The URL can be used to link to this page

PLN20100027.pdft CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • fax (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER /nc. 1890 In the Matter of the Application of ) Michael Gold ) For a Shoreline Substantial Development ) Permit. ) NO. PLN20100027 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION MIKE COOPER MAYOR SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct two residences within the Puget Sound shoreline is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Mike Gold (Applicant) requested a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) to construct single- family residences at 7510 162nd Street SW and 16200 75"' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on October 21, 2010. Testimony: At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Kernen Lien, Associate Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Robert Hughes, Reed & Associates, Applicant Representative 3. Michael Gold, Applicant Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: Staff Report, with the following attachments: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. North Residence Site Plan 3- North Residence Grading Quantities 4. North Residence Grading and Temporary Sediment Control Plan 5. North Residence Revegetation Plan 6. South Residence Site Plan 7. South Residence Grading Quantities 8. South Residence Grading and Temporary Sediment Control Plan 9. South Residence Revegetation Plan 10. Zoning and Vicinity Map Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page I of 8 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • • 11. Plate #5 Shoreline Jurisdiction Map from Edmonds. Shoreline Master Program 12. SEPA Checklist for North Residence 13. SEPA Checklist for South Residence 14. SEPA MDNS 15. Notice of Application 16. Notice of Application Declaration of Posting and Mailing 17. Notice of Application Affidavits of Publication 18. Notice of Public Hearing 19. Notice of Public Hearing Declaration of Posting and Mailing 20. Technical Review Committee Comments 21. Critical Area CRA20100032 22. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 02-12-2010 23. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 04-21-2010 24. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 05-04-2010 25. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 07-23-2010 26. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 08-25-2010 27. Landau Peer Review North Residence 06-18-2010 28. Landau Peer Review North Residence 08-27-2010 29. Landau Peer Review South Residence 06-18-2010 30. Landau Peer Review South Residence 09-20-2010 31. Lot Line Adjustment PLN20100043 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requested an SSDP to construct single-family residences (two total) at 7510 162°d Street SW and 16200 75d' Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Exhibit 1, Attachment 1. 2. The lot located at 7510 162"d Street SW (hereafter, "north lot") is 19,275 square feet in area. The lot located at 16200 75`h Place West (hereafter, "south lot"), which is immediately adjacent to the north lot, is 20,772 square feet in area. Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 and 6. Although the north lot is slightly less than the 20,000-square-foot minimum lot area of the RS-20 zone, it qualifies as a legal building site pursuant to ECDC 17.40.030(D). Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of Mr. Lien. 3. The north lot is currently undeveloped. The south lot is developed with a single-family residence, which will be removed. Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 and 6. 4. The subject parcels and the parcels to the north, south, and east are zoned single-family residential, minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet (RS-20). The Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way is located to the west of the subject property, and to the west of the railroad right-of- way is Puget Sound and the Meadowdale Marina. Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 and 10; Exhibit 1, page 3. 5. The proposed residences would comply with the setback, height, and lot coverage restrictions of the RS-20 zone. For the north lot, the coverage would be 19 percent; and for the south lot, the coverage would be 26 percent. Exhibit 1, page 4; Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 and 6. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 2 of 8 6. The western portion of the subject parcels, including much of the project area, is within 200 feet of the Puget Sound shoreline and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act and the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. An SSDP is required for "substantial" development (i.e., development exceeding a certain cost threshold) within the shoreline jurisdiction. Although single-family residences are normally exempt from the SSDP requirement, the exemption only applies when the grading required for the residence does not exceed 250 cubic yards. WAC 173-27-040(2)(g). An SSDP is required for the proposed residences because the grading required for each residence would exceed 250 yards. For the north residence, cuts of 411 cubic yards and fills of 587 cubic yards would occur within 200 feet of the shoreline. For the south residence, cuts of 648 cubic yards and fills of 542 cubic yards would occur within 200 feet of the shoreline. When including the portions of the parcels located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the cuts and fills required for each residence would exceed 1,000 cubic yards. Exhibit 1, Attachments 3, 7, 12 and 13. 7. The subject property is within a "Suburban Residential 1" shoreline designation. The development standards for single-family residences within the Suburban Residential 1 designation are the same as those specified for the RS-20 zone. Exhibit 1, Attachment 11; Exhibit 1, pages 2 and 6. 8. As described in more detail below, the subject parcels contain geologically hazardous areas (i.e., erosion and landslide hazards) that are regulated by the City's critical areas ordinance. The Applicant has submitted the geotechnical reports and erosion control plans required by the critical areas ordinance, as well as post -construction revegetation plans. These documents have been peer -reviewed by a geotechnical consultant selected by the City. Exhibit 1, Attachments 4, 5, 8, 9, and 21— 30; ECDC 23.80.010. 9. The subject parcels are located on a west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The proposed residences would be constructed on a relatively level "bench" between steeper slopes. The slopes between the bench and the railroad right-of-way and between the bench and 75t' Place West range from 18 to 50 percent, and average 36 percent. A small steeply sloped area adjacent to 75t' Place West has an inclination of 100 percent. Exhibit 1, Attachment 22. 10. The site soils are classified as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes. This soil unit is identified as having a high erosion hazard. However, the hazard is reduced where vegetation is not disturbed. Exhibit 1, Attachment 22. 11. The subject property is located within a designated Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. A large-scale landslide occurred in the area of the subject property in 1947. Exhibit A, Attachment 27. 12. Based on the evaluation of the Applicant's geotechnical engineer, the current probability of slope failure within a 25-year period is 30 percent. However, the project is expected to reduce the probability of slope failure, and the residences have been designed to resist landslides. Exhibit 1, Attachments 25 and 26. The project would improve the stability of the slope by controlling stormwater runoff, reducing slope inclinations at the toe of the upper slope, employing retaining walls to support portions of the slope, and adding vegetation. If the engineering recommendations are followed, the project should not increase the risk of damage to surrounding properties. Exhibit 1, Attachment 23, pages 4 — 5; Exhibit 1, Attachment 24, pages 4 — 5; Exhibit 1, Attachments 25 and 26. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 3 of 8 0 • 13. As stated previously, the City had the Applicant's geotechnical reports peer -reviewed. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer was able to address the concerns raised during the peer review process, and the City is satisfied that the reports demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the critical areas ordinance. Exhibit 1, Attachments 22 — 30; Exhibit 1, page 9. 14. The City of Edmonds Master Program contains goals, policies, and regulations that are relevant to the proposal. Consistent with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program, the project would not minimize the rights of others; the project would be consistent with the critical areas ordinance; the use would be consistent with the established development pattern in the surrounding area; the project would not degrade water quality or disrupt lands covered by water, in that the property is separated from the shoreline by the railroad right-of-way and erosion control measures would be implemented; and the use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the subject property as Single -Family Resource. Exhibit 1, pages 4-5. 15. The project would be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program's regulations for environmentally critical areas, which require the hazards from or impacts to critical areas to be mitigated. The geotechnical reports contain engineering recommendations designed to improve the stability of the slope and to minimize the risk to residents. Exhibit 1, page 5; Exhibit 1, Attachment 22. 16. The project would be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program's regulations for detached dwelling units. Although the regulations allow storm drainage to be piped down to the drainage system within the railroad right-of-way, in this case such action is not necessary because the Applicant proposes to direct stormwater into the City drainage system located within the 162nd Street SW right-of-way. The lot size, yard, and height requirements for development within the shoreline jurisdiction are the same as those applicable to the RS-20 zone, and the project would comply with those requirements. Exhibit 1, page 6. 17. The project would be consistent with the Shoreline Master Programs's regulations for land surface modification. The land surface modification is necessary for an approved use of the property, which is single-family residential development. The land surface modification is the minimum necessary for the development. With the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, the project would not have adverse impacts on surrounding properties or the shoreline. Disturbed areas would be revegetated to prevent erosion. Temporary erosion control plans have been developed for the project and would be implemented on site. Temporary stockpiling during construction would be located in the center of the parcels, approximately 150 feet from the shoreline. The stockpiles would be covered with visqueen within 24 hours. The fill material brought to the site would not contain pollutants. Licensed engineers designed the land surface modifications and would also supervise the work. Due to the location of the property within an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, development would be limited to the dry season. Exhibit 1, pages 7-8; Exhibit 1, Attachments 4 and 8; Testimony of Mr. Hughes; Testimony of Mr. Lien. 18. The City of Edmonds departments that reviewed the application, including the Engineering, Fire, Public Works, Parks, and Building Departments, did not have any comments on the SSDP. Most responders indicated that they would provide comments during building permit review. Exhibit 1, Attachment 20. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 4 of 8 19. The City of Edmonds acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on June 21, 2010. The MDNS contains one condition requiring the Applicant to implement all of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical reports prepared for the project. No comments or appeals were filed in response to the MDNS. Exhibit 1, Attachment 14; Exhbit 1, page 2. 20. Notice of the SSDP application was published in The Herald on June 21 and 28, 2010; mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site on June 21, 2010; and posted on site and at the civic center, library, and public safety buildings on June 21, 2010. Exhibit 1, Attachments IS, 16, and 17. 21. Notice of the open record hearing was published in The Herald on October 5, 2010; mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site on October 4, 2010; and posted on site and at the civic center, library, and public safety buildings on October 4, 2010. Exhibit 1, Attachments 18 and 19; Exhibit 1, page 3. There was no public comment on the application. Exhibit 1, page 3. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for shoreline substantial development permits pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.55.030. Criteria for Review: The criteria for review of an SSDP are set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-150. In order to approve the permit, the Hearing Examiner must find that the development is consistent with: A. The policies and procedures of the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act; B. The State of Washington shoreline regulations (WAC 173-27); and C. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program contains goals, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the proposed development. Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.040, the regulations are mandatory, whereas the goals and polices "are intended to form the policy for shoreline uses, developments, and activities, as the basis of the regulations ... and to assist the city in determining whether to grant, modify and grant, or deny each proposed use, development, or activity." ECDC 23.10.040. The applicable goals and policies are set forth in ECDC 23.10.060. The applicable regulations are set forth in ECDC 23.10.130, 23.10.150, and 23.10.210. The applicable goals, policies, and regulations are printed in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) but will not be reproduced in this document due to the significant length of the text. Conclusions Based on Findings: 1. With conditions of approval, the application satisfies the criteria for approval of a shoreline substantial development permit. a. The development would be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The policy of the SMA, as set forth in RCW 90.58.020, is to "provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses." This policy "contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 5 of 8 the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." RCW 90.58.020. The proposed development is a reasonable and appropriate use for the suburban shoreline. The project is separated from the shoreline by other uses and does not have potential to affect aquatic life as long as erosion control measures are implemented. The project includes features designed to protect and improve the stability of the slope, including retaining walls, stormwater improvements, and landscaping. Findings 1, 4, 7, 12, and 17. b. With conditions, the development would be consistent with WAC 173-27. The regulations of the Department of Ecology contained in WAC 173-27 address the procedures and permitting requirements applicable to the various types of shoreline permits. This development is being reviewed under the criteria for approval for shoreline substantial development permits set forth in WAC 173-27-150. Additional regulations applicable to shoreline substantial development are as follows: WAC 173-27-140 Review criteria for all development. (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. (2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. WAC 173-27-190 Permits for substantial development conditional use or variance. (1) Each permit for a substantial development, conditional use or variance, issued by local government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b). The requirement of WAC 173-27-140(1) is addressed through the SSDP review criteria. WAC 173-27-140(2) is satisfied because the proposed structures would not be taller than 35 feet above average grade (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 and 6). Finding 5. The requirement of WAC 173-27-190 is addressed by ECDC 20.55.060 (no construction until 30 days after decision). This limitation is incorporated into the conditions of approval. C. With conditions, the proposal would be consistent with the goals, policies and regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Findings 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct two single-family residences within the Puget Sound shoreline, at 7510 162°d Street SW and 16200 75`h Place West, is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 6 of 8 1. Pursuant to ECDC 20.55.060, "No construction authorized by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final city decision on the proposal." 2. The project must implement all recommendations in the geotechnical reports prepared in association with the projects. 3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and following conditions of any applicable permits/appr vals from local, state, and/or federal agencies. DECIDED November 3 2010. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: dA n AN's OAqj� eAnna C. Towei 1 page 7 of 8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should consult the relevant ordinances and/or contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.06.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains the procedures for requesting reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner decision. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with the City Planning Director within 10 calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The filing deadline is 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Only parties of record (i.e., the applicant, any person who testified at the open record hearing on the application, any person who individually submitted written comments on the application, or the City of Edmonds) may file a request for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to errors of procedure, errors of law or fact, errors of judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have been discovered. Reconsideration requests must contain the information specified in ECDC 20.06.010(D) and be accompanied by the required filing fee. APPEALS Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002, appeals of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on a shoreline substantial development permit application are to City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.07.Only parties of record have standing to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of decision issuance. Filing a request for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to filing an appeal. EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON APPEAL DEADLINE The timely filing of a request for reconsideration stays the Hearing Examiner's decision until such time that the Hearing Examiner issues a decision on reconsideration. After the reconsideration decision has been issued, the time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration. 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. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Gold SSDP, No. PLN20100027 page 8 of 8 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • fax (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER 13 I In'the 1�19attter of the Application of ) Michael Gold ) For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. ) NO. PLN20100027 DECLARATION OF SERVICE DECLARATION I, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare: MIKE COOPER MAYOR 1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; 2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; \ 3. That on November ,, 2010, I did serve a copy of the decision in case PLN20100027 upon the following individuals via U.S. first class mail: 1. Michael Gold 15225 14`h Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. Attn: Diane Cunningham 121 - 5fh Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 3. Edmonds City Council 121 - 5`h Avenue North — I" Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Robert Hughes Reed & Associates PS 8311 212�h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing is true and correct: J DATED THIS _a� day of November, 2010 at Boise, Idaho. \ 72�ZZA� — Le nna C. Toweill Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, City of Edmonds Hearing examiner • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Ihc. 18°�0 Date: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • '(425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Letter of Transmittal October 12, 2010 To: Mike Gold 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Subject: File No. PLN20100027 Transmitting Hearing Examiner Agenda and Staff Report For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: X Cc: Robert Hughes Sincerely, MIKE COOPER MAYOR Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Inc. 1S90 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Gold Single -Family Residences File Number: PLN20100027 Date of Report: Z_QA1V_k1 ber 7, 2010 From: Kernen Lien, Associa tanner Public Hearing: October 21, 2010 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: MIKE COOPER MAYOR The project involves the construction of two single-family residences within shoreline jurisdiction of the Puget Sound. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 162nd Street Southwest (North Residence) and the second will be constructed on the property at 16200 75th Place West (South Residence). The construction of single-family and associated appurtenances within shoreline jurisdiction may be exempt from the requirements of a shoreline substantial development permit, except where grading associated with the construction of the associated appurtenances exceeds two hundred fifty cubic yards (WAC 173-27-040(2)(g)). The grading associated with both of these residences exceeds two hundred fifty yards and thus the project requires a shoreline substantial development permit. II. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Property Owner: Mike Gold 2. Applicant: Robert Hughes, Reed & Associates 3. Request: The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development permit for the construction of two single-family residences within shoreline jurisdiction of the Puget Sound. (Attachments 1 - 9). 4. Review Process: Single-family residences that involve more the 250 cubic grading for the construction of associated appurtenances require a shoreline substantial development permit according to ECDC 23.10.120. Pursuant to ECDC 20.55.030, the hearing examiner shall review and issue decision on shoreline permits as a Type III-13 decision, using the criteria Exhibit 1 PLN20100027 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 contained in the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program (ECDC 23.10), the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and Chapter 173-27 WAC. 5. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with ECDC 16.20 Single-family residential b. Compliance with ECDC 23.10 Shoreline Master Program i. ECDC 23.10.060 Shoreline use elements goals and policies ii. ECDC 23.10.130 General regulations — Environmentally sensitive areas and critical areas iii. ECDC 23.10.150 Use regulations — Detached dwelling units. iv. ECDC 23.10.210 General regulations — Land surface modification v. ECDC 23.10.215 Special regulations — Authority of the city c. Compliance with Critical Area Ordinance i. ECDC 23.40 Environmentally Critical Area General Provisions ii. ECDC 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas 6. Location: One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 162nd Street Southwest (North Residence) and the second will be constructed on the property at 16200 75`h Place West. 7. Tax Parcel Number: 00513106000100 (North Residence); 00513106000200 and 00513106000400 (South Residence). 8. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-20). (Attachment 10) 9. Shoreline Designation: The project is located within the Suburban Residential I shoreline designation. (Attachment 11) 10. Existing Use: The northern site is vacant property with a driveway that provides access to an existing single-family residence on the southern site. 11. Proposed Use: Both sites will be developed with single-family residences. III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for the project because the project involves more than 500 cubic yards of landfill or excavation. The applicant submitted two separate environmental checklists for the project; one for the north residence and a second for the south residence (Attachments 12 - 13). The City of Edmonds, acting as lead agency, reviewed both residences together and issued a single Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance on June 21, 2010 (Attachment 14). The mitigating measures being that the project applicant must implement all recommendations in the geotechnical reports prepared in association with the projects (Attachment 14). No comments or appeals of the SEPA determination were received by the City. The City of Edmonds has complied with the SEPA requirements. IV. PUBLIC NOTICE: ECDC 20.55.020.A requires that in addition to the noticing requirements of ECDC 20.03, notice for shoreline permit applications shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Edmonds at least once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive Page 2 of 11 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 weeks. The last day of publication shall be at least 30 days before the first public hearing on the permit. A notice of application was published in the Herald newspaper on June 21, 2010 and June 28, 2010. The notice of application was also posted at the site, the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, Library and mailed to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the site on June 21, 2010. A notice of public hearing for the shoreline substantial development permit was publish in the Everett Herald on October 5, 2010. The notice of public hearing was also posted at the site, the Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, Library and mailed to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the site on October 4, 2010. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Public Notice) and 20.55.020 (Shoreline Permit Notice). Copies of the notices and affidavits of mailing and posting are included as Attachments included with this report (Attachments 15 — 19). V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed and evaluated by the Snohomish County Fire District #1, Engineering Division, Building Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. All of these divisions/departments reserved comments for the building permits associated with the development (Attachment 16). VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topography: The site generally slopes towards Puget Sound with an overall inclination of 36%. The site is relatively level in the center with slopes in excess of 40% along the western and eastern edges of the site (Attachment 22). 2. Soils: The NRCS soil maps indicate the western portion of the site contains Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams with 25-75% slopes while the eastern portion of the property contains Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 14-25% slopes. 3. Critical Areas: A critical area reconnaissance of the property was conducted under CRA20100031 and CRA20100032 (Attachment 21). It was found that the subject property is located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area of north Edmonds and also contains slopes in excess of 40% which qualifies the site as a potential erosion and landslide area. 4. Wildlife: Wildlife in the area is typical of an urban environment. 5. Vegetation: The vegetation on the subject property is characterized by overgrown, unmaintained urban landscaping with a few larger trees. All trees and other vegetation within the clearing limits (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 3) will be removed in order to complete the grading associated with the project. Revegetation plans have been submitted for both the north residence (Attachment 5) and south residence (Attachment 9). VII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject site is located within a residential neighborhood in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. The surrounding property upland of the BNSF railroad right-of-way is zoned Single- family Residential (RS-20). The tidelands located waterward of the railroad right-of-way is zoned Open Space (OS), and the tidelands that contain the old Meadowdale Marina is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). (Attachment 10) VIII. PUBLIC CONCERNS: To date, no public comment letters have been received. Page 3 of 11 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 IX. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. ECDC 16.20 RS— Single -Family Residential A. The subject property is located with the RS-20 single-family residential zone. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030, development standards for the RS-20 zone are as follows. Sub Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum District Lot Area (Sq. ft.) Lot Width Street Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Height Coverage RS-20 20,000 100, 25' 35110' 25' 25' 35% 1: Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. B. A lot line adjustment and lot combination was completed for this property under PLN20100043 (Attachment 31). Following the lot line adjustment the property where the north residence will be constructed contains 19,275 square feet, while the property where the south residence will be constructed contains 20,773 square feet. The parcel for the north residence is considered a nonconforming lot due to the lot area being less than 20,000 square feet. Pursuant to ECDC 17.40.030.1), a lot within the RS-20 zone must have at least 12,000 square feet in order to be considered a legal building lot. C. The proposed residences (Attachment 2 & 6) comply with the setback, height, and coverage requirement of the RS-20 zone. 2. ECDC 23.10 Edmonds Shoreline Master Program A. ECDC 23.10.060 Shoreline use elements goals and policies i. Relevant Goals a. ECDC 23.10.060.A. I Allow for a diversity of uses within the shoreline area consistent with the dramatically different character of the various shorelines within the city, and to preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic quality of important shoreline areas while allowing for reasonable development which meet the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act. b. ECDC 23.10.060.A.6 Ensure that proposed shoreline uses do not minimize the rights of others or infringe upon the rights of private ownership. c. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with these stated goals in that the project is use consistent with shoreline designation of the site and surrounding area and it does not appear the project will infringe upon the rights of neighboring property owners. ii. Relevant Policies a. ECDC 23.10.060.B.I "Environmentally sensitive areas" and "critical areas" are to be protected and regulated consistent with the city's environmental review and critical areas regulations contained in Chapters 20.1 SA and 20.1 SB ECDC. (20.1513 use to be the City's environmentally sensitive areas regulations which are now contained in ECDC 23.40 through 23.90.) SEPA review consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.15A has been conducted on the proposal (Refer to Section III of this report) and the proposal meets the requirements of the City's critical area regulations. Given the projects location within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, all of the Page 4 of I 1 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 geotechnical reports for the proposal are being peer reviewed to ensure the proposal is consistent with the critical area regulations and ECDC 19.10 (Building Permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas). Refer to Section IX.3 of this report for a discussion on compliance with the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. b. ECDC 23.10.060.B.2 New uses and developments in shoreline areas that have established desirable development patterns should be designed to be compatible with those areas; provided the existing uses are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and this document. The proposal is a residential development within an established residential area of Edmonds and is compatible with other residential development in the area. c. ECDC 23.10.060.B.6 Uses in shoreline areas should not degrade water quality nor disrupt any more than is essential the land covered by water and the land area adjacent to the ordinary high water mark. While the proposal is within shoreline jurisdiction, the property is not land covered by water and the property is separated from the ordinary high water mark by the Burling Northern rail road tracks. However, the proposal should not degrade water quality as erosion control measures will be implemented (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 1) and the proposal will be compliant with the City's storm water management regulations contained in ECDC 18.30. d. ECDC 23.10.060.B.9 Shoreline use should be compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and consistent with long-range comprehensive planning for waterfront use. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject site is Single Family — Resource. The development of the property with single-family residences is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and compatible with adjacent uses. iii. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the above stated policies. B. ECDC 23.10.130 General regulations — Environmentally sensitive areas and critical areas ECDC 23.10.130.E Development Limitations. All uses, developments, and activities on sites containing environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas. In addition, the site must be specifically designed so that the hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area will be mitigated. The subject property contains critical areas with slopes in excess of 40% and the site is also located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area of north Edmonds. Several geotechnical reports and peer review of the geotechnical reports (Attachments 22 - 30) have been conducted on the proposed development to ensure that the proposed development is designed in a way that will not decrease the slope stability on the subject property or adjacent properties. ii. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with ECDC 23.10.130. C. ECDC 23.10.150 Use regulations — Detached dwelling units. i. ECDC 23.10.150.B Permitted Use. Page 5 of 11 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 1. The principal use permitted is the use of the subject propertyfor a detached single-family dwelling unit. The proposed use of the subject property is for two detached single-family dwelling units. 2. In addition to the principal use listed above, "normal appurtenances" as specified in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g), as now or hereafter amended and as modified by ECDC 23.10.045 (B)(030), as normally associated with a detached dwelling unit and residential occupancy are also permitted, including grading of the subject property which does not exceed 499 cubic yards. While ECDC 23.10.150.13.2 references 499 cubic yards of grading as being allowed, WAC 173-27-040(1)(g) indicates that grading is not to exceed 250 cubic yards of grading without the requirement of shoreline substantial development permit. Since the project involves more than 250 cubic yards of grading associated with the appurtenances and the entire project exceeds 499 cubic yards (Attachments 3 & 7), the proposed development is required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit. 3. In addition to the uses listed above in subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2) of this section, in the suburban residential I, H and III environments, the installation of storm drainage lines to convey storm water resulting from the use of the subject property as a detached dwelling unit, down the face of a slope for dispersal into the existing storm drainage system within the railroad right-of-way shall be considered a normal ancillary development activity, provided the subject property owner has received written permission from the railroad and subject to approval by the city engineer. The project does not propose to convey stormwater into the existing storm drainage system within the railroad right-of-way, but rather proposes to tie into the City of Edmonds stormwater system at 162"d Street southwest (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 2). ii. ECDC 23.10.150.0 through ECDC 23.10.150.E discuss lot size, required yards (setbacks), and height requirements for residential development within shoreline jurisdiction. The development standards for residential development within shoreline jurisdiction are the same development standards as the underlying zoning. Refer to section IX.1 for a discussion on how the proposal complies within the underlying zoning development standards. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with ECDC 23.10.175. D. ECDC 23.10.210 General regulations —Land surface modification i. ECDC 23.10.210.0 Land Surface Modification Landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Land surface modification landward of the ordinary high water mark is only permitted if it is necessary for an approved development or use of the subject property or if it is incidental to landscaping for an existing use on the subject property. The proposed land surface modification would be conducted in association with the construction of the two single-family dwelling units if approved under this shoreline permit. ii. ECDC 23.10.210.D Additional Regulations. All land surface modifications landward of the ordinary high water mark must comply with the following requirements: Page 6 of t t Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 I. The land surface modification must be the minimum necessary to accomplish the underlying reason for the land surface modification. The applicant has indicated that the proposed clearing limits are the minimum necessary to accomplish the proposed site development. 2. Care must be taken to not create any direct or indirect adverse impacts on any adjoining property or the shoreline of statewide significance. Several geotechnical reports and peer review of the geotechnical reports have evaluated the proposed development and recommended mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts of the proposal (Attachments 22 — 30). 3. All surfaces exposed during land surface modification must be revegetated or otherwise covered as quickly as possible to minimize erosion. The applicant has submitted revegetation plans for both the north and south residences (Attachments 5 & 9). Additionally, the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans included as Attachments 4 & 8 (Sheet 1), state that immediately following finish grading landscaping is to be installed. 4. During land surface modification activities techniques should be employed to prevent erosion and runoff onto adjacent properties or into the shoreline of statewide significance. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans have been developed for both the north and south residences (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 1). S. Except as is necessary during construction, dirt, rocks, and similar materials may not be stockpiled on the subject property. If stockpiling is necessary during construction, it must be located as far as possible from the shoreline and strictly contained to prevent erosion and runoff. Temporary stockpiling is proposed on both the north and south site (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 1). The proposed stockpile locations are in the center of the properties between the eastern and western slopes. Given the topography of the site, these are the only practical locations for the stockpiles. According to the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans (Attachments 4 & 8, Sheet 1), the soil stockpiles are to be covered with visqueen within 24 hours. 6. Materials that will be deposited on the subject property must be clean and not contain organic or inorganic substances that could pollute or otherwise be detrimental to water quality or aquatic or shoreline habitats. The composition of the fill material is outlined in the Structural Fill Section of the nelson Geotechnical Report dated February 12, 2010 included as Attachment 22. The fill material is consistent with the requirement of ECDC 23.10.210.D.6. 7. The city may require that land surface modifications be engineered and/or supervised by an engineer or similarly qualified professional. The proposed land surface modifications have been developed by licensed engineers, who will also supervise the work. Page 7 of l l Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 8. The city may require that land surface modifications be restricted to limited times of the year. Pursuant to ECDC 19.10.080, development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area is generally limited to the drier season between May and the end of September. Depending on weather conditions, applicants may receive approval to work between October 1s` and April 301h from the building official where such approval is accompanied by written concurrence of the applicant's geotechnical engineer. iii. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the land surface modification regulations contained in ECDC 23.10.210. E. ECDC 23.10.215 Special regulations — Authority of the City of Edmonds In addition to the authority described above, if a proposed use, development or activity includes areas both inside and outside the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, the city may impose conditions or restrictions on the use, development or activity outside the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act if necessary to bring the areas of the development within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act into compliance with the Act, Chapters 173-16 and 173- 27 WAC and Chapters 20.10 and 20.55 ECDC. ii. Some of the proposed project is located outside Shoreline Jurisdiction. Since these portions of the project are tied to other portions within Shoreline Jurisdiction, the entire project is being reviewed for consistency with the Shoreline Management Act, Edmonds Shoreline Master Program and is being permitted through the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. 