16520 72ND AVE W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiii
5610
16520 72ND AVE W
--sue- -
_ CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH •.EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220.• FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www 6edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Inc 18dQ Planning • Building Engineering
September 18, 20.09
Ms. Sabine Birlenbach
22613 — 93`d Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Tree Maintenance at 16520 — 72nd Avenue West.
Dear Ms. Birlenbach:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
STREET FILE
You submitted a request to the City to reduce the crowns of 26 previously topped trees on Stephen and
Judee Lea's property addressed 16520. — 72"d Avenue West. As part of your request, you submitted an,
arborist report by Sean Dugan with Tree Solutions Inc. on January 22, 2009 and submitted addendums to
Mr. Dugan's report on July 6, 2009 and August 7„2009 in response to my requests for additional
information regarding the proposal. Additionally, as required by the critical areas code, you submitted a
biologist report by Colin Macdonald with Restoration Logistics, LLC on July 6, 2009 and submitted an
addendum to Mr. Macdonald's report on August 7,.2009 in response to my request for additional
information.
You also submitted a critical areas checklist on September 9, 2609 for the two parcels that comprise the
Lea's property (File No. CRA20090074). I visited the site and issued a critical areas reconnaissance
report today. As stated in my reconnaissance report (enclosed), the site appears to contain and/or be
adjacent to various critical areas including landslide and erosion hazard areas, a stream, wetland, and a
mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area as defined by the City's critical areas code
requirements of ECDC 23.40 through 23.90,
The reports by Mr. Dugan and Mr. Macdonald conclude that the proposed crown reduction work should
be considered routine landscape maintenance and gardening, which is exempt from tree cutting permit
requirements pursuant to ECDC 18.45.030. The reports state that the work should be considered routine
maintenance because the trees that are proposed for crown reduction have been topped. in the past. The
addendum by Mr. Dugan submitted on July 6, 2009 also states that the work should be considered routine
maintenance due to a private agreement made for protection of views from your property across the Lea's
property. Please note that the City does not enforce private agreements and cannot provide
exemptions'to City code due. to such agreements. Although in this case the City has determined that the
proposed crown reduction of the 26 previously topped trees can be considered maintenance due to the
fact that the trees have previously been topped, this approval shall in no way give the inipression that the
City will allow work outside the scope of this proposal, particularly the topping of any trees that have not
previously been topped including the trees to be planted.as mitigation for the proposal, without proper
review and approvals.
The proposed work as specified in the report and addendums by Sean Dugan with Tree Solutions Inc. and
by Colin Macdonald with Restoration Logistics, LLC.received on January 22, July 6, and August 7, 2009
is approved as routine maintenance under the exemption of ECDC 18.45.030. As this work is considered
• Incorporated August 11, .1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
to be routine maintenance, the crown reduction shall only be made to the level of the previous reduction
cut as stated in Mr. Dugan's report received on January 22, 2009. This approval is not for the removal of
these trees nor for reducing the height below the level of the previous reduction cut. Due to the
proposal's location within and adjacent to various critical areas and/or buffers, any trees that do no
survive must be replanted at a ratio of 2:1 with one of the species identified in Mr. Dugan's addendum
received on August 7, 2009. Additionally, since Mr. Macdonald determined that the proposed work -will
have a limited impact on the ecological functions of the site, the mitigation recommendations provided in
Mr. Macdonald's addendum received on August 7, 2009 must be.followed. These mitigation measures
include planting four vine maple; four beaked hazelnut, and eight red elderberry as well as removal of
any invasive species from the area, particularly Himalayan blackberry, must be completed following the
canopy reduction work.
Due to the "requirement,for the mitigation measures stated in Mr. Macdonald'.s addendum received on
August 7, 2009, an inspection will be required. Please submit a letter immediately following the crown.
reduction and mitigation work stating that the mitigation work has been completer) as specified within
the reports by Mr. Dugan and Mr. Macdonald. Once you submit this letter, I will conduct an
inspection.
Please be advised that any future work on this property may require further critical areas study and/or
reports by qualified professionals. If you have any questions; and to call to schedule the inspection.of
your mitigation work, you may contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Planner
Encl.: Critical Areas Reconnaissance. Report and Map
Cc: Stephen and Judee Lea
16520 — 72" d Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page 2 of
•
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 16520 — 72"d Ave. W Tax Acct. Numbers: 00513100008701 & 00513100008801
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA20090074
Owner: Stephen and Judee Lea Applicant: Sabine Birlenbach
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains and/or is adjacent to
critical areas, including Landslide Hazard and Erosion Hazard Areas, a Stream, Wetland, and Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, pursuant to Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC).
GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify, and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property
that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts
resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an
alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the
option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting
until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose to submit
the entire study with your specific development application.
• Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas that are listed in
ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas
(see below).
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study, and there is an approved
list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more
information.
• General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through
23.40.140.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains and/or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. Erosion Hazard
Areas include:
• Those areas with Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater.
• Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular
soils and springs or ground water seepage.
• Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing
landslide deposits regardless of slope.
Pagel of 4
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development within an Erosion Hazard Area must meet additional criteria.
• For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, the only critical area study needed is an
erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements set forth in
Chapter 18.30 ECDC as part of the construction documents. This option is at the director's
discretion, per Edmonds Community Development Code section 20.80.050.G.
• In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require
a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. Note that it is
important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance.
• Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090.D.
• Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains and/or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
• A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a
vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock).
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum often (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback
per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050.
The alteration must also meet the requirements listed in ECDC 23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design
standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
REPORT REQUIREMENTS — STREAMS
It appears that the subject property contains and/or is adjacent to a stream.
• Streams are areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates
clear evidence of the passage of water. Streams need not contain water year-round.
• Streams are regulated as types of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
• Streams are classified according to whether or not they run year round and whether or not they
support fish populations according to the classification system listed in ECDC 23.90.010.A.1.
• The minimum buffer widths for streams vary depending on the type of stream and are listed in
ECDC 23.90.040.D.1.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Areas report requirements for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas are provided
in ECDC 23.90.020.A to C and additional technical information requirements for streams are
listed in ECDC 23.90.020.D.
Page 2 of 4
•
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH A STREAM
Development proposals that encroach into streams or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed
through the approval of certain processes.
• The width of a stream buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement through the review of
a Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan that meets the specific requirements referenced in ECDC
23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that a buffer can be reduced through buffer enhancement
is 50%.
• A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to
buffer averaging are listed in 23.90.040.D.2. The maximum amount that the buffer width can be
reduced at any single location through buffer averaging is 50%.
• Development proposals that propose encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed through
the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance or a Reasonable Use Exception. If you
think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a Planner
for more information.
REPORT REQUIREMENTS — WETLANDS
It appears that the site may contain and/or be adjacent to a wetland; this is subject to confirmation by a
qualified biologist. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by ground or surface water that support,
under normal circumstances, vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil.
