CRA20140116City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Received: 12.%t d Z/4
City Receipt #:
Critical Areas File #: <--Koa 2c, t,4 0
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $155.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/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, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file is a licati n on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGEN DATE L (O
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 inspection and posjag atVLgndant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF
Owner/Applicant:
� WRIPIC
Name
Street AdAress
city State Zip
TeleDhone: r42� L7�
•.
DATE I —2 ` 1
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email Address:
Revised on 12118112 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist. doc Page 1 of 2
#P20 CA File No:6eA
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/topography/ hydrology/ vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: �?j G 0(vv xD (- \l ` f
2. Property Tax Account Number: C
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): _
4. Is this site currently developed? _ yes; -X_ no
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
_X Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: t'O ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: t'�Q ; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain (q D of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
0 C' Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed_
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: �' D
City Staff Use Only ------------------------------------------------------------------
1----------------------------------------------------------For
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable?
2. Site is Zoned? (�`> -" 1_
3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? Al j ru.,o(j (--7 icc,, 11,, �M
l S Z S% 51� C'S_ S
`5f'�,j
Qb�-'�`6v,.. d� �✓bT �y � I"iV�WC�c�—t.Jc,rz.Tl �Y'v.U�y
I-
54�i,.� l6a•v� ZS-��-►- 5�0�-5
4. Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site?
�/
(rCritical
b t �'�% � � �...�� ��c. �/� s i`O.-•
tt-
1�'7�rc.� ��et,c f s `-G O �/o
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? ,/e_S
S
SITE DETERMINATION
STUDY REQUIRED
WAIVER
Reviewed by: Date:
Revised on 12118112 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist. doc Page 2 of 2
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
"7C. 189\.,
Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report
Critical Areas File Number
Determination
Site Location
Tax Account Number
Property Owner
Applicant
Critical Areas Present
Site Description
CRA20140116
Study Required
9303 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds
27031300103400
Kemper
Keith Kemper
Q Geologically Hazardous Areas
2 Erosion Hazard Areas
Q Landslide Hazard Areas
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to)
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Areas and Landslide Hazard Areas),
pursuant to Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Cited sections
of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at
www.edmondswa.gov.
Although the eastern portion of the site is relatively level, the western side of the site slopes downward
steeply to the shoreline of the Puget Sound. This slope exceeds 40% according to City LiDAR data. Due to the
degree of the slope on and adjacent to the western side of the site, it was found that the site contains slopes
that are steep enough to be considered both an Erosion Hazard Area (over 15% slope) and a Landslide Hazard
Area (over 40% slope).
Allowed Activities & Exempt Proposals
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.220. Similarly, certain
development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you have any
questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed or exempt activity, please
contact a Planner for more information.
General Report Requirements
Critical areas reports identify, classify and delineate 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 specific
development proposals. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area, the critical
areas report must contain a mitigation plan. General mitigation requirements for all critical areas are described in
ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140.
Critical area reports are most commonly submitted when applying for a building permit or land use development
application (although they can be submitted at any time). The minimum requirements for all critical area reports
are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see
below). Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that
you may choose from. Please contact the Planning Division for more information.
Erosion Hazard Areas
Development is regulated within Erosion Hazard Areas and must meet specific criteria. For erosion hazard areas
with suitable slope stability, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance ECDC 18.30 will be
considered to meet the critical areas "Study Required" determination. The determination of "suitable slope
stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Edmonds. In areas where the
slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a report by a licensed geotechnical
engineer or other qualified professional. Report requirements and development standards for alterations within
erosion hazard areas are found in ECDC 23.80.050 through 23.80.070.
Landslide Hazard Areas
Development is restricted but not prohibited within Landslide Hazard Areas and their associated buffers. There
are standard required setbacks from landslide hazard areas (per ECDC 23.80.070 and ECDC 23.40.280); however,
these setbacks may be reduced or eliminated with the submission and City approval of a geotechnical report
produced by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Specific report requirements for landslide hazard areas and design
criteria are found in ECDC 23.80.050 through 23.80.070.
Determination: Study Required
This review applies to the entire subject parcel. Depending on the location and project proposed relative to the
identified critical areas, certain studies and reports may be required. Please contact the Planning Division at
Page 12
425.771.0220 if and when you have a specific development proposal for this site in order to discuss the various
permits that will be required.
Sean Conrad, Associate Planner
Name, Title
December 19, 2014
Signature Date
Page 13
City of Edmonds
121 tm Ave
Edmonds, WA
98020
Woodway
This docE.E n nt is forii 4i1fod..f m a�`lon ,£dt pslsC � +�t�li+ and is i,)mvid d on n 1s £
and ras,3vait4b(v' kris'}, j"'c daf,a s'Od w�,laa„ iix>� . sl „ txle�ff O f)UbH souice and no
warr nty'(9] any kin i is, given as tcd ➢ts accuracy,Users of itlil clo E€ n P2t a+ c,
to inderiulify afid save of Edinonds, its officials, officers,
100Fc t
N
.:1 PM
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
'hC. 189'i
December 18, 2014
Keith Kemper
7417 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Kemper,
You have contacted the City of Edmonds regarding the removal of a hazard tree located on your
property at 9303 Olympic View Drive. The tree you identified is located next to a steep slope
which is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
chapters 23.40 and 23.80.
Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is
not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, it involves the removal of
invasive species or hazard trees.
A tree hazard evaluation form from a certified arborist has been submitted documenting the tree
with a hazard risk score of 9 which classifies the tree as a high risk. ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv
requires that hazard trees be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one.
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. Only the tree identified in the tree hazard evaluation form may be cut.
2. The replacement trees must be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a
minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a
minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root
ball. The trees must be planted within one year of the tree cutting activity. Replacement
trees should be planted in the generally vicinity of the trees which are removed.
3. A plan for the replacement trees must be submitted with the building permit application
for the new single-family house proposed on the property.
4. Stump of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
can Co
Associate Planner
August 8, 2014
Keith A. Kemper
9303 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
kkemper(cDelmlaw. com
SUBJECT: ARBORICULTURAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
TREE ON THE KEMPER PROPERTY
Dear Mr. Kemper,
On July 29th, we walked your property and discussed the condition of the tree, what
care it needs, and what options you have available to best manage that tree. Given that
recent studies reveal that homes with mature trees and landscaping sell for as much as
19% more than architecturally similar houses without trees, it is a wise investment of
your time and resources to have the plants in your yard evaluated periodically.
We discussed some specific concerns you have about the Large Douglas Fir tree you
have in your yard. I will address each specific concern as I review the trees condition.
To evaluate your trees and shrubs and to prepare this report, I drew upon my education
and 19 years of experience in the fields of horticulture and arboriculture. Also, I followed
the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture for Hazard Tree Assessment
while looking at the overall health of the trees and the site conditions. This is a
scientifically based process to look at the entire site, the surrounding land and the soil,
as well as a complete look at the trees themselves. In examining each tree, I looked at
such factors as: size, vigor, crown ratio and class, density of needles, injury, insect
activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease causing
bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. While no one can predict with
absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can, buy using this scientific
process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take appropriate actions to
minimize injury and damage.
There is one Douglas Fir Tree that is in significant decline that needs aggressive
treatment or removal as noted below.
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Douglas Fir, PSEUDOTSUGA menziesii:
• Located on the north west side by the hill
• 36 inch dbh
• The bottom 6 to 7 feet of the trunk is swollen
• Throughout the trunk, there is evidence of banana cracks and pitch is coming
from those locations
• The tree was previously climbed 10 to 12 years ago by someone using spurs,
this intern has caused multiple holes in the cambium layer which is causing
sap to ooze from the bark
• The tree has been topped as well as over thinned
• The tree has an over abundance of cone growth, which is a strong indicator
that the tree is in decline.
Conclusion and Recommendations: The Large Douglas Fir tree has should be
removed because of its unstable condition due to the rot and extensive pruning.
SUMMARY:
These recommendations can be summarized as:
• The tree is located on a very steep sensitive slope and has a swollen trunk, and
a heavy cone set.
• 1 feel this tree is very unstable and should be removed as soon as possible so
that it does not hit the adjoining neighbor's house or fail in the other direction and
come down on the railroad tracks.
WAIVER OF LIABILITY:
There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability which may be present
and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction
damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in
circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and
stability. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this
evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings
do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events.
Thank you for considering us for your arboricultural needs. I hope this report answers
your questions. Please call me if I can provide more information or be of further service.
Sincerely,
Patrick See
ISA Certified Arborist
PN-1463A
425-770-1114
REFERENCES CONSULTED:
1. A New Tree Biology: by Alex L. Shigo
2. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition
3. The New Tree Biology Dictionary: by Alex L. Shigo
4. The Tree Doctor: by Daniel Prendergast, Erin Prendergast
5. Western Gardening Book
See's Trees and Excavation, Inc.
18601 72"d Ave NE
Kenmore, WA 98028
425-770-1114
seestreesandexcavate@hotmail.com
HAZARDOUS TREE EVALUATION FORM
—-----
Site/Address:9303 Olympic View Dr Haza—rd Rating:-------- - - -1Map/Location:
Edmonds Wa 21
31
4
9t
Date of Last Inspection: Unkno%Tlme: Failure + Size of + Target = HAZARD
Inspector: Patrick See jPotential Part Rating RATING
Date of Last Inspection: Unknown I Immediate Action Needed
Owner: Public x Private I Needs Further Inspection 1
Unknown Other i [dead TrPP 1
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
TREE CHARACTERISTICS
Tree #:
1 Species: Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii
DBH:
36 # of Trunks: 1 Height: 80 Spread:
30
Form:
GENERALLY SYMMETRIC X MINOR ASYMMETRY
STUMP SPROUT STAG -HEADED
Crown Class:
DOMINANT CO -DOMINANT
INTERMEDIATE X SUPPRESSED
Live Crown Ratio:
75 %
Age Class:
YOUNG X SEMI -MAT. MATURE
OVER -MAT.
