CU-10-79 Staff Report with Attachments.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
To: Ms. Sabine Birlenbach
From.
Jennifer Machuga, Associate Planner
Late: May 26, 2011
File: PLN20100079
I_A�'T7 ��CiTi1
1. Applicant: Sabine Birlenbach (Attachments 1 and 2)
2. Owners: Stephen and Judee Lea (Attachment 1)
3. Site Location: 16520 — 72nd Avenue West, including parcel numbers 00513100008701 and
00513100008801 (Attachment 3).
4. Request: This is a post -event tree cutting permit application. The applicant obtained
permission from the city on September 18, 2009 to reduce the crowns of 26 previously
topped trees as a maintenance activity (Attachment 7). However, upon inspection, it was
determined that the work conducted far exceeded the definition of routine maintenance and
is considered tree cutting, which requires a conditional use permit. Because the site
contains and is adjacent to identified critical areas, a restoration plan is required.
5. Review Process: An administrative conditional use permit is a Type 11 decision pursuant
to ECDC 20.01.003. Type Il permits are administrative decisions where the Director, or
his designee, makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria following
a public comment period.
6. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.45 -
Land Clearing and Tree Cutting.
b. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.01 — Types of Development Project Permit
Applications.
c. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 — Civil Violation — Enforcement Procedure
d. Compliance with ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 — Environmentally Critical
Areas.
The applicant, Sabine Birlenbach, who
owns the property addressed 16510
72" d Avenue West had work performed
on a total of 39 trees on the
neighboring property addressed 16520
72nd Avenue West. The property on
which the work was conducted is
Birlenbach Tree Cutting violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 2 of 11
According to the arborist report prepared by Sean Dugan with Tree Solutions hie. and
submitted by the applicant with the subject application (Attachment 4), of the 39 total trees that
had work performed on them, 13 trees were pruned consistent with the city's original approval
of September 18, 2009, 1 hazardous tree was cut, and 25 non -hazardous trees were cut either
far below the previous topping or were cut even though they had not been previously topped.
Some trees were cut down to stumps, while others were left as tall trunks with few or no
branches. The trees cut were a combination of red alders and big leaf maples. The photo
above shows the general area prior to the violation.
Due to the fact that the subject site contains and is adjacent to several critical areas, including
erosion and landslide hazard areas, a stream, a wetland, a mapped fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area, and their associated buffers, restrictions apply regarding what vegetation
may be removed (see Section 11.13.2). When vegetation is removed from critical areas and/or
their buffers, mitigation is required. While tree cutting such as that which was conducted by
the applicant would not normally be permitted, the conditional use permit process is being used
to implement the mitigation plan and to mitigate for the impact of the unpermitted activity.
Fines for the tree cutting violation are being assessed through a Notice of Violation and
Monetary Fine issued the same day as this report.
°"MRi �h �1 Et ' `� i.' 1 �• Y .9 , ,P . �1 c A . , 'f ;!i
1. Facts:
a. The two parcels owned by Mr. and Mrs. Lea that comprise 16520 72nd Avenue West
(parcel numbers 00513100008701 and 00513100008801) total approximately 1.9 acres
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 3 of I 1
in size. The majority of the tree cutting was conducted throughout the vacant, eastern
parcel (parcel number 00513100008701). Approximately four trees were cut near the
eastern side of the western parcel, which contains the residence (parcel number
00513100008801). The locations of the subject trees as depicted on the map prepared
by Western Resources (last page of Attachment 5). Descriptions of the work done to
each tree are provided in the "Table of Trees" prepared by Tree Solutions Inc. and
included within the Tree Cutting and Restoration Plan (Attachment 4).
b. The subject site is located within the Single -Family Residential, RS -20, zone. Like the
subject site, the surrounding area is similarly zoned and developed with single-family
residences (Attachment 3).
The subject site contains and/or is adjacent to a stream, wetland, mapped fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area, and slopes in excess of 40% (erosion hazard and
landslide hazard areas), which was confirmed through the review of a critical areas
checklist and site visit conducted under File No. CRA20090074. These critical areas
are described in greater detail in the professional reports provided by the applicant
(Attachments 4, 5, and 6), and further analysis is contained within Section II.13.2 of
this report.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. ECDC Section 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting)
a. Facts:
1) ECDC Section 18.45.030 exempts clearing on an improved single-family lot,
except for that portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally
sensitive area or for that portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any
stream or wetland or that has slopes exceeding 25 percent. Routine landscape
maintenance (i.e., tree trimming and ground cover management which is
undertaken by a person in connection with the normal maintenance and repair of
property) and gardening are also exempt.
2) The trees that were cut were located within designated environmentally sensitive
areas as discussed above and as determined through the critical areas
determination for the property (CRA20090074), and many were within 25 feet of
the stream and wetland and/or on slopes exceeding 25 percent.
3) Some of the purposes of the land clearing and tree cutting code listed in ECDC
18.45.000 include:
a) To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city
through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and
ground cover on improved or partially improved property.
b) To implement and further the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive
plan in regard to the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation,
resources, surface drainage, watershed, and economics.
c) To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
d) To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian
corridors, wetlands and groves of trees.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PL.N20100079
Page 4 of 11
4) ECDC 18.45.050.13 states that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent
feasible."
5) ECDC 18.45.070 gives the city the authority to impose fines for tree cutting
violations. This code section was updated under Ordinance No. 3828 effective on
December 19, 2010, which was following the cutting conducted by the applicant.
The new fine amounts in Ordinance No. 3828 do not apply retroactively to
violations that preceded the adoption of that ordinance. Thus, fines are being
imposed under Ordinance No. 3646. Ordinance No. 3646 specified that fines shall
be assessed at a maximum rate of $1,000 per day and/or $500 per tree, which shall
be tripled to a maximum of $3,000 per day and/or $1,500 per tree for unauthorized
clearing within a critical area or critical area buffer.
6) ECDC 18.45.075 gives the City the authority to require the replacement of trees of
up to three trees for each tree removed.
7) ECDC 18.45.065 requires applicants to post a performance bond covering the cost
of any proposed revegetation.
b. Conclusions:
1) The photos to the right
indicate that the trees were
cut in a manner that far
exceeds that of routine
maintenance. As a result,
a permit is required, not
only because the work was
not routine maintenance,
but also because the trees
were located in an
environmentally sensitive
area.
2) The photos to the right
also indicate that the cut
portions of the trees were
left piled up on the ground
so that much of the cut
debris is not in contact
with the ground surface.
3) Replacement of the trees
that were cut is required to
replace the lost cover and
habitat over time.
4) A performance bond must
be posted to ensure that
the replacement trees get
established and mitigation
is successful.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 5 of 11
5) Fines associated with the unpermitted tree cutting are being assessed through a
Notice of Violation and Monetary Fine issued the same day as this report.
2. ECDC Sections 23.40 through 23.90 (Environmentally Critical Areas)
a. Facts:
1) As identified in CRA20090074, the subject parcels contain and/or are adjacent to a
stream, wetland, mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, and slopes of
greater than 40%, which indicates the presence of both erosion and landslide
hazard areas. The regulations related to these critical areas are contained within
ECDC 23.40 through 23.90. Generally, vegetation in critical areas and/or their
associated buffers is to be retained; however, select vegetation may be removed
per ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, and trees may be removed if they are hazardous, pose a
threat to public safety, or pose an imminent risk of damage to private property.
2) The trees that were cut are not included in the list of species allowed for vegetation
removal within critical areas identified in ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.a, nor did they
appear to pose a threat to private property or public safety. One tree was identified
by Tree Solutions Inc. as having been hazardous (Attachment 4).
3) If trees are removed from critical areas, ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv states:
The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a
ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one
year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may
be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting
in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the
critical area. Replacement trees shall 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.
4) Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160, any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise
provided for in Title 23, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with
conditions, or denied based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the
following criteria:
a) The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC
23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing;
b) The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety,
or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
c) The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public
interest;
d) Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with
ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements;
e) The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the
best available science and results in no net loss of critical area functions and
values; and
J) The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 6 of 1 I
5) The applicant submitted a Tree Cutting and Restoration Plan by Tree Solutions
Inc., dated August 5, 2010 (Attachment 4). This report addresses the numbers and
conditions of the trees that were cut, and states that of the 39 total trees that had
work performed on them, 13 had maintenance work performed consistently with
the city's approval of September 18, 2009 and 26 were cut beyond the scope of the
allowed maintenance work. One of these trees was determined to be hazardous.
Thus, 25 non -hazardous trees were cut further than what would be considered
routine maintenance. This report provides recommendations on restoration of the
site, recommendations for preparation of the site prior to the restoration work, and
monitoring of the site following the restoration work.
6) The applicant submitted a Critical Area Study and Tree Restoration Plan prepared
by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated December 14, 2010 (Attachment 5). This report
states that a Category 3 wetland and a Type Np stream are present on and adjacent
to the site. Pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.F. Le and 23.90.040.D. Le, both of these
critical areas require a 50 -foot buffer. As shown in the map on the last page of the
report by Wetland Resources, Inc., all of the trees that were cut were located either
within the wetland itself or within the minimum required 50 -foot buffer from the
wetland, and many of these trees were also located within the minimum required
50 -foot buffer from the stream. This report provides recommendations on
restoration of the site and monitoring of the restoration work.
7) The applicant submitted a Slope Stability Letter by Nelson Geotechnical
Associates, Inc., dated December 23, 2010 (Attachment 6). This letter states that
the tree cutting work does not appear to have adversely impacted the stability of
the slopes within the vicinity of the work and that the proposed restoration work
will be in compliance with the applicable geotechnical requirements of ECDC
23.40 and 23.80. The report provides guidance on erosion control to be utilized
during the restoration work, including the need to remove the cut debris from the
slopes and place this debris so that it is in contact with the ground. The report also
specifies that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. should be retained to observe
site conditions after the restoration work has been completed.
b. Conclusions:
1) The arborist's report indicates that only one of the trees that were cut was
hazardous and that 25 non -hazardous trees were cut beyond the scope of the city's
September 18, 2009 approval.
2) Stumps of the cut trees should not be removed, as they provide slope stabilization
and erosion control for the site. Additionally, the taller trunks that were left with
few or no branches should not be cut lower nor removed, as they will serve as
wildlife snags.
3) The replacement trees should be located in areas that do not require removal of
more ground vegetation than necessary for the replacements to become
established.
4) ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv states that replacement trees shall be planted within one
year of removal; however, it has already been more than one year since the date of
the tree cutting. Thus, the applicant will be provided with one year from the date
of the application submittal to complete the restoration work. Therefore, the
restoration work must be completed by December 30, 2011.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 7 of 1 I
5) Replacement trees shall be of the minimum size indicated in ECDC
23.40.220.C.7.b.iv.
6) All debris from the tree cutting activity should be left in contact with the ground
on the flatter portions of the site in order to facilitate the decay process and to
avoid any potential negative impacts to slope stability, as directed in the letter by
Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (Attachment 6).
7) The Wetland Resources, Inc. report (Attachment 5) suggests slightly lower
replacement ratios than the report by Tree Solutions Inc. (Attachment 4), and both
reports suggest different replacement species. The replacement ratio suggested
within the Wetland Resources, Inc. report of two -to -one may be followed since this
is consistent with the critical areas requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b;
however, replacement of the one hazardous tree is required, which was not
addressed within the Wetland Resources, Inc. report. With a total of 26 trees cut
(including 25 non -hazardous trees and one hazardous tree), this yields a total
number of replacement trees of 52.
8) The critical areas code does not specify what species replacement trees should be;
however, it does specify that replacements shall be native and indigenous to the
site. Since the desire for the initially proposed crown reduction work was due to
an existing view covenant, it is noted that tall -growing trees should not be planted
on the higher portions of the site where they may cause view issues in the future,
as the city does not enforce private covenants and will not allow future cutting of
the replacement trees simply for the benefit of a view. The replacement species,
however, should be a combination of large and small trees since this will increase
habitat diversity. All of the replacement trees suggested in the Wetland Resources,
Inc. report are large trees, and the report by Tree Solutions Inc. suggests a few
large trees and several smaller trees. As suggested in both reports, diversity to the
habitat in this location is important, which can be achieved through planting a
variety of tree species that are appropriate for planting within a wetland and
wetland buffer in addition to within a stream buffer and on steep slopes. In order
to help avoid view issues in the future, staff has determined that it is appropriate
for 75 percent of the replacement trees (39 of the total 52 trees to be planted) to be
of the small species listed in the Tree Solutions Inc. report and 25 percent of the
trees (13 of the 52 trees to be planted) to be of the large species listed in either the
Tree Solutions Inc. report and/or the Wetland Resources, Inc. report. Additionally,
in order to provide greater species diversity, the applicant shall select a minimum
of four different species of small trees from the Tree Solutions Inc. report and a
minimum of three different species of the large trees from either the Tree Solutions
Inc. report and/or the Wetland Resources, Inc. report.
9) Replacement trees must be consistent with the size requirements of ECDC
23.40.220.C.7.b, which requires the replacement trees to be 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.
C. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance
1. Facts:
a. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and those
within the vicinity as "Single Family — Resource".
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 8 of 1 I
b. The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential
Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which
apply to this project:
Soils and Topography
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should
preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following
policies:
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C. 3. b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to
reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill
property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch,
or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways.
Vegetation and Wildlife
B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas
containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available
science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are
located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts,
buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are
preserved.
B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed.
B.4. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only.
Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved.
2. Conclusion:
a. While the vegetation that was removed should have remained, the proposed conditions
and required restoration will ensure the permit is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A Technical Committee
The proposal has been evaluated by the Engineering Division, Public Works Department,
Parks and Recreation Department, and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. The
Engineering Division noted that all requirements of the Nelson Geotechnical Associates report
dated December 23, 2010 (Attachment 6) and any subsequent report requirements must be met
(Attachment 9). This has been added as a condition of approval. The Public Works
Department had no comments (Attachment 10). The Parks and Recreation Department
recommended that the area is properly revegetated with native trees and shrubs to protect the
stream, wetland, and wildlife area (Attachment 11). Fire District No. 1 had no comments
(Attachment 12).
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 9 of 11
E. Public Comment
ECDC 20.03 provides the City's regulations for public notice of development applications. A
"Notice of Development Application and Comment Period" dated February 10, 2011 with a
comment period running through February 25, 2011 was posted at the subject site, Public
Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and Library on February 10, 2011
(Attachment 13). The notice was mailed to residents within 300 feet of the subject site using a
mailing list provided by the applicant (Attachment 14) and published in the Herald Newspaper
on February 10, 2011. A declaration of mailing is provided as Attachment 15 and an affidavit
of publication is provided as Attachment 16.
No letters of public comment were received during review of the subject application.
"Inglow"MIX11
Based on statements of fact, conclusions, and attachments in this report, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit for tree cutting at 16520 72nd Ave. W is GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay monetary penalties for the 25 non -hazardous trees that were cut beyond
the scope of the approved crown reduction work in accordance with the Notice of Violation
and Monetary Fine issued to the applicant on the same day as this permit.
2. A total of 52 replacement trees shall be planted within the immediate vicinity of the trees that
were cut. Replacement trees shall be 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. 39 of the replacement trees shall be selected from the list of small tree
species provided in the Tree Solutions Inc. report, with a minimum of four different species
being utilized from this list. 13 of the replacement trees shall be selected from the list of large
tree species provided in the Tree Solutions Inc. report and/or the Wetland Resources, Inc.
report, with a minimum of three different species being utilized from these lists. Spacing of
the replacement trees should follow the recommendations of the report by Tree Solutions Inc.
3. This approval does not include approval for the cutting of any of the remaining trees on site.
All standing portions of the cut trees shall remain on site to serve as wildlife snags. None of
the stumps of the cut trees shall be removed from the ground.
4. The applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount covering the redistribution of the
cut material off of the slopes and the cost of the required replanting, including all materials and
labor. As part of this bond, a cost estimate for all materials and labor associated with the
mitigation work shall be submitted in order to verify the amount of the bond. The performance
bond shall be posted by June 30, 2011..
5. Prior to planting the replacement trees, all debris shall be removed from the steep slopes and
repositioned onto the flatter areas below the slopes in a manner consistent with the direction
provided by the reports by Tree Solutions Inc., Wetland Resources, Inc., and Nelson
Geotechnical Associates, Inc. This debris shall be cut up so that it is all in direct contact with
the ground.
6. If any of the 13 trees that were pruned consistent with the city's approval of September 18,
2009 dies within three years, the dead trees shall be replaced at a two -to -one ratio.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 10 of 11
7. Follow the recommendations of the report by Tree Solutions Inc. regarding supplemental
temporary irrigation to be provided for the replacement trees.
The tree replacement and mitigation work must be completed no later than December 30, 2011.
Within two weeks following the completion of the mitigation work, provide the Planning
Division with letters by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Wetland Resources, and Tree
Solutions or another qualified geotechnical engineer, biologist, and arborist specifying whether
the mitigation work done was consistent with the recommendations of their reports combined
with the conditions of the city's approval. If any of these professionals indicate that additional
work is needed to comply with the city's conditions of approval, that work shall be conducted
and a subsequent letter provided by the professional(s) to show compliance.
9. All requirements of the Nelson Geotechnical Associates report dated December 23, 2010 and
any subsequent report requirements must be met.
10. The following erosion control practices shall be implemented:
a. All planting and redistribution of the previously cut material must be done by hand using
hand tools. Use of machinery is not allowed.
b. Excavate the minimum area necessary to plant each replacement tree.
c. Applicable best management practices found in ECDC 18.30 shall be employed.
d. Backfill with as much native soil material as possible.
e. Place 4 inches of hog fuel mulch in plant pits.
11. Once the trees have been replanted consistent with these conditions of approval, a maintenance
bond shall be required to ensure the maintenance of the replacement trees and a survivability of
a minimum of 80 percent at three years after replanting. The amount of the maintenance bond
is calculated as 15 percent of the original performance bond amount. The maintenance bond
must be in place before the performance bond will be released.
12. Three years from the date of final installation of the new vegetation, the applicant (or her
designee) shall submit a letter by a qualified professional confirming that the above
survivability target of 80 percent has been met. Additionally, the applicant must contact the
Planning Division to schedule a final site inspection to ensure compliance with the approved
replacement and maintenance plan. If the inspection determines the replanting to be in
compliance with the approved replacement plan, the maintenance bond will be released.
13. Any future tree cutting and/or vegetation removal proposed on the site is subject to the codes
and regulations in place at the time of the proposed work. The property owner shall contact the
Planning Division to discuss applicable requirements and/or permits necessary for any work
proposed in the future.
IV. APPEAL.
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type H decision within 14 days of the date of
issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at an open record public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.06 and Section 20.07.004.
Birlenbach Tree Cutting Violation
File No. PLN20100079
Page 11 of 11
V. ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Application
2. Applicant's statement
3. Zoning and Vicinity Map
4. Tree Cutting and Restoration Plan by Tree Solutions Inc.
5. Critical Area Study and Tree Restoration Plan by Wetland Resources, Inc.
6. Slope Stability Letter by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc.
7. Letter approving tree maintenance, dated September 18, 2009
8. Letter informing applicant of violation, dated May 13, 2010
9. Engineering Division Comments
10. Public Works Department Comments
11. Parks and Recreation Department Comments
12. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments
13. Declaration of Posting
14. Adjacent Property Owners List
15. Declaration of Mailing
16. Affidavit of Publication
0 : 1
Ms. Sabine Birlenbach Planning Division
22613 — 93rd Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98020 Engineering Division
Stephen and Judee Lea
16520-72 nd Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
✓1
?I
r-
City of Edmonds
Land Use Application �l
❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • •
❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 7 '
❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE4AN'01000-79 ZONE
❑ HOME OCCUPATION n t _REC'D BY
❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION LDATE Z 3o w
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION A
FEE Il �1 - 100 RECEIPT # � � ' 1
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT e' HEARING DATE
❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE �"TAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ REZONE
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT DEC 2010
El VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION Gti
❑ OTHER: DEVELOPMENT SERVICE&
+ yg
COUNTER
PROPERTY
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION t Z- (i
PROJECT NAME (IF APPPLICABLE)
PROPERTYOWNER S*e"J1e-rJ �-i St -de --e- LPC! PHONE# �1v2S-
ADDRESS
S ( US2-o a77 Li ci (.tiw. iA1 ['ibY1 i'n Ul lt't Q o z Ce
E -MAID )a rrner i4l ? rlD+M11411 h C 0 rrN FAx # --d--
TAX ACCOUNT # V C7 CJ l")l 0 000 u` Di SEC. TWP. RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)
4 r,e- t C i, 44 r-Nq = r mi -4 -
DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)
APPLICANT 4b j fV 6 i r F n ba(h PHONE # Ll 1 S g
ADDRESS a I s el 3,'-c% A /L) Cd2 ex iq�—)
E-MAIL -S ��� �Ecn cS. a FAX#
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE #
ADDRESS
E-MAIL FAx #
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 this application on the behalf of the owners as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENTJ--c-�e DATE
Property O vner's Authorization
I, lu�i�� L-teL-" , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the
subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the
subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
This cation form was revised on 9/14/10. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220.
Revised on 9/14/10 B- Land Use Application Page I of]
Attachment 1
December 29, 2010
Jen Machuga
Planner
City of Edmonds
1215th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Tree Cutting at 16520 72nd Avenue West
Dear Ms. Machuga:
Per your request, please find enclosed a City of Edmonds Land Use Application, check for $1,115, an
Adjacent Property Owner List, report from Wetland Resources (Wildlife Biologist), and report from
Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (Geotechnical engineers). A copy of the previously submitted Tree
Solutions (arborist) report is also included.
These reports address the requirements in the development regulations (ECDC 18.45 and 23.40 through
23.90. (ECDC 20.02.002.E). The restoration plan outlined in the Wetland Resources report should
satisfy the city's requirements for replanting.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Sabine Birlenbach
Attachment 2
I
"R'S" 20"
I, -
"I"",
Ag
... .. ......
Tl -
All,
'1,04
3w;- .;,i
iii
"R'S" 20"
I, -
"I"",
Ag
... .. ......
Tl -
All,
'1,04
3w;- .;,i
Tree
Solutions nc
Consulting Arborists
TO: Sabine Birlenbach (Applicant)
22613 — 93'd Place West
Edmonds, WA. 98020= g
(425) 776-5389 I iLVEL01=SPK i SEH)
COUNTER
JOB SITE: 1652072 nd Ave. W. Edmonds WA. 98026
REGARDING: Tree Cutting and Restoration Plan
FROM: Sean Dugan, Registered Consulting Arborist #457, Certified Arborist #
5459A, Certified Tree Risk Assessor #0149
DATE: August 5, 2010
Contents
Summary
Assignment & Scope of Report
Methods
Observations
Discussion
Recommendations
Glossary
References
Appendix A - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
Appendix B - Photographs
Attachments:
Table of Trees
Site Plan
1058 North 39t" Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesol utions. net
Attachment 4
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.2 of 15
Summary
I assessed 39 trees that were cut during the 2010 pruning event. Thirteen (13) of the 39 trees
pruned appeared to have been pruned in a manner consistent with the City -approved plan.
However, only 26 trees were included in this approved plan. The remaining 13 trees included in
the plan and an additional 13 trees had pruning inconsistent with the City -approved plan. Six
trees presented elevated risk potential levels. One of these appears to have been excessively
pruned to reduce the risk. Four trees may not survive the excessive pruning but are still
currently alive. One tree, and a part of another, were dead prior to the recent pruning event.
Both trees were cut to short stumps, which was not part of the City -approved plan. Six other
trees were cut to short stumps, which was not part of the approved plan.
The City requires a restoration plan be implemented that is consistent with the Edmonds
Community Development Code. Fifty-nine (59) trees are required to be planted within one year
for site mitigation. Twenty-one (21) native and indigenous replacement trees must be a
minimum of three inches in caliper to replace trees that were removed. The remaining 38
replacement trees shall be native and indigenous to this area, and a minimum of one inch in
diameter at standard height for deciduous trees, or six feet in height for evergreens, measured
at the top of the root ball.
Assignment & Scope of Report
This report outlines the site inspection by Sean Dugan of Tree Solutions Inc. on July 27, 2010. 1
was asked to review documents sent by the City of Edmonds to Ms. Birlenbach dated May 13,
2010 and July 15, 2010. 1 was asked to visit the site at 16520 72nd Ave. W and collect data to
provide a response to the City for review in determining if all applicable requirements of the
ECDC 18.45 and 23.40 through 23.90 have been met or will need to be satisfied. Sabine
Birlenbach, owner of the property, requested these services to use in the endeavor of obtaining
the appropriate permits from the City of Edmonds and to guide mitigation of the site.
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 conditions can be found in Appendix A.
1058 North 39"' Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.3 of 15
Methods
I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis
behind VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak
spot or area of mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by
growing more vigorously to re -enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts. An
understanding of the uniform stress allows me to make informed judgments about the
condition of a tree. (Mattheck & Breloer 1994)
Photographs taken during the site inspection can be found in Appendix B — Photographs.
Information specific to each tree assessed can be found in the attached Table of Trees. A Site
Plan showing the location of existing trees is attached to this report.
Observations
Document Review
I reviewed the documents sent to Ms. Birlenbach by the City of Edmonds and found the
following:
Specific items requested by the City in the May document include:
• A report specifying exactly what was done on the subject site, including
o species of each tree
o trees that were cut consistent with the approval
o trees that were cut beyond the extent of the approval
o trees that are not likely to survive the result of the action taken
Specific items requested by the City in the July document include:
• Identifying trees that may have been dead or hazardous, and trees which were not.
• Address requirements of ECDC 23.40.220(C)(7)(b) for hazardous trees, including a restoration
plan indicating a replacement at a ratio of two to one.
• A tree cutting permit will be required for those trees that are not hazards that were cut beyond
the approved actions, with the work addressing all applicable requirements of 18.45 and 23.40
through 23.90.