• Wetlands are generally rated according to their size, condition, function, and vegetation types
into four (4) different categories described in ECDC 23.50.010 and by use of the "City of
Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form" by the critical areas consultant.
• Buffer widths for wetlands vary depending on the category of the wetland as listed in ECDC
23.50.040. F.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, there are
specific Critical Areas report requirements for wetlands that are provided in ECDC 23.50.030.
• Note for Lake Ballinger: See ECDC 23.50.010 regarding delineating wetlands around Lake
Ballinger. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, which
requires a 35-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH WETLANDS
Development proposals that encroach into wetlands or their buffers or building setbacks may be allowed
through the approval of certain processes.
• The width of a wetland buffer may be reduced through buffer enhancement if the criteria
described in ECDC 23.50.040.F.3 can be met. The maximum amount that a buffer can be
reduced through buffer enhancement is 50%.
• A buffer may also be modified through a process called buffer averaging. The criteria applied to
buffer averaging are listed in ECDC 23.50.040.F.4. The maximum amount that the buffer width
can be reduced at any single location through buffer averaging is 50%.
• Development proposals that proposed encroachments into buffers beyond what is allowed
through the above methods require a Critical Areas Variance, or a Reasonable Use Exception..
If you think that you have a proposal that may require one of these processes, please contact a
Planner for more information.
• Any time a development proposal requires an alteration to a wetland, a mitigation plan is
required as part of the Critical Areas report. In addition to the General Mitigation requirements
Page 3 of 4
•
•
referenced above, mitigation requirements specific to wetlands are provided in ECDC
23.50.050.
• NOTE: There are specific performance standards for the subdivision of lands in wetlands and
wetland buffers. These are listed in ECDC 23.50.060.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Since the site is located within and adjacent to a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, the
City would like to preserve as much, of the native vegetation as possible.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION AREAS
The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and
clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development.
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have
any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact
a Planner for more information.
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If
you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information.
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City
of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Page 4 of 4
CRA20090074
This map displays LIDAR data at approximate
2-foot contour intervals. This map is for
information purposes only and should not be
relied upon for any action. Actual topography
should be verified in the field by survey for
accuracy. This map is provided with all faults
on an "as is" and "as available" basis. No
warranty of any kind is given. Users of this
map agree to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, employees
and/or agents from and against any claim,
demand or action, irrespective of the nature of
the cause of the claim, demand or action, arising
out of any use or possession of this map.
N
W E
S
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 Feet
I I I I I I I
Ol
4213 S Bateman St
Seattle, WA 98118
www.restiog.com
DATE: August 6, 2009
TO: Sabina Birlenbach
Phone:206-861-8398
Fax:206-861-0125
info@restlog.com
'�ec�elviej)
G
�b2Q�9
FROM: Colin Macdonald, Principal, Restoration Logistics CA/VA//&(3
PROJECT: Environmental Assessment of Tree Pruning at 16520 72nd Ave W, Edmonds, WA
98026
SUBJECT: Supplement to May 25, 2009 report.
INTRODUCTION
This short report is prepared as a supplement to Restoration Logistics' May 25, 2009 Critical
Areas Reconnaissance and Tree Pruning Impact Assessment report. This supplement was
requested by Jennifer Machuga, Planner for the City Edmonds in an email to Ms Birlenbach dated
July 29, 2009 regarding mitigation for the impacts of the proposed work tree pruning work on the
above named property. A copy of this email request is attached.
Impacts
The May 25 report states that the proposed crown reduction work will have a limited impact on
the ecological functions of the site. This could be revised to state "extremely limited". As
described in detail in the report, the proposed tree work will have no impact on the shading of the
stream or stability of the soil. Although it would be difficult to quantify, it is possible that the tree
work will have some impact on wildlife habitat, since some canopy cover and structure will be
removed. Note that many of the target trees are aged or senescent, so their canopy contribution
has been decreased and will continue to decrease over time.
Mitigation
In order to compensate for this loss of habitat function, canopy and structure could be replaced by
additional lower story native plants. To a large degree this will occur naturally, since this
particular site is fortunate to have a diverse, healthy native plant understory, which will grow or
propagate into any openings made available by the tree work. However in order to accelerate this
process, Restoration Logistics recommends the following plants be installed on -site after the tree
work is done:
Species
Botanical Name
#
Type
Size
Notes
Vine Maple
Acer circinatum
4
cont.
1 gal
Locate in wetland stream buffer along slope below driveway.
Beaked Hazlenut
Corylus cornuta
4
cont.
1 gal
Red elderberry
Sambucus racemosa
8
cont.
1 gal
Locate in openings throughout wetland area.
Total:l 16
P:\Active Projects\Bidenbach\Bid report supp.doc gnlog
C�
•
We recommend that the plants be installed between October 15t' and April 15'' and that they are
watered -in after installation. They can be mulched with the surrounding forest duff, and given the
good soil quality and shade cover, are not expected to require any further maintenance.
When the plants are installed, the site should be inspected for invasive species, particularly
Himalayan blackberry, which was seen in the surrounding area, and any examples of these plants
grubbed out of the soil and removed from the site.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Colin Macdonald
P:\Active ProjectsWidenbachWirl report supp.doc Smog 2
Email request from Jen Machuga
From: Machuga, Jen <Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Subject: RE: 16520 72nd Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026, Tree Topping
To: "Sabine Birlenbach" <sbirlenbach@verizon.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 2:40 PM
Hi Sabine,
I reviewed your proposal with my manager and have a few follow-up questions for your arborist and
biologist...
The report by Restoration Logistics LLC dated May 25, 2009 states that the proposed work will have a
"limited" impact to the ecological functions of the site. Since this report acknowledges that some impact
will occur (even though it will not be a major impact), mitigation will be required. Please have Mr.
Macdonald supplement his report with suggested mitigation, such as removing invasive species, replanting
with lower story native plantings, etc. Mr. Macdonald should provide specific recommendations for this
mitigation and should explain how it will be sufficient to mitigate for the limited impacts caused by the
proposed crown reduction.
Thank you,
Jen
Jennifer Machuga, Planner
City of Edmonds, Planning Division
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425) 771-0220 ext. 1224
Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us
P:Wctive Projects\Birlenbach\Bid report supp.doc 8/7/09 3
LJ
Sol�tioos�
Addendum
TO:
JOB SITE:
A r b o r i s t s
4
`ANNZyG 2009
OFpT
SUBJECT: Addendum to Tree Maintenance Report Dated November 17, 2008
and the Addendum dated July 3, 2009
Consulting
Sabina Birlenbach
16520 72nd Avenue W. Edmonds, WA. 98026
DATE: August 5, 2009
PREPARED BY: Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting #457, Certified Tree Risk
Assessor #0149, Certified Arborist PN-5459A
This addendum is in response to an e-mail sent to Sabina Birlenbach from Jen Machuga, Planner with
the City of Edmonds, regarding tree replacement species pertaining to the above subject.
