
ca
d W
v�
z�
m
20.
W
�a
U' i2
z U
ie [IOU
Of
J <L
/ r \ ♦ \ q / /
WETLAND
\ , i<\ ♦ !
BLjFMR
\ t � "`\®.. `�`+ �` _~ �\`\: tea`•.
s \
't1t. i �•�� r \\ \ `\ \ \ ♦,rte
1,111 F,�/ r"' \ \F.,\ \� `ti♦♦ \\�.. \ `^.4_
1"';
10
s \
310 �t0
:3
z
v
e
w
N
d
a
PAGE 04
11
v Sl
a I I
w
U
/ /
\`\`� ' .♦\
\-; \^�♦ `� .
`Zea
10
s \
310 �t0
:3
z
v
e
w
N
d
a
PAGE 04
11
v Sl
a I I
w
U
`06/30/1998 09:29 4254812" Pl-.NELSON-COUVRE?" PAGE 16
NOTES:
GROUP
MAJORDIVISIONS
SYMBOL GROUPNAME
COARSE
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-83.
SOILS
��0 ON
NO, 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GM SILTY GRAVEL
GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual. appearance, of soils, and/or
MafiE 7?1AN 5
��Ok
NO. SIEYE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW WELL-GRADEDSAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP POORLY -GRADED SAND
Tww sox �
FRACTION Pis
NO.4 SIEVE
SAN®
SM SILTY SAND
SC ` CLAYEY SAND
WITH PINES
FINE
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML SILT
CLAY
GRAINEDCL
uouOLIMM LESS T
ORGANIC
OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SOILS
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
MORE THM PASMS
LUMD UMrr OR MORE
NM 2DO SIEVE
ORGANIC
OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT PEAT
NOTES:
1)
Field classification Is based on
visual examination of soil In general
accordance with ASTM. D 2488-89.
2)
Soil classification using laboratory
tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-83.
3)
Descriptions of soil density or
consitency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual. appearance, of soils, and/or
test data.
NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASS®CIATES, INC.
CONSULTING GEOTBCaNN/CAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AND ENORONWNTAL SCPEN71876
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS
Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
usually soil is obtained from
below water table
nb/dn/"ljb U9:29 42548125101, NELSON-COUVRETTI PAGE 17
LOG OF EXIPLORATION
DEPTH Use $OIL DESCRIPTION
HAM AUGER ONE
0.0-0.4 BRANCHES, STICKS AND DUFF (VERY LOOSE, MOIST)
0.4-1.7 SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, TRACE ROOTS AND GRAVEL
(LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
1.7-2.3 SP BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, SCATTERED COBBLES AND TRACE
SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) )
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.2 -1.7 AND 1.9 - 23 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.3 FEET ON
fTi IKt�
0.0-2.0 SP
LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
2.o - 3.5 SP
TAN -GRAY MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) ( )
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.1 -1.6 AND 2.6 - 3.2 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET ON
HAND AUGER
0.0-2.0 SP
LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE,
DAMP TO MOIST)
2.0-3.0 SP
TAN -GRAY MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MJEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Qe)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 - 2.0 AND 2.5 - 2.9 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.0 FEET ON
HAND AUGER FOUIR
o.0 - 0.2
DUFF
0.2-0.6 SP
LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SANb WITH TRACE SILT (VERY LOOSE, DRY TO
MOIST) (SLOPE WASH)
ML
DARK BROWN TO BLACK ORGANIC SANDY SILT (SOFT, DAMP TO MOIST)
(BURIED TOPSOIL)
1.2-4.5 SP
LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) ()
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 0.6 -1.0 AND 4.0 - 4.6 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 4.5 FEET ON
HAND AUGER FIVE
0.0 - 0.6
DUFF
u-2.5 SM
LIGHT GRAY RUST BROWN A40TTLED SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
GRAVEL AND SCATTERED COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Cie)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED 'AT 1.3 -1.8 AND 2.0 - 2.4 FEET
GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED.