Discussion
Site Work Completed
I assessed 39 trees that were cut during the 2010 pruning event. Tree species can be found on
the attached Table of Trees. Thirteen (13) of the 39 trees appeared to have been pruned near
the location of the previous top cut (see Appendix B — Photograph 1). In several cases the
pruning occurred near the old location, within four to five feet below. The pruning below the
old wound was possibly due to the extent of decay in the trunk above that point and the need
for worker safety. In my opinion, the pruning of these trees can be considered consistent with
the intentions of the plan that was submitted to and approved by the City.
1058 North 39t" Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528,4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.4 of 15
In the remaining 26 trees, I found actions completed that made the pruning inconsistent with
the City -approved plan. Trees were cut substantially lower than necessary, with limited or no
indication of decay in the cut trunks (see Appendix B — Photographs 2 and 3). Tree parts were
removed below the approved location (see Appendix B — Photograph 4). Four trees, 10, 16, 17
and 36, may not survive as a result of the action taken, but are still currently living.
Trees that possibly had an elevated risk potential that pruning has reduced include trees 9, 18,
31, 32, 33, and 34. Of these, tree 18 may have had pruning that was excessive to reduce the
risk. Tree 9 may not have been safe to climb due to decay and was cut down. The remaining 33
trees did not have a contribution of factors (size, target, probability of failure) to be considered
an imminent risk.
Tree 36 had a portion that was dead and tree 39 was a standing snag. Both trees were cut to
stumps. Neither tree presented an imminent risk level. These trees should have been left
standing to be consistent with the approved plan.
The quantity of specific species removed in the 2010 event was not consistent with the
approved plan. In Appendix B —Photograph 5, three maple trees are shown to have been
pruned where the approved plan only indicates two would be pruned. The approved plan
indicates that debris created during the pruning event should be left in contact with the ground
in order to facilitate the decay process. The site conditions seen in Appendix B — Photographs 6
and 7 show pruned material several feet off the ground and caught up in adjacent trees.
Restoration Plan
Step 1. Preparing the Planting Site
The site needs to be prepared by first cutting up the debris that is not in contact with the
ground and placing it in contact with the soil. This will allow safe access onto the site for
anyone working on the restoration efforts.
The site should be monitored after severe rain events to determine if surface water running
along the edge of the site is causing any erosion. This may occur since there is now limited
canopy intercepting the rain energy prior to hitting the ground. If erosion is observed, a geo-
coir log can be placed at the edge along the disturbance area and the road to reduce or slow
the movement of water. These logs should be staked in place to prevent their movement.
1058 North 39t" Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesol utions. net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.5 of 15
Step 2. Planting Plan
Tree replacement ratios for each tree are indicated in the attached Table of Trees. Trees that
were pruned appropriately as part of the approved tree pruning plan do not require additional
trees to be planted as part of mitigation of the site unless, as discussed in the City approved
plan, they die within a three year period following the pruning event. If an appropriately
pruned tree dies within three years, it is to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a native and
indigenous tree measuring one inch in diameter at standard height (DSM = 4 and %Z feet above
grade) for deciduous trees, or six feet in height for evergreens, measured at the top of the root
ball.
For each hazard tree that was removed, two replacement trees need to be planted within one
year in accordance with an approved restoration plan (ECDC 23.40.220 (7)(b)(iv). Replacement
trees shall be native and indigenous to this area and a minimum of one inch in DSH for
deciduous trees or six feet in height for evergreens, measured at the top of the root ball. One
hazard tree was removed, for a total of 2 replacements.
For each tree that was removed, a replacement planting of three trees is required, as per
18.45.075 (2). The trees must be planted within one year in the immediate vicinity to those
that were removed. Replacement trees shall be a minimum of three inches in caliper. Seven
trees were removed to a stump, for a total of 21 replacement trees.
For each tree pruned beyond the level specified in the City -approved plan, two replacement
trees need to be planted within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan.
Replacement trees shall be native and indigenous to this area and a minimum of one inch in
DSH for deciduous trees, or six feet in height for evergreens, measured at the top of the root
ball. 18 trees were pruned beyond the level in the City -approved plan, for a total of 36
replacement trees.
New plantings are best done in the late fall or spring so that the new trees will have additional
water supplied during the wet season. A variety of trees should be planted. Small tree species
appropriate for the site conditions, planted on 10 to 15 foot centers, include:
• Vine maple (Acer circinatum)
• Sitka alder (Alnus sinuate)
• Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis)
• Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana)
• Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra)
• Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii' Eddies White Wonder')
1058 North 39"' Street Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206.528.4670 1 Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010
p,6 of 15
Larger tree species appropriate to the site, planted on 15 to 20 foot centers, include:
• Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)
• Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Western hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis)
Step 3. Irrigation
Irrigation is imperative to the survivability of restoration plantings and to encourage new
growth to compete with weed species. It is my opinion that trees planted along the lower
portion of the site will not need irrigation due to the high retention of moisture in the soil.
Trees planted on the upper portions and the sloped area will need additional irrigation.
The following will assure plant survival through the establishment period:
• Generally, irrigation must be provided between mid-July and September, and earlier
or later depending on the year.
• Spot watering with a long garden hose or use of small gator bags is suggested so that
a temporary irrigation system is not needed.
• Trees must receive at least one inch of water per week from June -October during
the first growing season, unless adequate rainfall occurs.
• Monitor and adjust water delivery to assure all trees are covered.
Step 4. Maintenance & Monitoring for Long-term Care
This plan will be implemented in order to assure the success of the project. An 90% survival
rate of all planted material is considered a successful project. If the survival rate drops below
90%, failures will be corrected. Actions necessary for correction may include but are not limited
to:
• replacing dead material
• removal of undesirable weeds
• repositioning of plant material
• correcting damage caused by erosion
Pruning of the retained and newly planted trees shall only be done to improve tree health or
stability. Pruning can only be performed with City approval and by an ISA Certified Arborist.
Monitoring of trees that were appropriately pruned and of newly planted material for death or
condition, shall be completed and reported back to the City in a written report following each
inspection, as follows:
• Following installation and at the end of the first year following planting
1058 North 39"' Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 * Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesol utions. net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010
Long-term Maintenance
p.7 of 15
Following the first year, it is my opinion that the site should continue to be inspected. The
potential always exists for invasive weeds to establish and take over the new plantings. Weeds
including English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, and others should be addressed as
soon as they are recognized.
Alder and maple stumps might re -sprout after being cut. These shall be left in place, but should
be assessed for risk potential if they are located over the driveway or parking area of the home
west of the site.
Recommendations
Apply for a land clearing permit.
o Include with the permit this report and all other items requested in the May 13,
2010 letter from the City.
No additional tree removal or pruning should be attempted without first obtaining City
permission.
Glossary
codominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny
et al. 1998)
cracks: defects in trees that, if severe, may pose a risk of tree or branch failure (Lilly 2001)
crown cleaning: selective pruning to remove one or more of the following parts: dead, diseased,
and/or broken branches (ANSI A300)
DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches
(4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny et al. 1998)
included bark: bark that becomes embedded in a crotch between branch and trunk or between
codominant stems and causes a weak structure (Lilly 2001)
significant size: a tree measuring 6" DSH or greater
References
ANSI A300 — 2008 (American National Standards Institute) for Tree Care Operations:
Pruning Standards
Edmonds Community Development Code. Accessed August 4, 2010.
http://www.mrsc.org/wa/`edmonds/"index dtSearch.html
Lilly, Sharon. Arborists' Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society
of Arboriculture, 2001.
Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to
Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of
Arboriculture, 1998.
Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure
Anal sis. London: HMSO, 1994.
1058 North 39th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesoi utions. net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.8 of 15
Appendix A - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1.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.
1058 North 391h Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010
Appendix B — Photographs
P.9 of 15
Photograph 1. The yellow arrows point to the reduction of the tree back to the previous
pruning locations.
1058 North 39th Street • Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.10 of 15
Photograph 2. The red arrow points to the old top cut and where the 2010 pruning event
should have cut back to. The yellow line shows the length of the trunk below the old top cut
that was pruned.
1058 North 39t" Street - Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.11 of 15
Photograph 3. Same tree shown in Photograph 2. 1 moved a portion of the wood to look at the
structure below the old top cut. There are some early signs of decay but this is not significant.
1058 North 39t" Street Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.12 of 15
Photograph 4. View of the top of tree 2 looking west. The red arrows point to scaffold
branches that were pruned below the approved location.
1058 North 39"' Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www. treesol utions. net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.13 of 15
Photograph 5. View looking south towards the Bigleaf maple trees. The yellow arrow points to
an alder tree that could have been left as a standing dead snag.
1058 North 39"' Street Seattle, WA 98103 Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.5475873
www.treesol utions. net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.14 of 15
Photograph 6. View of debris left from the 2010 pruning event that is not in contact with the
ground, as specified in the approved plan.
1058 North 39t" Street Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206528.4670 - Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
Birlenbach Tree Pruning Response
August 5, 2010 p.15 of 15
Photograph 7. A tree that was felled is now hung up in an adjacent tree, presenting a hazard
for people that may be restoring the area below.
Attachments:
Table of Trees
Site Plan
1058 North 39th Street - Seattle, WA 98103 - Phone 206.528.4670 • Fax 206.547.5873
www.treesolutions.net
TABLE of TREES
Trees m Site: 16520 72nd Ave. W. Edmonds WA 98026
SolutionDate of July 27, 2010
Consulting Arborists
Page 1 of 1
Tree #
Scientific Name
Common Name
Approved
Pruning
Notes
Replacement
Ratio
1
Acermacro hyllum
Bigleaf maple
located at NE corner of project; cuts occurred below previous
pruning location
2
2
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Located by the drain hole; height reduced near previous
location, scaffolds cut below top cut
2
3
Alnus rubra
Red alder
codominant; reduced near top cut, scaffolds removed below
2
4
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
5
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
6
Alnus rubra
Red alder
height reduced near previous location, scaffolds cut below top
cut
2
7
Alnus rubra
Red alder
height reduced near previous location, scaffolds cut below top
cut
2
8
Alnus rubra
Red alder
four foot stump; part on ground shows no significant decay or
defect
3
9
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Poor condition, may not have been able to climb, potential
hazard
2
10
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Big area of decay at the base, may not survive following
pruning
2
11
Alnus rubra
Red alder
reduced near top cut
0
12
Alnus rubra
Red aldercut
height reduced near previous location, scaffolds cut below top
2
13
Alnus rubra
Red alder
RYes
decayed trunk likely to decline
0
14
Alnus rubra
Red aldercut
beyond previous runing event
2
15
Alnus rubra
Red aldercut
beyond previous pruning event
2
16
Alnus rubra
Red alderexcessive
pruning, may not survive
2
17
Alnus rubra
Red alder
excessive pruning, may not survive
2
18
Alnus rubra
Red alder
May have presented risk to roadway; pruning near old top cut
2
19
Alnus rubra
Red alder
cut beyond previous pruning event
2
20
Alnus rubra
Red alder
cut beyond previous pruning event
2
21
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
22
Alnus rubra
Red alder
four foot stump, cutting was excessive
3
23
Alnus rubra
Red alder
three foot stump, cutting was excessive
3
24
Alnus rubra
Red alder
10 foot stump, cutting was excessive
3
25
Alnus rubra
Red alder
height reduced near previous location, scaffolds cut below top
cut
2
26
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
27
JAInus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
28
Acer macrophyllum
Bigleaf maple
stump sprout cut back to stump
3
29
Acer macrophyllum
Bigleaf maple
stump sprout cut back to stump
3
30
Acermacro hyllum
Bigleaf maple
tree was not supposed to be cut, reduced top and scaffolds,
near stream
2
31
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut, risk reduced with pruning
0
32
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut, risk reduced with pruning
0
33
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut, risk reduced with pruning
0
34
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut, risk reduced with pruning
0
35
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
tree was declining prior to pruning event; may not survive
0
36
Alnus rubra
Red alder
Codominant; one stem removed excessive; second stem
reduced appropriate; may not survive pruning
2
37
lAlnus rubra
Red alder
Yes
reduced near top cut
0
38
Alnus rubra
Red alder
I
1cut beyond previous pruning event
2
39
Alnus rubra
Red alder
snag tree cut to a two foot stump
3
Replacements Requiredl
59
Tree Solutions, Inc.
1058 N. 39th St. www.treesolutions.net
Seattle, WA 98103 206-528-4670
- - - - � �- - -'- � s` ;�' %y> spa .• r .ih. sr � ��., ' ,. �:
I � . ,' ❑ � � ;� 4,: it t f� � � r + i �� 4d � � ss� pi's � I
F`yY f .. Veda � • � G - �� .��; t :
f y
14
40_
"1 may... C � •,e� J�IJ � ;:� •'4 r� �
'RR
� R�a K of
�l ~
_--__. � .y�4� 0. �'y `�, s'`^•i %'t K x rc \ �a�iK`�Yi
jQ� (Sul- E�EY�t +a fid:
' 4 � � � q�QQ •xx.�
NN
i'i
/.... I _
J .'