In my July 3, 2009 addendum I stated that replacement trees shall consist of Western Red cedar (Thuja
plicata) trees. Over an extended period of time these trees have the potential to enter into the view
corridor. Alternative species suitable to the site that will not encroach into the corridor are:
• Vine maple (Acer circinatum) — average height 15 feet
• Sitka alder (Alnus sinuate) — average height 15 feet
• Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) — average height 25 feet
• Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) — average height 25 feet
• Pacific Willow (Salix lasiandra) — average height 40 feet
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (206) 528-4670.
Respectfully,
Sean Dugan
Registered Consulting Arborist #457
Masters of Forest Resources
Certified Arborist #PN-5459A
Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 149
"Valuable Knowledge of Trec:s"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 391h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
4213 S Bateman St
Seattle, WA 98118
www.restlog.com
DATE: May 25, 2008
TO: Sabina Birlenbach
FROM: Colin Macdonald, Principal, Restoration Logistics
Phone:206-861-8398
Fax: 206-861-0125
info@restlog.com
lql�_C
el
�D09
PROJECT: Environmental Assessment of Tree Pruning at 16520 72°d Ave W, Edmonds, WA
98026
SUBJECT: Critical Areas Reconnaissance and Tree Pruning Impact Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Ms. Birlenbach wishes to have an arborist perform crown reduction pruning on twenty-six
previously topped trees on the subject property in order to lower their heights to near the previous
cut level. The site was inspected by consulting arborists Tree Solutions in the fall of 2008 and a
report describing their findings and proposed approach to the work submitted to the City of
Edmonds in January 2009. The city responded by letter dated February 20, 2009 to Ms.
Birlenbach requesting, among other things, that the proposal be evaluated by a wildlife biologist,
due to the presence of stream on the property. Ms. Birlenbach hired Restoration Logistics to
perform this evaluation.
Scope of Services
The scope of the services included reviewing the above documents, inspecting the property and
preparing this report. The site was inspected by Colin Macdonald of Restoration Logistics on
April 16, 2009. To the extent that this report identifies or describes critical areas on the property,
these activities are done at a reconnaissance level; boundaries of critical areas and their buffers
were not delineated, and the sub -type or classification of the critical areas is suggested but not
stated. Functional assessment was not done and this document should not be construed as formal
or legal description of any critical areas on the property.
Study Area
A vicinity map locating the property is attached to this report. The study area is the area in which
the trees to be pruned are located and is shown on the attached site map. It encompasses the area
below the driveway that slopes down to the stream. The base map is the original short plat survey;
the locations of the trees to be pruned were roughly surveyed by the Birlenbach family and should
be considered representational only.
P:'Active Projects Birlenbach,Birl rapon.doc 52T09
0 •
CRITICAL AREAS
Streams
A small stream runs westward at the bottom of the ravine on the south side of the subject property.
Consultation with the City*s critical areas maps reveals that this stream is an upper tributary to
Meadowdale Creek. This section may be known as Stilthouse Creek (Clugston, pers. comm.).
Water to several inches deep was observed during the site visit, and stream maintains a defined
sandy -bottomed channel roughly two feet wide through the property. Many springs feed the
stream from both sides of the ravine on the property as well as further upstream, and it appears
likely that the stream channel conducts running water all year. The property survey notes "small
year around stream". The stream does not likely bear anadromous fish as it is too narrow and
shallow to provide suitable habitat for those species and it is also located in the headwaters of the
watershed and there are sections downstream of the subject property in which the grade is too
steep to allow anadromous fish passage. Based on the above description, Restoration Logistics
recommends that this stream be considered type Np: perennial nonfish habitat. As such, according
to City of Edmonds code, this stream has a 50-foot buffer.
Aside from the stream channel described above, the outflows from two of the springs have created
defined 1-2 foot wide channels that may qualify them as very short type Ns: seasonal nonfish
habitat streams. These channels have a 25-foot buffer per City of Edmonds code, however most
of this area overlaps with the larger buffer of the main stream channel.
Wetlands
Most of the study area between the driveway and the stream, with the exception of the steepened
road bank, which is partly road ballast or fill, is forested wetland habitat. As described above,
there are several springs in this area that were running on the date of the site visit, and water was
also actively seeping from the ground in the areas between the springs. The ground in this area
was saturated at or near the surface and composed of mucky soil, rich in organic matter with a
consistent dark chroma. The vegetation is dominated by facultative wetland plants in all layers: a
red alder (Alnus rubra) canopy over a dense salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis) shrub layer with a
piggy -back plant (Tolmeia menzeisii) and stinging nettle (Urtica diocia) most commonly found in
the groundcover. Notably several patches of skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americans), an obligate
wetland indicator species, were found throughout the study area. Very little colonization by
invasive species was observed, but populations of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Herb
Robert (Geranium robertanium) and English ivy (Nedra helix) were observed along the driveway
mainly on the opposite side of the study area.
A wetland functional assessment was not performed but a.quick review of the categorization
criteria suggests that this wetland is in either category 3 or 4. For the purposes of determining
whether the proposed pruning will impact a critical area, the distinction is immaterial since the
required buffer of the less restrictive category 4 is 35 feet, which extends above the driveway and
encompasses all of the target trees not in the wetland itself.
Erosion hazard
According to the City of Edmonds critical areas map, the study area is located in an erosion hazard
area. The study area slope has an average grade of 30 percent and does contain groundwater
springs and seeps, however it is well vegetated and no evidence of surface erosion was observed.
Please note that Restoration Logistics is not a qualified geotechnical engineering firm and cannot
evaluate slope stability.
P: Actire ProjectrBirlenbach Bid repnnAm 5!27-09
IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Impact location
Twenty-six previously cut trees are proposed for crown reduction, but some of these are
multi -stemmed maples so the number of stems to be cut may be higher. However, some of the
previously cut trees are either dead or dying so the arborist may decide on closer inspection that
they will not need pruning to return tree height to the previously cut level. Despite some
uncertainty as to the exact number and location of each stem to be treated, it appears that 3 or 4 of
the target trees are within the 50 foot buffer of the Np stream (as well as in the wetland) and of the
remaining trees, approximately half are in the wetland, with the other half along the driveway in
the wetland buffer.
Trees provide several ecological functions in stream and wetland critical areas and their buffers,
including: wildlife habitat, shade cover, and soil stabilization through root binding as well as
dissipating rainfall impact on the surface below. The proposed crown reduction work will have a
limited impact to any of these functions on this site.
Ecological function
The trees will not be removed but only thinned, so for the most part the ecosystems functions they
provide will be retained. However, as described in the arborist report, many of the target trees are
significantly decayed and any thinning or pruning may hasten their decline. It is worth noting that
the target trees are all mature specimens and some of the red alder already beginning to senesce,
perhaps partly due to the original cutting done in the 1980s. Any trees which do die will be left in
place as snags, which will obviously provide reduced functionality in terms of shade cover and
soil stabilization, but are valuable in providing wildlife habitat. Additionally the arborist report
calls for any material generated from the thinning to left on -site to decay, supporting the food
chain and returning nutrients to the soil.
