PLN200300184-10457.PDFCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edm ds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
'nC.189V
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPELLANT -
CASE NO.:
LOCATION:
APPEAL:
REVIEW PROCESS:
MAJOR ISSUES:
William Snell for David and Julie Clobes
AP-03-184
7425 Olympic View Drive
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Appeal of staff decision denying the Steep Slope Exemption for the
subject property.
Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.15B.100.D.2. (CRITICAL AREAS).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve the appeal
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve the appeal
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the application was opened at3:00 p.m., February 19, 2004, in the City Hall,
Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:05 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the
exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is
available in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary- of the comments offered at the public hearing.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
�"TIearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 2
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, submitted the staff advisory report into the record.
From the Appellant:
William Snell, Applicant's Attorney, asked staff for clarification of one point in the staff
advisory report.
Brian Hall, Applicant's Geotechnical Engineer, said he concurred with the staff advisory
report.
From the Community:
No one from the general public spoke at the public hearing.
The applicant, William Snell, on behalf of property owners David and Julie Clobes, submitted an
appeal of a Staff Decision to deny a Steep Slope Exemption. The Steep Slope Exemption is
required for an addition to the Clobes' residence at 7425 Olympic View Drive, because the
addition encroaches into a Steep Slope Hazard Area on the property (see Exhibit 1, Attachment
Q. Staff initally determined during review of the Steep Slope Exemption application that one of
the criteria that must be met in order for a Steep Slope Exemption to be approved, could not be
met. The Steep Slope Exemption was denied. A letter of appeal was subsequently submitted to
the William Snell, representing David and Julie Clobes. After review of the appeal information,
staff determined that the appeal should be approved, with several conditions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. HISTORY
1. Application Chronology:
a) Facts:
(1) The applicants also applied for an Accessory Dwelling Unit permit since the
reason for the proposed addition is to accommodate an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
The application for the Accessory Dwelling Unit was approved.
(2) During review of the Steep Slope Exemption application it became evident that
one of the criteria that must be met in order for a Steep Slope Exemption to be
approved could not be met.
(3) The Staff Decision to deny the Steep Slope Exemption was issued on November
17, 2003.
(4) A letter of appeal was subsequently submitted to the William Snell, representing
the applicants, on December 1, 2003, within the allowed time period for an
appeal.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 3
B. APPEAL ISSUES
1. Issues raised by the Appellant:
a) Summary of Statements by the appellant:
(See Appeal Letter, Exhibit B)
(1) The denial of the Steep Slope Exemption will prevent the applicants from
constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was previously approved on
October 13, 2003.
(2) The application meets the Steep Slope Exemption Criteria and the overall purpose
of the code, "which is to provide for stable slopes."
(3) This is because the concern over the loose soils is addressed by the HWA
Geosciences, Inc. report because the report states that, "by removing the loose fill
as part of the construction that the basement excavation will improve slope
stability."
b) City Staff Responses:
(1) The purpose for the proposed addition to the residence is to accommodate an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
application was approved prior to the denial Steep Slope Exemption, while the
Steep Slope Exemption application was still pending. However, the ADU permit
has a separate review process and a separate set of criteria than the Steep Slope
Exemption. Staff is obligated to approve an application for an ADU if the
applicant can demonstrate that all the criteria for an ADU may be met. The
applicant still has to be able to meet all other relevant code criteria that are related
to the addition of the Accessory Dwelling Unit to the residence.
(2) Pages 3 through 7 (Section II.B.La.) of the Staff Decision (Exhibit C) addresses
the application's compliance with the requirements for a Steep Slope Exemption.
The section lists the criteria that must be met in order for a development or
alteration within a Steep Slope Hazard Area. The project's compliance with each
criterion were considered separately as they were addressed by the Geotechnical
Report submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 1, Attachment C-3) as well as the peer
review of this report (Exhibit 1, Attachment C-4).
(4) As stated on page 4 (Section 11.13. La. l .£) of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), one of
the Steep Slope Exemption criteria is that, "Steep slope areas cannot be altered if
the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent to the steep slope exceed three feet."
(Exhibit 1, Attachment C)
(5) Page 6 (Section H.B.I .a.9), of the Staff Decision (Exhibit 1) states that the loose
soils criterion, "is addressed on pages 5 and 6 of the report. The report states that
loose soils were encountered from 3.5 to 7.5 feet deep in two of the four test pits
at the site." (Exhibit 1, Attachment C)
I%W
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 4
(6) Staff had tried to determine, through the Steep Slope Exemption review process,
whether or not the fact that the loose soils were of non-native origin meant that
the application would satisfy the intent of the criterion. Staff ultimately
determined that the origin of the loose soils alone was not of adequate
consequence to determine that this criterion may be met.
(7) The appeal letter made an issue of a statement in the HWA report that referred to
removing the loose fill. (Exhibit 1, Attachment A) Staff considered this as a
potential means to satisfy the criterion of concern. However, the ability for the
application to potentially meet this criterion by the removal of the loose soil was
not sufficiently detailed in the original HWA report.
(8) In order for Staff to recommend approval of the appeal, the applicant would need
to present additional information to demonstrate that the criterion having to do
with loose soils at the site may be met.
(9) The applicant's geotechnical engineer submitted an addendum to the original
report (Exhibit 1, Attachment A). The information regarding this criterion
clarified the origin and location of the loose soils at the site including
supplementing the original information with additional test pit locations and more
fully addressed the removal of the loose soils during the construction of the
addition.
(10) The report addendum (Exhibit 1, Attachment A), clarified the origin of the loose
soils on the slope as being non-native and originating from un-permitted fill from
the original home construction and garden refuse that has been dumped onto the
slope.
(11) The report also recommends that the fill and garden refuse should be removed
during construction of the addition and details how this may be accomplished by
the project. (Exhibit 1, Attachment A)
(12) The report also documents how, once the un-permitted fill is removed, the slope
complies with the loose soil criterion. It also goes on to say how the construction
practices used will ultimately result in a more stable condition than currently
exists.
2. Conclusions:
(1) The application must meet all of the criteria required for a Steep Slope Exemption
in order for a Steep Slope Exemption to be granted.
(2) Through the review of the Steep Slope Exemption application, it became evident
that the site bad loose soils that exceed three feet in depth and thus did not meet
one of the criteria. This is what prorated staff to deny the application. (See
Exhibit 1, Attachment C)
""llearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 5
(3) The applicant was able to demonstrate, through additional information obtained
from the geotechnical engineer the loose soils criterion would ultimately be able
to be met. (See Exhibit 1, Attachment A)
(4) The appeal and the Steep Slope Exemption should be approved. The Steep Slope
Exemption decision should have some specific conditions that will ensure that the
project will be constructed to meet all the Steep Slope Exemption criteria.
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the appeal is approved, subject to the
following conditions:
A report by a state licensed geotechnical engineer must be submitted, prior to the ultimate
approval of any building permit, that evaluates the specific construction plans for the
addition to be constructed and any site alterations such as grading or construction of
rockeries or retaining walls.
2. This report will need to demonstrate that the proposed development at the site meets the
site and development specific criteria for granting a Steep Slope Exemption as required
by ECDC 20.15.B.I IO.D2.
3. The report should include the following specific statement by the project geotechnical
engineer: that, "the proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent
property, and the site following the permitted activity will be stable."
4. This report will also need to state that the proposed alterations to and construction at the
site meet the recommendations made by HWA Geosciences Inc. in the January 29, 2004,
report addendum (Exhibit 1, Attachment A).
4. The construction plans and geotechnical report will need to demonstrate that if any
proposed alteration of the slope extends beyond a 35 degree plane extended down from
the property lines, structural shoring is utilized.
5. The construction plans and geotechnical report will need to show that the project will not
include any rockeries greater than four feet in height that function as retaining structures
and that all retaining structures are engineered structures that conform to the State
Building Code.
NOW "'" Iaring Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 6
Entered this 26th day of February 2004 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell, FAI
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for finther procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS:
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name 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 ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal 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 4
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
VW
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
F"Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. AP-03-184
Page 7
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR:
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBIT:
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
1. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 3 attachments
PARTIES of RECORD:
David and Julie Clobes
7425 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Paul Stromme
9623 8 " Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98115
William Snell
1111 Third Ave., Suite 220
Seattle, WA 98101-32078
Edmonds Planning Division
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From: C,! , . - Cp _tat . 0 0
Star Campbell
Planner
Date: FEBRUARY 11, 2004
File: AP-03-184
Appeal of a Staff Decision by William Snell for David and Julie Clobes
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: February 19, At 3:00 PM,
3`d Floor Meeting Room
Edmonds City Hall
121 5 b Avenue North
TABLE OF
Section
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2
A. Application...............................................................................................................................................2
B. Recommendations....................................................................................................................................2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................3
A. History .....................................................................................................................................................3
B. Appeal Issues...........................................................................................................................................3
III.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS............................................................................5
A. Request for Reconsideration....................................................................................................................6
B. Appeals.................................................................................................................................................... 6
IV.
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................6
V.
PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................6
AP-03-184sr.doc / Febmary 11, 2004 / Staff Report
Clobes Appeal
File No. AP-03-184
Page 2 of 6
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, William Snell, on behalf of property owners David and Julie Clobes, has
submitted an appeal of a Staff Decision to deny a Steep Slope Exemption. The Steep
Slope Exemption is required for an addition to the Clobes' residence at 7425 Olympic
View Drive, because the addition encroaches into a Steep Slope Hazard Area on the
property (see Staff Decision — Introduction). However, staff determined during review
of the Steep Slope Exemption application that one of the criteria that must be met in order
for a Steep Slope Exemption to be approved, could not be met. The Steep Slope
Exemption was denied. A letter of appeal was subsequently submitted to the William
Snell, representing David and Julie Clobes. The following is the Edmonds Planning
Division's analysis and recommendation of this appeal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: William Snell for David and Julie Clobes.
