Revised_NOVandMonetaryFine_20151030.pdfCITY OF EDMON: S
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www edmond5w. Ov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
REVISED NOTICE 0"F
VIOLATION AND
Location of Violation address and/or description of location : The violation occurred on the
west slopes of the properties addressed as 15620 — 72'x"" Avenue West, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel
Nos. 00513300002501 and 00513100002406.
Issued To: Kent Halverson, Meadowview Estates, LLC
Address of persons/entities This Order Is Issued To:
Kent Halverson
Meadowview Estates, LLC
6615 — 214th Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98053
!Code Section Violated: Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 Land Clearing and
Tree Cutting Code, 23.40.160 Review Criteria, ECDC 23.40.220 Allowed Activities within Critical
Areas, and ECDC 23.80.040 Allowed Activities within Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Description of Violation: The subject property is located in the north Edmonds Earth Subsidence
and Landslide Hazard Area. Along approximately the western third of the property the slope drops
off sharply at approximately 70% according to the City's LiDAR information. Do to the steepness of
the slopes on the property; and its location with the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, the
site has been identified as a landslide hazard area. In 1997, there was a documented landslide in the
vicinity of this tree cutting violation.
Mr. Halverson has been working on improving the property at 15620 — 72nd Avenue West for the
past few years. Mr. Halverson was first informed of the City's tree cutting regulations and the
sensitive nature of the site in February 2012 when the City was informed of some clearing activity on
the City. In association with a fill and grade permit (BLD20130919), lot line adjustment
(PLN20130048) and short subdivision application (PLN20140015) a number of geotechnical reports
were prepared for the subject property and a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was
issued. The mitigating measure in the SEPA determination was that "Recommendations included in
the geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated July 12, 2013 must be
implemented." One of the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report was that "the 25 feet
of buffer closest to the steep western slope should be left as -is." During the development of the site,
Mr. Halverson and city staff have had several correspondences regarding removal of individual trees
on the site. Condition of approval Number 4 for the short plat reviewed under PLN2014 noted:
Any tree cutting on the site must be consistent with the requirements of ECDC 18.45 and the
30% native vegetation requirements of ECDC 23.90.040.C. A tree cutting plan shall be
submitted and approved with the civil plans for removal of trees impacted by the subdivision
improvements. Any tree cutting proposed on the site that is not a hazardous situation and/or not
necessary as part of the subdivision improvements shall be reviewed at the time of building
permit application review or through the appropriate land use permit application and review
process. All trees that are to be retained during the development process must be protected
according to the performance standards found in ECDC 18.45.050.H. If during construction it is
realized that certain trees that were planned to be retained will be damaged due to the
construction activities, replacement may be required per ECDC 18.45.050.F.
Given this history, Mr. Halverson was well aware of tree cutting restrictions on the subject property.
On March 24, 2015 it was reported that there was some tree cutting activity in the north Edmonds
Landslide Hazard Area. Upon following up on the report, it was discovered the several trees had
been topped on the steep western slope of the subject property. Mr. Halverson submitted an arborist
report prepared by Susan Prince of Creative Landscape Solutions which documented that 19 trees
had been topped. One of the trees (Tree Number 14) was noted as being nonviable after the topping.
An October 19. 2015evisioaa to this arborist report noted that Tree Number 14 has responded well
and is likely to survive. This Notice of'Violation and Monetary lryine is being revised based on this
new information.
Since the slope where the cutting occurred is a potential landslide hazard as defined by the City's
critical areas regulations (ECDC 23.80.020), the area is subject to the provisions of ECDC 23.40 —
Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions and ECDC 23.80 — Geologically Hazardous
Areas.
ECDC 23.40.220 details activities that are allowed in critical areas and critical area buffers in
general, and ECDC 23.80.040 details activities that are allowed in geologically hazardous areas. The
cutting of vegetation on the slope does not fall under any of the allowed activities identified in ECDC
23.40.220 or ECDC 23.80.040. ECDC 23.40.160 requires any alteration of a critical area to be
reviewed and approved, approved with condition, or denied based on criteria established in ECDC
23.40.160 and the City's critical area regulations. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320, "Alteration" means:
...any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer.
Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing;
cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying
herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving,
construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any
other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or
wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
The topping of the 19 trees on the sloped area is an unauthorized alteration within a critical area
ECDC 18.45.020 notes no person shall engage in or cause any land to be cleared without first
obtaining a land clearing permit. No permit was sought or obtained with this tree cutting activity.
In addition to being in violation of the critical area code and tree cutting code, the tree cutting activity
is also in violation of the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance issued for development
on the subject property.