The study area is on the north side of the stream and most of the trees are more than thirty feet
from it, so the proposed crown reduction will have very little impact to the current shading of the
stream. Aside from the canopy remaining after the crown thinning, there are smaller saplings that
will be unaffected and perhaps be competitively released by the thinning to provide shade cover.
Soil stabilization should also be unaffected by the proposed thinning, since, again, no trees are
being removed. Even if the thinning accelerates the decline of some of the older red alders, plenty
of mature trees, saplings, and undergrowth exist to provide root binding of the soil and rainfall
interception.
Although the crown thinning itself is likely to have only minor impacts on the ecological functions
provided by the trees, care should be taken in the methods used to access and carry out the work
so as to create the least disturbance to the soils and vegetation on -site.
Proposal as tree maintenance
The City of Edmonds has some concern as to whether the proposed crown thinning should be
considered acceptable tree maintenance within a stream buffer. I am not a certified arborist and
would defer to an arborist's opinion on this question, but in my opinion, since these trees were
topped or otherwise pruned under a permit in the 1980s, they may actually require follow-up
pruning to maintain them in that condition by reducing the regenerative sprouts. Topping or
aggressively pruning untouched, non -hazardous trees would not be considered tree maintenance,
but since these trees have already been topped or otherwise pruned I believe follow-up treatments
could be considered acceptable tree maintenance.
P: Active Projects Birlenhach Bird repnn.dm 5.27 09
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• I concur with the arborist's recommendation, amended by the City, that any trees that do
not survive the proposed tree work be replaced on a 2:1 ratio with western red cedar
seedlings.
• Per the arborist's recommendation, all woody debris generated by the proposed work
should be left on -site.
• Care should be taken in conducting the proposed tree work to minimize disturbance to the
soil and understory vegetation. Where possible using a bucket truck parked on the
driveway would help with this goal.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Colin Macdonald
P: Active PmjmtsBlrimbach'Bh'I repon.doc 5'27/09 _ 4
• 0
Subject Property Vicinity Map
1`y
•. Meadowdale
County Park
-
1
-156th- S1N-
cu
Puget Sr3urrti
160tfi St SW-iJ
,':' a .11 SubJectproperty :. .
• 16520 72nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Down private drive on west
slde of 72nd Ave
16.th'St• 1646 St SW,.
f t
. Meadowdale'
-16' th-`PI- lSW
'a t 'Meadowdale
W
' ..
Clubhouse-
I
�:... _ 168tti - St SW - -
e�°.
o
y
1Qd
a Lynnwood
¢a .St
SW
Edmonds �cvy
o� -
SW;
,St
i ...
PI
t
-
Q1740ti-
�0 St=SVV._., __�- "= =;Q
W
University of Washington
Park
ttl--
I
c�pU,
0 mi 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.°
Copyright 0 1988-2003 RAcrosoft Corp. and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://www.microsoft.com/streets
® Copyright 2002 by Geographic Data Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. ® 2002 Navigation Technologies. Al rights reserved. This data includes information
taken with permission from Canadian authorities ®1991-2002 Government of Canada (Stabsbcs Canada and/or Geomabcs Canada), all rights reserved.
O •
Site Map 16520 72nd Ave W, proposed crown thinning
► 4 i Study area
Numbers indicate location of target ► ,1
trees'for crown reduction thinning. 1J.;al 1
See following page for more info.
1,
1
>�
\� ............... ` f
9
0
Target trees for crown reduction
-4-,F
LO'
6>
A- 1c) jar 1, 1
d)
Cl4 190,
A, k.>.-
6
dD
ley
L
A- k6-e.-ir 41 cy' AV LAj
A-
Clo' 5'.,*L 16
.91
Trees surveyed by Birlenbacb family. See site map for locations.
P: Active ProjmuBirIcnb3ch Dirl repon.doc 5/2709
d�zo
�
a 6 20�9
16Pr
Consulting Arborists
Addendum
TO: Sabina Birlenbach
JOB SITE: 16520 72"d Avenue W. Edmonds, WA. 98026
SUBJECT: Addendum to Tree Maintenance Report Dated November 17, 2008
DATE: July 2, 2009
PREPARED BY: Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting Arborist #457, Certified Tree
Risk Assessor #0149, Certified Arborist PN-5459A
This addendum refers to the tree maintenance report dated November 17, 2008 that I provided to Ms.
Birlenbach and the letter from the City of Edmonds Planning Services Department, which is addressed to
Stephen and Judee Lea and dated February 20, 2009.
After reviewing my initial report, the City requested that I confirm my belief that the proposed work
constitutes " routine landscape maintenance and gardening". Routine landscape maintenance is defined
in the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) as "tree trimming and groundcover management which is
undertaken by a person in connection with normal maintenance and repair of property."
As show in Appendix B of the November 17 report, an agreement was made between the two adjacent
property owners that "allows cutting of alder trees and reasonable topping and/or thinning of evergreen
trees on the property [ where the trees are located I herein, to improve sound view of nearby homes."
Ms. Birlenbach would like to improve the views of the sound and has been given permission to prune the
trees. I believe the cutting of the alder trees as proposed in the tree maintenance report is normal
maintenance under this agreement and meets the City's definition of routine landscape maintenance.
Replacement Plantings
I incorrectly stated in the November 17, 2008 report that the tree replacement ration for any tree that does
not survive following the pruning management should be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Due to the location of
the trees within an environmental critical area, the replacement ratio shall be 2:1. Replacement trees
shall consist of Western Red cedar (Thuja plicata) trees.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (206) 528-4670.
Respectfully,
Sean Dugan
Registered Consulting Arborist #457
Masters of Forest Resources
Certified Arborist #PN-5459A
Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 149
"I'aluable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 39`h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
January 19, 2009
Jen Menchuga
City of Edmonds Planninn Department
121 5 h Avenue North, 2" Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
RDIVD
0AP 2 2 2009
PLANNING D cpT
Re: Parcel located at 16520 72"d Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Ms. Menchuga:
Attached is a proposal from a Registered Consulting Arborist for routine maintenance on
the above —referenced property.
This proposal is acceptable to us.
Sincerely,
�4w-'401)
Judee Lea
Stephen Lea Jr. ���
TO:
JOB SITE:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
PREPARED BY:
C o n s u I t i n
Sabina Birlenbach
16520 72"d Avenue W. Edmonds, WA. 98026
Tree Maintenance Report
November 17, 2008
A r b o r i s t s
Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting Arborist #457, Certified Tree
Risk Assessor #0149, Certified Arborist PN-5459A
Contents
Summary
Assignment & Scope of Report
Observations
Discussion
Recommendations
Glossary
References
Appendices:
Appendix A -Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
Appendix B - Real Estate Contract
Attachment:
Site Plan with trees marked
Summary
Ms. Birlenbach seeks to maintain the height of twenty six previously cut trees. The
Birlenbach's have a contract with the owner of the trees allowing them to maintain the
height. Ms. Birlenbach requires City approval prior to the pruning of any trees on a
property within an environmental critical area. An environmental critical area, a stream
and steep slope, exists on a portion of the property where the trees stand. However,
the trees proposed for crown reduction are outside of the critical area.
