CUT-05-127.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To:
File #CU-05-127
From
:
Meg Gruwell
Senior Planner
Date:
JUNE 30, 2017
File:
CU-05-127
MANTOOTH TREE CUTTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
A.A ................................................................................................................................... 1
PPLICATION
B.DP............................................................................................................... 2
ESCRIPTION OF ROPOSAL
C.D ......................................................................................................................................... 2
ECISION
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 3
A.SD ............................................................................................................................ 3
ITE ESCRIPTION
B.ECDC(ECDC)C ................................................. 4
DMONDS OMMUNITY EVELOPMENT ODE OMPLIANCE
C.ECPC ................................................................................ 7
DMONDS OMPREHENSIVE LAN OMPLIANCE
D.TC ................................................................................................................... 8
ECHNICAL OMMITTEE
III.RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS................................................................................................ 8
A.RR ...................................................................................................... 8
EQUEST FOR ECONSIDERATION
B.A .......................................................................................................................................... 9
PPEALS
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL ........................................................................................................................ 9
V.ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 9
VI.PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................................... 9
I.INTRODUCTION
A.Application
1. Applicant: Jennifer Mantooth (see Attachment 2).
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 2 of 9
2. Site Location: 7220 N. Meadowdale Road (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow tree cutting in a steep slope hazard area
and/or its buffer in a Single Family Residential (RS-20) zone (see Attachments 2 and 3).
4. Review Process: Conditional Use Permit with an optional public hearing followed by a staff
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 18.45
(LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95
(APPLICATION AND STAFF REVIEW).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.40
through 23.90 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS).
d. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (especially VEGETATION
AND WILDLIFE).
B.Description of Proposal
The applicant recently constructed a new home at this site. With her building permit she
requested to cut some of the existing trees on the site, and was allowed to cut the trees that would
be affected by the grading for and construction of the home. Her lot is in the Sequoia Ridge
subdivision, which has a critical area designation on the eastern portion for a stream and
wetland, and has a critical area designation on the western side for a steep slope. The applicant
has submitted a “Report on Hazard trees in designated preserve” by City Foresters, Inc., dated
December 4, 2003 (see Attachment 6). She has also provided a “Geotechnical Assessment –
Steep Slope Areas” by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated January 21, 2004 (Attachment 7). The trees
the applicant wishes to cut are outlined in her letter dated October 10, 2005 (Attachment 5). The
applicant points out in her letter that an alder near the top of the ridge plunged down the slope in
the fall of 2003 into Lorian Woods property. She notes that she has been discussing with Lorian
Woods homeowners about cutting trees on her and their property, but the current permit is only
for Ms. Mantooth’s property.
C.Decision
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit for tree removal is approved in part and denied in part as follows.
The request to cut the trees numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 17 and all the trees proposed in phase two near
DENIED
tree 1 is .
The request to cut trees 11 and 12, as shown in the arborist’s report in Attachment 6, is
APPROVED
subject to the following conditions:
1. Only the cutting of trees 11 and 12 (see Attachment 6) are approved with this
conditional use permit. The stump and root systems shall be maintained as
recommended by the Geotechnical Assessment (see Attachment 7).
2. Planning staff shall meet on-site with the tree-cutting contractor prior to the trees being
cut, and the two trees to be cut shall be clearly marked to distinguish them from all the
other trees. Please contact Meg Gruwell at (425) 771-0220, extension 1330, one week
prior to the desired on-site meeting to schedule it.
3. The restoration plan proposed in the arborist’s report (see Attachment 6) and referred to
in the Geotechnical Assessment (see Attachment 7) shall be followed. Since two trees
will be removed, eight replacement trees must be replanted, which shall include an
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
2
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 3 of 9
equal number of deciduous and coniferous trees. A replanting plan, including a
prior to any tree cutting
schedule, shall be submitted .
4. Inform the City Street Manager when trees will be removed. If any equipment will need
to use city roads other than for access, obtain proper permits.
5. Trees shall not be intentionally felled onto another property unless the written
permission of that property owner is first obtained.
stst
6. If the work will be done outside the time period of May 1 to October 1, submit a start
of work letter from the Geotechnical consultant stating that the proposed activity will be
safe during the proposed time frame.
7. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to
ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
II.FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Site Description
1.Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
a) Facts:
Size
(1) : The subject property is triangular in shape, with the northern side fronting
North Meadowdale Road, the western side adjacent to the Lorian Woods
subdivision, and the southern side adjacent to another Sequoia Ridge lot. The site is
contains 27,222 square feet (see Attachments 1 & 3).
