The URL can be used to link to this page

S-08-30 staff report with attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION To: File S-2008-30 From: Mike Clugston, AICP Planner Date: March 10, 2009 File: S-2008-30 Applicant: Steve Krassner (rep. Barry Constant, Western Engineers, Inc.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2 A. Application....................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Decision on Subdivision................................................................................................................... 2 IL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................... 3 A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.................................................................................... 3 B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................ 5 C. Compliance with the Zoning Code.................................................................................................... 6 D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions............................................................... 6 E. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................................... 6 F. Critical Areas Review....................................................................................................................... 7 G. Comments......................................................................................................................................... 8 III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS..........................................................................8 A. Request for Reconsideration............................................................................................................. 8 B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 8 C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.................................................................................. 8 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL..................................................................................................... 8 V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................8 VI. APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 9 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9 Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 2 of 9 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot addressed as 18111 84h Avenue West into three lots (Attachment 1). The site is located in a Single -Family Residential (RS -10) zone that allows lots with a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. The proposed lot layout is shown on the subdivision map (Attachment 2). A. Application 1. Applicant: Steve Krassner 2. Site Location: 18111 84h Avenue West 3. Request. To divide one lot with a total area of approximately 48,996 square feet into three lots in a Single -Family Residential (RS -10) zone. 4. Review Process: Following the Comment Period, Planning Staff ak 4f -i4 t' e dec'sio 5. m es an a minis Major Issues: - a. Compliance with Edmonds ` Community Development : �_ _ ...... Code (ECDC) Chapter ' ^ ""' m_ 16.20, single family ' residential development p standards. b. Compliance with ECDC Title 18, public works City of Edmonds Zoning Map, November 18, 2008 requirements. c. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.75, subdivision requirements. d. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.95, staff review requirements. e. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 23.40, critical areas requirements. B. Decision on Subdivision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and Attachments submitted with the application and during the comment period, the following is the decision of the City of Edmonds Planning Division: The subdivision as proposed is APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. Because slopes on the site exceed 25%, no trees may be removed without an approved tree removal and restoration plan prepared by a certified arborist pursuant to ECDC 18.45. The applicant may either seek to obtain a separate tree cutting permit or include a tree removal and restoration plan with the required civil drawings. Minimum performance standards for land development and trees are located in ECDC 18.45.050 and specific requirements for protection of retained trees are found in 18.45.050.H. With respect to replacement, according to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, trees removed from critical areas must be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 but they may be replaced elsewhere within the development, if appropriate. 2. Updated site-specific geotechnical reports must be submitted for the future residential development on Lots 1 and 2 at building permit. Future development on Lots 1, 2 and 3 must meet all applicable critical area requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80. 3. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved by the City of Edmonds or a bond must be posted for their completion. In completing the civil plans, the applicant must address the Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 3 of 4 Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a Condition of Subdivision" on Attachment 5. b) Make the following revisions to the plat: (1) Add to the face of the Plat: "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the short subdivision located in File No. 5- 2008-30 in the City of Edmonds Planning Division." (2) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, staff s approval block, a declaration of short plat, and dedications and maintenance provisions, as appropriate. (3) If setbacks are to be included on the plat, add the following statement to the face of the plat: "Setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right." c) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County Auditor's requirements for recording, including all signatures in black ink. d) Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the applicant must record the documents with Snohomish County Auditor's office. e) Submit an updated copy of the title report with the documents proposed to be recorded. f) The two small sections of deck on the west and small section of patio on the northwest of the existing house on Lot 3 must be removed to the extent necessary to comply with the new setback requirements that result from the subdivision. Prior to any demolition, applicable building pennits must be obtained. 4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. The City will not consider the subdivision to be complete until this is done. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a Condition of SFR Building Permit" on Attachment 5. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance 1. Introduction a. Setting: The subject property at 18111 84th Avenue West is located in the Single -Family Residential (RS -10) zone. It is surrounded by parcels that are similarly zoned and developed. b. Topography and Vegetation: The 1.12 acre parcel contains an existing house on a small plateau toward the southeast comer of the lot. This house is currently used as an adult family home (AFH) which is an allowed use within all single family zones pursuant to RCW 70.128.175. Slopes fall away to the north and west at grades of 25%-50%. Near the western property line is a large retaining wall within the City right-of-way on 84h Avenue West. Vegetation on the parcel consists of typical residential landscaping in addition to some overgrowth on the steeper slopes. There are also several cedars, hemlocks and firs in ones and twos mostly located on the southern half of the parcel which is already developed. C. Lot Lam: The proposed lot layout is shown on the preliminary short plat map (Attachment 2). All existing structures will remain on proposed Lot 3 with the exception of portions of decking and patios that must be removed to comply with the new setback requirements. Lot I will take access directly from 84"' Avenue West near the northern edge of the lot while Lot 2 will Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 4 of 9 take access from the existing private drive. Lot 3 will retain the existing residence and will continue to use the private drive for access. 2. Environmental Resources a. The subdivision chapter, ECDC 20.75.085, states that a proposed subdivision should be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts where environmental resources exist (such as trees, streams, ravines, or wildlife habitats). The existing trees on the site are considered to be environmental resources. A tree removal and restoration plan developed by a certified arborist must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to any tree removal due to the location of critical areas (slope) on the site. Retained trees must be protected during the development process according to ECDC 18.45.050.H. b. Due to the steepness of the site within proposed Lots 1 and 2, grading will be required in order to develop single family residences on the new parcels. Grading is proposed to include approximately 2,600 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill. As a result, a SEPA determination was required (see Section ME). The site is not located in an identified flood plain nor within the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area. However, other potentially hazardous conditions exist onsite including slopes with a grade in excess of 40%. The associated geotechnical report (Attachment 7) reviewed and characterized these hazards relative to the development of a 3 -lot short plat and proposed a number of mitigation and design recommendations. Future residential development at the site will require additional reports as specified in ECDC 23.40 and 23.80 d. The proposed development at the site must be designed to meet current code and minimize stormwater impacts. All new impervious surfaces must be connected to an onsite detention system. There are both local views and views of Puget Sound involved with this project. The eventual construction of single family residences, particularly on proposed Lot 2, may impact Sound views that currently exist from the east. As with all single family construction, the maximum height for a new house is 25' from average original grade which serves to minimize the negative impact to existing views in the vicinity. The Edmonds Community Development Code does not contain specific regulations regarding view protection in single family zones. 3. Lot and Street Layout a. This criterion requires staff to examine whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section, a three lot short - plat is a reasonable use of the property. b. Lot sizes and dimensions: Lot Area: Required Lot Area Proposed Gross sq. ft Proposed Nets . ft Lot 1 10,000 15,189 13,329 Lot 2 10,000 13,778 10,008 Lot 3 10,000 20,028 17,293 Per ECDC 21.55.020, net lot area excludes street rights-of-way and access easements. Lot Width: The required lot width in the RS -10 zone is 75 feet. The proposed lots meet this requirement. Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 5 of 9 No new streets will be constructed as part of this project. Access to local schools such as Seaview Elementary, Meadowdale Middle School and Meadowdale High School would require using existing surface streets, likely by bus, due to the location of the proposal. 4. Setbacks and Lot Coverage a. In order to approve a subdivision, the proposal must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification must be approved. Based on the development standards for the RS -10 zone, setbacks for the lots should be as follows: Lot 1: Street Setback (25 feet) from the west property line Side Setback (10 feet) from the southern boundary of the vehicular access easement on the northern side of the property, and south property line Rear Setback (20 feet) from the east property line Lot 2: Flag lot - Side Setbacks (10 feet) from all property lines and from the boundary of the shared vehicular access easement Lot 3: Flag lot - Side Setbacks (10 feet) from all property lines and from the boundary of the shared vehicular access easement Existing Structures / Encroachments: All existing structures will remain on Lot 3. Two small sections of deck on the west and a small section of patio off the north of the existing house must be removed to comply with the new setback requirements that result from the subdivision. There are no existing structures on proposed Lots 1 or 2. b. Corner Lots: None of the proposed lots are comer lots. C. Flag or Interior lot determination: Lots 2 and 3 are considered flag lots. d. Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: When subdivided, Lot 3 will have approximately 25% structural lot coverage since nearly all existing structures will remain on that parcel. Lots I and 2 will have zero lot coverage. Structural lot coverage cannot exceed 35% on any single family residential lot. 5. Dedications a. No dedications or in -lieu fees are required. 6. Improvements a. See City of Edmonds Engineering Requirements (Attachment 5). 7. Flood Plain Management a. As mentioned above, this project is not located in a FEMA -designated flood plain. S. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 1. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development that apply to this project: Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 6 of 9 B-1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. 13.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: 13.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. 13.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: The proposal involves dividing a fairly large lot and creating three smaller parcels. An existing house will be retained and the new parcels will be able to support the construction of new single family homes thereby increasing the amount of available housing within the City. The development of the new lots must be completed in accordance with applicable geotechnical and arboricultural best management practices and meet all current code requirements. C. Compliance with the Zoning Code 1. The proposed subdivision must comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code. See sections ILA.3 and ILAA of this document. D. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions The proposed project is not located in a flood plain. E. Environmental Assessment 1. Is this site within a shoreline area (within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Puget Sound)? No. 2. Is an Environmental Checklist required for this application? Yes. Because the total amount of grading is anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards (2,600 cut/200 fill), an Environmental Checklist was required (Attachment 6). The proposed grading at the site was discussed extensively in the associated geotechnical report submitted with the subdivision application (Attachment 7). The report identifies substantial slope stabilization and protection measures as well as best management practices for erosion control. After analyzing the proposed 3 -lot short plat and the associated geotechnical report, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project on February 10, 2009. The City's determination was not appealed. In response, however, three virtually identical comment letters (Attachments 8-10) were received on February 25, 2009, pursuant to the City's determination which questioned the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the Environmental Checklist supplied by the applicant. According to WAC 197-11-340(2)(f), "the responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents." To that end, the following discussion reviews the project in light of the comments received to determine whether any impacts are in fact significant and adverse and whether the DNS for grading should be retained, modified or withdrawn. The commenters questioned the future intent of the applicant assuming the subdivision is approved and two new single family residences are built. They believe the applicant may create Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 7 of 9 two new adult family homes (AFH) in the residences to go along with the existing AFH located in the house on Lot 3 that is to be retained during subdivision. The City of Edmonds does not regulate adult family homes, particularly as described through ECDC 20.18; adult family homes are regulated by the state of Washington in RCW 70.128.175. The City reviews such facilities for structural life safety factors through building permit only. The commenters questioned how the environmental elements in Section B of the SEPA checklist will be addressed in the project. The existing critical areas checklist (see below Section II.F) identified the steep slope areas on the parcel and required a geotechnical report be produced addressing the proposed project (Attachment 7). While grading in excess of the 500 cubic yard threshold for SEPA will take place at the site, the geotech report addresses the grading impacts relative to erosion and sediment control and provides a number of site design recommendations. The Engineering Division comments (Attachment 5) discuss stormwater controls for the entire site. With respect to flora and fauna, the area surrounding the proposed project is an existing single family neighborhood. The creation of two additional lots and houses would likely have very limited additional impact on these environmental features. That said, several existing large trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project and a tree removal and restoration plan is required as are protections to ensure retained trees are not negatively impacted during the development process (see Section II.A.2.a). Regarding environmental health, the Edmonds Community Development Code has specific performance standards which must be followed (ECDC 17.60) as well as requirements for noise abatement and control (ECDC 5.30). The Engineering Division has addressed traffic and utility concerns in their engineering requirements (Attachment 5). The City does not plan on improving 84h Avenue north of 184;' at this time. Despite the fact that 84th is substandard relative to new roads that would be permitted today, that does not imply that no further subdivision could occur on that length of road. Likewise, the City cannot require this particular developer to improve the entire length of 841` from 184t'' to his property; that is an illegal exaction. The applicant is responsible for frontage improvements adjacent to his lot only, just as the adjacent developer of the Seaview Highlands short plat (S-00-50) was to the north. It should be noted that the Fire and Public Works Departments did not have any other specific comments about this short plat (Attachment 11). After reviewing the commenter's concerns regarding the adequacy of the applicant's environmental checklist, the additional information provided does not indicate any potential additional significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed 3 -lot subdivision. The City has followed the code to ensure the impacts of the proposed development are reasonably mitigated. That is not to say there will not be negative impacts that result from the development; such negative impacts have been identified in this report. However, the City has determined that these impacts are adequately addressed by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code regulations pertaining to land use, construction, clearing and grading, stormwater control, and critical areas. Thus, the existing DNS issued February 10, 2009, shall be retained. In a separate response from Snohomish County PUD (Attachment 12), it was noted that while PUD has adequate existing capacity to serve the development, the developer will be required to pay for any local upgrade work required to tie into the electric system. F. Critical Areas Review 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA -2008-0046. Results of Critical Areas Review: The property contains geologically hazardous areas as defined by ECDC 23.40 and 23.80 including erosion and landslide hazard areas. The geotechnical report submitted (Attachment 7) discusses development within both erosion and landslide hazard areas and describes appropriate slope stabilization and protection measures to allow reasonable development within such areas. The report concludes that development of a 3- Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 8 of 9 lot short plat is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and provides a number of design recommendations to ensure appropriate development at the site. G. Comments The only public comment letters received during the review of this proposal were those received in response to the SEPA DNS. These comments are addressed in Section ILE of this report. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for City staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020 and 20.105.030 describes how appeals of a staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing and shall include: the decision being appealed along with the name of the project, the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. I IBM 9-9-M1331111 91 Section 20.075.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period." V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the staff, request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. Krassner Short Plat File No. S-08-30 Page 9 of 9 VI. APPENDICES Attachments: 1. Land Use Application 2. Preliminary Short Plat Map 3. Preliminary Grading and TESL Plan 4, Preliminary Road, Drainage and Utility Plan 5. City of Edmonds Engineering Requirements 6. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance, issued February 10, 2009 7. Geotechnical report from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated July 30, 2008 8. SEPA Comment letter from James and Sharon Claussen, received February 25, 2009 9. SEPA Comment letter from Steven and Tamela Kastner, received February 25, 2009 10. SEPA Continent letter from Ninni Scism, received February 25, 2009 11. Technical comments from Fire and Public Work Departments 12. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 SEPA comment letter, dated February 24, 2009 VII. PARTIES OF RECORD Steve Krassner Planning Division 18111 84`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Engineering Division Barry Constant, PE Western Engineers, Inc. Steven and Tamela Kastner 13000 Highway 99 South 18321 84'h Avenue West Everett, WA 98204 Edmonds, WA 98026 James and Sharon Claussen Ninni Scism 18222 Andover St. 1831180 Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 city of edmonds land use application ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # pFLN �fl ��ONE HOME OCCUPATION DATE ` 24 0$ RECD BY Ci 0 S i1 FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE 11 5-() - v Q RECEIPT # SHORT SUBDIVISION TE HEARING DATE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HE APF PB ADB CC OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION RE /ti REZONE R +++C SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION APR 2 OTHER: ¢ { � r rf ` ENGpNIEER!N PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 1901 1 pp 1� I �-}ycoyC w{ PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Kra e l- kO r-� P I T '' O d PROPERTY O�']WNER t' CI SS Iil� : PHONE ffb ZS) Z 3 1 -9 1 5 I ADDRESS U, 13ax 3 T907-6 E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # 2-70 � I RO d 1 UO 9 00 ll SEC I �/� TwP. ffZ % Rrttr. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE Qi V i dL L ZActe- eX;54WV%f1 + o4 Z e 7(4� 1. : ,t to 5 i P..,. e e 5 n , A A r t ve —e- ,.rte . APPLICANT S4eve_ ktG SS V►e.t ` PHONE hE (c475) Z 3 J —q i 5I ADDRESS 1 0 13c k 3 q S7 L� an n u-c�ac� � W� i s U26 E-MAIL ADDRESS FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT4H13K,4 PHONE # (L -I -z-s) 3 56 -2100 ADDRESS 4;0O© ,4 iSot,1L, FEVpJC7t %A,,4 9 S'zx3 1 E-MAILADDRESS 1,cr+uG wes�Pt�te.la��leefs.�u x# (L12572,S6-Z7o$ The undersigned applicant, and hislher/its 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, hisdterlits 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 1 am authorized to file thi applicati n the behalf of the owner as listed beflJ/W/ SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE (Z/_6 L Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that 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 inspe n and po i g attendant to this application, SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE' + (/ This application form was revised on I127100. To verify whether it is still current, call (4 L:ILMRARYIPLANNING1Forms & HandoutsTublic Handouts\I. d Use Apphmion.doc 1VE® 12008 9 DIV. ulON Attachment 1 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) 0 M W O 0 0- -0"0-- C SNI � Utt 9 �III 'e �e iRH NI -- w- `' I ��" ,c�axzs tr.rsaxa p;u, GSA 511?IVf) -A gnNVAV HI PO — — — — — — — — — — ----------- — - �-------- 7 I i o I F k�8 5� zt� e vi � I �J F I $ Y XZI GSA 511?IVf) -A gnNVAV HI PO — — — — — — — — — — ----------- — - �-------- 7 I i o I 0 M 00 O OLY a N x 8x h k8 i B^ �� 3 K � p�� Hill �� h L Sz taxs $ r� w¢ 3 ■ +� nv 3 '� " € e 3kdM id 9��: N Lti s p pal N 4 C? �_a� € � y,i' � � g a p; � � ��' h'f8 g �qy hgy t•F �F� N .Z.'t�. tiw a w o - 8 x s" x S€ I - i W CJI y a oil , 5 F°Fpp� xyhx 5 y l -min! R d n � ZIP? a l 3Y €m gF '�� x3 8 £ y 3Y I 9,�h SII i¢��AP �� O $ �� `A��g��OWN }4 R �n'k SP g1 S �a�� 3; yAgF5� Y�{ iRY�SSyy2 }� 33 I OWN C `2 mix ��Y6 Y� �Uu ��xW Rmd G'. $aHOW aWill W a a m� s aQ ..u� Sol� �eR�� a a six ��'� �# :� € U aHOUN OR, P 00 �x 3d �� 1 MIN — m "a� m0, 1„oI��•�IN �� 3s z; Aga =J aFo^„= <'sa €x�€§ x�"8 s_v.'� q �, 3 G �a 8�3W_?�d § a CrFt A a lip lip xg=wa 3s �E3�5 �al `FE lY�i�a��'a„.W,' „„�� cFio 1�1 �@�a� �0�� g��£sa �g R u5d g��•g3� O O �M i B^ �� 3 K � p�� Hill �� h L Sz � ,J � e � 23 � „tl Via. a k i G�� R� � � � � pp 6$4� 5 `�-"� 5�' C si i u� " _ ✓ I w - .+ ) i Yi „ •i n'� •i I - i W CJI S a if $aHOW aWill W a a m� s aQ ..u� Sol� �eR�� a a six ��'� �# :� € U aHOUN OR, P 00 �x 3d �� 1 MIN — m "a� m0, 1„oI��•�IN �� 3s z; Aga =J aFo^„= <'sa €x�€§ x�"8 s_v.'� q �, 3 G �a 8�3W_?�d § a CrFt A a lip lip xg=wa 3s �E3�5 �al `FE lY�i�a��'a„.W,' „„�� cFio 1�1 �@�a� �0�� g��£sa �g R Wzd g sy a F� � L � �gE y.:u£ go 1 mN €sa §3 eo§ I€offs a 3N g 3� s. re am€m; xmo o �_� W 3 m � � ye ao ao � az,o �„<raa_oo �% �• R Pa 9 P dot gp; '` _ € - pW a as ��„ _� ` e:§5 a<aska asa: =' N_ ga€ ak @a� voa �_a - �n ysgsW a g � n�.$ I Y � 1 � � @� i � � $ � � � � S � � i � - � $a � � 4 t• � � m � � i� �� E $� S s' y #�# � 3 t qq iI F 'd � a � � r 3 � C S � � � � 3 .� 4�• � �' .Nv s 8 � � % � � �# � � 4� t � � L 2 l � � f � 7 � $& dad i Y I Wzd g sy a F� � L � �gE y.:u£ go 1 mN €sa §3 eo§ I€offs a 3N g 3� s. re am€m; xmo o �_� W 3 m � � ye ao ao � az,o �„<raa_oo �% �• R Pa 9 P dot gp; '` _ € - pW a as ��„ _� ` e:§5 a<aska asa: =' N_ ga€ ak @a� voa �_a - �n ysgsW a g � n�.$ I Date: March 5, 2009 To: Mike Clugston, Planner From:Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Subject: ePLN20080030, Krassner 3 lot Short Plat 18111 84{h Ave W Engineering has reviewed and approved the preliminary short plat application for the Krassner property at 18111 84'h Ave W. Preliminary approval shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. Please find attached the Engineering Requirements for the subject development. The applicant will be required to satisfy these requirements as a condition of short plat approval. Once the Planning Division has approved the preliminary short plat, the applicant will be required to submit revised civil engineering plans addressing all short plat conditions. Design of utility systems, road layout, location of such, etc. will be reviewed and approved during review of the civil plans.. Plans are to be submitted to the Engineering Division. A civil plan review fee of $1000 is to be paid at the time of submittal. Thank you. Attachment 5 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) City of Edmonds CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORT PLATS Name: Krassner - 3 lot short plat File No.: PLN20080030 Reviewed by: Jeanie McConnell March 6, 2009 Address: 18111 84th Ave W Engineering Division Date Required as a Required as a Condition of Condition of Subdivision SFR Building Permit a) NIA Requirement Already Satisfied ii. Siope of private access road shall not exceed 14% and shall be noted as such on the civils_ iii. Cross slope of private access road shall not exceed 2% b) Lots 1 shall take access from 84th Ave W. Driveway entrance to be X provided to City standards c) Slope of driveways shall not exceed 14% and shall be noted as such X on the civils. d) Provide asphalt or concrete driveway approach to Lot 1. X a) NIA a) Provide all easements as required_. _ X j b) Private access easement shall be 20 (twenty) feet in width. I X NIA 84th Ave W-18111—pIn20080030_Krassner 3 lot SP rgmnts 1 of 3 Required as a Required as a Requirement Condition of Condition of Already SFR Building SubdivisionSFRSatisfied N/A a) Public hydrant spacing shall meet requirements of ECDC 19.25. X b) Provide water service stub to each Lot X c) Connect to public water system. X X a) Provide 6" sewer service lateral from City sanitary sewer main to. individual lots 1, 2 & 3, with a 6" cleanout at the edge of right-of-way. Where sewer service lateral is shared by more than one lot, it shall be X 6°. b) Provide new 4" side sewer to individual lots. X K c) Connect to public sewer system. X X a) Provide a Stormwater Management report and plan. Compliance with ECDC 18.30 and 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is x required. b) Construct privately owned and maintained storm detention system sized to provide adequate capacity for proposed future single family dwellings, associated impervious areas and street improvements in x accordance with ECDC 18.30. Storm detention system to be located on private property. c) Connect all new impervious surfaces to detention system. x d) Provide storm sewer stub to all proposed lots_ X� e) Connect to public storm system. X X { a) a) Provide an as -built drawing of all street and utility improvements both in .dwg format and a hard copy. X X 84th Ave W-18111_pin2008003O_Krassner_3 lot SP rgmnts 2 of 3 a) Storm development charge (access tract) NIA X Required as a b) Storm system development charge $428.00 Required as a Condition of Requirement $730.00 X Condition of Water connection fee Already X e) Water meter fee - 314" meter SFR Building X f) Traffic mitigation fee per SFR Subdivision Permit Satisfied a) Plat showing lots, easements, legals, survey information X X Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) b) Legal documents for each lot X c) Field stake lot corners (by professional surveyor) X d) Field stake utility stubs at property lines X e) Clustered mailbox location per Postmaster X f) Maintenance agreements X I g) Traffic impact Analysis I X a) Storm development charge (access tract) NIA X b) Storm system development charge $428.00 X c) Sewer connection fee $730.00 X d) Water connection fee $908.00 X e) Water meter fee - 314" meter $550.00 X f) Traffic mitigation fee per SFR $840.72 X g) Short Plat review fee $1,000.00 X h) Inspection fee (2.2% of improvement costs) TSD X etiPi�4rt,rcF.