Ms. Birlenbach proposes to reduce the height of the trees to the location of the previous
reduction cut and to leave all woody debris on site to naturally decay. Any trees that die
due to the pruning will be left as snags to be used by wildlife. At the end of three years,
any tree that dies will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with Western Red cedar to advance the
rate of secondary succession.
"Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 39"' St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
0
Birlenbach Report
November 17, 2008
p.2 of 6
Assignment & Scope of Report
This report outlines the site inspection by Sean Dugan, of Tree Solutions Inc, on
September 16, 2008. 1 was asked to visit 16510 72"d Avenue W to view the canopy of a
stand of trees located on the job site at 16520 72"d Avenue W and provide an
assessment of the stand of trees. I was asked to view a Real Estate Contract between
the two property owners and a site map showing the location of trees at the job site. I
was asked to provide a formal report including findings and management
recommendations. Sabina Birlenbach, the executor of the estate at 16510 72"d Avenue
W, requested these services for use in the endeavor of obtaining a tree pruning permit
from the City of Edmonds.
Limits of Assignment
Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees
that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection;
and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without
dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is
no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the
subject trees may not arise in the future. Additional assumptions and limiting
considerations can be viewed in Appendix A.
Observations
The Site and History
The site, 16520 72"d Avenue W (Lot A), is located west of 16510 72"d Avenue
West (Lot B) in the city of Edmonds, WA. A single residential structure stands at the
west end of a private roadway. A roadway easement was granted by the owners of Lot
B through the property to allow access to Lot A. A Real Estate Contract was created
between the owners of Lot A and B describing the details of the agreement, which is
included in Appendix B of this report.
A portion of Lot A is designated as an Environmental critical area. The site has a
steep slope, 25 % or greater, located North of the private roadway (see attached Site
Map). The slope becomes gradual south of the roadway, terminating at a small
perennial stream located near the south property line.
Vegetation and History
The area on either side of the roadway is being blanketed with invasive weeds
including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Herb Robert (Geranium robertanium),
English ivy (Hedra helix), and others. The vegetation on the slope between the
roadway and stream consists of native understory plants including Sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), Salmon berry (Rubus spectablis), Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica),
and others. The tree canopy is dominated by Red alder trees with a few Big leaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) trees. No young evergreen trees were visible in the area.
"Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www,treesoludons.net
1058 North 391h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
0
Birlenbach Report
November 17, 2008
p.3 of 6
Many of the alder trees between the roadway and the stream have previously
been reduced in height by approximately 50% of the length. Several of the trees have
extensive decay columns in the main trunk. On average, the regenerative sprouts
account for 30% to 50% of the live crown ratio. The maple trees appear to be stump
sprouts rising from a previously cut base.
The bracketed section on the second page of the Real Estate Contract indicates
where the owner of Lot B allowed for the road way easement to pass through the
property and was given permission to prune trees on Lot A to maintain a view of the
sound from the home. The sprouts from twenty-six previously reduced trees, indicated
on the attached Site Map, have grown into the view of the sound from the Birlenbach's
property (Lot B).
Discussion
Ms. Birlenbach seeks to maintain the height of twenty-six previously cut trees,
identified on the attached site plan, to near the previous cut level by reducing the
regenerative sprouts. All of the trees proposed for crown reduction are located a
distance greater than 25 feet away from the stream at the south perimeter of the
property. None of the trees are located on the steep slope north of the roadway. The
majority of trees proposed for pruning are located along the south side of the roadway
on the upper portion of the gradual slope.
No tree shall be removed from the site. However, several of the trees are
significantly decayed and the reduction of height might cause the trees to decline. This
will create a standing dead tree or a snag. Snags provide important ecological
functions for wildlife such as habitat and a source for food; therefore, all of these trees
will be left in place. Additionally, any material generated from the proposed
maintenance pruning shall be left on site. The wood debris should be felled and
allowed to be in contact with the soil to speed up the decay process, which will return
nutrients back to the soil.
Red alder is a primary succession tree. These trees grow rapidly, decline, and
are followed by secondary succession trees such as Western Red cedar (Thuja plicata)
trees and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees. There are no young secondary
succession trees visible in the area. Any pruned Red alder tree that dies within a three
year period should be replaced with a cedar tree at a 1:1 ratio.
Recommendations
�4 Obtain all necessary permits from the City.
No trees shall be pruned within 25 feet of the annual high water mark of the
small stream.
Leave all woody debris on site.
Monitor the site three years following the pruning to determine if any of the
pruned alders have died.
19 Plant Western red cedar trees at a 1:1 ratio for any alder trees that die as a
result of pruning.
"Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 391h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547,5873
Birlenbach Report
November 17, 2008
p.4 of 6
Glossary
crown reduction: method of reducing the height or spread of a tree by performing appropriate
pruning cuts (Lilly 2001)
live crown ratio: the percentage of the total stem length covered with living branches, used to
estimate the ability of the tree's crown to nourish the remaining part of the tree. (Dunster 1996)
succession: a series of dynamic changes in ecosystem structure, function, and species composition
over time as a result of which one group of organisms succeeds another through stages leading
to a potential natural community or climax stage. (Dunster 1996)
References
Dunster, Julian & Katherine. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management. Vancouver: UBC Press,
1996
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists' Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of
Arboriculture, 2001.
Appendix A - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
I.Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to
property is good and marketable. ' Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters.
Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible
ownership and competent management.
2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances,
statutes or regulations.
3.Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the
data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of
information provided by others.
4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually
satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such
Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement.
5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or
use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior
express written consent of the Consultant.
6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including
the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the
Consultant's prior express written consent.
7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the
Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result,
the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported.
8.Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as ,visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.
The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and
any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of
reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not
constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information.
9. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined
and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is
limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing,
or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or
deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future.
10. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report.
"Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 39th St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
a
•
Birlenbach Report
November 17, 2008
Appendix B - Real Estate Contract
p.5 of 6
ACT
REAL ESTATE
M RCA. CSATL SU.IS T-
�� i , rs, wr.rt.cr. w r .,..a ►. m to a ama Aaatrs, 1975 cLr✓r ao �v yJ
i a ,ew IL"19 Y. and '_""""_
1 !G'•� ➢AID >W, LU Y.f• SFP 9 1975
n•�.n.w W •.i,•y �• JD. :M
� cod Its !^ rsa,�nlr ay.,rra•. Jq
It Wrrvtssrn,\.t tc"t(/Y„JT
�.� -; e,aa! �: y,• rW W Mwwq • � W P•M,� y W s•.s� 4r• � I•n.r L� O. ^6r W 46.E
It
th
L DeAeh,a■ccordlnC ttofthseplNorth
i tthereo feet of Tract 81 Plat of Yrodovdale
' 3t, recto rda of f recorded 1
the Audltor of the fount n Vo7ueeS Of T of Snos"Is\, Stac• PARCII itof oMasht rate
.. 0. 1_.•'� All thatreoftloh of TO D7, ➢!nt ➢ rrccrdrd ! of ,q•do�dale g �•_',:;.." Auditor el [he n Yolune S of
toa� • Beach, f . to the
fount ➢ f• Ii accordSa.
