The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-09-01 Architectural Design Board PacketC)p E 04 � O Architectural Design Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, September 1, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting at: <https://zoom.us/s/95360544929?pwd=ZmdOREFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkNUxMZzO9> Meeting ID: 953 60544929. Password:818962 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 I. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived II. Public Portion 1. Audience Comment 2. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5751) PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Background/History See narrative Staff Recommendation Approved with conditions. ATTACHMENTS: • PLN2020-0054 Staff Report wtih Attachments (PDF) III. Approval of Minutes IV. Approval of Agenda 1. Administrative Reports V. ADB Member Comments VI. Adjournment Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 812512021 2.2 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/1/2021 PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative Staff Recommendation Approved with conditions. Narrative The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for a landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 260 trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 35 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 22 Tree Coppiced (trees to be maintained as large shrubs) • Prune 80 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) • 31 wildlife snags (create 16 live and 15 dead wildlife snags) • No Action on 89 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns and groundcover. The subject site is part of the Point Edwards Master Plan and contract rezone which originally included ten multifamily residential structures and two amenity centers. The current Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings (Note: Building 10, 50 Pine Street, is not part of the Point Edwards HOA as it was separated from the rest of the Point Edwards development with the revisions approved the by ADB in 2015). The Point Edwards development was originally approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) under file number ADB-2002-226. The main grounds of the Point Edwards development contain well maintained landscaped areas. The lower sloped areas that are the subject of this application were more of an afterthought by the developer and not landscaped with the rest of the site when it was developed. Now that the Point Edwards HOA maintains the property, they wish to bring the entire property into their landscape maintenance plans. The Point Edwards HOA identified six goals as the primary drivers for this project: 1) Maintaining slope stability and integrity, 2) Improving landscape diversity, 3) Maintaining view corridors from public viewpoints, Packet Pg. 2 2.2 4) Using best management practices and industry standard, 5) Building a relationship between the City of Edmonds and Point Edwards, and 6) Use foresight to increase landscape benefits now and into the future. The proposal is subject to review by the Architectural Design Board as this landscape modification is a modification the master plan development approved by the ADB under ADB-2002-226. Attachments: PLN2020-0054 Staff Report wtih Attachments Packet Pg. 3 2.2.a Project File Number: Date of Report: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Point Edwards Landscape Modification PLN2020-0054 August 25, 2021 90 Staff Contact: � Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Public Hearing: Wednesday— September 1, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. Due to COVID-19, a virtual public will be held via Zoom. The Zoom meeting may be joined at: https://zoom.us/s/95360544929?pwd=ZmdOREFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkN UXMZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 953 6054 4929 Password: 818962 I. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for a landscape modification and vegetation maintenance (Attachments 1 - 7) in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 260 trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 35 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 22 Tree Coppiced (trees to be maintained as large shrubs) • Prune 80 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) Packet Pg. 4 2.2.a • 31 wildlife snags (create 16 live and 15 dead wildlife snags) • No Action on 89 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns and groundcover. The subject site is part of the Point Edwards Master Plan and contract rezone (Attachment 12) which originally included ten multifamily residential structures and two amenity centers. The current Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings (Note: Building 10, 50 Pine Street, is not part of the Point Edwards HOA as it was separated from the rest of the Point Edwards development with the revisions approved the by ADB in 2015). The Point Edwards development was originally approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) under file numberADB-2002- 226 (Attachment 13). The main grounds of the Point Edwards development contain well maintained landscaped areas. The lower sloped areas that are the subject of this application were more of an afterthought by the developer and not landscaped with the rest of the site when it was developed. Now that the Point Edwards HOA maintains the property, they wish to bring the entire property into their landscape maintenance plans. The Point Edwards HOA identified six goals as the primary drivers for this project: 1) Maintaining slope stability and integrity, 2) Improving landscape diversity, 3) Maintaining view corridors from public viewpoints, 4) Using best management practices and industry standard, 5) Building a relationship between the City of Edmonds and Point Edwards, and 6) Use foresight to increase landscape benefits now and into the future. The proposal is subject to review by the Architectural Design Board as this landscape modification is a modification the master plan development approved by the ADB under ADB-2002-226. II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: Point Edwards Homeowners Association 2. Applicant: Point Edwards Homeowners Association 3. Tax Parcel Number: Multiple 4. Location: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is located in the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. (Attachments 2, 3, 14, and 15) 5. Size: The subject property contains approximately 20 acres. PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 5 2.2.a 6. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use (MP1). Zoning and Vicinity Map is provided in Attachment 14. 7. Existing Use: The Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. 8. Proposed Use: No change in use is proposed. 9. Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination (those that are not categorically exempt from SEPA) are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III -A decision. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Narrative 3. Landscape Plan 4. Tree Inventory Database 5. Replanting Plant List 6. Landscape Management Plan 7. Wildlife Technical Memorandum — Raedeke Associates, Inc. 8. Avian Habitat Use Monitoring at Edmonds Marsh — Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society 9. Point Edwards Responses to Public Comments received during Notice of Application Public Comment Period 10. SEPA Checklist 11. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 12. Point Edwards Contract Rezone and Master Plan 13. ADB-2002-226 Original ADB decision on Point Edwards 14. Zoning and Vicinity Map 15. Aerial Image 16. Public Notice Documentation — Notice of Application 17. Public Notice Documentation — Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination 18. City of Edmonds Engineering Division Memorandum of Compliance 19. Public Comments 20. Critical Area Determination CRA2020-0191 21. Geotechnical Report 22. Wetland Determination PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 6 2.2.a IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION A SEPA checklist was submitted with the application and subsequently amended in response to comments received on the application (Attachment 10). The SEPA analysis also included review of supplemental application materials, including a memorandum prepared by Raedeke Associates (Attachment 7). One of the primary environmental concerns with the proposal was the potential impact on bird species during the nesting season. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on August 6, 2021 (Attachment 11) with the following mitigating measure: All tree removal, coppicing and snag creation activity must occur outside of the nesting season. These tree cutting activities may occur approximately late August through early February. As of the drafting of this staff report, the City has not received any appeals of the SEPA determination. V. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS A "Notice of Application" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, the Community Development Department, and mailed to properties owners within 300 feet of the site on February 10, 2021 (Attachment 16). The library was not posted as the public notice area was cordoned off due to COVID related restrictions. The "Notice Public Hearing and SEPA Threshold Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and Edmonds Library August 6, 2021. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and parties of record. See Attachment 17 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Public and SEPA determination. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of Chapter 20.03 ECDC (Public Notice) and ECC 1.03.002. As of the drafting of this staff report, 29 written comments have been submitted on the application. All comments received to date are provided in Attachment 19. Many of the comments were in support of the application. Of those that were critical of the application, the primary concern was potential impacts to wildlife, especially bird species in the area. Staff Response: In response to comments received during the Notice of Application comment period, the Point Edwards HOA reached out to a local citizens group and met on site to discuss the proposal. The application was subsequently amended implementing recommendations in the Wildlife Technical Memorandum (Attachment 7) incorporating bird species information from the Audubon Society (Attachment 8) and updated the SEPA checklist. Point Edwards HOA also provided a detailed response to the comments PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 7 2.2.a received which is included in Attachment 9. According the Wildlife Technical Memorandum the project would ultimately result in improved habitat, with the report summarizing that impacts as follows: We would expect an increase in overall wildlife species diversity utilizing the project site as a result of an increased plant community diversity and increased overall tree health from maintenance. Replacing the relatively sparsely vegetated understory that includes invasive species with a variety of native shrubs and ground covers will increase plant species richness and structural diversity, which should benefit wildlife habitat over time. Additionally, the creation of snags through the management of the red alder trees will promote further species diversity by encouraging use of the project site by cavity -nesting species such as pileated woodpeckers. VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division noted that the proposal is consistent with Title 18 ECDC and the City's Engineering Standards (Attachment 18). Engineering primary concern was related to the public and private utilities located on the property. The general locations of utilities are notice on the city's GIS map, but as a precautionary measure Engineering is recommending the utility locates be called for prior to any tree removal. This has been added as a recommended condition of approval. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Master Plan Development" and the property is also located with the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The Comprehensive Plan notes that: Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. (pg. 57) As noted above the Point Edwards site is subject to the Point Edwards Master Plan (Attachment 12). The Point Edwards Master Plan is implemented through the contract rezone, rather than specifically being adopted by the Comprehensive Plan. The Vegetation and Wildlife section of the Land Use element is also relevant to the current proposal. This section of the Comprehensive Plan provides: Vegetation and Wildlife PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 5 of 14 Packet Pg. 8 2.2.a General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the native vegetation has become increasingly scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Native vegetation provides habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and clean pollutants from the air. The beauty of the natural growth, especially native vegetation, provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities. Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the quality of human life. City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms. Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and resident bird life. Wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and mammals. Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas. Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies: A.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science (BAS). A.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. A.3 Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed. A.4 Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. Staff Findings: The project area is a wooded/landscaped area along the northern and western edge of the Point Edwards development. A public pedestrian easement runs along the project area allowing access to the site. While some trees will be removed, the area will remain vegetated, and quality of the habitat improved by the proposed replanting which will increase the species diversity in the area. Of the two -hundred and sixty trees inventoried on the site only 35 trees will be removed. Other trees will be pruned to improve tree structure, increase growing space, and reduce encroachment. Additionally, 31 trees will be turned into wildlife snags (16 living and 15 dead) to provide habitat for woodpeckers and other species. The wildlife snags will be scattered throughout the project site. Vegetation diversity will be improved with planting of 45 trees, 201 shrubs of varying size, 90 fern and ground cover. Critical areas have been PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 9 2.2.a identified on the site and the proposal evaluated consistent with the city's critical area code (see Section VIILD of this report). The proposal is consistent with Vegetation and Wildlife Goal A of the Comprehensive Plan. The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provide in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Given that this is a landscape modification and not a development proposal, the design guidelines in the Urban Design Chapter have limited applicability to the current proposal. Below is a detailed analysis on how the proposal complies with the applicable goals and objectives for site design contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter. Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. Staff Findings: The project site is located in open space established with the Point Edwards development and the public pedestrian easement provides access to the site for residents and the public to enjoy the open space and wildlife. The project will maintain the open space and enhance the visual attributes by adding more diversity to the landscape. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Staff Findings: The area of the subject application was largely left out of the planning for the Point Edwards development. Implementing the landscape modification and landscape management plan will integrate the area into the larger Point Edwards development and provide for long term maintenance of the site. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 7 of 14 Packet Pg. 10 2.2.a Staff Findings: The property is not adjacent to an incompatible use. Both the Point Edwards site and the adjacent property are zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use which the Point Edwards property designated MP1 and the adjacent property designated MP2. The open space area does however provide a nice buffer for the site and transition to the adjacent property to the adjacent. The existing native vegetation and supplemental native plantings in the project also provides a transition from the more formal landscaping of the main Point Edwards site. Vill. DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Chapter 16.75 ECDC — Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MP): The subject property is located with the MP1 zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.75 ECDC. As noted in the introduction of this staff report, the Point Edward site was developed under a master plan approved by the ADB in under file number ADB-2002-226 (Attachment 13). The subject application does not alter the overall master plan approval, rather would just modify landscaping plans approved with the development. There are no proposed changes to the uses or any of the structures in the Point Edwards development. Staff Findings: Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the development standards of the Chapter 16.75 ECDC. B. Chapter 20.11 ECDC —General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. Given that this is a landscape modification and not a development proposal, the criteria in ECDC 23.11.030 have limited applicability to the current proposal. Below is an analysis on how the proposal complies with the applicable criteria in ECDC 23.11.030. ECDC 20.11.030.E Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Staff Findings: No large cut and fill or new impervious surfaces are associated with the landscape modification. Removal of trees has been kept to a minimum and the tree replacement and other supplemental plantings will improve the habitat. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Staff Findings: The project area is located below the main developed area of Point Edwards. The landscape modification and supplemental plantings of native PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 11 2.2.a vegetation enhances the site and habitat providing a buffer of wildlife habitat around the formally landscaped areas of the Point Edwards site. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Staff Findings The property is not adjacent to an incompatible use. Both the Point Edwards site and the adjacent property are zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use which the Point Edwards property designated MP1 and the adjacent property designated MP2. The open space area does however provide a nice bufferforthe site and transition to the adjacent property. The existing native vegetation and supplemental native plantings in the project also provides a transition from the more formal landscaping of the main Point Edwards site. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Staff Findings: There are no curbs along the pedestrian path in the project area, however it is not likely people will wander from the path into the landscaped areas. 5. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Staff Findings: A significant portion of the trees in the project area are evergreen species providing effective year-round screening. C. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. ECDC 20.13.030 provides details and the landscaping types that apply to developments. The most applicable landscape type that applies to the location of this application is Type III landscaping, which is intended to provide visual separation of compatible uses. The Point Edwards site and the adjacent property are both zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone, with Point Edwards being zoned MP1 and the adjacent property is zoned MP2 (Attachment 14). Type 111 Landscaping. Type Ill landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one- half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 9 of 14 Packet Pg. 12 2.2.a 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Staff Findings: The landscaping provided after implementing the proposed landscape modification will be consistent with the Type III landscape requirements. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the intent and requirements of the landscaping requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. D. Critical Areas A critical area determination on the Point Edwards site was issued under file number CRA2020-0191 (Attachment 21). The subject site generally slopes down towards the north and west. Portions of the site contains slopes between 15 — 40%. These slopes together with the soils are classified as potential erosion hazard areas. Other portions of the site contain slopes that exceed 40%. Slopes that exceed 40% are considered potential landslide hazard areas. Additionally, the Washington State Priority Habitat Species (PHS) map identified a potential great blue heron colony on the site near the stormwater pond on the northern portion of the property. Erosion and landslide hazard areas are subject to the requirements of Chapter 23.80 ECDC — Geologically Hazardous Areas. Projects within 50 feet of potential landslide hazards must evaluated be a geotechnical engineer for consistency with the development standards in ECDC 23.80.060 and ECDC 23.80.070. The geotechnical report found the proposal consistent with ECDC 23.80.060 and ECDC 23.80.070 and noted the proposal will increase the stability of the slope and reduce the potential for erosion compared to current conditions (Attachment 21). The presence of great blue heron was evaluated by the Raedeke Associates in the Wildlife Technical Memorandum provided in Attachment 7. The PHS entry for the blue heron colony was made in March 2002. According to communications with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the nearest documented activity was approximately 1 mile from the site and the information had not been updated since 2002. Raedeke conducted field visits of the project site and concluded that the heron colony is no longer active and has likely been inactive for over 18 years. Raedeke also noted that the revegetation associated with the subject application will PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 10 of 14 Packet Pg. 13 2.2.a increase overall species diversity and lead to the development of high -quality native trees that would enhance the over habitat quality for blue herons at the project site. Raedeke Associates also evaluated the site for bald eagles. No nests were identified on the site, while two trees south of the project site were identified as common perching locations for bald eagles. The US Fish and Wildlife Service Bald Eagle Management Guidelines encourage preserving large roost trees, preventing disturbances to flight paths accessing foraging sites, and using pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines. These recommendations are all consistent with the proposed vegetation management plan. E. Bonding: ECDC 20.13.040 and ECDC 23.40.290 The proposal will be implemented in phases that could occur over a 24 — 36 month period. ECDC 20.13.040 requires performance bonds to cover the installation of required landscaping with the bond estimate based on an itemized cost estimate. The critical area code also contains bonding requirements in ECDC 23.40.290 to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. ECDC 23.40.290.13 requires the bond amount to be 120% of the estimated cost. A condition of approval is proposed requiring the application to provide cost estimate for the proposed landscaping and post a performance bond in amount of 120% of the cost estimate. Once the landscaping has been installed and inspected by the City of Edmonds, a maintenance bond will be retained that is 15% the amount of the performance in accordance with ECDC 20.13.040. Given that the critical area code requires five years of monitoring pursuant to ECDC 23.40.130, the maintenance bond will be held for five years. IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposals, the ADB must find that the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments within this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE the design for the proposed project under file number PLN2020-0054 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGIULATIONS AND APPROVES THE PROPOSED POINT EDWARDS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION AND MAINTANCE PLANS WITH THE FOLLOWING Chi ►I0r1] 9r0]61 1. CONSISTENT WITH THE SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, ALL TREE REMOVAL, COPPICING AND SNAG CREATION ACTIVITY MUST OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE NESTING SEASON. THESE TREE CUTTING ACTIVITIES MAY OCCUR APPROXIMATELY LATE AUGUST THROUGH EARLY FEBRUARY. PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 14 2.2.a 2. UTILITY LOCATES SHALL BE CALLED FOR PRIOR TO ANY TREE REMOVAL. 3. AN ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE FOR THE COST OF LANDSCAPING (MATERIALS AND LABOR) MUST BE PROVIDED. A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 120% OF THE COST ESTIMATE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY TREE CUTTING. ONCE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN INSTALLED, A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 15% OF THE PERFORMANCE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. 4. ANNUAL REPORTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNTIL FIVE YEARS AFTER THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN INSTALLED. X. APPEALS According to ECDC 20.01.003.13 and 20.06.150, Type III -A decisions are not administratively appealable but rather subject to LUPA appeal at Snohomish County superior court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. XI. LAPSE OF APPROVAL According to ECDC 20.11.050.A, unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. XII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds Point Edwards Homeowners Association 121— 51h Ave N. 93 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Blair Bernson Andrea Bonnicksen (no contact information) 75 Pine Street #204 Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 15 2.2.a Ronald Eber Marjie Fields 50 Pine Street, Unit 204 mvfields@me.com Edmonds, WA 98020 Gerry Gibson Marthlyn Jones 71 Pine Street #209 1045 Daley Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Earl and Susan Larson Jack and Karen Martin earlsusan@comcast.net 61 Pine Street #108 Edmonds, WA 98020 Rick and Darlene Miller Frank and Mary Montgomery 51 Pine Street #310 65 Pine Street #304 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Rod and Barbara Nicholson Joe Niemer 65 Pine Street #204 9792 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Bill Phipps Pamela Erickson bebopbill@vahoo.com 45 Pine Street #211 Edmonds, WA 98020 David Richman Donald Ricker 534 2nd Avenue N 51 Pine Street #308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Susie Schaefer Mike Shaw 1055 Edmonds Street 716 Driftwood PI Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Landis and Pat Smaaladen Save Our Marsh 75 Pine Street #101 Save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com Edmonds, WA 98020 Joy and Bob Spaulding Judy Triggs 41 Pine Street #309 75 Pine Street #207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 16 2.2.a Laura and Robert Walls Susan Williams 61 Pine Street #210 51 Pine Street #108 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Karen and Lewis Wolkofsky 71 Pine Street #206 Edmonds, WA 98020 PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification Page 14 of 14 Packet Pg. 17 E City of Edmonds s ` Land Use Application IR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW n CO' REHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT U CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE rl HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'DBY rJ FORmAL SUBDIVISION rl SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # Li LOT L1NC. ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE H PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT U OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT HE i I STAFF I PB i I ADB CC H STREET VACATION U REZONE it SHORELINE PERMIT 1 1 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE ExcEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASENOTETHATA.L.,LINFOR.1I17TON CONTAINED WITf3INTHEAPPLIC47TONISAPUBLICRECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICAM E) North Slope Tree Removal and Re -vegetation for Point Edwards HOA PROPERTY OWNER Point Edwards Homeowners Association PHONE # (425) 775-2483 ADDRESS 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 E_MAn bet@pointedvrardshoa.com FAX# (425) 673-0629 TAx ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Point EdvArds HOA requests removalleoppice of 73 alders, 24 wild life snags, and prune, monitor, and maintain 164 evergreen trees See rover letter attached N DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See cover letter attached APPLICANT Point Edwards Homeowners Association PHONE # (425) 775-2483 ADDRESS 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 E_MA,L bel§pointedwardshoa.com FAX# (425)673-0629 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Bel'Johnson, Landscape Manager PHONE # (206) 423A433 ADDRESS 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 E_MALL hel@pointedwardshoa.com FAX# (425) 673-0629 The undersigned applicant, and hi"cr/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, incQmg reasonable attamcv'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/beriAs agents or employees_ By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the lest of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATuREOFAPPLICANT/AGENT �8�sae>L DATE December 18, 2020 Property Owner's Authorization 1 Mike Mitchell, Board President mortify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washm.-ton 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 ='tionndposting a o this lication.SIGNATURE OF OWNER l � DATE December 18, 2020 O u R t+5f L. yllf Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Reassed on 8r12/12 B - Land Use Applicanon Page I of] Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 18 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * OWNERS ASSOCIATION Point Edwards Homeowners' Association Board Presents ❑C City of Edmonds Type III -A Permit Application: Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope TO: City of Edmonds - Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA. 98020 Attn: Environmental Programs Manager - Kernen Lien (425) 771-0220; kernen.lien(kedmondswa.gov Permit III -A Document and Exhibits have been written and prepared by Justina Kraus, Bel Johnson, and Mike Mitchell. Authors: Justina Kraus; Champion Tree Care, LLC, Arborist/Owner Phone: (425) 238-3946 Email: iustina.champtreecare(a-)gnail.com Bel' Johnson; Point Edwards HOA, Landscape Manager Phone: (206) 423-4433 Email: bel(a-)pointedwardshoa.com Additional HOA Board Participants: Mike Mitchell; Point Edwards HOA, HOA Board President Phone: (206) 369-7255 Email: mtmjan1946(a)gmail.com Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 19 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Table of Contents Permit Type III -A: Table of Contents ........................................ I. Introduction and Location...................................................... Supplemental Information..................................................... II. Permit Request................................................................... II.A. Application Contents, Exhibits, Supporting Documents ............... III. Summary of Actions............................................................ IV. Goals and Definitions IV.A. Goals.......................................................................... IV.B. Definitions................................................................... V. Detailed Actions V.A. TRA Maps, Tree Inventory Database & Management Actions....... V.B. Detailed Work Description by TRA Map, Map Location & Phase.. VI. Next Steps — Monitoring...................................................... VII. Conclusion...................................................................... Exhibit 1: Amended Exhibit 2 Amended Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Amended Exhibit 5: Amended Exhibit 6 New Exhibit 7: New Exhibit 8: New Exhibit 9: New Exhibit 10: New Exhibit 11: New Exhibit 12: 1 Exhibits 1 2— 4 5— 8 8— 11 11-15 16-24 25 — 27 27— 30 30 — 32 32 — 36 37 — 38 38 - 39 Land use Permit Application — no change TRA Maps L 102, L 103, L 104, L 105, L 106 TRA Revegetation Maps L 102, L 104 Tree Inventory Data Base Replanting Plant List Supplemental Reports & Documents. These professional documents were not changed or added to. Geo-Tech Report Wetlands Report Exemption Letter Environmental Checklist (SEPA Study) Critical Areas Checklist — no change West and North Slope Landscape Management Plan (LMP) Wildlife Technical Memorandum Letter of Completeness and Request of Additional Information Public Comments with PE Responses List of changes made to tree inventory database Edmonds Marsh Survey Project, Scott Markowitz Zoning: MP -Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 20 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * INTRODUCTION Thank you for the opportunity to describe landscape improvements at Point Edwards (PE) Condominiums. This permit aligns with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. It will change a landscaped slope from one plant community to another. The performance methods will minimize negative impacts, create no known threat to public health, or safety, and can meet PE present needs without compromising the ability of subsequent generations to meet their future needs. The best available science from urban and traditional forestry sources has guided this permit plan development. The plan will create greater diversity of plant species and improved habitat opportunities for wildlife. The best management practices and current industry standards will guide project implementation through an adaptive monitoring phase. Monitoring actual results will dictate any necessary management actions. The Landscape Management Team of the Point Edwards Owner's Association (PEOA) looks forward to working with the City of Edmonds (COE) to receive approval for this landscape plan. We have gathered and summarized all pertinent landscape information for your review. This is a vegetation management plan intended to improve structure and diversity for the benefit of humans and wildlife. No new development or increases in impervious surfaces are part of this plan. There will be no heavy machinery, no terraforming, and no changes to the slope. Rather, this permit requests landscape modifications that include the pruning of trees, creating wildlife snags, removing trees, and replanting where trees were removed. The PE landscape has grown since development began approximately 20 years ago, and this plan shall add to the successful plantings attracting birds, public and residents alike. Thank you for this opportunity to work with COE staff to achieve this project. Landscape work, once approved, will be performed in a systematic and methodical fashion by completing similar tasks, grouped into phases, to avoid excessive impact in any one location at any given time. These phases will require implementation over approximately 24-36 months. During this time, frequent communication about progress, along with approved maintenance schedules will be maintained by PE with COE. After project completion in 24-36 months, then the maintenance, monitoring, and reporting to COE will continue for another five years during monitoring. This application was first submitted on December 16, 2020, and PE has worked diligently since then to improve this application. This color of blue font, within this document, indicates newly added supplemental information. There is new content within this document, five of the six original exhibits have been amended and six new exhibits have been added. This document was supplemented because COE asked for more information, Save Our Marsh asked for more consideration, and so a Wildlife Biologist was hired to provide recommendations. 2 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 21 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * I. LOCATION Located at 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020, the PE complex is an approximately 20-acre community zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use (MP-1) that includes nine residential buildings; with 261 condo -homes, one administration building, and two amenity buildings. The PE complex contains areas characterized as geologically steep slopes because the slope is greater than 15 degrees (please see Exhibit 4: Geo-Tech Report). There are no wetlands or shorelines within the PE Complex as documented in a wetland study done November 2014 (please see Exhibit 4: Wetland Study). The 2014 study cites the 2003 and 2005 SEPA studies indicating no regulated wetlands were found onsite even prior to PE development. The PE Landscape Management Team has divided PE into three landscape sections. The first is the formal grounds. These are the landscape areas that surround the buildings, are along sidewalks and streets, and include colorful containers changed seasonally at the public viewpoints. This management section includes the manicured lawn areas, ornamental trees, shrubs, annuals for seasonal color, and containers. The PE buildings and formal grounds sit above an entirely vegetated slope, with a portion that is west -facing (west slope, the 2.d area) and a portion that is north -facing (north slope, the 3,d area). While some work will be requested in a small portion of the west slope in this application, this permit primarily describes the landscape plan to cultivate the north slope. The changes and replanting will improve the north slope vegetation species diversity and improve the habitat components for forage, food and nesting. At PE, the buildings and other impervious surfaces are concentrated together, surrounded by the formal grounds above a continuously vegetated slope. It is a pattern of development allowing people to live densely, while reducing the amount of paved or covered soil surface. Pavement, and covered soil surfaces, do not slow or retain stormwater in the same way that soil can. Concentrated multi -family housing is referred to as a low impact development (LID) strategy because it concentrates people, thereby minimizing the amount of impervious surface needing to house them, while maximizing open space and canopy cover to surround them. Impervious surface is known to cause runoff into streams from storm events (h!tps://www3.0a. og v/re ig�onl/npdes/stonnwater/assets/pdfs/AddressingBarrier2LID.pdf) while plants intercept and slow stormwater, and plant communities act as rain gardens intercepting, holding, and then slowly releasing filtered, soil moisture back into the watershed. The PE pattern of development concentrates families into multi -family residential units surrounded by formal grounds above a continuously vegetated slope. Individual plants, and those in groups, slow the movement and rate of water by physically intercepting the water and retaining it in roots and soil organic materials. Thoughtful design has gone into this permit application to meet the general design standards as outlined in COE Chapter 20.13, Landscaping Requirements (https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds20/Edmonds2Ol3.html). The informal planting arrangement will not be in formal rows. The plants will soften the structures and maintain vistas. Changing the landscape from one plant community to another will have a short-term impact but will in no way reduce the planted -ground -area available to intercept, and 3 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 22 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * slow heavy precipitation. A community of plants will be installed that are sized, spaced, and properly planted, primarily native species, but all suitable choices for the PNW climate. The west slope was replanted after development so there is already a thriving diversity of suitable tree and shrub species. But the north slope was not densely replanted after development and only routine maintenance has occurred to prevent the spread of noxious invasive weeds like English Ivy and Himalayan blackberry. Our proposed landscape management activities require permitting for the following reasons: because this is the first pruning for a tree on the slope, greater than 1500-sq-ft of vegetation will be affected, significant trees over the minimum threshold of 4" DBH will be removed, wildlife snags will be created, retained and managed, and to create a successful and thriving diversity of suitable tree and shrub species. New replacement trees and shrubs will be replanted to offset the removals. Please see Exhibit 2: Maps, which includes TRA Site Maps L 102, L 103, L 104, L 105 and L 106 illustrating the vegetation for both the west (L 106) and north (L 105, L 104, L 103, L 102) slopes. The west facing portion of the slope was revegetated approximately 15 years ago. The west slope has had routine maintenance and monitoring since installation to remove invasive species, and prune trees and shrubs. Maintenance is performed on a regular schedule so that cuts are less than 4" in diameter and invasive species are kept at bay. The debris is diced -up to lay flat on the hillside and left as mulch onsite. Successful techniques implemented on the west slope will be the model for the north slope as well. The west slope revegetation has been successful at holding the slope while the increased plant diversity has provided more habitat and forage opportunities. The west slope is attractive to look at even after it has been trimmed because there is no exposed soil and the slope is lushly vegetated with a variety of trees and shrubs. The plant scheme chosen, the installation methods used, subsequent monitoring using best available science and adaptive management to improve methods, and routine maintenance that use small cuts and leaves the debris cut up on the slope, have been the methods successful at maintaining slope integrity. These successes will be used to guide the implementation for this new permit plan for the north slope. Based on June 2016 correspondence from COE to PE (Exhibit 4: City of Edmonds — June 27, 2016, Letter), the proposed landscape changes outlined in this plan, require permitting for the following reasons: 0 1. This is the first pruning for a tree on the slope. 2. Greater than 1500-sq-ft of area will be worked with physical labor and hand-held equipment over a three-year period. 3. Significant trees, over the minimum threshold of 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) will be removed. 4. Significant trees, over the 4" threshold, will be converted into living or dead wildlife snags. 5. New replacement trees and shrubs will be replanted to offset the removals. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 23 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Supplemental Information: After first submission, COE Planner Kernen Lien responded with a letter of completeness and requested additional information (Exhibit 8: COE Letter). In the letter dated January 28, 2021, to Bel Johnson, he asked for 1) Critical Areas: a wildlife biologist survey and report verifying whether there are blue herons nesting at PE and any mitigation measures if a colony is located onsite, and 2) Phase Timing: additional details on the timing of project Phases over time and by map section. In addition, the PE application received a lot of public comments. Bird advocates from the Edmonds `Save Our Marsh' (SOM) group supplied the most comprehensive and detailed comments, including editorials in My Edmonds News and the Edmonds Beacon. All public comments have been compiled, reviewed, and assigned a written PE response (Exhibit 9: Public Comments and Responses). Kernen Lien recommended an onsite meeting between PE representatives, PE professionals, and SOM scientists to review this plan with the SOM citizen scientists. That in -person presentation took place on March 25, 2021, on the project site. The goal was to share with SOM the areas where the proposed project will take place, to review timing of the project, and describe work methods for maintaining sensitivity to the surrounding wildlife. PE collaborated with SOM so the permit work will be successful and have a reduced potential impact. The meeting was important to remind everyone about the PE zoning and COE comprehensive 50-year plan, which does not change that zoning (Exhibit 12: MP — Master Hillside Mixed -Use Zone) as well as to show that the property line is not the same as the fence line throughout the project site. No work is proposed on the adjacent Chevron property, even when that property is within the fence line and covered with English Ivy or other invasive species. The meeting went extremely well because this plan has considered wildlife, and will provide additional foraging and shelter opportunities for many avian species that frequent the Edmonds Marsh. The PE and SOM meeting was keenly summarized in an article written by Larry Vogel (My Edmonds News March 26, 2021 https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/03/point- edwards-staff-edmonds-marsh-advocates-find-common-ground-during-review-of-vegetation- mana eg mgnt-plan/) (Exhibit 9). Compiled Edmonds Marsh Survey Project data was shared at the onsite meeting by Citizen Scientist Scott Markowitz. He has compiled avian habitat use and distribution information across various microhabitats in the Edmonds Marsh, including a site near the Point Edwards maintenance office (Exhibit 11: Edmonds Marsh Survey Project). This project will add to the Edmonds Marsh habitats and should attract woodpeckers and other keystone species, including some not noted on the list like Downy Woodpeckers and Red - breasted Sapsuckers. During Critical Area review by COE, Kernen Lien found that Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species database identified a blue heron colony as existing on the Point Edwards property near the stormwater pond at PE. In addition to the COE request and public comment, PE wanted to document whether any State or Federally Threatened or Endangered species were using PE as habitat and get an evaluation of project impacts on all wildlife, even common species. Wildlife Ecologist Andrew Rossi of Raedeke Associates, Inc made two site visits, February 16, and March 11, 2021, and wrote a Technical Memorandum dated March 15, 2021 where he reviewed the background information, 5 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 24 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * described the current conditions, listed observed wildlife, and evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on blue herons, bald eagles, and other wildlife habitat (Exhibit 7: Wildlife Technical Memorandum). After reviewing the background information, Raedeke Associates, Inc. found that the blue heron entry in the WDFW database was from March 2002, and the database had no updated entries because WDFW no longer conducts annual monitoring of heron colonies. Mr. Rossi personally surveyed the landscape for current conditions, including heron and eagle use. He found no evidence of heron use, or perch trees suitable for eagles within the project site. He did locate a single, abandoned nest structure in the PE project area. He observed a stick nest about 2- feet wide and 1.5-ft deep located in a red alder canopy about 25-ft off the ground. It will be retained and monitored even though no use has been observed, or even evidence of use such as poop or feathers. The nest is in Red Alder Tree #179 located in TRA Map L104. The list of changes made to incorporate recommendations is included (Exhibit 10: List of Changes to Inventory) and the inventory has been updated to show the new management action. Please note that if during the course of implementation, even though work will be performed outside of the nesting season, if any evidence of nesting structures are found, that tree will be identified as such in the inventory, will receive no action, and will be retained and identified to COE to decide if review by a Wildlife Biologist should occur. Blue herons are known to forage in the Edmonds Marsh, and individual herons have occasionally been seen using the manmade stormwater pond at PE. The manmade pond that was created about 20 years ago during development has water, cattails and native willows and has become a naturalized habitat feature. No changes to the pond have been proposed. Andrew Rossi, of Raedeke Associates, Inc. (RAI), during the course of his two site visits, observed 17 bird species, but did not find evidence of nesting blue herons or bald eagles, nor use by any otherwise regulated species within the north slope project site. For common bird species, there could be temporary displacement for some individual animals during the tree cutting activities. Because the species are considered common and resilient, RAI expected the possible displacement of some individuals to be offset by the benefit to the future community with increased plant diversity providing food and shelter and wildlife snags to provide perches and roosts. RAI did make mitigation recommendations for this proposed permit project that we have incorporated: • Schedule all revegetation to take place outside of the nesting season, or from late August through February. • Retain some of the healthiest red alder trees and retain the red alder with the nest structure to promote species diversity and retain soil stability. • Include some native evergreen tree species in the replanting list-. • Replant with native plants on the slopes, and keep non-native cultivars restricted to the formal grounds. • If work must be done in spring, like managing for invasive species, use only quiet handheld tools and do not use any loud, or large -heavy equipment to avoid disturbing potential nesting species. 0 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 25 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Mr. Kernen Lien at the COE had also asked about the timing of the Phases. The deadline for this permit is July 27, 2021, and if approval were received, then Phase I could begin in October 2021. The work needs to take place outside of the nesting season, which is March to September. Phase I is the removal of 35 trees, the coppicing of 22, the wildlife snag creation of 31 and the pruning of the 2 big leaf maples. Phase I is expected to take about 45 workdays to complete and if started in October 2021 should be finished by December 2021. Phase III replanting can begin once Phase I removals have occurred. Phase III is replanting over hundreds of plants and because of challenges with weather in fall and winter, the replanting is expected to take about 90 workdays to complete with irrigation being installed in March 2022. The tree pruning can take place during the replanting, but the pruning for trees in the replanting area should occur before new plants go in to reduce encroachment and improve establishment of the new community. Phase II is the pruning of 79 trees and will begin when Phase I is completed. Phase II is expected to take about 45 workdays. Picture 1. Edmonds is a gem of a city surrounded by natural beauty. Established public viewpoints are maintained at Point Edwards for the enjoyment of all. Point Edwards works hard to maintain the formal grounds to the highest quality. The landscape modifications outlined in this permit fit in with the COE goals of sustaining healthy habitats for present and future generations. (Photo credit Tom Graff, 2020). Point Edwards is Zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use, which has certain specifically outlined purposes and uses including taking advantage of site conditions and water views. This project has little to 7 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 26 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * do with views even though views and visual access to the water for the public from public access points are in the zoning. Instead, this project seeks to be allowed to manage the landscape into the future for health, structural stability for the slopes and trees, and invasive species management but it needs to start now, through pruning, removals, and wildlife snag retention. (http://www.edmondswa. ovg /images/COE/Government/Departments/Development_ Services/Planning D ivision/Plans/CompP1an2015/CP_2017_adopted TitleBack rg ound.pdf.) II. Permit Request This Architectural Design Review Permit application (Exhibit 1: Land Use Permit Application) does not propose any new development or any increase in impervious surfaces. Rather this request is to allow landscape management through pruning existing trees and shrubs, removing certain trees, increasing habitat opportunities by making wildlife snags and replanting a variety of trees, shrubs, ferns, and groundcovers. Design review and writing of this document has been overseen by PE Landscape Manager Bel Johnson and by Consulting Arborist Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care, LLC, supported by the PE landscape staff, and guided by the PEOA Board made up of seven residential members. Almost all the work is on the north slope, with only a small section located on the west slope area. The two slopes are continuous. The west slope trees are in an area adjacent to the north slope and are clearly indicated on TRA Map L105 (please see Exhibit 2: Maps) and are described in the tree inventory database (Exhibit 3: Plant Lists). PEOA is applying for this Permit Type III -A Critical Area Design Review from the COE to perform tree pruning, removals and wildlife snag creations followed by tree and shrub replanting on a geographically sensitive slope. Careful planning has gone into the PE landscape design both during and after development. The formal grounds around the buildings have achieved sustainability goals, having matured into attractive plantings. The formal grounds' design requires significant maintenance to always be successful. While the same amount of planning went into replanting on the west slope, the landscape has successfully matured and grown because of the species selected. The west slope does not require constant maintenance like the formal grounds to be successful. After much effort to install and monitor initially, the west slope is now maintained through pruning by a crew only once or twice a year. This permit proposes removals and replanting on the north slope where large swaths were not redesigned, replanted, or expected to require any landscape maintenance. After clearing 20- years ago, areas on the north slope and along the property line have regrown as a dense thicket of red alders (Alnus rubra). As the alders have matured, they have kept the understory diversity low except for undesirable weedy species like dandelions (Taraxacum officinale), or invasive, noxious shrubs like Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and English ivy (Hedera helix). The wildlife forage potential has steadily decreased while damage from encroachment issues, particularly from the alder to the pine, has increased. The effort to manage and contain the noxious weeds has also increased in the 20-yr old alder thickets. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 27 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Picture 2. The monoculture of red alders has not allowed anything except invasive species, like the English ivy to flourish. This permit will replace these trees with a community of trees, shrubs, ferns, and groundcovers. (Photo credit Tom Graff, 2020) Please note that the chain link fence shown in this picture is not actually the property line, instead it is well onto Chevron property. The property line and the chain link fence only meet up in two spots. The English Ivy is on Chevron property. The alder's canopies create dense shade, and the dense roots prevent new plants from getting established. The trees germinated thickly initially, became established, and as a result the trees have grown extremely close together. The thick canopies not only prevent the natural colonization by desirable species but have also begun to encroach into growing spaces of near -by longer -lived, desirable -specimens like western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and developer- planted Scots pine (Pious sylvestris). The encroachment causes slower reduced growth, dead branches, and/or misshapen forms. The selective and thoughtful removal, retention and replacement of some alder trees will increase the species diversity and habitat structure plus also reduce the future PE landscape maintenance requirements. 0 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 28 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Picture 3. The red alders have shaded out foliage so now the desirable pine trees only have foliage on one side of the tree. Other red alders are growing inside the dripline of a retained and long-lived western red cedar. This permit requests removal of these red alders to protect the desirable, long-lived coniferous species. (Photo credit Bel Johnson, 2020) Another aspect of this permit involves pruning trees to improve the longevity potential. Some of the pine trees need to have maintenance pruning performed to maintain a strong, natural structure. A few small pine trees have failed in the last couple of years, primarily during wet snow events where the snow loads change the center of gravity. The trees that failed had never been pruned to maintain a form that sloughs snow rather than holds it. When the trees fell over, they exposed a small basin of soil that held water, and potentially changed how precipitation moved down the slope. This permit would allow the pruning of certain trees, identified in the tree inventory database and on the site maps, to reduce the overall size, improve the structure, create stronger form, and to reduce the likelihood of whole tree failure. 10 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 29 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Picture 4. Unpruned pine trees held wet snow, and several fell over after the heavy February 2019 storm that deposited about 2-ft of snow. This permit requests pruning for the pines to maintain a strong, stout structure that will shed rather than hold snow. Tree failures that can expose or loosen any soil on the PE slope has to be prevented. (Photo credit Bel Johnson) We ask the COE to approve, without conditions, the landscape management activities as described in this application because they align with the COE Comprehensive Plan and municipal code. Following approval, but starting immediately at implementation, all work activities will be performed in constant communication with COE staff. The formal -grounds and much of the west -slope landscape areas are able to be routinely maintained in accordance with the ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 critical area exemption requirements and COE June 27, 2016 letter (Exhibit 4: Supplemental Reports and Documents). After completion, we look forward to a time when the north slope can be maintained like the other two PE landscape areas using accepted techniques and methods. There have been no major changes to the general permit request because it already considered wildlife and has wanted to improve structural diversity and wildlife habitat opportunities since its inception. II.A. Application Contents, Exhibits, Supporting Documents. New information in Blue. Amended Exhibit 1: City of Edmonds Land Use Permit Application. 11 • Point Edwards is applying for an Architectural Design Review to gain approval to prune, remove, wildlife snag, replant, and monitor. All submitted information and documents meet, if not exceed, the COE comprehensive plan city, state, and overarching goals. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 30 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * • The application first submitted on December 16, 2020 has been supplemented and amended to incorporate Wildlife Biologist and Citizen Scientist recommendations. The new information also addresses City of Edmonds questions for more information regarding timing of implementation, and presence of great blue herons. Amended Exhibit 2: Maps. • Five TRA Site Maps. The north slope is a long area and has 4 TRA maps; L102 (starting by the maintenance building), L 103, L 104 and L 105, where it switches to west slope. L 106 shows the west slope. Detailed site plans, clearly illustrating the PE hardscapes, locations of each tree and areas of invasive or grassy vegetation were produced by Thomas Rengstorf and Associates (TRA). Additional management layers have been added to these maps. After trees on the north slope were tagged with numbers, the tree inventory numbers were added to the TRA maps and field checked. After the management plan was resolved, the numbered trees were color coded to visually illustrate the desired management action. These maps clearly show the location of plants in relation to the buildings and property line. There are four maps that illustrate the numeric tree inventory for the north slope: L 102, L 103, L 104, and L 105. A fifth map, L 106, documents the west slope and is enclosed to show the slope's continuity but is not part of this design plan and does not have a tree inventory installed. • Revegetation Maps. After removals are completed in Phase I, new trees, shrubs, ferns, and groundcovers will be planted to replace the vegetative layer removed. Forty-five trees will be removed, and 45 trees will be replanted along with 417 other plants. • The maps have been updated to show the changes made to the individual trees per Raedeke Associates, Inc., onsite visits, and technical memorandum. Amended Exhibit 3: Plant Lists. 12 • Tree Inventory Database. A tree inventory is maintained for all trees located on the north slope. The tree inventory allows PE to store information about tree status that can be updated over time. Tree health and management schedules are tracked for individual trees and it is also useful to manage groups of similar trees. Entire areas can have work types grouped and sorted electronically, then can be verified physically to match the tree tags. Trees are physically tagged with permanent silver numbered markers. Tree location, species, size, and elevation were recorded. The tree inventory also references the management action and the basis for the action for each tree. • The inventory database that includes 260 (#42 listed in tree inventory but not counted in overall tree numbers) trees has been updated to incorporate the changes recommended by Raedeke Associates, Inc. The list of exact changes from the database submitted on December 16, 2020, is included under Exhibit 4. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 31 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * • Phase III Replanting Plant Lists. 45 trees will be replanted along with 417 other plants. The replanting list includes the type, size, and number of all plants to be installed after completion of tree work in Phases I and II. • The replanting list was modified to include coniferous evergreen trees, and to feature native species, or native species varieties and cultivars with improved disease resistance. No Change. Exhibit 4: Supplemental Reports and Documents. • Geo-Tech Report. A recent December 15, 2020, Geo-Tech Report was completed by Bill LaPrade of Shannon & Wilson as requested by the COE contact Kernen Lien. After site visits, Bill LaPrade determined that the work as proposed is safe to perform on the areas with slopes greater than 40% at a reduced replacement ratio. • Wetland Study. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc., Scott Spooner, Environmental Consulting Founder, Owner, and Biologist/Ecologist performed a site visit and prepared a Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report on November 10, 2014. He determined no wetlands; no streams and no shorelines are present on the PE grounds. The only pond is a man-made water detention pond (located on TRA Map L104). • City of Edmonds - June 27, 2016, Letter. The maintenance for all the grounds at PE is guided by the list of allowed activities and those activities that would require permitting to be performed; written by COE Senior Planner Kernen Lien with Shane Hope, Development Services Director Cc'd addressed to Bel Johnson, PE Landscape Manager. Amended Exhibit 5: Checklists. 13 • Environmental Checklist (SEPA Study). The Washington State Environmental Policy Act has been in place since 1971. This State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) helps outline the environmental impacts expected for a landscape modifying project. There have been several SEPA studies done for projects at PE, relating to site development. The landscape modifications for this project include removing and coppicing trees, pruning other trees and replanting a community of shrubs, ferns and groundcovers. All work will be done by hand to protect the integrity of the slope. There will not be any grading or changes to the slope. There will not be any modification to the slope contour, nor will any heavy equipment or machinery ever be used to move or compact soil. The three project Phases will be completed by people using small handheld, gas -powered tools such as chainsaws and/or trimmers; or using handheld digging tools like shovels and wheelbarrows. If a wood -chipper is used to create mulch, it will never enter the slope or be positioned on bare soil. Instead, the chipper would be parked on the existing access road to the pond; with debris manually carried off the slope to be processed on the road. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 32 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Only material blocking replanting will be removed from the slope to turn into mulch, and it will in turn be used to mulch the new plants. • The SEPA form has been updated to include recommendations and observations made by Raedeke Associates, Inc. PE has supplemented this permit to incorporate the tree inventory recommendations, based on the wildlife seen onsite by wildlife biologist Andrew Rossi, of Raedeke Associates, Inc. • Critical Areas Checklist. This two -page checklist helps City staff to have a summary of the plan and site location with landscape attributes. Amended Exhibit 6: Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan. • Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan for formal grounds, west and north slopes. The PE LMP (Landscape Management Plan) is a document describing landscape maintenance activities for all of PE; both the formal grounds as well as on the slopes. PE hopes to get the north slope landscape modified so it can then be maintained into perpetuity within COE exemptions. • PE had Raedeke Associates, Inc. review the PE LMP as submitted on December 16, 2020. The LMP has also been supplemented, like this permit, to include changes they recommended. New Exhibit 7: Wildlife Technical Memorandum. • March 15, 2021, Technical Memorandum written by Andrew Rossi of Raedeke Associates, Inc. A Wildlife Biologist at Raedeke Associates, Inc. was hired because the COE had found blue herons were listed on the WDFW online Priority Habitats and Species and asked for more information about presence of herons and impacts of the proposed project. Mr. Rossi made two site visits and found no evidence of active heron nests within the project site. One small individual nest of unidentified species was identified in the project site and that tree has been changed in the inventory to be retained and monitored. New Exhibit 8: Letter of Completeness and Request of Additional Information 14 • January 28, 2021, A Letter of Completeness and Request of Additional Information by Kernen Lien City of Edmonds. Mr. Lien confirmed receipt of the PE application and asked for more information in two areas. Documentation by a Wildlife Biologist to indicate use of the project site by blue herons because a search regarding the Critical Areas had revealed an old layer in the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species lists indicated presence of a blue heron nesting colony near the manmade stormwater pond. Kemen Lien also asked for more information regarding the timing of the project activities. The Wildlife Biologist's recommendations are going to be followed to avoid Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 33 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * working during the spring and summer nesting seasons. But because of the slope, work will also not take place during extreme winter weather. New Exhibit 9: Public Comments with PE Responses • Publicly Asked Questions (PAQ) and Comments from the open comment period. We appreciated the interest the public took in this project, especially bird advocates and the Save Our Marsh (SOM) group. Every comment and question were considered, and we noted the recurring themes. We have incorporated the recommendations of a qualified Wildlife Biologist, and Citizen Scientists from SOM, in response to the concerns this project did not consider wildlife enough. We thought we had but relished the chance to include more opportunities for wildlife benefit. Answers have been given to PAQs and included because we appreciated the chance to consider outside input. New Exhibit 10: List of Changes to Tree Inventory Database. • Our list of the changes made to incorporate Wildlife Biologist and Citizen Scientist recommendations. New Exhibit 11: Edmonds Marsh Survey Project, Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish WA. • March 25, 2021, Scott Markowitz, The Edmonds Marsh Survey Project Overview. Mr. Markowitz compiled an information sheet for the SOM and PE in person meeting on March 25, 2021, outlining the project he and others are conducting to study and document bird use and distribution across microhabitats in the Edmonds Marsh. For the SEPA study we did not include every species from Scott Markowitz's list, rather only those recommendations and species documented by Wildlife Biologist Andrew Rossi. However, in the larger scale of managing PE through time and for common and uncommon avian species, we are using the Edmonds Marsh Survey list. We have noticed two bird species not seen by the Wildlife Biologist and not on the Edmonds Marsh list: Downy Woodpeckers and Red -breasted Sapsuckers. Increasing standing dead wood and structural complexity will attract woodpeckers, which are keystone species creating nests and habitat features other animals need for nesting. New Exhibit 12: MP 1— Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone 15 • PE is zoned as MP 1 — Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use, which has certain specifically outlined purposes and uses including taking advantage of site conditions and water views This project has little to do with views even though views and visual access to the water for the public from public access points is described in the zoning. Instead, this project seeks to be allowed to manage the landscape into the future for health, structure, and access but it needs to start now, through pruning, removals, and wildlife snag retention now. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 34 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * III. Summary of Actions This proposal is for a Permit Type III -A, Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope. No new building development, no additional paved surfaces and no earth moving machines will be used to make engineering or geologic changes at any time or as any part of this proposal. PE will hire ISA Certified Arborists to prune selected trees that have not been pruned before, remove trees to reduce encroachment and allow for replanting, replant with a mixture of trees and shrubs, create and maintain living and dead wildlife snag features and care for the modified landscape into perpetuity. Vegetation modification means both to change an individual plant in some way, and to alter an entire plant community. Historical evidence indicates that humans have been changing their vegetative surroundings for 1,OOOs of years, making modifications that increased food supply and decreased hazards. Many of the best gardens in Edmonds are made up of plants from all over the world chosen for their beauty or special attributes. For this project, intended manipulations at both the individual tree and community scales will be used during implementation of this landscape level plan. Primarily in this case, the change will be to modify an individual tree's shape through pruning. From a community perspective, the careful reduction of domination by one species (red alder) will allow for more species to flourish. After project completion and the five-year monitoring ends, the north slope landscape will have the benefits of being a wild area that provides many opportunities for food, forage, and nesting. In addition, the amount of maintenance is expected to decrease with time (the right plant in the right place needs less work and causes less encroachment or potential for tree failure) while the wildlife benefits will increase every year (more flowers and fruit on larger plants for example, more dead wood and leaf debris as plants mature). Every tree was physically tagged with a number, inspected for longevity potential, and catalogued in an Excel database. The organization by numbers allows trees with similar management actions to be grouped together and as well makes sure all trees on the slope are included. The tree inventory was installed to all the trees that were 6-ft tall or larger. The inventory is stored as an Excel database linking tree numbers to map location, species, elevation, tree height and caliper, and the recommended management action. The tree inventory has been correlated to the TRA Site maps (Exhibit 2) so that the maps indicate the action for each tree. The TRA maps will be used by crews to implement the work once approved, so the maps compliment the database information. The management actions are expanded upon in the IV.B. Definitions section that starts on page 8. Every assigned action relates to the longevity potential, which is the sum of the known species characteristics, position in relation to slope, encroachment impacts on other trees/features and long-term permanence potential. There are 261 trees in the inventory (please see Exhibit 3). The number of trees impacted for each management action category is divided as follows: 16 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 35 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * • 45 Removals (cut down and leave dead stump), • 28 to Coppice (cut down but leave stump expected to resprout), • Prune 78 (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape), • 24 Snags (create taller than a stump -living (11) or dead (13) wildlife snags), • No Action to 86 (in Phase I, II or III), either because a tree has been pruned previously or just requires monitoring. This project has evolved since incorporating the public comments, COE request, onsite meetings and review by experts. This project would benefit the slope, birds, people, and the City of Edmonds perpetually, starting now. Please let the following tree work activities take place, to be performed by ISA Certified Arborists, performed outside of the nesting season (nesting season is March -September) and outside of extreme winter storm events (change annually). There are 260 trees described in this project, but the many established shrubs and groundcovers were not counted. Trees less than 4-inches caliper were not inventoried. This project will: 17 • Monitor 89 trees • Prune 80 [2 Big Leaf Maples, 2 Doug -firs, 7 Western Red Cedars, 24 Scots Pine, and 45 Shore Pine]. The 69 Pines need pruning to improve structure due to the trees breaking and uprooting because of wind load in wet snowstorm events. The other trees will be pruned to increase growing space and reduce encroachment. • Remove 35 [1 Western Red Cedar, 3 Douglas -fir, 5 Scots Pine, 26 Red Alders]. The 26 Red Alders are located in an area adjacent to Chevron property that is over -run by invasive species under the monoculture of Red Alder. This project would like to remove the Red Alder and change the landscape in this area to improve the quality by removing one domineering species that does not allow anything to grow underneath, to be replanted with a diversity of species, of varying structure, heights, forage opportunities, flowers, fruit and nesting possibilities. • Modify canopy of 31 Red Alder to create "Wildlife Snags". Wildlife snags provide standing dead wood to be used by keystone species such as woodpeckers. The woodpeckers excavate nests that get used and reused by other wildlife species as time passes. Living wildlife snags are even more long-lived than dead ones. Red Alders are an excellent wildlife snag species because they do it in nature, and are long lasting habitat features. 16 living snags and 15 dead snags, all Red Alders will be modified. The trees are scattered throughout the project site to offer more possible microhabitats. • Coppice 22 [16 Red Alder and 6 Black Cottonwood]. These trees will be managed as large shrubs and retained in the landscape. The canopies need to be reduced to allow for new plants to be established, to reduce the chance of storm damage, to reduce encroachment, and to allow future management to be done from the ground rather than needing highly specialized tree climbers. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 36 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Arborists perform tree surgery using known industry standards and protocols. The American National Standards Institute ANSI-A300 standards are for the tree care industry. The term "tree removal" usually means to cut down and/or dismantle a tree to remove the above ground portion from the space it occupies. The removed tree is expected to die, not resprout, the roots will die and the stump and below ground portion will decay over time. Some trees do not die when cut down. Those trees can be coppiced or cut down but leaving a living stump expected to resprout. Because of the tree species on our site, we can coppice some trees, managing them into the future, instead of only performing removals, where the roots die. Certain tree species have adapted to regrow if the top of the tree gets damaged; it is a beneficial adaptation for trees in flood plains and in fire -prone regions. The species behaves the same in an urban environment and if cut down, the stump remains alive will resprout and grow branches in the spring. Tree species like red alder, willow and cottonwood are species that only rarely die when cut down to a stump. Historically coppicing was used to produce leafy animal forage, used as materials for basketry and kindling fires. In urban forestry today it is used to keep power line corridors and ski lifts clear of tall vegetation. Coppicing is a useful tool for reducing encroachment issues, giving slower growing desirable species increased access to resources like light and water, gains space for new plants to become established without killing the roots or needing to replant another plant in that location. On critical slopes, it is beneficial if the roots stay alive, do not begin to decay and do not stop holding the soil in place. Future maintenance is reduced because the plant can be managed from the ground instead of needing ladders to access and/or trained ISA Certified Arborists using tree climbing gear. To coppice a tree, or the coppicing of a tree, cannot be done to every species because not all will resprout once cut. It is a characteristic that trees have evolved to stay alive when flood, windstorm, landslide, or fire disturbances do damage. Snags refer to dead or partially alive trees that remain standing and provide essential bird perches, foraging opportunities and safe cover from predators and weather. Snags are more common in older forests but generally absent from the urban forest due to removal of old and veteran trees, dead trees, and dead wood. Landscape enhancement is one of the driving goals, so this plan has included the creation of both dead and living snags; 13 dead and 11 living. Living snags imitate trees broken in storms and can provide unique habitat features. Living snags can provide the most benefits to wildlife because the living structure provides foraging and nesting materials. The TRA Site maps L 102, L 103, L 104 and L 105 have the tree numbers labeled and are color coded with an identifying key visually representing the management action for every tree in the inventory. The tree inventory database and the TRA Site maps complement each other but highlight slightly different information. The database allows for the collection of numeric data about each tree and the ability to sort the data while the TRA Site maps visually describe the location, number, species, and management action. The TRA maps will be used by crews to systematically implement this plan (once approved) working methodically across the slope. Management action implementation has been broken into three phases to combine like tasks and to minimize the geographic area impacted at any one time. Similar tasks will be IN Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 37 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * completed so that the entire project can have an efficient process. Phase I, the first phase, will include all the removals, coppicing and, the creation of living and dead snag, plus 2 trees will be pruned for a total of 99 trees. As listed on page 9, there will be 45 trees removed, 28 coppiced, 24 snags created (11 left alive, 13 killed and left standing) and 2 big leaf maples pruned. Phase I activities have been changed so that the Wildlife Biologist's recommendations could be incorporated. The table below has been updated to show where the changes have been made. Healthy Red Alders have been kept, especially those along the property line outside of the monoculture area, and because of the benefit to individual wildlife of microhabitats, more wildlife snags will be created. In Phase I, PE's request is to remove 35 trees, create 31 wildlife snags, 22 trees will be coppiced, and 2 big leaf maples will be pruned. 19 Phase I - Removals by Species # Of Red Alder 3-6-26 Cedar 1 Fir 3 Scots Pine 5 Total 4-5 Phase I — Coppice by Species Cottonwood 6 Red Alder 2-2- Total 2822 Phase I — Wildlife Snags Living 4416 Dead 4-3 15 Total -24 31 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 38 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * n Phase I — Pruning Big Leaf Maple 2 Total 2 Phase I -Total 9990 r tan in 42 — if c nt 261 t t Table 1. There are 260 (1 is no loges d g # ou ed ) o al trees in the inventory and 90 will be modified during Phase I (34%). For the first part of this project, referred to as Phase I, 45 trees will be cut down, or removed, coppicing to 28 and pruning of the only 2 big leaf maples. These numbers have changed to incorporate Biologist and Citizen Scientist recommendations. It was important to retain some red alders, and create more living and dead wildlife snags for woodpeckers. In Phase II, there will be no removals or coppicing; instead, pruning will be done to modify the height, shape, structure and/or reduce the encroachment issues. The pruning will be done using known industry standards and proper pruning tools. Trees being pruned in Phases I and II are all desirable landscape elements that will require maintenance pruning again in the future. Pruning will occur to 76 trees in Phase II; 2 Douglas -fir and 3 western red cedar will be windowed; 26 Scots pine and 45 shore pine will be formally maintained in a Japanese garden style. The pruning is being done to preserve desirable species so that the health, structure, and longevity will be improved. In Phase II, we would like to prune 78 trees. A few Western Red Cedars were included because the encroachment issues are reducing health, and 2 precarious Scots Pine need to be removed and replaced to remove risk of failure during an extreme wet snowstorm. Phase II — Pruning by Species # Of Cedar 3 , Fir 2 Scots Pine � 24 Shore Pine 45 Total 76-78 Table 2. Phase II is only pruning. No removals, coppicing or wildlife snagging will be performed in Phase II, instead 76 trees will be pruned, selectively removing certain branches, to modify the height, shape, structure and/or reduce encroachment issues. Pruning is done to retain valuable trees in the landscape into the future. The Pines need to be pruned to improve the structure during wet snowstorm events when those two species of Pine are known to break and/or fall -over under the extra load. The Western Red Cedar and the Douglas -firs need to be pruned to improve health because encroachment is reducing the vigor from lack of growing space. 20 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 39 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Pruning is an umbrella term that covers all styles of trimming trees and shrubs. Shearing, hedging, selectively removing branches, height reduction, candling, windowing, Japanese style, and shaping are all types of pruning. Proper pruning has a structural goal in mind and all cuts work to strengthen that goal. Shearing and hedging are done in the formal grounds at PE to maintain hedges and foundation shrubs, but it must be done once or twice a year and repeated every year to be successful. Windowing selectively removes certain branches to allow for more light, air and/or lightens up a certain portion of the canopy. Japanese style pruning has been developed over the centuries and includes bonsai trees. Opened 60 years ago, the Seattle Japanese Garden showcases all the many pruning styles listed above (h!Ltps://www.seattlejapanesegarden.org/about-us-index). The American National Standards Institute (ANSI A300 — Tree Care Industry Protocols) lists in detail the minimum standards for acceptable tree pruning, removal, cabling and bracing and retention during construction. The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) proctors the ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessors Certification Programs. Wildlife snagging, coppicing and other ecological forestry techniques were researched and developed during the Spotted Owl recovery years and in response to fire ecology and management. Ecological forestry methods have been successfully used for decades at the Cedar River Watershed; the watershed that provides two-thirds of the water to King County (https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/protecting_- our-environment/our-water-sources/cedar-river-watershed/education-center). Once Phase I has been completed, planting needs to occur as soon as possible to prevent unwanted weedy species from colonizing, to prevent any soil erosion and to get the planned landscape established. Our replanting plan will increase the species diversity, stand structure and wildlife foraging opportunities while also gaining in attractiveness through time by using a mixture of different trees, shrubs- large, medium and low -growing, perennial- and evergreen - ferns, and evergreen groundcover. We will adhere to the rules set by the COE for best management practices (BMPs) regarding storm water erosion control management techniques. PE will implement erosion control methods after Phase I is completed to minimize erosion and sediments from rainfall runoff at the areas where tree will be modified and identify, reduce, and prevent the pollution to runoff and stormwater. BMPs for stabilization include mulching the ground with straw, wood chips, or jute mats, covering any stockpiled soil with plastic, and finally by reserving existing vegetation. No large machinery or excavation equipment will be used at any time. This project will be completed using manual labor using hand-held tools. If a wood -chipper is used, it will be parked on the flat access road and debris will be dragged to the chipper (for example in areas where replanting needs to occur). The replanting plan will need to start once Phase I has been completed, and it should be done using known standards and best management practices for planting on a slope. Planting should occur as soon as possible after completing Phase I, to be done at a time when new plants will have the best chance of success. Plants are alive, so it is not ideal to transport and install them during the very hot/very dry summer months or in the winter if soils are frozen. Because the work is on a slope, no planting should occur during the wettest times of year when the soil is heavy and saturated with water. The ideal timing for installing this planting plan is likely to be from late February to early May and again from early September to mid -November. The final decision should be made closer to the actual time of installation. 21 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 40 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Two TRA maps have been enhanced to show where existing inventoried trees will be and where new plants are to be installed in relation to the existing (Exhibit 4). A worksheet, named "Replanting", located in the tree inventory excel database, lists the plant type (tree, shrub, fern, and groundcover), botanical and common names, quantity to be installed, expected available size, and the specifications for proper spacing apart from other plants. Phase III- New Plants # of Trees 45 Lg Shrubs 48 Med Shrubs 61 Low Shrubs 92 Ferns 90 Groundcovers 126 Total 462 Table 3. Forty-five trees will be planted along with 201 shrubs (Lg, med and low combined), 90 ferns and 126 groundcovers. The complete replanting list is in the tree inventory excel database. The worksheet named Replanting lists the type, size and number to be installed. Native plant species will be used because both Wildlife Biologist Andrew Rossi and Citizen Scientist Scott Markowitz described the benefits of native plant species for Edmonds's wildlife. Native plant species are also beneficial because they tend to be better adapted to the seasonal weather patterns and so production of flowers and fruit is better timed with wildlife reproductive strategies. Since 45 trees must be removed, 45 new trees have been selected to be planted (Table 4) But because trees alone do not make a successful forest community, 417 additional plants will also be planted (Table 3); 48 large, 61 medium, and 92 low shrubs, 126 groundcover and 90 ferns. Our landscape modifications will positively change the current plant community by increasing species diversity and visual interest, canopy coverage sizes and shapes. It will increase wildlife habitat through more foraging, nesting, and cover for resting. 