3. Critical Area Ordinance A. A critical area reconnaissance of the property was conducted under CRA20100031 and CRA20100032 (Attachment 21). It was found that the subject property is located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area of north Edmonds and also contains slopes in excess of 40% which qualifies the site as a potential erosion and landslide area. B. ECDC 23.40 Environmentally Critical Area General Provisions i. ECDC 23.40.160 Review criteria. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this title, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements; 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and values; and Page 8 of 11 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ii. The geotechnical reports prepared in association with the proposed development have demonstrated compliance with ECDC 23.40.160. C. ECDC 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas i. ECDC 23.80.040.A Erosion and Landslide Hazard Area. Except as otherwise provide for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with an approved critical areas report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. Geotechnical reports consistent with requirements of ECDC 23.40.090, ECDC 23.80.050, and ECDC 19.10 have been submitted and peer reviewed (Attachments 22 - 30). D. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the critical area regulations contained in ECDC 23.40 and ECDC 23.80. X. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT — RCW 90.58 RCW 90.58.020 provides the following policy of the Shoreline Management Act: "It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." RCW.58.020 further states that "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priorityfor single family residences and their appurtenant structures..." 2. The development of single-family residences is a reasonable and appropriate use within shoreline jurisdiction in that single-family development is identified as a priority use within shoreline jurisdiction. The proposal protects against adverse effect to public health in that it has been extensively reviewed to ensure that the development is designed in a way that will not decrease the slope stability on the subject property or adjacent properties. XI. WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC) 173-27 WAC 173-27-140(1) states, "No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the'Shoreline Management Act and the master program." Section IX.2 of this report includes a detailed review of the proposal's compliance with the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. 2. WAC 173-27-140(2) states, "No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such Page 9 of I I Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served." Both of the proposed residences are less than 25 feet in height, and given the topography of the site, neither residence is likely to obstruct the view of any of the neighboring properties. 3. The criteria for review of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are established in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-150. Pursuant to this code section (and ECDC 20.55.030) a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with each of the following: The policies and procedures of the State Shoreline Management Act; ii. The State shoreline regulations provided within WAC 173-27; and iii. The City's Shoreline Master Program. 4. This staff report and attachments document how the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, WAC 173-27, and the City's Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173-27-190 requires each permit for a substantial development, conditional use or variance, issued by local, government to contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b). ECDC 20.55.060 states, "No construction authorized by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final city decision on the proposal." This has been added as a recommended condition of approval, which would exceed the time limit for the above requirement of WAC 173-27-190. XII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis within and attachments included with this report, staff feels the proposal is consistent with the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, state shoreline regulations in WAC 173-27, and the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program and recommends APPROVAL of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the two proposed single-family residences, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pursuant to ECDC 20.55.060, "No construction authorized by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final city decision on the proposal." 2. The project must implement all recommendations in the geotechnical reports prepared in association with the projects. 3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and following conditions of any applicable permits/approvals from local, state, and/or federal agencies. XIII. PARTIES OF RECORD: Mike Gold Robert Hughes 15225 141h Court SE Reed & Associates Mill Creek, WA 98012 8311 212`h Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds Planning Division Page 10 of 11 Gold Single Family Residences Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File No. PLN20100027 XIV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. North Residence Site Plan 3. North Residence Grading Quantities 4. North Residence Grading and Temporary Sediment Control Plan 5. North Residence Revegetation Plan 6. South Residence Site Plan 7. South Residence Grading Quantities 8. South Residence Grading and Temporary Sediment Control Plan 9. South Residence Revegetation Plan 10. Zoning and Vicinity Map 11. Plate #5 Shoreline Jurisdiction Map from Edmonds Shoreline Master Program 12. SEPA Checklist for North Residence 13. SEPA Checklist for South Residence 14. SEPA MDNS 15. Notice of Application 16. Notice of Application Declaration of Posting and Mailing 17. Notice of Application Affidavits of Publication 18. Notice of Public Hearing 19. Notice of Public Hearing Declaration of Posting and Mailing 20. Technical Review Committee Comments 21. Critical Area CRA20100032 22. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 02-12-2010 23. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 04-21-2010 24. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 05-04-2010 25. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 07-23-2010 26. Nelson Geotechnical Report dated 08-25-2010 27. Landau Peer Review North Residence 06-18-2010 28. Landau Peer Review North Residence 08-27-2010 29. Landau Peer Review South Residence 06-18-2010 30. Landau Peer Review South Residence 09-20-2010 31. Lot Line Adjustment PLN20100043 Page 11 of]] city of edmonds`` land use application PL-Ntia►oou 2-7 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE# O Z% ZONE S — 2 ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT D HOME OCCUPATION DATE O 4 •y (o - , REC' D BY tACr ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE 4' 2- RECEIPT# D LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT D STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION D REZONE K SHORELINE PERMIT SyE5STAtJT1AL OC-rELJ0(-1r1t-NT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: JtI � PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATIONlai-ou^7.5 FL W MdD 75/0 16Z SiSV CD►tc7N05,WA PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) ti lA PROPERTY OWNER111 KE i NAIVL-' 60LI) PHONE 4-25' 33723784 ADDRESS 1 j 2Z — 141�3 Lou 12T se H t I-L G4a=-t-K r w A q 9 � 12- E-MAIL MIKa. 6,uL0 COMCW>1.Nifi +7t\-# S(cl-302--015-0 00S/3iofcoeolo C 4vv�4 TAX ACCOUNT#60S /3106COO2-0400931O60450400SEC. 05TWP.2-7 RNG.Qf WM DESCRIPTION'1J OF AauCTo7 P1t Lu167lfi5F'w _C1)StdfZ 000 jroAM(00 SWR o V -*X 6A SEMEWC%jv/17-675F ATPWIteD GAeAGP- "V 6►i fte2r''`!5rSW A-4132 5F 4fz�5top-Y wdao GP.t1MtDo %5F12roVek car\wL IpAcE W/ r2c7 sPArytatep C-.hdl� DESCRIBE HOWIHEPROJECTMEETSAPPLICABLECODES'nCyt:-WP1 FM4r WrtyMEET tL=%&TAMCODES ,rrcL�tDrKC:ofLor>xpd�Ict 3642(Sr-fih�g:ADI}eRINGTo Ccx Tec]INlcaLfL fti ar 5Y tJtason! C�rtW0aC1lLtNC kN0 C;MDIIIti 9P.AiNAG'rTr-SC 914NS 6'f TEM(401t-EA1 4juLxc -SEL" AfiW11�0 APPLICANT _(1.I 1: '3 L•(i PHONE'# al -33 ? —'i7 84- ADDRESS6S-22S-14�Couor-5a= ti/LL GaaEx -- ►row .46L'17- E-MAILKI1Ca. C«CLQ qc-:)h'1GA-5l , ?1 T I=* 5- 1-:3Q7--0gs O CONTACT PERSON/At6C#F f'o AL --TT I Lig C 11- S PHONE # k3 17 Q Z 1 S'i P7 ADDRESS R1L-1=�Q £A-SSOCJIVf_-S .$311-21eSrS)64 t_~Dr1eX0Stw4 '700Z E-MAIL / Aa SrA-N Q!r (&40rnA-t L , e* ,- l FAX # ;(c O *7 'Z 1 "/ 18 The undersigned applicant, and his/herfas heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the o er listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/A£>� DATF, 4 Property I, O7er's,yAu:za n & 11 1 , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspect/i/oJyr�and posting (�.(} stting at �anQJt,tthis application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER 11 ^ + ) "\ DATE 1 t `� This application form was revised on 8/10/09. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. L:ILBRARY\PLANNING\Fo & HandoutsTublic HmdoutsUl d Use AppGcation.dm Attachment 1 -'oo AD� 3)HR NOIDNI�M*=' i ijH:-L230N 3ON30IS311 01 '6' 0 YW� ti 1111170& Ili If co 'v 57 71 yg Co M, v �MF 5i am Am 0009 e 01958 g t 0 019, 66 66 64 n `Oy 62 ? \ 0 \ 54.3 1 \ 8y al �. J� Z4 a p q m z Xc 21 � C U Q a °Ny` c WQ L ti y+ c v'! +Ad DECK ELs55 1/ 44 \ \ pp 42 40 b _ N YidbB w a W Z q �' II �p W 4 v' d p W a ¢ , o _ z y .f�rvoraz" $ m ro;AY woo a s s R s iskb i5 € W ca Mon I 'I UNP IN IN a a v _ e ju moo 1 moo 0111 3 a4 L b��°� Oil, �) + bill g a g - � : - d� p Q�" S gaeg rd —Gj y —_ _gg 1iY y�J IBM!111011111111,111 �s��01 1 1 111 \ aA9 i !k a i 444 pi �� b k � k b 6 la MIMI bb ; k milli, Y60 �diyL �� $ _�J �gk f b pp! ©�O —;,f1 � � a q f � t � �'t. _3•. 9EfY h. df 6 H 9t yy ¢¢ a3 EE EE GE p1 g Nil It 8l b t,� ' � �� " � �� fir•.. `��1��1 I b _ f 9 5 p a a' d6NQ`\�.\,,� \�` \ `:G� � '�•�''"a� t�j ��a ��b ��a 6�a�� pi l �� <' y�irs `tir�1 �3�� .."", •� t a1a, t r� '� }-r*ci }t tY..t? 6u :'� r �z_ a � y. - r K,?r •�� d- c vp�p5�kkapyg pa4 � p�pypkE [t��a� . � � �( '5 dill In " k E p c i�' �l Q§ S Q- ti it III, fillai Ill �8p � �cag A 8 qk k p�� i gSl di g p $q d3 a Rn pE k"k g � a 3 "e p 4 IN I� ��B3ry pGy gq pp 64�p� p@ y ®® k $ � 9p8 '" k k@p&' p@p gCy� sb p�ylin4 my i Wa 4 N Y all,Y�36�� III, �Y ��Gb�€Ak ol. IN �� 1 x e° l'8� ��8 Ig a� a� $� qkq k k� a24 k k a a m ux a i a �.� z€' a �� p ■ 1 3 9 0 k o ��pe� e '^ p � $ s$ a o e I dk '�Q k BaCg6@ �6a e k gy4 JIB e� R p p� pa@p� u 'I p AAA Y�I�150,3 ill 1 � IN gI a j o 8 b � 6 3bi � � .. � a� RFC Him - gp $ bp��'' �. k., y e a g S "gg p s^> .� � 4.. qt sky M. NNW ap g ypC y ppl @g5 p � Npp■■■■a ox°+ � ��a g@K@K[pp sn'_ � " �py` :;�y § i r = � g9�gq i pltlk a ,n 411 ... =s V, as p f" 80 HIM x rv,^+a. a Vag v u Id N011V1303 NV A3d 0 -dn as D Tvr 0sit .; 0 3HI R1 i2� i 1A�S1 HIHON l% -M -Ol9b 30N3(116314109 . Nv Mg Wi d v J� e �cc C o U H 3NClnoll 91lY �MICV. NV'Id NOUV13O3AMI R 'a_ w r " F -i 101 F IION S. 4 1 m- W a J Q � 3H1 n' (�1Yi�5't1cor291 -Ofsc.^`'' a€gip w AB NOISIg3N 31Y0 3O1,��'fi�� .�Vs�a� �� f' Ii 's r a� -- I W G z , 2 � �t ✓ t . t ii��`�s"�.y yt j��'6as � �� i `Y�'��. ti � ',r '; es IF L4 t Y r I _ w W J7 ;}:� •�� ',k �' �+�� .P ,7�` Y+♦�... p,_r �. �i �J,�al't °� I I� �r I +i }' 'ij � r ��"l ` t y x� h i LO N C 4% E V i.� �Y t ='ss NVld NOUVl3`03A3N ~3H1 5k M515ae291-0/SL a rosvaa �V° 30N301SM] o109 g II a� � � � a t \.G i k � e M a�a •.` • .. ''�.. . •sueoj ,. - 3y rT , N V tt,eF�d.,'�"Y �y, s r •f } , �_:., ,- w ,"�`E" m.'Ssp 1 s ey I 4+SF8 e eta,- y \`,�.� •I h _'`�,_ =.:h m �'�., �\ ; it E 5 fi pi z i C u (lla. / ll�l ( �IHI4D o »e� NVId NOI1V1393A38 10'IHIMONg r� M�sv15NaS/ oiSGnw. 3JN3QIS3� Q10aJs�s"a� Q �o g ug y z_ H z a J� U t6 Q; ne Nastn�a �vo i 5 O h E b A V t v\ � x r Vl Yi 5� q tog I god-�a� yt �� n zY}„Bggn' libg@ " 0 g�yigk� ;y EF m ( Ig ? IN' .Hinc OlM AONYNW- 3NIW WiONIWVWWNOA03lO A317 30NMISM (01 -100 0 Mill cz C11 IA -t H Q1 hv- 00) IH I W PR 0 70 0 1 C %0'1aad.- 47 Z9 --------- 7.T ci zc k 4d :t Ai J En CP-4 I c C'E Lu E a N Iq ti It Q m Q L4 z 41 K iz :uj R I I I [if I A .11 — A )AV F 09 .411 191 If Oil' II R 0 aag aao x R as l Ilk N*t �OD C . I � 1 0 w NA IX A a J1 pgg M,i 11 cu q at a oat il AIN 1111p, 'I gill - i 1111-1- ", "l11,415 oll 'I'llj;l II1111 lij �21 gill - It H; '1115 id 1-pol m, M "i s ij I I HE, 1`111111MIl MPM I.T 11,410i .b9R9aN (" 1 11 � "'I'l M MI W. OR Ig cc Ng IN lzm V�?. 4N Sig '1- .1 i� I , I Mll �nq R. SSE Mi0 fio k� 1ID6 w 6Es 1 *1 - 9j-age 1 O 1101 U, i it Mal I I, R min 1111,11 JI H 11111 1 .0 014 NIS fill JH fig it"", ....... . . . . . . . . a � � — n; � � ��' it ..; W) � � Ifj r1 ��vs .....,,: ti.�...._..U...::..:� _,....,..:,._...a,....,_...�;,s..,w+.,�y........�_�.:.:�.5; �.. =a� .tii '4 ue i, x,. .rF+. s �;, -LH i 00 «s ss s o a S p7gq$ ss dS- I�`- «s.91tz s t r' e9.�s oilc.l `gip \ oil ` i w obi '`+ 2s � �')oo, na i t I .(M2fCl 'Y3 � � 'i�-x�U`---'�. ✓ 1 sr„ €8 fr �..:$Bi�Y F�'. e ga IP m z I t 6 I Hil .fb• T b*61�, �� v-I___�-v �c� i '+,'�i Oeb, -BSes, v Fec z M 31, wog �a �cV v' a �, .y; .:t � � '�� : 4 y �d x� e : ?•? �? v t ; � r { � { ��. i, 41 P Nols— F- w ca 3Ndn as D kv NYld N011Vl303A321 Ow� ionHinos w w J. 3H 30N301SMI G -109 llu-il L a p IIIJ 0:, -Ad % " , ; a I T YF 0 s W NVId NOIltl13O3AMi Loi Hinos g R w b � F d � a W J o _ (_� (/ f1V . J��j../i � CI (5Q ^~ OJ 30NMIS3] oI3H1 d ,t pq m E r Q NOMI U k 0') c E :)Ndno-d D -C NVId NO11VA99AAN im KLnos 3 H i RIII MU aW --Ao 30N301SMJ (3109 NOIS 9 ti Jill IL SR: I moil 611 oil lqwl. Sig ma Al ON €6. RCS=20. s224 n AAA �63414 AA 4 7 12 A �. lit _ 163 5 A A A A 'A A Zoning and Vicinity Map 0 50 100 200 300 400 PLN20100027 Feet 7510 162nd St SW and 16200 75th PI W Attachment 10 Fes. Tra 4 s.NLegend r. { a i(elm N 1 vt� vi �- T 17 i �- � Attachment 11 /p -IZ $ A OF E DVO N 01c:t1+ P71 r `� CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FSt. 1 g9° Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Michael & Nancy Gold, North Single Family Residence 2. Name of applicant: Mike Gold 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 156L5 14tn court sE Mill Creek, WA 98012 4. Date checklist prepared: April 20, 2010 5. Agency requesting checklist: City ofEdmonds RECEIVE® APR 2 6 2010 Page 1 of 24 DEVELOPMENT SER1!CEs :cpn checklist - hendwrite.doc:4.192006 n of JpIT[n AttachmVent 12 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring and summer 2010 or spring and summer 2011 (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do yule have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity relater) to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you Know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report -prepared by Nelson Geotechnical (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Possible Shore7,ine Use Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology SEPA Checklist Nip 2 or2a .q.a ehe..sHs�-ht'du jM.d.c:e,19300r Attachment 12 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, Shoreline Use Permit (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several. questions later in this checklist that nslt you Its describe certain aspects of your proposal. Vol, do nog need to repeat those answers on this page. Construction of a single family dwelling unit with attached garage. on a 19,215 sf site area. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufticlent Information for a person to understand the precise location of your Proposed project, Including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known, If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasannbly available. While you should submit any plans required by the Agency, you sire not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitled with any permit applications related to this checklist. The SW quadrant of the intersection of 75th Place West and 162nd St. S.W. Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 00513106000100 7510 162nd St. S.W. SW Quarter, Section 5, Township 27, Range 04 (STAFF. COMMENTS) PaW 3 of24 scmcbce.ust. h..a., d—,,19.2nft6 Attachment 12 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS L Eartb a. 11 C. d. 'General description of the site (circle one): Fl:d, rolling, ail steep slopes, mountainous, other: Very mild slope in the center and sloping at the west edge of the Sri te'and at the east edge of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?_ 3 6 $ per the Geotechnical Report. (STAFF COMMENTS) a ;.� `,; IA- a What general types or soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and mucic)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood Gravelly Loam (STAFF COMMENTS) Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, refer to Nelson Geotechnical Report (STAFF COMMENTS) PaLe 4 of 24 Attachment 12 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Cut: 737 CY, Cut for site grading, (does not include foundations) Fill: 854 CY, Fill for driveway and yard area west of house. (does not include foundations) (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Low risk if erosion control methods are properly installed and maintained. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constriction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 5,362 sf of rooftop and pavement covering 27.8t of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: TESC Erosion Plan prepared by Civil Engineer. Proper installation and maintenance by contractor. (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions from small site construction equipment, backhoe, compactor, generator, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 5 of 24 ups checklist - handwdte.d-4.19.2006 Attachment 12 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salhvater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound is within 200, of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, Grading and house construction will occur within 2001. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 24 scpa ch"Mist - handwritcAmA.19.2006 Attachment 12 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None, anticipated, Per the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation ground water was encountered in only one of the four test holes. Slight ground water was observed 5-6 feet deep in B2. Cut in the area of the encountered groundwater is less than (STAFF COMMENTS) 5 eet . (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (l) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 7 or24 acpe 6.klia - handwrite.d-.4.19.2006 Attachment 12 (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged Into the ground from septic funks or other sources, if any (for exampie: Domestic sewage; iudusfrinl, containing the following chemiculs... ; agricultural; e1c.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to he served (if applicable), or the number of unimals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NIA (STAFIT COMMENTS) C. Wafer Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runuff (Including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the driveway and rooftop will be collected and routed to a pipe conveyance system in the city street, 162nd, and routed to Puget Sound. No on site detention is proposed. R.W. Beck Meadowdale Basin Study concludes city storms stem has capacity to convey flows. (STAFF COMM EN'I'S) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe Possibly residential yard chemicals or vehicle oils. (STAFF COMMENVS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water Impacts, if any: Catch basin with sump areas for sediment control. (STAFF COMMENTS) hige 8 or24 �e{s� cbxL'liw - h� nd u� ic..hc�,14.T1gd Attachment 12 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on ti►e site: b. C. deciduous tree: alder mapl aspen, other: Poplar evergreen tree: lir cedar ine,tot her: Madrona shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milroil, other: other types of vegetation: Salmon Berry, Black Berry (STAFF C6M M EFTS) What hind slid amount or vegetation will be removed or altered." All trees on site will be removed in order to complete the required grading, cut & fill. Salmon berry and Blackberries will also be removed. List threatenul or endangered species known to be on or near the site. [done (STAFF CdiMMENTS) Pagc 9 Of 24 A"dCCkHII • huKlrrilc.dvcA19_IW6 Attachment 12 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be planted with typical residential plants and grass. (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals n. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: husyk, heron, eagle, ongbirds ther: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other - fish: bussfialmou trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None C. ■a ...r but: part m a migration route? If so, explain. No (91'ArF COMMENTSl a. -"I PUP 10 of 24 eery cdctklist.Isnbu'riM.dx:A_I9.7D76 Attachment 12 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The single family house will use electricity and gas if available. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The house is designed to meet all current energy codes including insulation and windows. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 1 I of 24 -pn cb-kliv - h-dwrit.A-4.19.2006 Attachment 12 Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Possible household chemicals in small quantities. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Standard fire and safety as provided by the Fire Department. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Information distributed from government agencies concerning disposal of household products, paint, cleaners, etc (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? ' Road Traffic noise from surrounding public roads. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of 24 wpa ch"Mist - handwrilc.d-4.192006 Attachment 12 (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise from diesel engines of construction equipment. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction per Edmonds requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site currently has no structure on it, but does provide an access driveway for an exisiting house to the south and under same ownership as this site. Existing house is proposed for demolition and a new house to be constructed. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 24 cep. ch..kam - h.ndw k.do 4.19.2006 Attachment 12 C. Describe any structures oil the site. None (STA FF COM M ENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? i f so, %vhat? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-20, 20,000 sf lots (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family -Resource (STAFF COMMENTS) g. 1 f Applicable, what is the current shoreline ninster pinn designation of the site? unknown (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. n " -x - Pap 14 of 24 Ri*ClocAlW - LOnd—d, ,dw 4.i9.joo6 Attachment 12 11 Has any part of the site been classified as an "ell vironmentzdly sensitive" area? If so, specify. No //(STAFFCOMMENTS) Ff , Y Ycf `J' ,k1 . P � ,r- tin ii _ Approximately Ilow many people would reside or work in file completed project? Two to four (STAFF COMM ENTS) Approximately bow many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal Is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to and acquire applicable permits from the city of Edmonds (STAFF COMM ENTS) roac IS of24 +c m ebWkIiS1- bmd-ilcAu 4.14,,1W Attachment 12 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. one single family high income home. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 25-feet maximum building height per code. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 24 xpa chccklizl • handw iicA-A.19.2006 Attachment 12 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None,anticipated. The rooftop is below the road above, 75th Pl. W. as well as well below the house up slope. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of high end siding and roofing materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None anticiaated. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 sepa checklist • AandwriicAmA.19.2006 Attachment 12 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Haines Wharf Park adjacent to the north and currently under construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 24 sera checklist - handwrite.dm:4.19.2006 Attachment 12 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? if so, generally describe. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) 1►. Generally describe airy lantimarks or evidence of historic, archaeol©gical, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next In the site. None known c. (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving; the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, If auy. Access to site is from 162nd St to the north. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None Page 19 of 24 UP d-691 t • tanda,lltA4::4JQ. W% Attachment 12 b. Is site currently served by public transit? if no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, Distance to nearest transit site is over 2 miles (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Three garage stalls. No parking stalls eliminated. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. BNRR tracks are located adjacent to the property downhill to the west. Puget Sound is within 200 feet of the site and to the west. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 sepa eheckli.1 - handwrile.dw:4.19.2006 Attachment 12 How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 5-7 for single family residential. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay applicable transportation mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools; other)? If so, generally describe. Minimal impact, addition of one single family residence. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct Impacts on public services, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of 24 aepa checklisi . handwriredw:4.19.2006 Attachment 12 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: lectricit ' natural gas, rater, refuse service, telephm►c sanitary sewe septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities glint are proposed for the ,project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or In the Immediate vicinity which MiLlht be needed. Electricty: Snohomish County PUD Sewer & Water: city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge: make its decision. Signature of Proponent I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to `F - z0-10 Date gelmmitted pre pq/-ej Page 22 of 24 Dim& dweWill - L odrri�e.duc+1.10.7 DOti Attachment 12 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (clo not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Page 23 of 24 ". ch,cklin - hind—itc.d—*19.2006 Attachment 12 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 5. 6. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 24 of 24 sepa checklist • handwdte.doe:d.19.2006 Attachment 12 110LLJV - /,2 I- & - v%l / t= L) r-t-vvi Lo ..0 r%F EDA,. Purpose of Checklist: /0-12-6 -5cau-�-W P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.' Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Michael & Nancy Gold, SUl'ITR Single Family Residence _ 2. Name of applicant: Mike Gold 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 4. Date checklist prepared: April 5, 2010 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds reps cle tlia- h..d.TimdotA.191006 I"IECERi®ED APR 2 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Page t of24 COUNTER Attachment 13 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring and summer 2010 or spring and summer 2011 8. 9. (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this pruposal? Yfyes,exldain. NO (STAFF COMAIIENTS) List any environmental information you know about That has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical e (STAV ! COMNWN74$) Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals or other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? ff yes, explain. Possible Shoreline Use Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology SEPA Checklist (STAFF COMMEN7'S)!�A,' .',\' Payc 2 or24 .epn eleekttlae:6.19.:076 Attachment 13 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, Shoreline Use Permit (STAFF COMME, MIS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size or the project and site. There are several questions later in. this checIdist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. Yon do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Demolition of an existing house and construction of a new single family house.' 12. f,-O Site area is 20,626 sf. (ST,U;' COHMENTS) I,ocation of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, Including a street address, If any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the slte(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Jtatao 75th PL. W, Edmonds, WA 98026 SW Quarter, Section 5, Township-27, Range 04 Tax Parcel Numbers 00513106000200 & 00513106000400 (STAltit COMMErNTS) Page 3 of 24 two c4ce41u i - hr4uri1e.duc:d.I9.2A74 Attachment 13 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENIPS ]. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling,(M steep slopes, mountainous, otbcr Very mild slope in the center and sloping at the west edge of the site and. at the east edge of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 3 6 * per the Geotechnical C. d. Report. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, pent, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prune farmland. Alderwood Gravelly Loam (STAFF COMMINTS) Are there surface indient ions or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, refer to Nelson Geotechnical Report (STAFF COMMENTS) Psge4 of 24 6tjA1 [h0.'��iRl . ��OfY�.'l7�dlC.8.14,2G� Attachment 13 C. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of till. Cut: 1,095 CY, Cut for Site.grading. Fill: 851 CY, to be obtained from cut on site. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clear(ug, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Low risk if, erosion control methods are properly installed and maa.ntained . (STAFF g. About what percent of the site will be covered with iuilwl-vious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 8,566 sf of rooftop, pavement, &deck covering 41.5% of the site. 5,811 sf of rooftop cover ng 28.1 6t t e site. LrN (--L�X _ 11- I:a. (10. I►. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: T>JSC Erosion Plan prepared by Civil Engineer. Proper installation and maintenance by contractor. (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AM a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial. wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions from small site construction equipment, backhoe, compactor, generator, etc. (STAFF COM-ME:NTS) Page 5 a1*24 .pt. eh.0iu- bandwtiVACCA.19.2073 Attachment 13 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound is within 2001 of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, Grading and house construction will occur within 2001. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 24 scpa chaWisl - A-dwrite.doc:4.19.2006 Attachment 13 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None, anticipated, Per the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation ground water was encountered in only one of the four test holes. Slight ground water was observed 5-6 feet deep in B2. Cut in the area of the encountered groundwater is less than 5 feet. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal He within a 100-year tloodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Paec 7 of 24 upa chttllisl - handcm1e.doc:1.19.2006 Attachment 13 c. (2) Describe waste material that will be dischargLA into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number (if animals or humans the systems) are eirpectcd to serve. N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Water Runoff (including stonn water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm %voter) and method of collection and disposal, if uny (include quantities, if known). Where will this wafter flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the driveway and rooftop will be collected and routed to a pipe conveyance system in the city street, 162nd, and routed to :Puget Soured. No on site detention is proposed. R.W. Deck Meadowdale Basin Study concludes city storm system has capacity to convey flows. (STAFF (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Possibly residential yard chemicals or vehicle oils. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basin with sump areas for sediment control. (STAFF COMMENTS) Pap N of 24 te�:.�nerliisl - nudvtittdne:�l.I J.7076 Attachment 13 d. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder mapl aspen, other: Apple evergreen tree: (B cedar, pine, other: Madrona shrubs X pasture crop or grain vet soil plants: catt4 buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: ,niter plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types -of vegetation- Salmon Berry, Black Berry _ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation IMW be removed or altered? All trees on site will be removed in order to complete the required grading, cut & fill_ Salmon berry and. Blackberries will also be removed. C. List threatened or endangered specles known to be on or near the site. None Pop 9 of 24 c: W Attachment 13 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be planted with typical residential plants and grass. (,STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any' birds and animals that hove been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds they: mammals: deer, hear, elk, beaver, other: _ Jish: bass, almon trout, herring, shclllish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Lisr any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. No (STAFF Page 10 of 24 aeon Shn;llin.lnadnriY.Acc:4.147QK Attachment 13 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The single family house will use electricity and gas if available. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The house is designed to meet all current energy codes including insulation and windows. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page l 1 of24 seoa ehceklisi - handwrite.doc:4.19.2006 Attachment 13 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Possible household chemicals in small quantities. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Standard fire and safety as provided by the Fire Department. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Information distributed from government agencies concerning disposal of household products, paint, cleaners, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Road Traffic noise from surrounding public roads. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of 24 seva checklist - handwrite.docA.19.2006 Attachment 13 (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -terra or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise from diesel engines of construction equipment. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction per Edmonds requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site has one unoccupied house on it that will be demolished. An existing house exist to the south and a new house is proposed for construction.to the north. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 24 sep, chink ist - hendarile.docA 19.2006 Attachment 13 C. Describe any structures on the site. A single family house over 50 years old that is to be demoli.sed. (STAFF COMMENTS)' d. Will any structures be demolished? ll'so, what? Yes, the existing single family structure. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-20, 20,000 sf lots (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family -Resource (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Tf applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? unknown (STAFF COMMENTS) S.N, r ' ,,yN 1 { C il.+" ,: e k 1.- Page 14 of 24 tSIm Slu,+cA7id • YwdarOe.Jae:3,19.2fU5 Attachment 13 h. [ins any part of The site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specifv. No Approximately how marry people would reside or work in the completed project? Two to four (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, the existing house is unoccupied. (STAFF COMMENTS) ic, Proposed'measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposrd measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to and acquire applicable permits from the city of Edmonds (STAFF COMME, NTS) Pogc 15 of 24 LM2 dwell if t - homhrri'c,J.A 19.7006 Attachment 13 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One single family high income home. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. - Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One low income house that is in dis-repair. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 25-feet maximum building height per code. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 24 aepa el�ecklial - hsdmiro.doe:I.19.i006 Attachment 13 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None,anticipated. The rooftop is below the road above, 75th P1. W. as well as well below the house up slope. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of high end siding and roofing materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None anticiapted. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere -*'Vith views? Not anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 sepa chink ist - h=dwmadoc:4.19.2006 Attachment 13 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Haines Wharf Park adjacent to the north and currently under construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 24 :rya enecmfia- nwdwa1e.aoc:4.19.20oe Attachment 13 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or incal preser-vation register. known to be on or neXt to thesite? If so, generally describe. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance )mown to be on or next to the site. None known C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None (ST + i COMMENTS) 14. Transportation identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. .Access to site is from 75th P1 w uphill to the east. (STAFF COMMENTS) Pasc 19 of 24 taps cfiaalJiu • luoda�r'le.dvc�I.14299G Attachment 13 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, Distance to nearest transit site is over 2 miles (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Three garage stalls. One parking pad stall for the existing house will be eliminated. (STAFF COMMENTS) d.. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 13NRR tracks are located adjacent to the property downhill to the west. Puget Sound is within 200 feet of the site and to the west. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 tepa chaklitt • Iundwrite.doc:4.19.I006 Attachment 13 G How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 5-7 for single family residential. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures.to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay applicable transportation mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Minimal impact, addition of one single family residence. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of 24 sepa chaklist • hnndtvrite.doe:4.19.2006 Attachment 13 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: e. ectricit natural gas, eater, refuse serviee, telephone sauitn� septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project; the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricty: Snohomish .County PUD Sewer & Water: city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMCNI S) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. ma its decisionA bt Signattlre of Aroponcnl I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to ,f -s- to Date Subraitted Pcgo 22 of 24 ¢pa CbUtGsl- hWI" luiar419.^.GNS Attachment 13 4 OF ED,y O 4. v y0 N CITY OF EDMONDS Fs1 1 goo 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62"d St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 751h PI W (South Residence). Grading associated with the North Residence is approximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approximately 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Proponent: Mike Gold Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7510 162"d St SW and 16200 75" PI W Tax parcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200,0513106000400 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 5, 2010. Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmo ds, WA 98020 6 Date: June 21, 2010 Signature: r XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than July 12, 2010. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Post Office, and published in the Everett Herald. XX Emailed to the Department of Ecology along with a copy of the SEPA Checklist. Page I o1*2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 6I21/10.SEPA Attachment 14 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. THE PROJECT MUST IMPLEMENT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECTS. Mailed notice of the SEPA Determination to property owners within 300 and to the following agencies: XX COMCAST XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Engineer, Outside lant Engineer, North Region Outs t E Attn.: Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West 75`�St Ste Lynnwood, WA 98036 7400 Everett, WA 98203 XX Puget Sound Partnership XX Donna J. Bunten P.O. Box 40900 Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-0900 Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 XX Puget Sound Regional Council Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Seattle, WA. 98104-1035 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12425 Meridian Avenue South XX Burlington Northern Railroad Everett, WA 98208-5728 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Attachments c: SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 621/I0.SEPA Attachment 14 Q Q Q C O Ir- ppO N a) CD CD > N Q — CN Cu U C' Z Z C/) o a) a) C (U U- Ca is p O .0 O N U O Ca E O C c a) E CD O J J a) O CD CO Cn Cu C c m E C U o E .9-- a) = W O a) w a- Cn Q U 0 0 0 C9 (n a) N �_ CL QCa Cn U O � c �o a`�3 Cr O_ �¢ a) O O� 07 ..C� O Cu I- 4O o _o O CU CD N U. D c 0 0 Cu C O E C O V CV CC O ti C Cu (L ti O O N CD 0 Cu U M O C U 0 d Q U U 16 CL Q Q Q J O O Q p U E a? a) E m Z Cu 0 Cu U CL C Ca N a 3 CU v) v _ Q c O O O E N CDa)o N J a) � N N U >. E 75 CD•� . . 