Tot Snohonlah, record, o
•j(";•" s i;.':... v� r of Nuhl,;ton, described
d,
or
%•,�.r-i'�;'. said distant,
Sn➢efn200afeet iron tM aSoutAr aft i7 [Aar !a Ne rth n•16•IS` •,Jare efteo root of : rob eonre t the !forth ncoOst Corner of certain tootle Tract.
Sb the to Clreeor4 ed MaTr13 al tl7nw le li, Grrrn, huahend and
}• .`,;��='v<'. T Instruaent oatroceed
$� Trat c• continue N 16 r under F{]e No,
Tract 97 a distance of 1?Sortlt 0• 115I beat along
the m s
j.a. .�;,>r••:': Tract j71 than[• South i9•57611^eF,a,t alhe
enhtehrytthe Nest tine of aaid
■ dlatonc• of IS7,1 feet t R the Nor Lo11n� rnet of fold
.. "jl su.�s;_; t:i,'•:, ' 1 eert• S North
!n traetl beedrd to Freest D1 rlenh�eA horehraat corner of thaid
at
Nesband ah Tract South recorded Aujuslone�dln'ar?Otr Audlenbsc Flle
;(_c,•. X7S3311; Blrlenhach,
Dl tdenbac distance Io' East a g the undo
i{ co'S0^ East of of 11e,11 Ilea of said
p « ,�•, ;•� .'t: 1' dlatan the polo[ Ot be feet to's point lying North
- e• of 279,33 foot to the jl nnln j; thence South i9•t0�S0^ i9•
'?'
. N'• �, f,.`;tr . ' TOCETIfER WITH ➢otnt of beginning. Mest •
o'er,
scrota andnuponttAuaJr•.'aaaeaant for lead and 'u
fi :•i'sY�•. ,.� In Statuto. Warrant at urtUa saaenent a, rose t!]ltT purym•,
Fl]• No, 2IS3314, T Oeed recorded Au just U•,197e rv,d and described ,
1 , under Auditor's
'••'�'', .,. ` f A" T0CE"CA BT TH a non.eaUes
IY 1i' of the folfovin da:, : rrlina^rtech,._,5uttin j�upoarand Utility
S,rTC,
�P.... j j1nrinj at
o f escrlbed T i outherlT D• Point Deaeh, aceordlnj to the the Cast ilna of Tract U, -
Sis record, of the Nat thereof recorded to Y plat Of ReadardeJe
. South 0.13'1S^ a Audit tot of the Count Vol— S at Plat,, ippi
. thorny; thence East a 6ls`3n1S^eWest9■edlataneefrom lthe NertheatNeorneT ton,
Of cu rn, South 1•
then•• heater! vhleh the [toter of said •unto h of 11.6/ a T•olnt
T aeon feet .
.. of 137. 10 feet andentcthe aroaaf u!d eu7C0t t0 the are this hor(n,la ltollult
to ■ polrtt of tan entni r7e of cur //
�F to the trra(nus of $aidtline. North la•I6•tS^ Meot,tanc• of 9i;j1 feet I
ISne, a dlst•nco of ISO"
- Sltueee in the County of Snohon(,h, State of Washington,
�s w
4
OFFICIAL RcCORDS
to 897 r,
i
"Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 391h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206,547.5873
Birlenbach Report
November 17, 2008
p.6 of 6
•
.t•�t�,'-�•,-�..'�.
�,TaT 10a o*o� t of r ocart ftmd d.�hto
12. 1963 oadar 1,41tar'. nI. No.
shall 116+{07.
.
aaaaaont., xtiat: Letiou '
aDd r.aaz+.tl0a. DOY of rward.
•"
r'
f r 7s):� '.'
t=.
T1OR7 780L31lD AJCD Ito/lOp�dy. M
:::
, 1
•.d.w -ra.-+,-w
ra= 7El)n= 1ST J.-, Wora.... . ... - _ n 20.0.00 1'D►•►•a.1.••a
00000,
:••ems:___
_ 1
,� .� t
00 1 D-a—
..SIP .Vn.l i �r tla.aW,L rl W aJ.� A W /.�a�
MM so/1om=-
•.
-.:.,•,
+
_
l
. ar. Y - - _ - _ - _ -
wY^ v W lff 6. of -4 170.00 1 D.sw
"t CU bar
:.•;3;�:�
_,'-;,�,,:.•
•.
Ca B"HDB2D B1Tprt7li7 BO/100:'8g. _
..,. ' '
,.
.,
••� =.. •, •
rww.r..w.a . bd— W lot _ " ' _ ' _ - u 170.00 1 0.a„ti
,
Ir'r
��;S.ij/.,�
Y V.�i.Y e u ~ A ane I.r�jay 1�� by �� w W MWiti %— r w Iwr. lad
p,. ;
•'; 1
-'
s. ►1�W Y.1 Y. ►Lao J d .rw�r .wbdr Y
,von.Y Ma.r t.•rr
r
.•
.,�stl� J•,
..•l rti'+r
a aA 4L•
`., ,
fV f•.•.
.•►`x,.. (
Mo a W •i. ay J..0 Y ..y...
It roah t1—
yY�>
r'li I
'•"T 'et
Attachments:
Site Plan with trees marked
Drrohaa.n "-to Dr tial ocpcid Ulsnos of thl. o°atrwc has b.am r.d oowt !a is.coo.00,
acr. at te.sr opt!®, oh* -•a a daod u tk..hors d.ft ly.d 4 toz$5 is
aDa�, tD�CuQ•°�eyt�ym is o°7ro'tare7 to11"od L. . 11is aaotot, pow-%b d at fd0.G0 ar
tlr, Raid *woad —tga. oDc11 !•a Saalod.Lpf laG•r.at .t tha Dr.r`U.U4� 4 —to . .
vz1. 1c i :._i aaltlt. t"a 7..r•� ¢.j; 1• .te•�
B*11' '-17 r•11DQolah aa7 and all LDtor..t In cod 11+h111tp fox ta. Prirata ioad.�7
000*trWt.d to gr"U* LC,G Ws aad to wllar'. r•r)*aa3►LL1tr t1 oae°luL�v•s lot l of LL ••dS.aatlm Diet• cto.2t tao-
-..,•._ ._ _ •� �.. __ atp � trl�a�ar vlth -, *jr Lot- 1. tl
C -4 D. f.11src
uaaare.• IIWC .410. tI say t�clws ar .Sey -IL4:t aodtutLn
Pt'•Mrr7 �or*ta, to all r.as.p ... netlau, 7 Gcli1
oda t.t I. of 1•*rtl4i*f
rc4.on sn. to all— t.ttL.d of aldrt te•o•
to,
proyort7honln.to ad 04 rua*wLl• htaolLDt*ao asa.to. of atarL7 L—..
roaata t• •ataro doar.tta _t.r 1kro.,fh tha 1Brh Btto•• ..►dttlejoo, 4ud 4bL.r
=►klck all PtoPa DD1 L. rato to a►tat..aNr far 4173.00, ol.q aad .tt\t.
t.a (•ot of tM Ru'orl, cod (..t►*r17 lot Itaa •t to ), Plat of Lloa* Llyrf Bo, 1,
tali M a Part of tLi. agraaa.ot.