2. Site Location: 7425 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit C, Attachment 1).
3. Request: Appeal of Staff Decision (see Exhibit B).
4. Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. Major Issue:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.15B.100.D.2. (CRITICAL AREAS).
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we
recommend APPROVAL of the appeal with the following conditions:
1. A report by a state licensed geotechnical engineer must be submitted, prior
to the ultimate approval of any building permit, that evaluates the specific
construction plans for the addition to be constructed and any site alterations such
as grading or construction of rockeries or retaining walls.
2. This report will need to demonstrate that the proposed development at the
site meets the site and development specific criteria for granting a Steep Slope
Exemption as required by ECDC 20.15.B.110.D2.
3. The report should include the following specific statement by the project
geotechnical engineer: that, "the proposed development will not decrease stability
on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will be
stable."
4. This report will also need to state that the proposed alterations to and
construction at the site meet the recommendations made by HWA Geosciences
Inc. in the January 29, 2004, report addendum (Exhibit A).
AP-03-184sr.dw / February 11, 2004 / Staff Report
Clobes Appeal
File No. AP-03-184
Page 3 of 6
4. The construction plans and geotechnical report will need to demonstrate
that if any proposed alteration of the slope extends beyond a 35 degree plane
extended down from the property lines, structural shoring is utilized.
5. The construction plans and geotechnical report will need to show that the
project will not include any rockeries greater than four feet in height that function
as retaining structures and that all retaining structures are engineered structures
that conform to the State Building Code.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. History
1. Application Chronology:
a) Facts:
(1) The applicants also applied for an Accessory Dwelling Unit permit
since the reason for the proposed addition is to accommodate an
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The application for the Accessory Dwelling
Unit was approved.
(2) During review of the Steep Slope Exemption application it became
evident that one of the criteria that must be met in order for a Steep
Slope Exemption to be approved could not be met.
(3) The Staff Decision to deny the Steep Slope Exemption was issued on
November 17, 2003.
(4) A letter of appeal was subsequently submitted to the William Snell,
representing the applicants, on December 1, 2003, within the allowed
time period for an appeal.
B. Appeal Issues
1. Issues raised by the Appellant:
a) Summary of Statements by the aoaellant:
(See Appeal Letter, Exhibit B)
(1) The denial of the Steep Slope Exemption will prevent the applicants
from constructing an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was previously
approved on October 13, 2003.
(2) The application meets the Steep Slope Exemption Criteria and the
overall purpose of the code, "which is to provide for stable slopes."
(3) This is because the concern over the loose soils is addressed by the
HWA Geosciences, Inc. report because the report states that, "by
removing the loose fill as part of the construction that the basement
excavation will improve slope stability."
AP-03-184sr.doc / February 11, 2004 / Staff Report
Clobes Appeal
File No. AP-03-184
Page 4 of 6
b) City Staff Responses:
(1) The purpose for the proposed addition to the residence is to
accommodate an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) application was approved prior to the denial
Steep Slope Exemption, while the Steep Slope Exemption application
was still pending. However, the ADU permit has a separate review
process and a separate set a criteria than the Steep Slope Exemption.
Staff is obligated to approve an application for an ADU if the applicant
can demonstrate that all the criteria for an ADU may be met.. The
applicant still has to be able to meet all other relevant code criteria that
are related to the addition of the Accessory Dwelling Unit to the
residence.
(2) Pages 3 through 7 (Section II.B.l.a.) of the Staff Decision (Exhibit C)
addresses the application's compliance with the requirements for a
Steep Slope Exemption. The section lists the criteria that must be met
in order for a development or alteration within a Steep Slope Hazard
Area. The project's compliance with each criterion were considered
separately as they were addressed by the Geotechnical Report
submitted by the applicant (Exhibit C, Attachment 3) as well as the
peer review of this report (Exhibit C, Attachment 4).
(3) As stated on page 4 (Section II.B.l.a.l.f.) of the Staff Report, one of
the Steep Slope Exemption criteria is that, "Steep slope areas cannot
be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils,
collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent to the
steep slope exceed three feet." (Exhibit C) '
(4) Page 6 (Section II.B.l.a.9), of the Staff Decision states that the loose
soils criterion, "is addressed on pages 5 and 6 of the report. The report
states that loose soils were encountered from 3.5 to 7.5 feet deep in
two of the four test pits at the site." (Exhibit C)
(5) Staff had tried to determine, through the Steep Slope Exemption
review process, whether or not the fact that the loose soils were of non-
native origin meant that the application would satisfy the intent of the
criterion. Staff ultimately determined that the origin of the loose soils
alone was not of adequate consequence to determine that this criterion
may be met.
(6) The appeal letter made an issue of a statement in the HWA report that
referred to removing the loose fill. (Exhibit A) Staff considered this as
a potential means to satisfy the criterion of concern. However, the
ability for the application to potentially meet this criterion by the
removal of the loose soil was not sufficiently detailed in the original
HWA report.
AP-03-184sr.dw / February 11, 2004 / Staff Report
`IN �.
Clobes Appeal
File No. AP-03-184
Page 5 of 6
(7) In order for Staff to recommend approval of the appeal, the applicant
would need to present additional information to demonstrate that the
criterion having to do with loose soils at the site may be met.
(8) The applicant's geotechnical engineer submitted an addendum to the
original report (Exhibit A). The information regarding this criterion
clarified the origin and location of the loose soils at the site including
supplementing the original information with additional test pit
locations and more fully addressed the removal of the loose soils
during the construction of the addition.
(9) The report addendum (Exhibit A), clarified the origin of the loose
soils on the slope as being non-native and originating from on -
permitted fill from the original home construction and garden refuse
that has been dumped onto the slope.
(lo)The report also recommends that the fill and garden refuse should be
removed during construction of the addition and details how this may
be accomplished by the project. (Exhibit A)
(11)The report also documents how, once the un-permitted fill is removed,
the slope complies with the loose soil criterion. It also goes on to say
how the construction practices used will ultimately result in a more
stable condition than currently exists.
2. Conclusions:
(1) The application must meet all of the criteria required for a Steep Slope
Exemption in order for a Steep Slope Exemption to be granted.
(2) Through the review of the Steep Slope Exemption application, it
became evident that the site had loose soils that exceed three feet in
depth and thus did not meet one of the criteria. This is what prorated
staff to deny the application. (See Exhibit Q
(3) The applicant was able to demonstrate, through additional information
obtained from the geotechnical engineer the loose soils criterion would
ultimately be able to be met. (See Exhibit A)
(4) The appeal and the Steep Slope Exemption should be approved. The
Steep Slope Exemption decision should have some specific conditions
that will ensure that the project will be constructed to meet all the
Steep Slope Exemption criteria.
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
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.
AP-03-184sndoc / February 11, 2004 / Staff Report
Clobes Appeal
File No. AP-03-184
Page 6 of 6
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision
or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the
date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs
the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an
ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the
findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Pursuant to Section 20.105.030.D the Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal
of a staff decision of a project permit application is final and no appeal the City
Council is permitted.
IV. APPENDICES
Exhibits A, B, and C:
a. Geotechnical Report — Addendum by HWA Geosciences Inc. dated January 29, 2004.
b. Appeal of Staff Decision dated November 26, 2003
c. Staff Decision to deny Steep Slope Exemption dated 7425 Olympic View Dr. with the
following attachments:
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Project Site Plan
3. Geotechnical Report by HWA Geosciences Inc. dated July 3, 2003.
4. Geotechnical Peer Review Addendum by Geo Group Northwest Inc. dated
September 26, 2003.
V. PARTIES OF RECORD
David and Julie Clobes William Snell Paul Stromme
7425 Olympic View Dr. 1111 Third Ave., Suite 220 9623 8' Ave. NE
Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98101-32078 Seattle, WA 98115
AP-03-184sr.doc / February 11, 2004 / Staff Report
F L _ MAGEOSCIENCES INC.
Geotethnital Engineering • Hydrogeology • Geaennronmental Services • Inspection d Testing
January 29, 2004
? rsy st.
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
Mr. David Clobes
7425 Olympic View Drive 1 `
Edmonds, Washington 98026
' Subject: GEOTECHNICALREPORT-ADDENDUM
Proposed Extension to Residence
' 7425 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Clobes;
' As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) met with the City of Edmonds to discuss the
steep slope exemption required to construct the proposed extension on the eastern end of
your house. We have also had discussions with Stephen Beardsley, of Lovell-Sauerland &
Associates, Inc., regarding the slopes at the western side of your house. This letter provides
our conclusions and recommendations and should be included as an addendum to our
' geotechnical report dated July 3, 2004.
Steep Slope on Eastern Side of House
The Critical Areas Chapter of the Edmond Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15B.I10 (f) state; "Steep slopes cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris,
' weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the
Standard Penetration Test (ASTMD1586)) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
property classified as a steep slope exceeds 3 feet ".
The original explorations undertaken by HWA (see Figure 2) show that the loose soil
thickness is 3 feet at HH-1, 7.5 feet at HH-2, and 3.75 feet at HH-4. Based on these
explorations; we concluded that the loose soil, which is mainly located at the foot of the
slope, is un-permitted fill that was placed a long time ago, probably at the time of original
' house construction. We understand from Mr. Clobes that some of this fill was placed by the
previous owner as part of the septic field construction. The septic field is no longer in use,
and the house is connected to the municipal sewer system.
