BLD20160712_CANOD.pdf2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or
23.80.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
lGirosionllazaro. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sedifti nt corittol, plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
❑ Critical area Report',Ikequired. The l)ipposed pi, 'ect is within a critical arpo,apd/or a critical are
buffer)4hd a critical 'area report.is required, A criticirl area report has been subinitted and evaluate
fnr nmmnlinnre with the following criteria pursuant to `ECDC'23.40.160:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on crincai areas in acumuanuc wiui i ,.. ��•��•���,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proppsal does not pose art unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
ori air ofi''the developMent f posal site;
3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public' interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
F�; l intWyorabl Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate ,its impact on, critical areas and/or dates, of comply with "the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions f the City of Edntlonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
avorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and
f the Ci o
f Edmonds critical area rc alations'. Any
visions o g
with the
applicable provisions City ,
complies w pending subsequent changesP o the proposal shall void this decision endin re -revise' ofthe proposal. ,
Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referencedpermit number for specific condition(s).
.� ...,,
eiec� Wit � I w
gtta.tttre' Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny,a development proposal or other activity lased OnAhe
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed accordhig to, and as part of, the appeal procedure,, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12116/2010"
HANSON DESIGN
KRISTIN HANSON
652 ALDER STREET
EDMONDS 98020
R VI
JUL 0 6 2016
QVLLOIPIJAENT SBVICES
JULY 5, 2016
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION (CRA20160060).
FOR THE JIMENEZ PROJECT AT 7429 215TH ST SW.
THE PROJECT IS A BIG SLAB PATIO AREA WITH A SMALL FOUNDATION AREA
AND 10 POSTS WITH FOOTINGS IN THE PATIO AREA.
THE TOP OF THE SLOPE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE OWNER AS BEING WHERE I
HAVE DRAWN IT ON THE ENCLOSED PLOT. THE TOP OF SLOPE WAS DEFINED BY
WHERE THE NEXT STEP IS DOWN HILL
OUR PROJECT IS AT LEAST 50 FEET FROM THE TOP OF SLOPE. THE SLAB PATIO
WILL HARDLY AFFECT THE SLOPE. THE FOUNDATION AREA (SOME DIGGING
INVOLVED) IS 56 FT FROM THE SLOPE. ACCORDING TO KERNEN LIEN EROSION
AT THIS DISTANCE CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH BMP'S. CLOSER THAN 50 FT
REQUIRES A GEO-TECH.
THE WHOLE REAR YARD SLOPES GENTLY TOWARDS THE HOUSE OR SOUTH.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES LIKE WADDLES, SILT FENCES ETC WOULD DO
REALLY NOTHING. THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THE ADDITION AND THE PATIOS
DOES NOT REQUIRE EXCESSIVE WATER, MAJOR DIGGING NOR IN-FILL,HEAVY
EQUIPMENT. BUT HAPPY TO INSTALL A SILT FENCE IF YOU THINK IT PRUDENT,
SO, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT TO
BE APPROVED?
THANKS,
KRISTIN HANSON
425-774-7129
hansondesign@hotmail.com
x
F
N
5LAO fAID: M
-7/6/ZoI &
oC
_43
M
Icy -"Mom"
Z« e7l �.w•
fe-I-F L �4
I 2 a'-- D It