0 0 a) CO� � U c N c c Ci: E0 E ` 0 0 o CC) r :.L . v. c >. m o is N ( c m CUCu -a 012 f° c •Nv E W'. _ _. c O O o E.Cr c c4 t 0) y a) o a) U) c 0 �.. 2=CD �.oc� m v 30 moo. U •C N . Cu N P- U -D t us (6 (D a) (D U) C v N -0 .. a a) C 2 °) Oa m CD CD w a) v CL V) to N O c 0 •Q a U a) d a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ 0 Cu C O E C O V CV CC O ti C Cu (L ti O O N CD 0 Cu U M O C U 0 d Q U U 16 CL Q Q Q J O O Q p U E a? a) E m Z Cu 0 Cu U CL C Ca N a 3 CU v) v _ Q c O O O E N CDa)o N J a) � N N U >. E 75 CD•� . . 0 0 a) CO� � U c N c c Ci: E0 E ` 0 0 o CC) r :.L . v. c >. m o is N ( c m CUCu -a 012 f° c •Nv E W'. _ _. c O O o E.Cr c c4 t 0) y a) o a) U) c 0 �.. 2=CD �.oc� m v 30 moo. U •C N . Cu N P- U -D t us (6 (D a) (D U) C v N -0 .. a a) C 2 °) Oa m CD CD w a) v CL V) to N O c 0 •Q a U a) d a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ C Ca N a 3 CU v) v _ Q c O O O E N CDa)o N J a) � N N U >. E 75 CD•� . . 0 0 a) CO� � U c N c c Ci: E0 E ` 0 0 o CC) r :.L . v. c >. m o is N ( c m CUCu -a 012 f° c •Nv E W'. _ _. c O O o E.Cr c c4 t 0) y a) o a) U) c 0 �.. 2=CD �.oc� m v 30 moo. U •C N . Cu N P- U -D t us (6 (D a) (D U) C v N -0 .. a a) C 2 °) Oa m CD CD w a) v CL V) to N O c 0 •Q a U a) d a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ N N U >. E 75 CD•� . . 0 0 a) CO� � U c N c c Ci: E0 E ` 0 0 o CC) r :.L . v. c >. m o is N ( c m CUCu -a 012 f° c •Nv E W'. _ _. c O O o E.Cr c c4 t 0) y a) o a) U) c 0 �.. 2=CD �.oc� m v 30 moo. U •C N . Cu N P- U -D t us (6 (D a) (D U) C v N -0 .. a a) C 2 °) Oa m CD CD w a) v CL V) to N O c 0 •Q a U a) d a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ . v. c >. m o is N ( c m CUCu -a 012 f° c •Nv E W'. _ _. c O O o E.Cr c c4 t 0) y a) o a) U) c 0 �.. 2=CD �.oc� m v 30 moo. U •C N . Cu N P- U -D t us (6 (D a) (D U) C v N -0 .. a a) C 2 °) Oa m CD CD w a) v CL V) to N O c 0 •Q a U a) d a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ a) c a) a m a; E a O c a) () w ca 0 cd 'U 'd 'd N cd O N O N ~ O .� O A •O N � CU'd cd'� N . f �? U a. C) Cd O U O M 04 �•� p O 10 U U N O r zo +. .O O r-5 00 .0 O O O > a) 'b cd 4r� a) .� •U w "0:! U O ^C3 2 r. r. as G 0� R � `� . + � -o CO •> N p � O o O U 000 0 00 60 a. a (U U T" �� .. O tr" '� • U � w o td N U . Cd i.0 is ° D Z Cd00 > OO p v ON -4 O N � M O O cd 0 O O N O Q o enU U •0 El N 4 , �O a) Attachment 1 i ■ 2k RSE INX T 60.06 08\ 6024 024 60'. 6,0 A (0 4� 4 CO K 6111J 6121 vz I C% I A t, ;q � R tr J) 4,RS02 ltko 4 4 4, 4, A 4 4 4 4 A 6221 4, T4 � A� 41, x A A A -Pl IN A 1!63�11 4 12 163-20" a 5. A 4 4 .6 14 4 M 633b A 7,� All4 4 A 0 $A A14 4 N�� i\\� �C* R-Shn OV Eojj, Zoning and Vicinity Map o 50 100 200 300 400 PLN20100027 Fee 7510 162nd St SW and 0� 16200 75th PI W Attachment 15 FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 21 st day of June, 2010, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project location. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 st day of June, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. b Signed:C�' Attachment 16 FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 21 st day of June, 2010, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 st day of June, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. � n Signed: 1�si (BFP747893.D0CJ\00006.9000001) 19 Attachment 16 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH NOTICE, OF SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANGE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edmonds has issued a Miligaled Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11- 340(2) for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of two single family resi- dences. One residence will be Cer1E1n sled on the property loca- ted at 7510 62nd St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the properiy M 16200 751h PI W (South Resi- dence). Grafting associated with the North Residence is ap- proximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approxi- merely 1500 cubic yyands cl. cut and 1100 cubic yards of Iilll. PROJECT PHOPONENT: Mine Gold DATE MDNS ISSUED: tune 21, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: ,7510 162nd St SW and i 6?.00 75th PI W Ax parcels 0513106000100and 0513106000200,0513106060400 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: Ju_ly_5, 21110. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of l"'d no Is }'Manning Division, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a vailten appeal cit- ing the specific reasons for appeal vtlth the required appeal fee no later than June 12 2010 b_y,4:30 PM. SEPA MATERIALS: The SEPA Checklist, project plans, and DNS are available at vacl ww.edoronds.wa.us through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20100027.'These materials are also avail- able for viewing at the Planning Division, located on lire second floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 51h Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lion, Associate Planner, lien[uciedmonds.wa.us 425-771.0220 Published: June 23, 2016. Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first dilly 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 newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Mike Gold 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: June 23, 2010 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of June, 2010 JUG. 2010 Notary Public lit i nd r thoojs1 41i shi t rr siding gc£verett, Snohomish County.4saz.r" L i ..., -, r.".._ .. '; .l •..�%% 9 Art 1'gqJ•'nie 4, ,, p_ �€qN may! A✓i,"frtt t�.! Account Name: City of Edmonds Account NumliSr: 1416 +'w°Cy�T;13"f'7 .7Q S Order Number: 0001700846 TM M rllttlllttOFttsv �a Attachment 17 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE DEVQLOPMEaEN1� PPLIOAT ONTIAL i NAME OF APPLICANT: Mike Gold DATE OF APPLICATION: Apn126, 2010 DATE OF COMPLETE14ESS: June 21,2010 2009 DATE OF NOTICE:. PLN20100027 FILE NO.: PROJECT LOCATION: 16200 751h Pi. W and 7510 62nd St. SW PROJECT- DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62nd St SW (North residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 5th PI W (South residence). Grading quantities associated with the residences has triggered the requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit REQUESTED PERMITS: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 bth Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of W00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA, Building Permits, Lot Line Ad'uslment REQUIRED STUDIES: Geotechnical f3eports. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL ' SEPA Checklist, Geotechnical Reports, and revagefation plan COMMENTS DUE: July 28, 2010 Anyy person has the right to comment on this application during Public comment period, receive notice and participate In an hearingsand request a copy of the decision on the application. ,The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the Closing of the record of an open record pre eclsion hearing,, It any, or, it no open record predeclsion hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the oject Onlof record as defined inECDC 2 07 003 have standingto initiiate an ad nis- traliae appeal, PUBLIC HEARING: To be determined. CITY CONTACT: Kamen Lien, Associate Planner lien ®ci.edmonds.wa.us 425- -0 0 Published: June 21, 28, 2010. 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 newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Shoreline Substantial Development Application Mike Gold PLN20100027 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: Jute 21, 2010, June 28, 2010 and that said newspaper was Subscribed and swom to before rile this day of Jute, 2010 to jtsAubscribers during all of said period. 28th Notary Public in and Ior t, I State of Washington, residing, t Everett; Snohomish III... %�I II County. i, Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416 '` Order Number. 0001700660 Attachment 17 `B o Y A. ` 0 o o C)0 0 cD cD � m CD 3 CD CD CD m 0 _ cD 0 o c� _0 D CD o O O `� �� • rn c D ^ CD C)= car, CD 0 Cn - per, o n c�D_ 3 -0 m CDD m -0 O o m CD (") p N o � CD o C CD o CD v 4P rn O = cD c C Cn o" Off g N O CD CD c cD O _ o C) CD Cr0 u0i N N O CD C3 Sy '[n* CD r•' O. n O 3 CD C1 N Q- 0 � p: CD W CD � CD d ^s aup'c _ < —m o�'o r p Cp 3 B q G—) , o Q CD G. �. w a- �- :3� !a Na :3O .`% �. CCDD Cl. Cn CD ? * O 1 a ,•�* o \ o. z sv -0 Un Cr CAD Cn 3 CD p z o Cn n n .. -0 � 2 O CD .� C G c _ z' ? — 3 � � c m u'- C� C .USG Y �. � �• c`�' CD W M on Cn 00 o. ^p n p Qt =s m o N 8 CD = �° ,moo o �- '. h Q ^a 0. CD � � p a CD o C7 0 0 M :U O D M a.� ��n c�i ,� v m 0 ° CD �� O s �C m p on 3 3 m � �- � � � ,� C� ° "' 3 o a CD O n W CD O Cnn CL M CD CD n-, CD < W cn a CD w CD C cn o .� 0 c �' CD CD n Cn CD O CD O 3 < 3 CD m �. O Z = 0 c CCD - CD 3 Cn- Cu O) p + p� Cn a Cn a oZ CD G C)w O =-3 oo m o cn CD c� m Q o o CL CDw° C,x _ IV CD T O x Cn G) D Cn _0 Cn O O CD -*, CD CD 0 Cn 3 0 CD M "O CD d. m c- � CD =- o C .b m ,, on D c CD Cr D m D. W p7 Co � Co n c� � O CD y �. C1 p (�D `G C� N O d r N CD N =r CD CD CD O n C �n - a-Cr � � N 3 C:)O N D o CD (n cfl Cn � CZ• �I CD �G o �' Cr 0- En_ Cn Cn C:) " C) a U ,t CD n = `0 '-h = n CQ CD CD p CD `G fy v 3 t11 CD O t-jt3 N O+ vFD Cf G (3' C 0 CD 0 r CD Cr n a �CD m _ o N O fD f�D G � CD 3 ID o o CD °' a I CD r' a- cil• m 0 O O CD ��• Z O CD n O z C) Cr O -- n O CD CD O 4 t )1 N O O O Attachment 18 FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 41h day of October, 2010, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true nd correct this 4th day of October, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: t,t4 -- (BFP747893.D0CJ\00006.900000\ ) a Attachment 19 FILE NO.: FLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 4th day of October, 2010, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project location. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 4th day of October, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. Co Signed: Attachment 19 CITY OF'EDMONDS -`PLANNING DIVISIvN Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH PL W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 RECEIVED Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 APR *2 92010— Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20 DIV1SlL Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: % i`� .r� / I Title: 1'0 }r r ` I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attachment 20 Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH PL W. & 7510 162ND ST, SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4128110 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02,005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN Is DAYS OF THE DATE THIS, FORM WAS ROUTED. 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: x='r1rii i« ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so 1 have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): 4 Sig f d Phone/E-mail: Attachment 20 CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM ❑ Engineering ❑ Fire Public Works ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building 11 Treatment PCant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH PI. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 h JI 1a ` Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) - Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED' WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.16 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: XWI have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): C.J Date: ' Signature: Phone/E-mail: 11 / r:, 3 J Attachment 20 Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH PL W, & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of. ndividual Submitting Comments: Title: 0 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Phone/E-mail: Attachment 20 Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75T►+ Pl. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT *"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN J5 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28. J D If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: �. ...-- Title: lz--i5 ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal W 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no DEPARTMENT so I have provided comments. My department may also comments or conditions below or review this project during the building attached. permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Comments (please attach memoif additional space is needed): n The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attachment 20 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `11c. 18y%J CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 7510162nd Street SW & Tax Acct. Number: 00513106000100, 16200 75th Place West 00513106000200, and 00513106000400 Determination: STUDY REQUIRED * File Numbers: CRA20100031 and CRA20100032 Owner: Mike Gold Applicant: Robert Hughes Background... During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to) critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Area and Landslide Hazard Area), pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. The LiDAR map (attached) indicates that there is a moderate to steep slope both east and west of the properties. Soils on the property are identified as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam in the 15-25% to 25-70% range, which classifies the site as a potential erosion hazard. These slopes qualify as potential "geologically hazardous areas." Also, these properties are located within the designated Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. Please contact a Permit Coordinator in the Building Division at 425.771.0220 or consult ECDC 19.10 if you have questions about developing property in this neighborhood. This review applies to both lots. Depending on the location and project proposed relative to the identified critical areas, certain studies and reports may be required. Please contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 if/when you have a specific development proposal for this site to discuss the various permits that will be required. Allowed Activities and Exempt Development Proposals... Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.220. Similarly, certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed or exempt activity, please contact a Planner for more information. General Critical Areas Report Requirements... I Attachment 21 Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. • Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater, among others. • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. • Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required. Development Proposals Associated wiffi',_Ero ►s n Haiaid Areas x= ., Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area and must meet additional criteria. • For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance ECDC 18.30 will be considered to meet the Critical Areas "Study Required" determination. The determination of "suitable slope stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Edmonds. • In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. • Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090.D • Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. Attachment 21 I'study'Requi emenf for Landslide Haza d A'reas It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. pev to merit Pr o a1s Associated"with=�Landsliale Haiar"d Areas:-� �� ... �_ Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. Gina Coccia, Associate Planner March 31, 2010 Name, Title Signature Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www. ci. edmonds. wa. us. Page 3 of 3 Attachment 21 \ S / 2 � B � � � 9 q � U 03 r 20: 2 "_Orr lei G A Main Office 17311 — 135"Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County February 12, 2010 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIAT'ES9 INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 Mr. Mike and Ms. Nancy Gold 15225 14"' Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 RECEIVED Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation ] 6220 75"' Place West APR 2 6 2010 Edmonds, Washington DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NGA File No. 819609 COUNTER Dear Mr. and Ms Gold: -- We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — 16220 75"' Place West — Edmonds, Washington." This report suimnarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the site and provides recommendations for the proposed site development. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on January 11, 2010. The site is situated on gentle to steep west -facing slopes overlooking Puget Sound. The planned _ development area consists of a relatively level bench with steep west -facing slopes extending up to 75"' Place West and down to the right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Railroad and the shore of the Sound. There is an existing residence with a daylight basement in the southern portion of the property. - The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide area and is located in the designated "Zone A" between 75"' Avenue West and the railroad right-of-way. This zone includes the lowermost (west) parts of the landslide. Slide movement from the large-scale slide complex and small slides within the complex can both affect this zone. The planned improvements will include the construction of two new single-family residences on the northern and southern portions of the property. Final grading plans had not been developed at the tune this report was prepared, however, based on the preliminary plans and the site topography, cuts on the order of 12 to 15 feet may be needed along the toe of the upper slope. We understand that a detention system is planned to handle storinwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. It is our opinion that the planned development is generally feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of this project. Out' explorations indicated that the site is generally underlain by silt and clay. The site slopes appear to be _ generally stable, but we observed fill soil along the top of the lower slope below the planned southern residence. There is a potential for sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steep slopes. We reconunend that a debris wall be incorporated into the design of the residences to protect against potential slides on the upper slope impacting the residence. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Sununary - Page 2 In our opinion, based on the explorations, the planned residence foundations could be supported on the medium stiff silt with some improvement to the foundation subgrade areas. We recommend that the foundation areas be excavated at least two feet below the planned bottom of footing elevation, and that a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls be placed beneath the footings. Foundations prepared in this mariner _ should be designed using a bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 psf. All foundation elements should be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. The southern residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. hi our opinion this setback distance is adequate, however, to protect the residences against potential slope activity, we recommend that the west foundation line of the residences be embedded at least four feet below finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines in these areas would need to be excavated at least six feet to satisfy this ennbedment and the recommended layer of rock spalls. We should be retained to observe toundation excavations prior to placing forms. The above recommendations, as well as reconendations for site grading, subgrade preparation, drainage, and erosion control are further discussed in the attached - report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. _ Sincerely, NELSON-GEQTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 4aled M Shawish, PE Principal Two Copies Submitted Attachment 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... I SCOPE.........................................................................................................................................................2 M SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................... SURFACECONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................5 LABORATORYTESTING..............................................................................................................................5 _ SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION.........................................................................................................6 SEISMICHAZARD.............................................................................................................6 EROSION HAZARD ........... :.............................................................................................................. ............ LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................7 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................................7 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES......................................................................10 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING..........................................................................................................11 STRUCTURE SETBACKS............................................................................................................................12 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES...................................................................................................12 ....................... FOUNDATION SUPPORT...................................................................................... ...............13 STRUCTURALFILL...................................................................................................................................14 SLAB-ON-GRADE.....................................................................................................................................16 RETAININGWALLS..................................................................................................................................16 SHORING..................................................................................................................................................17 SITEDRAINAGE.............................................................................................................................:..........21 USEOF THIS REPORT..........................................................................................................................22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross-section A -A' Figure 4 — Cross-section B-B' Figure 5 — Soil Classification Chart Figure 6 through 9— Boring Logs Figures 10 and 11 — Grain Size Analysis Figures 12 and 13 — Atterberg Limits F;Q,„•p I d — r„t_nrF D—;., Detail NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75t" Place West Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the -- planned Gold residential project, located at 16220 75"' Place West in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The tax parcel numbers for the property are 00513106000100, 00513106000200, and 00513106000400, For our use in preparing this report, we were provided with plans titled "Gold Residence North and South," dated September 15, 2009, prepared by Randall J. _ Munson. We also reviewed a report prepared for the City of Edmonds Cominunity Services Department, titled "North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Sununary Report — Edmonds, _ Washington," dated March 14, 2007, by Landau Associates. The site is situated on a gentle to steep west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The planned development area consists of a relatively level bench between steep west -facing slopes extending up to 75"' Place West and down to the right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Railroad and the shoreline to the west. There is an existing residence with a daylight basement in the southern portion of the property. The site is mapped as part of the large historic/prehistoric Meadowdale Landslide area and is located in the designated "Zone A" between 75"' Avenue West and the railroad right-of-way. This zone includes the lowermost (west) parts of the landslide. Slide movement from the large-scale slide complex and small slides within the complex can both affect this,zone. The planned improvements will include removal of the existing residence and filling its daylight basement area, and the construction of two new single-family residences on the northern and southern portions of the property. Access to the north residence will be from the existing driveway north of the site. A new driveway traversing the slope below 75"' Place West will provide access to the southern residence. Final grading plans had not been developed at the time this report was prepared; however, based on the preliminary plans and the site topography, we understand that significant cuts may be needed along the toe of the upper slope in the eastern portion of the development area. We understand that a detention system is planned to handle stormwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. The proposed site layout is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclmical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75d' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, evaluate slope stability, and provide general reconunendations for site development. Specifically, out - scope of set -vices includes the following: 1.. Review available soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with four geotech►v.cal borings. Two borings were performed on the central bench area using a truck mounted drill rig. Two additional borings were performed on the steep slope east of the bench area using a small portable drill rig. The drill rigs were subcontracted by NGA. -- 3. Map the conditions on the slope and evaluate current slope stability conditions. 4. Perform laboratory classification and analysis of soil samples, as necessary. 5. Provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation support, and slabs -on -grade. 6. Provide recommendations for subgrade preparation. 7. Provide reconunendations for site drainage and erosion control. 8. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The property covers approximately 0.9 acres and is situated on a gentle to steep west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The site is bordered by 162"d Street SW to the north, 75"' Place West to the east, residential property to the south, and railroad right-of-way to the west. The vegetation on the site consists of young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees, grass, brush and blackberry vines. The central portion of the property consists of a gently sloping bench. To the east of the bench, a moderate to steep slope extends up to 75th Place West and beyond: To the west of the bench, a moderate to steep slope extends down to the railroad right-of-way and the shore of Puget Sound. The overall inclination of the upper and lower portions of the slope is approximately 20 degrees (36 percent), with actual inclinations of 10 to 27 degrees (18 to 50 percent). There is a small steep slope along the west edge of 75d' Place West with an inclination of about 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not note evidence of - recent sloughing, sliding, or significant erosion on the site slopes. Some of the trees on the slopes NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. - Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 -"- Page 3 exhibited a downslope curvature at the base of the trunk, which may indicate creep, the slow downslope movement of the near surface soil on the slope. The Site Plan in Figure 2 shows the property lines and topography along with the existing and planned site layouts. Profiles of the site slopes are shown on the - cross sections in Figures 3 and 4. Along the north side of the property, 16200 Street SW provides access to a gravel driveway on the gently sloping bench in the central portion of the site. Scattered small water puddles had accumulated in flat areas along the gravel driveway during our site visits: Soft wet surficial soils were encountered when the drilling equipment got off the gravel driveway. We did not note seepage on the slope; however, most of the slope was covered with thick vegetation. A residence with a daylight basement is located in the southern portion of the property. The upper portion of the lower slope was removed west of the residence, and it appears that the soil excavated for the basement was placed as fill in the area north of the residence. We did not note significant cracking or settlement of the structure during our examination of the exterior of the residence. A renulant driveway traverses the slope above the residence extending to the northeast. A manhole was noted west of the residence, which is part of the sanitary sewer easement that crosses the northern and western portions of the property. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for the site vicinity are shown on the Preliminary Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and Kinjj Counties, Washin on, by Mackey - Smith (U.S.G.S., 1975). The site is mapped as old landslides (Qols) and near contacts with the Whidbey Formation. The old landslides are described as large slumps that occurred during the ablation of the — Puget Lobe of the Vashon ice sheet by lowering of water -table level. The Whidbey Fonnation is described as nonglaical river flood plain deposits consisting of clay, silt, and sand with a few lenses of small pebbles. The native silt and clay with sand seams encountered in our explorations are consistent with the description of an older landslide in Whidbey Formation soils. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on January 18 and 25, 2010 with — four geotechnical borings. On January 18, a truck mounted drill rig was used to advance two borings to NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 depths of 29 and 34 feet below the existing surface on the bench in the central portion of the site. On January 25, a small portable drill rig was used to advance two borings to depths of 19 and 24 feet below the existing surface on the slope east the planned development area. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. An engineer and a geologist from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Lie. (NGA) was present during the explorations, exanuned the soils and - geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed during drilling at selected depths to _- obtain soil samples, and to document soil consistency at depth. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outer -diameter, split -spoon sampler 18 inches using a 140-pound hammer with a drop of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and is presented on the boring logs. The N value is used to evaluate the strength and density of the deposit. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which is presented in Figure 5. The logs of our borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 6 through 9. We present a brief sununary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the boring logs should be reviewed. Boring B-1 was located on the bench near the existing residence in the south central portion of the site. B-1 encountered a surficial layer of fill extending to a depth of about 4 to 5 feet. The fill consisted of silt with sand and gravel. Underlying the fill, B-1 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt to depth of 14 - feet. Below 14 feet the clayey silt included some sand seams and became very stiff to hard with dense sand seams to the depth explored at 34 feet. Boring B-2 was located on the bench in the north central portion of the site. B-2 encountered medium __. stiff to stiff clayey silt with fine sand seams to a depth of approximately 12 feet. Below 12 feet the clayey silt became very stiff to hard with dense sand seams to the depth explored at 27.5 feet. Slight seepage was encountered at a depth of about 5 to 6 feet in B-2. This seepage as interpreted as a perched water condition. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 Boring B-3 was located on the upper slope in the southeastern potion of the site. B-3 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt with sand seams and organics to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Below 10 feet tine clayey silt became very stiff to hard to the depth explored at 24 feet. Boring B-4 was located on the upper slope in the northeastern potion of the site. B-4 encountered a surficial layer of very soft silt and very loose to loose sand to a depth of approximately five feet. Underlying the loose sand, B-4 encountered medium stiff to stiff clayey silt and silty clay to a depth of approximately 12 feet. Below 12 feet the clayey silt became very stiff to hard to the depth explored at 19 feet. Each of the borings encountered slickensides in the clayey silt samples at depths ranging from about 7 to 12 feet, and as deep as 19 feet in B-l. Slickensides are polished surfaces of cracks in the soil and may indicate the zones of past movement within the soil. Hydrologic Conditions Slight seepage was encountered at a depth of about 5 to 6 feet in B-2. This seepage was interpreted as a perched water condition. We did not encounter groundwater seepage in the other borings. It is our opinion that a perched groundwater condition may develop on this site during the wetter times of the year. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of relatively low permeability materials. The more permeable soils on this site would consist of the topsoil, fill, and weathered soils. The low permeability soil consists of underlying clay and silt soil. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched groundwater to decrease during -drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. However, there may be areas of seepage and wet soils on the slopes even in the drier times of the year. Laboratory Testing Laboratory analyses were completed on selected soil samples obtained from the explorations. These analyses included grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits. The Atterberg tests indicated inorganic clays - :zmi,le from B-1 ':iad a NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 approximately 27.8, yielding a plasticity index (PI) of 26 as shown on Figure 10. The sample from B-4 had a liquid linnit (LL) of 62.0 and a plastic limit (PL) of 27.5, yielding a plasticity index (PI) of 34.5 as shown on Figure 11. The sieve analyses indicated cohesive soils with nearly all of each sample passing the No. 200 sieve as shown in Figures 12 and 13. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard We reviewed the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for seismic site classification for this project. Since competent cohesive soils are inferred to underlie the site, the site conditions best fit the IBC description for Site Class D. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the groundwater table. The competent silt and clay soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. The competent cohesive soils interpreted to form the core of the site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated slope failures. However, the overlying loose surficial materials on the slopes have the potential for shallow sloughing failures during seismic events. Such events should not affect the planned residences provided our recommendations for foundations and debris walls are incorporated in the project designs. There is also some potential for a large scale seismic event to reactivate the large- scale slide complex. Erosion Hazard The criteria used for determination of erosion hazard areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Set -vice (SCS) was reviewed to deternnine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loans 25 to 70 percent slopes. This unit is listed as having a high NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 7 erosion hazard. The on -site soils should have low to moderate hazard for erosion where the vegetation is not disturbed. Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater - conditions. The overall inclination of the upper and lower portions of the slope is approximately 20 degrees (36 percent), with actual inclinations of 10 to 27 degrees (18 to 50 percent). There is a small steep slope along the west edge of 75"' Place West with an inclination of about 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not note evidence of recent sloughing, sliding, or significant erosion on the site slopes. We did _. not observed evidence of past erosion or seepage on the slopes adjacent to the site during our site visit. We observed fill north of the existing residence on the bench and along the top of the lower slope. The core of the site slopes is inferred to consist primarily of competent native silt and clay soils. Inclinations of up to 27 degrees on the slope indicate relatively high strength and internal friction angle within the underlying soils. Relatively shallow sloughing failures as well as surficial erosion are natural processes and should be expected to occur on this slope. It is our opinion that while there is potential for erosion, soil creep, and shallow failures within the loose surficial soils on the slope, there is not a significant potential for deep-seated slope failure under current site conditions. Proper site grading and drainage as well as foundation placement as recommended in tlis report should help maintain current stability conditions. There is also the potential for a large-scale seismic event to reactivate the large-scale slide complex. _- ._ ^ -..-:-=--_:,-.-.._-:_.::-:_-e .�.::� :-e s rnv dcrnte ris;: �r sL-allo•„ slo4Dls a� ;'. s'.:aos _., «t,A t��sP s„rficial .::e slopes within the site and above the site to the south of the property. Accordingly, we provide ns in our report for a debris wall on the upslope side of the residence. CO CLUSIONS AND RECOPNIMENDATIONS - seotechnical standpoint. that the site is generally compatible with the planned indicate that silt and clay underlie the site. The consistency of the upper So:! soft to medium stiff. Below the soft to medium stiff layer, the NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 - Page 8 consistency of the soil was stiff to hard. Tire site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated failures. However, there is a potential for shallow slouglung and erosion events to occur on the slope. We anticipate that during periods of extended rainfall and/or as a result of seismic activity, shallow slough -type failures may originate on this slope and travel down slope towards the planned development area. There is also the potential for a large scale seismic event to reactivate the large-scale slide complex. In our opinion, based on the explorations, the planned residence foundations could be supported on the medium stiff silt with some improvement to the foundation subgrade areas. All soft/loose soil and undocumented fill should be removed from the foundation excavations. We recommend that the foundation areas be excavated at least two feet below the planned bottom of footing elevation, and that a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls be placed beneath the footings. Foundations prepared in this manner should be designed using a bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 psf. All foundation elements should - be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. The control of surface water and neat- surface water will be of great importance for the stability of this project. We recommend the installation of interceptor drains in the slope above the planned structures and drains should be installed for all retaining walls and foundations. Water should not be allowed to concentrate on or flow over the site slopes during or after construction. Sto►mwater infiltration is not recommended for this site. Poorly drained soil and wet conditions should be anticipated on this site. Adequate drainage, waterproofing, and ventilation will be important considerations for the design of the structures for this project. Depending on the final grading plans for the project, shoring walls may be necessary for the excavations along the toe of the upper slope. Debris walls and/or debris fences should be incorporated to protect structures from the potential for sloughing and shallow failures on the slopes above the residences. The preliminary plans indicate that the southwestern portion of the new southern residence may extend into the area where the existing residence with a daylight basement will be removed. The fill for thus _. project will need to be placed as structural fill to support the structure and for slope stability considerations. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 9 The residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. In our opinion this setback distance is adequate, however, to protect the residence against potential slope activity, we recommend that the downslope (west) foundation be embedded at least four feet below finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines in these areas would need to be excavated -at -least six feet to satisfy this four foot - embedment and the two feet of rock spall fill that is recommended beneath the footings. We should be retained to observe foundation excavation prior to placing footing forms. - All grading operations and drainage improvements planned as part of this development should be planned and completed in a manner that enhances the stability of the site slope, not reduces it. Excavation spoils _. should not be stockpiled near the slopes or be allowed to encroach on the slopes. Also, runoff generated within the site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system and not be allowed to flow over the slopes. Future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City of Edmonds. The slopes should be monitored on an on -going basis, especially during the wet season, for any signs of instability, and corrective actions promptly taken should any signs of instability be observed. Lawn clipping and any other materials or debris should not be cast over the slopes. The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered highly moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction on the slopes and to reduce cost overruns and delays, we recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place during the rainy months, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses could include the need for placing erosion control and temporary drainage measures to protect the slopes, — the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, and construction traffic areas prior to placing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material for structural fill. We do not reconunend that use of the on -site material as structural fill. We understand that a detention system is plarmed to handle stornwater generated on the site with an outlet to a municipal system northwest of the site. We reconunend that the system be reviewed by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City of Edmonds. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclmical Engineering Evaluation _ 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 10 Under no circumstances, should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction, and after construction has been completed. We recommend that stormwater runoff from the roof, pavement, and yard drains be collected and tightlined to a suitable discharge point. The - slopes should be protected from erosion. We recommend that all disturbed areas be replanted with vegetation to re-establish vegetation cover as soon as possible. Specific recommendations for erosion - control are presented in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection pleasures subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is listed as high, but the actual erosion hazard will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the site slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no closer than 15 feet from the top of the slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area and top of slope not be disturbed or modified through _ placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No additional [material of any kind should be placed on the slopes or be allowed to reach the slopes, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings, and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Trees should not be cut down or removed from the slopes unless a mitigation plan is developed, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. Vegetation should not be removed from the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. Any proposed development within the slope setback area, including landscaping walls, should be the subject of a specific geotecluucal evaluation. Any deck footings in the setback areas should be embedded at least five feet to maintain stability. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page l l Site Preparation and Grading After the existing structure has been removed and erosion control measures are implemented, site preparation should consist of stripping any soft/loose soils and undocumented fill to expose medium stiff or better native soil in foundation, slab -on -grade, and pavement areas. The stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill within level areas. of the site. — Stockpiles should be kept a minimum of 30 feet away from the top of the steep slopes and should be covered with plastic. If the ground surface, after site stripping, should appear to be soft, it should be over -excavated and _. replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If loose soils are encountered in any slab areas, the loose soils should be removed and replaced with rock spalls or granular structural fill. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed, and the exposed subgrades should be maintained in a semi -dry condition. Exposed subgrade areas should be covered with plastic sheeting during rainy weather. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading techniques night be necessary. These could include using large excavators equipped with wide tracks and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrade with a layer- of crushed rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered or construction is attempted in wet weather, the subgrade should not be compacted as this could cause further subgrade disturbance. In wet conditions it may be necessary to cover the exposed subgrade with a layer of crushed rock as soon as it is exposed to protect the moisture sensitive soils from disturbance by machine or foot traffic during construction. The prepared subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrade. Shallow groundwater, if encountered, should be intercepted .with cut off drains and routed around the planned grading area. Sloping areas to receive fill should be benched for added stability. The benches should be horizontal with a nunimum width of four feet, and the fill should be keyed into the competent native soil of the slope. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC, Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 12 Sh•ucture Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and the top of the slope so that ample room is allowed for nonnal slope recession during a reasonable life span of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback distance, the lower the risk of slope failures impacting the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, surface angle, material composition, and hydrology. Other -. factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. The southern residence is shown to be as close as 20 feet to the top of the lower slope. hi our opinion this setback distance is adequate; however, to protect the residences against potential slope activity, we recommend that the downhill (west) side foundation lines of both new residences be embedded at least four feet below the finished grade. We anticipate that the footing lines would need to be excavated at least six feet to satisfy this four -foot embedment and the reconnnended two feet of rock fill below the bottom of footing elevation. We should be retained to observe the foundation excavations prior to placing footing forms. We should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation setback distances and subgrade soil prior to placing foundation forms. Any proposed development within the setback area, other than light decks or - patios, should be the subject of a specific geoteclmical evaluation. Under no circumstances should water, be allowed to concentrate on the slopes, during or after construction. Temporary and Permanent Slopes — Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface water or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor _ to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered, and able to monitor the nature and condition of the cut slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclmical Engineering Evaluation _ 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 - Page 13 The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommmend that temporary cuts in the upper site soils be no steeper than 2 - Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V). If significant groundwater seepage or surface water flow were encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We reconunend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. The slope protection measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. However, flatter inclinations may be required in areas where loose soils are encountered. Permanent slopes should be vegetated and the vegetative cover maintained until established. We should specifically review all plans for grading on steep slopes for this project. We do not recommend grading on the moderate or steep slopes. Foundation Support We reconunend that the residence be designed utilizing shallow foundations. Footings should extend through the undocumented fill or soft/loose soil. Where medium stiff soils are exposed in the foundation excavations, we recommend that the subgrade be over excavated by a minimum of two feet and replaced with a two -foot thick layer of 2- to 4- inch rock spalls. The rock spalls should be tamped into place with the trackhoe bucket. Our explorations generally encountered medium stiff or better native soil within approximately three to five feet below the existing ground surface. However, deeper areas of unsuitable - soils or fill could be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. Where soft/loose soils are encountered at the planned footing elevation, the subgrade should be over -excavated to expose suitable bearing soil. _ The rock fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over -excavation below the bottom of the footing. The downhill (west) foundations should be embedded at least four feet. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 14 All foundation elements should be tied together and isolated pad footings should not be used for this project. Footings, including interior footings, should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Foundations should be — designed in accordance with the current IBC. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and the allowable soil bearing pressure. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 1,000 pounds per square foot (pso be used for the design of foundations supported on the medium stiff or better native soils and two -feet of rock spall fill. A representative of NGA should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are needed. Current 1BC guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short- term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one=inch total and '/2-inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet based on our experience with similar projects. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the subsurface portions of the foundation. -A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 150 pcf should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should extend a distance equal to at least three tunes the footing depth. These reconunended values incorporate -- safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against _ the native medium stiff soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing. We reconunend that the upper one -foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Structural Fill General: We understand that the existing residence with a daylight basement will be removed from the site and fill will be needed to restore the southern portion of the property to approximately the same grade as the rest of the site. The preliminary plans indicate that the southern residence may be partially NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation _ 16220 75'h Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 _ NGA File No. 819609 Page 15 supported on this fill. The plans also include cut and fill grading for a driveway that will traverse the upper portion of the slope to the southern residence. The fill for this project will need to be placed as structural fill to support the structures and for slope stability considerations. Fill placed beneath foundations or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. - Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotecluucal professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attairument of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection prior to beginning fill placement. If fill will be placed on sloping areas, the slope should first be cut with level benches 4 to 8 feet wide, and the fill should be keyed into the competent native soil of the slope. Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather structural fill should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). We do not reconvmend the use of any of the on -site silt and clay soils as structural fill. We should be retained to evaluate proposed structural fill material prior to placement. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick: Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation _ 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 16 Slab -on -Grade Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We recommmend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining gravel with less than three percent by weight of the material passing Sieve #200 for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch thick moist sand layer may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer is optional and is intended to protect the vapor barrier membrane during construction, and aid in curing the concrete slab. Retaining Walls The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces, be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 45 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 65 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. These reconunended lateral earth pressures are for a drained granular backfill and are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharge. loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the _ subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, slopes, or other surface loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding additional loads on retaining walls during final design, if needed. The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. Reconrrnendations for NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclnnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 - Page 17 frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this report. All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in eight -inch loose lifts and compacting the backfill with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one- half the height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be reduced to accommodate the lower compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. The recominended level of compaction should still be maintained. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and observe installation of the drainage systems. A debris wall should be incorporated into the uphill side of the residences to protect against potential slides on the upper slope impacting the residence. The debris wall could be as separate structure or an above ground extension of the shoring wall or the reinforced concrete basement retaining wall. Shoring General: Final grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. Depending on the final grading plan for the project, shoring walls may be necessary to support the excavations along the toe of the upper slope. If the excavation cannot be suitably inclined to provide stable temporary slopes, we recommend that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. The shoring wall can be designed as a temporary system and the building designed and constructed independent of the shoring wall, or the shoring wall can be made permanent and integrated into the building design. In the latter case, the shoring wall would likely be designed to resist vertical loads as well as lateral loads. Soldier Pile Wall: A soldier pile wall may also provide a feasible shoring system for this site. A soldier pile wall typically consists of a series of steel H-beams placed vertically at a uniform distance from one another (typically six to ten feet). The beams are usually placed in drilled shafts that are filled with _._ concrete or grout. The concrete shafts are typically embedded below the bottom of the planned NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation _ 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 18 excavation a distance equal one to two times the height of the cut to be shored. The steel beams are extended to above -finished ground surface to provide shoring capabilities for the cut. The beams are typically spanned by pressure treated timber or concrete panels. The H-beam sizes, shaft diameter, shaft -- embedment, and pile spacing are dependent on the nature of the soils anticipated in the cut and at depth, cut height, drainage conditions, and final geometry. Soldier Wall Design: An experienced structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington should design the shoring wall. The wall designer should be provided a copy of our report, and NGA should be retained to review the shoring wall design prior to construction. If the shoring wall is allowed to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the above ground portion of the wall, the wall should be designed for an active loading condition. If the wall is restrained from yielding by external bracing, tiebacks, or wall stiffness, the wall should be designed for an at -rest loading condition. Active pressure acting on the piles and lagging for design of the soldier piles should be calculated based on a triangular pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If at -rest conditions prevail, the wall should be designed to resist loads resulting from a triangular pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 65 pcf. These values are based on an assumed level wall backslope, not subjected to hydrostatic forces, and assume no surcharge loads behind the wall. Additional surcharge loads on the wall should be considered, such as from adjacent foundation, slab, or traffic surcharge loads. We are available to provide consultation regarding additional surcharge loads on the shoring wall as the project plans are developed. The above loads should be applied on the full center -to -center pile spacing above the base of the cut. These loads could be resisted by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the piles, and/or by tie -backs extending into the native soils behind the shoring wall. The passive resistance could be calculated based on a 150-pcf equivalent fluid density acting on two effective pile diameters below the base of the cut. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 2. The below -grade portion of the wall should not be shorter than 1.5 times the wall stick-up height. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclinical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 19 Shoring Wall Installation: The shoring wall should be installed by a shoring contractor experienced with tlus type of system. During explorations we encountered caving of the excavations. We also encountered cobbles and boulders within the site. We recommend that the selected shoring contractor verify the potential of open hole drilling for installing the soldier piles. The contractor should be capable of casing the holes should sloughing conditions and/or water seepage be encountered. It might be prudent — to perform a few "test" holes to confirm installation conditions prior to finalizing work plans. It may be necessary to remove boulders form the pile borings, or to relocate some soldier piles if obstructions cannot be removed. Excavation equipment should be available on site during soldier pile installation. Any sloughing or water that may collect -in the drilled holes should be removed prior to pouring grout. Grout should be readily available on site at the time the holes are drilled. The holes should not be left open for any length of time, as that may increase the potential for caving and water seepage to impact wall installation. If groundwater seepage is encountered, we recommend that the concrete be tremied from the bottom of the excavations to displace the groundwater to the surface. Extra Portland Cement may also be placed in the bottom of the excavations to reduce the affects of seepage. The spoils from the soldier pile excavations are expected to be moisture -sensitive materials and should be hauled off site. We should be retained to observe shoring wall installation. Rockery Construction Final grading plans were not developed at the time this report was prepared. Cut and fill rockeries are anticipated on the site. In the following paragraphs we provide general rockery information, but specific rockery designs will need to be provided when final plans are developed. -- All rockeries should be constructed in accordance with the specific design, current Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) guidelines, and appropriate local standards. Both cut and fill portions of the rockery _ should bear on medium stiff or better native subgrade soil. Any soils disturbed during subgrade preparation or due to weather conditions should be compacted to a non -yielding condition or over - excavated and replaced with rock spalls or crushed rock. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 20 We recommend that rockeries be placed against stable cuts in competent native stiff to hard cohesive soil. If fill rockeries are planned, the fill should be reinforced with geogrid, which will require a specific design. Any retained fill should be placed and compacted prior to rockery construction and then cut back to desired geometry at the time the rockery is constructed. We also reconunend that the base row of rocks measure at least one-third of the total height of the rockery including embedment, in the direction perpendicular to the protected face. Each successive rock shall bear on at least two rocks in the preceding row. The rockery should have a minimum embedment of one foot below final grade in front of the _.. rockery. The face of the rockery should be constructed with a batter of approximately 1 Horizontal to 6 Vertical (1 H: 6V) back toward the surface being protected. A drainage blanket 12 to 18 inches in width consisting of two- to four -inch rock spalls should be placed between the rockery and face of the cut or fill. A minimum four -inch diameter, rigid, perforated, PVC drainpipe embedded in a minimum of one foot of pea gravel or washed rock and wrapped in filter fabric should be placed at the bottom of the drainage blanket. This pipe should be sloped to drain under gravity and outlet into a permanent discharge system. Surface water should not be allowed to reach tliis drain by sealing the top of the drainage layer. This could be accomplished by replacing the upper 12 inches of the drainage layer with low permeability compacted soil. -- Backfill for rockeries should be compacted to 95% of the ATSM-D1557 and be reinforced with geogrid. The length of the geogrid used in the wall is typically 0.6 to 1.0 times the height of the wall. Actual design of these types of walls is beyond the scope of this report, but can be provided once final grading plans and wall types are devised. The ground surface above and in front of the rockery should be graded such that surface runoff is routed - away from the rockery and is not allowed to flow over the rockery or pond in the vicinity of the rockery. This could be accomplished by designing appropriate yard drains or drainage ditches strategically placed _ to collect and route storm runoff into the storm system. We should be retained to review final rockery location and plans, and provide construction monitoring services during rockery construction, to evaluate subgrade conditions, cut conditions, fill compaction, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 21 provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions differ from anticipated, and to evaluate whether rockery construction complies with the design and specifications. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the slopes and away from the planned residence. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building and top of the slopes. Runoff - generated on tivs site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system at the bottom of the slope. This should include all downspouts and runoff generated on all hard surfaces and yards areas. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slopes. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area where footings or slabs are to be constructed. We understand that runoff generated on this site will be directed into a detention system. Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where the water can be pumped out of the excavation and routed into a suitable outlet. We recommend that the residence down spouts and footing drains be tightlined to an appropriate discharge location. If seepage or indications of seepage encountered in the excavations for the residences, we recommend the installation of cut-off drains on the slope above the residences to intercept and remove groundwater from — the slopes. The cut-off drain should be constructed as shown on the Schematic Cut-off Drain Detail, Figure 14. In general, the drain consists of a 24-inch wide trench excavated into the stiff native soil. The depth of the drain trench can bedefined in the field based on the actual conditions. A 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe is placed near the bottom of the trench, which is then backfilled with free -draining gravel. The gravel can be placed either up to finish grade, or covered with a geofabric and up to 1-foot of topsoil/sod. The cut-off drain system is sloped to drain into the main drainage system. Poorly drained soil and wet conditions should be anticipated on this site. Adequate drainage, waterproofing, and ventilation will be important considerations for the design of the strictures for tlus project. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 "- Page 22 We recommend the use of footing drains around structures and behind retaining walls. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We reconunend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three -percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or a drainage composite may be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF THIS REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Mike Gold and his agents for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our reconnnendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and -- schedule. -- All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we reconnrnend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75°i Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 23 We reconunend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide reconunendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week - prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. ••• NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 Geoteclmical Engineering Evaluation 16220 75"' Place West Edmonds, Washington February 12, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 24 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael D. Rundquist Project Manager MDR:ICMS:Icnin Fourteen Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 22 VICINITY MAP Not to Scale ,'81h St we 151th SI ave 15M Pi S1.7 Project 1130th� S I Site O id F I Z 10411. St 570 1,3-Rh Ff V..' JL rn 102030 Rand 6Rc HaR,y 02000 HA,TEQ —1 J Edmonds, WA I Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK ASSOCIATES, INC. I 819610 16220 75th Place West 1 2110110 Original LSB MDR Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 1 I73II-I35thAwJ1E.A-5M 6-h—MC—tY(425)339-IGM A ,4 h..��Csw=yq�vltachment 22 O >, m I m C _O (D N c 0 O d c II �+ o ai U) F U ul C \\ o Z Z o Q$ \' \ V W �C F- W e5 2� W ¢ N Z 0 U w Z 0 0 Je( Z W W � J o m Z< U aim ` CL 0 a N U � N C \ x 0 Cf) a 0. N ~' LO a 0 ti o a _a ° o °� v 0 N ` c E rn N c" ,. W�W11''►► tf o a)o E N X N 0 V V W p` z o Q o o N Z 0 �, EN U TI- 00 LL \, \ m I c N N m m > N 0 C 00 j N E O 0 w c EL°a 000 C N C 7 . X O Q O is O. CL O 8 c N N O O (A .. .. L tq CL O C 2 w.ma.� x I- is CD > m z(nww a � e O T lV �-+ 9 N m O (O T ^` W U N.0 N r N 1«. CL O f6 a+ �p hb�b� N x b N N Co T Q �y13 W '. '. n. d .y C O C O O 00 (6 O w C_ U (v � L a O � � > Z rn o a o Z `r co 0 v N to Q 1 N Cam_ O Q L t5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -5 r i'u w y O >� L 6 C)O x rn N O r T 00 W Q Q co)U Z rn 3w ° x m o I (Je8J) UOIIBA813 91ewlxOaddy m o= 0 a �� )L coo Project Number '' NELSON GEOTECHNICAL �� -'�� No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West - ! `' " � ASSOCIATES? INC. 1 2110110 odalnal I.SB MDR � Cross -Section A -A' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 3 17311-135N A —NE. A-300 6 666s91F::B;25IU a37 Eosl Psm7lbad N'(3p3J66i76w 1Att c me t 22 C z (.25) Cpp tU N C) N C)> co L aN— CD 000 O N m E O U) O C H O N C N y 07 (0 C E a a o v; m CO O O M .. C O C w x rn m : Z.::.. ~ 0) U Ill N Z fA w W EL L O a (V O m O O N O Q) N M a�,.. N _y N c m .• N C O C O O O i0 O C U 3 L O > O f_ Z 0 °a °v � z N I c O m I N N = r R R R R R M -0 Cam_ O W 0 O T N I l 3 l l l l l l l l l l i l l l I l i l l l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 C > 0 O 0 0 000 0 o x W y L° o P U c ki F Z cm3 W x �+ 5 (1991) u01}ene13 a1ewlxaddy c 0 c m S 0 0 o dC Project Number r�'� NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK c 819609 16220 75th Place West i*��, f �— ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 2110110 Original LSB MDR Cross -Section B-B' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 4 17311-1751h An NE,AbW 4]7E,,%P4myft1d Nfoo.1"99f. 01 w�A.1s...>� ,Att 48&16691 Fav /OIt010 c e t 22 ° (_ µ25) (600) O6S7695 7 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL I CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND PASSES N0.4 SIEVE SC WITH FINES CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC OIL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO.200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using_ laboratory tests Moist -Damp, but no visible water. is based on ASTM D 2488-93. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from consistency are based on below water table interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number '._ NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West �� i,•( ASSOCIATES, INC. — t, 1 2n0n0 original Lse MUR Soil Classification Chart GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS :r Figure 5 17311•135M ova. NE. A3SM Sro*4e NC""(Q5)J]7-,666 %kt dndb.WA65o72 Y1en�Wae/Ch6n(509)66576� a61•YJIp ac nt 22 (a25)a681669.... ...-....-mm I BORING LOG r B-1 ' Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 46 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - 0) N Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50+ Installation - Description r 3 'o 9 cca `- c Ground Water Data Moisture Content J o E c7 In V E (Percent - ■) o (Depth in Feet) c9 rn ut _ d 10 20 30 40 50 50., m J 3ray, silt with sand and gravel ML 10 t ,'medium stiff to stiff, moist) U ____ _________—_— 3ray iron oxide stained silt with sand and gravel _ 7 5 a .... ........................................... 5 medium stiff, moist) ML Rock in sampler 3ray silt with clay (medium stiff, moist) g ' ML LL10 Gray, clayey silt with hackled fracture and slicTcensides g ' ...... ........ .............................. 10 ;medium stiff to stiff, moist) ML — — — — — — — — — — — Gray, clay with silt (medium stiff to stiff, moist) g ' A G Gray, clayey silt with sand and fine sand seams and 22 ' 1gravel, bedded, blocky fractures, slickensides ML .(very stiff, moist) 20 ................... .......... .............. 20 25 ................................. ......... ----- 25 L----------------- - Gray, silt with fine sand seams (very stiff to hard, moist) ML 34 , Gray, silty fine sand (dense, moist) SM LEGEND Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content [_] Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler, MonumenU Cap F; Native Soil DS Direct Shear I to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft 0 Silica Sand Depth Driven and Amount Recovered p * Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial INOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis andjudgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West �NELSON / _-! N__;:i,L-,,., ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 ?/fella Odalnat LSB MOR Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 6 17711 I3511,Ar.NE. A-500 SrobM C—*1<25)y&16® (� .n..1FAa�7z N4nykheNCMbn(5pJ)6657698A Jl6.1 . VA Jet-�5f0 fwl b, is d,.adn a hm nt 22 Page 1 of 2 0 I_ BORING LOG Q C a B-1 (cont.) J I_ Soil Profile Sample Data p Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot - �) Z Piezometer 10 0 30 40 50 50 F01 Installation - - t 3 � aw GroundData Water Moisture Content Description o B c 'o to U E m (Percent - 0) a (Depth in Feet) C� to rn v 10 20 30 40 50 50 J ;ray, silty fine sand (medium dense to dense, moist) SM Gray, bedded silt with fine sand seams 68 ' (very hard, moist) ML - - .• • • ....... 35 -Boring terminated below existing grade at 34.0 feet on 35 I/16/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered Suring drilling. I, 40 .... .. .. 40 I_ I_ 45 ......................... ......................... 45 I_ I_ 50 .... .. ................. 50 I- I 55 ................................................... 55 LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe C%.' Concrete M Moisture Content 0 Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap r^: Native Soil DS Direct Shear g to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft m Q Silica Sand a Depth Driven and Amount Recovered �fe Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed m with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler ` Water Level T Triaxial a + Plastic Limit — 12 NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily O1 representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. W Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 5 1 2110110 oi,lazd Asa MDR o 819609 16220 75th Place West ,.0 ,,>. ASSOCIATES tNc. Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 12 Figure 6 11]11.1 ]]N Ar. HE,A40a SMeniA C9wRr N�`+1 ]>41669 �~.VAe,z (' _..1wV.�—A a h ant 22 O 9 Page 2of 2 l - BORING LOG t B-2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 41 feet Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot-0) rn H Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50+ H Installation - Description L rn 0 3 v a o Z Ground Water Data Moisture Content Q. to . o E o c to U E t (Percent - 0) `o (Depth in Feet) 0 U) � 0 Z. 10 20 30 40 50 50+ m � J 3ray, iron -oxide stained silt with fine sand seams and ML ' race organics (soft to medium stiff, moist) ______ ________ _ 5 ... .......................... .. ......... ........ 5 'ray -Brown, iron oxide stained clayey silt with silty sand 6 ' teams (medium stiff/loose, moist to wet) ML 3ray clayey silt with fine sand seams and trace organics, blocky 11 >edded, (stiff, moist) ML I Gray, clayey silt w-Rh fine sand seams, blocky fractured 8 , cones slickensides (medium stiff, moist) ML Gray, clayey silt (stiff to very stiff, moist) 17 ' ML 15 ................... 15 (Gray, clayey silt with sand (stiff to very stiff, moist) P6 ML 20 .................................................. 20 L Zr— .ay, clayey sill with fine sand seams 431. , (hard, moist) ML25 ........................................ 25 Gray, bedded clayey slit with sand seams '(hard, moist) ML 56 , Boring terminated be ow existing grade at 27.5 feeton 1/16/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during drilling. LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content (� Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atterberg Limits Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis I with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Monument/ Cap = Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft Depth Driven and Amount Recovered Q Silica Sand P * Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial INOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement- They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number �� NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 1 2/10110 Oripinal t-Se MDR 819609 16220 75th Place West ASSOCIATES , INC.'` ,:�; n, Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 7 Jnil-135tl Av NE.Ab= SmM,i, Ct M/1.T5)SM166S �`.WA�erz �.�.Jc. �'�'e�„�A l.:sl.e6- 91F=481-nlo a hm nt 22 Page 1 of 1 0 N BORING LOG 0 m J B-3 .o v Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 61 feet o Soil Profile Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot- � J Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50 Installation - r ? -6 3 n o 4) 2 Ground Water Data Moisture Content Description o, a o B J o f o o c E- (Percent - �) o (Depth in Feet) C9 rn to U v>0 v a 10 20 30 40 50 50 3rown gray, clayey silt with sand and organic fragments, 7 sand tenses (medium stiff, moist to wet) 3-inches of red -brown sand with silt interbeds ML 7 1 with sand lenses 5 ... .................. .... 5 0.5-inch layer of organics at 5.5 feet 6 ' Becomes gray and Fractured �-----------------= 3ecomes blue -gray silt with trace sand, clay and organic — 11 ragments (stiff, moist) ulickensides at 9.0 feet --educed slickensides, no organics 8 Becomes very stiff, no slickensides 17 , ML15 ... ....... ...... .. ......... :... .... 15 Becomes hard 26 , 43 ' I.Boring terminated below existing grade at 24.0 feet on 1/25/10. Groundwater seepage was not encountered 25 ........ ......... ........ ••••••................... 25 during drilling. LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe Concrete M Moisture Content "g A Atterberg Limits —f Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite .o Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis I with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler-, Monument/ Cap Native Soil DS Direct Shear to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings, tons/ft 0 Silica Sand Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Li Liquid Limit P Sample Pushed IX with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial 10 e NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis andjudgement. They are not necessarily e representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. Project Number _� NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK o 819609 16220 75th Place West <s ;,• (. f u ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 vivid original use MDR o Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 8 17511.1051h An. NE. A.500 9ro1nn5vA C—ft(425)7341669 WAea072 Vhn . h-XNbn(509)6657696 e a nt 22 O Q C7 .) Page 1 Of 1 (425V•bOM1a+Ib, (486.166s IFu461Q510 larpeobAoom 0 N BORING LOG O . m B-4 J � v I m Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 60 feet o Penetration Resistance 0) Soil Profile Sample Data (Blows/foot - 0) c Piezometer 10 20 30 40 50 50 Installation - _ CL 3 o y Z m Ground Water Data Moisture Content Description n rn La _ �° o f c o m U E m- (Percent - �) O (Depth in Feet) I _ c7 to to 0v � 10 20 30 40 50 50 J 3rown gray,clayey silt with sand & organics(very soft,moist ML 2 .led-brownTiine to me7ium sand with 01 I(very loose, moist) SP-SM Becomes brown -gray, silty fine to medium sand with silt 4 , and sand lenses ( loose, moist) —. •• SM lecomes blue -gray clay with silt (sfiff, moist) 9 ' ` tith slickensides 9 ' A G Reduced slickensides 8 10 .... ..................................... 10 Becomes hard, no slickensides I 39 ' ML15 ...................................... ......... 15 I 46 ' 37 ' -Boring terminated below existing grade at 19.0 feet on 1125110. Groundwater seepage was not encountered 20 - — —:..... ....... 20 Iduring drilling. I- .I_ 25 ........ ..... 25 LEGEND ❑ Solid PVC Pipe ] Concrete M Moisture Content F] Slotted PVC Pipe Bentonite A Atierberg Limits 10 Depth Driven and Amount Recovered G Grain -size Analysis Monument/ Cap with 2-inch O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler Native Soil CIS Direct Shear 3 I to Piezometer PP Pocket Penetrometer Readings. tons/ ft Silica Sand Depth Driven and Amount Recovered * Liquid Limit P . Sample Pushed Ix ,with 3-inch Shelby Tube Sampler + Plastic Limit Water Level T Triaxial NOTE: Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgement. They are not necessarily $ representative of other times and locations. we cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK o 819609 1622075th Place West _<('-^ / ASSOCIATES, INC. t wano origirw LSS MDR N °c Boring Log GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 9 V311-135"A NE. k5 . sMMM1h ce J (421i 3] 1H3 W-d— A.M98072 NYnatdvMeeMNbn(509)66S]6'A 4W 1 F. 431-2510 h°^Y•nbd.pn a hm nt 22 O V 1 1 Page of 1425) 16" ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ • :. ;:�:�:EEEEEEEE:E:E:E: ��=�=JC�C-- Ci—=�=�C� • ��I�� • ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ • • - • _ • • ®®®0® •.1• • 1 - - Sieve Analysis rAsSOCIATES, INC. •: z o g, � J_ D o orn O o p II cU t4 m �2 O� 00 00 6 O,y 09 . N od 0+ w w 04, Qoe - Z O+ Q U �O ti �j9 +/d 1HJI3M AS 213NIJ 1N3 0 0 T 0 W I— w 2 J O J Z w N co Z_ I Q O 0 0 g U O J N w z LL 0 < O W O U w z LL J W U w J m m 0 U z o J_ 0 O o I I fn II (D > v U @� o c�C f)Fn Z O CL Y U U) U LU J � O U) U a T 0 N O m J 2 N w O QW (t) ti Z Q x 1 W co Q 00 d z X W J UQ in J ect Numbe i `., NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK "� "" �-- ASSOCIATES INC. R1 QR11G 1 AT?() 75jtn Place West Yh j�! �= I A ' 1 2110110 Original I_SB MDR 5 Typical Cut-off Drain Detail I(Groundwater Interceptor) I_ -I- I. 1- 2-inch washed rock Depth VariesrfX` N;�f��. (to be defined by NGA at the err time of construciton) 2 ft. min. 4- inch perforated pipe _I. NOTES: . The cut-off drain should be embedded at least one -foot into unweathered soils. I. The depth of the drain should be based on planned site grading and groundwater conditions. • Pipe should be sloped to drain at a minimum 2% grade. . For permanent installations, rigid pipe with accessible cleanouts should be used. • NGA should provide on -site consultation regarding location and depths of the drains. NOT TO SCALE Project Number_f N- NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 819609 16220 75th Place West ; <<1 ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 21t1/t0 original ZTD MDR Cut -Off Drain Detail GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 14 „Wt,d.A.,. 7.' 5-�'"''" ncpn 1'u'971�A a illll rit 22 N6 2514WIF. 4B,-2510 E........ 1 s NELSON GEOTECHNICAL N GA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Main Office 17311 — 135`n Ave NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County April 21, 2010 Mr. Mike and Ms. Nancy Gold 15225 14d' Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 —162°d Street SW Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 E. Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 RECEUVED JUN 112010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for the residential project located at 7510 — 162"d Street SW in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated February 12, 2010. For use in preparing this review, we have been provided with geotechnical engineering evaluations for properties near your projects,. which are on file with the City of Edmonds. These include a report by GeoEngineers, Inc. for the property at 16310 — 75`t' Place West, dated September 20, 1988, and reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 751h Place West, dated May 26, 1998, June 14, 1998, June 8, 2000, and October 30, 2000. We have been provided with three civil engineering plan sheets for the project by Donna L. Breske, PE, titled "Road; Drainage & TESC Details for Mike and Nancy Gold SFR" dated March 31, 2010, as well as "Grading, TESC & Profiles for Mike and Nancy Gold," and "Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for Mike Gold North House" both dated April 6, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets A-1 through A-7, titled "Gold Residence — North," by Randall J. Munson, dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets S-1 through S-5, titled "The Gold Residence — North," dated March 31, 2010, and structural calculations titled "Mike and Nancy Gold Residence Located at 7510 — 162nd St SW, Edmonds, WA," dated Attachment 23 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 —162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington April 21, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 March 15, 2010, by Reed & Associates, PS. We have been requested to review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. LITERATURE REVIEW The report titled "Geotechnical Consultation — Residential Site — 16300 Block, 75`h Place West — Meadowdale — Edmonds, Washington," by GeoEngineers (File No. 1403-01-2), dated September 20, 1988, provides an evaluation of the property south of your planned two -lot development. The surface conditions are described as moderate to steep west -northwest -facing slopes between 751h Place West and the railroad right-of-way, which are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Four test pits exposed a surficial layer of loose/soft silty sand/sandy silt extending to depths of 3 to 5 feet. Underlying the loose/soft soils, the test pits exposed stiff gray silt that increased in hardness with depth. No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. The subsurface conditions described by GeoEngineers are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties. The GeoEngineers report notes that the installation of sanitary sewers and storm drains in the Meadowdale slide area have lowered groundwater levels and reduced the landslide hazard. However, some risk of landsliding still exists. They concluded in 1985 that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. They noted that observations of groundwater levels in nearby monitoring wells during the course of their consultation for this project confirmed that the water table in the vicinity of the site had declined to levels commensurate with this lower risk. We concur with the GeoEngineers assessment of an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. The GeoEngineers report provided recommendations directed toward avoiding localized slope stability problems and minimizing damage to the residence in the event that significant movements occur. They recommended that site grading take place during periods of dry weather to minimize disturbance of the moisture sensitive soils on the site and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the time the soils were exposed. They recommended that the residence be set back at least 25 feet from the top of the steep slope along the west property boundary and that no fill be placed within 10 feet of the top of that slope. They recommended that surface water runoff from the roof and other impervious surfaces be collected and conducted via tightline off -site to a culvert beneath the railroad tracks. Since groundwater was not NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 23 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington April 21, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 encountered in the test pits, a system of subsurface cut-off drains was not considered necessary. Footing drains were recommended around the residence, which would also drain to the tightline and under the tracks west of the site. Foundations were to bear on the stiff native silt or on structural fill extending to the competent native soil, with a recommended design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). To accommodate possible ground movement they recommended that continuous spread footings be designed with sufficient stiffness to allow loss of support over a horizontal distance of 20 feet with minimal deflection, and that the design allow for loss of support at any one isolated spread footing. Alternatively, GeoEngineers recommended designing the foundation system as a "rigid box" that could sustain rotation or displacement without sustaining structural damage. The recommendations for soil parameters for the design of basement retaining walls were similar to the values presented in our report. The reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 75`h Place West, dated May 26 and June 14, 1998, and June 8 and October 30, 2000 provide an evaluation for a site approximately 200 to 300 feet north of your planned two -lot development. The surface conditions are described as a slope down from 750' Place West covered with blackberry brush and small shrubs, to the proposed building site, which is described as gently sloping down to the west and covered with long grass and small shrubs. These conditions are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Three geotechnical borings are described in the documents from Dodds Geosciences ranging in depth from approximately 24 to 34 feet in depth. The borings indicated that the site is underlain by 14 to 18 feet of soft to firm silts that are interlayered with sand lenses. The soft silt is compressible. Underlying the soft surficial soils, the Dodds report described stiff to very hard silty clay. The subsurface conditions described by Dodds Geosciences are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties, except their borings found that the soft surficial soils were deeper, and it seems that significantly more groundwater was encountered. Dodds Geosciences recommended drilled auger cast piles for a deep foundation system with a soldier pile wall to support the slope along the east side of the site. Their recommendations for soil parameters for basement retaining wall design were similar to the values presented in our report. 'Generally these two reports for residential projects near your properties encountered similar surface and subsurface conditions, with generally deeper soft soils and more groundwater described north of your NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 23 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 —162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington April 21, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 properties. We did not encounter significant groundwater within the planned building area or in the slope above. Our foundation recommendations included improving the subgrade with a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls. We recommended that isolated pad footings not be used and that all the foundation elements be structurally tied together as a unit. We recommended the residence be set back at least 20 feet from the top of the lower slope and that the downhill (west) footing lines be embedded at least four feet below grade. A design bearing pressure of 1,000 psf was recommended for the foundations. PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general accordance with our geotechnical report. The planned project will improve the control of stormwater runoff on the site, reduce slope inclinations at the toe of the upper slope, and employ retaining walls to support portions of the slope, all of which will improve stability of the site as long as the engineered systems are maintained. In our opinion the plans and specification prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In our opinion the erosion and sediment control plan is adequate with respect to site conditions and the findings of our report. The foundations are shown with a setback of at least 20 feet from the top of the steep slope in the western portion of the property as recommended in our report. The foundations were designed using a soil bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and are shown to bear on a two foot thick layer of rock spall structural fill as recommended in our report. The footings are shown to be embedded at least 18 inches below the surrounding grade, with 48-inch embedment on the west side of the structure as we recommended. The structural calculations indicate that footings and retaining walls were designed using a passive pressure of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), an unrestrained active pressure of 45 pcf, and a restrained active pressure of 65 pcf as recommended in our report. The coefficient of friction used in the calculations was 0.30 and is more conservative than our recommendation of 0.35. The reinforced concrete retaining walls are shown to extend three feet above the ground surface on the upslope (east) side of the residence to provide a catchment area in case shallow sloughing failures occur on the slopes above the residence. The plans indicate footing drains, consisting of a four -inch minimum diameter perforated pipe surrounded with washed rock and wrapped in filter fabric, are to be placed around the perimeter footings in accordance NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 23 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162 d Street SW Edmonds, Washington April 21, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 with our recommendations. The plans also include a capillary break and vapor barrier to be installed under slabs -on -grade where moisture control is important, as recommended in our geotechnical report. Grading plans indicate cuts and fills east and west of the residence to establish 3H:1 V slopes between small block walls. The reducedof the inclination of the lower section of the slope and removal of loose surficial soils should improve the stability of the slope. Keystone block walls less than four feet in height are indicated east and west of the planned residence. The plans note that Compac Keystone Block is to be used for these walls. However, we recommend that the walls be constructed with the larger Standard 21.5-inch Keystone Block and we understand that the civil engineer has amended the wall sections on the plans to indicate use of the larger block. We have included design calculations for walls less than four feet tall with this letter. Drains are indicated behind the walls, which connect to the storm drain system. It may be necessary to install jute netting or other erosion control systems on the slopes depending on the conditions encountered during construction. Cuts of up to nine feet are indicated for the eastern portion of the garage retaining walls. The garage walls have been designed to support the slope in this area. We should monitor the excavation to evaluate slope stability and make recommendations for shoring if needed. MINIMUM RISK STATEMENT Provided that the recommendations in this letter and the geotechnical report dated February 12, 2010 are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement. CLOSURE We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 23 Literature and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162°d Street SW Edmonds, Washington April 21, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. `I/z�/zvw Michael D. Rundquist, PE Project Manager MDR:lam One Copy Submitted cc: Robert Hughs — Reed and Associates, PS (Three Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 23 r4d, STONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3.5.1 Build 124 Project: Mike Gold Project No: 819609 Case: Case 1 Design Method: Rankine-wMatter (modified soil interface) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: & c Retained Zone 26 0 Foundation Soil 26 0 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 pullout: 1.50 overturning: 1.50 shear: 1.50 bearing: 2.00 bending: 1.50 AnalysisNew Case Unit Type: Standard 21.5" / 120.00 pcf Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 3.66 ft BackSlope: 20.00 deg. slope, Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Date: 412012010 Designer: MDR uncertainties: 1.50 connection: 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.00 it 10.00 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.77 1.55 3.20 N/A N/A Calculated Bearing Pressure: 566 / 566 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft NOTE: THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARYDESIGN ONLYAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER � ,��,sv�0 J �y N �10Np1.,FTtG CXpini (n Date 4/23/2010 Pa 1 Attachment 23 - < N Main Office 17311 — I35t° Ave NE, A-500 Wondinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 . FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County May 4, 2010 Mr. Mike and Ms. Nancy Gold 15225 14" Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 NELSON GEOTECHHICAIL Ass®CIATF.s, INC. GEOTEC14NICAL. ENGINEERS 8c GEOLOGISTS Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-75"h Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 E. Peiuiy Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 PIT 0 JUN 112010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for the residential project located at 16200-75`" Place West in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated February 12, 2010. For use in preparing this review, we have been provided with geotechnical engineering evaluations for properties near your projects, which are on file with the City of Edmonds. These include a report by GeoEngineers, Inc. for the property at 16310 — 75'" Place West, dated September 20, 1988, and reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 75'h Place West, dated May 26, 1998, June 14, 1998, June 8, 2000, and October 30, 2000. Donna L. Breske, PE, has provided us with three civil engineering plan sheets for the project. Sheet 1 of 3, titled "Grading, TESC & Profiles for Mike and Nancy Gold," is undated. Sheet 2 of 3 is titled "Road, Drainage & TESC Details for Mike and Nancy Gold SFR" and is dated April 6, 2010, and sheet 3 of 3 is titled "Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for Mike Gold South House" dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets A-1 through A-8, tided "Gold Residence — South," by Randall J. Munson, dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with plan sheets S-1 through S-5, titled "The Gold Residence — South," dated March 31, 2010, and structural calculations titled "Mike and Nancy Gold Residence (South) — Attachment 24 Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-75`s Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 Site Address: 16200-75s Place West, Edmonds, WA," dated March 31, 2010, by Reed & Associates, PS. We have been requested to review geotecb.Wcal aspects of the provided plans and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. LITERATURE REVIEW The report titled "Geotecbnical Consultation — Residential Site — 16300 Block, 75 h Place West — Meadowdale — Edmonds, Washington," by GeoEngineers (file No. 1403-01-2), dated September 20, 1988, provides an evaluation of the property south of your planned two -lot development. The surface conditions are described as moderate to steep west -northwest -facing slopes between 75`s Place West and the railroad right-of-way, which are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Four test pits exposed a surficial layer of loose/soft silty sand/sandy silt extending to depths of three to five feet. Underlying the loose/soft soils, the test pits exposed stiff gray silt that increased in hardness with depth. No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. The subsurface conditions described by GeoEngineers are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties. The GeoEngineers report indicates that a landslide encompassing these properties occurred during the winter of 1946-47, and notes that the installation of sanitary sewers and storm drains in the Meadowdale slide area have lowered groundwater levels and reduced the landslide hazard. However, some risk of landsliding still exists. They concluded in 1985 that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. They noted that observations of groundwater levels in nearby monitoring wells during the course of their consultation for this project confirmed that the water table in the vicinity of the site had declined to levels commensurate with this lower risk. We concur with the GeoEngineers assessment of an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. The GeoEngineers report provided recommendations directed toward avoiding localized slope stability problems and minimizing damage to the residence in the event that significant movements occur. They recommended that site grading take place during periods of dry weather to mhiiir&e disturbance of the moisture sensitive soils on the site and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the time the soils were exposed. They recommended that the residence be set back at least 25 feet from the top of the steep slope along the west property boundary and that no fill be placed within 10 feet of the top of that slope. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 24 Literature and Plan Review better 16200-75s' Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 They recommended that surface water runoff from the roof and other impervious surfaces be collected and conducted via tightline off site to a culvert beneath the railroad tracks. Since groundwater was not encountered in the test pits, a system of subsurface cut-off drains was not considered necessary. Footing drains were recommended around the residence, which would also drain to the tightline and under the tracks west of the site. Foundations were to bear on the stiff native silt or on structural fill extending to the competent native soil, with a recommended design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psi). To accommodate possible ground movement, they recommended that continuous spread footings be designed with sufficient stiffness to allow loss of support over a horizontal distance of 20 feet with minimal deflection, and that the design allow for loss of support at any one isolated spread footing. Alternatively, GcoEngineers recommended designing the foundation system as a "rigid box' that could sustain rotation or displacement without sustaining structural damage. The recommendations for soil parameters for the design of basement retaining walls were similar to the values presented in our report. The reports and letters by Dodds Geosciences, Inc. for the property at 160XX — 75`s Place West, dated May 26 and June 14, 1998, and June 8 and October 30, 2000 provide an evaluation for a site approximately 200 to 300 feet north of your planned two4ot development. The surface conditions are described as a slope down from 75"' Place West covered with blackberry brush and small shrubs, to the proposed building site, which is described as gently sloping down to the west and covered with long grass and small shrubs. These conditions are similar to the surface conditions on your properties. Three geotechnical borings are described in the documents from Dodds Geosciences ranging in depth from approximately 24 to 34 feet in depth. The borings indicated that the site is underlain by 14 to 18 feet of soft to firm silts that are interlayered with sand lenses. The soft silt is compressible. Underlying the soft surficial soils, the Dodds report described stiff to very hard silty clay. The subsurface conditions described by Dodds Geosciences are similar to the conditions encountered by our geotechnical borings on your properties, except their borings found that the soft surficial soils were deeper, and it seems that significantly more groundwater was encountered. Dodds Geosciences recommended drilled auger cast piles for a deep foundation system with a soldier pile wall to support the slope along the east side of the site. Their recommendations for soil parameters for basement retaining wall design were similar to the values presented in our report. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 24 Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-75`h Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 Generally these two reports for residential projects near your properties encountered similar surface and subsurface conditions, with generally deeper soft soils and more groundwater described north of your properties. We did not encounter significant groundwater within the planned building area or in the slope above. Our foundation recommendations included improving the subgrade with a two -foot thick layer of rock spalls. We recommended that isolated pad footings not be used and that all the foundation elements be structurally tied together as a unit. We recommended the residence be set back at least 20 feet from the top of the lower slope and that the downhill (west) footing lines be embedded at least four feet below grade. A design bearing pressure of 1,000 psf was recommended for the foundations. PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general accordance with our geotcehnical report. The planned project will improve the control of stormwater runoff on the site, reduce slope inclinations at the toe of the upper slope, and employ retaining walls to support portions of the slope, all of which will improve stability of the site as long as the engineered systems are maintained. In our opinion the plans and specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report. In our opinion the erosion and sediment control plan is adequate with respect to site conditions and the findings of our report. The foundations are shown with a setback of at least 20 feet from the top of the steep slope in the western portion of the property as recommended in our report. The foundations were designed using a soil bearing pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and are shown to bear on a two foot thick layer of rock spall structural fill as recommended in our report. The footings are shown to be embedded at least 18 inches below the surrounding grade, with 48-inch embedment on the west side of the structure as we recommended. The structural calculations indicate that footings and retaining walls were designed using a passive pressure of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), an unrestrained active pressure of 45 pef, and a restrained active pressure of 65 pef as recommended in our report. The coefficient of friction used in the calculations was 0.30 and is more conservative than our recommendation of 0.35. The reinforced concrete retaining walls are shown to extend three feet above the ground surface on the upslope (east) side of the residence to provide a catchment area in case shallow sloughing failures occur on the slopes above the residence. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 24 Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-75lh Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 The plans indicate footing drains, consisting of a four -inch minimum diameter perforated pipe surrounded with washed rock and wrapped in filter fabric, are to be placed around the perimeter footings in accordance with our recommendations. The plans also include a capillary break and vapor barrier to be installed under slabs -on -grade where moisture control is important, as recommended in our geotechnical report. Grading plans indicate cuts and fills east and west of the residence to establish 311:1 V slopes between small block walls. The reduced inclination of the lower section of the slope and removal of loose surficial soils should improve the stability of the slope. Keystone block walls less than four feet in height are indicated east and west of the planned residence. The plans note that Compac Keystone Block is to be used for these walls. However, we recommend that the walls be constructed with the larger Standard 21.5-inch Keystone Block and we understand that the civil engineer has amended the wall sections on the plans to indicate use of the larger block. We have included design calculations for walls less than four feet tall with this letter. Drains are indicated behind the walls, which connect to the storm drain system. It may be necessary to install jute netting or other erosion control systems on the slopes depending on the conditions encountered during construction. Structural fill placement is planned for a driveway on the slope east of the planned residence. The plans indicate that the subgrade for the driveway fill will be benched into competent native soil on the slope, and imported granular material will be used for the structural fill. Cuts of up to nine feet are indicated for the eastern portion of the garage retaining walls. The garage walls have been designed to support the slope in this area. We should monitor the excavation to evaluate slope stability and make recommendations for shoring if needed. MINMUM RISK STATEMENT Provided that the recommendations in this letter and the geotechnical report dated February 12, 2010 are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 24 Literature and Plan Review Letter 16200-75`b Place West Edmonds, Washington May 4, 20I0 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 CLOSURE We recommcnd that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely; NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. - 5 • z c�rr:�•nu� Michael D. Rundquist, PE Project Manager MDR:lam One Copy Submitted cc: Robert Hughs — Reed and Associates, PS (Three Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 24 . � STONE nFrni�aswausrsrEus RETAR41NG WALL DESIGN Version 3.5.1 Build 124 Project: Mike Gold Project No: 819609 Case: Case I Design Method: Rankine-wMatter. (modified soil interface) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: A c Retained Zone 26 0 Foundation Soil 26 0 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 pullout: 1.50 overturning: 1.50 shear: 1.50 bearing: 2.00 bending: 1.50 AnalysisNew Case Unit Type: Leveling Pad: WallHt: BackSlope: Surcharge: Standard 21.5" / 120.00 pcf Crashed Stone 3.66 is 20.00 deg. slope, LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Date: 412012010 Designer: MDR uncertainties: 1.50 connection: 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.00 ft 10.00 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load width: 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearin Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.77 1.55 3.20 N/A N/A Calculated Bearing Pressure: 5661566psf Eccentricity at base: 0.36 ft NOTE.' THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRE' UMVARY.DESIGN ONLYAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WFFHOUTRE, PIEW BYA QUALIMED ENGINEER Data 5/4/2010 Page 1 Attachment 24 o- t NELSON RESUB GEOTECHNICALJUL 2q 2010 NUAASSOCIATES, INC. SL„LONI W„ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Main Office 17311 — 135'" Ave NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County July 23, 2010 Mike and Nancy Gold 15225 14°i Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 —162nd Street SW Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 E. Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 This letter presents our response to the geoteclviical engineering peer review memorandum from Landau Associates and our review of the revised plans for the residential project located at 7510 — 162"d Street SW in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated February 12, 2010 and a literature and plan review letter dated April 21, 2010. For use in the preparation of this letter we have been provided with a copy of a technical memorandum prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division, dated June 18, 2010. The memorandum provides a geotechnical peer review for the permit package submitted for your proposed residence at 7510 — 162"d Street SW, which is located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW MEMORANDUM The Landau Associates memorandum notes that the site is located within the ESLHA where large-scale, deep-seated failures have been documented, and that the site is within the area affected by a landslide during the winter of 1946-47, as documented in a study by Dames and Moore in 1968. Landau Associates Attachment 25 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 —162nd Street SW Edmonds, Washington July 23, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 recommend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be reevaluated and addressed in the design recommendations. Landau Associates also recommended that the geotechnical Minimum Risk Statement be revised to specify risks from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures, and to render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed improvements. Landau Associates noted that vegetation management would be important for surficial slope stability and erosion control as recommended in our report. They recommend that the applicant provide an additional detail regarding landscaping plans for review by the City of Edmonds. Landau Associates recommended that the lateral earth pressure design values for retaining walls be revised to include the surcharges based on the ground configuration shown on the grading plans. RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS The site is located within the ESLHA and we discussed the 1946-47 landslide in our literature and plan review letter dated April 21, 2010. We referred to a report prepared for the residential property adjacent to the south side of the Gold property by GeoEngineers, dated September 20, 1988. The GeoEngineers report indicated that a landslide encompassing these properties occurred during the winter of 1946-47, and noted that the headscarp was located approximately 400 feet east of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. A report by Roger Lowe Associates, dated October 16, 1979, identified a landslide hazard in this area from movement of previously failed material and stated that there was a 90 percent probability of such a failure occurring during a 25 year period. GeoEngineers noted that the installation of sanitary sewers and storm drains by the City of Edmonds had since lowered groundwater levels in the area and reduced the landslide hazard. However, GeoEngineers stated that some risk of landsliding still exists. GeoEngineers concluded in a 1985 large-scale study of the area, that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. We did not find documentation of other slides in the area around the Gold property since the 1946-47 event, including the winter of 1996-97 when significant slides occurred throughout the Puget Sound Region. GeoEngineers noted that observations of groundwater levels NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 25 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington July 23, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 in nearby monitoring wells during the course of their consultation for the adjacent residential project confirmed that the water table in the vicinity of the site had declined to levels commensurate with this lower risk. Based on the similar soil and groundwater conditions in our explorations, we concur with GeoEngineers assessment of an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period for the 7510 — 162"d Street SW property. With the studies of the ESLHA and the drainage improvements to reduce the risk of landsliding, the City of Edmonds is allowing cautious development within this area. The landslide hazard for this site is addressed in the design recommendations and plans for this project as drainage and grading improvements to reduce the potential for landslides on this property. The drainage improvements are designed to collect surface water runoff and near surface groundwater and remove it from the site. The grading improvements include removal of a portion of the loose surficial soil from the site slopes, retaining walls to support the slopes, reinforced concrete walls extending above the ground surface to provide catchment areas for debris in case sliding would occur, and a landscaping plan to provide ground cover and improve the stability of the slope. The foundation elements of the residence will be structurally tied together and will not use isolated footings. The Gold residence has been designed to reduce the potential for landsliding on this property, and to resist landslides if they would occur. However, if deep-seated large-scale landsliding were to occur within the overall site vicinity due to environmental factors such as prolonged extreme wet weather and/or a significant earthquake, many residences in this area could be damaged or destroyed. It is not practical for an individual lot owner to eliminate the potential for deep-seated large-scale landsliding in this area. In our opinion, the local community and the City of Edmonds acting together have significantly reduced the potential for landslides in this area. In our opinion, based on the site conditions found in our explorations and the large- scale studies of the ESLHA by others, there is currently an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period for the 7510 — 162"d Street SW property. This probability should be reduced after the residence has been constructed in accordance with the plans and the recommendations in our report. A landscaping plan has been developed for the project by The Jay Group, INC, and is being submitted to the City of Edmonds. The landscape plan does not include an automatic irrigation system, and as recommended NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 25 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington July 23, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 in the Landau Associates memorandum, we note that automatic irrigation systems are precluded in the ESLHA. Based on the planned site configuration, we recommend that retaining walls, that will support an 18-degree (33-percent) backslope and are not subjected to hydrostatic forces, be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 60 pound per cubic foot (pcf) for yielding (active condition) walls. 191/10U? JAVA' For use in preparing this review, we have been provided with three civil engineering plan sheets for the project by Donna L. Breske, PE, titled "Road, Drainage & TESC Details for Mike and Nancy Gold SFR;" "Grading, TESC & Profiles for Mike and Nancy Gold;" and "Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for Mike Gold North House," all dated April 20, 2010. We have been provided with revised plan sheets A-1 through A-7, titled "Gold Residence — North," by Randall J. Munson, dated March 31, 2010. We have been provided with revised plan sheets S-1 through S-5, titled "The Gold Residence — North," dated March 31, 2010, and structural calculations for the east cantilevered retaining wall, revised July 1, 2010, by Reed & Associates, PS. We have also been provided with Sheets L-1 through L-4 titled "Gold Residence south Lot Revegetation Plan," dated May 25, 2010, by The Jay Group, Inc. We have been requested to review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general accordance with our geotechnical report. The structural calculations indicate that east cantilevered retaining walls were designed using an unrestrained active pressure of 60 pcf, as recommended. Cuts of up to ten feet are indicated for the eastern portion of the garage retaining walls. We should monitor the excavation to evaluate slope stability and make recommendations for shoring, if needed. CLOSURE We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 25 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162nd Street SW Edmonds, Washington July 23, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. ••• NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 25 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 7510 — 162"d Street SW Edmonds, Washington July 23, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael D. Rundquist, PE Project Manager MDR:kmn One Copy Submitted cc: Robert Hughes — Reed and Associates, PS (Three Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 25 N Main Office 17311 — 135'n Ave NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County August 25, 2010 Mike and Nancy Gold 15225 14'h Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 NELSON GEOTECH]NICAL AssoCIATEs, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS RESUB AUG 27 2010 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 819609 Dear Mr. and Ms. Gold: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 E. Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509)665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 10, This letter presents our response to the geotechnical engineering peer review memorandum from Landau Associates and our review of the revised plans for the residential project located at 16200-75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. INTRODUCTION We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated February 12, 2010 and a literature and plan review letter dated May 4, 2010. For use in the preparation of this letter we have been provided with a copy of a technical memorandum prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division, dated June 18, 2010. The memorandum provides a geotechnical peer review for the permit package submitted for your proposed residence at 16200- 75th Place West, which is located within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW MEMORANDUM The Landau Associates memorandum notes that the site is located within the ESLHA where large-scale, deep-seated failures have been documented, and that the site is within the area affected by a landslide during the winter of 1946-47, as documented in a study by Dames and Moore in 1968. Landau Associates Attachment 26 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington August 25, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 2 recommend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be reevaluated and addressed in the design recommendations. Landau Associates also recommended that the geotechnical Minimum Risk Statement be revised to specify risks from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures, and to render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed improvements. Landau Associates noted that vegetation management would be important for surficial slope stability and erosion control as recommended in our report. They recommend that the applicant provide an additional detail regarding landscaping plans for review by the City of Edmonds. Landau Associates recorrunended that the lateral earth pressure design values for retaining walls be revised to include the surcharges based on the ground configuration shown on the grading plans. RESPONSES TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS The site is located within the ESLHA and we discussed the 1946-47 landslide in our literature and plan review letter dated May 4, 2010. We referred to a report prepared for the residential property adjacent to the south side of the Gold property by GeoEngineers, dated September 20, 1988. The GeoEngineers report indicated that a landslide encompassing these properties occurred during the winter of 1946-47, and noted that the headscarp was located approximately 400 feet east of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. A report by Roger Lowe Associates, dated October 16, 1979, identified a landslide hazard in this area from movement of previously failed material and stated that there was a 90 percent probability of such a failure occurring during a 25 year period. GeoEngineers noted that the installation of sanitary sewers and storm drains by the City of Edmonds had since lowered groundwater levels in the area and reduced the landslide hazard. However, GeoEngineers stated that some risk of landsliding still exists. GeoEngineers concluded in a 1985 large-scale study of the area, that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period. We did not find documentation of other slides in the area around the Gold property since the 1946-47 event, including the winter of 1996-97 when significant slides occurred throughout the Puget Sound Region. GeoEngineers noted that observations of groundwater levels NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 26 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington August 25, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 3 in nearby monitoring wells during the course of their consultation for the adjacent residential project confirmed that the water table in the vicinity of the site had declined to levels commensurate with this lower risk. Based on the similar soil and groundwater conditions in our explorations, we concur with GeoEngineers assessment of an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period for the 16200-75th Place West property. With the studies of the ESLHA and the drainage improvements to reduce the risk of landsliding, the City of Edmonds is allowing cautious development within this area. The landslide hazard for this site is addressed in the design recommendations and plans for this project as drainage and grading improvements to reduce the potential for landslides on this property. The drainage improvements are designed to collect surface water runoff and near surface groundwater and remove it from the site. The grading improvements include removal of a portion of the loose surficial soil from the site slopes, retaining walls to support the slopes, reinforced concrete walls extending above the ground surface to provide catchment areas for debris in case sliding would occur, and a landscaping plan to provide ground cover and improve the stability of the slope. The foundation elements of the residence will be structurally tied together and will not use isolated footings. The Gold residence has been designed to reduce the potential for landsliding on this property, and to resist landslides if they would occur. However, if deep-seated large-scale landsliding were to occur within the overall site vicinity due to environmental factors such as prolonged extreme wet weather and/or a significant earthquake, many residences in this area could be damaged or destroyed. It is not practical for an individual lot owner to eliminate the potential for deep-seated large-scale landsliding in this area. In our opinion, the local community and the City of Edmonds acting together have significantly reduced the potential for landslides in this area. In our opinion, based on the site conditions found in our explorations and the large- scale studies of the ESLHA by others, there is currently an approximate 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period for the 16200-75th Place West property. This probability should be reduced after the residence has been constructed in accordance with the plans and the recommendations in our report. A landscaping plan has been developed for the project by The Jay Group, Inc. and is being submitted to the City of Edmonds. The landscape plan does not include an automatic irrigation system, and as recommended NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 26 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington August 25, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 4 in the Landau Associates memorandum, we note that automatic irrigation systems are precluded in the ESLHA. Based on the planned site configuration, we recommend that retaining walls that will support an 18-degree (33-percent) backslope and are not subjected to hydrostatic forces, be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 60 pound per cubic foot (pcf) for yielding (active condition) walls. PLAN REVIEW For use in preparing this review, we have been provided with three civil engineering plan sheets for the project by Donna L. Breske, PE, titled "Grading, TESC & Profiles for Mike Gold;" "Road, Drainage, TESC Details & Utilities for Mike and Nancy Gold SFR;" and "Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for Mike Gold South House" all dated April 20, 2010. We have been provided with revised plan sheets A-1 through A-8, titled "Gold Residence — South," by Randall J. Munson, dated July 28, 2010. We have been provided with revised plan sheets S-1 through S-5, titled "The Gold Residence — South," dated July 28, 2010, and structural calculations for the east cantilevered retaining wall, revised July 1, 2010, by Reed & Associates, PS. We have also been provided with Sheets L-1 through L-4 titled "Gold Residence South Lot Revegetation Plan," dated May 25, 2010, by The Jay Group, Inc. We have been requested to review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general accordance with our geotechnical report. The structural calculations indicate that east cantilevered retaining walls were designed using an unrestrained active pressure of 60 pcf, as recommended. Cuts of up to ten feet are indicated for the eastern portion of the garage retaining walls. We should monitor the excavation to evaluate slope stability and make recommendations for shoring, if needed. CLOSURE We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 26 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington August 25, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 5 recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. elm NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 26 Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter 16200-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington August 25, 2010 NGA File No. 819609 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. P� o� `S �4 G� e� - do OG �Z•S' �a R e 414�154 TONAL' EXPIRES Michael D. Rundquist, PE Project Manager MDR:kmn One Copy Submitted cc: Robert Hughes — Reed and Associates, PS (Four Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 26 AALANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ENVIROMA&MIGEo, I MIURAL RECCES TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. DATE: June 18, 2010 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA GOLD (NORTH) SFR — 7510162ND STREET SW EDMONDs, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. The purpose of this geotechnical peer review was to review portions of the submittal package and assess its compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80. This geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 10-04 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received the following information forwarded by the City for review: • Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, 16220 7YPlace W, Edmonds, Washi'?8011, Prepared for Mike and Nancy Gold. Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2010. • Literature and Plan Review Letter, 7510 162,d Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819600. Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated April 21, 2010. • Site Plan, Project Data, Index of Drawings and Vicinity Map (Sheet A-1), prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, dated March 31, 2010. • Civil Engineering Drawings (3 sheets, including Grading,. TESC & Profiles; Road, Drainage & TESC Details; and Clearing and Tree Removal Plans), prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 15, 2010. • Direct Drahuage Discharge to Puget Sound, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, dated April 5, 2010. • Grading Quantig, Calculations for Michael and Nancy Gold North Hoarse, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 15, 2010, • Boundary & Topographic Survey for Mike Gold, prepared by David West & Company, PLLC, dated September 11, 2009. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com Attachment 27 • Vicinity Map, undated. • Structural Plans (5 sheets including Sl through SS), prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated April 23, 2010. • Architectural Plan Set (6 Sheets, including Sheets A-2 through A-7) prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, dated March 31, 2010. • North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Map (with property location noted and signed certification as to property location), by Michael Gold and Robert J. Hughes, dated April 21 and 26, 2010. • City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist, prepared by Donna L. Breske, dated April 20, 2010. • Determination regarding Critical Areas Checklist CRA20100031, letter prepared by City of Edmonds Development Services Department, dated April 2, 2010. • Civil Engineer's Statement of Risk for Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 22, 2010. • Structural Engineer Declaration, SFR to be Constructed at 7510 162"" Street SW, Edmonds, WA, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement, letter signed by Michael R. Gold and Nancy M. Gold, dated March, 2010. • Covenant of Notification and hrdemnification / Hold Harmless, signed by Mike and Nancy Gold, dated April 21, 2010. The following sections provide our review comments. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Note that one geotechnical report, prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) dated February 12, 2010, addresses the proposed development of two adjacent lots: 7510 162nd Street SW (the subject of this review) and 16220 75`s Place W (the property immediately to the south). The geotechnical report provides a reasonably comprehensive evaluation and discussion of site conditions and risks, and provides geotechnical recommendations for design. However, we note that as stated within their Seismic Hazard section of their report, detailed on page 6, that "the competent cohesive soils interpreted to form the core of the site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated failure." This interpretation is further stated within the Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability section of their report, detailed on page 7, that "there is not a significant potential for deep-seated failure under current 6/18/2010 L.ANDAuAssocIATES 2 Attachment 27 site conditions." We respectfully disagree that these statements adequately portray the documented large- scale, deep-seated failure mode that is documented to exist within the ESLHA. The Landau Associates summary report (2007), that is referenced in the NGA geotechnical report, also lists a study completed by Dames and Moore in 1968 which documents large scale landslides in 1947 and 1955-56. The Landau Associates (2007) summary report notes that in 1947 a large slide occurred south of the existing wharf and measured between 800 to greater than 2,400 ft long, with impacts extending up to about 1,000 ft eastward from the shoreline. The Gold property is located within the area affected by that major landslide according to mapping in the Dames and Moore (1968) report. Newspaper accounts from that time period indicate that four homes were completely destroyed, some additional homes were abandoned, and many others were significantly damaged. Photos accompanying the newspaper article are particularly compelling as to the extent of damage to the structures. It is more than likely than not that the upper 12 ft or greater, medium stiff to stiff, soils encountered within the recent NGA borings constitute slide debris soils. We also note that NGA observed slickensides in each boring "at depths ranging from about 7 to 12 feet, and as deep as 19 feet in B-1" which further supports potential past, deep-seated slide movement activities. We recommend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be re- evaluated and addressed in the design recommendations. The geotechnical report recommends that future vegetation management on the slope be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City. We concur that vegetation management is an important component in helping to maintain surficial slope stability and limit the potential for erosion. We recommend that the applicant provide additional detail regarding future landscaping plans so that the City can confirm that there is long-term plan for vegetation management beyond the measures needed for basic planting that would follow the temporary erosion and sediment control requirements. It would be appropriate that such a plan integrate common techniques to incorporate vegetation that is well -suited for protection of slopes and that does not require extensive irrigation for survival. It would also be appropriate to remind the applicant that automatic landscape irrigation systems are precluded within the ESLHA. The geotechnical report provides lateral earth pressures for retaining walls (page 16). The recommended lateral earth pressures are noted to apply to a horizontal ground surface behind the wall and the report recommends that the earth pressures be revised for other ground or surcharge loading conditions. The ground surface behind the garage retaining wall is sloping. We recommend that the lateral earth pressure design recommendations be revisited by the geotechnical engineer and revised to address the ground configuration shown on the grading plans. 6/18/2010 P^074U641Fil.RoondR\DmhPee,Review_tm6-1l-IO.doe LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 Attachment 27 STRUCTURAL PLANS Sheet S-1 provides the basis of the structural design and we note that the structural engineer has used the lateral earth pressure and bearing values as provided in the geotechnical report. However, the geotechnical report states that the lateral earth pressure provided in the report applies to horizontal ground behind retaining walls. These lateral earth pressure values may not be appropriate for sloping ground, such as adjacent to the garage retaining wall (see previous comments regarding the geotechnical report). If the geotechnical engineer revises the lateral earth pressures to accommodate sloping ground, then it may be necessary to modify the structural design of the retaining wall accordingly. The foundation plan on Sheet S-2 provides the foundation layout and callout for footing details (F1 through F8). Five footing details (1 through 5) are provided on Sheet S-2 and four footing details (1 through 4) are provided on Sheet S-5. The numbering system and call outs for footing details need to be clarified so that there is not confusion as to which footing detail applies to which location. CIVIL PLANS Inspection, maintenance, and regular reporting of TESC measures by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record are required [see the City of Edmonds ESLHA Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. The pre -construction meeting needs to include the Geotechnical Engineer of Record [see City of Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. We recommend that the notes be revised accordingly. On Sheet 2, it is not clear that the perforated drains located behind the retaining walls and that surround the house foundation are to be connected to the nearby drainage system. It is not evident where the perforated drain pipe below the lower retaining wall (west of the house) will be discharged, as no drainage pipe is shown at this location. Please clarify that retaining wall drainage pipes are to be connected to the site drainage system and clearly indicate those connection locations. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST We note some incorrect statements in the Environmental Checklist section B.1. (Earth). Revisions or clarifications should be made as appropriate to address the following issues. In subsection b, we note that the maximum slope is not 36 percent as stated. The geotechnical report (NGA February 12, 2100) indicates that 36 percent is the overall slope inclination and actual slope inclinations range from 18 to 50 percent, with a small area on the east side of the property of about 100 percent. 6/18/2010 P:1074%1611FikRmmVtlDmf[PeerReview_ini 6. 11.10 w LANDAu AssocIATE$ 4 Attachment 27 In subsection d, the checklist states that there are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. This is incorrect. The property is located within a well -documented landslide zone and the property and surrounding area is within the designated North Edmonds ESLHA. In subsection e, the stated quantities of cut and fill do not seem to be consistent with the quantities stated elsewhere in the permit submittal package. REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS We reviewed the submittal package and confirmed that the statements and declarations from the design professional as required by the City for development within the ESLHA which include the following documents: • Literature and Plan Review Letter, 7510 162nd Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819600. Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., (includes a Geotechnical Hazard Identification/Declaration and Mitigation Statement of Risk), dated April 21, 2010. • Structural Engineer Declaration, SFR to be Constructed at 7510 162" `r Street SW, Edmonds, WA, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement, letter signed by Michael R. Gold and Nancy M. Gold, dated March, 2010. In general, the statements and declarations have been appropriately addressed with the exception of the Minimum Risk Statement contained in the NGA April 21, 2010 document. We recommend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be re-evaluated. As detailed in ECDC 23.80 `for sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks from deep-seated or large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by individual lot owners, the statement shall identify what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development. The statement shall specify any risks from earth movement that are not fidly mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed improventents. 629/1010 P:\074kl64\FileRuumVd\DraftPecrRevicw im&11-10.&c LANDAU ASSOCIATES 5 Attachment 27 In subsection d, the checklist states that there are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. This is incorrect. The property is located within a well -documented landslide zone and the property and surrounding area is within the designated North Edmonds ESLHA. In subsection e, the stated quantities of cut and fill do not seem to be consistent with the quantities stated elsewhere in the permit submittal package. REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS We reviewed the submittal package and confirmed that the statements and declarations from the design professional as required by the City for development within the ESLHA which include the following documents: • Literature and Plan Review Letter, 7510 162nd Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819600. Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., (includes a Geotechnical Hazard Identification/Declaration and Mitigation Statement of Risk), dated April 21, 2010. • Structural Engineer Declaration, SFR to be Constructed at 7510 162nd Street SW, Edmonds, WA, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement, letter signed by Michael R. Gold and Nancy M. Gold, dated March, 2010. In general, the statements and declarations have been appropriately addressed with the exception of the Minimum Risk Statement contained in the NGA April 21, 2010 document. We recommend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be re-evaluated. As detailed in ECDC 23.80 `for sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks from deep-seated or large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by individual lot owners, the statement shall identify what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development. The statement shall specify any risks from earth movement that are not fully mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed improvements. 6122/1010 P:1074\164\FileRmiuNR\DmftPccrRevicw—un611-IO.doc t.ANDAuAssocIATE$ 5 I__ 111"1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ENMCNMEMM I GEOTECHNC4 I NA➢1M RESOURCES TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division " � AUG� 1 701 FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. I�lil` OG �'•i1!3S DATE: August 27, 2010 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA GOLD (NORTH) SFR - 751016211D STREET SW EDMONDS, WASHINGTON BLD20100314 This technical memorandum provides our supplemental geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was resubmitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. The purpose of this geotechnical peer review was to review portions of the resubmitted permit package and assess its compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80 and our previous geotechnical peer review comments. Landau Associates provided geotechnical peer review comments for this project in a technical memorandum to the City dated June 18, 2010. This supplemental geotechnical peer review was accomplished to review the resubmitted package and was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 10-09 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have, received the following supplemental information forwarded by the City for review: • Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter, 7510162nd Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, Prepared for Mike and Nancy Gold. Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2010. • Site Plait, Project Data, Index of Drawings and Vicinity Map (Sheet A-1), prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, revision date July 21, 2010. • Civil Engineering Drawings (3 sheets, including Grading, TESC and Profiles; Road, Drainage and TESC Details; fund Clearing and Tree Removal Plans), prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., revision date June 25, 2010. • Structural Plains (5 sheets uncludnng S1 through S5), prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, revision date July 21, 2010. • Architectural Plan Set (6 Sheets, including Sheets A-2 through A-7) prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, revision date July 21, 2010. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com Attachment 28 • Gold Residence North Lot Revegetation Plan, prepared by The Jay Group, dated May 25, 2010. • City of Edmonds Environtnental Checklist, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., revision date July 5, 2010. • Response to Gold Review Comments for SFR located at 7510 162nd Street SW, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated June 25, 2010. • SCQ Minimum Requirements 2-10 per ECDC 18.30.060.B, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated June 25, 2010. • Gold Residence (North), Response to Planning Division plan review comment letter date June 8, 2010, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated July 7, 2010. • Gold Residence (North), Response to Plan Review Comment letter dated June 11, 2010 for property located at 7510 162°`t Street SW, Edmonds, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated July 7, 2010. • City of Edmonds Record of Lot Line Adjustment, dated July 29, 2010. Our review of the resubmitted permit package indicates that our previous review comments have been addressed. The letter from Nelson Geotechnical Associates (NGA) has provided further discussion of the potential risk posed by a large-scale, deep-seated landslide on the property. Landscape plans have been submitted that address the previous recommendations provided by NGA and our June 18, 2010 review comments. Revised lateral earth pressures to address sloping backfill behind retaining walls have been provided. The structural plans incorporate the revised lateral earth pressures and clarify the footing detail callouts. Revisions have been made to the Environmental Checklist to reflect the site slopes and landslide hazard conditions. The civil plans have incorporated the requirement for involvement of the geotechnical engineer in the pre -construction meeting and monitoring requirements of the TESC measures. The connection of the footing drains and the retaining wall drains to the site storm drainage system has been clarified. We note that the lower retaining wall perforated drain is now connected to a drywell. This approach would typically not be desirable for a site in the North Edmonds ESLHA and disposal to the City storm drain system would be preferable to infiltration. However, we also note that the elevation of this drain is below the elevation of the rest of the site drainage system and connection to the City drain system may not be practical for this retaining wall. We agree with the rationale provided by the civil engineer that the remaining site drainage improvements, which include collection and offsite disposal of S127/2010 P.\074\164\FileRuomVt\FinulSupplenxnt.IP"rR.vicw tm $-27-10,d- 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES Attachment 28 paved area runoff, roof drainage, footing drains, and upslope shallow interceptor drains, should be effective in limiting the amount of water that could potentially be collected in the drainage layer behind this retaining wall. Since the quantity of water to be collected at this location is probably low and offsite gravity drainage may not practical, it is our opinion that use of a dry well in this limited application is not expected to create a problem. In review of the structural plans we note that the footing drain elevations are set at the bottom of the footing, which is consistent with conventional practice. The architectural plans show the footing elevations along the west wall of the structure range from 41.48 to 35.48 ft. However, the footing drain invert elevation shown on the civil plans at the point where it leaves the house and connects to the site stormwater system is 40.25 ft. This discrepancy of elevations needs to be resolved by the design. team. This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of resubmitted permit documents related to the proposed Gold (North) single family residence at 7510 162°d Street SW. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 23.80 and ECDC 19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and to confirm that previous geotechnical peer review comments have been appropriately addressed. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/CBT/rgm 9/272010 P:1074\1641FIeRmjn\RTFimlSupple—.tulPee,Revicw_tm 8.21.10.da: 3 tANDAu ASSOCIATES Attachment 28 LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ENVOMMEMM I GEOTECWd= I UMLIM R80MM TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. C-r? DATE: June 18, 2010 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA GOLD (SOUTH) SFR —16200 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. The purpose of this geotechnical peer review was to review portions of the submittal package and assess its compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80. This geotechnical peer review was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 10-06 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received the following information forwarded by the City for review: • Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, 16220 75"' Place W, Edmonds, Washington, Prepared for Mike and Nancy Gold. Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2010. • Literature and Plan Review Letter, 16200 7.! rh Place West, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819609. Letter prepared by.Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated May 4, 2010. • Site Plan, Project Data, Index of Drawings and Vicinity Map (Sheet A-1), prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, dated March 31, 2010. • Civil Engineering Drawings (3 sheets, including Grading, TESC & Profiles; Road, Drainage & TESC Details; and Clearing and Tree Removal Plans), prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 20, 2010. • Direct Drainage Discharge to Puget Sound, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, dated April 5, 2010. • Grading Quantity Calculations for Michael and Nancy Gold South. House, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 20, 2010. • Driveway Slope Deviation Request, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 5, 2010. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com Attachment 29 • Boundary & Topographic Survey for Mike Gold, prepared by David West & Company, PLLC, dated September 11, 2009. • Vicinity Map, undated. • Structural Plans (5 sheets including SI through S5), prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated May 6, 2010. Is Architectural Plan Set (7 Sheets, including Sheets A-2 through A-8) prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, dated March 31, 2010. • North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas Map (with property location noted and signed certification as to property location), by Michael Gold and Robert J. Hughes, dated April 21, 2010. • City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist, prepared by Donna L. Breske, dated April 20, 2010. • Detennination regarding Critical Areas Checklist CRA20100031, letter prepared by City of Edmonds Development Services Department, dated April 2, 2010. • Civil Engineer's Statement of Risk for Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 28, 2010. • Structural Engineer Declaration, SRF to be constructed at 16200 75`r' Place W, Edmonds, WA, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement, letter signed by Michael R. Gold and Nancy M. Gold, dated March, 2010. The following sections provide our review comments. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Note that one geotechnical report, prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) dated February 12, 2010, addresses the proposed development of two adjacent lots: 16200 75's Place W (the subject of this review) and 7510 162°d Street SW (the property immediately to the north). The geotechnical report provides a reasonably comprehensive evaluation and discussion of site conditions and risks, and provides geotechnical recommendations for design. However, we note that as stated within their Seismic Hazard section of their report, detailed on page 6, that "the competent cohesive soils interpreted to form the core of the site slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated failure." This interpretation is further stated within the Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability section of their report, detailed on page 7, that "there is not a significant potential for deep-seated failure under current 6/18/2010 P:\074\165\FileRwivi\R\DrifiPeerRevicw_tiii6-14-IO.ekw LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2- Attachment 29 site conditions." We respectfully disagree that these statements adequately portray the documented large- scale, deep-seated failure mode that is documented to exist within the ESLHA. The Landau Associates summary report (2007), that is referenced in the NGA geotechnical report, also lists a study completed by Dames and Moore in 1968 which documents large scale landslides in 1947 and 1955-56. The Landau Associates (2007) summary report notes that in 1947 a large slide occurred south of the existing wharf and measured between 800 to greater than 2,400 ft long, with impacts extending up to about 1,000 ft eastward from the shoreline. The Gold property is located within the area affected by that major landslide according to mapping in the Dames and Moore (1969) report. Newspaper accounts from that time period indicate that four homes were completely destroyed, some additional homes were abandoned, and many others were significantly damaged. Photos accompanying the newspaper article are particularly compelling as to the extent of damage to the structures. It is more likely than not that the upper 12 ft or greater, medium stiff to stiff, soils encountered within the recent NGA borings constitute slide debris soils. We also note that NGA observed slickensides in each boring "at depths ranging from about 7 to 12 feet, and as deep as 19 feet in B-1" which further supports potential past, deep-seated slide movement activities. We reconunend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be re— evaluated and addressed in the design r-econvnendations. The geotechnical report recommends that future vegetation management on the slope be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City. We concur that vegetation management is an important component in helping to maintain surficial slope stability and limit the potential for erosion. We reconunend that the applicant provide additional detail regarding fitture landscaping plans so that the City can confinn that there is long-term plan for vegetation management beyond the measures needed for basic planting that would follow the temporary erosionand sediment control requirements. It would be appropriate that such a plan integrate common techniques to incorporate vegetation that is well -suited for protection of slopes and that does not require extensive irrigation for survival. It would also be appropriate to remind the applicant that automatic landscape irrigation systems are precluded within the ESLHA. The geotechnical report provides lateral earth pressures for retaining walls (page 16). The recommended lateral earth pressures are noted to apply to a horizontal ground surface behind the wall and the report recommends that the earth pressures be revised for other ground or surcharge loading conditions. The ground surface behind the garage retaining wall is sloping. We recommend that the lateral earth pressure design recommendations be revisited by the geotechnical engineer and revised to address the ground configuration shown on the grading plans. 6/18R010 P:1074V65FileR—m\R\DmAPcerRevie.-i 6-14.10Ac tANDAuAssocIATES 3 Attachment 29 STRUCTURAL PLANS Sheet S-1 provides the basis of the structural design and we note that the structural engineer has used the lateral earth pressure and bearing values as provided in the geotechnical report. However, the geotechnical report states that the lateral earth pressure provided in the report applies to horizontal ground behind retaining walls. These lateral earth pressure values may not be appropriate for sloping ground, such as adjacent to the garage retaining wall (see previous comments regarding the geotechnical report). If the geotechnical engineer revises the lateral earth pressures to accommodate sloping ground, then it may be necessary to modify the structural design of the retaining wall accordingly. The foundation plan on Sheet S-2 provides the foundation layout and callout for footing details (Fl through 173) and sections cut through the foundation (1/S-1 through 6/S-5). Footing details (are provided on Sheet S-2 and Sheet S-5. The callouts on the foundation plan do not seem to match the details on Sheets S-2 and S-5. The numbering system and call outs for footing details need to be clarified so that there is not confusion as to which footing detail applies to which location. CIVIL PLANS Inspection, maintenance, and regular reporting of TESC measures by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record are required [see the City ESLHA Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. The pre -construction meeting needs to include the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (see City ESLHA TESC Requirements). We recommend that the notes be revised accordingly. On Sheet 2, it is not clear that the perforated drains located behind the retaining walls and that surround the house foundation are to be connected to the nearby drainage system. It is not evident where the perforated drain pipe below the lower retaining wall (west of the house) will be discharged, as no drainage pipe is shown at this location. Please clarify that retaining wall drainage pipes are to be connected to the site drainage system and clearly indicate those connection locations. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST We note some incorrect statements in the Environmental Checklist section B.1. (Earth). Revisions or clarifications should be made as appropriate to address the following issues. In subsection b, we note that the maximum slope is not 36 percent as stated. The geotechnical report (NGA February 12, 2100) indicates that 36 percent is the overall slope inclination and actual slope inclinations range from 18 to 50 percent, with a small area on the east side of the property of about 100 percent. 6118n010 P:1074U65%Fll R—.m R\DmnPoarR.view-tm6-14.10.d- LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 Attachment 29 In subsection d, the checklist states that there are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. This is incorrect. The property is located within a well -documented landslide zone and the property and surrounding area is within the designated North Edmonds ESLHA. In subsection e, the stated quantities of cut and fill do not seem to be consistent with the quantities stated elsewhere in the permit submittal package. REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS We reviewed the submittal package and confirmed that the statements and declarations from the design professional as required by the City for development within the ESLHA which include the following documents: • Literature and Plan. Review Letter, 16200 75"' Place West, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819600. Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., (includes a Geotechnical Hazard Identification/Declaration and Mitigation Statement of Risk), dated April 21, 2010. • Structural Engineer Declaration, SFR to be constructed at 16200 75"' Place W, Edmonds WA, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated March 31, 2010. • Applicant/Owner liability and landslide acknowledgement, letter signed by Michael R. Gold and Nancy M. Gold, dated March, 2010. In general, the statements and declarations have been appropriately addressed with the exception of the Minimum Risk Statement contained in the NGA May 4, 2010 document. We reconnnend that the hazard posed by a potential large-scale, deep-seated failure be re-evaluated. As detailed in ECDC 23.80 for sites where the hazards are not mitigated or where the risks front deep-seated or large-scale earth movement cannot be practically reduced by individual lot owners, the statement shall identify what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development. The statement shall specify any risks from earth movement that are not fidly mitigated by design measures and render an opinion as to whether the site will be stable within the meaning of the ordinance following installation of all proposed improvements. 6/18/2010 P:\D7d%165W.I.R—.kR%D,..,hP-,Revi— ,n,6•14.10.duc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 5 Attachment 29 This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of permit submittal documents related to the proposed Gold (South) single family residence at 16200 750' Place West. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 23.80 and ECDC 19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/CBT/rgm 6119MIO P:t074\165\FileRmtnV2\DmftPeerReview_tm614-IO.dic LANDAu ASSOCIATES Attachment 29 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EMMOf,TfEM1LI WOMM=u I MURAL RESOLPCES TO: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official City of Edmonds Development Services Department, Building Division FROM: Dennis R. Stettler, P.E. 19iz DATE: September 20, 2010 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW OF RESUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA GOLD (SOUTH) SFR -16200 75TH PLACE WEST - BLD2010-0339 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This technical memorandum provides our geotechnical peer review for the permit submittal package that was resubmitted to the City of Edmonds (City) for the proposed referenced development within the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) of North Edmonds. The purpose of this geotechnical peer review was to review portions of the revised submittal package and assess their compliance with City development and building permit requirements as contained in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 19.10 and 23.80 and our previous geotechnical peer review continents. Landau Associates provided geotechnical peer review comments for this project in a technical memorandum to the City dated June 18, 2010. This supplemental geotechnical peer review was accomplished to review the resubmitted package and was accomplished in accordance with Task Order No. 10-10 of Landau Associates' On -Call Geotechnical Engineering Services Agreement with the City. We have received the following supplemental information forwarded by the City for review: • Peer Review Response and Plan Review Letter, 16200 7-5 h Place. West, Edmonds, Washington, NGA File No. 819609. Letter prepared by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated August 25, 2010. • Civil Engineering Drawings (3 sheets, including Grading, TESC & Profiles; Road, Drainage, TESL Details and Utilities; and Clearing and Tree Removal Plans), prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated April 20, 2010, revised June 29, 2010. • Structural Plans (5 sheets: S1 through S5), prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, revised July 28, 2010. • Architectural Plait Set (8 Sheets: Sheets A-1 through A-8), prepared by Randall J. Munson, Building Designer, dated July 28, 2010. • Grading Quantity Calculations for Michael and Nancy Gold, South House, prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., revision date June 29, 2010. • SCQ Mininnon Requirements 2-10 per ECDC 18.30.060.B, letter prepared by .Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated June 29, 2010. • Response to Gold Review Comments for SFR located at 16200 75"' Place West, letter prepared by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated June 29, 2010. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • lax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com Attachment 30 • Geotechnical Peer Review of Submittal Package for Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, Plan Review Comments, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated July 12, 2010. • Gold Residence (South), Response to Planning Division plan review comment letter dated June 8, 2010, for property located at 16200 75`h Place West, Edmonds, Plan check # BLD 20100339, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated August 26, 2010. • Gold SFR, 16200 75`h Place, Edmonds, Washington, Plan Review Comments, letter prepared by Reed & Associates, PS, dated July 7, 2010. • City of Edmonds Record of Lot Line Adjustment, dated July 29, 2010. • Gold Residence South Lot Revegetation Plan (Sheets L-1 through L-4), plans prepared by The Jay Group, dated May 25, 2010. Our review of the resubmitted permit package indicates that most of our previous review comments have been addressed. The letter from Nelson Geotechnical Associates (NGA) dated August 25, 2010 has provided further discussion of the potential risk posed by a large-scale, deep-seated landslide on the property. Landscape plans have been submitted that address the previous recommendations provided by NGA dated February 12, 2010 and our June 18, 2010 review comments. Revised lateral earth pressures to address sloping backfill behind retaining walls have been provided. The structural engineer has updated the retaining wall design to reflect the planned 3H:1 V backslope and used active lateral earth pressures consistent with the geotechnical engineer's revised lateral earth pressures for sloping backfill. The footing schedule has been updated. It appears that the footing detail callout for the garage foundations and basement retaining wall should be 2IS-2 instead of 2IS-5, and 3IS-2 instead of 3/S-5. Please review the callouts for footing details and revise as appropriate. Needed revisions or clarifications regarding the_ Enviromnental Checklist were noted in Landau Associates' June 18, 2010 review continents. The resubmitted permit review package that we received did not contain the revised Environmental Checklist. However, our previous review continents were addressed in the resubmitted permit review package for the Gold North residence to reflect the site slopes and landslide hazard conditions that pertain to both of the adjacent properties. The civil plans have not incorporated the requirement for involvement of the geotechnical engineer in the pre -construction meeting and monitoring requirements of the temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures as recommended in our June 18, 2010 review comments. Our previous review comment is repeated below: "Inspection, maintenance, and regular reporting of TESC measures by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record are required [see the City ESLHA Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Requirements]. The pre -construction meeting needs to include the Geotechnical Engineer of 020/10 P1074\1651PileRoom\RTinalSupplemenWlPeerRoNew Im 0.20.10.doc LANDAU AssOCIATES 2 Attachment 30 Record (see City ESLHA TESC Requirements)." We reconimend that the notes be revised accordingly. The connection of the retaining wall drains to the site storm drainage system has been clarified. This technical memorandum has been prepared for use by the City of Edmonds in evaluating the adequacy of permit submittal documents related to the proposed Gold (South) single-family residence at 16200 750' Place West. The focus of this review was the geotechnical aspects of the application. The purpose of the review was to assess the adequacy of the application documents for compliance with City requirements contained in ECDC 23.80 and ECDC 19.10 and conformance with conventionally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This geotechnical peer review by Landau Associates does not lessen the requirements for the applicant's geotechnical consultant and other design professionals to prepare an appropriate design for the site conditions. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service. DRS/CBT/ccy 9120/10 P:1074%1051FileRoomUAFinalSupplementalPeerReview tm 0-20-10.dw LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 Attachment 30 --------- ' -- '---913�Mpije 43am I IF. SNOH MISH C UNTY, AH N - full on 'raw Va Alto �--�---'—~~~~~~""=~�� DoputylW4irer CITY OF EDMONDS OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT . / . / This is to certify. that-fbe'-propei:4�s ps s mched map (Exhibit "A") and described as Legal Description: Have had their lot lines adjusfbd u'nd6r 6hs.ofthe Edmonds Subdivision I / we verify that I / we are the legal---own��s) of the pr6�efty described above I / we wan -ant that all representations are true and correct and unde.rstii�d thfit iii,.the event of any misrepresentations or failure to comply with conditions and repldtlo s-g�t forthherein, the City of Edmonds shall have the right to declare that lot line adjustilZent-y-bid.add re6rd a statement to that effect in the Grantor -Grantee Index in the office of the Silobo M'A CW�ty Auditor � Signed Pront l� Attachment ^ . � ' `~ . �-3` i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ST•AJ.0-01 WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNtY.& SNOHOIVt•iSH) On this persor aIlyr:appearad before me To me krtowiq.td be the indkyidual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknoWledgW'that "Ke ": •signed the same as �5 free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes thereili.•rtie`nboried Given under my hvrid ancrpftYciai.seal this V day of 2010 pwir+uipd Notary Public in and for the State of Washington c • Ell i •0S Res idmg at vi •C,C 4 IT 04AR.-.... :i �> IL:2Z �_ of a�� <�•••.`� b?,�tc,�: •/�j . �5 i i l Attachment••34 ....... ....... I ZONING: K-20 — — — — ___j 162nd st S. w )1� - /* 126.59 Parcel-1 �Delf.=104'3500' R=30.92 rb 117 79.275 S F. (AFTER L L=56.45 fl 7,551 SF (BEFORE LLA) 0 Line EMOVED A/ Basis of gearing_ * *_1 ' ` / " RECORD OF SURVP (A.F. 18512135003) I �,�' / '=' / / Old Lrne � � / N1\4New-6;e-•7 �7495 `P 1-2 '0 arce 20,773 SF (AFTER LLA) (_V (V 422,497 S F.. (&EFVft� LLA) Ing EX SE. N8 7-35 '43 V 0 1 _071977 0&@@ff 0@ EX. API ffm0@w0a&ff mmag ffo&. A 91@- sop DRWY ............. 25 I INCH S.W. 114, S W 114, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 27 N CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF * INED AND APItOVED C4T PLANNING DMSION 0 h / .20 G WE 100 XNDE 4 EAST, W M 101 David West & Professional Land Surveyors & Planners 1476 UeJissa Way 425-530-7424 Office Wenatchee, We 98801 Attachment'31 Eveiett vVa. �9$2dI� , David West & Co. PLLC (Professional Land Surveying� (425) 530-7424 - office May 15, 201.0' MIKE GOLD . .LEGA DESCRIPTION -PARCEL I (ORIGINAL) TRACT 1, BLOCK 6O,0'F TI.3E PLf,1,T OF MEADOWDALE BEACH�ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOL UME•O PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON • i EXCEPT THAT PORTION Qf TRiCT'I CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY B Y QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOWS FTL` ..NUMBIIR 669770 TOGETHER WITH TRACT 2, BI OCK bO,OF.THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECOR ?EIa4I .M kUMEd OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, W ASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10 00 FEdOF..,SAID TRACT•2 TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF .YACATED SEASIDE tA\/E ADJOINING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OT WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION-PARCEL.2-.(ORIGINAL) THE SOUTH 10 00 FEET OF TRACT 2 AND ALL OF TRAOIf 3;BLOCK'6A OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF �iOADED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHII�GTgN. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SEASID'E•AVIA ADJQINfNg SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASIIINGTON ' •.::' LEGAL DESCRIPTION -PARCEL 3 (ORIGINAL -AL •,' TRACT 4, BLOCK 60 OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDIjdG.T-0 T39B PL iT.THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISHI'C,,OONTY;'NdASHINGTON TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SEASIDE AVE ADJOINING. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON Attachment-34 David West & Co. PLLC (Professional Land Surveying) 2120-f•Le,61tt AVC Suite 103 (425) 530-7424 - office Everett Wa:-l$201 May 15; 3fTI0 ' M110E•G.Sj�,U'' LF�AD SE CRIPTION-PARCEL 1 (ADJUSTED) TRACTS I AN5.2; $I OCK 6016F THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED fN'VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF.TRi' T I.C&EYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER AODITO1.:S FIj:E NOBER 669770 TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION 0F'VACATED SEASIDE AVE ADJOINING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNO•HO.Aif H, 9TAT,.E'bF WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION-PARC&Z (ADJUSTED) TRACTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 60 OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDAU BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS; }'AGE 38, RECOKUS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON '. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED'SEASIl .E-XVE ADJOINING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHNGTON EN Inc. 18913 Date: To: Subject Transmitting 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Letter of Transmittal November 18, 2010 Shorelines Program WA State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section 3190 160th Ave. SE. Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 7510 162nd St. SW and 16200 75th PI. W., Edmonds (PLN26100027) Shoreline Management Substantial Development For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: MIKE COOPER MAYOR Comment: Contact Kernen Lien @ 425.771.0220 ext. 1223 or lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us for any Questions. Note attachments: X Sincerely, Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Cc: Attorney General Enclosures: Application Vicinity Map and Plans Hearing Examiner Decision Mitigated Determination of Non -significance Environmental Checklist Geotechnical Report Affidavit of Publication • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Application No. PLN20100027 Administrative Agency City of Edmonds Date Received April 26, 2010 Approved XXX Denied Date 11/17/10 Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to City of Edmonds (Name of Applicant) 121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 (Address) to undertake the following development: The project involves the construction of two single-family residences within shoreline jurisdiction of the Puget Sound. upon the following property: 7510162nd St, SW (North Residence) and 16200 75th PI. W. (South Residence), Edmonds, WA which is within Puget Sound and/or its associated wetlands. The project will be within shorelines of statewide significance (RCW 90.58.030). The project will be located within an Suburban Residential 1 designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: Edmonds Community Development Code (Shoreline Master Program) sections 23.10.060, 23.10.130, 23.10,150, 23,10.210, and 23.10.215. (State the master program sections or page numbers: If a conditional use or variance, also identify the portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or that portion of the master program being varied.) c:SHOREPT.DOC r Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: The conditions of approval are listed on page 6 and 7 of the decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner for permit PLN20100027 attached hereto. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliant with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.68,140 (7) in the event that the permitee fails to comply with any condition hereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANCE TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173-14- 090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY. DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW (90.58.140)(5)(a)(b)(c). 1146-10 (Date) (Signature of Auth&zed Local Government Official) THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USES ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR A VARIANCE PERMIT. Date received by the Department Approved Denied This conditional use/variance permit is approved/denied by the department pursuance to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: (Date) (Signature of Authorized Department Officiall c:SHOREPT.DOC October 2l, 2010 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OR TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. FILE NO.: PLN201 Gold - Shoreline Permit 60 4-� C �'1 f✓�eG� �l��l 7'i o De 2-r I� GAS ; // 212�5`C—S�v, 1zoTlvS"w i9— L 2 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHONIISH � I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NAME OF APPLICANT: Mike Gold DATE OF NOTICE: October 5, 2010 FILE NO.: PLN20100027 PROJECT LOCATION: 16200 75th PI. W and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7510 162nd St. SW 'The project involves the construction of two single family resi- dences. One residence will be constructed on the property loca- led at 7510162nd St SW (North residence) and the second with . be constructed on the property at 16200 75th PI W (South resi- dence). Grading quantities associated with the residences has triggered the requirement for a shoreline substantial develop- ment permit. 'COMMENTS DUE: October 21, 2010 I Any person has the right to comment on this application during j public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if j any, or, if no open record.predecislon hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20,07.003 have standing to initiate an adminis- trative appeal. PUBLIC HEARING: October 21, 2010 Edmonds Public Safety Complex j Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY CONTACT: Kemen Lien, Associate Planner J d lien @ci.edmonds.wa.us 425- 71- 220 Published: October 5. 2010. RECEI�IED OCT 15 2010 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds 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 newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Public Hearing Mike Gold PLN20100027 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: October 05, 2010 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to is s scribers during ail of said period. i Principal Clerk Subscribed d sworn to before me this 5th day of October, 2010 Notary Public in d fo the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 C* • is DECLARATION OF POSTING FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold On the 4th day of October, 2010, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true nd correct this 4th day of October, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. n Signed: ��-- M {DFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0 L� DECLARATION OF MAILING FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold On the 4th day of October, 2010, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project location. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 4th day of October, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. 0 Signed: vim—`_ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH NOTICE OF SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ��c. IN90 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edmonds has issued a Mitiggated Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11- 340(2) for the following project. PROOJJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of two single family resi- dances. One residence will be constructed on the property loca- ted at 7510 62nd St SW (North Residence)) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75th PI W (South Resi- dence). Grading associated with the North Residence is ap- proximately proximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic ards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includyes approxi- PROJECT PROPONENTS ards Mikeof tGo d and 1100 cubic yards of fill. DATE MONS ISSUED:. June 21, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION. 7510 162nd St SW and 16200 75th PI W Tax pparcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200,0513106000400 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: Julv 5 2010. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of mon s anning Division, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal cit- ing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than June 12 2010 by 4:30 PM. SEPA MATERIALS: The SEPA Checklist, project plans, and DNS are available at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20100027. These materials are also avail- able for viewing at the Planning Division, located on the second floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 96020. CITY CONTACT: " Kernen Lien, Associate Planner, lien@ci.edrnonds.wa.us 425-771.0220 Published: June 23, 2010.oeMM, RECE i V L' L JUL 012010 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds 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 newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsianiffcance Mike Gold 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: June 23, 2010 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. a7j-a f S�qz'w — Principal C er Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of June, 2010 Notary Public in nd r th N(�ts}�jgRh County. S _ N ( V. r u AccountNumR�: 1*16 -4 Qr � VIP, �14 Snohomish Order Number: 0001700846 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } 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 CITY OF EDMONDS circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal NOTICE DEVEOLOPMEN APPLICATION TIAL newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice ,ME OF APPLICANT: Mike Gold l \TE OF APPLICATION: April 26, 2010 \TE'OF COMPLETENESS: June,14, 2010 \TE`OF-NOTICE: June 21, 2009 E NO.: PLN20100027 IDJECT LOCATION: 16200 75th Pl. W and 7510 62nd St. SW 10JECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction df two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62nd St SW (North residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75th PI W (South residence). Grading quantities associated with the residences has triggered the requirement, for a shoreline substantial development permit. EQUESTED PERMITS: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Information on'this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Ecimonds North, Edmo dsVeloWA 98020mentervices betweenn thertmenthours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. THER REQUIRED PERMITS: RFPA. Rulldmc Permits, Lot Line Adjustment SEPA Checklist, Geotechnical Reports, and revegetation plan COMMENTS DUE: July 28, 2010 Any person has the right to comment on this application during ppublic comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, it any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record w defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an adminis trative appeal. PUBLIC HEARING: To be determined. CITY CONTACT: Kamen Lien, Associate Planner lien @ ci.edmonds.wa.us 425-771-0220 Published: June 21, 28, 2010. RECETVED JUL 012010 ED ONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds Notice of Shoreline Substantial Development Application Mike Gold PLN20100027 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: June 21, 2010, June 28, 2010 and that said newspaper was regulazly ' tri CJ3-e-� U 0 Subscribed and swom to before me this day of June, 2010 c Notary Public in and t Stat County. d Co Account Number: 101446o to itsAubscribers during all of said period. 28th 0 �o�t �e11.tt d. a'�`Bfilitg �residrir✓ t Ever , Snohomish d 0 tst- " "Y r Or&r Number: 0001700660 Q Q C O N ,r- _p O N N > CD 0 � O ® O CN � � Z CZ S] O O = Z Z O N C � � L Q i 4— V Z c a) o.. (D_ O J V c 0 L Q O 0 c a) J 2 — 0 O O d Q (D O En N in cn -o w C 3 cu 0 Q CD No a)m ca No _ E Q U � � Q) °) E to (D Q O N c , c � O/� ^ w 4..1_ w Q 'nN V C 0 % 0 0 C L- O c tL) � d cn E a_a p U > °' o o a) o a)a Q a' a) E E U E Q � O O L) 0 U U c (D m CDCD RS _T E a) N p C — O c CT O a N c a cn � °) E E O 3: E -C O N c Z L ff G� O a) c o a) a) O _ N O "a c N 0 .a CU E=cn-o co a C o in 3 a) m O _ LO _ O U Co 2 a) . W O co �) c .c°'. °)a o m -0 0 j M ,� C 0 co O `- > 2 � a) in N O N L) C� -0 LO U) N to a) C N CD c C 0 r c ��.i ` p -0 a) Q =3 cn O a) O tL- CL Q o fi 0 0 0 c O O cu 0 m O 00 0- Q c-' .L < a) 0 a) p n O O <C Q U (D U a) E a) E Z 0 u d d a) u u o � 7:3 p V) 'O �4.O N t7 bp N O O u N U m J � X- t�. o tb O > o M O CD N O a� E t r Z O .0 o oo W O a) >� Ems- U Ln s UO Ln ¢ � a 5 3 > o °.? 00 fl � n. C�3 v O U p } O C) O O '� u 71 W u O u ct O u O sz.O •� .� o O. E Q"U u a � c�C �• i!) ' cli 0 0 0 u N + u O 4-� O su cm.. o cl u u bq o N O O .E N O tqo U •� -._ Ln U W 71 MA � a o O U 4: bA Ct o Q. m Q C� 0 0 Boav RS-1 40 k 1 C2 46.1 4 Cf) 6111 A Cb aw $5, ly, JA 4 4 -A 4 A 4 .4\ Aft A A b R-S 02%1�- *'r& 4-r4l .� -r-A 1162-20 4 4 4L A, 4 4 4 4L at, A I I 011 Q ki 0, j�L 44 3 k A. 4L 4 U 5, r6 5, 46 A A 4103 310 1� `\ Q A -11,640 h k A i5 4 T 4 4L�'RS-r1,�2. Op , , Zoning and Vicinity Map o 50 100 200 300 400 tP PLN20100027 Feet 7510 162nd St SW and 16200 75th PI W • • CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771 -0220 • FAX 425-771 -0221 Website: wwwxLedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /nc. 1890 June 21, 2010 Robert Hughes Reed & Associates PS 8311 212`h St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: SEPA Determination and Notice of Application Mr. Hughes, Enclosed are the SEPA determination and Notice of Application for the Gold residences at 16200 75" PI W and 7510 62nd St SW. These were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted in accordance with ECDC 20.03. The SEPA determination and Notice of Application were also mailed to Mr. Gold. Once a hearing date has been scheduled, the notice of hearing will be mailed and posted as well. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220, lienga,ci.edmonds.wa.us. Sincerely, C� Kernen Lien Associate Planner • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 21 st day of June, 2010, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 st day of June, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. � � n Signed: (BFP747893.DOC,1\00006.900000\ ) CD � 0 `C o m m m C-D (jqOn cn CD CD B m D m o 3 CD �¢ o' o CD O0 cD D �? CD CD � N �4 5 O, �7' CD O.. ccnn n v N CD n cv CD o _ 0 a) o' 0 CD O o cio CD CD DCD o o CD° V 0 0 !! 0 o C o o cn C- CD '-t w �.� CD I C-n s� (D g CD O Cn CD N=3'tom D 7r �_ m CCD BCD CD N CD ID C CD tQ CD ~ (� CAD CD c CICn fl O0 N N O ��!! a CL c� n w 9 C O �• , Cn g1 5= d p 0 CDr o fD CD (nD A' m ,�rr.�!--S�. n''5 Z r pCL mMNN D D Q" L�U ~' O CDI. _ Can' o ty .� �a ff O mn N CD O o ' 0 c ca 3 n N 2 CD rn ((D .5' CD Q, Z CCDD 6 O CL � Ccr n CD O Q 0 CD m CD CD - 5hm' �o �oc2i C n1I—� C:r o=3 Z = � 'P `O a oyCL o � . iD CD 0 CD CD I CD CD O O ` C' O N O CD C� p O CD CAD a) �. C5 o= �. a o. `,-j p CD CD . P CD�x O Dx ¢'� ter. �� -,°a CD r R o 9 O n = CD .. O 0 ci Q M �� 0. Q CD �� v_ -� o� a�i v v, CD a p CD (CD tZ p Q CD rA O CA*. CD 'O -. -. 0O CD CD CD CD CD cn CD - -� CD CD CD CD CD CD CD- o CC V 0 0 0 0 0 CD D I.< OQr`D m CD p C-74 CD •ti Z cn �C o r) D CD D o cD _ c� CD Ccn O �N �'r CD O o•� CD 0 � m Q- ¢' oo n. cnD m -- CD CS ..t' J CD �C O OCD `1 �3 Cn cn 0 cQ G)p. O m 14 m CD CD o B m CD N O CD O O CD r CD O' O CAD CD � < CD `C CD o CD i o o oCD CD 3 0 CD 4% 0 COED -n CD :3 O CD CD Cj) O O CS = (n N � � O CD CD G O CD 4 IV -0 CD O CD 0 O 7 f A * A A 1.04 1 0� ED41 Zoning and Vicinity Map o 50 100 200 300 400 un Feet PLN20100027 7510 162nd St SW and 16200 75th PI W A OF EDM 11 O� • Y CITY OF EDMOND �St 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62"d St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75th PI W (South Residence). Grading associated with the North Residence is approximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approximately 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Proponent: Mike Gold Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7510 162"d St SW and 16200 75th PI W Tax parcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200,0513106000400 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 5, 2010. Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmo ds, WA 98020 a Date: June 21, 2010 Signature: — XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than July 12, 2010. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Post Office, and published in the Everett Herald. XX Emailed to the Department of Ecology along with a copy of the SEPA Checklist. Page 1 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC U21/10.SEPA XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. THE PROJECT MUST IMPLEMENT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECTS. Mailed notice of the SEPA Determination to property owners within 300 and to the following agencies: XX COMCAST XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Outside rlant En Engineer, North Region g g Attn.: Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West 1525 75' St SW Ste 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Everett, WA 98203 XX Puget Sound Partnership XX Donna J. Bunten P.O. Box 40900 Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-0900 Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 XX Puget Sound Regional Council Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12425 Meridian Avenue South XX Burlington Northern Railroad Everett, WA 98208-5728 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Attachments c: SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 6/21/10.SEPA FILE NO.: PLN20100027 Applicant: Gold DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 21 st day of June, 2010, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project location. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21 st day of June, 2010, at Edmonds, Washington. 0 Signed: C-SOL-v�� -� — of EDM O 04 Y. 0 G�TY OF EDMOND§ F18�0 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62"d St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75th PI W (South Residence). Grading associated with the North Residence is approximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approximately 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Proponent: Mike Gold Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7510 162"d St SW and 16200 75th PI W Tax parcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200,0513106000400 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 5, 2010. Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmo ds, WA 98020 a Date: June 21, 2010 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than July 12, 2010. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Post Office, and published in the Everett Herald. XX Emailed to the Department of Ecology along with a copy of the SEPA Checklist. Page 1 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC &21/1 O.SEPA XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. THE PROJECT MUST IMPLEMENT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECTS. Mailed notice of the SEPA Determination to property owners within 300 and to the following agencies: XX COMCAST Outside �Iant Engineer, North Region 1525 75 St SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Puget Sound Partnership P.O. Box 40900 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 XX Puget Sound Regional Council Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 XX Burlington Northern Railroad 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 Attachments c: SEPA Notebook XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Donna I Bunten Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12425 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5728 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Page 2 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 6/2 U 40.SEP A C7 w CD 6 CD CD' c�CD • �. o �,s o o CD CD D 0 ._ _ 0' �. �• n�. dOn � 3 o UP C CL o o° o w ChD w �.. � �. cn s� m s O O O U) m N = D _07c V O m CD m CCD 00 CD �. CD �" j O O " CD O `� n -4 O_� l (�D '-•r CAD ? '� c Cn Cn O' o CD 0to �� Er �A N�-�- CL �- a CD- O � a> � N m c ,: m O 'O O O =3 Ch CD ao 0 CD o �.�. .+.Ny��a 3 0-0 cnCD� <_M(n O y' gyp . O 5-CD NCCDD � s O ~O CD ram. CD A7 OCD 90 + 0,� CD N n �'N CD G�fl-Cn , . CD =2 CDCIi m CD CD Q 0 ¢ CCDD CL N O CC CS o G N MO \ �' �_ C?D ? a c ��. CD O C/) C "n CD 0., o 0 Cn CD=. oOn cn CD N CD y Cmn CD "p Cp �+ n SO ra, v -. m O CD m 3 CD �„h CD a Ci 0 �� • O O O -0 CD • CD O CD CD CD CD coo p o ° m rD m �• -�0 0 CD CD CD v cn �, - a o m � 0-n �- CD CD cn cn a CZ H cD m < CD- n c� CD t3 . . o"O r~ CD cD cn 3 C�r7° Cro"O o° 00 CD m CD CD 5 O N r+ CD CD CL En CL cn CD o CD ° � �CD"rA O O O• � — o CAD CD 'CZ w O O N CD Cl) � � O CD CD CD m N o CCDD m CAD D m Cn D m 3 m m ¢" fD `C m r~• 0 � cn CD N � CD CD c �- � O N O N vi Cl. O O O O- D CD � �' cn cn a o o Q � 0 CD cn rn -o CD 0 cn a3 a) 0.N O �� w Q, CA �° p cn a� > > >- r CD < O CD p CD t � m CC 5' r o c' CDi 0CD o 0 CD —n CD CD CD. 0 Co Z Z C O O a' V: v N O CD CD O CD � N-0 CD O CD -0 • A / Y t61 a 6Q1 T �.•�- %. FRS=- 0 U2-2.0622.14 . s-3;-1a �. A U34lit i s t-t i �. . . 1; 63 S. #� A16�34�0� Zoning and Vicinity Map 0 50 100 Zoo 300 400 PLN20100027 Feet 7510 162nd St SW and he 1 qq0 16200 75th PI W 00513106000100 Gold Mike R . 15225 14th CRT SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 00790400099900 Lorain Woods Hoa 16121 74th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00790400000700 Ross Jonathan 1611973rdPLW Edmonds WA 98026 00790400001000 Derry William E 16107 74th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00790400000800 Tsouklas George 16121 740 PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00513100006600 Herzer Brett & Cheri M 16209 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00513100006500 Lawson Phyllis L 16221 75" PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00513100006401 Dulin Andrew L 7212 164th ST SW Edmonds WA 98026 00513100006301 Kerr Michael PO Box 2669 Lynnwood WA 98036 00513105800802 Bui Tung & Tiffany 18811 1st PL W Bothell WA 98012 •^� 00513100006200 • 13900101300 Dean Dolares S GoldNkSR 16315 75th PL W 15225 14 Edmonds WA 98026 Mill fie A 9 2 00513105800600 Bui Tung & Tiffany 16105 75th PI W Edmonds WA 98026 00513900100700 Meadowdale Marina 23423 Brier RD Brier WA 98036 00513900101200 Edmonds City Of 250 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 00513900101701 Schaffer Alice 9610 42"d Ave NE Seattle WA 98115 00513900101500 Sanderlin John & Janet 16220 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98020 >Mike 600 T 98012 00513900101902 Patterson James. PO Box 2071 Blaine WA 98230 >005100T SE 98012 0051316000700 Ashby / Morrison Dan 16320 751h PL W Edmonds WA 98026 0513106000400 Go 'ke R 15225 1 T SE Mi eek WA 9 00513900101901 Parks -Chambers Kathy 8311 Sandy Hook DR Clinton WA 98236 00513900102000 Dent Paul & Jennelle 16330 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 >5th 00 8020 00513100006201 Pearson Carl & Polly 16311 751h PL W Edmonds WA 98026 00513105801100 Young Sandra K 16131 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 051310W00 chelbargerAe01 PL W monds 80 26 00513105800801 Echelbarger Tyler J 16115 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 0051316000500 Miller Janice L 16310 75th PL W Edmonds WA 98026 &OLD fZ StDE_1CC /O-!Z 8 00 105901000 ---QQ790400099800 00 Edmon ity Of f oods ty 0' rAveoria'l"� 250 thAve 16 1 21 74 Edmond ond 98< Edm WA 98 dm 02 GOL-0 fzQS/OL--Ncc /()-a-b CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT �nC. 1Sg0 June 14, 2010 Robert Hughes Reed & Associates PS 8311 212`h St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Letter of Completeness Gold Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, PLN20100027 Dear Mr. Hughes: The City of Edmonds has reviewed the application for a shoreline substantial development permit to construct single-family residences at 7510 162nd Street SW and 16200 751h Place West for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002, and has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements of said ECDC section and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Note, however, that although the application is sufficient for continued processing, additional information may be required. Mr. Gold has submitted a letter to the City of Edmonds giving the City permission to carry out the notice requirements for this application. Now that the application has been determined to be complete, the notice of application must be mailed within two weeks of this letter. I will be sure to send the notices to you and Mr. Gold throughout this process. While the notice of applications will be sent out shortly, a public hearing date has not been scheduled. As we talked about previously, I am waiting for at least the first peer review of the geotechnical reports to be returned before deciding whether enough information is available for the hearing examiner to make her decision. Additionally, the landscape plans submitted in response to the May 6, 2010 letter of incompleteness will also have to be sent out for peer review. The reviews of these landscape plans must also be completed before the hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled. Given comments regarding setbacks for the residence on the south lot (BLD20100339), the development plan will have to change in order for the proposed residence to meet setbacks, which in turn will affect the revegetation plan for the south lot. Please include revised vegetation plans with the revision to the residence on the south lot. We will hold off on sending the revegetation plans for the south lot out for review until revised plans for the south lot (including revegetation plans) are submitted. Revising the development plans for the south lot will not hold up processing of the lot line adjustment or SEPA for the applications however. I look forward to working with you on this project and please give me a call or email me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220, lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us. S' cerely, ernen Lien Associate Planner Cc: File Mike Gold, property owner Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan E May 6, 2010 Mr. Kernen Lien Associate Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. North Edmonds, Wa 98020 Mr. Lien: Pursuant to your letter to Robert Hughes (of May 6, 2010) copy to me, you have my request that the City of Edmonds conduct all the noticing for the projects at 16200 75`h Place and at 7510 162"d St. SW. I will reimburse the city for all these costs. Thank you for handling this matter. S' Iy yours Michael R. Go d, Property Owner 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, Wa 98012 • CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT I")C. 1890 May 6, 2010 Robert Hughes Reed & Associates PS 8311 212' St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Letter of Incompleteness — Gold Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Permit Number PLN20100027 Dear Mr. Hughes, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the application for a shoreline substantial development permit for the property located at 16200 75t' Place West and 7510 162"d Street SW for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.55.010, 20.02.002, and WAC 173-27-180 and has found that more information is required for the application to be determined to be complete. The following items are required before the application can be deemed complete: Landscape plan: WAC 173-27-180(9)(g) requires a landscaping plan for projects, where applicable. The geotechnical report from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. indicated that future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City of Edmonds. Additionally, ECDC 23.10.210.D.3 states that all surfaces exposed during land surface modification must be revegetated or otherwise covered as quickly as possible to minimize erosion. Please submit landscape plans for the two properties. 2. Fill material: Pursuant to WAC 173-27-180(9)(i) provide the quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent. Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.205.1), the fill material must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. Both ECDC 23.10.205.D and ECDC 23.10.210.D.6 state the fill material must not contain organic or inorganic materials that would be detrimental to water quality or existing habitats. 3. Excavated material: WAC 173-27-180(9)0) requires the quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material. The two SEPA checklists for the project indicate there will be a combined 1832 cubic yards of cut for the two properties and 1705 cubic yards of fill. That means there is 127 cubic yards of material left over after the fill. Additionally the Nelson geotechnical report does not recommend the use of any of the on -site silt and clay soils be used as structural fill. Therefore, it appears that some material will have Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan to be hauled off site. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-180(9)0) please provide the quantity, composition and destination of the excavated material that will be hauled offsite. In addition to the completeness issues in items 1 — 3 above, during review of the application it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications need to be addressed. 4. Clearing limits and tree removal: ECDC 23.10.210.D.1 states that land surface modification must be the minimum necessary to accomplish the underlying reason for the land surface modification. ECDC 18.45.050 states that trees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, the Nelson geotechnical report recommends that the setback area at the top of slope not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. The SEPA checklist indicates that all trees on site will be removed. The Clearing and Tree Removal Plan for the North House (BLD20100314) indicates that the clearing limits will be within the 20-foot setback from the top of the slope. Clearing plans for the South House have not been submitted yet, but it appears from the site plan submitted with the shoreline permit application that clearing is proposed within the 20 foot setback for the South House as well. Please address the following items: a. Revise plans so that the clearing limits are outside of the 20-foot setback from the top of the slope as recommended by the Nelson geotechnical report. b. Please show the 20-foot setback line on the site plan for the South House. c. Indicate how removing all of the trees on site is consistent with ECDC 18.45.050, and if any trees are located within the 20-foot setback from the top of the slope, they must remain consistent.with the recommendation of the Nelson geotechnical report. 5. Lot lines and lot combination: The subject property consists of three parcels whose numbers and legal descriptions are: 00513106000100: MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 060 D-00 - LOT 1 LESS CO RD PLUS VAC SEASIDE AVE LOT 2 LESS S 1OFT PLUS VAC SEASIDE AVE 00513106000200: MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 060 D-00 - S 1 OFT LOT 2 PLUS VAC SEASIDE AVE ALL OF LOT 3 PLUS VAC SEASIDE AVE 00513106000400: MEADOWDALE BEACH BLK 060 D-00 - TR 4 PLUS VAC SEASIDE AVE According to the site plans and SEPA checklists, the North House will be constructed on TPN 00513106000100 and the South House will be constructed on 00513106000200 and 00513106000400 with the South House split by the parcel lines. According to the legal. description, parcel 00513106000100 consists of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Meadowdale Beach Block 60, less the southern 10 feet of lot 2. The legal description for parcel 00513106000200 consists of the southern 10 feet of lot 2 and all of lot 3 of Meadowdale Beach Block 60. It appears on the site plans that the southern 10 feet of Lot 2 has been added back to parcel 00513106000100. In order to develop the property as depicted on the site plans, a lot line adjustment must be applied for and approved before the building permits can be issued. Through the lot line adjustment process, the southern property line of 00513106000100 may recapture the southern 10 feet of Meadowdale Beach Block 60 Lot 2 and parcels 00513106000200 and 00513106000400 may be combined so that the proposed house is not spilt by a lot line. The lot line adjustment should also make clear that the line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Meadowdale Beach Block 60 (contained within 00513106000100) is also being dissovled. 6. SEPA: Two SEPA checklists were submitted with the shoreline substantial development permit, one for the North House and a second for the Southern House and one SEPA fee was collected at the time of application. Since the City of Edmonds is treating the construction of the two houses as a single project for shoreline permitting purposes, the City will also combine the SEPA review of the two residences into a single SEPA review. If it was the applicant's intent to have separate SEPA reviews completed, an additional SEPA fee must be submitted. Please indicate whether the applicant would like to combine review under a single SEPA, or spilt the project into separate SEPA reviews. 7. Noticing: Pursuant to ECDC 20.03.001.A, the applicant is responsible for all posting, publishing, mailing and other notification. The project will have complicated notice requirements since shoreline permitting, SEPA and public hearing notices are all required. It is very important that notice be carried out in accordance with local and state noticing requirements. If notice does not happen according to code, the project could be delayed and hearings may have to be postponed and the project re -noticed. If the applicant wishes, the City is willing to conduct all the noticing for this project, however according to ECDC 20.03.004.E.2 the applicant will still be responsible for all costs associated with the public notice requirements. These costs include publishing notices in the Everett Herald, installation of a white notice board (which has all ready been paid for), and the cost of mailing. If the applicant wants the City to carry out the notice requirements for this proposal, please submit a letter to the City of Edmonds authorizing the City to carry out notice requirements. Please be aware that pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003.D.1 the applicant has 90 days to submit the necessary information. Ninety days from May 6, 2010 is August 4, 2010. If the additional information requested is not submitted within the 90-day period, pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003.D.3 staff will make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. I look forward to working with you on this project and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, U ,tip---- emen Lien Associate Planner Cc: PLN20100027 File Mike Gold, Property Owner CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISR7N REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM Engineering ❑ Fire , ' ❑ Public Works ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Treatment Plant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: Date of Applicatic Date Form Routed: 4 28 10 APR 2-9 2010 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20 ENGIREHING DIVISIo(V Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: (% 1 Title: t kJ U I have reviewed this land use proposal 101for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. CommRnts (please additional ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. e is needed):. The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date Signc Phon CITTOF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM ❑ Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ Public Works ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Treatment Plant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH Pl. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Building "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: LZt� Title: A -,;WAA 7�/fL__t % ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. 10 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: S Signature: Phone/E-mail: 0 U la-- 07Y-0 k/��7 TYOF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVIS Wl5 REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM ❑ Engineering ❑Fire Public Works ❑Parks & Rec. ❑Building 0 Treatment. Plant ❑.Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH Pl. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28. TO If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: N�?f �,t%, 11, Title: P-w .Pi wi-ty- 10 I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. meets (please attach memo if additional space is needed): '1-3a—i p The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail: ' / f,. 3 J a" CITrOF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVIS1I!5N REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM ❑ Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ Public Works Xparks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Treatment Plant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH Pl. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of ndivid11ual Submittin Comments: Title: -,Zr -5 L� Ir< , l I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date Signc CIYTOF EDMONDS'- PLANNING DIVI ❑ Engineering REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM Fire ❑ Public Works ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Treatment Plant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH Pl. W. & 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTANIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ❑ Building "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: �L Title: r /n-� ❑ 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Comments (please attach memo if additional el have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached, ce is needed): p n 01 W IA16 The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): CITMF.EDMONDS -r PLANNING.DIVISIM' REQUEST. FOR COMMENT FORM n9 En ineeriFire Public, Works .Parks B Rec. Building Engineering _ - g Treatment Plant ❑ Economic Dev. Project Number: _ PLN20100027 Applicant's Name: MIKE AND NANCY GOLD Property Location: 16200 75TH Pl. W. L 7510 162ND ST. SW Date of Application: 4/26/10 Date Form Routed: 4/28/10 Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-20) Project Description: SHORELINE SUBSTAA ikL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL"COMMENTS_MUST BESUBM17TED WITHIN 15 DAYS -OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS, ROUTED: 4.28.10 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: ❑ 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. - ❑ 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail: M 0 city of edmonds i h land use application i pLNW1000 2-7 ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # 10 ` 2-7 ZONE 9- S — Z 0 ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE u 4 0 REC' D BY & M Cr ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE * 2- S RECEIPT # 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STAFF ❑ PB 0 ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT St. 8S 1AtJT/AL 06yLAPK t-N 7 ❑ VARIANCE 1 REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: .la � PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1re,LoCY 75 IL IN kNP 7510 —'GZ STS\x f tfl)KON its, VIA PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) N JA PROPERTY OWNER tlIKE 11NNC`f 60LID PHONE#425'337'3784- ADDRESS 1 S22 5 — W) COW fLT SC, MI" C41-�K W A R $ cs 12 —�1 E-MAIL Mt K(„ C, OLD �Ct7P1CA� T 5r,Nt_-Fatx# Srel —302—Oct 5 V 4(Z�5131o(0000100 , -i-N"v TAX ACCOUNT # 00S 13106 000 2-0 J;Q(JS131e) G 00 () SEC. 05 TWP. Z'% RNG.09L DESCRIPTIONtOF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE100411114 GT oti rJ!; PL yJ & (.7-*A 5 F CI) S10 rz Y. W 0 0 0 feAM6'0'S€12 oV-P(L*MseMetrt Nty/i,075F A1'ttkc.1WD GAf1AGV-.A1%iD off tGZ'J05rs'W /t-4137 5F i C--)StoRy w000 FaAMOO GSM 601Z c2nw� SPACE vNJ 11 sFATThCiF� C,nrftk6 DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES! _O Ey aD?ftF- k I- W iLL 11ECr ALL.. QtX&TA tE COVES 1JW<Li4DiNGoa0l ct 3632-aSLAIQKYADfteewcore Gec^,Iec1JMC,A-L &-mar ey t.11i5w 6WTteW0C1e Li9G,"0 6aAQ10G,IJf&0INA06,,1rSC PLANS 81 TIMClvueEmGI —SEK A'Cflt-CIi�D APPLICANT t1 1 6X t9 Gp PHONE # �2�i �33 rJ — �� 81- ADDRESS GS225-1-tP Cott2.T 5c_ , Pt I L L G2E� , w 48 01 Z E-MAILKI lCe. C-CUD CE COtlCri 1, Ner £ems# Sfe!1-:i(72pI-0qs 0 CONTACT PERSON/Ac- REw PoA'LT Wct (#ttsS PHONE #'3W 9 02— 1518 ADDRESSRe-ey £(4-Ss0C4& 125 PS �, $311-2-1 e'Sr SW, t�p 0X 0.S, W 4 9802 C� E-MAIL Lrk2SL&�NI©Y Q L�OtMA1L.CeM FAX# 3�P '7e'& The undersigned applicant, and his/herlits heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on beha}lff of the o ner a listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANTIAGE� DATF. 41>1110 Properter's Authiza�jOn I, �� (,� l ,certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspectio and posting at te aQnJt t(, this application. 