Staff report PLN-2009-0054.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
To: Yutian Yao
From: 7�k
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Date: February 11, 2010
File: PLN -2009-0054
ffll=�
1. Applicant: Yutian Yao.
2. Site Location: 18430 Olympic
View Drive (see inset).
3. Request: A Conditional Usxe
Permit to allow the removal of
several trees in a steep slope
area (Attachments I & 2).
4. Review Process: An
Administrative Conditional Use
Permit is a Type 11 permit.
Following a public comment
period, the Director makes an
administrative decision.
I
Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds City of Edmonds Zoning Map, November 18, 2008
Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 18.45 - Land Clearing and Tree Cutting.
b. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.01 — Types of Development Project Permit
Applications.
c. Compliance with ECDC Sections 23.40, 23.80 and 23.90 - Environmentally Critical
Areas — General Provisions, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas.
I
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PL,N-2009-0054
Page 2 of 8
The applicant proposes to remove ten trees. Several of the trees are immediately adjacent to
the existing house, while the remainder are scattered throughout the eastern portion of the site.
(Attachment 2).
The applicant also indicated that he had been contacted by the Snohomish PUD who wanted to
do some maintenance work in the vicinity of the utility lines along Olympic View Drive.
Permission was given by the landowner to perform the work (Attachment 3). Rather than
simply trimming the vegetation to provide clearance for the lines, PUD crews removed several
trees and left stumps in two clusters near Olympic View Drive. As will be discussed later in
this report, the requirements of the critical areas code apply not only to homeowners but to
public utilities as well.
1. Facts:
a. The site is approximately 11,300
square feet and zoned Single -
Family Residential (RS -12). Like
the subject lot, the surrounding area
is similarly zoned and developed
with single family residences (see
inset).
b. The eastern half of the parcel
slopes uphill from west to east
toward Olympic View Drive at
grades in excess of 40%. The
western half of the site is fully
developed with a house and
driveway. The eastern portion of
the site is relatively intact remnant
forest with vegetation consisting of
a number of larger trees and forest
groundcover. Residential
landscaping is not present in this
area although there is a gravel
parking pad on the site near
Olympic View Drive.
c. Hutt Park, an identified bald eagle nesting site, is located approximately 800' east of
the subject site.
Yao Tree Curtin. -
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 3 of 8
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 has slopes exceeding 25 percent. It also
exempts installation and maintenance of public utilities, after approval of the route
by the planning division manager or his or her designee, except in parks or
environmentally sensitive areas.
2) The subject parcel has slopes in excess of 40%, which was confirmed through the
submission of a critical areas checklist (CRA -2005-0043).
3) ECDC 18.45.050.13 states that "trees shall be retained to the maximum extent
feasible."
b. Conclusions:
1) A permit is required for the work in question since the activity will occur on slopes
in excess of 25%.
2. ECDC Sections 23.40, 23.80 and 23.90 (Environmentally Critical Areas)
a. Facts:
1) As identified in CRA -2005-0043, the subject parcel contains slopes of greater than
40%, which meets the definition of a landslide hazard area according to ECDC
23.80. Generally, vegetation in such critical areas is to be retained. 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 subject location is located within approximately 800' of Hutt Park, an
identified bald eagle nesting site. The Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) provided guidance for the proposed project since it is within a
bald eagle management area (Attachment 4). Specifically, "[r]etain all known
perch trees and all conifers >24 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Retain all
cottonwoods > 20 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Also retain > 50% of
pre -clearing and pre -construction conifer stand with diameter distributions
reprehensive of the original stand (>6 feet tall)." Also, "[w]indowing and low
limbing of trees in acceptable provided no more than 30% of the live crown is
removed. Topping of trees is not allowed."