' On January 28, 2004, HWA undertook three Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) tests at the
locations shown on the attached revised Figure 2. These explorations were undertaken to
confirm that the thickness of loose soil directly behind the planned addition is similar to that
encountered in the original explorations. The attached DCP plots show the following:
19730 - 64th Avenue W.
Suite 200
Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957
' TeL 425.774.MO6
EXHIBIT A
'
C-'
t
January 29, 2004
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
'
Test Designation
Description
'
DCP 1
DCP 2
5.3 feet of loose soil over medium dense to dense soil.
3.1 feet of loose soil over medium dense soil.
DCP 3
3.8 feet of garden refuse over 1.2 feet of loose soil, over
medium dense becoming dense soil.
Based on these recent DCP results, we consider that the initial explorations accurately
' represent the soil conditions in the portion of slope directly behind the proposed addition.
The presence of garden refuse (mainly shrub trimmings and grass clipping) at the top of the
' slope along the entire north property line, should be noted. In DCP 3, this dumped garden
refuse is 3.8 feet, and we estimate it be about 10 feet thick near the northeast comer of the
property. We recommend that such garden refuse should be removed because it can become
' saturated and slide off the slope.
We understand from our discussion with the City that if the planned construction were to
' remove the loose fill and so bring the slope into compliance with the ECDC, the City would
likely be able to grant a steep slope exemption. Therefore, we recommend construction of
the extension should consist of the following:
1. Remove all dumped garden refuse from the upper portion of the slope.
'
2. Remove all loose (un-permitted) fill from the foot of the slope along the length of the
proposed extension, and sufficiently far beyond the end of the extension to allow safe
excavation slopes for the planned construction. Based on the explorations completed as
part of the original investigation and on the recent DCP tests, we consider that removal
of the loose fill will bring the slope into compliance with the ECDC with regard to the
thickness of loose fill.
'
3. Construct a retaining wall generally in line with the existing rockery wall along the
north side of the property to form both shoring for the basement excavation, and a
permanent retaining wall. Detailed design of the wall/shoring will be undertaken at the
'
time of detailed design of the extension, and it should be recognized that the City of
Edmonds does not permit a rockery wall to retain fill. However, to match the existing
rockery wall, we anticipate that the City would allow a rockery facing to be constructed
'
in front of a permanent retaining wall constructed in accordance with Building Code
requirements.
4. Excavate material in front of the shoring wall to allow construction of the lower level of
the planned house. In order to satisfy the temporary excavation stability requirements
of Part N of the Washington Administrative Code 296-155, the unsupported excavation
slopes should not exceed 1.5H:1 V. Therefore, any loose native material remaining
20MOn-21 GeoachniW RepM - Addmd= 2 HWA GEOSCMNCES INC.
January 29, 2004
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
after excavation of the loose fill, will be excavated because the house foundation must
extend down to at least medium dense founding material.
5. The basement wall will be structurally designed to resist earth pressures generated by
the fill and slope soils as recommended in the original HWA geotechnical report.
Replacement fill will be provided behind the basement wall to match the existing deck
grade (El. 313.04 feet). This fill should comprise adequately compacted structural fill.
This structural fill will add stability to the slope, by virtue of greater strength and
reduced earth pressures.
It is reasonable to conclude that any fill placed at this position on the slope (i.e. near the toe
of the upper steep section) will, in fact, add to the stability of that section of slope above it.
With regard to the slope section below, it will not decrease the level of stability provided that
the weight of the fill remaining is less than currently existing, and measures will be
implemented to ensure that this is so.
Slope on West Side of the House
The ECDC 20.15B060(A)(3)(c) defines a steep slope hazard area as "any ground that rises
at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet
(a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance). A slope is
delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at
least 20 feet of vertical relief'. Based on the cross sections added (SB addition dated
January 19, 2004) to the revised topographic survey prepared by Lovell-Sauerland &
Associates, Inc., the slope at the east side of the house is less than 20 feet high and is, by
ECDC definition, not a steep slope. In addition, because of the existing deck elevation of the
existing house (El. 313.04 feet), there is no steep slope along the length of the existing house.
^•O
2003092-21 Geotechnical Report -Addendum 3 HWA GEOSCIENCEs INC.
January 29, 2004 O C
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GwSmNas INc.
� zocv
EXPIRES 02f 04 70 61
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Lome Balanko, P.E.
Principal
2003092-21 GeokeMical Report -Addendum 4 HWA GEOScwNCEs INC.
401-. t
moll "I
0
Lf)
R
O 04 cn IT In co r, Go
Ps;'41dea
v
U
�A
a,
Az
9
L
SN
cif
h
i
O
i
/o
-------------------
F _ f'rP-D3-t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
APPEAL OF DAVID AND JULIE
CLOBES I STATEMENT OF APPEAL
On behalf of David and Julie Clobes the staff decision of the Development Services
Department ("DSD') denying the Steep Slope Exemption for the property at 7425 Olympic View Dr.,
File No. SD-2003-115, is hereby appealed. The DSD decision is dated November 17, 2003. David
and Julie Clobes are the owners of the property at 7425 Olympic View Dr. They are is directly and
adversely impacted by the denial of the Steep Slope Exemption, since it will prevent them from
constructing an accessory dwelling unit, which was previously approved by DSD on October 13,
K111 ?I
The decision of DSD is erroneous, contrary to law and factually inaccurate. The sole basis for
the denial is under Section 20.15B.110.D.21, that provides restrictions on the alteration of steep
slopes areas "...if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting
loose conditions ... on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as steep slope
exceeds three feet." We will show that the Clobes' application meets the Steep Slope Exemption
criteria and that the overall purpose of the code is met, which is to provide for stable slopes. The
concern of DSD with regard to loose soils is addressed in the report of the geologist. Brain Hall of
LAW OFFICES OF
STATEMENT OF APPEAL - 1 WILIIAM N. SNELL
C:NDocumenfs and Settings0wner\My Docmne WFORMS R I1117HIRD AVENUE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAWWd. Law PleadingsWppeal to SEA HE
ftniAm SEATTIE, EXHIBIT B
j j
1
2
3
4i
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
HWA Geosciences, Inc., stated that by removing the loose fill as part of the construction that the
"basement excavation will improve slope stability."
The Clobes request that decision of denial of the Steep Slope Exemption be reversed.
DATED this day of November, 2003
Respectfiilly submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. SNELL, P.S.
William N. Snell
Attorney for David and Julie Clobes
STATEMENT OF APPEAL - 2
C:zocmnants and Sefthw\0vmaWy Do=entsTORMS &
ADIAMSMAUVE LAW(Ad. Law Pkadings\Appeal to SEA HE
Prael.doc
LAW OFFICES OF
WIL IAM N. SNELL
11117EIDtD AVENUE
sunE 2220
SEAT" WASHINGM 98101-32078
TEL (206) 38&7855
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION
To: File, SD-2003-115
From: � 16 . C����s nsl
Star Campbell
Planner
Date: NOVEMBER 17, 2003
File: SD-2003-115
7425 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE, STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION
Decision Date: NOVEMBER 17, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paee
I.
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2
A. APPLICATION.....................................................................................................................................2
B. DEciS10N...........................................................................................................................................2
H.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................2
A. SrrE DEscpiPnoN.............................................................................................................................2
B. EDMONDS COMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ..............................................
3
C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE....................................................................................................................7
I.
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS.......................................................................7
H. APPENDICES ......................................... »......................................................................... 8
III. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................8
SD-03-115snakethm.doc / Nm mba 17, 2C EXHIBIT C
J File No. SD-03-115
® Page 2 of 7
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION
Paul Stromme, on behalf of the owners, Dave and Julie Clobes has submitted a Steep
Slope Exemption application to allow for an addition to the Clobes' residence at 7425
Olympic View Dr. This site contains a "Steep Slope Hazard Area." A "Steep Slope
Hazard Area" is defined by the Critical Areas Chapter of the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) as a slope of at least 40% within the broader category of
"Geologically Hazardous Areas." The ECDC does not allow for any development or
alteration of Steep Slope Hazard Areas unless an exemption has been granted.
The procedure for obtaining a Steep Slope Exemption involves the preparation of a
geotechnical analysis of the site by a State licensed Geotechnical Engineer. This analysis
must demonstrate that the site has certain physical features and that the proposed
development meets a specific list of characteristics as specified in the Steep Slope
Exemption section of the Critical Areas Ordinance. In addition, the development must
not compromise the stability of the site or any adjacent sites. Through the review process
for the Steep Slope Exemption, the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the site had
all the physical features necessary to allow it to qualify for a Steep Slope Exemption. The
following is Staff's review and analysis of the Steep Slope Exemption application:
A. Application
1. Applicants: Dave and Julie Clobes.
2. Site Location: 7425 Olympic View Dr. (See Attachment 1).
3. Request: Steep Slope Exemption
4. Review Process: Staff Decision
5. Malor Issue: Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.1513.110.D.2. (CRITICAL AREAS)
B. Decision
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report the Steep Slope
Exemption request does not meet all of the exemption criteria and is therefore DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential
(RS-12). (See Attachment 1)
(2) Current Land Use: The lot is currently developed with a Single -Family
Residence.