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.5 FEET ON
NELSON-CONELSON-COWRE7TE d ASSOCIATES, INC,
FILE NO.9
FIGURE 4
DV EDM
0
Y do
C 11 `W EDMONDS
Y 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS • WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
RCW 197-11-970 Deternunation of Significance (DS)
NOTICE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT
ISSUANCE I
Description of proposal: Sequoia Ridge 4 -Lot Subdivision located within the Meadowdale
Landslide Hazard Area. Steep slope, wetland, and stream critical areas confirmed on-site.
Property is designated Environmentally Sensitive by the City of Edmonds (File No. S-98-108 and
V-98-109).
Proponent: John Thoresen, General Partner
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 161XX 72"a Avenue West
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
XX There is a 30 day public comment period for this draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Copies are available for viewing at City Hall (121 5 1 Aveune N.) and at the Edmonds
10 public library (650 Main Street). Documents may also be purchased at City Hall.
Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson
Position/Title: Planning Supervisor
Phone: 425-771-0220
Address: City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Date:
Signature;
You may submit written comments on this draft EIS to 'Robert Chave, Planning
Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than 5:00 p.m.
August 23, 1999.
XX Posted on July 22, 1999, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community
Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy
of the draft EIS
Page I of 2 TTA H® w�® w \`!1o T
DRAFT EIS ISSUANCE FORM.DOC „
CREATED ON 07/22/99 9:44 AM
Mailed to the following along with a copy of the draft EIS:
XX Environmental Review Section
1b Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
J
J
XX Department of Fisheries
Attn.: Richard E. Johnson
Regional Habitat Manger
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98012
XX Department of Wildlife
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98012
pc: File No.
SEPA Notebook
Page 2 of 3
DRAFT EIS ISSUANCE FORM.DOC
CREATED ON 07/22/99 9:44 AM
XX National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn.: Steve Landino
WA. State Habitat Branch Chief
510 Desmond Drive SE
Lacey, WA 98503
XX Snohomish County Planning Department
Attn.: Steve Holt, Planning Director
I st Floor, Courthouse
Everett, WA 98201
XX
John Thoresen
22020 17`h Avenue SE Suite 220
Bothell, WA 98021-8486
City of Edmonds
Endangered Species Language
"It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to take all necessary steps to
prevent the incidental taking of protected species under the Endangered
Species Act through habitat modification or degradation during the life of the
project or development authorized by this permit or approval. The applicant
shall notify the City through its Director of Development Services and federal
agencies with responsibility for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act
immediately, in the event of any damage or degradation to salmon habitat by
or from the project or the development subject to this permit or approval. In
any such case, the applicant shall, at its sole cost and expense, take all
actions necessary to prevent the furtherance of the damage or degradation
and to restore the salmon habitat as required by the federal, state and local
agencies with jurisdiction."
•
. . ,
An easement is reserved for and granted to the City of Edmonds and its citizens within the area
shown on the plat and marked "NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT" in order to
preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the City and particularly the safety and stability
of steep slopes and other critical areas through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or
destruction of native vegetative growth on developed or partially developed property.
Except as provided herein, the owners of the property shall preserve and maintain the existing
native growth and vegetation and shall not cut, prune, remove, log, destroy by the use of
herbicides or otherwise disturb the native growth within the easement except that dead, dying or
diseased vegetation may be removed which is an unreasonable threat to the safety of any
adjacent home or public or private right of way or when necessary to protect the remaining
vegetation from disease. In steep slope environments and areas subject to Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Section 19.05, requests to remove vegetation or trees which may
increase the risk of slide danger should be addressed to the City Engineer for administrative
review subject to ECDC Section 18.45.030.G as the same exists or is hereafter amended. Such
areas may be allowed to naturally reseed themselves unless replanting is necessary to preserve
slope stability, preserve a water shed and water quality, prevent erosion or when native growth is
destroyed or damaged by fire or other natural catastrophe. In such cases, replanting shall be
undertaken at the cost of the owner(s) of properties within the subdivided tract with appropriate
native plants. Replantings shall be watered, maintained and replaced until the damaged area has
been restored. No herbicide, pesticide or other chemical shall be used in the easement area
except as may be necessary to address insect or rodent infestation in accordance with law or
administrative action.