OFFICIA'. o.F,C11R--
___
---
►� 897 tlu 661
_ �•...'wro,. .oar;
� v �
'./- L
..
�
"'Valuable Knowledge of Trees"
Tree Solutions Inc. www.treesolutions.net
1058 North 391h St. Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 Fax 206.547.5873
The City of Edmonds
Water Service Drawing
EASEMENT NO . ............................................
( NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS LID NO ................... .ASMT. NO. ........ ..........
OWNER .....ST V .N.....1- -%.......�.R- .............................. CONTRACTOR .....-S ER............................ PERMIT NO5.I�3059.77
JOB ADDRESS 1 5 20 `....2-... �E .......... - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO ............... ....................... BLOCK NO. ....................................
Q 74 RRRhSS P P6
96' /
1, Z'oFF of D/wg7
r
PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11/78)
NAMEOF ADDITION ............................. ......... ..................................................................................
N
l�4 Ira�P_Si. PF—PIPE wcRe uP To Ex%S - •PIPe.
BRASS SPLtGC-S EVFRy IOo' rRom M6-rsm TOwA^Rs AOuSE.
49'
22�0CV8 ' I
ElUSTIMG P.E. PaPE
Q.tRANs .
C-oNN• TO 1=Y ST.
a! veep
A-r EZC-..r-- OF- O/W"
to-2d•-95 �• u
Approved: 16-25-9.5 S H•
DATE C.C.. l.��.. `.l.L..•-- BY ........•:.
,=CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVED t�
.a FOR INSPECTION CALL permit
..-: r .'- .V C JI
...,. �, .PUBLIC .WORKS DEPARTMENT `)� F•1 � . e
715°-2.5�25- Ex . 2 2=Q° 4I Date
SIDE 'SEWER PERMIT 77/ -374?, aV.14
PEP.MIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
LYNNWO.O.D LI 19
1. Address of Construction 8:.�r_�v s� �,�,,
2. Property Legal Description (include all easements)
41+6 cl kb
3. Single Family Residence Multi -Family No. of Units
Commercial
4.
Owner and/or Builder Sli /U kC 4
'T
5.
Contractor & License No. QWYI(2 r'
6.
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No X
Yes
(If Yes Right-of-
way Construction Permit Required - Call
Dial
Dig ( 3542-53/4A/) before
excavation) .
1-800-454-5555
7.
Cross other private property: Yes
No IV,
Easement required -
attach legal description and county easement number.
READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN:
a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on
their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to
construct side.sewers in the public right-of-way.,
b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each
installation for one year.
C. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6")
side sewer line.
d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30")
to any structure.
e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade of 2% (1.15°)
and maximum grade of 100% (450).
f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45° (1/8,bend) is allowed
between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45° (1/•8
bend) and wye with removable cap.
g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected
to side sewer system.
h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines
through other than granular soil.
i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line
and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run.
j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original
conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure
due to poor compaction of fill.
k.. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved
by the.City.
l.. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working
days notice required.
DATE: 9 - Z 7 - % q
E i i
-+ PERMIT FEE:
W. CONNECTION FEE:
0
* PERMIT MI
I certify that I have read
and shall comply with the above
DISAPPROVED By: Date:
By: Date:
APPROVED By j —Date: - 2
T.BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
t
.Y
Logal Description
7 i d 15;Lo ,2 r�t� •
PARCEL "A"
All of the:East 273.0 ft. of the�North 200.0 ft. of Tract 88, Plat
of Meadawdale Beach,together with all that portion of. Tract 879 Plat of
Meadowdale Besoh,records of Snohomish County, Washington, desoribed as.
follows;.
Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 87 N 0016115wW.,
a -distaste of 200.0 ft..from.the Southwest corner thereof; thence conti=ing
along said Westerly line N 0016115"W., a -distance of 125.86 ft. to a point
ow.the-Northerly line thereof; thence S 89059'11"E., along said Northerly
Line a distance of 1S7.83 ft.; thence S.44030'E.,. a distance of 174.18 ft.;
tbomo a 89040150"r., a distance of 279.33 ft. to the Point of Beginting.
Together with a permanent, exclusive easement for road and utility
perpesss over, upea and across the following described portion of said.
Truat 87 Plat of Yeadewd&le . Beaoh s
A strip of land 50.0 ft. in width, the oenterline thereof described as
fellows s
Begiwiag.at.a point on the Easterly line thereof S 0013115"E., a
,I• Idistance-of 179.43 ft• from the Northeast corner thereof; thence 0 S 64 43945"W-••
a distsaoe of 11.64 ft..to.a.point of curve,.center of which bears N 25016'15"t.;
thine! Westerly along the, aro of said curve to the right,. having a radius of
137.10 ft. and a oestral angle of 41000100" a distance of 98.11 ft. to 9,poist
i wl
of tangent; theme N 74016'15"W., a distance of 335 ft- more or less to eat of
oasesesrt.
mayriag Sorvwors,. Imo.
Ipmpood, Washington
PR 8-3101
January 22, 1969
Ik
The City of Edmonds
Side Sewer Drawing
EASEMENTNO. .----•--------------•----------- .........
MEAD - com is -
NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO. 210....... ASMT. NO ...................
OWNER.._.STE_P/NENn------ LcpR----- �.JR------------------- -............... CONTRACTOR --OWNER •---••--------- PERMIT NO. C�52_¢!_.
JOB ADDRESS ___ 6-5.20............ ../_2.A&t------------------------ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO.
SEW CR
1.5 SDP.
W'C.o.W`�
4
2'DP
WC.O.WVC
w Pv�
PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11178)
LYNNWOOD L1�yE
NAME OF ADDITION ..... .-•-------------
M
H
TO
DRIV EWA-J AvEa 1s
i
1 �
1
Approved: n
DATE ./XL__-!S. j 19 BY ��
l/ - ...--•---• •---------
lusP.8y J. Emscu
STREET FU=.
November 14, 1984
MEMO TO: Art Housler
Administrative Services Director
FROM: Bobby R. Mills
Acting Supt. of Public Works
SUBJECT: ACCOUNT #302-13700 - MR. LEA
Attached is a copy of a memo from Jerry Hauth for Mr. Lea's
account indicating the difference between his water bill
for September, 1983 and September, 1984. In 1984, sewer
construction occurred and Mr. Lea's service was broken and
a credit should have been applied.