Land Use
(2) : The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and
accessory dwelling unit.
Zoning
(3) :The zoning of the subject property is Single-Family Residential (RS-20)
(see Attachment 1).
Terrain and Vegetation
(4) : The subject property is a large lot that includes a stream,
wetland and their buffers along the eastern half of the lot. This area is designated
as a Native Growth Protection Easement, and is vegetated with primarily native
trees, shrubs and groundcover common to wetlands and uplands. The western
property line runs roughly parallel and to the west of the top of a steep slope. This
slope runs onto the Lorian Woods common area to the west, which has been
preserved as open space. The slope on both sides of the property line has primarily
native vegetation, which includes maple, alder, western red cedar and hemlock
trees, as well as small trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
2.Surrounding Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
North, South and East:
(1) These areas are currently zoned Single-Family Residential
(RS-20) and are developed with single family homes on large lots (see Attachment
1).
West:
(2) This area is currently zoned Single-Family Residential (PRD-1989-1) and is
developed with single family homes (see Attachment 1). Some of the lots in the
subdivision, including the lots directly downhill of the subject site, are undeveloped.
B..
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
3
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 4 of 9
C.B.Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. .
1.
ECDC Section 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting)
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Chapter 18.45 exempts clearing on a developed single-family lot, except for
that portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area,
and also exempts trees on that portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25
percent.
(2) The city’s Environmentally Critical Areas Map shows this lot in a number of
environmentally critical areas.
(3) The more detailed study done with the subdivision show the portion of the lot with
the trees proposed to be cut to be in a steep slope hazard area and buffer.
(4) Some of the purposes of ECDC Section 18.45.000.A-M state a desire to:
(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 undeveloped or partially developed property;
(b) To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as
revised in 1984;
(c) 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;
(d) To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting and effective erosion
control of property during and after land clearing;
(e) To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse
disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city;
(f) To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion;
(g) To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation;
(h) To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the
destabilization of soils;
(i) To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection;
(j) To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing
pure oxygen from carbon dioxide;
(k) To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian
corridors, wetlands and groves of trees;
(l) To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the
city’s natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that
certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.),
proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvement, interference
with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property
may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover;
(m) To promote the reasonable development of land in the city of Edmonds.
(5) ECDC Section 18.45.045.B states that “The city may require a modification of the
clearing plan or the associated land development plan to ensure the retention of the
maximum number of trees. If the staff determines that the plan will result in the
destruction of more trees and vegetation than is reasonably necessary to achieve the
proposed development the permit shall be denied.”
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
4
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 5 of 9
(6) The performance standards for land development permits are given in ECDC
Section 18.45.050. These include the following:
B. Trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible. …
2. No tree(s ) or ground cover shall be removed from a native growth
protection easement or environmentally sensitive site unless that plot plan and
other submitted materials can demonstrate that the removal will enhance the
easement area. …
(7) The applicant has proposed the following for her tree cutting permit (see
Attachment 5):
(a) “Only the trees that are within the boundary lines of my property numbered 4,
5, 11, 12, and 17 will be cut and replaced and per the arborists
recommendations for phase one of the plan.”
(b) “Phase two will include possibly removing trees numbered 3 and 1, and
potentially two or three others in close proximity to tree numbered 1, if deemed
prudent. Phase two will also include restoration of the hillside that was
affected in the fall of September 2003 and will be done jointly in agreement
with Lorian Woods…”
(8) The applicant has submitted an arborist report entitled “Report on Hazard trees in
designated preserve” by David M. Reich of City Foresters, Inc., dated December3,
2003 (see Attachment 6). In it Mr. Reich recommends that the conifers (hemlocks
and cedars) remain standing. He gives other general recommendations, then
provides a detailed tree inventory and recommended action for each tree.
(9) For the trees the applicants is requesting to cut in Phase one, Mr. Reich has the
following recommendations: Tree 4 (hemlock in OK condition) – keep; Tree 5
(maple in OK condition) – keep; Tree 11 (maple in poor condition) – remove; Tree
12 (maple in poor condition) – remove; Tree 17 (alder in poor condition) – remove
or snag.
(10) According to the maps submitted (see Attachment 3), tree 17 is on the Lorian
Woods property.