�li Engineering Program Manager, CITY OF EDMONDS mks, 2009 Date 84th Ave W-18111_pin20080030_Krassner_3 lot SP rqmnts 3 of 3 N CITY OF EDMONDS ES`t $�0 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS. WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: (File No. S-08-30) Short plat application to subdivide an existing 1.12 acre parcel into three lots in the RS -10 zone. Proposed grading at the site will include approximately 2600 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill. Proponent: Steve Krassner Location of proposal, including street address if any: Parcel addressed as 18111 84`" Avenue West (Tax ID# 27041800100900). The site is approximately 500' north of 184th Avenue West. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The City of Edmonds, acting as lead agency for this proposal, has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) 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 City. This information is available to the public on request - This is not an approval of the proposed action, only a determination of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal- The City of Edmonds has determined that the environmental impacts are adequately addressed through the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code governing land -use standards, construction, clearing, grading and stormwater control, and critical areas. This determination is issued on the basis of compliance of the proposal with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and standards. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(02); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by February 25, 2008 - Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 ( 425-771-0220 Date: February 10. 2008 Signature: ` �'Y � lL " " EOR R 4 3 C 14 Le C� ... T 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 FebruaEy 25 2008. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on Februa 11 2008, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office - XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Attachment 6 Paget oft SEPA ONS S-08-30.D(X Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) - 211009.SEPA - • Mailed SEPA Determination to properties within 300 feet of the site_ • Mailed SEPA Determination and the Environmental Checklist to the following: XX Environmental Review Section XX Dean Saksena, Senior Manager Snohomish Co. PDD Department of Ecology PO Box 1107 P.O. Box 47703 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 pc: Fie No. S-08-30 SEPA Notebook 77 XX Steve Krassner XX COMCAST 18111 84"' Avenue West Outside Plant Engineer, North Region Edmonds, WA 98026 410 Valley Ave NW #12 Puyallup, WA 98371-3317 XX Bary Constant, PE Western Engineers, Inc. XX Ramin Pazooki, WADOT 13000 Highway. 99 South SnoKing Area, MS 240 Everett, WA 98204 PO Sox 330310 Seattle, 98133-9710 XX Steven Kstner XX Puget Sound Energy 18321 84' Avenue West Attn. Elaine Babhy Edmonds, WA 98026 PO Box 90868, MIS XRD-1 W Bellevue, WA 98009 XX Edmonds School District #15 Attn: Stephanie Hall Planning and Property Management Specialist 20420 6e Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 pc: Fie No. S-08-30 SEPA Notebook 77 laATH City of Edmonds Zoning Map, November 18, 2008 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DNS S -08 -30 -DOC 2;10109.SEPA Geotechnical Engineering Water Resources RECEIVED JAN 1 3 2CUA PLANNING DEFT, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Cel��fi�.zj' �eq��afJe�fce Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report EDMONDS- THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION Environmental Assessments and Remediation Sustainable Development Services Geologic Assessments Edmonds, Washington Prepared for Mr. Steve Krasner Project No. KE080335A July 30, 2008 l tD c t] P, 2008 Attachment 7 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) ............... Associated Eardi Sciences, Inc. Ce��vafan� OW 25 Veaf O f SMv Oe July 30, 2008 Project No. KE080335A Mr. Steve Krasner P.O. Box 345 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report { Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision 1811184" Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr, Krasner: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above -referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. if you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, l ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington L Johh D. Coleman, P.E.G. Project Geologist IDC/dr KE080335A2 f Pm jectsVMRa33RFE\W P L.-. i Kirkland Everett Tacoma I' 425-827-.7701 425-259-0522 253-722-2992 t www_aesuen _cnm SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT EDMONDS THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION Edmonds, 1Nashmi gton Prepared for: Mr. Steve Krasner P.O: Box 345 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 Prepared by: Associated Earth sciences, Inc. 9115' Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 July 30, 2008 Project No. KE080335A Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lor Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions L PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The location of the site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature or design of the proposed lot layout are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the design and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic literature, drilling of exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to assess the type of suitable foundation, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated settlements, temporary shoring recommendations, basement/retaining wall lateral pressures, floor support recommendations, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Steve Krasner. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter, dated May 28, 2008. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Steve Krasner and his agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project includes subdivision of one lot, currently addressed as 181110' Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington, into. three lots- Currently there is a July 30, 2008 ASSOMTED EARTH SCIENCES INC. JDC/dr - KE080335A2 - Proje S1200803351K.E1 VJP Page 1 I ° f Subsurface .Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions residence located near the southeast site corner (proposed Lot 3)_ This residence will remain and two new residences on two new lots are planned. One new lot (proposed Lot 1) will be at the west side of the site, with the proposed residence planned for the south end of this new lot. Another new lot (proposed Lot 2) is planned for the northeast site comer, and the proposed house location is near the middle of this proposed lot. We anticipate that the proposed residences will be lightly to moderately loaded structures, most likely with daylight basements. Preliminarily, it appears that cuts of between approximately 5 to 18 feet deep will be needed to construct the daylight basement of the residence planned for Lot 1, and cuts of up to approximately 12 feet deep will be needed to construct the residence's daylight basement in Lot 2. Lot 2's residence will also most likely require fills up to approximately 4 feet in the proposed west side of the house footprint. Cuts over 10 feet in height appear needed for the Lot 1 driveway, as well. This drive will traverse a short segment of slope with an approximate 60 percent inclination. Retaining walls will be needed to provide grade breaks for Lot 1's parking area, as well as the driveway itself. Storm water detention structures, which appear to be detention pipes, are planned for the new lots as well. No other storm water system details were available at the time this report was written. The existing residence occupies a flat to moderately sloping portion of the site. The proposed new lots will occupy portions of the site that slope down to the west and north with roughly 35- to 40 -percent slopes. A concrete retaining wall, approximately 6 to 10 feet high, forms a grade separation between 84' Avenue West and the southern two-thirds of the site. Total vertical relief across the site is approximately 46 feet. Site access is via a private paved drive that comes off of 84`' Avenue West at the site's northwest corner, traverses up alongside the north side of the site, and loops back to the south along the east side of the site. The drive continues on to serve additional lots to the south. A paved drive and parking area is to the south of the existing residence_ A swath of bare soil, apparently related to recent underground utility installation, is to the east of the existing house, with landscaping and grass covered areas east of the bare ground swath- Landscaping and grass covered yard areas are beyond decks to the north and to the west of the existing residence. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The site exploration was conducted on July 9, 2008, and consisted of drilling three exploration borings, and conducting a geologic and geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of materials and sediments encountered in the exploration borings, as well as the depths where characteristics of these materials changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types. If changes July 30 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. 1DGdr-KE080335A2 - Projecis1200803351KEMP Page 2 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our exploration locations are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. 3.1 Exploration Borings The three exploration borings were completed using a small track -mounted drill rig, advancing a 3.25 -inch, inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2- During the drilling process, samples were obtained at approximately 5 -foot -depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples collected. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2 -inch, outside -diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6 -inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 blows are recorded at or before the end of one 6 -inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils. These values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and geotechnical laboratory testing, as necessary. The various types of soil and ground water elevations, as well as the depths where soil and ground water characteristics changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix of this report. Our explorations were approximately located by measuring from known site features. Because of the nature of exploratory work, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between the field explorations is necessary. Differing subsurface conditions may be present due to the random nature of natural sediment deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at the time of construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. ,. July 30, 2008 ASSOMTED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDC/dr - KE080335A2 - Projecisl200803351 KEIWP Page 3 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 4.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We reviewed geologic data for the site based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, dated 1983, by Minard. This map indicates that Vashon-age lodgement till is in the vicinity of the site and that Vashon age advance outwash is to the southwest of the site. As shown on the exploration logs, the explorations generally encountered colluvium and sod and topsoil, overlying advance outwash. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) findings are not in agreement with the USGS findings. The following section presents more detailed subsurface information organized from the shallowest (youngest) to the deepest (oldest) sediment types. 4.1 Stratigraphy Sod and Topsoil Approximately 1 foot of organic -rich sod and topsoil was encountered at the surface in all three exploration borings advanced at the site. Similar depths of sod and topsoil are expected surficially across the remainder of the site. The encountered sod and topsoil generally consisted of silty sand containing large amounts of organics. The sod and topsoil are not considered suitable for support of new structures, nor for reuse in new structural fills. Advance Outwash Deposit A medium dense to very dense, fine to coarse sand, generally containing trace to few amounts of gravel was encountered below the sod and the topsoil in the three exploration borings advanced at the site. This material is interpreted to be Vashon age advance outwash. The advance outwash encountered in the exploration borings extended to the full depths of the borings at approximately 31.5 feet below the surface. Meltwater streams emanating from the advancing Vashon-age glacial ice sheet that once occupied the region deposited this material_ This deposit was subsequently overridden by several thousand feet of ice. Consequently, these materials are generally medium- dense to very dense and possess moderate shear strength and low -compressibility characteristics. The advance outwash deposit is suitable for foundation support. The site's advance outwash has a variable but generally low amounts of fine-grained material making its finer -grained portions susceptible to disturbance when wet. i 1h dy 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC JDC1dr-KE080335A2 - Projects1200803351KEAWP Page 4 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions 4.2 Hydrology i Definite ground water seepage, represented by saturated soil and free flowing water, was not encountered in the three exploration borings advanced at the site in July 2008. There were, { however, scattered zones of wet soils scattered throughout the deposit, primarily observed in I exploration boring EB -1. It appears that the observed ground water seepage is representative of scattered perched ground water zones. Perched ground water generally originates as surface i water or near -surface ground water that percolates down through the upper, relatively permeable soils and becomes trapped or "perched" atop underlying, relatively impermeable sediments. Perched ground water is often a seasonal phenomenon. It should be noted that the r presence and depth of seepage at the site may vary in response to such factors as changes in season, amount of precipitation, nearby land use, irrigation, and on-site use. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC - JDC/dr - KE08033SA2 - Projects120080335WEiWP Page 5 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washin ton Geologic Hazards and Miti ations H. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on review of the City of Edmonds code and the geologic, slope, and shallow ground water conditions, as observed and discussed herein. 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The subject property is not classified as a seismic hazard area by the City of Seattle. However, earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 -magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8 -magnitude event; and the 1965, 6.5 -magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely every 25 to 40 years in the Puget Sound area. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 5-1 Surficial Ground Rupture The project site is located approximately 2 miles south .of a the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone (SWIFZ). The recognition of the SWIFZ is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about approximately 2,5000 to 3,200 years ago. No direct evidence of ground rupture or faulting was observed in the three exploration borings drilled at the site, or as surficial features at or near the site. The recurrence intervals for movement along this fault system are still unknown, although they are hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence intervals, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the structure, and no mitigation efforts beyond complying with the current 2006 International Building Code (IBC) are recommended. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC: JDCldr- KEM0335A2 - ProjeffSU 0803351KEiWP page 6 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations 5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Based on the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (23.80.020.B.2) definition and the presence of 40 percent and steeper slopes, the northern and the western portions of the lot are classified as a "Landslide Hazard Area. " However, the three exploration borings and surficial reconnaissance found no evidence of slope movement. Per the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (23.80.070.1.a and b), a buffer is required at the top and the toe of the steep slopes/landslide hazard areas. "The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater". The height of the slope is approximately 20 feet. So without mitigation, the minimum buffer would be 50 feet. "The buffer may be reduced to a minimum 10 feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area". The site appears to be underlain by glacially consolidated advance outwash sand deposits. It appears, based on the subsurface soil and ground water conditions encountered within the borings, that there is a low risk of deep-seated, seismically induced -landsliding and shallow debris flow type failures under current and proposed site condition. Per the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (23.80.070.2.a/.b/.c), "Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. " It is AESI's opinion that the planned development can be constructed within the landslide and erosion hazard area, and that the buffer can be reduced to zero. It is AESI's opinion that 1) based on the civil engineer's storm water plans performing as intended to collect and control runoff, the development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2) the development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties if the recommendations within this report are followed and the design concept is unchanged; and 3) such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. The recommended slope mitigations are listed below. July 30, 2008 ASSOCATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDGdr - KE080335A2 - ProjerIS1200803351KEMP Page 7 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations 1. All building, wall, and other structure foundations should be embedded at least 3 feet into the underlying dense, undisturbed advance outwash at the site. 2. Runoff from developed areas should be collected and routed through the site storm drain system that discharges away from steep slopes. 3. Any planned fill on the site should be placed as structural fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report. 4. Any required retaining structures should be designed by a licensed engineer. 5. Temporary slopes should be limited to the inclinations presented in Section 9.1 or . shored as recommended in Section. 15-0. 6. Erosion control elements in Section 7.0 and in the approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures should be constructed and maintained for the duration of the project. 5.3 Liquefaction Based on the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (23.80.020.2.C), the site is not classified as a seismic (liquefaction) hazard area. The encountered stratigraphy has a low potential for liquefaction due to the density of the glacially consolidated, near -surface site soils, and the lack of widespread near -surface ground water. No liquefaction mitigation efforts are recommended. 5.4 Ground Motion Guidelines presented in the 2006 IBC, Section 1615, should be used. Information presented in Figure 1613.5(1) of the IBC indicates a mapped spectral acceleration for short periods (0.2 seconds) of Ss = 1.22. Information presented in Figure 1613.5(2) of the IBC indicates a mapped spectral acceleration for a 1 -second period of St = 0.43. Based on the results of subsurface exploration and on an estimation of soil properties at depth utilizing available geologic data, Site Class "C", in conformance with Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC, may be used. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC- IOC/dr - KE080335A2 - ProjecW200803351 KEWP page 8 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations 6.0 STATIC LANDSLIDE HAZARDS It is our opinion that the risks of static -induced, deep-seated landslides and surficial debris flow -type failures are similar to the risks under seismic (earthquake) conditions, and the mitigations discussed in Section 5.2 are applicable. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION Based on the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (23.80.020.A), the sediments underlying the site are moderately sensitive to erosion when exposed. The potential exists for sediment -laden runoff to be generated by disturbance of the site. We recommend that the contractor take steps to prevent runoff from concentrating. In order to reduce the amount of sediment transport off the site during construction, the following recommendations should be followed. 1. Surface water should not be allowed to flow across the site over unprotected surfaces. 2. All storm water from impermeable surfaces, including driveways and roofs, should be tightiined into approved facilities. 3. Clearing beyond the areas to be developed should be avoided. Disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. 4. If possible, construction should proceed during the drier periods of the year. 5. A rocked construction entrance should be established to prevent tracking of soil onto 84' Avenue West. Any dirt on the street should be swept up. 5. Silt fences should be placed and maintained around the downslope perimeter of the proposed construction area(s) until permanent landscaping and permanent storm water collection and conveyance facilities have been installed. 7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flatter areas, or the use of straw bales and/or additional silt fences around pile perimeters. Soils should not be stockpiled on steep slopes. 8. Areas stripped of natural vegetation during construction should be replanted, as soon as possible, or otherwise protected. i July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDC/dr - KBM335A2 - Projects1200803351KEMP Mage 9 i Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION It is our opinion that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed subdivision, and the construction of the two new homes and related improvements, provided that the recommendations contained herein are properly followed- Medium dense to very dense, glacially consolidated advance outwash sands were encountered at relatively shallow depths in our explorations, and conventional spread footings may be used for support of the proposed new residences. Slab -on -grade floors may be placed onto suitable native soil or new structural fill. Shoring appears to be needed to support the proposed, approximately 18 -foot daylight basement cuts at the east side of the site. Permanent retaining walls also appear needed for driveway and basement cut support. We anticipate both permanent and temporary soldier pile walls for these applications. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation in areas to be developed should include removal of all trees, brush, the upper organic topsoil, remaining roots, and any pre-existing, undocumented fill, along with any other deleterious material. Areas where loose soils exist due to grubbing or demolition operations should be considered as uncontrolled fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Where existing loose soils are relatively free of organics and near their optimum moisture content for compaction, they can be segregated for reuse as structural fill. Since the thickness and density of the potential fill soil related to earlier development may be variable, random soft pockets may exist, and the depth and extent of stripping can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or their representative. 9.1 Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary excavations in the absence of ground water seepage zones in dense soils should be planned at slopes of 1H: 1V (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter. The upper, loose to medium dense sediments should be planned no steeper than 1.5H:IV. Excavations made below encountered ground water seepage zones should be shored. The temporary slope inclinations may have to be adjusted in the field based on local soil and ground water conditions. Applicable WISHA and OSHA regulations should also be followed at all times. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH .SCIENCES, INC. JDC/dr - KE080335A2 - Projects 1200803351 KEMP Page 10 ii 4 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations 9.2 Permanent Cut and Fill S12pes Permanent cut and structural fill slopes should be graded no steeper than 211: IV. Slopes should be hydroseeded, covered by either jute mat or clear plastic, or otherwise landscaped as soon as possible after grading. 9.3 Site Disturbance Portions of the on-site soils contain a moderate percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them difficult to use during wet weather. These soils can be disturbed/softened when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened during wet weather and wet site conditions. if disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. Wet footing subgrades may require overexcavation and backfill with clean, crushed rock or a thin protective layer of concrete to protect the subgrade from degradation caused by foot and vehicle traffic. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL Placement of structural fill may be necessary to establish desired grades at the site. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After compacting the stripped surface to a firm and unyielding condition in the specified areas to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer or their representative, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard_ If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate compaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted- In lieu of compaction, the area to receive rill may be blanketed with washed, crushed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains loose, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to allow the placement of the new fill. This may especially be appropriate if winter construction is planned - July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDCdr - KE080335A2 - Projects 1200803351KEMP Page 11 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington - Design Recommendations If the moisture content of the fill materials is elevated at the time of construction, moisture conditioning may be required prior to their use as structural fill. Such moisture conditioning would usually consist of spreading out and aerating the soil during warm, dry weather. Oversized cobbles and boulders should be removed from the fill prior to its use as structural fill. Specifically, cobbles and boulders with diameters exceeding the compacted lift thickness of the structural fill placed should be considered oversized and removed. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling within the City right-of-way, the backfill should also be placed and compacted in accordance with current City of Edmonds codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the locations of structure perimeters or pavement edges before sloping down at a maximum angle of 2H:1 V . If fill is to be placed on slopes steeper than 5H: IV, the base of the fill should be tied to firm, stable subsoil by appropriate keying and benching which would be established in the field to suit the particular soil conditions at the time of grading. The keyway will act to embed the toe of the new fill into the hillside. Generally, the keyway for hillside fills should be at least 4 feet wide and cut into the lower, dense to very dense advance outwash sand. Level benches would then be cut horizontally across the hill, following the contours of the slope. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soils in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions. Construction equipment traversing the site when these soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. Portions of the existing site soils consist predominantly of silt and/or silty fine sand and are considered moisture -sensitive. These silty on-site soils would be difficult to place and compact as structural fill during the wet winter months. A select material consisting of a clean, free - draining sand and gravel may be needed, particularly under wet site conditions. Free -draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No- 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. rDCidr - xe08033sA2 - Proleds12M033.51KMWP Page 12 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lor Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations A representative from our firm should observe the prepared subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses, and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing frequency. 