22 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 41 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Only 35 trees are now proposed for removal, but there is not going to be a change to the numbers in the replanting plan. More shrubs than trees have been chosen on purpose because they can offer the lowest maintenance with the most wildlife habitat features (flowers, fruit, safety, nesting). In addition, the landscape is already densely vegetated, and this work is being done to keep the existing landscape intact. Work will be done around retained trees and shrubs, and outside of expected nesting season to improve the landscape for wildlife, the public and PE residents alike. Tree Common Name Quantity Size Amur Maple 3 1.25" Standard Vine Maple 2 7gal Pacific Fire Vine Maple 3 7gal Sunglow Vine Maple 5 7gal Obelisk Serviceberry 1 1.25" Regent Serviceberry 8 7gal Pagoda Dogwood 5 1.25" Cherokee Brave Dogwood 5 111 Little Poncho Dwarf Kousa Dogwood 7 7gal Black Dragon Cryptomeria 3 7gal Jane Pratt Star Magnolia 3 1.25" Table 4. Eleven different tree varieties, from eight unique tree species, will be replanted to increase the species diversity from four species to eight. 23 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 42 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021* PHASE III — PLANT LIST Please Refer to the Revegetation Maps: L102, E33-E42 and L104, E3-E8 Scientific Common Symbol Type Name Name Quantities Size Spacing Trees: Dogwood era Fee VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple 'Sunglow' 2 7g 10o.c. VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple 'Pacific Fire 3 7g 10' o.c. A Tree Amelanchier Serviceberry 'Regent' 3 7g 10' o.c. B Tree Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 3 8' 15' o.c. C Tree Cornus Kousa x nuttallii Eddies white wonder 6 10g 12' o.c. C Tree Cornus Kousa x nuttallii Dogwood Venus 6 6' toT 15' o.c. Bu Tree Rhamus p. Cascara Buckthorn 8 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata Excelsa Cedar 7 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata Hogan Hogan Red Cedar 7 7g 10' o.c. Shrubs: M Large Shrub Mock Orange Philadelphus 'lewisii' 8 5g 6' o.c. I Large Shrub Ribes S. Currant 17 5g 6' o.c. H Large Shrub Vaccinium 'ovatum' Evergreen Huckleberry 23 3g 6' o.c. O Medium Shrub Mahonia 'aquifolium' Oregon Grape 12 2g 4.5' o.c. R Medium Shrub Rhododendron Rhodendron 15 5g 4.5' o.c. S Medium Shrub Symphoricarpos Snowberry 25 2g 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Cornus 'Sericea' Red Osier Dogwood 5 5g 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Cornus 'Sanguinea' Mid -winter Fire 4 5g 4.5' o.c. Low Shrub Mahonia 'nervosa' Oregon Grape 27 1g 2 o.c. Low Shrub Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Blechnum spicant Deer Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Polystichum minutum Sword Fern 30 1g 3' o.c. Groundcover Arctostaphylos Kinnickinnick 126 4" 2 o.c. Groundcover Gaultheria shallon Salal 65 1g 2 o.c. E Existing Trees Existing Low Shrubs/Groundcover Polystichum minutum/Sword fern = 42 existing throughout E3-E8 Blue Font indicates new plant species being used based on wildlife considerations. Many of the originally proposed plants were natives, and are being kept as indicated by the black font with no strike through. Black font with strike through plants will not be used. 01 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 43 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * IV. Goals and Definitions IV.A. Goals We have identified six goals as the primary drivers for this project. Maintaining slope stability and integrity into the future is primary. Secondary and tertiary goals include improving the landscape diversity and maintaining view corridors from public viewpoints. Using best management practices and industry standards while building a relationship of trust between COE and PE are the fourth and fifth goals, respectively. Finally, to preserve and maintain future use of site benefits, action needs to take place now. The final goal is to use foresight to increase landscape benefits now and into the future. The integrity of the slope is paramount for many reasons. There have been no large landslides or patches of erosion on the west or north slopes. The west slope was revegetated 15 years ago, and the north slope was not in the section where revegetation occurred. We believe the slope integrity will not be compromised because modifications will be done in the proper season using methods to avoid soil disruption or exposure. The PE residents enjoy walking through the PE grounds on trails and walking paths. A sustainable landscape, thoughtfully designed, is also possible on a slope. The 2020 Geo-Technical Report (Exhibit 5) felt that the methods and proposed design using trees and shrubs to hold the soil in place would not adversely impact other properties, other critical areas, and would sufficiently mitigate hazards to be equal to, or less than, predevelopment conditions. The north slope is within 500 feet of the Edmonds Marsh. To improve the habitat for humans and wildlife, primarily birds, modifications to improve the plant species diversity and structure are proposed. The north slope acts as a buffer between PE formal grounds and the adjacent south edge of the Chevron properties currently covered in dense red alder groves. The focus of the second goal is to improve the species diversity and structural habitat characteristics. Replacement with a mixture of maples, dogwoods, and serviceberries along with a diverse array of shrubs, ferns and groundcovers will replace 45 trees that only offered structure; but no flowers, fruits, or groundcover. The alder monoculture only offered one type of structure. Some trees will be converted into standing wildlife snags to provide structural diversity. Many birds such as woodpeckers and chickadees use cavities excavated out of wildlife snags to nest and reproduce. Increasing the structural opportunities with planting a variety of flowering and fruiting plants can provide additional habitat opportunities for resident birds, and/or birds using the marsh. Improving habitat opportunities and plant diversity at PE for the greater benefit of the unique Edmonds Marsh was further cemented after the meeting with SOM Citizen Scientists and representatives. While this project may cause an initial disturbance, over time the landscape will offer more possible habitat for avian species that use the Edmonds Marsh by increasing the number of native species on the north slope. More microhabitats will be created by creating new pockets in established landscape features, by mixing in wildlife snags with flowering, coniferous, small, medium and tall trees and shrubs. In the Red Alder and English Ivy monoculture patch, 25 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 44 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * planting a diversity of other native species will create a landscape tapestry connecting site and wildlife. The City of Edmonds is rightfully referred to as a "Gem of a City" because of its beautiful views, public beaches, ferry system and marina, marsh habitat and urban forests. The third goal of this permit is to start the maintenance of the view corridors as seen from the public viewpoints and as viewed along the public walkway. The view north shows the Edmonds marsh and Cascade Mountains, and the west view is toward the Puget Sound, Edmonds Ferry and the Olympic Mountains. PE maintains the access to public overlooks and public walkways but the view from these required public amenities gets more compromised every year. View corridor maintenance will be done using pruning techniques, or by selective tree removal with subsequent replacement of a shorter statured species. The work will be done so that the view is framed by natural and attractive looking trees. No topping of trees for view is proposed in this project. Instead methods like windowing for coniferous trees and drop crotch pruning to reduce deciduous trees will keep view corridors open. A fourth goal was to develop a plan that uses methods developed from best available science and tested and shown to work. The west slope of PE was converted into native shrubs and coppiced maple trees more than 15 years ago. The slope has since then been successfully maintained using pruning with small diameter cuts to keep shore pine short, the shrubs low and bushy, and to keep the maples shrubby. The plantings have grown and thrived. Invasive species, with the exception in some areas of bird dispersed Himalayan blackberry, are not able to get established in the dense planting. Methods used for west slope implementation, monitoring, and maintenance will be the same ones used to manage proposed north slope actions. A fifth goal is developing a relationship built on trust between the PE Owners Association, the COE planning and development department and the Edmonds Design Review Board. Point Edwards is owned by numerous Condo owners and the landscape is managed by a maintenance team. The developer responsible for creating any negative situations related to development with the COE is not involved anymore. The PEOA Board acts in good faith and has strived to develop a plan that will comply with COE goals, uses known industry standards and best available science, and will improve habitat diversity and structure while maintaining future use of view corridors from public viewpoints. Constant communication between Landscape Manager Bel Johnson and COE senior planner Kernen Lien over the past 10 years has developed a relationship between PE and COE that we want to cement into a foundation of trust regarding the landscape maintenance procedures at PE. After the onsite meeting with the Save Our Marsh group, we look forward to maintaining the rapport established between PE and the Edmonds Marsh representatives. PE provides special public access walkways, and viewpoints that provide unique views into the Edmonds Marsh. PE wants to be able to responsibly manage the landscape from now through forever, and looks forward to working with COE and SOM to be good stewards of the land. This permit request has been guided by the above goals, using past experiences and successful methods to establish the proposed actions. Point Edwards plans to exist into perpetuity and to care for the PE landscapes forever. The final goal of this project is a successful future and 26 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 45 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * a plan to manage the landscape into perpetuity. A thriving future landscape, with increased plant diversity and wildlife habitat opportunities that can maintain slope stability, and slightly open view corridors from public viewpoints of the marsh and ferry will mean the many goals of this plan have been met. W.B. Definitions Actions — Once this plan is approved then the management actions can be implemented. The pruning, wildlife snagging, or removal of a tree is considered a management action and is referred to as an Action in the Detailed Actions section V. Adaptive Management — Is a process for improving management policies and practices by using past experiences to guide future outcomes. The process of monitoring indicates whether goals are being met and asks, "if goals are being met how can the next actions be improved upon in order to exceed the goals?". If goals are not being met, then it is a process of noticing that an improvement in methods is needed so predetermined goals can still be achieved in the future. Areas — The measurable extent of a piece of land. This project has four areas that comprise the north slope that are just based on the corresponding four TRA maps. Area One corresponds to the area outlined by map L 102, Area Two corresponds to L 103, Area Three to L 104, and Area Four to L 105. Caliper — Rather than relying only on height or canopy width, caliper measures the diameter of the trunk at a given height. Caliper usually refers to small statured trees while diameter at breast height is used for larger trees. Breast height is measured at 4.5-ft above the ground, while caliper is usually measured above the root crown where a trunk enters the soil. Canopy Coverage — Refers to the soil area shaded out by the leaves, branches, and twigs of plant material. It is commonly expressed as a percentage of ground covered by overhanging by the vertical projections of plant cover. The force and weight of precipitation is intercepted and slowed by leaves, branches, and bark. Canopy coverage is a measure of the amount of plant cover over soil. Citizen Scientist — An interested, educated, and knowledgeable naturalist that volunteers their time to observe and record wildlife rather than be retained formally or work ongoing as an expert. Many citizen scientists have higher educations in natural sciences, or come from experienced environmental backgrounds. As formal funding sources get cut, citizen scientist groups are critical to maintaining databases and keeping ongoing survey programs going. Coppicing Pruning — A pruning method that cuts a tree or shrub down to a tall stump relying on the capacity of the stump to survive and push out new shoots because of known species characteristics. Historically trees were coppiced to produce sprouts for basketry or for firewood. Coppicing in this project promotes slope stability while keeping the stumps maintainable from the ground using common methods rather than technical tree climbing skills. Keeping the stump alive keeps the roots alive, which holds the soil in place. Coppiced trees can be pruned 27 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 46 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * periodically and maintained like large shrubs. Replanting cannot occur where a coppiced tree grows because the coppiced tree remains and keeps growing occupying the space. Crown Reduction Pruning — The selective removal of live branches back to lateral junctions in order to decrease the height or width of a tree canopy. Uses the natural junctions and known biology for the species. Crown reduction is done to reduce height to make more windfirm on a slope or to open up selected view corridors. The reduction method is referred to as drop crotch pruning. Drop Crotch Pruning — Selective removal of a branch by cutting back to a crotch created by a lateral branch. This technique is used to reduce the size of a tree canopy while still leaving the tree with a natural tree shape (not hedged or topped into a flat line). Encroachment — Occurs by gradual steps as one plant grows into the growing space or resources of an adjacent plant. The advantage in access to resources, hardier biomass, increasing cover and/or density puts them in competition with neighbors. Encroachment can occur below ground, at ground level or in the air between plants. Desirable plants may be slower growing and need protection from faster growing neighbors. Pruning and/or canopy removals due to encroachment are done to protect a more valuable plant or grouping of plants. Elevation — Height of a given point above sea level as measured with a handheld global positioning system (GPS). Invasive Species — Plants or animals that are not native to a given location, and that have the ability to spread and reproduce, outcompeting native species to a degree that can cause damage to the economy, environment or human health if left unmanaged. Longevity Potential - A subjective measurement depending on the sum of the known species characteristics, position in relation to slope, encroachment impacts on other trees/landscape features and long-term permanence likelihood. Monoculture — A forestry term that refers to a stand of trees that are all the same species. There is little diversity in a monoculture. The red alder monoculture at PE is also about the same age and size so does not offer much age or structural diversity. Some monocultures, like the red alders at PE, do not allow understory plants to become established because the canopy coverage is so dense, not enough light, or precipitation gets to the forest floor. Conditions can remain that way for decades; until the monoculture ages, matures and begins to die out, no new plants can get established. Nesting Season — Based on WDFW management recommendations, the expected nesting season for great blue herons is from mid -February through August, though starting and ending times may vary. The nesting season is the time for a pair of birds to raise young to a point that the young are mature and able to leave the nest. Minimally invasive routine trimming work may take place near the buildings from March to September with monitoring for nests and using handheld tools. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 47 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Noxious Weeds — Have been designated by a governing agency as a plant that is injurious to agricultural or horticultural crops, causes damage to natural habitats or ecosystems, or can -do harm to humans, livestock, or wild animals if touched or ingested. The City of Edmonds lists the clearing of noxious weeds using hand tools as an exempt activity because it is known to be beneficial. Noxious weeds do not recognize property lines and if not cleared or controlled, they can spread. Phases — A distinct period when events will happen within a larger process of change and development. Our project is for the north slope and is broken into Phases: I, II and III. Phase I includes the removals, coppicing, wildlife snag creations, and pruning the only two big leaf maples. Phase II will be pruning. Phase III will be the replanting to offset the removals performed in Phase I. Pruning — The selective removal of specific twigs, branches or stems. Proper pruning works with the form and growth habit of the plant species being worked on. Pruning is done to alter the height, width, shape or reduce encroachment. Japanese style pruning and thinning is an artistic method of fine pruning done to maintain a certain constrained proportion. Crown reduction, as defined above, is a goal of pruning. Drop crotch style pruning removing material back to a living lateral is a method of pruning to achieve crown reduction. Revegetation — The process of reintroducing plant material after a site clearing has occurred. Desirable plant species will be chosen because they are suited to the microclimate of the site conditions. The soil will be mulched around the plants to hold it in place, keep in soil moisture, break down into nutrients and replace some of the natural debris from the previous vegetation. Our removal mitigation plan is called Revegetation because we are removing plants so that we can replace them with other species. Slope — Is the measure of change in elevation points. The difference between points in elevation is the rise. The run is the distance between the points. Percent slope is equal to rise divided by run multiplied by 100. TRA Maps — This refers to the four maps created by Thomas Rengstorf and Associates named L 102, L 103, L 104, L 105 and L 106. Map L 106 is of the west slope, does not have a tree inventory, is not having work done in this permit, but was included to show that while this project will cause some disturbance, the vast majority of the PE landscape is vegetated and will not be altered as part of this north slope permit III -A application. Please refer to Exhibit 2: Maps. Tree Removal — The physical structure of the tree is cut down and dismantled so that it is no longer standing. The trunk may or may not be hauled off -site. Tree removal refers to the act of cutting down the tree. Tree removal can be performed on a living or standing dead tree. Wildlife Snags, Live or Dead — Snags are a forestry term referring to standing dying or dead trees that occur naturally or can also be man-made. Snags that fall over onto the forest floor then become large woody debris. Most dead wood is removed from the urban environment, yet numerous forestry studies indicate that many species of birds and wildlife require standing dead trees to nest, reproduce and perch. Living wildlife snags are not completely dead but have a dead 29 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 48 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * top and living branches underneath still growing out of the trunk or from the base of the trunk. Snags will be created during Phase I. Windowing — Pruning by selectively removing only very -specific branches to open up a very limited part of a canopy to allow limited visibility through the tree. V. Detailed Actions V.A. TRA Maps, Tree Inventory Database & Management Actions The vegetation and trees on the north slope of Point Edwards are shown over four TRA maps, each with specific map locations to easily reference the position for every tree (Exhibit 2: Maps). The original four TRA maps have been updated so that each tree has its tree inventory number and is color coded with its management action. Each of the four TRA maps has map locations, which provide a systematic grid for easy slope location reference. Map locations are numbered grid lines, spaced about 30- to 40-ft apart, and used to segment the slope. Map L106 (Exhibit 2: Maps) shows the west slope where no new work is proposed, and no areas will be altered as part of this north slope permit III -A application. Map L106 has only been included to show that the entire PE slope is vegetated, and most will not be changed. The north slope is a long but narrow piece of landscape that ends at the fenced property line shared with adjacent owner, Chevron Corporation. Four TRA maps describe the vegetation of the north slope; L 105, L 104, L 103, L 102. It is on TRA map L 105 that the slope changes from west slope (designated with a W in the map locations) to the north slope (designated by an E before the map location). Each TRA map has been further broken down into map locations to systematically map to scale (1-in= 20-ft). TRA map L105 includes map locations W9-W1, E1- E2. Most of the tree work in this permit is in TRA map L104. L104 has map locations E3-E14 and includes the detention pond and the vegetated slope above the pond. TRA map L 103 has map locations E 15-E32 and includes some areas vegetated with grass and shrubs instead of trees. TRA map L102 ends by the maintenance shop and sidewalk and has map locations E33-E43. In order to organize the management of the north slope trees now and into the future, a tree inventory was created (Exhibit 3: Plant Lists). This tree inventory is our management tool to gather and sort information for every tree big enough to sustain having a metal tag installed. The tree inventory contains a column of the following information for each tree: TRA Map, map location on the TRA map, the tree number, the tree species, the height of the tree, the elevation the tree is located at on the slope, the caliper or diameter of the tree at breast height or at the tree tag for very small trees. Then the columns in the inventory get into the recommended management actions: should the tree be removed, snagged, pruned or monitored for now. Based on the yes, column L is the management action that has been color coded onto the four, north slope TRA maps. The management action was based on the reasoning listed in column M, combined with the species, and map location. Column P concludes the inventory listing the desired Phase for the timing of the work. 30 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 49 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * The management actions have been color coded on the four, north slope TRA maps. The maps really serve two purposes; submitting as part of this permit to visually indicate desired management actions, as well as once approved, copies of these or similar maps will be used to enact this plan in the field. Please note, coppiced trees are counted as a removal in this permit but not color coded like a removal because the tree is expected to resprout, live and be retained in the landscape. New plants can't be planted on top of coppiced trees. The management actions are color coded on the TRA maps as follows: removals where the tree is not expected to resprout are colored red, coppicing, or removals where the tree is expected to resprout and be retained are colored blue, trees to be pruned are green, snags to be retained alive are yellow, snags that are dead are gray, trees pruned previously are maroon, while trees to be monitored and pruned in the future are orange. The work will be performed in three parts, referred to as Phases, where like tasks will be performed together. This will allow tree work to proceed in an efficient manner and the landscape change can be spread out slowly across the landscape. The three Phases are: Phase I will include the removals (45), coppicing (28), and creation of live (11) and dead (13) wildlife snags plus pruning the only two big leaf maples. Phase I tree work has been supplemented and changed to incorporate Wildlife Biologist recommendations. 