(11) Regarding the trees recommended to be cut in phase two, Mr. Reich has the
following recommendations: Tree 1 (maple in OK condition) - keep; Tree 3
(western red cedar in OK condition) – keep. No other trees are noted around tree 1.
(12) A restoration plan is given as part of the arborist report. This includes removing or
snagging all trees indicated in the inventory/ action plan, a tree replacement ratio,
and planting guidelines.
(13) The applicant has also submitted a geotechnical assessment of the steep slope areas
(see Attachment 7) by Earth Consultants, Inc. The portion of the report dealing
with tree removal is as follows: “ECI did review the referenced arborist report for
the site. In general, ECI is in agreement with the recommendations for tree
removal on the slope. In our opinion, the trees identified as being in poor condition
do pose a potential hazard. In our opinion, based on the observed slide, the
overburden from the existing large trees may also contribute to slope movements.
In our opinion, removal of the tree overburden while maintaining the stump and
root systems will not decrease the existing stability of the slope, and may effectively
improve the overall stability. Increased exposure to surface erosion by removing the
trees should be addressed as recommended in the Restoration Plan recommended by
the arborist.”
(14) The following have been ascertained by staff:
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
5
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 6 of 9
(a) Of the trees shown to be on the applicant’s property, only two of the trees have
been recommended to be removed by the arborist, which are trees 11 and 12.
(b) The other trees proposed by the applicant to be removed, trees 1, 3, 4, and 5
have all been recommended to be kept by the arborist, as they are in okay
condition. The trees by tree 1 have not been addressed by the arborist.
(c) Tree 17 is on the adjacent property, and the Lorian Woods homeowners
association has not yet given their consent for any tree cutting.
(d) Many of the other trees proposed to be removed are on the adjacent property.
Before these trees can be considered for removal, the property owner (in this
case the Lorian Woods homeowners association) must apply for a tree cutting
permit.
(e) The geotechnical report did not address removing trees that were considered in
good health in the arborist report.
(f) The area where the trees proposed to be removed from this site are located is at
the top of a ridge. This area qualifies as a landslide hazard area and buffer
because of the steep slopes.
(g) Edmonds Community Development Code section 23.80.070.A.4 regarding
landslide hazard areas states “Vegetation Retention. Unless otherwise provided
or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or
landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited.”
(h) A seasonal restriction is placed on clearing by ECDC 23.80.070.A.5, which
stst
only allows clearing between May 1 to October 1 each year, unless the
director finds on a case-by-case basis that the time frame can be extended
depending on actual weather conditions.
(i) The Sequoia Ridge plat states “As recommended within the EIS, a native
growth, non-disturbance area within the 15 foot and 25 foot building setbacks
from the top of the bank shall be established.” The 15 foot building setback is
the 15-foot strip to the east of the western property line.
(j) All the proposed trees to be cut on the subject site appear to fall within this 15-
foot building setback.
(k) The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Sequoia Ridge states on page
36 “Due to the presence of geologic hazards involving erodible soils, steep
slopes, and landslides on the site, outdoor residential uses of the proposed lots
should be restricted to prevent adverse impacts to site stability. The 15 to 25
feet wide building setback area west of the residences on each of the lots should
not be disturbed by clearing or by landscaping activities that will result in the
need for watering or a decrease in soil stability. … Tree removal beyond that
required to develop the site should not be performed except in instances
allowed under ECDC Chapter 18.45 or there is an imminent threat to slope
stability or site improvements.”
(l) One tree from this site has already slid down into the Lorian Woods subdivision
in a landslide, as noted in the arborist’s report and the geotechnical assessment.
(m) Various studies have looked at how roots stabilize slopes and provide up to 71
% of the shear strength at saturation (see Attachment 9, page 299). This
attachment also points out when trees are cut the roots begin to decompose,
strength can be lost in the soils until the revegetation replaces the roots. Also
the study looks at soil water and the ability of a forest to remove moisture from
the soil by evapotranspiration.
(n) Deciduous trees provide evapotranspiration during the time of year when they
have leaves, while evergreen trees provide evapotranspiration year-round.
(o) The times of year when the soils are the most saturated tend to be when the
deciduous trees have lost their leaves.
(p) Trees provide habitat for birds and small animals. Large trees provide more
area for birds and squirrels to nest than small trees.