1 SIGNATURE OF OWNER � 7 1 ' < DATE 2t G This application form was revised on 8/10/09. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. L:ILIBRARYIPLANNING\Fotms & Handouts\Public HandoutsUand Use Application.doc A-J Page 1 of 2 C, LL fir` S/SET! �� 7a1 �—f S� 1G2oO —'7� L � Fwd: Ordinary high water mark From: Randy Munson (randy.munson@comcast.net) Sent: Thu 4/15/10 9:08 AM To: Breske, Donna (donnabreske@comcast.net); Gold, Mike (mrg@cnicorp.com); Reed, Wendell (wer@reed- assoc.com); Hughes, Robert (larsiandy@hotmail.com); Todd, Mike (toddhms@aol.com); West, Dave (dave@thewestgroupinc.com) Good news! Randall J. Munson Building Designer 1930 6th Avenue South Suite 301 Seattle, Washington 98134 (206) 349-4551 Voice (866) 312-8468 Fax ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Kernen Lien" <lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us> To: "Randy Munson" <Randy.Munson@comcast.net> Cc: "Jen Machuga" <Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:47:51 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Ordinary high water mark Mr. Munson, RECEIVE® APR 2 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER The application requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit re identified in ECDC 20.55.010, which basically just points to two other sec ions o co e, ECDC 20.02.002 and WAC 173-14-110. ECDC 20.55.010 is just basic information on the land use application form about the property owner, subject property and refers back to the "applicable development regulations", which in this case would be WAC 173-14-110. WAC 173-14-110 is actually and old reference and the application requirements for substantial development permits are now located in WAC 173-27-180 (http://apps leg wa govANac/default aspx?cite=173-27-180). Regarding the identification of the ordinary high watermark, WAC 173-27-180(9)(b) states: The ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline. -In this situation, the applicant is aware the a substantial development permit is required and is pursuing the permit. With the railroad tracks being located between the project and the shoreline, a precise location of the ordinary high water mark is. not necessary for this application; an approximate location of the OWHM will be su cien . Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions regarding shorelines and this project. Kernen Lien Associate Planner City of Edmondsl Development Services Department lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425-771-0220 x1223 ,! )-! 2 6- http://sn111 w.snt11 l.mail.live.com/maii/PrintShell.aspx?type=message&cpids=2... 4/15/2010 • MIKE GOLD PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION -NORTH 2 LOTS 5 1 -1 �N - ST v/f 17=DP40NDS /NVA LOTS I AND 2, BLOCK 60 OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT I CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 669770. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SEASIDE AVE. ADJOINING. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION -SOUTH 2 LOTS---- t __ --- t-' � EDM NDs i\ y LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 60 OF THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SEASIDE AVE. ADJOINING. SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Gd�� = S II�C-�t C�� Cn_ j 2 7� 14 � / E Zen ST �'VSt--- --- - ---- - --- - .. - ..._ _- - • Grading Quantity Calculations For Michael and Nancy Gold North House Date Prepared: Prepared for: Site Address: Prepared by. - April 15, 2010 Michael & Nancy Gold 7510 162"d St. S. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 L. OF WASH/�'�'� A � �1367 GISTER�aG�� Q ONA t �. Donna L. Breske, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Road, Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: (425) 334-9980, Fax: (425) 334-7380 Email: donnabreske@comcast.net APR 2 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER CUT.• 737 CY FILL: 854 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBIT -AVERAGE END METHOD MIKE GOLD NORTH LOT 7510 162nd ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 April 5, 2010 Grading Quantities Project No.: 0052 Mike Gold -North Property Date: 15-Apr-10 367 LF of Foundation By: DLB Cut (cy) on site, (excludes foundations) 737 Fill on site (cy), (excludes found backfill) 854 Cut in ROW: ZERO Fill in ROW: ZERO Section Cut Ave End Distance Volume Fill Ave End Distance Volume (so (so (ft) (cy) (so (so (ft) (cy) 32.00 2.00 78 1.00 3 34.00 156.0 2.00 325 1.00 12 36.00 494.0 2.00 730 2.00 54 38.00 965.0 2.00 1,192 2.00 88 40.00 1985.0 1418.0 1,713 2.00 127 1,795 2.00 133 42.00 1441.0 2172.0 1,040 2.00 77 2,731 2.00 202 44.00 638.0 3290.0 901 2.00 67 1,645 2.00 122 46.00 1164.0 1,044 2.00 77 242 0.30 3 48.00 923.0 483.0 891 2.00 66 463 2.00 34 50.00 859.0 443.0 984 2.00 73 398 2.00 29 52.00 1108.0 353.0 1,034 2.00 77 311 2.00 23 54.00 959.0 268.0 861 2.00 64 263 2.00 19 56.00 762.0 257.0 668 2.00 49 270 2.00 20 58.00 574.0 283.0 477 2.00 35 289 2.00 21 60.00 380.0 294.0 305 1.00 11 299 1.00 11 62.00 230.0 304.0 148 2.00 11 329 2.00 24 64.00 65.0 353.0 33 2.00 2 238 2.00 18 66.00 123.0 2.00 208 2.00 15 68.00 293.0 2.00 277 2.00 21 70.00 261.0 2.00 131 1.00 5 Page 1 CUT 393 CY FILL: 2 CY EXHIBI T CUT & FILL UNDER HOUSE -A VERAGE END METHOD MIKE GOLD NORTH LOT 7510 162nd ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 April 15, 2010 • Grading Quantities Mike Gold House, North House 3:1, Grading for house 7510 162nd ST. S.W. 367 LF of Foundation Cut under house, (excludes foundations) 393 Cut for footings & stem walls: 245 cy Over -ex under footing for rock spalls: 82 cy Date: 15-Apr-10 By: DLB Fill under garage (excludes founds) 2 Fill above & around foundations: 178 cy Section Cut Ave End Distance Volume Fill Ave End Distance Volume (sf) (so (ft) (cy) (so (sf) (ft) (cy) 32.00 2.00 1.00 34.00 2.00 1.00 36.00 2.00 2.00 38.00 2.00 2.00 40.00 1985.0 1,713 2.00 127 2.00 42.00 1441.0 1,040 2.00 77 48 0.50 1 44.00 638.0 96.0 696 2.00 52 48 0.50 1 46.00 753.0 680 2.00 50 0.30 48.00 607.0 531 2.00 39 2.00 50.00 455.0 372 2.00 28 2.00 52.00 289.0 207 2.00 15 2.00 54.00 124.0 67 2.00 5 2.00 56.00 9.0 5 2.00 0 2.00 58.00 2.00 2.00 60.00 1.00 1.00 62.00 2.00 2.00 64.00 2.00 2.00 66.00 2.00 2.00 68.00 2.00 2.00 70.00 Page 1 CUT- 211 CY FILL: 478 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBIT -AVERAGE END METHOD FOR AREA WITHIN 200' OF PUGET SOUND MIKE GOLD NORTH LOT 7510 162nd ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 5, 2010 Grading Quantities Mike Gold House, North House 3:1, Grading within 200 ft of Shoreline Date: 15-Apr-10 7510 162nd ST. S.W. 225 LF of Foundation By: DLB Note: Within this 200' shoreline area, Cut is entirely located under the house for the crawl space and foundation. Cut within 200 ft boundary, (excludes foundations) 211 Fill within 200' bndry(excludes founds) 478 Cut for footings & stem walls 150 Fill above & around foundations 109 Over -excavate under footings for rock spall 50 Section Cut Ave End Distance Volume Fill Ave End Distance Volume (so (so (ft) (cy) (so (sf) (ft) (cy) 32.00 89.0 2.00 161 1.00 6 34.00 233.0 2.00 327 1.00 12 36.00 420.0 2.00 567 2.00 42 38.00 713.0 2.00 929 2.00 69 40.00 1892.0 1145.0 1,622 2.00 120 1,303 2.00 97 42.00 1351.0 1461.0 950 2.00 70 1,770 2.00 131 44.00 548.0 2078.0 274 2.00 21 1,219 2.00 90 46.00 359.0 2.00 323 0.30 4 48.00 286.0 2.00 234 2.00 17 50.00 182.0 2.00 119 2.00 9 52.00 55.0 2.00 28 2.00 2 54.00 2.00 2.00 56.00 2.00 2.00 58.00 2.00 2.00 60.00 1.00 1.00 62.00 2.00 2.00 64.00 2.00 2.00 66.00 2.00 2.00 68.00 2.00 2.00 70.00 Page 1 Ll —70 "Pox ?4 cl ac— jg i . —1 � - , -99- 29LF�6; PVC 56 09 tj ct Ed 'N" 5 'oe AZ 4.2% 31% X07 0 end .9--47 Z9 1 12 --- 446 r.QJ � � � .gyp � SS `,� \ � \ I ; , , 7s -YO ly zi vi kOZLn ":, A 74� cis to Q Yo, Ca p Lu • Grading Quantity Calculations For Michael and Nancy Gold South House Date Prepared: Prepared for: Site Address: Prepared by. - April 20, 2010 Michael & Nancy Gold 16200 75th PL. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 �pF WASy��, `' 27367 �0FGISTE ��R��G�� Donna L. Breske, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Road, Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone: (425) 334-9980, Fax: (425) 334-7380 Email: donnabreske@comcast.net RECEIVED APR 2 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER s • • CUT ON SITE. 1,095 CY FILL: 855 CY FILL IN RIGHT-OF-WAY.- 172 CY CUT IN ROW 2 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBIT -AVERAGE END METHOD MIKE GOLD SOUTH LOT 16200 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantiti Mike Gold House, South House 3:1, Grading 16200 75th PL. W. Date: 20-Apr-10 ,ut cy on site(excludes ftgs) 1,095 Cut in ROW 1 Fill (CY) on site 841 Fill (CY) in row 172 (excluds ftgs) Section Cut (sf Ave End(sfl Distance(ft) Volume(cy) Fill(st) Ave End(st] Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 2.00 1.00 38.00 43.0 2.00 713 2.00 53 40.00 1382.0 2.00 1,284 2.00 95 42.00 1185.0 1,598 1.00 59 1,413 1.00 52 44.00 3195.0 1640.0 2,352 2.00 174 905 2.00 67 46.00 1509.0 170.0 1,134 2.00 84 427 0.30 5 48.00 758.0 683.0 397 2.00 29 840 2.00 62 50.00 35.0 996.0 18 2.00 1 1,234 2.00 91 52.00 1,471.0 922 2.00 68 1,168 2.00 86 54.00 1843.0 864.0 1,710 2.00 127 820 2.00 61 56.00 1577.0 775.0 1,649 2.00 122 740 2.00 55 58.00 1721.0 704.0 1,736 2.00 129 675 2.00 50 60.00 1751.0 646.0 1,609 1.00 60 635 1.00 24 62.00 1467.0 623.0 1,471 2.00 109 660 2.00 49 64.00 1475.0 697.0 1,264 2.00 94 703 2.00 52 66.00 1052.0 709.0 526 2.00 39 530 2.00 39 68.00 351.0 2.00 2.00 Cut & Fill in Right -of -Way, 75th PL. W. 66.00 179.0 1.00 520 2.00 38 68.00 860.0 2.00 958 2.00 71 70.00 1,056.0 2.00 660 2.00 49 72.00 264.0 8 2.00 1 159 2.00 12 74.00 15.0 53.0 8 2.00 1 27 2.00 2 76.00 2.00 1.00 Page 1 CUT 401 CY FILL: J98 CY CUT & FILL EXHIBIT -AVERAGE END METHOD FOR AREA WITHIN 200' OF PUGET SOUND MIKE GOLD SOUTH LOT 16200 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantities Mike Gold House, South House 3:1, Grading within 200 ft of Shoreline Date: 20-Apr-10 16200 75th PL. W. By: DLB 277 LF of Foundation within 200' setback Cut (CY) within 200 ft boundary, (exclds foundations) 401 Fill (CY) within 200 ft bndry, (exclds fnds) 398 Cut Under House within 200' bndry, (excludes fnds.) 394 Fill under garage, (excludes foundations) 2 Over -ex ftg rock spalls: 62 cy Cut for Footings; 185 cy Fill Above and around footings: 144 cy Section Cut Ave End Distance Volume Fill Ave End Distance Volume (so (sf) (ft) (cy) (sf) (sf) (ft) (cy) 32.00 2.00 1.00 34.00 2.00 1.00 36.00 2.00 22 1.00 1 38.00 43.0 2.00 713 2.00 53 40.00 1382.0 2.00 1,284 2.00 95 42.00 1185.0 1,573 2.00 116 1,413 2.00 105 44.00 3145.0 1640.0 2,327 2.00 172 905 2.00 67 46.00 1509.0 170.0 1,134 2.00 84 328 0.30 4 48.00 758.0 486.0 379 2.00 28 453 2.00 34 50.00 419.0 2.00 339 2.00 25 52.00 259.0 2.00 172 2.00 13 54.00 85.0 2.00 43 2.00 3 56.00 2.00 2.00 58.00 2.00 2.00 60.00 1.00 1.00 62.00 2.00 2.00 64.00 2.00 2.00 66.00 2.00 2.00 68.00 Page 1 CUT 592 CY FILL: 8 CY EXHIBI T CUT & FILL UNDER HOUSE -AVERAGE END METHOD MIKE COLD SOUTH LOT 16200 75TH PL. W. EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 20, 2010 Grading Quantiti Mike Gold House, South House 3:1, Grading 16200 75th PL. W. Date: 20-Apr-10 439 LF of foundation Cut under house & garage (exclds ftgs) 592 Fill under house & garage: 8 Over -ex ftg rock spalls:98 cy Cut for Footings; 293 cy Fill Above and around footings: 228 cy Section 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00 68.00 Cut (sf) Ave End(sf) Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 2.00 2.00 2.00 1,598 1.00 59 3195.0 2,305 2.00 171 1415.0 1,049 2.00 78 683.0 359 2.00 27 35.0 18 2.00 1 470 2.00 35 939.0 871 2.00 64 802.0 734 2.00 54 665.0 600 2.00 44 534.0 469 1.00 17 404.0 333 2.00 25 262.0 179 2.00 13 95.0 48 2.00 4 2.00 Page 1 Fill(sf) Ave End(sf) Distance(ft) Volume(cy) 1.00 2.00 12 2.00 1 24.0 24 2.00 2 24.0 24 2.00 2 24.0 12 2.00 1 16 2.00 1 31.0 16 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 r to dadOdd 1 I 0 1 w O �rL o a : M , W h_5 m Q 2 W a W C U p y O Z Z U �1 3 �QO�u W Vim» o � C W 4 cs 1 Q LZ Q II Cr, CL CIDF_1 EZ p � J lil I'. jpQ`. p p ut II ��UO CW.9 II WUO � :I W Wj L ' cz 0 Cc 0 L I O �� I I�?W Zy :......... .......... I p An AladOYd': Lo W o 0 0 0 (0 'd- N ..................................... . .. .. ... 00 A Id HI 9Z Iffld JO 3003 L015 3Nn Ai H3doyd COL cu�, ci FL QL C) Ot PE Lcj � C14 L 30YYVO 30 3OV-4 lSk3 is L"i Azg i ZZ -axL x ct L r 1.4 C� (U a Qz 81 0 m 0 s 1 / .,,,,, \'`~ ".. \ \ ` _ gig. . \ \ 61 \ � \ 7t7 ` � � _ ^� � .✓� � \ '� 019, 66 66 0ck 1. v `i 1 N � "` `SI � •�S -`.� �'� A� .,) 54.375 `' m � 0 o C U ^ O •� "�' \ \ 0 c t, c�i o ' a t ECK EL=55 V N wC.. o r��„ 1 y^p.� d' •� It Lj Sl�ssl t%d OQl 44 cc s 0 42CkL cc 40 CN i{ �Uqi cn o t l SP 30 2`�O�u hq A'. Q o q W . m�-�•� z�Qo: o '7 5/ 0 - /G 2 `I /©-12 nV EDA, NOR• Purpose of Checklist: P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. if you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Michael & Nancy Gold, North Single Family Residence 2. Name of applicant: Mike Gold 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1DzzD i,*>rn t.�ouru 6B Mill Creek, WA 98012 4. Date checklist prepared: April 20, 2010 5. Agency requesting checklist: City o Edmonds RECEIVED APR 26 2010 Pagel of 24 DEMPMENT SERVICES seen checklist - hnndwrite.doc:4.19.2006 1 1tltT[r+ ,6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring and summer 2010 or spring and summer 2011 (STAFF COMMEN 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Possible Shoreline Use Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology SEPA Checklist (STAFF Page 2 of 24 sepa checklist - handwritc.doc:4.19.2006 • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, Shoreline Use Permit (STAFF COMME l 1. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Construction of a single family dwelling unit with attached garage. on a 19,275 sf site area. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The SW quadrant of the intersection of 75th Place West and 162nd St. S.W. Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Number 00513106000100 7510 162nd St. S.W. SW Quarter, Section 5, Township 27, Range 04 (STAFF COMMENTS) I L-) I -4- I - Page 3 of 24 sepa checklist - hand—ite.d-:4.19.2006 E TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS I. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling'(Ok steep slopes, mountainous, other: Very mild slope in the center and sloping at the west edge of the site and at the east edge of the site. (STAFF COMM b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 36% per the Geotechnical Report. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood Gravelly Loam (STAFF COMM d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, refer to Nelson Geotechnical Report (STAFF COMM Page 4 of 24 scpa chccklist - handwrite.doc:4.19.2006 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Cut: 737 CY, Cut for site grading, (does not include foundations) Fill: 854 CY, Fill for driveway and yard area west of house. (does not include foundations) (STAFF COMMENTS f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Low risk if erosion control methods are properly installed and maintained. (STAFF COMMEN g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 5,362 sf of rooftop and pavement covering 27.80 of the site. (STAFF COMMEN h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: TESC Erosion Plan prepared by Civil Engineer. Proper installation and maintenance by contractor. (STAFF COMMENTS) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions from small site construction equipment, backhoe, compactor, generator, etc. (STAFF COMM Page 5 of 24 scpa checklist - handwritc.dm:4.19.2006 • • b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None anticipated (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound is within 200, of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, Grading and house construction will occur within 2001. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None (STAFF COMM Page 6 of 24 scpa chccklisl - handwrilc.docA.19.2006 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None, anticipated, Per the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation ground water was encountered in only one of the four test holes. Slight ground water was observed 5-6 feet deep in B2. Cut in the area of the encountered groundwater is less than (STAFF COMMENTS) 5 eet . (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? if so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMM (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMMEN Page 7 of 24 scpa checklist - handwritc.doc:4.19.2006 (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A (STAFF COMM C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the driveway and rooftop will be collected and routed to a pipe conveyance system in the city street, 162nd, and routed to Puget Sound. No on site detention is proposed. R.W. Beck Meadowdale Basin Study concludes city storm system has capacity to convey flows. (STAFF COMMENTSI(-,r.,►►L A- Co,._ A- _ _ _ _ (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Possibly residential yard chemicals or vehicle oils. (STAFF COMMEN d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basin with sump areas for sediment control. (STAFF COMME Page 8 of 24 sepa checklist - handwriic.doc:4.19.2006 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: aldercm—ap-4 aspen, other: Poplar evergreen tree: fir cedar ine, other: Madrona shrubs b. C. x grass_ pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: Salmon Berry, Black Berry (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All trees on site will be removed in order to complete the required grading, cut & fill. Salmon berry and Blackberries will also be removed. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 9 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.dm:4.19.2006 • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be planted with typical residential plants and grass. (STAFF COMM 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds ther: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, qiEiotrout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None C. -- - Pa- • — a uugrauon route., it so, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Volts Page 10 of 24 scpz checklist • handwrite.dm:4.19.2006 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The single family house will use electricity and gas if available. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The house is designed to meet all current energy codes including insulation and windows. (STAFF COMMEN Page 1 1 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.doc:4.0.2006 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Possible household chemicals in small quantities. (STAFF COMMEN (l) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Standard fire and safety as provided by the Fire Department. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Information distributed from government agencies concerning disposal of household products, paint, cleaners, etc (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (l) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Road Traffic noise from surrounding public roads. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of 24 scpa chccklist - handwritc.dmA.19.2006 • (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise from diesel engines of construction equipment. (STAFF COMMEN (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction per Edmonds requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site currently has no structure on it, but does provide an access driveway for an exisiting house to the south and under same ownership as this site. Existing house is proposed for demolition and a new house to be constructed. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMM Page 13 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.doc:4.19.2006 i 0 C. Describe any structures on the site. None (STAFF COMM d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-20, 20,000 sf lots (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family -Resource (STAFF COMMENTS g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? unknown (STAFF COMM Page 14 of 24 scpa checklist - handwrite.doc:4.19.2006 • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No I Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Two to four (STAFF COMM j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None (STAFF COMM k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMM 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to and acquire applicable permits from the city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMEN Page 15 of 24 sepa checklist - handwriie.doc:4.19.2006 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One single family high income home. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 25-feet maximum building height per code. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 24 scpa chccklisl • handwrileAmA.19.2006 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None,anticipated. The rooftop is below the road above, 75th Pl. W. as well as well below the house up slope. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of high end siding and roofing materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Clare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None anticiapted. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 scpa checklist - handwrite docrd 19 2006 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Haines Wharf Park adjacent to the north and currently under construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 24 scpa checklist - handwritcAMA.19.2006 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known C. (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to site is from 162nd St to the north. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None Page 19 of 24 sepa chaklisl - hwdwrile.doc:4.19.2006 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, Distance to nearest transit site is over 2 miles (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Three garage stalls. No parking stalls eliminated. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. BNRR tracks are located adjacent to the property downhill to the west. Puget Sound is within 200 feet of the site and to the west. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 sepa checklist - handwriteAmA.19.2006 i f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 5-7 for single family residential. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay applicable transportation mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Minimal impact, addition of one single family residence. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 21 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.dnc:4.19.2006 r� u r: 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electrici natural gas, ater, refuse service, telephone sanitary sewe septic system, other: (STAFF COMMEN b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricty: Snohomish County PUD Sewer & Water: city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 4- zo- Io Signature of Proponent Date SWmmitted pre parel Page 22 of 24 scpa checklist - handwrite.doc:4.19.7006 Date SWmmitted pre parel Page 22 of 24 scpa checklist - handwrite.doc:4.19.7006 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: I How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Page 23 of 24 scpa chakliss - handwrile.dm:4.19.2006 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Page 24 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.dm:4.19.2006 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, Shoreline Use Permit (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in- this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Demolition of an existing house and construction of a new single family house-. Site area is 20,626 sf. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, -vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related 11 to this checklist. � 1(oZoo 75th PL. W, Edmonds, WA 98026 SW Quarter, Section 5, Township 27, Range 04 Tax Parcel Numbers 00513106000200 & 00513106000400 (STAFF COMMENTS) ,, k. Page 3 of 24 s= checklist - haodwrimdoc:4.19.2006 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth KA b. C. d. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, 'll steep slopes, mountainous, other: Very mild slope in the center and sloping at the west edge of the site and at the east edge of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 36 % per the Geotechnical Report. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood Gravelly Loam (STAFF COMMENTS) Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, refer to Nelson Geotechnical Report (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 4 of 24 sepn checklist - hmulcvtiteA=4.191006 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Cut: 1,095 CY, Cut for Site grading. Fill: 851 CY, to be obtained from cut on site. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Low risk if erosion control methods are properly installed and maintained. (STAFF g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 8,568 sf of rooftop, pavement, & deck covering 41.5% of the site. 5,811 sf of rooftop covering 28.1% of the site. c.n �_-LQC. 0` 1- 15• llU. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: TESL Erosion Plan prepared by Civil Engineer. Proper installation and maintenance by contractor. (STAFF COMMENTS) 4 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions from small site construction equipment, backhoe, compactor, generator, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 5 of 24 sepa ehec" - handwrimdoc.4.192006 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Puget Sound is within 200' of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, Grading and house construction will occur within 2001. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fell and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 6 of 24 sepa checklist - headw te.doc:4.193006 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None, anticipated, Per the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation ground water was encountered in only one of the four test holes. Slight ground water was observed 5-6 feet deep in B2. Cut in the area of the encountered groundwater is less than 5 feet. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF CONIlVIENTS) Page 7 of 24 sepa checklist - hmtdwritadoc.4.19.2006 (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the driveway and rooftop will be collected and routed to a pipe conveyance system in the city street, 162nd, and routed to Puget Sound. No on site detention is proposed. R.W. Beck Meadowdale Basin Study concludes city storm system has capacity to convey flows. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Possibly residential yard chemicals or vehicle oils. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basin with sump areas for sediment control. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 8 of 24 sepa chedlist - handwrire.doc:4.19.2006 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder mapl aspen, other: Apple evergreen tree: fir cedar, pine, other: Madrona shrubs b. C. x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: Salmon Berry, Black Berry (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All trees on site will be removed in order to complete the required grading, cut & fill. Salmon berry and Blackberries will also be removed. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Page 9 of 24 s= eheklist - hmdwnteAwA191006 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be planted with typical residential plants and grass. (STAFF COMMENTS) 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds ther: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, almon trout, herring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None (STAFF COMMENTS) . Y C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) &t- .1- %AJ& Page 10 of 24 sm checklist - hmtdwti1e.dor.4.191006 0 • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The single family house will use electricity and gas if available. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The house is designed to meet all current energy codes including insulation and windows. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 1 1 of 24 seva checklist - hmAwite.doc:4.192006 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Possible household chemicals in small quantities. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Standard fire and safety as provided by the Fire Department. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Information distributed from government agencies concerning disposal of household products, paint, cleaners, etc. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Road Traffic noise from surrounding public roads. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 12 of 24 ceps cdecldist - handwrite.doc:4.192006 (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Noise from diesel engines of construction equipment. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limit hours of construction per Edmonds requirements. (STAFF COMMENTS) S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site has one unoccupied house on it that will be demolished. An existing house exist to the south and a new house is proposed for construction to the north. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 13 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite -do .4.192006 C. Describe any structures on the site. A single family house over 50 years old that is to be demolised. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the existing single family structure. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-20, 20,000 sf lots (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family -Resource (STAFF COI�II��NTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? unknown (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 14 of 24 sqm cheddist - handwrite.dnc:4.19.2006 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No I Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Two to four (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, the existing house is unoccupied. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to and acquire applicable permits from the city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 15 of 24 sepa checklist - handwri1ad=4.19IW6 • 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One single family high income home. (STAFF COMMENTS)- --b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One low income house that is in dis-repair. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) Y 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 25-feet maximum building height per code. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 16 of 24 aeya chcddist - hadwrit doc:I.192006 • b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None,anticipated. The rooftop is below the road above, 75th P1. W. as well as well below the house up slope. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of high end siding and roofing materials. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None anticiapted. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not anticipated (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 17 of 24 sepa cheWist - handwrite.doc:4.192006 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Haines Wharf Park adjacent to the north -and currently under construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 1; C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 18 of 24 sqm ct¢etlist - kmdwrite.docA.192006 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to site is from 75th P1 W uphill to the east. (STAFF COMMENTS) 6 Page 19 of 24 sepa checklist - handwritadoc:4.192006 z : r- b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, Distance to nearest trapsit site is over 2 miles (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Three garage stalls. One parking pad stall for the existing house will be eliminated. (STAFF COMMENTS) d.. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No (STAFF COMMENTS) 1• e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rails or air transportation? If so, generally describe. BNRR tracks are located adjacent to the property downhill to the west. Puget Sound is within 200 feet of.the site and to the west. (STAFF COMMENTS) Page 20 of 24 sqm checklist - A.•mdwrite tocA.191006 I f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 5-7 for single family residential. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay applicable transportation mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Minimal impact, addition of one single family residence. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Payment of applicable mitigation fees. (STAFF COMMENTS) sqm checklist - hmW%TiW docA_192006 Page 21 of 24 V. I 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: a ectrici natural gas, ater, refuse service, telephone sanitary sewe septic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricty: Snohomish County PUD Sewer & Water: city of Edmonds (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to kitsecision. A A4 -s-- (0 Signature of Proponent u Date Submitted Page 22 of 24 spa checklist - hmdwritmdoc:4.19.2006 1Of EUM � • O� ' O " CITY OF EDMONDS Fsr 1910 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62"d St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75 h PI W (South Residence). Grading associated with the North Residence is approximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approximately 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Proponent: Mike Gold Location of proposal, including street address if any: 7510 162"d St SW and 16200 751h PI W Tax parcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200,0513106000400 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 5, 2010. Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmo ds, WA 98020 6 Date: June 21, 2010 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than July 12, 2010. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, the Edmonds Post Office, and published in the Everett Herald. XX Emailed to the Department of Ecology along with a copy of the SEPA Checklist. Page 1 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 6/21/10.SEPA XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. THE PROJECT MUST IMPLEMENT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECTS. Mailed notice of the SEPA Determination to property owners within 300 and to the following agencies: XX COMCAST XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Outside rlant Engineer, North Region Attn.: Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West 1525 75' St SW Ste 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Everett, WA 98203 XX Puget Sound Partnership XX Donna J. Bunten P.O. Box 40900 Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504-0900 Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 XX Puget Sound Regional Council Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12425 Meridian Avenue South XX Burlington Northern Railroad Everett, WA 98208-5728 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Attachments c: SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA MDNS.DOC 6/21/10.SEPA • 0 Lien, Kernen From: Lien, Kernen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:12 AM To: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov' Subject: Edmonds MDNS, Gold single family residences Attached are the SEPA checklists, MDNS and Site plans for Gold's proposed two single family residences in Edmonds. Let me know if you have any questions. Kernen Lien Associate Planner City of Edmondsl Development Services Department lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425-771-0220 x1223 . ,✓- l ✓ SEPA MDNS.pdf 3EPA Checklist Gold3EPA Checklist Gold (566 KB) North(2).p... South(2).p... 1-1 0 Lien, Kernen From: Lien, Kernen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:32 AM To: 'jknoblich@heraldnet.com' Subject: Edmonds legal notice, SEPA MDNS, PLN20100027 Jody, Please for the attached legal notice for the SEPA MDNS for Gold's two single family residences, PLN20100027. Please publish on Wednesday, June 23, 2010. Let me know if you have any questions. Kernen Lien Associate Planner City of Edmondsl Development Services Department lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425-771-0220 x1223 SEPA Legal Notice.doc (61 KB) CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF OD NONSIGNIFICANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edmonds has issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the following project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of two single family residences. One residence will be constructed on the property located at 7510 62"d St SW (North Residence) and the second with be constructed on the property at 16200 75th Pl W (South Residence). Grading associated with the North Residence is approximately 1100 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. Grading associated with the South Residence includes approximately 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1100 cubic yards of fill. PROJECT PROPONENT: Mike Gold DATE MDNS ISSUED: June 21, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 7510 162"d St SW and 16200 75th PI W Tax parcels 0513106000100, and 0513106000200, 0513106000400 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: July 5, 2010. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 51h Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this determination by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than June 12, 2010 by 4:30 PM. . SEPA MATERIALS: The SEPA Checklist, project plans, and DNS are available at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20100027. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division, located on the second floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 51h Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner, lien@ci.edmonds.wa.us 425-771-0220 PUBLISH: 06/23/2010 60L,P r2esloEICC of EDA O /0-IZ0 • -5ouT14 /(02©0 _ 75TO PL- VC/� C-QKONp S P71 G4/ Purpose of Checklist: CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your pr6posal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklistfor nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Michael & Nancy Gold, So4T_14 Single Family �r Residence 2. Name of applicant: Mike Gold 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 4. Date checklist prepared: April 5, 2010 5. Agency requesting checklist: Qy of Edmonds RECEIVE® APR 2 6 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Page 1 of z4 COUNTER sepa chwk ist - handwriteA1=4.192006 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring and summer 2010 or sprinq and summer 2011 (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report prepared by Nelson Geotechnical (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Possible Shoreline Use Permit issued by Washington State Department of Ecology SEPA Checklist (STAFF COMMENTS)54�� Page 2 of 24 sepa checklist - handwrite.do :4.192006 STATE 0� o b � O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REcEwG1 NOV 2 4 2010 PLANNING DEPT. Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 November 22, 2010 Mr. Mike Gold 15225 14th Court SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Re: City of Edmonds Permit PLN20100027- Approved WA State Parks & Recreation Commission— Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit NW- 2010-NW-456 Dear Mr.Gold: On November 19, 2010 the Department of Ecology received notice that the City of Edmonds approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is for constructing two single family residences within shoreline jurisdiction of Puget Sound. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • The City of Edmonds Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from the "date of receipt" — the date you receive this letter. Date of receipt is defined in RCW 43.21B.001 as: (1) "Business days" means Monday through Friday exclusive of any state or federal holiday. (2) "Date of receipt" means: (a) Five business days after the date of mailing; or (b) The date of actual receipt, when the actual receipt date can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient's sworn affidavit or declaration indicating the date of receipt, which is unchallenged by the agency, shall constitute sufficient evidence of actual receipt. The date of actual receipt, however, may not exceed forty-five days from the date of mailing. This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. 0 Mr. Mike Gold November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 459-6327 or htt-p://www.eho.wa.gov/ If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter. 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://a-pos.leg.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (425) 649-4253. Sinc re avid Pater, Shoreline Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program By certified mail: 7009 2820 0001 7154 4891 cc: Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds Development Services.