Iin
F
tiVl � OOZ f
F f vB; ;;0 3 ` n3�� •.� .i o ��
zB bt raul
S S a < E ° � °���oE 9 aas yy o '• *,. "'' J L.L ��
u� ° � $ aq _ a.+ Y I :. •ani.
0 0 0 0 0 `g3m3 t y B1s�.
i n E _
Wetlanll�egowneo Aco
Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration 1 Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E.
13 Suite 106
CRITICAL AREA STUDY & TREE RESTORATION PLAN
FOR
Everett, Washington 98208
(425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 337-3045
RECEIVED
DEC 3 0 2010
Wetland Resources, Inc. Project # 10163 DEVELOPMENT X34/ICV,,��t������:��
Prepared By:
Wetland Resources, Inc.
9505 19th Ave. SE
Suite 106
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 337-3174
For:
Sabine Birlenbach
22613 93rd Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
December 14, 2010
Attachment 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT HISTORY AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - COWARDIN SYSTEM
WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - CITY OF EDMONDS
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
BUILDING SETBACK
WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT
BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS
RESTORATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
PLANTING NOTES
MAINTENANCE
PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM
CONTINGENCY PLAN
PERFORMANCE BOND
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
WILDLIFE
USE OF THIS REPORT
REFERENCES
FIELD DATA
CRITICAL AREA STUDY & SITE PLAN MAP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DOE WETLAND RATING FORMS
APPENDIX B: SAM ASSESSMENT
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
SHEET 1/1
SITE DESCRIPTION
On December 8, 2010 Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a site visit on the 1.93 -acre site
located at 16520 72nd Avenue West in the City of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located
as a portion of Section 8, Township 27N, Range 4E, W.M. The purpose of this site visit was
to locate critical areas on and adjacent to the subject site to aid in the resolution of a tree
cutting and critical areas violation resultant from cutting and topping trees within the on-site
wetland and buffer. The purpose of this action was to maintain Sound views for the adjacent
house located east of the property.
This site is accessed from the east via an asphalt driveway off of 72nd Avenue West. The site
is comprised of two lots with one single-family residence and associated infrastructure on
the western parcel. The property is located on the south side of a ridge that slopes to a
ravine in the southern part of the site and then drains west towards Puget Sound. A Category
3 wetland and associated Type Np stream are located in the ravine. In the City of Edmonds,
Category 3 wetlands and Type Np streams both receive 50 -foot protective buffers.
PROJECT HISTORY AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
The applicant is proposing to resolve a tree cutting and critical areas violation that resulted
from cutting of trees during routine landscape maintenance to maintain views of Puget
Sound for the house located just east of the subject property. During this work, the forester
removed trees in excess of what was approved by the City. Based on correspondence
between the applicant and the City, as well as the arborist's report for the subject property,
the routine maintenance was intended to consist of top branch pruning of the subject trees.
This routine maintenance was conducted on thirteen trees on the site (red alder) and these
trees were topped as necessary to allow a view corridor, between thirty to sixty feet above
ground level. Another red alder was taken down because it was assessed as a hazard tree.
Finally, another twenty-five trees (red alder and big leaf maple) were cut down or were
topped in a manner that will likely result in their deaths. All of these trees were felled or
topped and left in place. No wood was removed from the subject property. As mitigation for
the unauthorized tree removal, the applicant is proposing to replace the impacted trees at a
2:1 replacement to impact ratio as specified in ECDC 23.40.220(7)iv. This will result in a
total of 50 replacement trees planted on the subject site.
WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - COWARDIN SYSTEM
According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the classifications for the on-site wetland and
stream are as follows:
Category 3 Wetland: Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally
flooded/Saturated.
Type Np Stream: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Streambed
CAS and Restoration Plan Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS - CITY OF EDMONDS
Under ECDC, Chapter 23, the on-site wetland and stream are classified as follows:
Category 3 Wetland: This slope wetland drains to the on-site Type Np stream and
received a total score for functions of 35 with a habitat score of 15 on the DOE Wetland
Rating Form for Western Washington (Version 2). Wetlands with scores between 30 and 50
points for all functions are classified as Category 3 wetlands, per ECDC 23.50.010. In the
City of Edmonds, Category 3 wetlands with low habitat scores (<20) typically receive 50 -foot
protective buffers from their delineated edge.
Type Np Stream: The on-site stream meets the criteria for a Type Np stream, per ECDC
23.90.010. This stream flows throughout the year and does not support fish due to a lack of
in -stream habitat and impassible downstream gradient. In the City of Edmonds, Type Np
streams typically receive 50 -foot protective buffers from the ordinary high water mark.
At the discretion of the Director, Critical area tracts may be required in development
proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and planned unit developments.
These critical area tracts shall delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas
and buffers greater than five thousand (5, 000) square feet. The director may require
that critical area tracts be dedicated to the city, to be held in an undivided interest by
each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest
passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's
association or other legal entity (such as a land trust), which ensures the ownership,
maintenance, and protection of the tract and contains a provision to assess costs
associated therewith. (EDCD 23.40.270)
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
No threatened or endangered species are known to be associated with the site. The on-site
stream appears to have an average width between the Ordinary High Water Marks of less
than two feet. In addition, the substrate of this stream is primarily comprised of silt making it
unlikely that this stream would provide suitable habitat for resident fish species. In addition,
the stream on the subject site is not mapped by the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, or
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as supporting fish, nor does it drain
to a fish bearing stream. Anadromous fish access to this stream from Puget Sound is likely
blocked due to steep gradient in the lower reach of the stream where in drains to Puget
Sound. Furthermore, no listed birds or mammals are known by WDFW (Priority Habitat and
Species Maps) to occur within two miles of the subject site.
CAS and Restoration Plan 2 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
BUILDING SETBACK
ECDC 23.40.280 states: "Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures shall be
set back a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are
required. The following may be allowed in the building setback area:
• Landscaping
• Uncovered Decks
• Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not exceed more than eighteen (18) inches
into the setback area; and
• Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios, provided that such
improvements maybe subject to water quality regulations as adopted in Chapter
19.11
WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT
Methodology
On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification
and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94,
March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds during
the permitting process. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination
is based on three sequential steps:
1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage
cover).
2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of hydric soils is determined.
3) Determination of the presence of wetland hydrology in the area examined under the
first two steps.
Wetland Vegetation Criteria:
The 1997 edition of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
defines hydrophytic vegetation as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in
areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce
permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present." Field indicators were used to determine whether
the vegetation meets the definition for hydrophytic vegetation.
Soil Criteria and Mapped Description
The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition,
defines hydric soils as those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and
criteria for hydric soils.
The soils underlying the site are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area
Washington as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, and Alderwood-
Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes.
CAS and Restoration Plan 3 Wetlond Resources, Inc.
Birlenboch - 72"d Ave. W Project # 10163
Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes: This map unit is on till plains. This
unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent urban land.
Included in this unit are small areas of Everett and Indianola soils on terraces and outwash
plains, Kitsap soils on terraces and terrace escarpments, and Ragnar soils on outwash
plains. Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. Alderwood soil is
moderately deep and moderately well drained. It formed in glacial till. Typically, the surface
layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper part of
the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23
inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35 inches. Depth to the
hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability of the Alderwood soil is moderately
rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity is low.
Urban land consists of areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots, and other
structures that obscure or alter the soils so that identification is not possible.
Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25-75 percent slopes is on till plains, terraces, and
outwash plains. This unit is about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25
percent Everett gravelly sandy loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Ragnar,
Indianola, Mckenna, and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and
drainageways on plains. Also included are colluvial soils, slump areas, and escarpments.
Included areas make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. The Alderwood soil is
moderately deep over a hardpan and is moderately well drained. It formed in glacial till.
Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches
thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown and dark brown very gravelly
sandy loam about 23 inches thick. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of about 35
inches. Depth to the hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability of the Alderwood
soil is moderately rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it. Available water capacity
is low. A seasonal perched water table is at a depth of 18 to 36 inches from January to
March. Springs or seep areas are common.
The Everett soil is very deep and somewhat excessively drained. It formed in glacial
outwash. Typically, the surface layer, where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is very dark
grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. The subsoil is dark brown very sandy gravelly loam about
12 inches thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely
gravelly sand. Permeability of the Everett soil is rapid. Available water capacity is low.
Hydrology Criteria
The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states
that "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a
consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5% of the growing season are
wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or
saturated between 5 and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be
wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5% of the growing season are non -
wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters
are met.
CAS and Restoration Plan 4 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS
Category 3 Wetland: Vegetation in this wetland is represented by a canopy of red alder
(Alnus rubra, Fac) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fac), with salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis, Fac+), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus, FacU), piggy -back plant (Tolmiea menziesii, Fac), and skunk cabbage
(Lysichiton amen .canum, Obl), in the understory. Soils in the subject wetland have a Munsell
color of black (10 YR 3/1) with textures ranging from muck to silt loam, from 0 to 18 inches
below the surface. Soils in this wetland were saturated to the surface during our December
2010 site investigation.
Non -Wetland Areas: Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the site is composed of
red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacLI), Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacLI), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), in the
canopy, with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa,
FacU), hazelnut (Colylus cornuta, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU),
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum, FacLI), sword fern (Polystichum munitum,
FacU), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa, FacU), and piggy -back plant (Tolmiea menziesii, Fac)
in the understory. Typical soils in the non -wetland portions of the site have a four -inch duff
layer with a Munsell color of very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2). From 4 to 18 inches, soils
have a Munsell color of dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) with a texture of gravelly sandy
loam. Soils in the upland portions of the property were moist during our December 2010 site
visit that occurred during a period of exceptionally heavy rain.
RESTORATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
As mitigation for the unauthorized removal of twenty-five trees within the on-site wetland,
the applicant is proposing to plant a total of fifty replacement trees. These trees will be
planted in the early spring of 2011 and will be installed in approximately the same location
as the trees that were removed. The following trees were selected because they are slow
growing, tolerant of wet soil conditions, and provide quality habitat for wildlife. It is expected
that red alder and big leaf maple will re -grow from the existing stumps or sprout from the on-
site seed bank. The combination of these volunteer plants with the planted species will
assist in a conversion from what was a primarily deciduous forest to a mixed and eventually
a coniferous forest system.
TREE MITIGATION PLANTINGS
Common Name
Latin Name
Size
1. Sitka spruce
Picea sitchensis
6' B&B
2 Shore pine
Pinus contorta
6' B&B
3 Excelsa Cedar
Thuja Plicata var. Excelsa
6' B&B
Quantity
17
17
16
CAS and Restoration Plan 5 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
PLANTING NOTES
Mitigation projects of this sort are typically more complex to install than can be described in
plans. Careful monitoring by a qualified wetland professional for all portions of this project is
strongly recommended. Timing and sequencing is important to the success of this type of
project.
Plant the selected species in the early spring. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care
and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the project.
All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local and regional
sources, depending on seasonal demand. If any of the listed species are not available for
planting, other specified tree mitigation planting species may be substituted.
The plants shall be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and distribution to
achieve the required vegetation coverage. The actual placement of individual plants shall
mimic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on similar undisturbed sites in the
area.
Upon complete installation of the proposed mitigation plan, an inspection by a qualified
wetland professional shall be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report shall
be supplied to the City of Edmonds within 30 days after the completion of planting.
Colored surveyors ribbon, or other approved marking device, shall be attached to each
planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants while removing the competing non-
native vegetation and to assist in monitoring the plantings.
Irrigation / Watering: Water shall be provided during the dry season (July 1 through
October 15) for the first two years after installation to ensure plant survival and
establishment. Water should be applied at a rate of 1 inch of water twice per week for year 1
and 1 inch per week during year 2.
MAINTENANCE
The purpose of this maintenance program is to ensure the success of the mitigation
plantings. The planting areas will be maintained in spring and fall of each year for the three-
year monitoring period. Maintenance activities will include the following as necessary:
Plant inspection and replacement
Control invasive species
Remove trash
Following each monitoring, recommendations will be made for the replacement of plant
mortality. Any replanting will be done by the contracted landscaper and should be done
during the fall maintenance visit. Maintenance should be done by hand to avoid impacts to
establishing plants and existing habitat.
CAS and Restoration Plan 6 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM
Requirements for monitoring project:
1. Initial compliance report
2. Annual site inspections in the fall for three years
3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year)
Purpose of Monitoring
The purpose of monitoring this project is to evaluate the success of the mitigation plantings.
Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at the end of three years the
performance standards are being met and that habitat values in the enhancement areas are
equivalent to similar ecosystems in the immediate area.
Inspection Schedule
Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetland biologist will
be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report will be supplied to the City of
Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project. Condition monitoring of the plantings
will be done by a qualified wetland biologist in the fall of each year during the three-year
monitoring period. A written report describing the monitoring results will be submitted to the
City of Edmonds shortly after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection will
occur three years after completion of planting. The contracted wetland professional will
prepare a final report as to the success of the project.
