Exhibit 4 - Email with Attached Letter from Michael ONeal 10-9-17.pdfMachuga, Jen
From:
marcel o <marcelwa@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 9, 2017 4:20 PM
To:
Machuga, Jen
Cc:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Re: Land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
Attachments:
PLN20170028 comments MO.pdf
Hello Jen;
The attached file contains my comments and concerns about this project. I summarize these for the long
term as being removal of trees along the project south boundary and for the short term as being a lack of any
control of excessive noise related to construction activity. My perception is that construction noise may be
exempted by code for construction activity within specified hours as early 7am. IF this perception is correct I
assume the only way to establish reasonable control over such projects in resident sensitive areas would be
from a higher policy level such City Council. IF this is the case I would appreciate your telling me that.
I will be out of town after today through end of week and cannot attend the public hearing. I was advised by
Kernen Lien that you are able to include my written comments with project record and hearing for
consideration. I have copied Kernen to be certain this can happen in the event you do not access your email
before Thursday.
Thankyou
Michael ONeal
EXHIBIT 4
October 9, 2017
City of Edmonds
Planning Division
Concerning land use revisions proposed under Permit PLN20170028
I live directly south of the proposed land use revision at 753 141h Way SW. I am alarmed at the substantial size of such a
construction project within an already built and settled residential neighborhood. Beyond that, the following comments
are largely limited to the specific information contained in the Checklist.
City comment 5 within the July 21, 2017 "Request for Additional Information ..." addresses the protection of existing
trees and asks for reason why trees must be removed. The respondent slightly addresses this in the project SEPA
Checklist under item 11 by way of a casual reference to "some select trees which will be protected and saved". 1 don't
find this to be very reassuring. Removal of the large trees along the project south boundary (my north boundary) would
create a wind tunnel over my house. Damage to the trees (and possibly houses) adjacent to this "wind tunnel" during
the typical wind storms that occur in this area would be substantial. I observe falling limbs nearly every year following
removal of nearby large trees that were visible from our property. [I note that the re -submittal does contain
information on tree retention that may include the south boundary trees I am most concerned about]
The checklist generally describes the project casually as a "typical" construction project and ignores the unique impacts
of a project this size will have on a settled neighborhood. For example, under section 7 b. Noise, the description
suggests noise would be limited to "short term" "construction equipment" and "limited to those hours allowed by
Edmonds municipal code" — which appears to be a complete exemption from noise limits. The proponent is either
minimizing the actual effects or not considering them at all beyond the boundaries of the site. This project would be 6
months of equipment, hammering and pounding, yelling, etc in my backyard and the front yards of a number of other
residences! This noise 5 days a week (maybe 6) over 6 months (or more) during the hours of 7am to 7pm is
unacceptable to a settled neighborhood and the city should be managing this in a way that would put real limits on
noise impact at the property line.
Under section 8 Land Use the project is described as removing ONE single family residence and constructing FIVE single
family residences. Although the "surrounding uses" are residential, the sheer increase in density is neighborhood
changing. This description does offer a little more to the imagination of the magnitude of construction impacts to the
surrounding area.
There is no recognition that the project includes demolition of a sizable structure and the noise and dust likely to occur
from that. How is that to be controlled and mitigated?
Stormwater management (section 3.b.2) is described as by infiltration. My personal experience here is that infiltration
from the surface is slow and limited. I don't know how deep one might have to go to find readily draining soils.
Finally, section 10 Aesthetics seems limited to building height and views. This is dismissed as "no effect". The extent of
landscape alteration and density of new buildings proposed will dramatically change the "view" and sense of home to
every residence in the surrounding area.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Michael O'Neal
753 14`h Way SW
Edmonds