I request the credit shown be applied to his account and the
credit be charged to Tri-State Construction.
Please forward this charge to Jerry Hauth for collection.
BRM/ml
Attachment
cc: Jerry Hauth
Archie Brena
Ilene Larson
ARCH
RF-CEIVED.
rT 1 M4
PUBLIC WORKS.
October 31, 1984
MEMO TO: Bobby Mills
Acting Supt. of Public Works
FROM: Jerry Hauth.
Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER WATER BILL FOR ACCOUNT #302-13700
During the construction of the North Meadowdale Sewer Project this
past summer, the water service for the Lea residence at 16520
72nd Ave. W'. was broken by Tri State..
The Lea's received and paid a water bill in September for $60.55;
their b.i'll for September, 1983 was $34.94. It appears that their
account should be credited with the difference of $25.61. Tri` State
should then be billed for the $25.61.
JH/st
..
USE II7
UILDING DIVISION
applicant Fill
ZONE N BE �"-
7r;^k!'=
A� RMI APPLICATION
Inside Heavy Lines
V
JOB
ADDRt"55� ��
NA E OR NAME OF BUSINESS) I
_�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION
SHORT
SUB NO.
yl MAILING ADDRESS
o / a 2 y, ��✓�,
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET
MAP
CIT{/YTT
EPNE NUMBER
51(7---/�2,c,
EXISTING
t �//���
l�'L �7 1 ��•— ll tV / •
NAMEPROPOSED
F /
U
DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY
W ADDRESS E'/ `
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED ❑
/ t
Z Al I/�(
V
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED ❑
DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIRED 13
E CITY
<
TELEPHONE NUMBER
UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED ❑
CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER ❑
NAME ( 1
4,
C I
C
�N1�
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQ'D ❑ NO,
ELEVATION OF PROPERTY CORNERS ❑
0 ADDRESS
F
U
& FOOTINGS REO'D
Q
E CITY
F
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Z
_
SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED
0
U STATE LICENSE NUMBER
CITY LICENSE NUMBER
CHECKED BY
Z
0
F
a_
It
U
0
W
0
J
u
W
J
below or Attach Four Copies) METER SIZE I BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE
SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW I ADD NO.
ALLOWED I PROPOSED COM PLETEI EXEMPT
SHORELINE
REMARKS
VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY IDATE
YARDS
❑ NEW
RESIDENTIAL
GAS
LINE
FRONT
� FIRE ZONE
TY
NON-RESIDENTIAL
❑ SIGN
❑❑
ADD
Q
DEMOLISH
❑ RETAINING
SPECIAL INSPECTOR
REQUIRED
ALTER
❑
PUfEXCAVATE
OR FILL
WALL
FENCE
❑( X_FT)
❑ YES ❑ NO
PLAN CHECKED BY
aREPAIR
NSPMOVE
swim
REMARKS
Z NUMBER OF STORIES
NUMBER OF
0 /t
DWELLING
F 0
UNITS
a NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE
R
I
Ll
N
O
m
Q
PLAN CHECK FEE
� 1
BUILDING
PLUMBING
D
MECHANICAL
FENCE
In "Applicant. on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and SIGN
W successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless
J RETAINING WALL
i the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and
11 agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature,
< SWIMMING POOL
= arising directly or indirectly from the issuance of this permit. Issu-
o ance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce
J env rnmurnmwnt of env ritv nr4in:lnre nnr limit in any R'SIy the
LOT COVERAGE
SIDE REAR
OF CONSTRUCTION CODE lHE17HT
A OCCUPANCY OCCUPA
GROUP LOAD
THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY
OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX
SHOULD BE CODED 31.04.
VALUATION I FEE
t
'
�
---`-----^~-=---=-=-----``------------
Uj,isjon
C»oxooniLy UcvulopnenL Dcpxr�mm�L
FIROH� |�nXinc�rin� [)�r��inn
}'Vh|j.c Hnr0pacLmcn�
5UDJ[CT�
�FLer rcv�e� o� L}�� L}Su�eC�
�`� �uil�in� »orm�Fnll9�in �
}� coian�n�s�
�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHECcusT
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
(address ) (dato
Street Right -of -Way Existing
REQD
z
H
Access Easements Existing
REQD
O;
Utility Easement Exist*
REQD
w
Lot Per Subdivision Plat
Assessor Map
w
Site Plan Checked for Accuracy
2
Underground Wiring Reqd.
H
0
Check Accuracy of Legal scription
2
Review by
Date
w
Existing Water Main Size
Water Main Required
Service Line Required
Hydrant Size Existing
a
Hydrant Reqd Per Fire Code
Size
w
Detector Check Meter Reqd.
H
Cross Connection Inspection
Fire Department Conunents
3
Water Meter Charge Reqd.
Review by
Date
Septic Tank Design Approved
Date
Septic Tank Permit Reqd.
Permit No.
Sanitary Sewer Availability
Pro',
Drawing No.
File No.
Side Sewer Availability
w
Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd.
3
Review by.
Date
w
Open Ditch Existing
Reqd.
Culvert Reqd.
Size
c4
Catch Basin Reqd.
Indicate an Site Plan
0
Shoulder drainage maintain collection on
swale open runoff
H
`n
Manhole re d.
Q
Indicate an Site Plan
Soil Conditions and Ground Water Field Checked
Review by
Date
Revised: lv10-1977
Page 2
0
Street Paving Reqd.
H
Curb and Gutter Reqd.
w Sidewalk Reqd.
w Curb Cut for Driveway Reqd.
r4 Right -of -Way Construction Permit Reqd.
H Bond Reqd. for Public Improvements
Street Name Sign Reqd.
Other Signing Reqd.
A.. Pre Permit Site Inspection made on
z
a off BY: SEWER
H
U
w wP4 WATER
M
`'' z STREET
F--i
�X4 ENGINEERING
Special Requirements listed in memo to Commmity Development Department,
Building Division
BY Date
o All items filled in on Building Permit Application
P4 BY Date
a' Drawings Stamped and Notations Made
w BY Date
Approved by Public Works Department
Revised: lv 10-1977
IL �.
CITY of EDMONDS
Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 .• Telephone (206) 775-2525
Office of the City Engineer
Mardi 9, 1977
Mr. Steve Lea
18520 88th Avenue I -Vest
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Isar ?,fr. Lea:
SUBJECT: SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION - 16520 72nd
fINMUE i TST
The permit application, wnich is required prior to issuance of a
building permit, is approved.. Please obtain the actual Septic System
permit prior to commencing the installation. The perniit fee is $.0.
Yours ver;- truly,
SIGNED
LEIF R. LARSON, P.I.
Director of Public !,forks
1,014: lee .
cc: hI. B . P.leyring
P.O. Pox 32
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Building Department
-27
i I I Nims'ate s t . C.E. Date in. Se . 'lute
0