Definition of Success / Performance Standards
The enhancement areas shall support at least 80% survivorship of the native plants set
forth in this plan by the end of three years. The species mix should resemble that proposed
by the planting plans, but strict adherence to obtaining all of the species shall not be a
criterion for success. If a given area contains more than 10% areal coverage of invasive,
non-native species within the planting areas, the enhancement shall not be considered
successful for that area.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections, or it
appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same species or, if
necessary, alternative species may be added to the enhancement areas. If this situation
persists into the next inspection, a meeting with a representative for the City of Edmonds,
the consulting wetland biologist and the property owner will be scheduled to decide upon
contingency plans. Elements of the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to
more aggressive weed control, supplemental irrigation, plant replacement, species
substitution, fertilization, and/or soil amendments.
CAS and Restoration Plan 7 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
PERFORMANCE BOND
A performance bond shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of three years
from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for plant
material and labor. Annual monitoring reports and seasonal maintenance will be required to
assure the success of this enhancement plan. The City of Edmonds shall release this bond
at the end of the three years, upon successful determination for all portions of this
mitigation project. The following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only.
QUANTITY OF SIX FOOT TALL TREES @ $70.00 per plant 50
ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL
AND LABOR $3,500.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $3,500.00
120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $4,200.00
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
Wetland Functions and Values Assessment
Methodology
The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion
developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains
specifically to this site, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western
Washington. In addition, the 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative
Performance Assessmentwas conducted for this site (please see attached).
Functions and Values - Professional Opinion
Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among
the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater control, water quality
improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities, and
education. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below.
Existing Conditions
The on-site wetland is a hydrogeomorphic class slope wetland, and comprises the
headwater of a Type Np stream. Slopes are generally steep and this wetland originates as
seeps along the face of the slope. This wetland contains small depressions within its
boundary that retain ponded water. Some areas of organic soils are present. The majority of
this wetland is forested with red alder and contains a dense shrub layer. Due to its location
in the landscape and its association with a perennial stream, this wetland provides good
value for hydrologic control. The deep, organic soils serve to moderate base and peak
stream flows in the downstream reaches by storing water as it emerges from hillside seeps
and releasing it over a period of time. The presence of dense vegetation in both the wetland
and its associated buffer serve to provide slope stability, prevent erosion, filter. sediment
from overland flow, and generally improve water quality.
CAS and Restoration Plan 8 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
Likely, the most important function provided by all of the on-site wetland, stream, and
associated buffers is wildlife habitat. The wetland and stream are a part of a large, protected
area that includes elements of established upland forest, multiple wetlands and the Type Np
stream. The interspersion of these diverse habitat types provides a large amount of edge
habitat, which in turn provides myriad forage and cover opportunities, as well as a secluded
movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, in an otherwise suburban environment. Overall,
the subject wetland, stream, and associated upland buffer provide a valuable resource.
Impacts to Functions and Values
The tree trimming and removal that occurred served to simplify the vegetative structure and
remove forested canopy, thus setting the area back to a primary seral stage. Removal of
these trees has eliminated a source of shade and subsequent thermal protection for both
the wetland and stream. Given the presence of shrubs and remaining snags and trees, it is
likely that the tree removal that occurred had a relatively small impact to the level of
functions and values provided by the site.
Post Mitigation Functions and Values
The applicant is proposing to replace all impacted trees at a two to one replacement to
impact ratio. Conifers will be planted to replace the impacted deciduous trees. This will
serve to increase vegetative species diversity on the site as well as aid in the transition from
a primarily deciduous, relatively short lived canopy to a mixed and eventually a stable
coniferous canopy. Over time, this will improve vegetation structure and available wildlife
habitat on the site.
Functions and Values - SAM Assessment
Information provided by the 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative
Performance Assessment (SAM) was used to further evaluate wetland conditions. This
assessment can be found in Appendix A of this report.
Overall, the subject wetlands provide moderate levels of functions and values, with scores
ranging from 81 out of a possible 132. Many of the factors that resulted in the scores not
being higher are unalterable, such as the size and location of these wetlands in the
landscape, soil types, and the hydrogeomorphic classifications. One factor which will be
improved by the proposed mitigation is the percentage of forested cover.
Several species of bird were noted during our site investigation. These include American
robin (Turdus migratorius), winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), black -capped chickadee
(Poecile atricapillus), and bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus). Given this wetland's association
with Lake Ballinger, other resident and migratory species would be expected to utilize the
site during some portion of their lives. No herpetofauna were noted.
CAS and Restoration Plan 9 Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
USE OF THIS REPORT
This Critical Area Study and Wetland Mitigation Plan is supplied to Sabine Birlenbach as a
means of describing jurisdictional wetland conditions and mitigating for critical area
impacts, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is
based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily
ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed
conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and
the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties.
The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed
at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information
deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect.
The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland
ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work for this report
and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed.
Wetland Resources, Inc.
Louis Emenhiser
Senior Wetland Ecologist
Professional Wetland Scientist #1680
REFERENCES
City of Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas Ordinance Title 23. June 19, 2007.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.
December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington, D.C.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington, United States Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service (1978).
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997.
CAS and Restoration Plan 10 Wetland Resources, inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
Field Data Sheet
0-4" duff 10YR 3/2
moist
Pseudotsuga menziesii
10163 Birlenbach
FacU
tree
Non -Wetland
Investigation Date: December 8, 2010
moist
Acer macrophyllum
30
Pit Depth Texture Color Moisture Species
%
Status
Strata
S1 0-18" muck 10 YR 3/1 sat Alnus rubra
40
Fac
tree
Wetland at surface Thuja plicata
20
Fac
tree
Rubus spectbilis
60
Fac+
shrub
Sambucus racemosa
5
FacU
shrub
Tolmiea menziesii
40
Fac
herb
Lysichiton americanum
20
Obl
herb
Conclusion:Wetland-Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology are met.
S2
0-4" duff 10YR 3/2
moist
Pseudotsuga menziesii
30
FacU
tree
Non -Wetland
4-18" gravely sandy loam 10YR4/4
moist
Acer macrophyllum
30
FacU
tree
Tsuga heterophylla
20
FacU-
tree
Corylus cornuta
10
FacU
shrub
Sambucus racemosa
10
FacU
shrub
Rubus armeniacus
10
FacU
shrub
Polygonum cuspidatum
10
FacU
herb
Polystichum munitum
5
FacU
herb
Tolmiea menziesii
tr
Fac
herb
Conclusion:Non-wetland-Pa ra meters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology
are not met.
S3
0-18" silt loam 10 YR 3/1
sat
Alnus rubra
30
Fac
tree
Wetland
at surface
Rubus spectbilis
40
Fac+
shrub
Tolmiea menziesii
30
Fac
herb
Conclusion:Wetland-Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology are met.
CAS and Restoration Plan Wetland Resources, Inc.
Birlenbach - 72nd Ave. W Project # 10163
Wetland name or number Lea Wettf
WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON
Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users
Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats
Name of wetland (if known): Birtenbach - Lea Wetland Date of site visit: 12.08. 10
Rated by L. Emenhiser
Trained by Ecology? YesONofl Date of training 10.11.06
SEC: 8 TWNSHP: 27N RNGE: 4E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? YesQ No_a
Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size -0.5 Acres
Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland
I II III ✓ IV
Category I =Score >=70 Score for Water Quality Functions
Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions
Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions
Catej�,ory IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions
Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
I II Does not Apply ✓
Final Category. (choose the "highest" category from above)
Summary of basic information about the wetland unit
10
10
15
35
Wetland Unit has Special
Characteristics
Wetland HGM Class
used forRating
Estuarine
De ressional
Natural Heritage Wetland
Riverine
Bog
Lake -fringe
Mature Forest
I Sloe
Old Growth Forest
Flats
Coastal Lagoon
Freshwater Tidal
Interdunal
None of the above
Check if unit has multiple
HGM classes present
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington i August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wetlih
Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below?
If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland
according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland.
Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection
YES-
NO
in addition to the protection recommended for its category)
SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed
Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
appropnate state or federal database.
SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed
Threatened or Endangered animal species?
For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the
V/
appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are
categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands see p. 19 of data form).
SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the
WDFW for the state?
SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions?
For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master
Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as
having special significance.
To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the
ydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland beim rated.
The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This
simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic
Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions
on classifying wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)?
QNO — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe
If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per
thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)
If your wetlan can be classified as a Freshwateidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine
wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that
were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt
Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were
categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this
revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept.
Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine
wetlands have changed (see p. ).
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it.
Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
Q✓ NO — go to 3 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional
wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria?
The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water
(without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size;
At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)?
WINO — go to 4 ❑ YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
✓ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
✓ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually
comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without
distinct banks.
✓ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded?
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in
very small and shallow depressions or behind hummoclzs (depressions are usually
<3ft diameter and less than I foot deep).
NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope
Wetland Rating Form—western Washington 3 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettad
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank
flooding from that stream or river
The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years.
NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is
not flooding.
F_�NO - go to 6F -]YES — The wetland class is Riverine
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the
interior of the wetland.
r_JNO — go to 7 YES —The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious
natural outlet.
❑NO — go to 8 YES —The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND
IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7
APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use
the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several
HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is
recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit
being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the
wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area.
HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated
HGM Class to Use in Rat'
Slope + Riverine
Riverine
Slope + Depressional
De sessional
Slope + Lake -fringe
Lake -fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary
Depressional
Depressional + Lake -fringe
Depressional
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater
wetland
Treat as ESTUARINE under
wetlands with special
characteristics ❑
If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you
have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional
for the rating.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wetlagi
S Slope Wetlands Points
-WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to,", , (only i sore
,,im rove water uah PereoX>
S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.64)
S
S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit:
❑Slope is 1 % or less (a I % slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft
horizontal distance) points = 3
❑Slope is 1% - 2% points = 2
0
❑Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1
OSlope is greater than 5% points = 0
S
S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS
initions)
3
Mde
✓ YES= 3 points 0 NO = 0 points
S
S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Figure 1
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the
wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75%
cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches.
0 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3
2
❑✓ Dense, woody, vegetation >'/2 of area points = 2
0 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1
0 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0
Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons
S
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
I 5 1
S
S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality?
(see p.67)
Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water
coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or
groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions
provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several
sources, but any single source would gualijy as opportunity.
❑ Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft
❑ Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland
❑ Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland
7Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland
multiplier
® Other
2
✓❑YES multiplier is 2 ❑NO multiplier is 1
S
TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2
10
Add score to table onp. Y
Comments
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wetlaa
Comments
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream
(see p.68)
erosion?
S
S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms.
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland.
(stems ofplants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8in), or dense enough, to remain
erect during surface flows)
Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6
3
F✓ Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3
❑ Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1
Q More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is
not rigid points = 0
S
S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows:
The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least
10% of its area.✓DYES points = 2
2
ONO points = 0
S
Add the points in the boxes above
1 5 r
S
S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion?
seep. 70)
Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides
helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive
and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply.
Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding
problems
Other Wetland is upstream of property and aquatic resources (Puget Sound)
multiplier
(Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep
2
that is on the downstream side of a dam)
OYES multiplier is 2 ❑NO multiplier is 1
S
TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4
Add score to table on p. 1
10
Comments
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 12 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points
(only I score'
HABITAT FUNCTIONS -- Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per box) ,
H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species?
H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72)
Figure 1
Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each
class is Y4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres.
=Aquatic bed
=Emergent plants
=Scrab/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover)
=Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover)
If the unit has a forested class check if:
2
=The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous,
moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon
Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have:
=4 structures or more points = 4
Map of Cowardin vegetation classes F- 3 structures points = 2
02 structures points = 1
0 1 structure points = 0
H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73)
Figure 1
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water
regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y4 acre to count. (see text for
descriptions of hydroperiods)
=Permanently flooded or inundated ®4 or more types present points = 3
=Seasonally flooded or inundated E] 3 types present points = 2
=Occasionally flooded or inundated Q✓ 2 types present point = 1
1
=Saturated only r_j 1 type present points = 0
=Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Q Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
Q Lake fringe wetland- = 2 points
=Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods
H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75)
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ff. (different patches
of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold)
You do not have to name the species.
Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass,urple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
List species below if you want to: 0 5 - 19 species points = 1
1
_ < 5 species points = 0
Total for page
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wetlag
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76)
Figure 1
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation
classes (described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or
mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none.
O
None = 0 points QLow = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
1
[riparian braided channels]
High = 3 points
NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water
the rating is always "hi h". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes
H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77)
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the
number of points you put into the next column.
QLarge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long).
F-71Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland
=Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at
least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft
(10m)
2
=Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning
(>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that
have not yet turned grey/brown)
=At least V4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas
that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians)
= Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants
NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error.
H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat i
7' '
Add the scores om H1.1, H1.2, Hl. 3, H1.4, Hl. 5 1
Comments
Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 14 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species?
H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80)
Figure 1
Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring
criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of
"undisturbed. "
❑ 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95%
of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively
undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5
100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >
50% circumference. Points = 4
50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95%
circumference. Points = 4
❑ 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25%
circumference, . Points = 3
❑ 50 in (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for >
50% circumference. Points = 3
If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above
❑ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95%
circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2
❑ No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference.
Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2
❑ Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1
❑ Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled
fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0.