SD-03-115srtakethre Am / November 17, 2003 1 Staff Report
MIA
Pile No. SD-03-115
Page 3 of 7
(3) Proposed Development: The applicants are proposing to construct an
addition to their residence. See Attachment 2.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The hot rises gently in a general south to north
direction over much of the lot and then just to the north of the house rises
steeply. See Figure 2 of Attachment 3. Vegetation around the house
consists of residential landscaping. The slope has several large evergreens
and ivy undergrowth.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Fact: The surrounding properties are zoned and developed to the "Single -
Family Residential' (RS-12) designation. (See Attachment 1)
b) Conclusion: The proposal would allow the continued development of the lot
with a single-family residence. This is consistent with the surrounding
development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with requirements for a Steep Slope Exemption
Section D of ECDC Chapter 20.15B.110 (Development Standards- Geologically
Hazardous Areas) addresses development in Steep Slope Hazard Areas. This section
states that no development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas
unless the property qualifies for an exemption or exception under the provisions of
this section.
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.15B.110.D.2 establishes the following list of criteria that
must be met in order for a development or alteration to qualify for an
exemption:
(a) The proposed development will not decrease stability on any
adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will
be stable.
(b) The development will occur on steep slope areas that either are
mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geological Map of
the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by
James P. Minard: Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel or
on steep slope areas comprised of fill placed under engineered
conditions on stable geological deposits of these same soils. The fill
must meet the following conditions: all fill was placed under a legal
grading permit, the grading and fill were designed by a licensed
professional engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared in
accordance with the engineering design, and compaction testing
confirms that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is
present throughout the entire fill.
(c) All excavations on steep slopes will not extend below a 35-degree
plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation
is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a
registered professional engineer.
SD-03-115srtakethree.doc / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
File No. SD-03-115
Page 4 of 7
(d) All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered
structures conforming to the State Building Code and rockeries
greater than four feet in height are not permitted.
(e) Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following
conditions are on or adjacent to the steep slope: impermeable soils
interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage,
significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous
landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
(f) Steep slope areas cannot be altered if the thickness of organics,
debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose
conditions on or adjacent to the steep slope exceed three feet.
(g) A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition
from commercial development to property lines of adjacent
residential properties.
(2) ECDC Section 20.15B. I 10.17 states the requirement that all applications for
development proposals within geologically hazardous areas shall be
accompanied by a written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical
engineer licensed by the state of Washington. A peer review of this
document is also required.
(3) The applicant submitted a geotechnical report by HWA Geosciences Inc.
that addresses the Steep Slope Exemption Criteria (See pages 4 through 6 of
Attachment 3).
(4) The criterion that states that, "The proposed development will not decrease
stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted
activity will be stable" is addressed on page 4.
(a) The report, in specifically addressing this criterion, does not
specifically state that the development will not decrease stability on
the site or on adjacent sites.
(b) This section does state that, "the excavation could impact the 10-foot
exception zone shown on Figure 2" and that, "...the short term risk
of slope instability on the subject property will be low."
(c) A statement is made in another section of the report on page 3 that,
the project, "can be safely achieved without impacting the stability
of the adjacent, upslope property."
(5) The criterion that addresses the types of soil deposits required on the site as
stated in the above Section II.B.l.a).(1).(b) of the Staff Report is addressed
on pages 4 and 5 of the HWA report (Attachment 3). It states that the site is
mapped as one of the allowed types of deposits and that the fill at the site
should be removed.
(6) The criterion that states that, "All excavations on steep slopes will not
extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines,
unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring... designed by a
registered professional engineer" is addressed on page 5 of the report.
SD-03-115srtakethreeAm / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
I
File No. SD-03-115
Page 5 of 7
(a) The report states that the excavation will not extend below a 35
degree plane drawn from the lot line but does extend below a 35
degree plane drawn from the edge of the exception zone. Since this
exception zone is actually not part of the property, it appears that the
excavation will extend below a 35 degree plane extended down from
the north property line.
(b) A rockery is referred to (see below Section II.B.l.a).(7).(d) of the
Staff Report that apparently would also intersect this 35 degree
plane. There is no statement made to indicate whether or not the
project design will utilize structural shoring. However, this is a
requirement that may be incorporated into the project as a condition
of construction.
(7) The criterion that states that, "All retaining structures on steep slopes shall
be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code and
rockeries greater than four feet in height are not permitted" is addressed on
page 5 of the report.
(a) The report states that, `retaining structures should be engineered in
conformance with the Building Code," and refers to an
approximately 8' high rockery that is planned. This rockery is
shown in Figure 5 of the report.
(b) Rockeries are not considered by the City of Edmonds Building
Division to be retaining walls. Rockeries are traditionally used for
landscaping and/or erosion control and have less restrictive
structural standards than retaining walls.
(c) The City of Edmonds Building Division recognizes that retaining
walls may be used for soils that are not capable of standing or
remaining at the existing slope. Retaining walls must be designed
based on standard engineering methods provided by the Uniform
Building Code and WSDOT/APWA Standard specifications for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
(d) A rockery is referred to on page 8 of the report. This would be an
extension of the existing rockery to the north of the house. It would
be located to the north of a deck that would be built behind the
addition and a maximum of 8 feet high. The extension of the deck
and rockery is not shown on the project site plan (Attachment 2) or
the HWA report Figure 2 site plan or Figure 3 cross section.
(e) It is not clear whether the proposed rockery functions as a retaining
structure.
SD-03-115srtakethree.doc / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
i 1 ) File No. SD-03-115
Page 6 of 7
(8) The criterion that states that, "Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or
more of the following conditions are on or adjacent to the steep slope:
impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater
seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous
landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits" is addressed on
pages 5 of the report. The report states that, "No impermeable soils
interbeddd within the advance outwash were encountered; no seepage was
encountered, or evidence of previous seepage noted; and no signs of slope
instability observed."
(9) The criterion that states that, "Steep slope areas cannot be altered if the
thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions on or adjacent to the steep slope exceed three
feet" is addressed on pages 5 and 6 of the report. The report states that loose
soils were encountered from 3.5 to 7.5 feet deep in two of the four test pits at
the site.
(10)The criterion that states that, "a buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an
undisturbed condition from commercial development to property lines of
adjacent residential properties" is not applicable to this project as the project
is not considered to be commercial development.
(I I)A peer review document by Geo Group Northwest that addresses the Steep
Slope Exemption criteria has been included as Attachment 4. This report
concludes, on page 2, that the proposal does not satisfy the Steep Slope
Exemption criteria that has to do with the depth of loose soils at the site.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Staff has reviewed the geotechnical report by HWA Geosciences Inc.
(Attachment 3). In addition, Staff has reviewed and taken into consideration
the peer review report provided by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. (Attachment
4).
(2) The criteria that have to do with the aspects of the development as stated in
above Sections II.B.l.a).(1).(a).,(c), and (d) of the staff report may
potentially be dealt with as conditions of approval. If further information is
required in order to more fully demonstrate that the development will meet
these criteria, this can be required with the review of the building permit for
the development.
(3) For this project, additional information would be needed to ensure that
aspects of the development would qualify for a Steep Slope Exemption as
follows: a specific statement would need to be made by the project
geotechnical engineer that, "the proposed development will not decrease
stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted
activity will be stable;" if any proposed alteration of the slope extends
beyond a 35 degree plane extended down from the property lines, structural
shoring would need to be utilized; construction plans would need to show
that the project would not include any rockeries greater than four feet in
height and that all retaining structures were engineered structures
conforming to the State Building Code.
SD-03-115srtakethree.doc / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
File No. SD-03-115
Page 7 of 7
(4) hi order for a Steep Slope Exemption to be approved with the conditions that
specific aspects of the development will meet the criteria for a Steep Slope
Exemption, it must be apparen that the specific site standards required for a
Steep Slope Exemption can be et.
(5) The criteria that have to do with the specific characteristics of the property
as stated in above Sections II.B.l.a).0).(b).,(e), and (f). of the staff report
appear to have been met with the exception of the criterion that states that,
"steep slope areas cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris,
weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions on or
adjacent to the steep slope exceed three feet."
(6) Since this criterion may not be met, the Steep Slope Exemption should be.
denied.
2. Compliance with Public Notification Requirements
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC 20.15B. I I O.D.3 requires Steep Slope Exemptions to be processed as
staff decisions with public notification required as regulated by ECDC
20.95.050.
(2) A notice of application was posted for public comment on August 22, 2003.
There was a two -week public comment period that ended on September 5,
2003.
(3) There were no public comments received.
b) Conclusion: The City and the Applicant have complied with the requirements
for public notification.
C. Technical Committee
Review by City Departments: The application has been reviewed and evaluated by the
Engineering Division and the Fire Department, Public Works Department and Parks and
Recreation Department. There were no comments received related to the Steep Slope
Exemption proposal.
III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
A. Reconsideration of Decision
A request for reconsideration or clarification of this decision may be made by filing a
letter with the Planning Department by December 2. 2003. This is within ten (10)
working days of the mailing of this notice (see mailing date below).
B. The Right to Appeal
This decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. In this case, a written appeal
letter must be submitted with the required appeal fee to the Planning Department by
December 1.2003. This is within fourteen (14) calendar days of the mailing of this
notice (see mailing date below).
S1303-115snakethree.doc / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
4
File No. SD-03-115
Page 8 of 7
City of Edmonds, Attn.: Planning Division
121- 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
DATE MAILED: November 17, 2003
IV. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 4:
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Project Site Plan
3. Geotechnicai Report by HWA Geosciences Inc. dated July 3, 2003.
4. Geotechnical Peer Review Addendum by Geo Group Northwest Inc. dated September
26,2003.
V. PARTIES OF RECORD
Dave and Julie Clobes
7425 Olympic View Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Paul Stromme
9623 8"Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98115
SD-03-115sriakethree.doc / November 17, 2003 / Staff Report
i802f
IM20
n
fea¢H
R
iH028
n
16101
/8103
feo32
-too
18111
yy
+p
N
18108
18115
18116
Iefa
is
fella 18125
iezi4 1 12
18203 I8201
fez1H ie
I8209 18211
18211
18214
18223 18219
�p
?