11.0 FOUNDATIONS Spread footings may be used for building support when founded on the advance outwash, on new structural fill placed as previously discussed, or on combinations of these materials. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for foundation design purposes, including both dead and live loads for foundations founded in the advance outwash and/or new structural fill. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. All footings must penetrate at least 3 feet into the prescribed bearing stratum, and no footing should be founded in or above loose soils, organic -rich soils, or the uncontrolled fill or colluvial soils. It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at IH: IV from any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H: IV line extending down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils. Anticipated settlement of footings founded on the properly prepared native soils or on approved structural fill should be less than 1 inch. However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be observed by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report. The City of Edmonds may also require such observations. Perimeter footing drains should be provided, as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. MCI& - KFA80335A2 - Projecis1200803351MWP Page 13 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT Concrete, slab -on -grade floors may be used for the new structures where the slabs are underlain by the native soils, new structural fill, or combinations of these materials. A capillary break and plastic sheeting vapor retarder (perm rating � 0.01) should be placed below slab -on -grade floors where moisture -sensitive floor finishes/uses are anticipated. The vapor retarder should be at least 10 mils thick. The capillary break material should consist of at least 4 inches of pea gravel, washed rock, or other suitable material approved by the geotechnical engineer. A plastic sheeting vapor retarder (perm rating � 0.01) should also be placed on the surface of the soil below any crawl space floors as well. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Traffic across the on-site soils, including foot traffic when they are damp or wet may result in disturbance of the otherwise firm stratum. Therefore, during site work and construction, the contractor should provide surface drainage and subgrade protection, as necessary. All retaining walls, basement walls, and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed rock or pea gravel_ The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set at the bottom of the footing. The perforations should be Iocated on the lower portion of the pipe_ The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the structure or to a sump where the water can be collected and then pumped to a suitable discharge point. In addition, any retaining or basement walls should be lined with a minimum, 12 -inch -thick, free -draining, washed gravel thickness, backfilled completely with free -draining material or lined with a drainage mat such as Mira -Drain. 6000, and a minimum, 12 -inch -thick, free -draining, washed gravel thickness over the full height of the wall (excluding the first 1 foot below the surface). This drainage material should tie into the footing drains. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. If drainage mat is used, it should be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure. Runoff water from impervious surfaces should be collected by a storm drain system that discharges into the site storm water system. I July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDC/dr - KE080335A2 - ProjectsM0803354KElWP Page 14 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations 14.0 LATERAL BASEMENT AND CONCRETE RETAINING WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Backfill should consist of sand and gravel, with the amount of fine-grained material Iimited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus U.S. No. 4 sieve fraction. An imported, free -draining sand and gravel should be used to backfill immediately adjacent to the backs of the walls. Horizontally backfilled walls, which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled, rigid walls, which cannot yield, should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 50 pcf. Walls with sloping backfill (211: IV maximum) should be designed using equivalent fluid densities of 45 pcf (active case) and 55 pcf (at -rest case). For seismic conditions, an additional surcharge of 1011 psf should be added to the yielding and unyielding static pressures. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform horizontal backfill consisting of free -draining sand and gravel fill compacted to 90 percent of its ASTM:D 1557 Proctor value within 3 feet of the wall. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended within 3 feet of the wall, as this will increase the pressure acting on the walls. The compaction level is critical and should be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Footing and wall drains should be provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report. 14.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factor Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and natural soils or supporting structural fill soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: • Passive equivalent fluid = 350 pcf • Coefficient of friction = 0.35 15.0 SHORING CONSIDERATIONS Lower level, daylight basements are planned under both new residences. Excavation of more than approximately 4 feet below the existing grades does not appear feasible without impacting the slopes at the site. Temporary shoring consisting of soldier piles is recommended for the site. A structural engineer should be retained to design the shoring systems. AES1 is available _ July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. !DC/dr - KE080335A2 - Projeds1200803351KE4WP Page 15 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds. Washin ton Design Recommendations to consult with the structural engineer regarding the shoring requirements. Final plans for the new residences were not available at the time this report was written, and these shoring recommendations may need to be modified based on the final cuts required for the proposed basement. 15.1 Soldier Pile Wall Design Criteria This section of the report presents soldier pile design criteria_ Construction of soldier pile retaining walls greatly reduces the extent and height of temporary cut slopes_ For wall heights of approximately 15 feet or less, steel soldier pile beams typically may be cantilevered without the use of bracing or tiebacks. Soldier piles, which are usually wide -flange beams, are placed in pre -drilled holes that extend below the bottom of the basement excavation. The portion of each steel soldier pile extending below the bottom of the excavation is grouted in place with sufficient strength concrete to transmit the load from the soldier pile beams into the soil below the excavation level. The upper portion of the soldier pile is then backfilled with a relatively weak grout so that it may be removed, as necessary, for placement of lagging. For permanent soldier pile based retaining walls, the steel beams and tie -back steel should be provided with suitable corrosion protection, as specified by the structural engineer. Vertical loads on the solider piles could be resisted by a combination of friction and end bearing. We recommend an allowable side friction value of 1,000 psf and an end bearing of 20 kips per square foot (ksf) for design. Side friction should be neglected within the upper 2 feet below the base of the excavation. The 20 ksf end bearing value is predicated on embedment of at least S feet below the base of the excavation and assumes penetration into dense to very dense glacially consolidated advance outwash. These values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5. For soldier pile walls, we recommend that "active" lateral earth pressure conditions be used for design in areas where there are no settlement -sensitive structures near the top of the excavation- Active earth pressure conditions will allow a small amount of movement of the retained soil and wall to develop the shear strength within the retained soil and reduce the shoring design loads. if minor settlement does occur, we estimate that it will occur within a distance behind the wall equal to the wall height. Below the retained soil zone, the lateral earth pressures will be resisted by "passive" soil pressures acting against the base of the pile shaft. The passive pressure may be assumed to act over a width equal to twice the pile diameter. A graphic representation of the active and lateral soil distributions is shown on the attached Figure 3, "Soldier Pile Wall Design Criteria." The required pile lengths, steel reinforcement, corrosion protection, drainage, and other design details should be determined by a structural engineer. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDC/dr - KE080335A2 - Nojects120080335LACE SWP Page 16 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations For wall heights such that a cantilever soldier pile wall is not feasible, additional lateral resistance may be provided through the use of fiebacks_ A tieback system usually consists of drilling behind the soldier pile wall at an angle a few degrees below the horizontal and installing high strength cables as a grouted anchor. Horizontal waler beams or tieback pockets fabricated into the steel soldier pile beams at the soldier pile wall face are then used to transmit the wall loads to the grouted anchor. Based on the proximity of the proposed shoring walls to the property lines, easements may be needed to place anchors under adjacent properties. Care must also be taken to avoid underground utilities and adjacent building components (existing and proposed). The anchor holes should be drilled in a manner to minimize loss of ground and not endanger adjacent anchors and surrounding subgrades due to subsidence. For a permanent soldier pile wall, the tieback cables should be provided with double corrosion protection per the structural engineer's recommendations. If tieback anchors are necessary for lateral support of the soldier pile wail, the anchors may be designed for an allowable shaft stress of 1,000 psf. The anchor lengths must be located entirely in the native, dense or hard, glacial sediments behind the no-load zone as defined on Figure 3. Anchor tests must be performed to verify that the design resistance is available on the tiebacks. A common tieback testing program would include at least two 200 percent verification tests of the design or allowable load per wall (or more if soil types vary) completed prior to production tieback installation and then proof -loading of every production anchor to 130 percent of its design load. These tests should generally conform to the recommendations of the Post -Tensioning Institute for verification testing and proof -loading of production anchors. Tieback anchor tests and their results should be observed and recorded by a representative of AESI. Embedment depths of soldier piles below final excavation level must be designed to provide adequate lateral and/or kickout resistance to horizontal loads and satisfy moment equilibrium. The design lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of pressures presented previously. We recommend that the soldier piles be spaced at a maximum distance of 8 feet on -center. We recommend lagging be installed in all areas. Due to soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 50 percent of lateral earth pressures used for retaining wall design. Ground water was observed in some areas of the site. Some ground water seepage and raveling of the cut face during lagging activities may occur. Prompt and careful installation and backfilling of lagging will reduce the potential loss of ground. Requirements for lagging should be made the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to prevent soil failure, sloughing, and loss of ground, and to provide a safe working condition. We recommend any voids between the lagging and the soils be backfilled with free -draining pea gravel or washed rock. The free -draining pea gravel or washed rock is recommended in lieu of on-site sand to 1.. July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. IDC/dr- KE080335A2 - Projec1s120080335L1MWP Page 17 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision and Georechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations prevent potential hydrostatic buildup of ground water behind the wall. An interceptor drain, as described earlier in this report, is recommended above the wall. Our explorations in the area indicate that portions of the site are underlain by sand and gravel. If saturated sands or gravels are encountered during drilling for pile installation, heaving and/or caving of the sand or gravel into the boring may occur. The contractor should be prepared to case the soldier pile and tieback borings if caving conditions are encountered to prevent loss of ground and facilitate proper grout placement. Installation of every other soldier pile boring and tieback boring, allowing installed grout to cure, and returning to drill borings between the previously drilled and grouted holes may also be required. Both the shoring contractor and the earthworks contractor should be prepared to control ground water seepage, if necessary, during soldier pile wall construction. Since completion of the piling and tiebacks takes place below ground, the judgment and experience of the geotechnical engineer or their field representative must be used for determining the acceptability of each pile and tieback. Consequently, the use of the presented design information requires that all piles and tiebacks be inspected by the geotechnical engineer or his representative from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and observe the contractor's operations. AESI, acting as the owner's field representative, would keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed following completion of pile installations. 15.2 Soldier Pile Wall Monitoring A survey of the surrounding structures and other critical reference points should be performed prior to construction activities. Once the soldier piles have been installed, the tops of the piles should also be surveyed. These points should then be accurately monitored both horizontally and vertically by a licensed surveyor until the excavation is complete, and for a few months following permanent wall completion. A photographic and/or video survey is also recommended for surrounding structures to document their condition prior to development - This monitoring would act to provide early notice of slope movement or site settlement and provide an accurate record of pre -construction site conditions. 