3) The arborist's report and tree hazard evaluation forms describe the health and
impacts of the subject trees (Attachment 5):
a) Tree #I — 37" Douglas fir, 95' tall, has been wind topped but basically healthy,
slight impact to pavers near parking area on eastern portion of the site
(Attachment 6)
b) Tree 92 — 42" Western red cedar, 75' tall, healthy but root system impacting
underground utilities on the site (Attachment 7)
c) Tree #3 — 44" Western red cedar, 70' tall, healthy but very close to house and
root system impacts foundation (Attachment 8)
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 4 of 8
d) Tree #4 — 12" Hemlock, 35' tall, healthy but multiple trunks and very close to
house (Attachment 9)
e) Tree #5 — 8" Hemlock, 25' tall, healthy with no impact to site (Attachment 7)
f) Trees 46 — 2, 8" Western dogwoods, 25' tall, trees have failed and are leaning
on other trees (Attachment 7)
g) Trees 47 — 3 Alder (4", 8" and 10"), 15'-25' tall, healthy with no impact to site
(Attachment 10)
4) The applicant submitted a geotechnical report which describes the stability of the
slope where the trees are located and indicates that removal of trees using best
management practices would not negatively impact the stability of the slope
(Attachment 11). It is recommended that the stumps are left in place to stabilize
the slope but any cuttings be removed from the slope.
5) Tree removal work performed by PUD must also comply with the critical areas
code (Attachments 12 and 13). While ECDC 18.45.030.E, provides a permit
exemption for utility installation and maintenance, this does not extend to work
done in parks or environmentally sensitive areas. This is further codified in ECDC
23.40.230.C.2 which discusses critical area exemptions:
Operation, Maintenance, or Repair. Operation, maintenance, or repair of
existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private
roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems that do not require construction
permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or
encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased
risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or
repair.
As discussed previously, the subject site is an environmentally critical area due to
steep slopes. The tree removal by PUD did increase the impact to the critical area
as it occurred at the top of the steep slope adjacent to Olympic View Drive and, as
the photographs indicate, the cuttings were left on the slope.
6) If trees are to be 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.
b. Conclusions:
1) Based on the documentation provided, Trees 2, 3, 4 and 6 are either hazardous or
threatening private property and are therefore candidates for removal. However,
Trees 2 and 3 exceed the WFWD threshold for retention since the subject site is
located within a bald eagle management area. The applicant will have to obtain
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 5 of 8
specific approval from WFWD to remove Trees 2 and 3 even though these trees
meet the criteria for removal according to City code.
2) Trees 1, 5 and 7 do not meet the criteria for removal found in ECDC 23.40.220.C.7
and therefore must remain. These trees should be appropriately maintained using
best arboricultural management practices to ensure their continued health.
3) The stumps should remain in order to provide stability on the slope.
4) Tree removal and maintenance like that performed by PUD is not exempt from
critical areas requirements. The removal of two clumps of trees by PUD in this
case must be mitigated.
5) Trees removed from critical areas must be replaced per ECDC 23.40,220.C.7.b.iv.
C. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance
1. Facts:
a. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and those in
the immediate vicinity as "Single Family — Resource".
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. 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.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. The proposed conditions ensure the permit is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 6 of 8
D. Technical Committee
The proposal has been evaluated by the Engineering Division as well as the Public Works and
Fire Departments. The Engineering Division submitted comments that are included as
Attachment 14. The applicant has indicated that the tree removal would take place from
private property but a right-of-way construction permit would be required to use any portion of
the City right-of-way.
E. Public Comment
The City received four comments regarding the application (Attachments 15-18). In each
case, the commenters questioned the need to remove trees which appear to be otherwise
healthy.
Response: While the code and Comprehensive Plan both indicate the City's intent to
retain trees, trees that are hazardous or pose a threat to private or public property may be
cut. In this case, while Trees 2, 3 and 4 are all reasonably healthy, they are very close to
the applicant's house and have been found to impact the house's foundation and
underground utility lines. In another location, these trees would not be candidates for
removal. However, these three trees already negatively impact the applicant's house and
utilities and threaten to cause more damage in the future. If trimming and maintenance
would resolve the problem, that would be the recommended course of action. However,
the tree roots are causing the problem and root trimming would only lead to a weakened,
and therefore, more hazardous tree. As a result, Trees 2, 3 and 4 are candidates for
removal. The two trees identified as #6 have failed and can therefore be removed. In each
case, mitigation is required for all trees that are removed.
Mr. Goodman (Attachment 17) also had comments regarding the possible negative impact
of cutting on a stormwater drain on the site and about where the notice was posted on the
site.
Response: With respect to notice, ECDC 20.03.002.A states that notice must be posted 5
feet inside the street property line at the midpoint of the street frontage. In this case, given
the slope of the site, the applicant was directed to post the notice sign slightly down the
access road to the parcel since it was felt it would be more stable and less likely to be
removed.
Regarding the removal of the subject trees and an impact to stormwater facilities on the
site, the City does not currently maintain any stormwater facilities on the subject parcel.