`3
18222
18228
18320
7001
18311
18105
18225 18220 Z _n
18227 18228 n R
1s= 18303
/8305 18308 IMM
18312
18312
18329
\\III'
18409
18408
18107
18412
BC
_-
R
� 18411
18410
18415
18416
r
18417
18424
18423
18424
10.502
i4
23
18430
/8428
18302
111510
dry
h 78129
18504
18503
/
M
iH530
_
18510
18509
�'
1&583
-
iB51H
18521
'h
x x
R
18624
18710
h
k
18720
=•
t
,AJ me ..-C' .
18730
r
OK Zoning and Vicinity Map
Attachment 1
^�'�•
g0 6ZVM'ONV- V30131 sec-set•sr� ^"�"^`A'M 5OA`�''�
SSZb-ZEZ _L 4 S 4008
Ip.�'�.�
2«B11F1 tlVw;^O dtl'NV 3a :a2/ i�00/N-Ja/�AbLL/QQY i✓lLA6q/92�
`4
Q
'7Opp:+vtLMVi9'W/Ave+A
y) "��Hrt l+'!//JVj Try>lnAnH a.'�P A ZWi'IS � �9Y�.WloJ
'bsaw
URN noo
a3
!�t4 j� a � .•.,u. rue � i ° : i � - ! ; > 3=Fe2= F
r`
PF
YI
-11
R�
ATTACHMENT 2
July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
Mr. David Clobes
7425 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: GEOTECHNiCALREPORT
Proposed Extension to Residence .
7425 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Clobes;
HWAGEOSCIEKB INC
29730-64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-5957
TEL 425-774-0106
FAX. 425-774-2714
E-MAIL hwaQhongwest.mm
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation, undertaken for a proposed
extension to the northeast end of your residence, at 7425 Olympic View Drive in Edmonds,
Washington (Figure 1). The proposed extension is located on a slope defined as a Steep
Slope Hazard Area in the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). The purpose of this
report is to investigate whether the proposed extension can be safely constructed as planned,
and is consistent with the requirements of the EMC. Our work included a site
reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses to
develop our results and conclusions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the planned 2-story extension will have footprint dimensions of 22 feet
by 30 feet (Figure 2), and floor elevations will match those of your existing house (main
' floor at EI.304.37 feet and upper floor at El. 313.12 feet). Excavation to a maximum depth
of about 12 feet below existing ground surface is required. An extension is also planned for
the western end of the house, but is not impacted by steep slope requirements.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
The lot has approximate dimensions of 160 feet by 90 feet and is located on the northeast
side of the intersection of Olympic View Drive and Homeview Drive (Figure 2). Residential
lots border the north and east sides of the property. The steep slope area is located along the
north property line. The ground surface slopes southwards at about 56%, but is locally as
steep as 109% near the northeast property line. The top of the slope is at about El. 330 feet
which is 26 feet above the lower floor elevation (El. 304.37 feet). Figure 3 prdol&tc EI V E D
section of the slope at the proposed extension. JUL 17 2003
We observed the following: PERMIT COUNTER
There are no signs of previous slope instability, or evidence of slope creep
inferred from trees with bent bunks. The steepest slope segment of 109% near
the northeast corner has been locally steepened as,a result of dumping of garden
GEOLOGY
GEOENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HYDROGEOLOGY
GEOT&yptu =T 3
July 3, 2003 140) C
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
refuse over many years.
• Slope vegetation consists mainly of ivy with several large coniferous trees. No
vegetation that is typically indicative of seepage or very moist conditions was
noted.
' • The slope is undeveloped, but the surface has been disturbed possibly by
excavated material dumped during the construction of the original house. A
boardwalk provides access across the slope, and a small shed is present at the foot
of the slope. A manhole is present a short distance above the toe of the slope. We
understand this manhole previously discharged to a now abandoned septic
absorption system at the foot of the slope.
• We understand that at grade parking is present over a portion of the planned
extension area, but this was filled some years previously with sawdust.
• A rockery is located about 10 feet from the northern side of the house to provide a
private deck. The deck is at El. 313.04 feet and the rockery is about 7 feet high.
The rockery shows no signs of instability, or seepage through the wall.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
The site was explored by means of 4 hand auger borings (designated HH-1 through HH-4)
supplemented with drop -weight cone penetration (DCP) tests. The DCP test consists of a
sliding hammer weighing 17.5 pounds which free -falls through a vertical drop of 22.5 inches.
The cone has a %-inch diameter and 600 apex angle. Test results are obtained by recording
penetration for each 5 blows. In order to facilitate comparison with Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) N-values, the penetration results are converted into equivalent number of
blows/foot for the length driven. SPT N-value is approximately equal to the DCP blow count
expressed in equivalent blows/foot over the range of 3 to 20 blows/foot.
Pertinent information including soil description and engineering characteristics, stratigraphy,
and ground water occurrence are recorded on the attached soil logs (Appendix A). The
stratigraphic contacts shown on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil
' types; actual transitions may be more gradual. It should be noted that the soil and ground
water conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported and,
therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. It is anticipated that
' water conditions will vary depending on seasonal precipitation, local subsurface conditions
and other factors.
' SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The geological map by Minard, J.P (1983), "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of
the Edmonds West Quadrangles", indicates that the slope consists of advance outwash
comprising mostly clean, pebbly sand with fine-grained sand and silt common in the lower
part of the unit. Glacial till is present at the top of the slope. Undisturbed advance outwash
2003082-21 Geotechnical Repon 2 HWA GEo$c1ENCEs INC.
July 3, 2003 ('
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
is typically dense to very dense. Slopes in glacial outwash, typically slough to the angle of
repose of the sand of around 300 to 330. When slope instability occurs in glacial outwash, it
is mainly confined to loose surficial layers, but deep'seated slides can occur near the contact
with less permeable glacial silts and clay near the base of the deposit.
The explorations encountered a thin organic topsoil layer, over very loose to loose, fine to
medium sand with a trace to some silt and occasional gravel, over medium dense, slightly
gravelly fine to medium sand, and occasional gravel layers. The depth of loose sand on the
slope was 3 feet at HH-1, 7.5 feet at HH-2, and 3.75 feet at HH-4. Because the holes kept
collapsing, the conditions at depth were interpreted from the DCP penetration rates.
A profile drawn through the eastern side of the proposed extension is shown in Figure 3. Our
interpretation of the soil profile and observation of the site topography indicates that the deep
pocket of loose material encountered at HH-2 (and absent at HH4) is likely dumped material
from the original house construction.
No indication of seepage was encountered in any of the holes or DCP soundings.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
' The investigation shows the slope consists mainly of advance outwash, but pockets of loose
to very loose surficial material occur which are likely deposits of dumped fill resulting from
the original basement and rear yard deck excavation. Exploration HH-2 shows that these
' pockets can be of 7.5 feet deep. In addition, a large amount of garden refuse has been
dumped on the slope producing the over -steepened slope near the northeast property corner.
We consider that the planned basement excavation into the slope can be safely achieved
without impacting the stability of the adjacent, upslope property. In addition, provided that
the design and construction of the extension takes account of the loose material blanketing
the slope, the basement excavation will improve the stability of the slope. An important
factor in achieving a safe excavation is providing adequate temporary excavation slopes or
using shoring during excavation and construction of the basement walls. The basement wall
' must be designed to carry the lateral loads imposed by the loose sand. .
1 We did not observe seepage in the explorations, and understand that no seepage has been
encountered in the existing basement. Despite this, we recommend that footing drains
(Figure 4) be installed around the perimeter of exterior walls and at the toe of retaining walls
because the presence of some silt could result in the'outwash being somewhat less than free -
draining during very wet periods.
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEP SLOPES
In this section, extracts from the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) relating to steep slopes
are summarized with responses pertaining to the subject property following in italics.
2003092-21 Gew cdmkW Report
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
Steep Slope Hazard Area
1
The EMC defines Landslide Hazard Areas as "those areas of the City of Edmonds which, by
reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability or topography,
have a risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances". We
understand that the slope occurring on the subject property is classified as a Steep Slope
Hazard Area "because the ground rises at an inclination of 40% or more within a vertical
elevation change of at least 20 feet'. The EMC indicates that a slope is delineated by
establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of
vertical relief.
The subject property is classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area because the average slope
angle through the building extension is 46% (about 25 degrees). Localized sections with
"
vertical relief of about 10 feet occur where the slope angle is steeper, e.g. 56% and 57%
above the extension, and 109% at the northeast corner.
Development in Steep Slope Areas
According to the EMC, no development or alteration is allowed in Steep Slope Hazard areas
unless the property is exempt, a reasonable use exception has been granted, or a variance has
been granted. A development may be exempted if it meets the following criteria summarized
'
from Clause 20.15B.110:
1. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and the
site following the permitted activity will, be stable as demonstrated by engineering
analysis meeting requirements of the Building Code.
Temporary excavation for the basement will extend close to a line drawn at 350 from
the north Lot Line (Figure 2) as shown on Figure 3 and so would have no impact on the
adjacent property. However, the excavation could impact the I0-foot Exception shown
'
on Figure 2. Further, provided the excavation is sloped, benched, or shored in
accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAQ 296-155, the short-
term risk ofslope instability on the subject property will be low. The excavation should
be undertaken in dry weather and the slope should be adequately protected
2. The development is located on steep slope areas that are either mapped as till, advance
outwash or Olympia gravel, or are composed of engineered fill placed under engineered
conditions on stable geologic deposits. All fill should have been placed under a legal
grading permit, with the grading and fill designed by a licensed professional engineer,
native soils beneath the fill prepared in accordance with the engineering design, and
compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is
present throughout the entire fill.