16.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI. perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in July 30, 20108 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JDCldr - KEU80335A2 - Projeasi2"03351K 1WP Page 18 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, Edmonds Three-Lot Subdivision and Geotechnical Engineering Report Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations the design. This plan review is not included in our current scope of work and budget. Additional subsurface exploration may be needed. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of foundations, walls, driveway subgrades, and related earthwork depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering. decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know and we will prepare a proposal. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call - Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington John D. Coleman, P.E.G. Project Geologist �3'- e Attachments: Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3: Soldier Pile Wall Design Criteria Appendix: Exploration Logs 4�'"'� Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer r July 30, 2008 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCE'S, INC. JDC/dr - KMO335A2 - Projecrs1200803351KDWP Page 19 '1614, AV i `may M Ids H19 `�` -F 4� f . A r� ,._..Y. ' Y; s �-.• L (X7 AV a � +.t.� is �1�1L9 ��✓� �� - �t .-�4 �_: .._ w wl I �� - _ ` : n ABs., rd`' M` .4Y AVrH-189: yr 11 AV H1i1L lc� :H ��y,. ,. IS :yE ISa CA "� ,ill �1`� Ab �fl Ab Ivo �r � DR M AV HJL9L n . f i y "o Av! �J is Nghqa,�V �LnMAL- } Pi 4159 1 i 0 ro > Z Do a0z 1 Z to(n Uwa mz ,U)2 oLLI LU a.y1' 'Ciar S.'iFcv S'f4� ...........''r ('1 P-0 .4v Ng — — — — — — — — — - zi tu U - MIS 9LILLH.Yj i� Ajiw� o k§ §$z ZOO M §(k § k�0 J§) wk� §L 0 U) �� \ ( 20 i\\ E /) ; 0 (\ \ (\ k /\ (§2 &_ �j =>� F- ƒe GS§ Ek uj°° /jE 5 z» E aF -n § ()7 _ \ )\ >M ° (6 < ƒ § + < + § § ®« & / $!3u coo Vii$ = @§ § c= J¥S 6 5®0 [ 118 , o Z §mG z u 375 \ -� /G § ;m/ ¥ 3>E- § �7 #$ )2= 2 b k( )( \ j§ 2 §0/§ »k§\ \% z (§§ \ §%-° < \( 8 2 Z3 § b= �z < 902 5 « #2»\ j 27 �J \ )Au /)o/ 9 (± zo .2 122 §\ w&Fu ) ±@ G! ./ e GA} ALL @> 22 §)b§ = § (/ \$ j (S) a$ wk/2 0-°E§ + _) ]6 a }� 7/a§ &$ 0< E« oc \ «. «= 7@+ <= 7aG ±Q 73�$ zz . . §L6 G St ouw £«' o\ Oo o=±c C=az q( .. om2a § m>w� ± < c$� cu =m«m ±) 2 - n m o » k§ §$z ZOO M §(k § k�0 J§) wk� §L 0 U) �� \ ( /\ i\\ E /) >°y / )\.(\/ . §\ /\ )�\ &_ �j =>� F- ƒe GS§ Ek §% /jE §/ L e;» ()7 23 )\ �< CLL �k �\ (W2 /(( /2 -R S. $!3u \\k\ k§ §$z ZOO M §(k § k�0 J§) wk� §L 0 U) APPENDIX Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Lo Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE080335A EB -1 1 of 1 Project Name Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 354' Location Edmonds, WA Datum I fnknown _ _. Driller/Equipment Geolocalc Drill/Track Rig Date Start/Finish 7/9/08 7/9/OR Hammer Weight/Drop 140# 130" Hole Diameter (in) =6" L U1 m Ck, CL 1= C D v o @ > co BIOWSIFOOt N N k— S E T (w cn 9 E R`m o U 0 � DESCRIPTION o " 10 20 30 40 ° Sod and Topsoil. -------------------------------- Advance0utwash 5 Moist, light brown, stratified fine to coarse SAND, few fine to coarse S-1 subrounded gravel, trace silt (SW). a 'k22 14 Soils are wet with trace amounts of free ground water between approximately 10.5 and 25 feet. 10 S-2 Moist to wet, light brown and light gray, stratified fine to coarse SAND, 72 AV trace silt (SW). 15 15 S-3 Wet, light brown, stratified fine to coarse SAND, few fine to coarse 17 37 83 subrounded gravel, trace silt (SW). 46 20 S-4 Same as above. 11 20 L54 34 25 S-5 Moist, light gray, stratified, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW). 17 28 A L67 38 30Same $-� as above. 16 25 53 38 Bottom of exploration boring at 31.5 feet 35 Sampler Type (ST): m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: JDC m 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) U Ring Sample Q Water Level 0 Approved by: ® Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample -T Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Associated Earth sciences, Inc. Exploration Loci Project Number Exploration Number Sheet KE080335A EB -2 1 of 1 Project Name Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 360' Location EdmondsWA Datum I)ilknnwn Driller/Equipment Geologic Drill/Track Rig _ Date Start/Finish 7I410A 719108 Hammer WeightlDrop 140# 130" bole Diameter (in) o o —iu > _J N Blows/Foot Cn CL s �E, no Wn T cin C`9 cn DESCRIPTION o V ca 10 20 30 40 ° Sod and Topsoil. --------------------------------- Advance Outwash 5 Moist, light brown, stratified Fine to coarse SAND, trace fine to coarse 9 S -t subrounded gravel, trace silt (SW). 13 �z 13 10 Moist to wet, light brown, stratified fine to coarse SAND, trace fine to 10 S-2 coarse subrounded gravel, trace silt (SW). 16 A33 17 Scattered wet zones but no free ground water during drilling between approximately 10 and 20 feet. 15 Same as above. 17 S-3 27 55 26 20 Same as above. 34 S 4 22 A 52 30 25Moist, light brown, stratified fine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW). 16 5-5 23 49 26 30Same as above. 19 S-6 24 49 25 Bottom of explora8on boring at 31.5 feet 35 Sampler Type (ST): M 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) E] No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: .IDC ID 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) icing Sample 5Z Water Level 0 Approved by: ® Grab Sample Q .Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Exploration Lo Project Number Exploration Number Sheet 1 KE080335A EB -3 1 of 1 Project Name Edmonds Three -Lot Subdivision Ground Surface Elevation (ft) 360' Location Edmonds. WA _ _ ._ Datum t Inknnwn Driller/Equipment Geologic Drill/Track Rig Date Start/Finish 7/q/08 71q/08 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# 130" Hole Diameter (in) . 6" fl. nA fi3 `r ...I � N Blows/Foot in F- CL S 1= 2 T y�+� 7 am.. O N T0 DESCRIPTION _ m 10 20 30 40 Sod and Topsoil, --------------------------------- Advance Outwash 5 Moist, light brown, weakly stratified fine to coarse SAND, few fine to coarse 7 S -t subrounded gravel, trace silt (SW). a A23 15 10 Moist, light brown and light gray, stratified fine to coarse SAND, trace silt. g S-2 14 7 23 1' Same as above. 17 S-3 29 65 36 20 S-4 Moist to wet, light gray, stratified fine to coarse SAND, little tine to coarse 29 or ' Soy " gravel, trace silt (SW). 25 S-5 Moist, tight gray, weakly stratified tine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW)_ 22 " 441 501 014- 30 Same as above. 36 S-6 37 A L75 38 Bottom of exploration boring at 39.5 feet 35 Sampler Type (S-0: m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) ❑ No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: JDC m 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample �-Z Water Level {) Approved by: NJ Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) February 25, 2009 Michael Clugston City of Edmonds Planning and Development Services 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Short Plat File # S-08-30 Dear Mr. Clugston: RECEIVED VEB 2 5 INS 0000 �ouN 'JkV U This letter is in response to the Determination of Non -Significance for the proposed short plat File # S-08-30. I challenge both the adequacy and the accuracy of the information contained in Environmental Checklist associated with this determination. The following documents the discrepancies and inadequacies found in the checklist. Section A: Background Section A. 7. This section asks about future plans for additions, expansions, or further activity related to the proposal. It is quite likely that the proponent intends to expand the existing use of the property to accommodate 2 additional residences to be operated as adult family homes similar to the one currently operated on the site. This is not disclosed although it would significantly add to cumulative impacts related to the project which needs to be evaluated as a requirement of SEPA. Section A. 8. Indicates there is no environmental information prepared for the proposal with hand written margin notes indicating a Geotech Report. Is this hand written comment official or informal anecdote? Section A. 10. If the property is to be used as adult family home as is expected it will require state licensing and regulatory permits along with the requirements of Edmonds Code Chapter 20.18. If this is not the case, it should be specifically documented and formalized with a binding site plan for use as found in Section 20.75.025 and if not it should be reviewed based on the cumulative impacts of future use. Attachment 8 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) Section A. 10. Handwritten margin notes indicate that Critical Areas Checklist and SEPA determination are required. What is the status of the Critical Areas Checklist and the information contained in it that is not included in this document. Section B: Environmental Elements 1. Earth Section B. 1. Based on the topography submitted the majority of the site (over 50%) contains steep slopes. This is not reflected in subsection (a) and is in error in subsection (b) indicating the majority of the site is 2-8% slopes. Section B. 1. e. Indicates minimal grading yet estimates 2600 CY of cut and 200 CY of fill. It indicates the source of fill is onsite, but does not indicated the disposition of the 2600 CY of cut — the equivalent of 260 dump truck loads! This does not adequately describe or address the impacts of this magnitude of grading on 2 lots of less than 1.12 acre site. Section B. 1. g. indicates 42.8% of the site will be impervious surfaces. This is far in excess of the surrounding residential zoning and will create impacts on the area drainage and surrounding properties. Type and detailed square footage of impervious surface should be located, calculated and disclosed. 3. Water Section 3. d. Indicates runoff will be treated and detained as per city standards. This does not respond to the question of what measures are proposed to be used. 4. Plants Section 4. b. This section addresses the removal of vegetation and indicates it will be replaced with residential landscaping following construction. Replacement of vegetation has not been done in relation to previous work performed on property under city permits. Areas of previous grading and utility ditches with exposed pipes and conduits have not been filled or restored. Section 4. c. This section indicates that landscaping will be by subsequent owners/occupants which is in contract with 4.b. indicating replacement following construction related to the short plat. 5. Animals Section 5. a. This section does not indicate the full range of birds and animals observed on and near the site by observed repeatedly by adjacent neighbors. These include the following birds: pileated woodpeckers, chickadees, blue jays, gold finch, hawks and eagles. Mammals include raccoons, coyotes and possums. 2 7. Environmental Health Section 7. b. 2. Noise. The response indicates short term construction noise from 7AM to 7PM with no mention of number of days in week so could assume 7 days a week. This does not meet City code. Also, previous work at the site was done on weekends when enforcement staff is not available to respond. Long term noise does not reflect the noise associated with frequent presence of emergency vehicles associated with the existing and anticipated future use of the site for additional Adult Family Homes serving medically fragile patients nor does it reflect the noise and lights associated with vehicles of numerous visitors and at staff shift changes including slamming of doors and loud conversations at all hours of the night. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Section 8. i. This question asks for the number of people that would reside and work in the completed project. It indicates 3 single family units at 2.7 per unit for a total of 8.1 people. This is not accurate for the existing conditions on the site let alone the future conditions with 2 additional residential units. The current residence is operated as an adult family home with up to 6 patients in addition to both live-in managers and outside staff. It is expected that the 2 additional lots would be operated as additions to the current business and would be expected to accommodate considerably more people on the site than the 8 indicated. This provides a significant difference in the evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposal to the site, area and environment, as required by SEPA. Section 8. 1. This section asks for proposed measures to ensure compatibility with existing and projected land uses and plans. The proposal does not acknowledge or address the potential impacts or propose measures to ensure compatibility with even there existing use of the site as an adult family home. This is especially relevant to the potential for 2 additional adult family homes served by substandard public and private road, additional noise disturbance and other disruptions currently experienced by neighbors. 9. Housing Section 9. a. This indicates 2 middle income single family residences when it is potentially likely to be 2 additional adult family homes. This should be disclosed and become a part of the environmental review. 10. Aesthetics Section 10. a. Another example of 2 responses, one typed and another in handwritten margin notes. Response should be clarified. M Section 10. b. This indicates that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This is in error as the sound views of at least 3 nearby residences would be blocked and the removal of trees and vegetation would alter the views of numerous other nearby residences. 11. Light and Glare Section 11. a. The response indicates light and glare of residential lighting would occur in early morning and evening hours. This is not accurate in that the current adult family home produces light and glare during the night associated with arrivals and departure of staff during shift changes along with frequent lights and glare (and sirens) from emergency medical vehicles called to the site at all hours of the day and night. Section 11. b. Light and glare from the project would interfere with some views. 12. Recreation Section 12. a. Both Seaview Park and South County Park are further than 1000 feet from site and considerably further when considering actual access routes. 