All stormwater lines currently run down Olympic View Drive in that area (Attachment 19).
There is an old storm crossing that goes under Olympic View Drive but that has not been
maintained by the City since the stormwater lines in the area were redone in the 1980s.
111. DECISION
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit for tree cutting at 18430 Olympic View Drive is GRANTED, subject to
the following conditions:
1, Tree #4 (12" Hemlock) may be removed. The two dogwood trees identified as Tree #6 may
also be removed. In each case, stumps shall remain in order to maintain slope stability.
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 7 of 8
2. Trees #1, #5 and #7 do not meet the criteria for removal found in ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 and
therefore must remain. These trees should be appropriately maintained using best
arboricultural management practices to ensure their continued health.
The Applicant shall comply fully with the October 28, 2009 Bald Eagle Management Plan
(BEMP) issued by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). The Director
notes that, in addition to other requirements, the October 28, 2009 BEMP requires retention of
all known perch trees and all conifers greater than 24 inches diameter at breast height. This
statement appears to prohibit the clearing or removal of the two trees located in the eastern
area of the project site (Tree #2 and Tree #3). Prior to clearing or removal of said trees, the
Applicant shall provide the City with written documentation demonstrating WDFW's specific
approval of such clearing or removal. Such documentation may take the form of a letter from
WDFW, a revised or amended BEMP, or other writing clearly expressing WDFW's approval.
To mitigate for the loss of the five trees referenced in Conditions #I and #2 as well as the two
tree clusters removed by PUD, the applicant must submit a restoration plan developed by a
certified arborist or landscape architect that meets the requirements of ECDC 18.45 and 23.40.
The restoration plan must include a cost estimate to determine a performance bond amount and
a planting schedule that includes specific species, sizes and locations for the proposed
replantings prepared according to ECDC 20.13.010 and 20.13.015. The restoration plan
materials shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any work being done at the site.
5. The following erosion control practices shall be implemented:
a. All removal and planting must be done by hand using hand tools.
b. Excess soil exposed during replanting shall be removed from the site.
c. Applicable best management practices found in ECDC 18.30 shall be employed.
6. All cuttings must be removed from the site, including those pieces cut by PUD.
7. After the plantings are installed as indicated on the approved restoration plan, the Applicant
must contact the Planning Division to schedule an installation inspection. If the inspection
determines the landscaping to be in compliance with the approved restoration plan, the
performance bond will be released. A maintenance bond will be retained at an amount of 15%
of the performance bond.
8. Two years from the date of final installation of the new vegetation, the Applicant must contact
the Planning Division to Schedule a final site inspection to ensure compliance with the
approved restoration plan. If the inspection determines the landscaping to be in compliance
with the approved plan, the maintenance bond will be released.
9. A separate right-of-way construction permit shall be obtained from the City prior to any
sidewalk or street closures, should closure become necessary.
10. No fence or retaining wall may be constructed at the site within critical areas without an
approved building pen -nit.
Yao Tree Cutting
File No. PLN -2009-0054
Page 8 of 8
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type 11 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.
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."
V1. ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Application
2. Applicant's statement and supporting documentation, dated November 3, 2009
3. Snohomish PUD tree removal/trimming report, dated September 9, 2009
4. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Snohomish County Bald Eagle
Management Plan, dated October 28, 2009
5. Arborist report and tree hazard evaluation forms, received December 8, 2009
6. Photo of tree # 1
7. Photo of trees #2, #5 and #6
8. Photo of tree #3
9. Photo of tree #4
10, Photo of trees #7
11. Geotechnical report from Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated November 10, 2009
12. Photo of trees near Olympic View Drive (north)
13. Photo of trees near Olympic View Drive (south)
14. Engineering Division comment letter, dated December 21, 2009
15. Comment letter from Nathaniel Brown, dated December 18, 2009
16. Comment letter from Howard Bobry, dated December 28, 2009
17. Comment letter from John Goodman, dated January 3, 2010
18. Comment letter from Elizabeth Poll, dated January 3, 2010
19, Stormwater utility map in the subject area along Olympic View Drive
20. Noticing materials
Yutian Yao
18430 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Nathaniel Brown
18529 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Planning Division
Howard Bobry John Goodman Elizabeth Poll
18416 Olympic View Drive 18420 Olympic View Drive 18401 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020