Moyeta !y Penalty: ECDC 23.40.240.E — Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement —
establishes that violations of the critical area code are subject to penalties set forth in ECDC
18.45.070 and 18.45.075. ECDC 18.45.070.13 establishes a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree three inches or more. Pursuant to
ECDC 18.45.070.C, the fines established in ECDC 18.45.070.13 shall be tripled for clearing which
occurs within any critical area or critical area buffer, or public right-of-way.
Exhibit A details the trees that were cut and the subject of this violation as well as the monetary
penalty assess for each tree. The arborist report prepared by Creative Landscape Solutions dated
April 8, 2015 detailed the tree numbers, species, diameter at breast height (dbh) and comments on
viability. Each tree is assessed a base fine of one-quarter the maximum amount allowed by ECDC
18.45.070.13 based on the diameter of the tree, viability, and height of remaining tree. All fines
established pursuant to ECDC 18.45.070.13 are tripled due to their location within a critical area
and/or critical area buffer. This penalty amount is supported by: (i) the plain text of the ECDC with
respect to unauthorized alterations within a critical area, (ii) Mr. Halverson's knowledge of tree
cutting restrictions on the site, and (iii) the activity also being a violation of the SEPA Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance for development of the subject property. The total civil
monetary penalty assessed for the above -referenced violation is $38,250.
This Notice is imposed without prejudice to any other civil, criminal, injunctive or other remedy
and/or penalty available to the City.
Corrective Action: In addition to the monetary imposed above, the following corrective actions are
required:
1. The site must be monitored for two years with reports submitted to the City of Edmonds by
June 30, 2016 and June30, 2017 documenting survival of the topped trees. The arborist
report all 19 of the trees topped to survive and did not recommend replanting based on the
likely survival of the trees. The geotechnical report submitted to evaluate the impact of the
tree cutting based its recommendation on the arborist report indicating survival trees. As
such, the site must be monitored to ensure these 19 trees survive.
2. If any of the 19 trees identified as viable (see Exhibit A) die within the two year monitoring
period, they must be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 with a native and indigenous tree species
approved by the City of Edmonds.
Note: Mr. Halverson must pay the monetary penalty of $38,250 by December 31, 2015 or
contact the City to establish a payment schedule that would result in the monetary penalty
being paid in full within 6 months of September 30, 2015. This decision is appealable to the
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner by filing a complete appeal application including written
notice of appeal with the Development Services Director no later than November92015 at
4:00 pm. The appeal filing fee is $705.
Date Posted: Date Mailed: October 30, 2015 Date Served:
Issuing Party Shane Hope Title Director, Development Services Department
g ,
Si nature .._.. �m . ...............
Exhibit A
$38,250
Approx.
Health
Base Fine
Treble Fine
diameter of
ECDC
ECDC
Tree No.
Species
dbh (inches) ,
clump (ft.)
viable
not viable
18.45.070.8
18.45.070.0
1
Red Alder
2" X 10
a ft
x
$250
$750
2
Bigleaf maple
Multiple 8" plus
ww_
7 ft
x
$750
$2,250
..._www 3
Bigleaf maple
Multiple 7" plus
4 ft
x
$750
$2,250
4
............ ......
Bigleaf maple
w
14
x
$750
$2,250
5
Red Alder
_. _........_.....
9
x
...........................
.......... w
$750
$2,250
6
Bigleaf maple
9/11/8/6/6/5/5/4/3
4 ft
x
$750
$2,250
7
Bigleaf maple
8/6/7/9
x
$750
$2,250
8
Bigleaf maple
8/6/7/9x
$750
$2,250
9
Bigleaf maple
9/10
_.. .........
x
$750
$2,250
10
Red Alder
8/7/9/7
x
$750
$2,250
11
............w .....w-.
Red Alder
6/4
x
$750
$2,250
12
Cascara
....
6/5
_..
x
_....... .........
$2,250
13
Cascara
5/6/6
x
_$750
$750
$2,250
14
Bitter Cherry
10
x
$750
52,250
15
1 Red Alder WWW
Multiple 2"
3 ft
x
$250
5750
16
Bigleaf maple m_..
14/6/10
x
$750
$2,250
17
Red Alder
10'
..... _.................... _.
x
$750
_.. .......m
$2,250
18Red
-...._��19.......Red
Alder
Multiple 6 - 9"
4 ft
x
$750
$2,250
Alder...
Multiple 2 - 3..
"
4 ft
x
.
.......���...��.........................
$250
$750
$38,250