14. Transportation Section 14. c. Indicates 2 parking spaces per new residence. The topography of this site and the public and private access road are not suitable for overflow parking for normal visitors let alone the amount associated with operation of the future residence as an adult family home requiring parking for staff, visitors, service and emergency vehicles. Section 14. d. This question asks if the project requires any new roads, streets or improvements to existing roads and streets and if so, to generally describe. The proponent does not fully address this question and merely indicates no roads proposed for the site. This project would add additional units to a public road that does not meet city road and sidewalk standards and a private road with easements to 2 other dwellings that is inadequate and unsafe. The driveway of the lot accessed directly from 84"' Ave W is proposed to be located at the base of a hill with a retaining wall and limited visibility and within mere feet of the intersection with the private road and 80 Ave SW that is proposed to provide access to the other 2 lots of the short plat. Access to the other proposed new lot would be located at the top of a steep and blind corner of the private road with very unsafe limited visibility. There are major concerns related to these road conditions and access and egress. The public road, 84th Ave W, is not developed to road or sidewalk standards. The private road easement that extends from 84th Ave W to 18111 80' Ave W is also the access and egress for two other single family homes. As immediate neighbors and users of this access we have first hand experience with the safety issues. 1H The private road is not of a width and configuration to allow for safe passage of two vehicles going in opposite directions. The private road is steep and has a sharp bend with very limited visibility which is dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians alike. There is inadequate area to turn on this dead end road and nearby driveways are utilized without authorization. Presence of delivery, support or emergency vehicles entirely block all access and egress to the other homes on the road. Section 14. f. Vehicular trips are based on single family dwelling units. This site currently includes an adult family home with considerably more traffic than a traditional single family residence. Additional units are also expected to be operated as adult family homes and traffic issues should be addressed accordingly. 15. Public Service Section 15. b. Does not identify measures to reduce or control the direct impacts on emergency medical system services of greater than average for existing residence/adult family home. One example is the number of emergency vehicles that are called to the site. Another is the sanding of the private road by the city during snow to allow better access for emergency vehicles. This does not occur on other nearby private roads. (Further, when snow melted both city and project proponent refused to clean sand from private road causing hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians from other homes on road, who ultimately had to clean it up.) 16. Utilities Section 16. d. This topic asks fora description of utilities proposed for the project and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The response lists the utilities, but does not describe any construction related to utilities which would be necessary to serve the additional lots. In conclusion, it is our belief that the Environmental Checklist for this project is incomplete and inadequate, as well as misleading in many areas - some more egregious than others. It is understood that some of the above observations are not significant, but taken in the whole it is quite clear that the checklist in its entirety was prepared with little thought, acknowledgement or evaluation of issues and impacts associated with this action as required by the State Environmental Protection Act. It is the city's responsibility to enforce this act in the fullest as it evaluates the proposals impacts, identifies mitigation or the very viability of the proposal. We would like to be made a party of record for any additional actions associated with this short plat. if you have any additional questions you may reach us at 425-778-4590 or Jaclaussen@comcast.net. R Sincerel i James and Sharon Claussen 18222 Andover St. Edmonds WA 98026 February 25, 2009 Michael Clugston City of Edmonds Planning and Development Services 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Short Plat File # S-08-30 Dear Mr. Clugston: This letter is in response to the Determination of Non -Significance for the proposed short plat File # S-08-30. We challenge both the adequacy and the accuracy of the information contained in Environmental Checklist associated with this determination_ The following documents the discrepancies and inadequacies found in the checklist. Section A: Background Section A. 7. This section asks about future pians for additions, expansions, or further activity related to the proposal. It is quite likely that the proponent intends to expand the existing use of the property to accommodate 2 additional residences to be operated as adult family homes similar to the one currently operated on the site. This is not disclosed although it would significantly add to cumulative impacts related to the project which needs to be evaluated as a requirement of SEPA. Section A. 8. Indicates there is no environmental information prepared for the proposal with hand written margin notes indicating a Geotech Report. Is this hand written comment official or informal anecdote? Section A. 10. If the property is to be used as adult family home as is expected it will require state licensing and regulatory permits along with the requirements of Edmonds Code Chapter 20.18. If this is not the case, it should be specifically documented and formalized with a binding site plan for use as found in Section 20.75.025 and if not it should be reviewed based on the cumulative impacts of future use. Attachment 9 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) Section A. 10. Handwritten margin notes indicate that Critical Areas Checklist and SEPA determination are required. What is the status of the Critical Areas Checklist and the information contained in it that is not included in this document. Section B: Environmental Elements 1. Earth Section B. 1. Based on the topography submitted the majority of the site (over 50%) contains steep slopes. This is not reflected in subsection (a) and is in error in subsection (b) indicating the majority of the site is 2-8% slopes. Section B. 1. e_ Indicates minimal grading yet estimates 2600 CY of cut and 200 CY of fill. It indicates the source of fill is onsite, but does not indicated the disposition of the 2600 CY of cut — the equivalent of 260 dump truck loads! This does not adequately describe or address the impacts of this magnitude of grading on 2 lots of less than 1.'12 acre site. Section B. 1'. g. indicates 42.8% of the site will be impervious surfaces. This is far in excess of the surrounding residential zoning and will create impacts on the area drainage and surrounding properties. Type and detailed square footage of impervious surface should be located, calculated and disclosed. 3. Water Section 3. d. Indicates runoff will be treated and detained as per city standards. This does not respond to the question of what measures are proposed to be used. 4. Plants Section 4. b. This section addresses the removal of vegetation and indicates it will be replaced with residential landscaping following construction. Replacement of vegetation has not been done in relation to previous work performed on property under city permits. Areas of previous grading and utility ditches with exposed pipes and conduits have not been filled or restored. Section 4. c. This section indicates that landscaping will be by subsequent owners/occupants which is in contract with 4.b. indicating replacement following construction related to the short plat. 5. Animals Section 5. a. This section does not indicate the full range of birds and animals observed on and near the site by observed repeatedly by adjacent neighbors. These include the following birds: pileated woodpeckers, chickadees, blue jays, gold finch, hawks and eagles. Mammals include raccoons, coyotes and possums. 2 7. Environmental Health Section 7. b. 2. Noise. The response indicates short term construction noise from 7AM to 7PM with no mention of number of days in week so could assume 7 days a week. This does not meet City code. Also, previous work at the site was done on weekends when enforcement staff is not available to respond. Long term noise does not reflect the noise associated with frequent presence of emergency vehicles associated with the existing and anticipated future use of the site for additional Adult Family Homes serving medically fragile patients nor does it reflect the noise and lights associated with vehicles of numerous visitors and at staff shift changes including slamming of doors and loud conversations at all hours of the night. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Section 8. i. This question asks for the number of people that would reside and work in the completed project. It indicates 3 single family units at 2.7 per unit for a total of 8.1 people. This is not accurate for the existing conditions on the site let alone the future conditions with 2 additional residential units. The current residence is operated as an adult family home with up to 6 patients in addition to both live-in managers and outside staff. It is expected that the 2 additional lots would be operated as additions to the current business and would be expected to accommodate considerably more people on the site than the 8 indicated. This provides a significant difference in the evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposal to the site, area and environment, as required by SEPA. Section 8. I. This section asks for proposed measures to ensure compatibility with existing and projected land uses and plans. The proposal does not acknowledge or address the potential impacts or propose measures to ensure compatibility with even there existing use of the site as an adult family home_ This is especially relevant to the potential for 2 additional adult family homes served by substandard public and private road, additional noise disturbance and other disruptions currently experienced by neighbors. 9. Housing Section 9. a. This indicates 2 middle income single family residences when it is potentially likely to be 2 additional adult family homes. This should be disclosed and become a part of the environmental review. 10. Aesthetics Section 10. a. Another example of 2 responses, one typed and another in handwritten margin notes. Response should be clarified. 3 Section 10. b. This indicates that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This is in error as the sound views of at least 3 nearby residences would be blocked and the removal of trees and vegetation would alter the views of numerous other nearby residences. 11. Light and Glare Section 11. a. The response indicates light and glare of residential lighting would occur in early morning and evening hours. This is not accurate in that the current adult family home produces light and glare during the night associated with arrivals and departure of staff during shift changes along with frequent lights and glare (and sirens) from emergency medical vehicles called to the site at all hours of the day and night. Section 11. b. Light and glare from the project would interfere with some views. 12. Recreatiion Section 12. a. Both Seaview Park and South County Park are further than 1000 feet from site and considerably further when considering actual access routes. 14. Transportation Section 14. c. Indicates 2 parking spaces per new residence_ The topography of this site and the public and private access road are not suitable for overflow parking for normal visitors let alone the amount associated with operation of the future residence as an adult family home requiring parking for staff, visitors, service and emergency vehicles. Section 14. d. This question asks if the project requires any new roads, streets or improvements to existing roads and streets and if so, to generally describe. The proponent does not fully address this question and merely indicates no roads proposed for the site. This project would add additional units to a public road that does not meet city road and sidewalk standards and a private road with easements to 2 other dwellings that is inadequate and unsafe. The driveway of the lot accessed directly from 84th Ave W is proposed to be located at the base of a hill with a retaining wall and limited visibility and within mere feet of the intersection with the private road and 84th Ave SW that is proposed to provide access to the other 2 lots of the short plat. Access to the other proposed new lot would be located at the top of a steep and blind corner of the private road with very unsafe limited visibility. There are major concerns related to these road conditions and access and egress. The public road, 84th Ave W, is not developed to road or sidewalk standards. The private road easement that extends from 84th Ave W to 18111 80 Ave W is also the access and egress for two other single family homes. As immediate neighbors and users of this access we have first hand experience with the safety issues. 4 The private road is not of a width and configuration to allow for safe passage of two vehicles going in opposite directions. The private road is steep and has a sharp bend with very limited visibility which is dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians alike. There is inadequate area to turn on this dead end road and nearby driveways are utilized without authorization. Presence of delivery, support or emergency vehicles entirely block all access and egress to the other homes on the road_ Section 14. f. Vehicular trips are based on single family dwelling units. This site currently includes an adult family home with considerably more traffic than a traditional single family residence_ Additional units are also expected to be operated as adult family homes and traffic issues should be addressed accordingly. 