35 removals, 31 wildlife snags, and 22 coppiced trees are now being proposed. This project could cause short term disruption, but then long-term benefits are expected to increase into the future. Once approved, Phase I work would start on TRA Map L 105 because of encroachment and risk issues, then move across L104, then to L103, and then in L102 ending by the Maintenance Office. Phase I removal, coppicing, wildlife snagging and pruning will be done outside of the nesting season and outside of extreme winter storm events. Phase I will be done first because to be done with the largest disruption so that replanting and Phase II pruning can occur. The Wildlife Biologist advised it was better to perform the most disruptive activities together so that wildlife use can resume during Phases II and III. Phase II will include the pruning of -76 78 trees. Once Phase I might be completed, then Phase II would begin cycling back to L 105 and moving through L 104, L 103, and L 102. During Phase II, ongoing routine maintenance will also be performed as needed in the map location being worked on. Once Phase II pruning might be completed, then Phase III, the installation of the replacement plants can begin. The plant community replacement in Phase III not only offsets biologic loss from removals, and coppicing but it is also our chance to add more diversity and ecological benefit to the landscape for future generations. Replanting, or Phase III is the installation of the new plant community. Successful plantings need water to survive and thrive, so the plantings are grouped together as a plant community rather than scattered as isolated trees that would require more resources to irrigate and get established. It takes a mixture of sizes and species to create a forest community, so our plan includes planting groundcovers, ferns, and low-, medium- and large -shrubs to mature with the new trees. Phase III will install 45 trees, 48 large shrubs, 61 medium shrubs, 92 low shrubs, 90 ferns and 126 groundcovers to offset the biologic loss from removals (45), and coppicing (28). Please give some ecological credit to the addition of wildlife snags (24) and please do not 31 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 50 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * require a strict tree to tree replacement ratio. Instead let a community of many sizes and species be installed and get established. The replanting plan has been designed to improve on the retained and existing features in the project site. Opening some holes through removal and coppicing could cause short term disturbance. In the long-term, keeping existing trees healthy can provide more structural layers and will increase overall habitat possibilities. Replacing a cone bearing wind pollinated species like Red Alder with many species that offer various shapes and seasonal timings can provide habitats for native pollinators and insects too. V.B. Detailed Work Description by TRA Map, Map Location & Phase There are four TRA Maps for the north slope; L 102, L 103, L 104 and L 105. Each TRA Map is further broken down into map locations. TRA Map L102 is near the maintenance office and Pine Street while L105 is the section that curves and changes to the west slope below building 51. The map location numbering begins at the curve from west to north slope in TRA Map L 105 and the map locations end at Pine Street on Map L 102. Tree work for the entire project will be described in this document but it is also shown on the enclosed TRA Maps (Exhibit 2) and in the tree inventory. Trees 468-485 do not have clear map locations, so are designated simply with L104 and the area is referred to as being above the retention pond in L104 (Exhibit 3). The work will be done in three management Phases, referred to as I, II, or III. Phase I includes the removals, coppicing, wildlife snagging and pruning of the only two big leaf maples. Phase II is new pruning and repeated maintenance pruning. Phase III is the replanting plan to offset the tree removals. Most of the branches and debris from the work will be left on the slope to decompose slowly. However, in those areas where replanting will occur, the material will be moved so new plants can be planted. It would be best to chip up excess debris, so it can be used as mulch for the new Phase III plantings. Phase III is visually depicted on two TRA style maps that have been overlaid with the replanting plan; L 104 Revegetation Plan and L 102 Revegetation Plan (Exhibit 4). Most of the trees being removed are due to encroachment and competition issues with desirable, existing trees and shrubs that will be retained. PE would like to install a lower tree replanting ratio than is written into code but that is only because many shrubs, groundcovers and ferns will also be installed, not just trees. We want the "right plant, in the right place" and want the new and retained plants to have space to grow and develop without having to thin in the future due to overcrowding or have plant mortality because of shading and encroachment. Retained trees, wildlife snags and coppiced trees, are all long-term anchors in the landscape, and they also need space to grow or exist. New trees need room to expand, grow larger and so proper planting space has been planned with forethought. Please allow the landscape to become a community of plants and not just require a certain number of trees to be installed. 32 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 51 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Detailed Landscape Work: 33 • TRA Map L402: Map Locations E43-E33: Tree Numbers 1-48 Phase I: Create 4 dead wildlife snags (colored gray on map): Tree #s: 22, 28, 29, 42. Phase II: Prune 18 trees (green on map): Tree #s: 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 32, 34-41, 43, 44, 46, 47. Phase III: Replant 25 trees; 3 Magnolia, 5 Amelanchier, 5 Vine Maple, 12 Dogwood. No Action: Monitor 25 trees that require no management action (orange on map): Tree #s 1-10, 13, 16-21, 23-27, 31, 33, 48. TRA Map L102: Map Locations E43-E33: Tree Numbers 1-48 Phase I: No Actions. Retaining healthy Red Alders # 28, 29 and dead trees #22, 42. Phase II: Prune 18 trees: No changes to original proposal. Tree #s: 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 32, 34-41, 43, 44, 46, 47. No Action: Monitor 27 living trees Tree #s 1-10, 13, 16-21, 23-29, 31, 33, 48. TRA Map L103: Map Locations E32-E15: Tree Numbers 48-84 Phase I: Create 2 wildlife snags; Tree # 56 (Alive -Yellow on map), Tree #79 (Dead -Gray on map). Prune 2 Big Leaf Maples (blue/green on map) -Tree #s 81, 82. Phase II: Prune 15 trees (green on map): Tree #s: 48-53, 55, 57-59, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70. Phase II: Perform repeat pruning 18 trees or just monitor: Tree #s 54, 60, 63, 64, 66-68, 71-78, 80, 83, 84. Phase III: No replanting planned in the area between E32 and E 15. TRA MAP L 103 - No changes were necessary to Phases I, II or III in L 103 based on Wildlife Biologist recommendations. • TRA Map L104: Map Locations E14-E3 and Area Above Retention Pond: Tree #s 85- 187 plus #s 468-485 located above the retention pond. Phase I: Remove 40 trees (colored red on map): Tree #s: 113-116, 125, 126, 128, 137- 139, 144, 145, 147, 149-152, 154-157, 159, 162-166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180, 186, 469-471, 474, 485. Phase I: Coppice 13 trees (blue on map): Tree #s: 109-112, 117-119, 127, 129, 132, 134, 135, 184. Phase I: Create 14 wildlife snags: Living snags (yellow on map) Tree #s: 124, 140, 141, 148, 179, 182. Dead Tree (gray on map) #s: 120, 121, 131, 133, 161, 171, 181, 183, 185. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 52 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * 34 Phase II: Prune 30 trees (green on map): Tree #s: 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 105-108, 122, 123, 130, 136, 142, 143, 153, 160, 167, 170, 174, 177, 187, 468, 472, 473, 475, 477, 486. Phase II: Repeat pruning to 13 trees (maroon) if needed or just monitor: Tree #s: 85-87, 90, 93-95, 98, 100-104. Phase III: Plant 437 new plants. Plant 20 trees; 3 Amur Maple, 5 Vine Maple, 4 Amelanchier, 5 Dogwood, 3 Cryptomeria. Plant 226, low, medium and large sized shrubs; 8 Mock Orange, 17 Currants, 23 Evergreen Huckleberry, 39 Oregon Grape, 15 Rhododendrons, 25 Snowberry, 9 Viburnum, 90 ferns, and 191 Groundcovers; 126 Kinnickinnick, 65 Salal. No Action: Monitor 3 trees that require no management action (orange on map): Tree #s: 146, 158, 175. TRA Map L104: Map Locations E14-E3 and Area Above Retention Pond: Tree #s 85- 187 plus #s 468-485 located above the retention pond. Phase I: Remove 31 trees: Tree #s 113-116, 125, 126, 128, 137-139, 144, 145, 147, 150, 154-156, 159, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 178, 186, 469, 470, 471, 485, 486 Phase I: Coppice 13 [No changes] Phase I: Create 23 wildlife snags: Living Snags Tree #s: #56, 124, 140, 141, 148, 152, 161, 162, 164, 171, 182, 190, 192, 203, 218, 224. Dead Snags Tree #s: 79, 120, 121, 131, 133, 149, 151, 157, 163, 165, 180, 181, 183, 185, 195. Phase II: Prune 28 trees: Tree #s: 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 105-108, 122, 123, 130, 136, 142, 143, 153, 160, 167, 170, 174, 187, 468, 473, 475, 477, 486. Phase II: Repeat pruning to 13 trees [No Change] No Action: Monitor 4 living trees #s 146, 158, 175, 179. And 2 trees that have died. Tree #s: 177, 472 • TRA Map L105: Map Locations E1, E2, WI-W10. Tree Inventory Ends at W8. Tree #s 188-250. Phase I: Remove 5 trees (red): Tree #s: 203, 207, 210, 220, 222. Phase I: Coppice 15 trees (blue): Tree #s: 188-191, 194, 196, 201, 204, 211, 245-250. Phase I: Create 5 wildlife snags: 4 Living snags (yellow) Tree #s 192, 202, 218, 224. 1 Dead snag (gray) Tree #: 195. Phase II: Prune 13 trees (green): Tree #s: 199, 206, 208, 209, 212, 215, 223, 227-230, 234, 241. Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 53 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Phase II: Repeat pruning to 6 trees (maroon): Tree #s: 231-233, 242-244. Phase III: No replanting in this area. No Action: Monitor 19 trees that require no management action (orange): Tree #s: 193, 197, 198, 200, 205, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 225, 226, 235-240. TRA Map L 105: Map Locations E 1, E2, W 1-W 10. Tree Inventory Ends at W8. Tree #s 188-250. Phase I: Remove 4 trees: Tree #s: 207, 210, 220, 222. Phase I: Coppice: 9 trees: Tree #s: 188, 189, 204, 245-250. Phase I: Create 6 Wildlife Snags: 5 Living Snags #s 190, 192, 203, 218, 224. 1 Dead Snag # 195. Phase II: Prune 17 trees: Tree #s: 197-200, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 215, 223, 227-230, 234, 241. Phase II: No Changes to repeat pruning to 6 trees (maroon): Tree #s: 231-233, 242-244. Phase III: No Changes; No replanting in this area. This area being managed for density and encroachment. No Action: Monitor 21 trees that require no management action: Tree #s: 191, 193, 194, 196, 201, 202, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 225, 226, 235-240. Upon completion of all the above listed work, then five years of monitoring and reporting to COE will begin. Minor pruning and general landscape clean-up work will need to take place on the north slope during the five years of monitoring and into perpetuity. The PE landscape will have grown, experienced seasonal changes, and been impacted by storms and/or drought events. Please allow PE to be able to repeat maintenance -pruning to trees on the north slope pruned as part of this project, planted as part of this project, pruned before this project started, or being monitored but not pruned during this project. Any pruning maintenance schedules would first be shared in a memo with COE, and then it would be described in the next monitoring report after being performed. Only work meeting the COE exemption criteria would be performed, such as fine pruning to reduce encroachment, fine pruning to shape structure, prevent storm failures and/or maintain size. This would apply only to pruning and would never include removals of trees greater than 4", or coppicing new trees, or disturbing any areas greater than 1500-sq-ft to clear invasives, at one time. The plan to manage coppiced trees will first monitor and with any retrimming to be done before sprouts reach 4" diameter, from the ground using handheld gas -powered tools. When trimming is needed the largest sprouts are to be removed while the younger sprouts are retained to keep in the juvenile growth stage. 35 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 54 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * Any work intent will be described with proper notification to COE describing location, tree number, size of pruning cuts and amount to be cut. Please allow ongoing management so maintenance can be less intensive, performed with handheld tools and not requiring arborist tree climbers. Most of the trimmed plant material will be left on site, diced up so it will lay flat and not pose a threat or risk movement. However, in areas to be replanted, the largest wood will be left on site while the smaller wood and branches will be chipped up, and the wood chips retained to be used to mulch the new plants. The retained wood will be allowed to decay naturally releasing moisture and nutrients slowly into the ground, while holding the soil in place. The wood chips will be spread to mulch the new tree rings after planting. Care will be taken to water and keep out of direct sun all the new plants being held for installation. For the two areas being replanted in L102 and L104, invasive species will be removed, the soil will be amended, existing shrubs, ferns and/or groundcovers will be retained, pruned to reduce encroachment, or moved to another location, and plants will be mulched after planting. On any areas where the slope is greater than 15-20%, erosion fabric secured with staples, pins and/or rebar will be installed under the mulch. Native plants will represent about 80% of the new plants but using the best management practice of "right plant, right place" means a few non-native species are also good choices. Soil will be amended and fertilized during planting to give new plants the best possible future. Trees and shrubs will have an organic fertilizer applied annually to boost soil nutrients. Once planted, mulch will be applied to cover the soil and protect the roots. Each plant shall receive a 2-foot diameter ring of mulch to a height of 2 to 3 inches above the existing soil surface with a 2-4-inch diameter ring that has about 0.5 to 1 inch touching the trunk (like a donut around the plant instead of a mulch volcano pushed up against the trunk). Wood chips from trimmed branches or naturally downed branches are best. From March through October, unwanted weeds will be removed monthly. Irrigation will be adjustable so that it can be turned off during periods of rain and decreased over the 5-year monitoring term as establishment is occurring. All irrigation for the designated revegetation areas will be tied into the main PE irrigation system and the system will be on automatic timers. PE staff will check system about once per week to ensure irrigation amount and frequency is providing necessary coverage. Information about changes in irrigation will be included in the monitoring reports. There is already irrigation below building 51 that waters the formal grounds, and the new plants irrigation system will be added to include the new plantings. Changes have been made to the work being done to individual trees, but there has been no change to the management standards. This project will perform the work to the highest management standards during implementation. 36 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 55 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * VI. Next Steps — Monitoring Monitoring Performance Standards: Year 1: 100% survival of planted species with no greater than 10% coverage of invasive species. Year 2: 90% survival of planted species with no greater than 15% coverage of invasive species. Year 3: 90% survival of planted species with no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species. Year 4: 85% survival of planted species with no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species. Year 5: 80% survival of planted species with no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species. During project implementation, PE will send memos to COE stating when Phases are starting, when Phases are completed, detailing any challenges and successes, stating next steps and/or requesting inspections. Before starting the 5-year monitoring period, City approval of a successfully completed project is required. Once monitoring starts, detailed reports will be submitted once a year, while during the year memos will be sent if anything has occurred to report. This will allow adaptive management to occur during the year with an annual detailed summary for the year's performance presented for COE to review so they can best guide the next year. Annual Monitoring Period Reports shall be submitted by a date to be set with COE once the project is successfully completed. Annual Monitoring Reports will include the following: brief project summary, annual update of project, location and timing of any work, tree numbers or new species involved, any dead plant replacements, pruning or clean-up work summary, current year of monitoring standards and expectations of meeting standards, and adaptive management actions to be taken to meet or exceed performance standards for the next year. Once monitoring has started, plant replacement(s) may be necessary to meet or exceed the performance standards. Replacement of plant mortality and other general maintenance will occur, and the City shall be supplied with a memo documenting how meeting the standards were addressed. When re -planting does occur, a brief letter will be drafted and submitted to the COE indicating that re -planting has occurred. All the activity described in the brief memos shall be included in the Annual Monitoring Reports. Color photographs will be taken from permanent photo -points to visually document the installation and monitoring project through time and be shared in the memos. The north slope and the new plant community will require maintenance to be performed during the monitor program to control aggressive invasive species, hardy grasses and weeds. Maintenance should include hand removal of competing grasses, invasive and weedy vegetation from a 2-10-ft diameter ring surrounding a given plant. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand to decrease the likelihood of damage to the plantings. All blackberry, reed canary 37 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 56 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * grass, and other aggressive invasive species sprouting anywhere within the planting site shall be removed during maintenance sessions. Cutting back the invasives, especially Himalayan blackberry, does not eradicate it but does reduce encroachment, keeps the roots in place and reduces the chance of exposing any bare soil. Every 2 to 3 years, mulch should be replaced around the new plantings to also reduce the chance of any exposed soil. A site inspection will be conducted on a weekly basis by the Landscape Manager during project implementation and during the first year after completion when monitoring. In year two after completion during monitoring, the Landscape Manager will do her inspections once per month, all year. In year's three to five of monitoring, the Landscape Manager will do her inspection once per month from March to October, and only once in the winter season (Nov, Dec, Jan, and Feb). The purpose for monitoring this mitigation project is the evaluation of the degree of success of the project. Success will be achieved if monitoring shows performance standards are being met. Project goals will be met if performance standards are upheld. After 5 years, a final monitoring report will be submitted to describe challenges and successes. The final report would describe the conclusion of the monitoring. There have been no changes to the expected monitoring plan. VII. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Once approved, the project will be performed in a systematic and methodical fashion by completing like -tasks to mitigate the impacts across the north slope. It is expected the three phases will require approximately 24-36 months implementing. During this time, frequent communication about phase progress, identifying any challenges, and ongoing maintenance schedules will be shared with COE. After project completion, then the five-year monitoring and reporting to COE will start. The Landscape Management Team at PE looks forward to working with the COE to receive approval for this landscape plan and begin working together over the next eight years. We have spent years developing this plan, so that once enacted, the north slope landscape can maintain the slope and thrive into the future. This permit shows our reasoning and intent, has numerically summarized management actions using a tree inventory with color coded maps to depict all proposed landscape modifications. This plan is intended to change specific areas of the current landscape from one plant community to another. Project goals will be met when plant diversity for the benefit of humans, wildlife and future site users is increased, when views to specific corridors can be maintained, when a relationship of trust has been cemented so PEOA can manage all their lands within City of Edmonds rules and regulations. Point Edwards Owners Association Landscape Management Team looks forward to enacting this plan in conjunction with the City of Edmonds. What does it mean to be a caretaker of your land? In this case, it means you have to ask for permission to do complicated maintenance. To trim for health, and remove trees so you can tame invasive species and replant with vivacious flowering natives; so more birds will visit for more people to enjoy. To create habitat trees to attract woodpeckers. This project is not asking to change the zoning, or to clear-cut, or to work outside of known landscape management practices. 38 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 57 2.2.a Permit TYPE III -A * Point Edwards HOA * 93 Pine Street * Edmonds, WA 98020 * December 16, 2020 * Supplemented for Submission on June 18, 2021 * This plan is not able to change the past, but it is able to improve the future by improving relationships, and the plant community. Working together with the groups that care about Edmonds's wildlife, PE and this long-term landscape management plan can guide this special piece of land into the future. This plan links the needs of the future with a landscape established twenty -years ago with work to be done now. How can the COE help the future urban forest to be better? Work right now with an approachable, private property owner to make changes to improve wildlife habitat opportunities by removing invasives, planting natives, and creating wildlife snags. There are inherently many restrictions on this project. PE can only cut, trim, and maintain on their own property, within the zoning and ordinances established in the City of Edmonds, outside of the nesting season, not during heavy rains or windstorms, replanting only with natives, and only with hand tools. Please recognize that this project is being done within these constraints and still expects to not only be successfully implemented, monitored, and maintained but also with no disruptions to public use. Please let this landscape maintenance begin. This permit is asking to trim and maintain the landscape. There is no change to infrastructure, stormwater management, or grade. No earthmoving or new buildings are being proposed, instead we want to improve the landscape at PE for the benefit of wildlife, ourselves, the Edmonds Marsh, and the greater community. We believe this plan can exceed the Comprehensive, and Urban Forest Plans, in the City of Edmonds, in regard to stewardship because of the specialized ecological forestry techniques. Development has occurred at this site, and now 20 years have elapsed. Public comments and professional input have occurred, been taken seriously and have been incorporated to improve this plan. We hope all interested parties recognize our commitment to maintaining this area in the best interest of everyone in the COE. We have incorporated suggestions from wildlife professionals, citizen scientists, local residents, public planners, and geotechnical and forestry professionals to help create a management plan that will create a space that everyone in the COE can be proud of. A timely implementation of this management plan will be the best way for PE to make this area the multi -faceted, wildlife friendly, healthy ecosystem community we envision. The narrow work season begins in October 2021. We are hopeful that PE can begin Phase I starting October 1, 2021. End of Document 39 Attachment 2 1Packet Pg. 58 2.2.a � t Point OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 � Removal Coppice Prune Snag- Live Snag -Dead Pruned Previously Prune Future -- Property Line Fence Line 17 PI BALDER - _ _.T . y: ,_DER A DF' LDE PI fr �� ALDER ALDER PI :- : . f.: --_ ALDI=R ALDER ALDL. _ � L ALOE a LEI= .44 t ; PI ! ` Pr r A...DE L DE ys .r. t !: MP '. �I P f`•� } (f — i _± �_ �rtPL ' p AIDE Es NIP Pi ,oq -7 r, �� f, �•� � .,-•-�`�•� ice` .-•..� LM BL y i .i N V ti r >c - s � 1 ` f 0 i t ii V i ; 1 l 7 [ S f • i�y L tJ � � A C . � 1 lip [ d ti ► � � � i , p a a Lf„. Ir HMLK 3 1 1 � �• 'i N i ti i �' 4 � r ti ,i t t B y�' q„ i' CDR 0 MAX) E 3_1 8 x" ': f e L V i 1 1 ' Ze p r 4. idK pi rT�IZ T"i s 1 �. �h � 7 i '.. :f Y'I .F -•► E 39 6 s' 8V.LM E 4-0 I i• 4 4 N"\ Y p f f 41 - 1 4 I tl,N. ,E Pool Room-, 17' / I HMLK - it - I a � I � � �= r , • 2 0 BLM �..._� o ' t: �t Yj Charter Club Maintenance -- Office .=..IT FIR PIR _ w -- � _•_mil ��_ I _ __ � -- -----�...._-�--- ...._ .. ,.-... _-- - - .--.-- - r - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURREY Pine St. 0 PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOIANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CUNT M� ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MA1r_E MSTING 25 t3LAs! ArCER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LF_AP MAPLE EXISTING 49 OALDrR ALNUS RUGOSA SPECK0I' ALDER EXISTING 62/124 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 G P:NUS CONTORTA SHORE P-NE EXISTING 63 FINE PINES SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH SINE EXISTING 69 FAR PSEUDOTSUGA MENTIESIi IDOUGLA` FIR EXISTING 58 Ci3ft 1HUJA F'LICA14 WESTEW,, RED CEDAR EXISTING 45 DMLK TSUGA NETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 GRQQND CQVER� BOTANICBQIANIC&L NAME C4MMQ_N ALE C-QE SPA IN 9a LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS - 34,863 Sr rs r s EXISTING MEADOW GRASS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN — 273 SF EXISTING SHRUE1 MASS RU13US ARMEWACUS HIMALAY:AN BLACKBF-PRY 44,96,9 SF EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES .; SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUH MASS — MIXED SPECIES - 110,223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates 1 [ I � V I 4 I 1 I Unocal Access Road /Gate I - : I -1 - _ .. --- ____ _ `... --------------------- M1' , 1 � r" _ ,1 i � I , 0 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES l.AND%('►PF: ARt'111'rL(•r1 RE: SITE Pl.. NNING i RIIAN ❑ESI[:N SUITE ZOLZ 911 WESTERN AVE., SEA —MILE. WA 88104 PHONE: {2DS) 652-75W FAX: ") 6a24721 c �r-.... A EI ei o PROJECT TITLE N Q- POINT >A EDWARDS HOA W C O 0 O N O SHEET TITLE N NORTH SLOPE - lL EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE E SURVEY U No. DATE REVISION BY rrmax:+ /; A DATE DESIGNED FJ DRAWN F.I CHECKED iR SCALE I., - 2LY o. .... ... TRA No - CAB FILE 2235 1.102 a a�;a .ems: vr..Wsx.'�•�i�F.h PROJECT PT I:17WARDS HOA SHEET No L102 Exhibit 2 Attachment 3 Packet Pg- 59 PJ7��.t I OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Removal Coppice Prune Snag- Live Snag -Dead Pruned Previously Prune Future Property Line Fence Line F I F F I _/ _ PUBLIC PATHWAY i E19 PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT Q7r OMP ACER CIRCINATLIM VINE MAPLE EXISTING 25 BLM ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 �. ALDER ALNUS RUGOSA SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 l POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 PI PINUS CONTORTA SHORE PINE EXISTING 63 WINE PILAUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE EXISTING 69 FIi} PSEUDOTSLICA MENZIES(I DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 caR THUJA PLICATA WESTERN REFS CEDAR EXISTING 45 HML]( TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 GRQUND_ COVES I M COMMQN NAB CDNTSPArJ NGSL LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS - 34,863 SF EXISTING MEADOW GRASS LPOLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN - 273 SF • EXISTING SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMENIACU5 HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY - 44,98B SF EXISTING INVASWE SPECIES SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUB MASS - MIXEL) SPECIES 110,223 SF ' EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based Gil original map dates UNOCAL UNOCAL ! I E 2 7 iEr� k. �8_ E2 E f 1 ��I E25I I I E2 4 i I23 I I I� � f E22 1 I f I f + i 1 I ! ! 1 i E3 1 r I 1 1 1 f E J 1 I 2 E _ o 1 i I UNOCAL I I I I ! UNOCAL X. i - - - � I f + 1 I � ►L L ] 'k. k. `.i y h .Y X . •� �" J�.3Y. ..'{' k•.•.'' l . Y]]'. Jy �� - - _ a} •,! {'�`�'tiy. 1 xY� 1 " .I, ] �]:y1 k. Y'•SC�,. �' ,:i'"7' k%' 'rl r� �rti � —+1 k Yam• v" �n { y i ? �• r y'.` _ y AIM k ✓' x $- n x - X "' J �. if �[ \ I •� .'71.� � _ }.Q a}. }- �'r'. , _ }.0 � ^�. 1� � /-�s � { Z `� .:.� • _ �'L ll rY "t �•'` r• �i"i kC' .� •y 1 �+i• (- `0 1� �, v �. 1 tl •ti � ,�.. Y'-yy,,1.�" �Vt ' ] . � � � C Y ' �'x � ' �FS L. ?.'� �S �� C +(x• •� k ,1 ,� � �' � �/ �, j, . '4 0. •"k t ] N ny C - ,•� •� '� jr' ' :1h'•. S}k .�:' " •�El'C'lf , iY J 4. '4• k t Y ` �T 7;Ykk`tilli�" 1� .^.'• ••, YX , r 1 �Q j ,� �� q�� A� u., l( �i X Y -':.. •`k . ,�'' Y y' k?y '''r. ? - '•.ti-,�� ! • X y'�• 4. -- -' - T �' 1 F Y�•'�� a q•Al >�y A 4- PUBLIC { _ PATHWAY - I �.rts^L�: �J--•yam_.-ti_ �r �^ 1... - -._ - - PUBLIC PATHWAY - I—� -- Building 61 Pine St. NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY 1" = 20'-0" Building 71 Pine St. SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. C; 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES [.ANDSCAPE ARVIII ECrl'RE SITE MANNING URBAN RFSIGN SUITE 262..911 wESTERN AVE.• SEATTLE. WA 9a1D4 PHONE: (206) 682-7562 FA]C (206) Sa2-472i -21 ` `:~ATE rr WA`%IIING TCN REi:RED LANDS,'A'PE ARti'_71 •''.T rl "F nASP`.y V is GSFORF i En".+ ICAT€ NO 2S8 PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA F.DMONDS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY No DATE REVISION SY L/rJJ -- - — DATE 29 JU1.Y. 2015 DESIGNED FJ DRAWN f F! CHECKED — 'i'R SCALE— TRA No ?335-?Ui5 T T — CAD FILE 3235 1.103 — — PROJECT PT' EDW'ARDS I IOA SHEET No, L103 Exhibit 2 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 60 OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Removal 4# Coppice Prune Snag- Live Snag -Dead I& Pruned Previously Prune Future Property Line Fence Line E' r; ONocp'` NORTH SLOPE - EAST S 1"=20'-0" TION - FXIIRTING TREE SURVEY vN°0P\- Building 51 Pine St. PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT QT� MP ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE EXISTING 25 OLMRACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 LDER ALNUS RUGOSA SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 �. POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 G PINUS CONTORTA SHORE PINE EXISTING 63 tINE PINUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE EXISTING 69 FIR PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 CDR THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR EXISTING 45 HMLK TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 Q.RQQND CQVERS BOIMICAL NAME COMMON NAME LDIJ SPACING Q -' rYr��t1 M1 rr rr tf r LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS - 34,863 SF EXISTING MEADOW GRASS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN - 273 SF �+ EXISTING SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY - 44.988 SF EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUB MASS - MIXED SPECIES - 110,223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. Building 61 Pine St. 0 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES LANDS('APE ARCHITEC'71'RE SITE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN! SUITE 2112, 911 WESTERN AVE, SEA'TTLE, WA 08104 PHONE: (206) 6W-75V FAX (206) 5W-4721 -�� STALL Ot- WASHING'70N REGISFEREE LAN^STAFF ARCHSTFCT V PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY No DATE REVISION BY j DATE 29 JULY, 2015 DESIGNED FJ DRAWN CHECKED -- --- TR --- ---- SCALE --- - i"-'70 0 _------ TRA No. 2235-2015 CAD FILE 2235 L104 PROJECT PT EDWARDS IJOA SHEET No Exhibit 2 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 61 2.2.a a LEI w Lil tz cl:� L,J I— Q a Q L,J v) ME I � � en ry r� CN N d Q rr] Q o cV aj i Ln E U 4J LC7 Cr CV CO c CD PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT QTy MP ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE EXISTING 25 BLM ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 0/9 ALNUS RUGOSA SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 IRC BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH EXISTING 7 PI PINUS CONTORTA SHORE PINE EXISTING 53 PINE PINUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE EXISTING 69 F!R PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 CDR THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR EXISTING 45 HMLf( OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 L106 IS INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY TSUGA HETERaPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 GROUND DOVEF25 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING ornrrrrr LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS - 34,863 SF r r r r EXISTING MEADOW GRASS , Irnrrrrl N PXISTIN CHUM B MASS WESTERN SWORD FERN — 273 5F EXISTING SHRUB MASS y' xl F,6� R ly�I �[ I� �• FS RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY — 44,988 SF _ �� "►� EXISTING INVASW SPECIES SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUB MASS — MIXED SPECIES -- 110,223 SF i e� DR IR F �j[ Y, e�st`r �Isr ss EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES (,'� �[ F/ I R •� /� I JC �I 6 21 $(,�j� 1 •� ��• Est' r XI X X X Itie I ItiE pi 7� e X � '' IIX x cgR X •� pl�� I `�• x � X � p}�` ■ A X 1 r �1-L------------- f--- — _ —--------_---^_l_—__ ,�- ■ 2 � �� k�� ' ek �or p ��'f�P.�P �•• �x X X �� xi` 'SIR -Ore'd 0'r � ref v��t �f ®i't v.t'f� � �"�e� NF L �4P4e�� te �0�'f tr J'pr� te 'V -t �� INS e�� pe4P4re� Af� t ��e �jgee �� N�pit;' N � fib �e�� e ore �e p rere N N,�+ NORTH SLOPE -- WEST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY 0 101 20' 404 i Au THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHffECTURE SITE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN •ter//,�/�r��.��s�a�r�s/i�xr/gasa�iis/s, STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THOMAS V. R GSTORF CERTIFICATE NO. 298 EDMONDS, WA NO. DATE z REVISION 8Y ZLI, DATE DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SCALE TRA NO. CAD FILE 24 J1JL Y, 2015 FJ FJ TR 1. = 20' - 0' 2235-2015 2235 L106 L106 Exhibit 2 Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 62 -. - - - - .._ -_ :-� , 4 r� - -- . - -- -- - - - - -- - - ti - - -- - �} - - - - - �s� - __ - -- - — -= - - -. - =- - - - - - - .� - �. =: ; __ __ _.� — I . b __ - - __ n M_2=� w � - - .-.�. — _ y I. _ —_ _- - _ p - - �a. ----� _.mac_. - - - - _. -.r- .! - - - - - - .��..- _ —_. _ . - -I. .. _.--s_ __ - - _ - }ntT - +.� _ _ - _= _ - - �ra�r - a - _ _ _ - ,_.. - - - - --_ _ - - __ - _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - -gam _ x— - _ .. _ _- _ - _ = y - �.- . = y F _ - - - - - _.. - - - - - - — - -- r= - = � _- -� -- - -_ _ _ _ - -,.T- _ - _ -a - � _ - _ - -��. r _ _ _ _ .- - _-. _-- - y _ } - - �- r - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ___ - - - _ - __ _: r- _ _ _ .,.Y`Sc _ _ _ _ �` �c� a �. W go - ____ . - _____ ______..-__.__,.�- �__ -.._ - I ��- . - - -- - _ - - i- - - - -- Y -_ --_-- -- - - _ - - __ - _ - - - -. --_ -_ - - _ r ]^ - - - - - _ _ _W___:� � - 2 � m __. � � __7 .-i __ 1 ft i I 4 i I 1 4 I I 1 am PLAIN SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAM CC)M ON NkME CONT I#rs ACER CIRi INATUM VINE MAPLE ExiSTING 25 r �rr ACER h�ACROP�1Yt LUM 61G LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 �f pj7int -Aq +CLDER)SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 � ALI�tJ5 RCIGOSA . POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 .11 1. . . . ; . . . . . �.. � - - % , - __ 1� . . -1i . - - . . I I OWNERS ASSOCIATION G PINUS CONTORTA 5'ioRE PINE EXISTING 63 e P1NU5 SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE ExISTIfiIG 69 93 Pine St. Edmonds, VITA 980�� — - — G PSELjDOTSVC,A MENZIES11 DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 40 Removal �pR T#-IIJ.)A PLIC+4TA VI'ESTERN REQ CEDAR EXISTING 4S ;# Coppice e TSLIGA HEiEROPHYLLA WESTERT� �iEbiLDCK EXISTING 2 0 Prune QTY cRou1�D COVERS aoraNlcAL NAME or,�Ihonl NACol�r sI=AcIr�c Snag- Live - � e s r 34,$63 SF [� IsE.r!'a LOW GROWTH MEADOW GLASS mLA,DoW GLASS l' 0 1 Snag- Dead �s,rr�� EXISTING ME�4DOW GRASS ti . POLYSTiCHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWO1iQ FERN - 273 SF ' Pruned Previously 4 f.. 5` , EXiSTI�IG SHRUB MASS \ I* Prune Future � 1 RUBUS +ARIAEN;A�CUS HiMALAYAi�l E3lAC BERRY - 44,988 SF � �� PropertyLine EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES y _ SHRUB MASS Mi?LEQ SPECIES SHRUB MASS - MIXED SPECIES 110,223 5F �, � = Fence Line EY EX[STiNG MIXED NATNE SPECIES _. A The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original reap dates I i I I I UNOCAL UNOCAL I! / I / I \ 1Y 1 _VV ?,-- VV - i ., - - 4 VV 8 W 7 VL E �LAJ/ . VV 4 - — __. -_ --- _2 - IL M a I__ - W Q_ - - � r 0 - 1--v-111-�r . - - - I - - 0 - / - . / 1 � _r - - - - --�---,,--��,, / - I � . I / I . - I 1 1-"r . - L'.�- ,---,/- -,- �r N ,,,_ 19__�_�_ r, -Pr If 10 I . �, , I I I / - . 11_� I :1 . t __4 .. . 4., V, . I I--- I t I . � . m '�__ . < I 4 I - __� I , 2 4 ... I - I . I 0 - I 0 — � , Rf . - — __ __;r._ - I ,,# t Ir �F , uj�_ . —I —, ' ----4- - " " i f 0 �,-��g,',., 4 ry � f _ I � r. 0 x P' I i k 1 IAA ', ��g '� - i -- __11 ,�, � J, f r t ,e #` •F IF 9 I ,, - - Il- �_ 10 / I '� -� r.` 141- K"Pr- ,,V-.jr: - 1 � 0 . . ---, , * k I I �Y �5 3` Z .x...-. 7P �: r .4 JT * yt �� `. fi,'r,�f ��1�,]�rr i �r,r f I �i�i % - r �} 7. { ,1 l� • I0 , - 1� (yJCf I �`� �., ,�� y l �3- . x- .. f I d -f _ - r r r� f r el "_ ' i C ` _t 1 - - y �,tr-l(- I . . 0 I /0i ~' " € �}- .kr �"'` LIJ ? 3 l ��5 f J ,- v �, ,, -�- - _ _r= r".t - -1110 �_ - Y! CP f P y- $ ' 3 - - �� i•• -w *�.+� ylzr! �, - „�•�, �� n .J,-- iy -" L�� .- s. { f ` i = l _ J _ .. 1. `, '1F i •'' _ +� /Q Ft. Contour {' # r ` # ` i >' �'� r i 1�. ' `. 4 - _ - -'- - - - - y 11 F } f ✓ ,r r r _ '� C f-i # —" f 1 F ~ -' _/` ` t ' j F 1 t 1 1 ti 'r• �. � - �r — � �•i I {` C! i 1 f of r J l►,,# r, t om' ~ �'•r*a ! Lip _ — — — � .- I " � r d � • � � I I J 41 f, j• f 1' �7i� ti �— — - i yP i Y t T! f ray } ' -yf``'-� *ram } e# #ff �{ rx s �r Cp. r �''- J. } i,� ' # #' r f +I ■ # r/7 r , t r r x t _ 41Q iI; yr of X, � r r# r 1x i s } #{ r r e r #r d r * s r I J c �.c. I F a i" Jr a 1 9 #' i• �' ar # it ! it x d � 74 ? P F '� T I• i' l P Y # LV 6 s 1 :.� d / # a r .�.r d , r r r. -r- ` i t 6F r i ! Y a �r r f X I d 6 L� r � r 9 _ {' -*•fir �r - l' f # r _ r 1 - se t' _ _ • 1' a 1 7 4 •' • �' I i } t f S ,i .# _ C7) - R y #" f 1 J t Y I - 1 s 7 s' I C i r . s k : 77 . Y f _ F s a ti_ k r E r r i t i 1- - _ rl✓ • e r J A. J. - f •. r 6 a J 1. rF' s :r k s 1' �' / f { •. s t J. Y . •l . t � t r �•• - F fi 3 f`Jr - f i T - t - . a A ! ♦ r `1 r x r r F r J �' i F f } r. aT 4 - T '. i t I i f • { s . l t s .:. Y r f i w', ,t , 4 r I p" � r t'' f x J r h r 'i _ f r - � ■ 'r [ { #' i P 1 2 � s rye ,t c f k k i I {C �__._r ••k � 7 � . Y - :! 1 r- / 1_ I I' T r � � .r p ' r . �• r Y �•r' 4i'. i � T � Y' `F , f-. - tr f _ '. + r _.- k h 1 Ly • /Y 'r } {{ Sy l 1. T e r x rx _ - -� - - T{ ti '�t { 1 VV rr - ' f !' . ^f }} - -1 . — r. _ f l T \ ti - - j r y�j`+ .� f a r j ram. f 77 - S. # 7 �i 'T4 Y `J ` i `` Y 4 1. 4 JT I 11 1• 7i + "CC i i �. F S h Y X. 4 k I I` 'f. l ! K �f V. r `t. }� i L J` ' J T,'' T�Y ' ` < T ` - - - '� - -- -- f. mi % & ff, I ` . . - . . - .1 , . . I \ --- �L —_ � r - - A.- . . .. . - I " . . . . � . I . I _. .. . -_ _. - :..�l._. � �_-__- - -__ -- - __--`Ir _ \ 1 _ _ _- -_ !. _ --� - -� t----------_- - r 4. 1� I,-- I -_ - -- i �^,ti y_ k. ,[J G s . . .- f _!��W-:�,_ - - , -_ 1-1 - I . - . ��, --" I X - - . 19 47,r(f �'� 0 + -/ ~� icy'* � I- E `4 , } ?. �� `I !-- - C j`. Building 4i Pine fit..yy�Q, _ _ V r .. ._� . - . .---...,-- � -,.� - r r . . I r I T�Tr - , r { ,�� q �C6 4 �_. � ... I . ! . — - "/ - - - - - - _ f I y I_ - - = NORi'l--� SLOPE -1IVE� SETA - EC1Tlh� �`RE - EUE1 4 {� I"=24'-0'I �l ` }�� p� � = SECTION 2�� IV��1P ��1V.a Cl1r1yIVL�E �E.f U_, —_ -- } {' --------- (-: 1, . _... �� - � - - �: � ___ __ - � . - - - _. - _.- .... - - _. .:_.-_____ - . . _ _. . pkQ41&iw-a_- �_ - _ �_ �-_ - - - -_�_:--- - ..:;.. - � �_ Attachment 3 I '' r r ,4� -� �� 0 0 S,, T9 .0- 7_�6T `Allk ] � fin _ 0 10' 20' 40' ;: IBi; '.Cl �� '.£' rf a f. T. THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES IAND.M •PE .kRCIIITECTURF. SFIF PkAKNItNt, t RB;N Dt.SIG% Si)fiE 202, 911 WESTERN AVE.. SEATrM WA 951d+1 p"ME PM)6V-75f32 FWC(208)6824721 fZ-- . —.-' _ - _ . i� i--_ _ - - 1. . - . I . c-— TIi_,'fA� v E? _:STCr4F if t.'k Y. _,izl PROACT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EI)%1 'DS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - WEST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY c I V 2 d a M V ,n r_ R J to M0 R M0 W C O a V tn O O CD N O CV z J. a I I No HATE 4 a REVISKA e l -' r • - — 4 I I -- _ I I __ V V - - I 4 - L—\ — e u C C C C C �A\ . .9 . E _x. J I I I _ _\ J I I -C • - .A - ---- - -- - ❑ATE 241U1.Y.:W5 DESIGNED - - - _ F!- - - - - DRAVM - . F} Ch1, EKED TR - SCALE �I _ _2(V - I4• . _ . TRA No 3'}5-21}IS ,-- CAD FELE "-?{ 1.105 { :? PROJECT _,_ - PI i DWARD5HOA __ —__ SHEET No L105 Exhibit 2 - _ 5�,--- - - _ - _ — C•- _ —1 - - _ __ - - -- .gip _._-T— - - - - — - - Packet -. 63 WAr 51,, OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 a 1 Existing Trees #0 Shrubs Groundcover \� Low Shrubs Property Line !Fence Line P I P I E rR, -77 /* -7 2) L, D EEL L E V. 7 v L41 "I LD N '5 LL L it \,jAL T T- X, 00, --7 19 i� V H r1kv! It 0 7 v Building 71 Pine St, / \ a e E�- :; Point Edwards HOA Permit 111-A Revegetation Map 0.31 A v V v 0 > E \3 9 L 14' k A B L V A OR V 0 A Alk lit r A, �X Poo M LV,) A s. X y -7 X 7 < V 5� < X V71-- 4 Charter Club L Maintenance =4=j Office 7- T- T -1 7 PLANT SCHEDULE 1-102, E33-E42 Updated on 6/7/21 vM C Tree Tree Acer circinanturn Vine Maple'Sunglow' C Tree CornUS Kousa x nuttaiii Dogwood 'Eddies white' Bu Tree COMUS Kousa x nuttaiii Dogwood'venus, Ce Tree Rhamus p. 