✓❑ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1
Aerial photo showing buffers
H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81)
H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest
or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed
uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel
roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor).
❑ YES = 4 points (go to H2.3) ❑✓ NO = go to H 2.2.2
H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor
(either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or
0
forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25
acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in
the question above?
❑ YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) ❑✓ NO = H 2.2.3
H 2.2.3 Is the wetland:
❑ within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR
❑ within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR
within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres?
YES =1 point ✓ NO = 0 points
Total for page
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettail
H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete
descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in
the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/liab/phslist.htnz )
Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the
connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed.
spen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre).
iodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various
species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152).
=Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
=Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree
species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20
trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands
with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%;
crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of
large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old
west of the Cascade crest.
=Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where
canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFWPHS
report p. 158).
=Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of
both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
=Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the
form of a diy prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161).
=Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions
that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife
resources.
QNearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore,
Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the
definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in
Appendix A).
=Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under
the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a
human.
Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 in (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft.
=Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 in (0.5 - 6.5 ft),
composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine
tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
=Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient
decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a
diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 in (6.5 ft) in
height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 in (20 ft)
long. 4
01f wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points
=If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points
QIf wetland has 1 priority habitat =1 point F_JNo habitats = 0 points
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this
list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H2.4)
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that
best fits) (seep. 84)
0
There are at least 3 other wetlands within %2 mile, and the connections between them are
relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some
boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other
development. points = 5
Q
The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe
wetlands within V2 mile points = 5
3
✓0
There are at least 3 other wetlands within''/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are
disturbed points = 3
Q
The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe
wetland within %2 mile points = 3
Q
There is at least 1 wetland within %2 mile. points = 2
0
There are no wetlands within %2 mile. points = 0
H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat
$_
Add the scores from H2. 1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4
TOTAL for H 1 from page 14
_
7
Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on
15
P. 1
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the
appropriate answers and Category.
Wetland Type ''
Category
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland Circle the Category when the
appropriate criteria are met.
SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86)
Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
0 The dominant water regime is tidal,
❑ Vegetated, and
=With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt.
=YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO ❑✓
SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,
National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational,
Cat. I
Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
=YES = Category I =NO go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the
following three conditions?❑YES = Category I❑NO = Category II
❑ Cat. I
=The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
❑Cat. II
cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant
species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover
more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual
❑ Dual
rating (1/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the
rating
relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a
I/II
Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in
determining the size threshold of I acre.
❑At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland.
=The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels,
depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands.
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 18 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Led Wet[ all
SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87)
Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support
state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species.
SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a
Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites
before you need to contact WNHP/DNR)
S/T/R information from Appendix D 0✓ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site Q
YES= — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO
SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as
or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species?
=YES = Category I NO �not a Heritage Wetland
SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87)
Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and
vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to idents if the wetland is a bog. If you
answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either
peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the
soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes -
go to Q. 3 0 F✓ No -go to Q. 2
2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16
inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or
volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond?
=Yes - go to Q. 3 EZI No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating
3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND
other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a
significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub
and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)?
0 Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating 0 No - go to Q. 4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory
you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that
seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
"bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog.
1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western
red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's
spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of
species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component
of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous covet)?
2.❑YES = Category I Noo Is not a bog for purpose of rating
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
[:]Cat. I
at. I
Wetland name or number Lea Wettail
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90)
Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for
the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes
you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
D Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species,
forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8
trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a
diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more.
NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests.
Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh
because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR"
so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter.
0 Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are
80 — 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches
(53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of
snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found
in old-growth.
Cat. I Fj
AYES = Category I NO✓Onot a forested wetland with special characteristics
SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91)
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
D The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly
or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks,
shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is
saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion
of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
DYES = Go to SC 5.1 NO [Z] not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions?
OThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,
cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant
species (see list of invasive species on p. 74).
0 At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of
shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland.
Q Cat. I
OThe wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet)
DYES = Category I ONO = Category II
DCat. II
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
Wetland name or number Lea Wettall
SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93)
Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland
Ownership or WBUO)?
DYES - go to SC 6.1 NO E not an interdunal wetland for rating
If you answer yes you will still need to fate the wetland based on its
functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
0 Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103
0 Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105
0 Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is
once acre or larger?
YES = Category II []NO — go to SC 6.2
Cat. II
SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is
between 0.1 and 1 acre?
E:JYES = Category III
Cat. III Q
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
0
Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on
EJ
P. 1.
F-1
If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p.1
0
Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004
version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008
2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment updated 8/04
Wetland # Birlenbach Staff LE nate December 8, 2010
Location s 8 T 27N R 4E N/A = Not Applicable, N/I = No information available
Table 1: Determining Wetland Size in Landscape Context
Attribute
Low (1 pt.)
Medium (2 pts.)
High (3 pts.)
Total
Absolute Size
<5 acres LU
5-10 acres M
> 10 acres
1
Wetland Loss in
< 20 %E]20
— 60 %
> 60 %
Control
Basin
2 10 - 30 % forested cover
❑
M
ED
Size Relative to Other
< 100% of average
100 — 200 % of
> 200% of average
_ located in middle 1/3 of the drainage
Wetlands in Basin (on
size
average size
size
NWI maps)
E]
0
El
M
Buffer Size
< 75 feet
Z 75: to 200 feet
Ell>
200 feet
1
Buffer Condition
> 60% disturbed
20-60% disturbed
MI
< 20% disturbed
2
If score is _<1.4 then score the question as 1
9 = 5
Relative Size
If score is 1.5 to 2.4 then score the question as 2
= 1.8
vegetation > 40 % OBL species
If score is 2.5 to 3 then score the question as 3
_ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along
_ sparse wood or veg along OHWM
3 dense wood or veg along OHWM
Score= 2❑
Function
Criteria
Group 1 1 pt
Group 2 2 pts
Group 3 3 pts
Flood/
_ size cumulative score (see Table 1)
2 size cumulative score (see Table 1)
_ size cumulative score (see Table 1)
Storni Water
_ riverine or shallow depression
2 mid -sloped wetland
_ lake, depressions, headwaters, bogs
Control
_ < 10 % forested cover
2 10 - 30 % forested cover
_ > 30 % forested cover
unconstrained outlet
_ semi-constrained outlet
_ culvert/bermed outlet
Points = 10
_ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage
_ located in middle 1/3 of the drainage
3located in upper 1/3 of the drainage
max 15
Base Flow/
_ Size cumulative score (see Table 1)
2 Size cumulative score (see Table 1)
_ Size cumulative score (see Table 1)
Ground Water
_ riverine or shallow depression
2 mid -sloped wetland
_ Iake,depressions, headwaters,bogs
Support
_ located in lower 1/3 of the drainage
_ located in middle 1/3 of the drainage
3located in upper 1/3 of the drainage
_ temporally flooded or saturated
2 seasonally or semi -permanently
_ permanently flooded or saturated,
Points = 10
flooded or saturated
or intermittently exposed
(max 15)
vegetation < 20 % OBL species
_ vegetation 20 to 40 % OBL species
vegetation > 40 % OBL species
Erosion/
_ sparse grass/herbs or no veg along
_ sparse wood or veg along OHWM
3 dense wood or veg along OHWM
Shoreline
OHWM
Protection
_ wetland extends <30 m from
2 wetland extends 30 - 60 m from
_wetland extends > 200 m from
OHWM
OHWM
OHWM
Points = 7
_,20% shoreline developed
2 20 to 60% shoreline developed
_>60% shoreline developed
(max 9)
Water Quality
_ rapid flow through site
2 moderate flow through site
_ slow flow through site
Improvement
_<50%veg cover
2 50-80%cover
_>80%veg cover
_ Q0% of basin upstream from
_ 20 to 50% of basin upstream from
3 > 50% of basin upstream from
Points =11
wetland is developed
wetland is developed
wetland is developed
(max 15)
_ result from Table 2
2 result from Table 2
_ result from Table 2
Soil coarse -gravel, Sand, sandyloam
2 Soil organic mineral mix
Soil heavy organic muck and peat
2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment updated 8/04
Wetland # Birlenbach
Staff LE _Date December 8, 2010
Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland
Attribute
Low (1 pt.)
Medium (2 pts.)
High Q pts.)
Total
Configuration
Plate -shaped
Shallow bowl-
Deep Bowl -
_ ag land, low veg structure
2 2 layers of vegetation
_ high veg structure
shaped 2
sha ed
_ permanent surface water
Drainage Basin Size
< 2 acres
2-5 acres 2
> 5 acres
_ > 3 habitat types
2
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
Outlet
Unconstrained 1
Semi -constrain
Constrained
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑✓ ❑
1
Input
Groundwater
Surface flow and
Surface flow
_ > 50 % invasive species
2 10 to 50 % invasive species
only ❑
groundwater2❑
❑2❑
2 moderate organic accumulation
Basin Condition"'
<20%
20-40%
>40%
_ high organic export
impervious ❑
impervious ❑
impervious 3❑
❑3
Flow Contained
2 buffers slightly disturbed
_ buffers not disturbed
(max 36)
10 _ 5
I partially connected to upland habitats
well connected to upland habitats
Overall
_size cumulative score (see Table 1)
= 2.0
_size cumulative score (see Table 1)
Habitat
_ low habitat diversity
2 moderate habitat diversity
Score= ❑2
Natural
_ size cumulative score (see Table 1)
2 size cumulative score (see Table 1)
_ size cumulative score (see Table 1)
Biological
_ low connectivity to veg'd buffers
2 mod connectivity to veg'd buffers
_ high connectivity to veg'd buffers
Support
_ ag land, low veg structure
2 2 layers of vegetation
_ high veg structure
seasonal surface water
_ permanent surface water
_ open water pools through summer
_ one habitat type
2 two habitat types
_ > 3 habitat types
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
PAB POW PEM PSS PFO EST
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑✓ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
_ low plant diversity (< 6 species)
2 moderate plant diversity (7-15 spp)
_ high plant diversity (> 15 spp)
_ > 50 % invasive species
2 10 to 50 % invasive species
_ < 10% invasive species
_ low organic accumulation
2 moderate organic accumulation
_ high organic accumulation
_ low organic export
2 moderate organic export
_ high organic export
_ few habitat features
2 some habitat features
_ many habitat features
Points = 23
_ buffers very disturbed
2 buffers slightly disturbed
_ buffers not disturbed
(max 36)
_ isolated from upland habitats
I partially connected to upland habitats
well connected to upland habitats
Overall
_size cumulative score (see Table 1)
2 size cumulative score (see Table 1)
_size cumulative score (see Table 1)
Habitat
_ low habitat diversity
2 moderate habitat diversity
_ high habitat diversity
Functions
_ low sanctuary or refuge
2 moderate sanctuary or refuge
_ high sanctuary or refuge
Points = 6
(max 9)
Specific
_ low invertebrate habitat
2 moderate invertebrate habitat
_ high invertebrate habitat
Habitat
_ low amphibian habitat
_2 moderate amphibian habitat
_ high amphibian habitat
Functions
1 low fish habitat
_ moderate fish habitat
_ high fish habitat
Points = 9
_ low mammal habitat
-1 moderate mammal habitat
_ high mammal habitat
(max 15)
— low bird habitat
2 moderate bird habitat
— high bird habitat
2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment updated 8/04
wetland # Birtenbach Staff LE __Date December 8, 2010
Cultural/
low educational opportunities
_ moderate educational opportunities
_ high educational opportunities
Socioeconomic
_low aesthetic value
2 moderate/aesthetic value
_ high aesthetic value
1 lacks commercial fisheries,
—moderate commercial fisheries,
_ high commercial fisheries,
agriculture, renewable resources
agriculture, renewable resources
agriculture, renewable resources
lacks historical or archeological
_ historical or archeological site
_ important historical or archeological
resources
_ some passive and active recreational
site
Points = 7
lacks passive and active recreational
opportunities
_ many passive and active recreational
(max 18)
opportunities
opportunities
privately owned
_ privately owned, some public access
unrestricted public access
Total Points= 81
(max 132)
Dominant Vegetation: Wildlife:
Notes:
Q z
} 5?ND AVEW wO cL <--- ! G
`G a O S d
_ w H w (e�Jq�y 2 -a w
~ Z f1Y F_ ti d p - N O > O
l7 d w J d V '^ 7ibN N p0 dp O
o a @ W w q t7 N�{v .c N O� LO Z
OM U v W N N Cod ZhN-
< LO
Z U
dc¢i .i cot6 NawH 'W0 wO hc ° w ¢dm 0 ti o
d d 72NDAVEW Jtbo
>E O m
N w a (n 0) U m w
3 m m
N
� C Q
m ti
W 1 N
a� W �1
NmO
w w
a c o
Sc
m m
w
--
dz
w d �a
waw z Al �Q
If At
oAt
o3�N
I1ar At VitI 1 Y
a�I if 1 I I 11 11
a
a 73
a- LU �1 I �I �{ �I i �I 1 �i 1 �I �i �
H Q -xQY
At �I �I� II �I AI�I If �I
o no .I I1 w x�l �I �1 �I d' �� �I It
0.4 N Z I 1I �I I1' I`1I �1 jl; Al �I It. " I•-" �I II AI �1 11
r �1. It q 41 11 It; 'AI 11 11
r'.1 It 11 t 1 1 If It
!C n �I 'o=�I o,1'1 AI II �I �I �I
W o w w N m x ga.