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
6
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 7 of 9
(15) One comment letter has been received (see Attachment 8) from Amy Ross, who
resides in the Lorian Woods subdivision. Ms. Ross states her concerns regarding
removing the trees, which function to remove water from the slope through their
roots, prior to a plan to collect the water from the springs and dry the hillside.
(16) The arborist states in his recommendations that the stumps of the maples will
remain alive and will resume pumping water out of the hill once new stump- and
root-sprout foliage commences transpiration.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The applicant has proposed to clear more trees than her arborist has recommended.
The geotechnical analysis was based on the recommendations of the arborist. It
does not appear that the geotechnical report looked at removing the trees
recommended to be retained.
(2) The trees are within an area that is considered a native growth, nondisturbance
area. The tree’s roots are providing strength to the soils, and the trees provide
habitat for birds and small animals. Unless harm to the structures on site can be
demonstrated, the vegetation should be left undisturbed.
(3) The city has no compelling reason why the additional trees should be removed, and
cannot be certain of the safety of the slope if they are removed. Therefore, the city
will only recommend removal of the trees that both the arborist have recommended
to be cut and the geotechnical experts have agreed should be removed, which are
trees 11 and 12 on this lot. All other trees shall be retained, as recommended by the
arborist, and reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
(4) The slope down into the Lorian Woods subdivision is quite steep, and felling trees
towards that direction may cause additional landslides. Before trees are
intentionally felled toward another property or the street right-of-way, the property
owner involved will need to grant permission.
stst
(5) Clearing should be done between the time frame of May 1 to October 1, unless a
letter from a geotechnical consultant is submitted to the director stating that based
on the existing weather conditions, the proposed tree cutting can be safely done at
the time specified.
(6) Replanting shall be done as recommended in the restoration plan. Since trees 11
and 12 will be removed to grade/stump, eight trees of mixed species shall be
required. The tree replacement shall include an equal mix of conifers and
deciduous trees, which shall help provide year-round evapotranspiration.
2.Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review)
a) Facts:
(1) A conditional use permit for an tree clearing permit is not categorically exempt
from SEPA review.
(2) The applicant submitted an environmental checklist, and the proposal received a
Determination of Nonsignificance (see Attachment 4). This determination was not
appealed and the deadline for appeals ended on June 6, 2006.
b) Conclusion:
The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC
20.15A.
D.C.Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
7
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 8 of 9
1.Land Use
a) Fact:
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property
“Single Family - Resource”.
b) Conclusion:
The proposed tree cutting as conditioned is compatible with the single
family residential use designation.
2.Vegetation and Wildlife
a) Fact:
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated
in the Land Use Element, under Vegetation and Wildlife, which relate to the subject
development proposal.
(1) 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.”
b) Conclusion:
The proposed trees to be cut at the top of a steep ridge. The two that the
city intends to allow the homeowner to remove have been determined to be in poor
condition by a certified arborist. The remaining trees that are proposed to be cut are in
okay condition, and should be retained in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan
policies.
E.D.Technical Committee
1.The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated
by other Departments/Divisions of the City. Comments include the
following:
a)
The Engineering Division states “tree stumps to remain. Any disturbed soil shall be
stabilized per the geo-tech recommendation.”
b)
The Public Works Department commented “Defer any opinion to City geotech
consultant.” And “Please inform street maintenance if trees are to be removed.”
c)
The Building Division commented on the adequacy of the initial application and further
commented: 1) As noted in geotechnical assessment, stumps must remain in place. 2)
Start of work letter from the geotech of record must be submitted to the
Building/Planning Divisions.”
III.RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration’s and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A.Request for Reconsideration
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
8
Jennifer Mantooth
File No. CU-05-127
Page 9 of 9
Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
within ten (10) working days of the date of the posting of the notice of the decision.
B.Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why
the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being
appealed.
IV.LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 18.45.045.C. states “Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year
from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired.
Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months.”
V.ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Site Plan
4. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated May 22, 2006
5. Letter from Jennifer Mantooth dated October 10, 2005
6. Report on Hazard trees in designated preserve by David M. Reich of City Foresters, Inc., dated
December 4, 2003
7. Geotechnical Assessment – Steep Slope Areas by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated January 21, 2004
8. Letter from Amy Ross, dated June 6, 2006
9. “The Role of Vegetation in the Stability of Forested Slopes” by Robert R. Ziemer
VI.PARTIES OF RECORD
Applicant
Planning Division
Building Division
Engineering Division
Public Works Department
Amy Ross
CUT-05-127 / June 30, 2017 / Staff Report
9