Pruning History:
X CROWN CLEANED X EXCESSIVELY THINNED
TOPPED X CROWN RAISED
NONE
POLLARDED _CROWN REDUCED
FLUSH CUTS CABLED/BRACED
X MULTIPLE PRUNING EVENTS; APPROXIMATE DATES:
Special Value:
SPECIMEN HERITAGE/HISTORIC
WILDLIFE
UNUSUAL STREET TREE
SCREEN
SHADE X INDIGENOUS
PROTECTED
TREE HEALTH
Foliage Colour: X
NORMAL
CHLOROTIC
NECROTIC
Epicormics? (Y/N)
Leaf size:
NORMAL
SMALL
Foliage Density:
NORMAL
_
SPARSE
Twig ? (Y/N) YES
Annual Shoot Growth:
EXCELLENT
AVERAGE
X POOR
Woundwood Development_
_
EXCELLENT X
AVERAGE
POOR
NONE
Vigor Class: EXCELLENT
AVERAGE
FAIR POOR
SITE CONDITIONS
Site Character: X
RESIDENCE
COMMERCIAL
_ INDUSTRIAL
PARK
OPEN SPACE
NATURAL
WOODLAND/FOREST
Landscape Type:
PARKWAY
RAISED BED
CONTAINER
MOUND
LAWN X
SHRUB BORDER
WIND BREAK
Irrigation: X NONE
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
EXCESSIVE
TRUNK WETTED
Recent Site Disturbance? (Y/N)
n0
CONSTRUCTION
Put an "x" above the correct division
% Dripline Paved:
Pavement Lifted? (Y/N)
% Dripline with fill -soil:
SOIL DISTURBANCE LINE CLEARING
GRADE CHANGE SITE CLEARING
X
X
0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
% Dripline Grade Lowered: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Soil Problems: DRAINAGE X SHALLOW COMPACTED
DROUGHTY SALINE ALKALINE ACIDIC
SMALL VOLUME DISEASE CENTER
HISTORY OF FAIL CLAY
_ EXPANSIVE SLOPE: DEGREES
ASPECT:
Obstructions: LIGHTS SIGNAGE LINE -OF -SIGHT
VIEW OVERHEAD LINES
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TRAFFIC
ADJACENT VEGETATION:
Exposure to Wind: X SINGLE TREE _ BELOW CANOPY
ABOVE CANOPY RECENTLY EXPOSED
WINDWARD, CANOPY EDGE
AREA PRONE TO WINDTHROW
Prevailing Wind Direction: South
Occupance of snow/ice storms: NEVER X SELDOM REGULARLY
TARGET
Use Under X BUILDING PARKING
TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN
Tree: RECREATION X LANDSCAPE
HARDSCAPE _ SMALL FEATURES
UTILITY LINES
Can Target be Moved? (Y/N) n0 Can Use be Restricted? (Y/N) no
Occupancy: OCCASIONAL USE INTERMITTENT USE
FREQUENT USE X CONSTANT USE
E DEFECTS
moor uerects: Suspect Root Rot: (Y/N)
Mushroom/Conk/Bracket Present: (Y/N)
ID:
Exposed Roots: SEVERE
MODERATE LOW
Undermined: _SEVERE
MODERATE X LOW
RoO t P d
rUne _ DISTANCE FROM TRUNK Root Area Affected:
Buttress Wounded: (Y/N) When:
Restricted Root Area: X SEVERE MODERATE LOW
Potential for Root Failure: SEVERE X MODERATE LOW
Lean: DEGREE FROM VERTICAL Soil ? (Y/N)
NATURAL _ UNNATURAL SELF -CORRECTED
Decay in Plane of /N) Roots Broken: (Y/N)
Soil Cracking: (Y/N) Compounding Factors:
Lean Severity: SEVERE MODERATE LOW
Crown Defects: Indicate presence individual defects and rate severity (s = severmoderate, I = low)
DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK ISCAFFOLDS BRANCHES
:odominants/Forks
Aultiple Attachments
ncluded Bark
xcessive End Weight
:racks/Splits
Girdlin
m
Bleeding/Sap Flow I m
Loose/Cracked Bark
JBorers/Termites/Ants I I M
Tree Part most likely to fail: trunk
Inspection Period: _annual biannual _other:
Failure Potential + Size + Target Rating = Hazard g
Failure Potential: 1-low; 2-medium; 3-high; 4-severe.
Size of Part: 1: <6"(15cm); 2: 6-18" (15-45cm); 3: 18-30" (45-75cm); 4: >30" (75cm)
Target Rating: 1-occassional use; 2-intermittent use; 3-frequent use; 4-constant use
HAZARD ABATEMENT
Prune:
remove defective part
reduce end weight
_
crown clean
_thin
raise canopy
shape
crown reduce
restructure
Cable/Brace
Inspect Furth_
crown
Remove Tree? (Y/N)
yes Replace? yes
_root _decay
aerial
monitor
Move Target? (Y/N)
Other:
Effect on Adjacent Trees:
none
evaluate
Notification: x
owner
agency Date:
_manager _governing
Comments: This treesis swollen which is a r of internal decay. This a heavy cone set, which is an indicator