15. Public Service Section 15. b. Does not identify measures to reduce or control the direct impacts on emergency medical system services of greater than average for existing residence/adult family home. One example is the number of emergency vehicles that are called to the site. Another is the sanding of the private road by the city during snow to allow better access for emergency vehicles. This does not occur on other nearby private roads. (Further, when snow melted both city and project proponent refused to clean sand from private road causing hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians from other homes on road, who ultimately had to clean it up.) 16. Utilities Section 16. d. This topic asks for a description of utilities proposed for the project and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The response lists the utilities, but does not describe any construction related to utilities which would be necessary to serve the additional lots. In conclusion, it is our belief that the Environmental Checklist for this project is incomplete and inadequate, as well as misleading in many areas - some more egregious than others. It is understood that some of the above observations are not significant, but taken in the whole it is quite clear that the checklist in its entirety was prepared with little thought, acknowledgement or evaluation of issues and impacts associated with this action as required by the State Environmental Protection Act. It is the city's responsibility to enforce this act in the fullest as it evaluates the proposals impacts, identifies mitigation or the very viability of the proposal. We would like to continue to be a party of record for any additional actions associated with this short plat. If you have any additional questions you may reach us at 425-640-8311 or kastnertsCa�verizon.com. E Sincerely f Steven & Tamela Kastner 18321 84m Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 n February 25, 2009 Michael Clugston City of Edmonds Planning and Development Services 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Short Plat File # S-08-30 Dear Mr. Clugston: 1 t "} This fetter is in response to the Determination of Non -Significance for the proposed short plat File # S-08-30. I challenge both the adequacy and the accuracy of the information contained in Environmental Checklist associated with this determination. The following documents the discrepancies and inadequacies found in the checklist_ Section A: Background Section A. 7. This section asks about future plans for additions, expansions, or further activity related to the proposal. It is quite likely that the proponent intends to expand the existing use of the property to accommodate 2 additional residences to be operated as adult family homes similar to the one currently operated on the site. This is not disclosed although it would significantly add to cumulative impacts related to the project which needs to be evaluated as a requirement of SEPA. Section A. 8. Indicates there is no environmental information prepared for the proposal with hand written margin notes indicating a Geotech Report. Is this hand written comment official or informal anecdote? Section A. 10. If the property is to be used as adult family home as is expected it will require state licensing and regulatory permits along with the requirements of Edmonds Code Chapter 20.18. If this is not the case, it should be specifically documented and formalized with a binding site plan for use as found in Section 20.75.025 and if not it should be reviewed based on the cumulative impacts of future use. Attachment 10 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30)` Section A. 10. Handwritten margin notes indicate that Critical Areas Checklist and SEPA determination are required. What is the status of the Critical Areas Checklist and the information contained in it that is not included in this document. Section B: Environmental Elements 1. Earth Section B. 1. Based on the topography submitted the majority of the site (over 50%) contains steep slopes. This is not reflected in subsection (a) and is in error in subsection (b) indicating the majority of the site is 2-8% slopes. Section B. 1 _ e. Indicates minimal grading yet estimates 2600 CY of cut and 200 CY of fill. It indicates the source of fill is onsite, but does not indicated the disposition of the 2600 CY of cut — the equivalent of 260 dump truck loads! This does not adequately describe or address the impacts of this magnitude of grading on 2 lots of less than 1.12 acre site. Section B. 1. g. indicates 42.8% of the site will be impervious surfaces. This is far in excess of the surrounding residential zoning and will create impacts on the area drainage and surrounding properties. Type and detailed square footage of impervious surface should be located, calculated and disclosed. 3. Water Section 3. d. Indicates runoff will be treated and detained as per city standards. This does not respond to the question of what measures are proposed to be used. 4. Plants Section 4. b. This section addresses the removal of vegetation and indicates it will be replaced with residential landscaping following construction. Replacement of vegetation has not been done in relation to previous work performed on property under city permits_ Areas of previous grading and utility ditches with exposed pipes and conduits have not been filled or restored. Section 4_ c. This section indicates that landscaping will be by subsequent owners/occupants which is in contract with 4.b. indicating replacement following construction related to the short plat. 5. Animals Section 5. a. This section does not indicate the full range of birds and animals observed on and near the site by observed repeatedly by adjacent neighbors. These include the following birds: pileated woodpeckers, chickadees, blue jays, gold finch, hawks and eagles. Mammals include raccoons, coyotes and possums. 2 7. Environmental Health Section 7. b. 2. Noise. The response indicates short term construction noise from 7AM to 7PM with no mention of number of days in week so could assume 7 days a week_ This does not meet City code_ Also, previous work at the site was done on weekends when enforcement staff is not available to respond. Long term noise does not reflect the noise associated with frequent presence of emergency vehicles associated with the existing and anticipated future use of the site for additional Adult Family Homes serving medically fragile patients nor does it reflect the noise and lights associated with vehicles of numerous visitors and at staff shift changes including slamming of doors and loud conversations at all hours of the night_ 8. Land and Shoreline Use Section B. i. This question asks for the number of people that would reside and work in the completed project. It indicates 3 single family units at 2.7 per unit for a total of 8.1 people. This is not accurate for the existing conditions on the site let alone the future conditions with 2 additional residential units. The current residence is operated as an adult family home with up to 6 patients in addition to both live-in managers and outside staff. It is expected that the 2 additional lots would be operated as additions to the current business and would be expected to accommodate considerably more people on the site than the 8 indicated_ This provides a significant difference in the evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposal to the site, area and environment, as required by SEPA. Section 8. 1. This section asks for proposed measures to ensure compatibility with existing and projected land uses and plans. The proposal does not acknowledge or address the potential impacts or propose measures to ensure compatibility with even there existing use of the site as an adult family home. This is especially relevant to the potential for 2 additional adult family homes served by substandard public and private road, additional noise disturbance and other disruptions currently experienced by neighbors. 9. Housing Section 9. a. This indicates 2 middle income single family residences when it is potentially likely to be 2 additional adult family homes. This should be disclosed and become a part of the environmental review. 10. Aesthetics Section 10. a. Another example of 2 responses, one typed and another in handwritten margin notes. Response should be clarified.. Section 10. b. This indicates that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This is in error as the sound views of at least 3 nearby residences would be blocked and the removal of trees and vegetation would alter the views of numerous other nearby residences. 11. Light and Glare Section 11. a. The response indicates light and glare of residential lighting would occur in early morning and evening hours. This is not accurate in that the current adult family home produces light and glare during the night associated with arrivals and departure of staff during shift changes along with frequent lights and glare (and sirens) from emergency medical vehicles called to the site at all hours of the day and night. Section 11. b. Light and glare from the project would interfere with some views. 12. Recreation Section 12. a_ Both Seaview Park and South County Park are further than 1000 feet from site and considerably further when considering actual access routes. 14. Transportation Section 14. c. Indicates 2 parking spaces per new residence. The topography of this site and the public and private access road are not suitable for overflow parking for normal visitors let alone the amount associated with operation of the future residence as an adult family home requiring parking for staff, visitors, service and emergency vehicles. Section 14. d. This question asks if the project requires any new roads, streets or improvements to existing roads and streets and if so, to generally describe. The proponent does not fully address this question and merely indicates no roads proposed for the site. This project would add additional units to a public road that does not meet city road and sidewalk standards and a private road with easements to 2 other dwellings that is inadequate and unsafe. The driveway of the lot accessed directly from 84th Ave W is proposed to be located at the base of a hill with a retaining wall and limited visibility and within mere feet of the intersection with the private road and 80 Ave SW that is proposed to provide access to the other 2 lots of the short plat. Access to the other proposed new lot would be located at the top of a steep and blind corner of the private road with very unsafe limited visibility. There are major concerns related to these road conditions and access and egress. The public road, 84th Ave W, is not developed to road of sidewalk standards. The private road easement that extends from 84th Ave W to 18111 84th Ave W is also the access and egress for two other single family homes. As immediate neighbors and users of this access we have first hand experience with the safety issues. 4 The private road is not of a width and configuration to allow for safe passage of two vehicles going in opposite directions. The private road is steep and has a sharp bend with very limited visibility which is dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians alike. There is inadequate area to tum on this dead end road and nearby driveways are utilized without authorization. Presence of delivery, support or emergency vehicles entirely block all access and egress to the other homes on the road. Section 14. f. Vehicular trips are based on single family dwelling units. This site currently includes an adult family home with considerably more traffic than a traditional single family residence. Additional units are also expected to be operated as adult family homes and traffic issues should be addressed accordingly. 15. Public Service Section 15. b. Does not identify measures to reduce or control the direct impacts on emergency medical system services of greater than average for existing residence/adult family home. One example is the number of emergency vehicles that are called to the site. Another is the sanding of the private road by the city during snow to allow better access for emergency vehicles. This does not occur on other nearby private roads. (Further, when snow melted both city and project proponent refused to clean sand from private road causing hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians from other homes on road, who ultimately had to clean it up-) 16. Utilities Section 16. d. This topic asks for a description of utilities proposed for the project and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The response lists the utilities, but does not describe any construction related to utilities which would be necessary to serve the additional lots. In conclusion, it is my belief that the Environmental Checklist for this project is incomplete and inadequate, as well as misleading in many areas - some more egregious than others. It is understood that some of the above observations are not significant, but taken in the whole it is quite clear that the checklist in its entirety. was prepared with little thought, acknowledgement or evaluation of issues and impacts associated with this action as required by the State Environmental Protection Act. It is the city's responsibility to enforce this act in the fullest as it evaluates the proposals impacts, identifies mitigation or the very viability of the proposal. I would like to be made a party of record for any additional actions associated with this short plat. If you have any additional questions you may reach me at 425-775-5570. E Sincerely Ms. Ninni IScism 18311 84 Ave W. Edmonds WA 98026 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM Project Number: 5-2008-30 Applicant's Name: STEVE KRASSNER Property Location: 18111 84TH AVENUE WEST Date of Complete Application: 4/28108 Zoning: Singe Family__Residential (RS -10) Project Description: Subdivide 1.12 acres into three lots retaining existing house. Return comments to Planning .Division no later than: 5/12/08 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 City Department:_( T Name of Individual Submitting Comments: /I,,_ �� G Title: Ate— : /&/C, 1-0 /L-1 This project would / would not (please circle one) affect this department. 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: ? ? Z0 Attachment 11 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION^ REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM �1 3fi M; - Project Number: S-2008-30 Applicant's Name: STEVE KRASSNER Property Location: 18111 84TH AVENUE WEST = `_- Date of Complete Application: 4/28/08 Zoning: Singe Family Residential (RS -10) Project Description:_ Subdivide 1.12 acres into three lots retaining „existing house. Return comments to Planning Division no later than: 5/12/08. _ If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 City Department: ")C -c to! r s _--- ---- Name of Individual Submitting Comments: 'Ja"_1 "au „ Title: R�-J ..D�.,zc, This project would / would not (please circle one) affect this department. 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: O's Signature:`w� �.�-�. ... Phone/E-mail: 162 3 SNOFEOMISH Col3NTY ■ma, 1 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Mike Clugston City of Edmonds 1215 tb Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Clugston: Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value February 24, 2009 Reference Number: S 08 30 Krassner Short Plat District DR Number: 09-026 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any underground electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Contact with the District is recommended prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, D 9 -- Saksena eni r Manager Distribution Engineering Services Attachment 12 Krassner Short Plat (S-08-30) 1802 — 75i4 Street S.W. • Everett, WA • 98203 J Mailing Address_ P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783.-4300 9 roll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext 4300 • www.snopud.com