I
1 2003082.21 Geotedmical Report 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
The geological map and our explorations show that the general area is underlain by
advance outwash. Pockets of very loose fill of up to 7.5 feet deep are present near the
foot of the slope. The excavation to accommodate the basement should be extended as
required to remove this loose material, and so enhance long-term stability of the slope.
Buildingfoundations will be established on advance outwash.
3. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 350 plane extended down from
the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by.structural shoring. The shoring
must be designed by a registered professional engineer.
'
Figure 3 shows the excavation will not extend below a 350 plane drawn from the Lot
line, but does extend below a 35°plane drawn from the edge of the Exception zone.
4. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures confomring to the
Building Code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet in height.
It is agreed that retaining structures should be engineered in conformance with the
Building Code. The existing rockery appears to be performing adequately. Details of a
a rockery designed to support a 10 foot high slope along the outside of the deck are
shown in Figure 5.
5. Steep slopes cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on
or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope;
I
impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage,
significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability,
or existing landslide deposits. "On or adjacent to" includes those areas upslope and
downslope of the steep slope, within a horizontal distance from the toe onop of the
slope equal to two times the vertical height of the steep slope.
'
No impermeable soils interbedded within the advance outwash were encountered; no
seepage was encountered, or evidence ofprevious seepage noted; and no signs ofslope
'
instability observed
6. Steep slopes cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils,
'
colluvial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard
Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property
classified as a steep slope exceeds 3 feet.
The explorations show that the loose soil thickness is 3 feet tit HH-1, 7.5 feet at HH-1,
and 3.75 feet at HH-4. However, based on our explorations, we consider that much of
the loose soil is fill dumped near the base of the slope during original house
1
2003092.21 Geotechnical Repon 5 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC.
July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
construction. We are convinced that basement excavation will improve slope stability
by removing most of the loose fill.
EXCAVATIONS
Temporary Excavation Slopes
Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, should- be
the responsibility of the contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be
sloped, benched, or shored in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 296-155. The loose sandy material classifies as Type C soil. Temporary
unsupported excavations in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1%H:1V
(approximately 340). The recommended maximum inclinations for temporary slopes
assumes that the ground surface behind the cut slope is level and surface loads from
equipment and materials are kept a sufficient distance away from the top of the slope. As
evident from Figure 3, steeper slopes than permitted by WAC regulations will likely be
necessary to facilitate construction of the back wall of the proposed extension.
' With time and the presence of seepage and/or precipitation, the stability of temporary
unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, temporary slopes should be
protected from erosion by covering the cut face with well -anchored plastic sheeting. The
1 contractor should monitor the stability of temporary cut slopes and adjust the construction
schedule and slope inclination accordingly.
Temporary Shoring
I Due to the required excavation depth and the loose sandy soils, temporary braced shoring
would likely be preferred to reduce the volume of excavation required to accommodate
temporary unsupported slopes. Various cantilevered shoring systems consisting of sheet
piles, or soldier piles and lagging could be considered, as well as alternative systems using
steel plates and bracing, or trench boxes.
The temporary shoring system should be designed and constructed to support lateral loads
exerted by the retained soil mass and any surcharge at the ground surface. Lateral earth
' pressures for design of temporary shoring can be provided when the shoring system is
selected.
I
I
STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION
For the purposes of this report, material used to raise grades or placed under structures is
classified as structural fill. Imported stmctural fill should consist of clean, free -draining,
granular soils that are free from organic matter or other deleterious materials. Such materials
should comprise particles of less than 4-inch maximum dimension, with less than 7% fines
2003082.21 fxotechnieal Report 6 - - - HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
' July 3, 2003 V
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
(portion passing the U. S. Standard No. 200 sieve), as specified for "Gravel Borrow" in
Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specications (WSDOT, 2000). The fine-
, . grained portion of structural fill soils should be non -plastic.
' Structural fill soils should be moisture conditioned, placed in loose horizontal lifts less than
8-inches thick, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined
using test method ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Achievement of proper density of a
' compacted fill depends on the size and type of compaction equipment, the number of passes,.
thickness of the layer being compacted, and soil moisture -density properties. In areas where
limited space restricts the use of heavy equipment, smaller equipment can be used, but the
soil must be placed in thin enough layers to achieve the required relative compaction.
Generally, loosely compacted soils result from poor construction technique or improper
' moisture content. Soils with high fines contents are particularly susceptible to becoming too
wet, and coarse -grained materials easily become too dry, for proper compaction.
I
I
I
I
[I
I
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3 as defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC). Zone 3 includes the western portion of Washington and represents an area of
relatively high seismic risk. We recommend that a soil profile type So be used for design.
The absence of ground water or seepage means that the slope materials are not susceptible to
liquefaction during a design level (1:475 year recurrence interval) earthquake.
FOUNDATIONS
Design Considerations
Spread and strip footings may be used for the building extension and should extend through
all loose material onto medium dense (or better) undisturbed advance outwash. All exterior
footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade;
interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of adjacent slabs
or floors.
The footings should designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf,
subject to minimum footing widths of 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip and isolated
column footings, respectively. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may
be increased by 1/3 for short-term transient conditions such as wind and seismic loading.
Provided construction is accomplished as recommended herein, and for the foundation loads
anticipated, we estimate differential settlements between adjacent load -bearing structures to
be less than I - inch.
2003082-21 GwwcMicei Report
HWA GEoSciENCEs INC.
July 3, 2003 �W C
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
Construction Considerations
t. All footing excavations should be trimmed neat and the excavation bottoms should be
carefully prepared such that over -excavation of native soils is avoided. All loose or softened
soil should be removed from the footing excavation prior to placing reinforcing steel. We
recommend that HWA observe footing excavations prior to pouring concrete to verify that
the recommendations of this report have been followed and that an appropriate bearing
' stratum has been exposed.
If footing excavations are open during the winter or periods of wet weather, we recommend
that a lean concrete mat or mud -slab, be placed to help preserve the subgrade until the
footings are poured.
' BASEMENT WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS
I Although, concrete basement retaining walls will be utilized for the building extension, we
understand a rockery matching the existing would be preferred along the outside of the deck
area. Maximum rockery height would be about 8 feet, and exceeds the maximum height. of,4
feet allowed for rockeries in the EMC. We believe that a rockery with the details shown in
Figure 5 would be suitable, but if the City does not accept a matching rockery, we
recommend either a reinforced concrete cantilever or segmental block retaining wall.
Alternatively, consideration should be given to extending the basement wall to existing
ground surface, and not providing a flat deck behind the new extension.
We recommend that for areas of level backfill (i.e. basement wall if deck provided), an at -
rest equivalent fluid density of 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used to determine design
lateral earth pressures. This value assumes that backfill behind the walls is horizontal and is
placed and compacted in accordance with our recommendations. For walls with sloping
backfill, the equivalent fluid density should be increased by 1 pcf for each degree of
backslope up to a maximum of 80 pcf for a wall with a backslope of 250 (existing ground
slope at location of building extension).
Fill within a distance of about 3 feet of the walls should be compacted with lightweight
equipment. Care must be taken to avoid over -compaction near the walls, or excessive lateral
pressures may develop.
Positive drainage should be provided behind the base of all subgrade and retaining walls to
prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures (see Figure 4).
Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the walls to lateral forces, which
may be resisted by a combination of sliding resistance of the footing on the underlying soil
and passive earth pressure against the buried portions of the wall and footing. For design
purposes, a coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be assumed between the base of the footing and
advance outwash. An allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 260
1
2003082-21 GeoucMical Report 8 - HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
' July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
' pcf may be assumed for properly compacted fill placed against the sides of the foundations.
These recommended values assume drained conditions that will prevent the build-up of
hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill. The passive resistance provided by the upper 2
feet of soils should be neglected in design computations unless protection against excavation
is provided by pavement or a concrete slab. The recommended allowable passive earth
pressure value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5 for static conditions.
' SITE DRAINAGE
Roof drains should carry all runoff via a tightline to a storm drain or other appropriate outlet.
' Perimeter footing drains should be provided behind all subgrade and retaining walls as
shown in Figures 4 and 5. Roof downspouts and footing drains should not be connected to
' reduce the potential for clogging and back flooding of the perimeter drains.
EROSION CONSIDERATIONS
Erosion during construction can be minimized by careful grading practices, the appropriate
use of silt fences and/or straw bales. The excavated slope should be seeded and growth of
' vegetation should be encouraged as soon as possible after grading.
Surface runoff control during construction should be the responsibility of the contractor. All
collected water should be directed under control to a positive and permanent discharge
system. Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading
design. Water should not be allowed to pond immediately adjacent to foundations or paved
areas. Grading measures, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures
should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work.
CONDmoNS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this letter report for use by David Clobes and his designated agents for use
in the design of an extension on the east side of the existing single-family residence on the
property. This report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or
' estimating purposes, but conclusions and interpretations included in this letter report should
not be construed as our warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that
soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent
conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by. a geotechnical study. .
If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary
appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the
recommendations of this letter report, and revision of such if necessary.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure
that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of
the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and
1
2003082-2I Geaechnied Report - 9 - HWA GEOSCtENCEs INC.
I
u
E
I
ICI
I
[J
July 3, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003082-21
6�
specifications. It is also the owner's responsibility to see that the necessary steps are taken to
verify that the contractor and subcontractors carry out these recommendations in the field. In
this regard, we recommend that HWA be retained to review the plans and specifications. We
also recommend that HWA be retained to monitor the geotechnical aspects of construction.
The scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the
presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or ground
water at this site. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering.
We do not direct the contractor's operations and we cannot be responsible for the safety of
personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions
presented herein are considered unsafe.
O.O
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIEN
;TJ I1
-151
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
s
r a
ExPfREs 02 /
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Enclosures:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Appendix A:
' Figure Al
Figures A-2 - A-5
Vicinity Map
Site and Exploration Map
Geological Cross Section
Footing Drainage Requirements
Typical Rockery Details
Lome Balanko, P.E.
Principal
Legend of Terms and Symbols used on the Boring Logs
Logs of Explorations HH-I through HH4
2003082.21 Geotechnieal Report 10
1
HWA GEoSc1ENCEs INC.
u
11
1
I
I
F
f Uol I I
HWAGEosmaslNC
VICINITY MAP
CLOBES RESIDENCE
7.425 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
NOT TO SCALE
BY s
CKED BY j
7.01.03
1
2003-082
's
0
_
N
i
m
I
i
=M$
N
Q
:.........:.........:..... ...
s
1
................................... ....: Z
O _
61
i £L 13Sdd0) £-1 IH : W Q
N
i ..................:Ns... g� o
3Z(
�tWK
N�
LL w .
IL
W Z
N N O
. . . . .
V 0
1 : : : •r� W hZr
p =
(SL 13Sdd0) l HH o o W U
............ / a
/ g vi
0
F wo
gw : ° ^ W
i................. � ...:.. �..
i
iSL'13SfJOi L H!F / .................
3NIl-J.213d021d :L�
...........................
r
•' Il NOIld30X3 i
1 0 0 0 C
lO M M M M
U33d) NOUVATS
I
PAVEMENT OR a -
IMPERVIOUS SOIL
STABLE
EXCAVATION SLOPE
(Contractor s
Responsibility)
SLOPED TO DRAIN
AWAY FROM
STRUCTURE
01
Uo
GRANULAR
BACKFILL
t
PEA GRAVEL
SUBDRAIN
NOT TO SCALE
MATEBIAI.S
Gravel Backfill for Drains shall meet the gradation
requirements specified in section 9-03.12(4)
of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Granular Backfill shall meet the gradation
requirements specified in section 9-03.14(1)
of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
4' minimum diameter slotted
plastic pipe; sloped to drain
(6 /100' min. slope); provide clean —outs.
Slotted pipe to have 1/80 maximum width
slots.
Cleanoute should be included to allow periodic
maintenance and inspection.
e IMGESMICH M
WALL
GRAVEL BACKFILL
FOR DRAINS
DAMP PROOFING
1. Wall backtill should consist of well —
graded granular soil with no more than
5% (by weight based on the minus 3/4—
inch portion passing the' No. 200 sieve
(by wet sieving), with no plastic fines.
2. Backfill behind the wall should be
compacted with hand —operated
equipment. Heavy equipment should
not be used as such equipment operated
near the wall could increase lateral earth
pressures and possibly damage the wall.
3. Backfill should be placed in to era not
exceeding 8" loose thickness, and
should be compacted to at least 95X of
the Modified Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D1557, Method C
or D).
4. Drainage gravel beneath floor stab
should be hydraulically connected to a
drainage system. Use of 1' dia. weep
holes located of the downslope side of
the structure is one method.
WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILLING
CLOBES RESIDENCE
7425 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
7.01.03 1 2003-082
i
PORTION OF WALL BELOW 6 ft., 2400 lb. (6—MAN) ROCK
PORTION OF WALL ABOVE 6 ft., 16DO lb. (4—MAN) ROCK
SLOPED TO
MAXIMUM
STABLE EXCAVATION SLOPE --�
(CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY)
COMPACT IN 60 UFTS WITH MINIMUM OF
4 PASSES BY HAND —OPERATED TAMPER.
COMPACT TO AT LEAST 92% OF MODIFIED
PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
(ASTM D-1557). BACKFILL SHOULD BE
PLACED AND COMPACTED AS ROCKS ARE
PLACED.
4• DIAMETER PERFORATED PLASTIC PIPE---'
ALL LOOSE SOIL AT ROCKERY FOUNDATION SHOULD BY
OVEREXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH COMPACTED
BACKFILL AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE EXCAVATION SHALL
BE KEPT FREE OF WATER. THE PREPARED ROCKERY
FOUNDATION .SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY A SOILS ENGINEER
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ROCK.
LEGEND
4 H=10' MAX
12' MIN
H/3 MIN WIDTH
FOR BASE ROCK
NOT TO SCALE
[FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY, NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION]
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LAYER:
8 TO 12 COMPACTED SOIL
BACKFILL: CLEAN, CRUSHED LEDGE ROCK, 20 MAXIMUM SIZE, 40 TO 60% GRAVEL,
LESS THAN 5% FINES (PASSING 1200 SIEVE). FINES SHALL
BE NON —PLASTIC.
ROCKERY RETAINING WALL am .Y Jii °icune "o.
"
t = HM�MNaSM GLOBES RESIDENCE XCKE° °T 1 M.
7425 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE °AT '"0"" M.
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 7.01.03 1 2003-082
RELATIVE DENSITY OR 41STENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE
CONESIONLESS SOILS
COHESIVE SOILS
Drnly
N mwe ffi)
ApprUnnate RMaeva Derally(%)
Coniulerlr/
N (dawsllg
Approxmide
IkibWned Shear
Shen
Very Lone
0 b 4
0- f5
Very Son
0 to 2
42W
Los"
4 to 10
15 - 33
Solt
2 to 4
250 - 500
Madwn Dues
10 to 30
35 - 65
Medan SW
4 b 6
i d00 - 1000
Owes,
30 b 50
65 - s
still
S b 1s
1ooD 2000
Very Derss
~ 60
65 . 100
Very Nor
1S to 30
2000 - 4000
Herd
ovr30
a4000
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP DESCRIPTIONS
Caeraa
Gravel and
Clan Gravel
GW
Weeynded GRAVEL
Soh
GP
Pwnyyradso GRAVEL
�Gravely
Ptile r roc anes)
e
Q
Mon man
50%of Core
Gravel VA h
a
GM
Say GRAVEL
Fn:tbn Retained
Finaa (appredada
n No4sleve
amerce altos)
GC
Clsyay GRAVEL
Sand and
Clan swhd
• :
SW
walFgredse SANG
Sandy so"
pm. rm has)
Mon inn
SP
Paorggreded SAND
50% Retained
Sertl wish
.
SM
SkySAND
n No.
CC Moran
20D Sieve
FMs (ap vadable
Fraction Pesaro
Sol
No. 4 stew
a1 o,at of Ones)
SC
I CW M SAND
PAL
SILT
Wed
CL
Len CLAY
Gressel
U@ed time
en
led
Gala
Clay Lass tlrn Smi
OL
organic su iDor: CLAY
MF(
Eleatic SILT
Smarm"
llgsa limit
Passing
50%orMors
CFI
Fr CLAY
Camay
OH I
OngeMc SILTNgenl: CLAY
Na. 200 Stow
Boca
Mlgtay Orders: Solo
v'
PT
PEAT
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
COMPONENT
SIZE RANGE
seJaera.
tagrmn llh
Cobbles
3in1012h
Gravel
3In b No 4 (4.6mm)
Corse gravel
Sin to 3I4 in
Fla Pawl
3N h b No 4 (4JYrn)
Sand
No. 4(4.5 mm) to Na 2D0(4074 can)
Corse sand
No. 4 (4.5 mm) b NO. 10 (2.0 mm)
Medan anti
Ne 10 G.0 mm) to No. 40(0.42 mm)
Fine send
No. 40 (0.42 rem) b No. 200 (0.074 mm)
Sit red Cary
-- Smaller than No. 2D0 (0.07amm)
V
TEST SYMBOLS
%F
Pow Fines .
AL
Aderbeg UIMs: PL-Plastic LNNt
LL a Lkpad LimIt
CBR
California Bearing Rath
ON
Consolidation
DD
Dry Density (pc)
DS
Direct Sher
GS
Grain Size Distribution
K
Permeabift
MD
Molstum/Density Relationship (Proctor)
MR
Resilient Modulus
PID
Photolohizadon Device Reading
PP
Pocket Penetrometer
Approx. Compressive Strength (tare
SG
Specific Gravity
TC
Trisxiat Compreubn
TV
Tor
Approc Shear Smegm hard
UC
Unconfined Comprusion
SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS
®2.0'
OD Split Spore (SPT)
(140 m. hemmer with 30 in, drop)
I
Shelby Tube
0
3-1I4 OD Split Spoon with Bnu Rings
OSmall
Bag Sample
Large Bag (Bulk) Sample
Con Run
Non-standard Peneballn Teo
(3.0.013 split spoon)
GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS
F Groundwater Level (measured at
tens of drilling)
Groundwater Level (meuund In well or
open as after under level stabilized)
COMPONENT PROPORTIONS
PROPORTION RANGE
DESCRIPTNE TERMS
.5%
Cban
5 -12%
Slightly (Clayey, Silly, Sandy)
12 -30%
Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravely
30.50%
Very (Clayey. Silty. Sandy. Gravelly)
COmponenb are arranged m order of increasing quraitbs.
NOTES: Soo dassi0cations presented On exploration logs sit based on visual and laboratory observation.
Sol descr irld" sit presened in the following general order.