�I ! 1I It �1 : ;
M w ~ ¢ z o 4 �If ` Al II I, i1 11 of o
ZD W d �'
Q' o O d �I
c p
Q>
N O
w a
�I 11 41'
m� �'
u� �I
J
. e S�III
It `t,�lI `it 91 It .
-260'._"-
NI �I
255'
azk
w "250 = 1,�
245._
i11 d''
p l I �I
240 ""'tax,
w
e.
235r Al 11 w
ca
LLi 230 w " 3 x'«',,,r�ll O
V A-
m
w ❑ 225 �` t ` i ws. -u -x GS' I ! � 11I i 411, 111
w O 220 �• r, : '« "'' E ,t^ .1�, ,� �I,I
N -- 215
m - 210.
a wi _ I =:„vlI
.. 205' ,.-- g ..�I.- _...�I It m
Z w
It 11 i It
If 111, At f At It co
3 0
W '
w ,
m
m
0
m
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
N If= A ASSOCIATES, INC.
GA
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTC-2
Main Office
17311 — 135`h Avenue NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510
(425) 337-1669 Snohomish County
December 23, 2010
Ms. Sabine Birlenbach
22613 93`d Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Slope Stability Letter — Recent Tree Removal
1652072 d Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 836710
Dear Ms. Birlenbach:
Engineering -Geology Branch
437 East Penny Road
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692
REC'EjVEF___
DEC 36DF►
VE-LOPMENT SEF
COUNTER
This letter presents our opinions and recommendations regarding slope stability and recent tree removal at
the residential property located at 16520 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington.
INTRODUCTION
We understand that trees within the eastern portion of the site were recently pruned and/or cut down.
Approximately 13 trees were pruned in accordance with the City of Edmonds approval, however,
approximately 25 trees were cut/pruned not in accordance with the City's approval. We understand that
the City of Edmonds has requested our opinion and recommendations regarding the recent tree cutting
activities and potential slope stability concerns.
For our use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with a critical areas study and tree restoration
plan titled `Birlenbach — 72nd Avenue West," dated December 14, 2010, prepared by Wetland Resources,
Inc. In general, this study recommends that approximately 50 trees be planted to replace the 25 trees that
were pruned or cut down.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
We visited the site on December 21, 2010 to observe current surficial conditions. The subject area
consists of a ravine/wetland area to the south and west of the site driveway. A steep slope descends along
Attachment 6
Slope Stability and Recent Tree Removal
1652072 nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
December 23, 2010
NGA File No. 836710
Page 2
the southern side of the driveway to the ravine wetland area at a gradient of approximately 30 degrees (58
percent). The steep slope varies in height from approximately 10 to 20 feet. We observed that the slopes
were vegetated with young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees and brush. Trees were pruned and/or
cut down and stumps were left in place on the slopes. The tree debris was left in place and was not
removed from the area. We also observed that two storm drains were located along the driveway that
outlet on or near the steeply sloping area. One drain is located along the eastern portion of the site that
appears to handle runoff from the eastern portion of the driveway. This pipe outlets within the steep slope
area onto rock spalls and larger quarry rocks. The second pipe is located within the central portion of the
driveway and outlets to the south of the driveway onto rock spalls built up around the pipe. We were
unable to determine the inlet of this pipe or source of runoff. We did not observe any significant signs of
sliding on the slopes during the time of our visit, however, minor amounts of erosion were observed at the
outfalls of the stormwater pipes.
OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our opinion that the recent tree cutting activities do not appear to have adversely impacted the
stability condition of the slopes within the immediate vicinity of the cut down trees. It is also our opinion
that the proposed vegetation management plan provided by Wetland Resources, Inc. is adequate and in
line with Edmonds Development Code 23.40 and 23.80. We recommend that all debris be removed from
the steep slopes or be repositioned to the more flat areas below the slope under the direction of Wetland
Resources. Most of the debris is already down on the slightly sloping areas and we anticipate that
minimal debris repositioning will be needed. Any areas that are disturbed during debris tree
removal/repositioning should be covered with erosion control matting and restored with vegetative cover.
If erosion control matting is needed, we recommend using a Contech TRM C-35 matting or equivalent.
We also recommend that the drains that outlet on the slope be further investigated and tightlined down to
the creek/ravine area to limit erosion on and below the steeply sloping portions of the site. Alternatively,
the drain outfall areas should be improved through the placement of additional rip rap to reduce the
erosion potential. We should be retained to observe site conditions after the restoration plan has been
implemented.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Slope Stability and Recent Tree Removal
1652072 nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
December 23, 2010
NGA File No. 836710
Page 3
CLOSURE
All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a
possibility, although the likelihood is low that such an event will actually occur within this site. Because
of the existing conditions, the site should be periodically inspected by the landowners, especially after
winter storms. If distress is evident, we should be contacted for advice on remedial/ preventative
measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance
of drainage measures, protection of the slope, and vegetation management at the site. Therefore, the
owners should recognize the responsibility for performing such maintenance.
The observations, conclusions and recommendations presented in this letter are based on limited surficial
observations and should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. Although we expect
site conditions to be as discussed herein, some variations in subsurface conditions could occur. Should
conditions other than those discussed above be encountered, we should be notified for review and
comment. Additional or alternative recommendations may be required.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Slope Stability and Recent Tree Removal
16520 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
December 23, 2010
NGA File No. 836710
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or
require further information, please call.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
. .. .......
Lee S. Bellah, GIT
Staff Geologist
k"
V
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
LSB:K-MS:1,,mn
Three Copies Submitted
I,? C. 1591,
CITY OF EDONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
September 18, 2009
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
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 — 72nd 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, 2009 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 impression 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
Attachment 7
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 completed 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 nd Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page 2 of 2
4? C. 1890
May 13, 2010
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221
Website: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Ms. Sabine Birlenbach
22613-93 d Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Tree Cutting at 16520 — 7.2nd Avenue West
Dear Ms. Birlenbach:
You submitted a request last year to reduce the crowns of 26 previously topped trees on Stephen
and Judee Lea's property addressed 16520 — 72nd Avenue West. As part of your request, you had
submitted reports by Sean Dugan with Tree Solutions Inc. and Colin Macdonald with Restoration
Logistics, LLC. In their reports, Mr. Dugan and Mr. Macdonald stated that the proposed crown
reduction should be considered routine landscape maintenance since the trees had been topped in
the past and concluded that the proposed crown reduction should be exempt from the requirement
for a tree cutting permit pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.40.030.
I sent you a letter on September 18, 2009 stating that the proposed crown reduction would be
exempt from tree cutting permit requirements; however, as I specified in my letter, "This approval
is not for the removal of these trees nor for reducing the height below the level of the previous
reduction cut." On April 2, 2010, I met you on site to inspect the work that had been done. At that
time, it was noted that the work conducted exceeded what was stated in your proposal. The
crowns were completely cut off of many trees, while others were cut to tall stumps. This is not
considered crown reduction; it is considered tree cutting and is subject to the tree cutting permit
requirements of ECDC 18.45. Therefore, the action taken is considered a violation, and corrective
action is required.
In addition to being in violation of the tree cutting regulations of ECDC 18.45, the activities
conducted are also in violation of the critical areas code requirements of ECDC 23.40 through
23.90. Since the subject site contains and/or is adjacent to several critical areas, including
landslide and erosion hazard areas, a stream, wetland, and a mapped fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area, all activities at this site are subject to the critical areas code requirements of
ECDC 23.40 through 23.90. A critical areas reconnaissance report (File No. CRA20090074)
describing these critical areas and the applicable code sections was sent to you as part of my letter
on September 18, 2009.
Since the work that was conducted would have required a tree cutting permit as well as approval
under the critical areas code, you must submit a tree cutting permit application to the City. An
application form is included for your convenience. You may refer to ECDC 18.45 for application
submittal requirements as well as ECDC 23.40 through 23.90 for supplemental critical areas report
requirements. Your application shall contain the following items:
- Land use application form signed by the property owner.
- Adjacent property owners list.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Attachment 8
- Site plan (scaled at 1"=30' or larger) showing the following:
• Location and type of all existing trees and vegetation, what was done to each tree,
what is proposed to be done to each tree (if any further work is required), and
location, size and species of all replacements.
• Topography and all critical areas and buffers.
• Location of existing structures, driveways and utilities.
• Other information required by code.
• Two large copies of the site plan are required and one reduced copy (11" by 17" or
smaller) must also be submitted.
A report by an ISA certified arborist specifying exactly what was done on the subject site,
including the species of each tree, which trees had their crown reduced consistent with the
approval, which trees were cut beyond the extent of the approval, which trees are not
likely to survive as a result of the action taken, etc.
- A report by a qualified biologist meeting the applicable critical areas requirements of
ECDC 23.40, 23.50, and 23.90.
- A report by a qualified geotechnical engineer meeting the applicable critical areas
requirements of ECDC 23.40 and 23.80.
- Restoration plan describing replanting and maintenance and addressing the requirements
of ECDC 23.40.240.
For your reference, you can find the code sections referenced in this letter online via the following
link: http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmondsnt.html.
A complete application for a tree cutting permit, including all required arborist and critical
areas reports and, restoration plans must be submitted to the City no later than 4:00pm on
Thursday, June 3, 2010. Additionally, please contact me at your earliest convenience by
Thursday, May 27, 2010 in order to review your compliance plan. An Order to Correct
Violation Notice is issued if no contact is made by May 27, 2010. Please note that the City
may levy civil penalties against any person in violation of the tree cutting and critical areas
codes.
I can be reached by phone at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224, or by email at
Machuga@ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Jen Machuga
Planner
Cc: Mike Thies, Code Enforcement
Stephen and Judee Lea
16520-72 nd Avenue West
Edmonds, VIA 98026
Page 2 of 2
CITE OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISKiN
REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM
PW -Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance 0 Parks & Rec. Building'
Treatment Plant 11 Economic Dev.
Project Number:
PLN2010-0079
Applicant's Name:
SABINE BIRLENBACH
Property Location:
16520 72ND AVE. W.
Date of Application:
12/30/10 Date Form Routed: 1/4/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20)
Project Description:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE
THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 1.19.11
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Z,�( iftnL Zig 1
Title:
El I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY
DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments or conditions below or
attached.
Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
JAN
UVI610N
The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
Date
Signc
'TI•s
S
Attachment 9
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Ma'; 1/ t� 7_�►�n11��\ �
January 18, 2011
Jen Machuga, Planner
JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician
PLN20100079 — Tree Cutting
Sabine Birlenbach —16520 72nd Ave W
The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents
submitted for the tree cutting that has occurred at 16520 72 Ave W.
The Engineering Division gives approval for this permit on the condition that all requirements
of the Nelson Geotechnical Associates report dated December 23, 2010 and any subsequent
report requirements are met.
Thank you.
City of Edmonds
VD.
Project Number:_
Applicant's Name:
Property Location:_
Date of Application: 12/30/10 Date Form Routed: 1/4/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20)
Project Description: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE
THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 1.19.11
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments:
Title:�--
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY
DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments or conditions below or
attached.
Commenfs'(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:
Attachment 10
CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISIUN
REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM
El PW -Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance Parks & Rec. Building'
Treatment Plant 0 Economic Dev.
Project Number:
PLN2010-0079
Applicant's Name:
SABINE BIRLENBACH
Property Location:
16520 72ND AVE. W.
Date of Application:
12/30/10 Date Form Routed: 1/4/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20)
Project Description:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE
THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 1.19.11
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments:
Title:�r�
1 have reviewed this land use proposal El I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have for my department and have
concluded that IT (MOULD NOT AFFECT concluded that IT (MOULD AFFECT MY
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments. My department may also comments or conditions below or
review this project during the building attached.
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
Co encs (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
C c
�iL4 i tom' i. �✓-Ct-/` rY SYi✓c-L.�' 7�� 1.�+�L c..� �'�-v�,.�mae l.� �'ri c�m�'C � LsJ . (c� /-t'�3..
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:
Attachment 11
CIT 1.OF EDMONDS —PLANNING DIVISIuN
REQUEST FOR COMMENT FORM
El PW -Engineering Fire PW - Maintenance Parks & Rec. 0 Building"
Treatment Plant Economic Dev.
Project Number:
PLN2010-0079
Applicant's Name:
SABINE BIRLENBACH
Property Location:
16520 72ND AVE. W.
Date of Application:
12/30/10 Date Form Routed: 1/4/11
Zoning: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20)
Project Description:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL
"PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE '
THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 1.19.11
If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact:
Responsible Staff: JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224
Name of Individual Submitting Comments: 1 �-
Title: f�N ' ' �4,�i —
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT
MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no
comments. My department may also
review this project during the building
permit process (if applicable) and
reserves the right to provide additional
comments at that time.
I have reviewed this land use proposal
for my department and have
concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY
DEPARTMENT, so I have provided
comments or conditions below or
attached.
Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed):
ryLD Com'
The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compl'
requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is neer
Date
Signc
Phon
SNOAOMISH c0
FIRE
John J. Westfall
Fire Marshal
jwestfall@firedistriet1. orgl
12425 Meridian Ave.
Everett WA 98208
phone: 425-551-1200
fax: 425-551-1249
www.firedistrict1.org
Attachment 1
On the 10th day of February, 2011, the attached Notice of Application and
Comment Period was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event
where applicable on or near the subject property.
1, Jennifer Machuga, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 10th day of
February, 2011, at Edmonds, Washington.
Signed
Notice posted near eastern side of Parcel No.
00513100008701 (eastern parcel addressed
16520 72 d Ave. W).
Notice posted at southwest comer of intersection
of 72nd Ave. W and 165" Pl. SW.
{BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ ) Attachment 13
•
1
1
l
l
i-
O
L
Ed
QJ
cf)
C Cf)
® M
�r O
�--
CCS
CII
O O
O
r--4ti N
s
Ca
O O N
O 0
+' N
Ny
:w h
s,
Z�
U
Q Oc"I O
C)
Vcd
r-)a.)Ln
O
CL
co NO
U
O.
CB
Q
M LO
i N
0 En
..r byA
p®
O
N
U y
L
cd
4 N
L-
-
O
C
C
O
�
O D
O s
U tf>
Co
®
U U
Q:E-
U
7 E LL
cd ® N
- O �M
0
0
0
0 0
Cd ®�
NON
o
O
+
aU p
Q,
_
m
O
;n
E
® O
®
U"
cts
o
...t 00
roTl
"
nv
co
E
�d Q
O
L
a)
N �'
C
o
C
a>
Cd
.- CO cdU
-
.Q
a)
' `
f�
S®®
.iir---ill iCV-I
(V ��-1
(D -�
?-1
� o
0- �
- Ca
�
= L
�_
�
—�
=
U
U
�
Qi
O U ®® - $��
•
U
� Q
O �,
�
a) 0_
� Cl
U D-
0.- Cd 0
CV
O
4
Qpm
®
-f--•
a) .�
A-1 Q� Qi
Q] • M � A•YM J ^
.�M )-i
ry �Y-9
U
VT
-3U 0
U O
4
O
O .� ® ®
U
Q i
N
(u
U ®00(D
U
Qi -!O
HCn
•�CIIb---
Pcn
cli
AM
Co c
O
JC/)- C
ad
U®
UO
—�
(D �' O O
O Ui�
M�
V +�- �O
U O
O
Cn
c(s
CCS -n
O® ti O
•rCO~-,
C
N
E
>
J
O
0
o
®
a
E a,
Q cu - '"J
a) -CD
Q
d' O
U
v
CX3Z
LU
0 CCS
(D._
4) O' N
CUS
QJ - C® O
CU + S�
�
+�""
! .r
O
E —
CCS
N
r-
aD
a> cu
>
-'
CL CO co Q
~
' ® O
S�
®
C
_
O
O
N
Q
a
.�. .�
U
L >+ LL � �U
a) N
�i Cd Cd 4] r.
O C�
N
U
O C
O� N `-
U
cd
Cd
_
m
L2coU
Cn
_
c2
m E
o
0
C�
�
a)
LO u,
o a)
®
as �;
a-�
cis
cc
CO
0 a)
cd
®
N
O
Cd
bo +U P �
4-
O
0
O
0
U
m
O
O
Q-
.® .- 0
Cd bD
t$Z14 bA
o
s�
®
7� C
a0
Y) (--)
Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list.
On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
located within 300 feet of the subject property.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative
Subscribed and sworn to before me this � day of /3-C (X `M 19Y -)r, 2o16,
0
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at c )\ L1���j
®®` 4QUISFA `fit
�s 'rte CON
Q�
j N.1 i AvBI,`C' 0
F��R FOr 16►AA�` 'N
ac1.�,tW.,•:
3/3/2010 P2 - Adjacent Property Owner list.doc
Attachment 1
00513100008704 12/29/2010
GREEN CLARENCE O & ROS or RESIDENT
73270 OLYMPIA PL
THOUSAND PALMS, CA 92276
005 31008
0 R 12/29/2010
LEA EP
RESIDENT
16520 D AVENUE W
ED NDS, WA 98020
00513100009400 12/29/2010
WLFB INVESTMENTS LLC or RESIDENT
19125 94TH AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00513100010513 12/29/2010
GASPERS PAMELA & BRETT or RESIDENT
16623 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00513100008702 12/29/2010
BIRLENBACH ERNST or RESIDENT
16510 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100010502 112/29/2010
RUCKER PAUL M or RESIDENT
16624 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513.100008703. 12/29/2010
SAGDAHL RICK & LORRAIN or RESIDENT
16500 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4909
00513100008803 12/29/2010
LIEU CHARLENE A or RESIDENT
16515 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4911
00461600001100 12/29/2010
DANCS LOUIS or RESIDENT
7218 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4930
00461600000800 12/29/2010
WALTERS GERALD A & PAU or RESIDENT
7314 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4931
T
w1096S @AU3AWa
_ v
00461600001000 12/29/2010
BARTOL KEITH W or RESIDENT
7304 164TH PLACE S W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00513100008804 12/29/2010
GRIER DOUG or RESIDENT
16431 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00513100010505 12/29/2010
BLEVINS DEAN A or RESIDENT
16606 72ND AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00461600000300 12/29/2010
CHRISTENSEN DAVID B or RESIDENT
7302 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100008705 12/29/2010
DUGAN PETER or RESIDENT
16612 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100010506 12/29/2010
DUGAN>72
dr RESIDENT
16612 E W
EDMO,WA 98026
00513100008902 12/29/2010
GRIER DOUGLAS H or RESIDENT
16431 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4910
00513100008901 12/29/2010
NYLANDER LANCE A or RESIDENT
16411 75TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4914
00461600001200 12/29/2010
MITCHELL VINCENT or RESIDENT
7212 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4930
00461600000900 12/29/2010
MURTHY VENKATESHA or RESIDENT
7306 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4931
Wla6p3 dN-dod asodxa jaded P80A
01 gull 6uole puag
00513100008701 12/29/2010
LEA STEPHEN JR & JUDEE or RESIDENT
16520 72ND AVENUE W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00513100009006 12/29/2010
SUCHERT R E DR ET UX or RESIDENT
540 12TH AVE NORTH
EDMONDS,, WA 98020
00513100010509 12/29/2010
PURCELL DOUGLAS W or RESIDENT
16614 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98020
00461600000500 12/29/2010
EDWARDS JONATHAN D or RESIDENT
7317 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00513100008802 12/29/2010
CONNER JANICE or RESIDENT
16525 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026
00461600001300 12/29/2010
SOVEREL PETER W or RESIDENT
16430 72ND AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4908
00513100008903 12/29/2010
TORRANCE ROBERT C or RESIDENT
16429 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4910
00461600000200 12/29/2010
SANDERSON RICHARD & JE or RESIDENT
7219 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4929
00461600000600 12/29/2010
HARNOIS MALCOLM M & GI or RESIDENT
7320 164TH PL SW
EDMONDS, WA 98026-4931
00513100009401 12/29/2010
QUISENBERRY LARRY R & or RESIDENT
16621 76TH AVE W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-5000
I 009LS aleldwa.LOAJOAV asq
nage/ 01aad Ase3
wornaane'/VVV A
I
00513100008805 12/29/2010
IZDEPSKI BRIAN A or RESIDENT
16605 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-5100
005131001051 12/29/2010
GASPE S RETT V or RESIDENT
1662A-
EDMOND
H PL W
, WA 98026-5116
00513100008904 12/29/2010
FONG TO / BENNETT V or RESIDENT
735 N 18 ST
SHORE INE, WA 98133
I OF ulna —41-4 -1 q —H—d®
I
I --I-- c a-[!Jcf a0{{wnu!4;1
00513100010508 12/29/2010
00513100009500 12/29/2010
SCHEAR HELGA H or RESIDENT
WEAVER FRANCES E or RESIDENT
16618 72ND AVE W
16630 74TH PL W
EDMONDS, WA 98026-5100
EDMONDS, WA 98026-5116
00461600000400 12/29/2010
00461600000700 12/29/2010
GOUGH JOHN T OR DORIS or RESIDENT
FONG TOMMY / BENNETT V or RESIDENT
6850 36TH N E
735 N 185TH ST
SEATTLE, WA 98115
SHORELINE, WA 98133
�Illllllll�lllllnlllllnllnlll
00513100010512 12/29/2010
Sabine Birlenbach
LENSKI GERHARD E or RESIDENT
PO BOX 409
22613 93rd PI. W.
HANSVILLE, WA 98340 Edmonds, WA 98020
T rwla6P3 dD-dod asodxa waded paaj 009LS aleldwa11
l ®RaaAv asq
wi096S @ o; aull 6uole pua8® slagel (@190d/(seg
E
k
J
FILE NO.: PLN20100079
Applicant: BIRLENBACH
On the 10th day of February, 2011, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City
to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced
application. The names of which were provided by the applicant.
I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 10th day of February, 2011 at Edmonds,
Washington.
Signed:�'�
{BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 15
OC OC
ZD ::D
O
0-
a)
U N
U cu
O U
O
0) U
O °
CL
N (3)
+C/)u).D.
o N
L O
fi 0 0 0
-0 ui
a� —
N co
O >
°O
m
W,
t
a`>
C
�U)
a ca
N �
CB N
U
O C
O
u,,)E `—
Q 0 O N
'U N
O O LO
CU
cu ti
a)N
E LL
o
-
p
C
C
O
N
O
.-
E
0
p
U
0O
U
Q
Q
Q
Z
_
_
cv c (n a)
—
CZ
Q
Q
i
C
O
O
U
C 'L
0
p
p
Q
Q
U
CL
cu
C)
_
cv c (n a)
—
Q
Q
Q
0
,C i
C6
cm
O
C-
Q Q
U
U
z
E
C
a) E
cu
0
coC
Z
0
DU
0-
CL0
F—� O~ C
'O O
_"
-0 cn
O .L O J U) C
O
p
•Q
O O
'a
cn
"O
U CB C
Q M 3 O
(c3 U)
O"
E
M O cu -
Q
O
W
N m m c E
N�
Z
CC5
0c
CD (D Zvi
o
cv E � • _a —
—
ai
>
N F a� � E cv
U O_ U) m
~
4�
O
Q
> L U-
O
co
N
NU CD-
N
0C O 0 v
m
m� O C (6
0
N
-02:11
E
m
O
U)C6 Q) p -p 4-
U
UC
=3
N
LO
O
N C E
•Q
O
ON
U�
Qa
Q
o
0
0
0
0
C
O
O
U
CSE
0
p
p
Q
Q
U
CL
cu
C)
U
(v
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
O
C-
Q Q
U
U
z
E
a)
a) E
cu
Z
0
DU
0-
CL0
1 4-
I
T7
4
A, A. A, A,*
A It-
;, -Su. e ct -P ro p e rtvj, -
YA.0
16 04'm m It 2 n d
NO
NO
5/,Olo:
ml�
R -S-21,29'
164TH PL SW
J
4-
Al
YZ
4� Atr
31� �-A 1 -3w
�� ofEDAj 0
/--,oning and Vicinity Map
01
File No. PLN20100079 I 75 50 300 Feet
I
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
r
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
-= circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
i,' 1 aso ^ newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice
NAME OF APPLICANT: Sabine Birlenbach
DATE OF APPLICATION: 12/30/10
DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 1/27/11
DATE OF NOTICE: 2/10/11 Notice of Development Application
FILE NO.: PLN20100079
PROJECT LOCATION: 16520 - 72nd Ave. W, Edmonds, WA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sabine Birlenbach
This is a post -event permit application. The applicant cut trees
in critical areas and associated buffers without proper permit
approval at the above referenced site, owned by Stephen and PLN20100079
Judea Lea. The parcel is zoned Single Family Residential
(RS -20). Tree cutting permits are Type II permits. Since the site
contains identified critical areas, a restoration plan is required.
REQUESTED PERMIT: a printed co of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper ro er and not in
Conditional Use Permit -Tree Cutting. Information on this p PY pproper
application can be viewed at the City of Edmonds Development supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
Services Dept., 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020.
OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Unknown. times, namely:
REQUIRED STUDIES: Unknown,
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS: February 10, 2011
Arborist report, geotechnical report, biologist report, critical
areas checklist.
COMMENT PERIOD:
Comments due by February 25 2011. Any person has the right
to comment on this application during the public comment
period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and
request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may
accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the and that said ne77'
perreularly distributed t ..its subscribers during all of said period.
record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the
decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined
in ECIC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrativeappeal.
CITY CONTACT: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner j % Principal Clerk
425-771-0220
Published: February 10 2011
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th
day of February,2011
RECEIVED Nota(y Publlicc in at d for the Std e of Washington, residing at Everett, Snohomish
County.
FEB 17 2011
Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001726949
EDMOND CITY CLERK
Attachment 16