Densyconsislancy, Polar, modifier IN my) GROUP NAME, malbo a to lyeup name IN my), mdswn
conies. PmopwbM gradation, and WVWerfy of naneftwes, moduef carrrneres
(GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)
Please refer to me diaaulon in me repo tow as well IN; the exploration logs for a more
mnpMte description Of wbMafam conditions.
' u tnlLi
HMGEOSQENCEs INC
Clobes Residence
7425 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, Washington
MOISTURE CONTENT
DRY Absence of mde5ew, dotal.
dry bins Muth. .
MOIST Derry but no vleale wwNr.
WET Visible arm water uxsay
MR Is below valet Able.
LEGEND OF TERMS AND
SYMBOLS USED ON
EXPLORATION LOGS
'PROJECT NO.: 2003082 FIGURE' A-1
LEGEND 2003032.GPJ TMA13
SM
Very loon to loose. dark brown, silty, fire SAND, moist.
Abundant rootlets and organics.
[TOPSOILJDUFFJ
. SP
Loose, light blown, slightly silly, slightly fine to me=
SM
gravely, fire SAND, mold Rootlets noted.
:..
SP
....................................................................
Medium dens, brown, slightly fine to coarse gravely, fine to
medlum SAND, moisL
Total depth with hand auger was 4 feet due to soil caving
I
below this depth.
� BORING:
' WE n Clobes Residence HH ORING:=1
a, 7425 Olympic View Drive
HMGE0saENCES INC Edmonds, Washington PACE t of i
PROJECT NO.: 2003082 FIGURE: A-2
BORING WITH OTHER PENETRATION TESTS 2D030%2.GPJ 7/3n3
BORING:
' IT Clobes Residence HH-2/DCP-2
V 7425 Olympic View Drive
I- IWAGEOSCIENCES INC Edmonds, Washin&n PAGE: 1 of 7
'PRoJECT No.: 2003082 FIGURE: A-3
BORING WITH OTHER PENETRATION TESTS 2003082.GPJ 7rA3
ILSM
Loose, brown, silty, fine SAND, moist Organioshcotlets
rated•
UOPSOILIDUFF11
SP
Loose, brown, Slightly fine to comae 9mvelty, fine SAND,
moist. Rootlets noted.
a
GP
Loose, Sandy. Me to coarse GRAVEL, mast
Total hand Super depth was 2 feet due to 9mvei uvkV
BORING:
'17`I(j%1 Clobes Residence HH-3/DCP-3 L! �1v1 7425 Olympic View Drive
IMGEMENCESINC Edmonds, Washington PAGE.' of 1
PROJECTNo.: 200.3082 FIGURE: A-4
BORING WITH OTHER PENETRATION TESTS 10a3M.GPJ 7$W3
BORING:
' R Clobes Residence HH-4/DCP-4
LJ 1 7425 Olympic View Drive
HmaosCImu iNG Edmonds, Washington PAGE:' °"
PROJECTNo.: 2003082 FIGURE: A-5
BORING MTH OTHER PENETRATION TESTS 2W3063.GPJ 7=3
monsoon
mossonsmon
MEMMEMMEN
mmmmmmmmmm
ONE
ME=
0
ONE
U.
z
Ln
�z
V
(40
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists
t'�1 Groun Northwest, Inc. QEnvirenmentalScientists
September 25, 2003
Ms. Star Campbell
Development Services Department
Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Peer Review Addendum
Clobes Residence Addition
7425 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: HWA Geosciences, Inc. Project No. 2003082-21
Geotechnical Report dated July 3, 2003
Dear Ms. Campbell:
eCP,1VZ1) G-1697
Sf p 2 6 20p3
�'LANr1iPd� pEpT
We had reviewed the referenced HWA Geosciences, Inc. (HWA) report and prepared
peer review comments in a letter dated September, 9, 2003 for the Clobes residence
addition. At your request, we are providing additional comments regarding the steep
slope exemption information contained in the HWA report.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas
The slopes at the project site as defined by the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) are classified as steep slopes hazard areas, since the slopes average 46
percent for a total elevation change of approximately 25 feet.
Steep Slope Exemption Criteria
A. Site Standards
1) The site will be stable after the permitted activity.
2) The slope is mapped as advance outwash.
3) Fill placement recommendations are, contained in the HWA report.
13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Belleuve, Washington 98005
Phone 4251649-8757 • FAX 425/649.8758
ATTACHMENT 4
September 25, 2003
Peer Review - Steep Slope Exemption
G-1697
Page 2
4) Impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs, groundwater
seepage, previous landsliding or slide debris are not present at the site.
5) Depth of loose soils on the slope is 1 to 7 feet, which exceeds the 3 foot site
standard criteria.
B. Development Characteristics
1) The HWA report Figure 3 - Cross Section A -A' shows the 35 percent slope
excavation line extending from the edge of the exception zone.
2) Retaining structures on the slope or rockeries have been addressed in the HWA
report.
3) A buffer of 15 feet can be kept free from commercial development to property
lines of adjacent residential properties, however, this buffer has been previously
disturbed, and it will be disturbed again by following the 35 percent excavation
line recommended in the ECDC.
4) The proposed development will not decrease the stability of any adjacent
property.
From the above review, we conclude that the HWA report generally satisfies the City of
Edmonds Steep Slope Exemption criteria for the subject project, with the following
exceptions:
a) Depth of loose soils on the slope.
b) The proposed 35 percent excavation line extends into the Exception zone.
c) The 15 foot buffer has been disturbed in the past and will be disturbed again.
It is our professional opinion that the above exceptions do not decrease the stability of
the proposed development or the adjacent property if the project is developed under
proper engineering supervision.
We conclude that the HWA report addresses the steep slope exemption criteria
although it is not done in an explicit manner for all of the items listed in the Steep Slope
Exemption Handout.
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
September 25, 2003 G-1697
Peer Review - Steep Slope Exemption Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this addendum letter, please call.
Sincerely,
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
William Chang, P.E.
Principal
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
L
i
.E
x
qCT
C)
•L N
3�: d
K/ L
M
o Ui a
C Q
U v *k
.a Q 0 U-
Q Z
o
Q
O
O
Z
Mea
E
E
Cgz
LL!
Z
0
=
c
c
c
°
d.�
�-
Q
Q a
7
to
a
u.
c p
o
0
0
0
0 0U.
d
C
C
c
W .�+"
M ;
3
c
N
CDQ
c E
2 E
O
a m
E
�+
cr`o
w
°'
>
w e
o.
a-0i
Q
_
N
E
O
U U
0
m
L G
Q w
m
a
a
o
=
d
d= d d
V
•s o
O.
t 0
FL
C
W
O vs
0 N
O
0
o v
'iv
o
M
E
Gda
NP
IL
m
N
N
Do
G
i _
N
P00
O
o
d C
a
d
Co
�
E
d
E
o
a= NNE
E = ^�
c
°3
b b
a
�•�
d d N
q
G
C
G
n
a aut�
N
0
0
0
0
0
�
cw
o�
o
o
i
�z
aCL
y
o Q n
2i
c
lL
"
f0 a
m c. f6
O
a>
a� c)
N
-
,--�
cq
za
oa �U
a
a`0
q
ww_�dvm
Mark Yeadon Edward Mcmackin lack &Sharon Miller
'7505184th PI SW 18328 Homeview Dr 18404 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Samuel Lee Jeffrey Butler Samuel & Cynthia Lee
7512184th PI SW 19119 N Creek Pkwy #113 7512184th PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Bothell, WA 98011 Edmonds, WA 98026
Vernon Edwin Williams George Jensen Paul & Amy Tomlin
7520184th PI SW 7517 Olympic View Dr 7530184th PI SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Scott & Karen Hibbert Gary & Terrie Gerber Donald Johnson
18420 Homeview Dr 18421 Homeview Dr 18427 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Mary Lou Vigil Marvin & BrenAa Jones Matthew & Susan Wood
18428 74th PI W 7333 Olympic View Dr
1 3 t
Edmonds, WA 98026 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Andre & Carolyn Belyea Charles Taylor Snohomish Cc Property Mgmt
7327 Olympic View Dr 18429 74th PI W 3000 Rockefeller Ave #M 40
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Everett, WA 98201
Keith & Sherrelle Collingridge Rudolph & Barbara Julian i Richard & Jeanne Sherwood
18423 74th PI W 18417 74th PI W 18411 74th PI W
Edmonds, WA 98M6 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Donald & Lois Schatz Jong Chung Charles & Marlene Belt
18403 74th PI W 18325 Homeview Dr 18401 Homeview Dr
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
City Of Lynnw Lynnwood City Of William & Kathleen Massey
PO Box 5 PO Box 5008 PO Box 399
Lyn WA 98046 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Oak Harbor, WA 98277
William Snell
Paul Stromme Dave & Julie Clobes 1111 Third Ave., Suite 220
9623 8th Ave. NE 7425 Olympic View Dr, Seattle, WA 98101-32078
Seattle, WA 98115 Edmonds, WA 98026
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
r.
Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list.
On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
located within 300 feet of the subject property.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant's I
Subscribed and sworn to before me this j/day of
and for the State of Washington
Residing at C/l S` 1 9
C. .�
S tiFCCY" Ir1/
o S0TAR 5) Zi
PUBLIC
71,9
� WASHY
APO.docV_:\TemP\foTm
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OFSNOHOMISH
RECEIVED
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk
of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said uewspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
Notice of Development Application &
Notice of Hearing Pkaminer Hearing
David and Julie Clobes; V-03.184
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
February 04, 2004
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
Subscribed and swom to before me this 4th
day of
Notary Public in and for the
County.
NOTAygy
328-07, '�O?
OF WASNCa
N�
Account Name: Oay of Edmonds Accat" Number: 101416 Order Number: 00011310M