'Cascara. Buckthorn Ce Tree Thuja plicata 'Excelsa' Cedar Thuja plicata 'Hogan' Hogan Red Cedar The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates File: Permit Planting Key 512020 2 7g 10' o.c. 3 109 12' o.c. 6 6' to7' 151 o.c. 8 7g 10' O.C. 4 (cross red c) 79 10' o.c. 2 (cross red c) 79 10' o.c. N; W-ADC'A' GRASS 1J1 EADOV), 1 X[ f rNi, GRASS POLYSTICHUM mi";`�:7-ijV1 WFSTFRK it I(N 2-/!, SF EXISTING SHRUP NVA�,S RUHUS ARM iiWA-k..:c. 44.9BR SF EXISTING INVA--,,Wf. !i SHRUB MAS, MIXED SHRUB �A' WXJ j 1 10,4223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE r-,IES ve V z -47i-- 2 X "'CALL DIA. DECIDUOUS TREE - STAKING AND INSTALLATION DETAILS NO SCALL, C c) a a ;'ate Fli RR 7-) 41 Tti- NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY 1 " = 20'- 0" T- Af 41&, SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. Attachment 3 0 10' 20' 40' IiNl)•( lkpl %R( 111111 11 RU "Jit PIANNIM. i RRI,N DLSI(; Is WESTERNA'v'T-, SEA-1 LF, itA WA PHONE !21,115;)682-7562 FAX- (2M)68;-4?2, PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS. U A SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - FAST SECTION -- EXISTING TREE SURVEY No DATE REVISION Fy ,TE Uj! N 1!) 1 PA, N.:: PROJECT iMARDS HOA Exhibit 2 S 2 4- ia.2 0 CL M U U) rn LU 0 IL le O Q 04 Q C%j z Revegetation Plan Packet Pg. 64 2.2.a Point Edwards HOA Summary of Changes to Tree Inventory to Incorporate Feedback or Update 1. Tree #28 Red Alder changed from 'Snag — Dead' to "Monitor". Biologist recommended to retain some Red Alders, and this tree is near the property line and not in a view corridor. Change to Monitor. 2. Tree #29 Red Alder changed from 'Snag — Dead' to "Monitor". Biologist recommended to retain some Red Alders, and this tree is near the property line and not in a view corridor. Change to Monitor. 3. Tree #149 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 4. Tree #151 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 5. Tree #152 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 6. Tree #157 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 7. Tree #161 Red Alder changed from 'Dead Snag' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 8. Tree #162 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 9. Tree #163 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 10. Tree #164 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 11. Tree #165 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 12. Tree #171 Red Alder changed from 'Dead Snag' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 13. Tree #177 Scots Pine has died. Change to 'Dead' in inventory. 14. Tree #179 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Monitor". Stick nest in tree, no signs of being occupied but retain tree with nest for wildlife. 15. Tree #180 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Dead". Better to retain as standing dead for woodpeckers. 16. Tree #190 Red Alder from 'Coppice' to "Snag — Live". Suitable location and health to retain and manage as a living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 17. Tree #191 Red Alder changed from 'Coppice' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. 18. Tree #194 Red Alder changed from 'Coppice' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 65 2.2.a 19. Tree #196 Red Alder changed from 'Coppice' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. 20. Tree #197 Western Red Cedar changed from 'prune future' to "Prune" in Phase II. In area of potential view corridor, begin training trees through pruning. 21. Tree #198 Western Red Cedar changed from 'prune future' to "Prune" in Phase II. In area of potential view corridor, begin training trees through pruning. 22. Tree #200 Western Red Cedar changed from 'prune future' to "Prune" in Phase II. In area of potential view corridor, begin training trees through pruning. 23. Tree #201 Red Alder changed from 'Coppice' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. 24. Tree #202 Red Alder changed from 'Snag — Live' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. 25. Tree #203 Red Alder changed from 'Removal' to "Snag — Live". Better to retain and manage as living wildlife snag for woodpeckers. 26. Tree #205 Western Red Cedar changed from 'prune future' to "Prune" in Phase II. In area of potential view corridor, begin training trees through pruning. 27. Tree #211 Red Alder changed from 'Coppice' to "Monitor". Suitable location and health to retain and Monitor. 28. Tree #471 Scots Pine was removal then changed to prune now changing back to removal. Blocks potential view corridor from public pathway, located at top of hill, poor structure so not good to retain and reduction prune. 29. Tree #472 Scots Pine has died. Change to 'Dead' in inventory. 30. Tree #485 Scots Pine was 'removal' then changed to prune now changing back to "Removal". 31. Tree #486 Scots Pine was 'Prune' but change to "Removal". Blocks potential view corridor from public pathway, located at top of hill, poor structure so not good to retain and reduction prune. Last Update: 6/15/2021 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 66 2.2.a Point Edwards Home Owners Association, a 21 acre site proposes to work across the North Slope, and a small portion of the west slope, to prune, remove, coppice and monitor trees. The work is being done to change the plant community from red alder dominated to mixed native plantings and retained snags. An established tree inventory for the project catalogs 261 total trees in the work area. 89 trees will be monitored for future needs with no action now. 80 trees will be pruned — 2 big leaf maples, 2 Douglas - fir, 7 western red cedar, 24 Scots pine, and 45 shore pine. 35 trees will be removed and expected to die — 1 western red cedar, 3 Douglas -fir, 5 Scots pine, and 26 red alders. 22 trees will be coppiced, or cut down but expected to live and resprout — 6 black cottonwood, and 16 red alder. 31 red alders will be retained in the landscape as wildlife snags, with 15 dead standing trunks, and 16 living red alder snags. 4 trees have died and will be retained as dead wildlife snags. Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 67 2.2.a A B C D E F I G I H I J K L 1 Tree # Species Ht (ft) Caliper Mgmt Acti Management Reasoning Phase Location Tree # Map 2 1 Fir 22' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 1 L102 3 2 Fir 50' 9 3/4 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 2 L102 4 3 Fir 45' 7 1/2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 3 L102 5 4 Shore Pine 31' 5 1/2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 4 L102 6 5 Shore Pine 20' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 5 L102 7 6 Shore Pine 24' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 6 L102 8 7 Fir 52' 10 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 7 L102 9 8 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E42 8 L102 10 9 Shore Pine 34' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E42 9 L102 11 10 Shore Pine 27' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E41 10 L102 12 11 Shore Pine 38' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E41 11 L102 13 12 Shore Pine 42' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E40 12 L102 14 13 Shore Pine 30' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E40 13 L102 15 14 Shore Pine 24' (under 6") Prune Snow uprooted tree - trying to sa% II E40 14 L102 16 15 Shore Pine 36' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E40 15 L102 17 16 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 16 L102 18 17 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 17 L102 19 18 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 18 L102 20 19 Shore Pine 10' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 19 L102 21 20 Shore Pine 10' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 20 L102 22 21 Shore Pine 11' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 21 L102 23 22 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") Already De Dead -Wildlife snag - killed by buck Dead E39 22 L102 24 23 Shore Pine 9' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 23 L102 25 24 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 24 L102 26 25 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 25 L102 27 26 Shore Pine 16' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 26 L102 28 127 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 27 L102 29 28 Alder 27' (under 6") , Monitor Not at risk Future E38 28 L102 30 29 Alder 40' 4 @ 5,1 @ Monitor Not at risk Future E38 29 L102 31 30 Shore Pine 40' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E37 30 L102 32 31 Shore Pine 9' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E37 31 L102 33 32 Shore Pine 42' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E36 32 L102 0 a c J N cu 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a c a� E V R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD W CU v LO 0 0 6 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 68 2.2.a A B C D E F I G I H I J K L 34 33 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E36 33 L102 35 34 Shore Pine 35' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E36 34 L102 36 35 Shore Pine 32' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E35 35 L102 37 36 Shore Pine 37' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E35 36 L102 38 37 Shore Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E35 37 L102 39 38 Shore Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E34 38 L102 40 39 Shore Pine 20' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E34 39 L102 41 40 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E34 40 L102 42 41 Shore Pine 20' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E34 41 L102 43 42 Shore Pine 10' 3 Already De Dead -No longer standing - no wor Dead E33 42 L102 44 43 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Prune Snow uprooted tree - trying to sa% II E33 43 L102 45 44 Shore Pine 36' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E33 44 L102 46 46 Shore Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E33 46 L102 47 47 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E33 47 L102 48 48 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") , Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E33 48 L102 49 45 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E32 45 L103 50 49 Cedar 20' (under 6") Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II E32 49 L103 51 50 Shore Pine 23' 7 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E32 50 L103 52 51 Shore Pine 12' 3 Prune Snow uprooted tree -trying to save II E32 51 L103 53 52 Shore Pine 24' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E31 52 L103 54 53 Shore Pine 32' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E31 53 L103 55 54 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r E31 54 L103 56 55 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E30 55 L103 57 56 Alder 40' 6 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18+/-' ^'Living I E31 56 L103 58 57 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E30 57 L103 59 58 Shore Pine 22' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E30 58 L103 60 59 Shore Pine 20' 6 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E30 59 L103 61 60 Shore Pine 16' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r E30 60 L103 62 61 Shore Pine 30' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E29 61 L103 63 62 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") , Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E29 62 L103 64 63 Shore Pine 18' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E29 63 1 L103 65 64 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E28 64 L103 66 65 Shore Pine 22' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E28 165 L103 0 a c J N 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a c a� E R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD to CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 69 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J K L 67 66 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E28 66 L103 68 67 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E28 67 L103 69 68 Shore Pine 15' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E28 68 L103 70 69 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E27 69 L103 71 70 Shore Pine 34' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E26 70 L103 72 71 Shore Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E26 71 L103 73 72 Shore Pine 6' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E25 72 L103 74 73 Shore Pine 6' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E24 73 L103 75 74 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E21 74 L103 76 75 Shore Pine 15' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r E20 75 L103 77 76 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E19 76 L103 78 77 Shore Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r E18 77 L103 79 78 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E17 78 L103 80 79 Alder 60' 18 Snag - Dear Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' —Dead 1+11232:1241 E17 79 L103 81 80 Shore Pine 10' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E16 80 L103 82 81 BLM 65' 5, 6, 6, 8, 4 Prune Preserve immature characteristics I E15 81 L103 83 82 BLM 65' 6, 5, 7, 9 Prune Preserve immature characteristics I E15 82 L103 84 83 Shore Pine 22' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r E15 83 L103 85 84 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r E15 84 L103 86 85 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r L104-85 85 L104 87 86 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r L104-86 86 L104 88 87 Shore Pine 20' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-87 87 L104 89 88 Shore Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-88 88 L104 90 89 Scots Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-89 89 L104 91 90 Scots Pine 20' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r L104-90 90 L104 92 91 Shore Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-91 91 L104 93 92 Shore Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-92 92 L104 94 93 Shore Pine 12' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-93 93 L104 95 94 Scots Pine 15' (under 6") , Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r L104-94 94 L104 96 95 Scots Pine 20' 7 1/2, 6 1/: Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase 11 If r L104-95 95 L104 97 96 Scots Pine 35' 12 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-96 96 L104 98 97 Scots Pine 30' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-97 97 L104 99 98 Scots Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl Phase 11 If r L104-98 98 L104 0 a c M J N 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a c 0 E R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD w CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 70 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J K L 100 99 Scots Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-99 99 L104 101 100 Scots Pine 22' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styl( Phase II If r L104-100 100 L104 102 101 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-101 101 L104 103 102 Scots Pine 25' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-102 102 L104 104 103 Scots Pine 15' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-103 103 L104 105 104 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Styk Phase II If r L104-104 104 L104 106 105 Shore Pine 25' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E8 105 L104 107 106 Shore Pine 32' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E8 106 L104 108 107 Shore Pine 32' 9 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp 11 E8 107 L104 109 108 Shore Pine 36' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E8 108 L104 110 109 Alder 45' 9, 8, 5, 7 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 109 L104 111 110 Alder 50' 8 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 110 L104 112 111 Alder 50' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 111 L104 113 112 Alder 45' 11 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 112 L104 114 113 Alder 50' 12 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 113 L104 115 114 Alder 35' 7,6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 114 L104 116 115 Alder 45' 12 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 115 L104 117 116 Alder 45' 10 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 116 L104 118 117 Alder 45' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 117 L104 119 118 Alder 40' 9 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 118 L104 120 119 Alder 45' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 119 L104 121 120 Alder 45' 10 Snag - Dea( Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' —Dead I E7 120 L104 122 121 Alder 50' 14 Snag - Dea( Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' —Dead I E7 121 L104 123 122 Shore Pine 20' 7 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E7 122 L104 124 123 Shore Pine 35' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E7 123 L104 125 124 Alder 40' 7, 6, 6 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' "'Living I E7 124 L104 126 125 Alder 40' 10 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 125 L104 127 126 Alder 45' 10, 5 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 126 L104 128 127 Alder 42' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 127 L104 129 128 Alder 45' 6 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 128 L104 130 129 Alder 40' 7 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 129 L104 131 130 Shore Pine 30' 9 1/2, 5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E6 130 L104 132 131 Alder 45' 7 Snag - Deai Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' —Dead I E6 131 L104 0 a c M J N 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a c 0 E R Q t r 3 r 0 a a� CU v LO 0 0 6 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 71 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J K L 133 132 Alder 40' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 132 L104 134 133 Alder 40' 7 Snag - Dear Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' —Dead I E6 133 L104 135 134 Alder 40' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 134 L104 136 135 Alder 40' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 135 L104 137 136 Shore Pine 30' 7,5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E6 136 L104 138 137 Alder 30' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 137 L104 139 138 Alder 40' 12,5 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 138 L104 140 139 Alder 40' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 139 L104 141 140 Alder 45' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Living I E5 140 L104 142 141 Alder 45' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' —Living I E5 141 L104 143 142 Scots Pine 32' 6 1/2, 5 1/; Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E5 142 L104 144 143 Scots Pine 23' 6,7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp 11 E5 143 L104 145 144 Alder 37' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 144 L104 146 145 Alder 40' 8 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 145 L104 147 146 Cedar 35' 24 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E5 146 L104 148 147 Alder 40' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 147 L104 149 148 Alder 42' (under 6") Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Living I E5 148 L104 150 149 Alder 45' 6 Snag - Dear Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20'—Dead I E5 149 L104 151 150 Alder 43' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 150 L104 152 151 Alder 45' 6, 6 1/2 Snag - Dear Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20'—Dead I E5 151 L104 153 152 Alder 45' 9 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 15' to 20'—Living I E5 152 L104 154 153 Scots Pine 20' 4 1/2, 4 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E5 153 L104 155 154 Alder 40' 7 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 154 L104 156 155 Alder 40' 5 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 155 L104 157 156 Alder 40' 6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E5 156 L104 158 157 Alder 40' 6 Snag - Dew Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20'—Dead I E5 157 L104 159 158 Cedar 28' 22, 7, 5, 4, Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E5 158 L104 160 159 Alder 38' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 159 L104 161 160 Scots Pine 20' 6 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E4 160 L104 162 161 Alder 42' 12 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' "'Living I E5 161 L104 163 162 Alder 45' 13 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E5 162 L104 164 163 Alder 42' 9 Snag - Dear Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' —Dead I E5 163 L104 165 164 Alder 42' 18 1 Snag -Live I Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Living I JE5 164 L104 0 a c J N 3 w r c 0 a LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a r c a� E R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD w CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 72 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J K L 166 165 Alder 42' 7 Snag - Deai Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E5 165 L104 167 166 Alder 40' 11 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E5 166 L104 168 167 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E4 167 L104 169 168 Alder 40' 918,7 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 168 L104 170 169 Alder 40' 6, 7, 8 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 169 L104 171 170 Scots Pine 20' (under 6") , Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E4 170 L104 172 171 Alder 45' 9, 6 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E4 171 L104 173 172 Alder 40' 9 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 172 L104 174 173 Alder 55' 13 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 173 L104 175 174 Scots Pine 25' 7 1/2, 4 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E4 174 L104 176 175 Willow 38' 14 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E4 175 L104 177 176 Alder 35' 10, 6 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 176 L104 178 177 Scots Pine 25' 6 Dead Tree has Died Dead E4 177 L104 179 178 Alder 39' 8 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 178 L104 180 179 Alder 45' 6, 7 1/2, 8 Monitor Monitor Tree and Non -Active Nest Future E4 179 L104 181 180 Alder 40' (under 6") , Snag - Dea( Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' —Dead I E4 180 L104 182 181 Alder 40' (under 6") Snag - Deai Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E4 181 L104 183 182 Alder 40' 7, 7 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' "'Living I E3 182 L104 184 183 Alder 40' 8,7 Snag - Dea( Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' —Dead I E3 183 L104 185 184 Alder 38' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E3 184 L104 186 185 Alder 38' 6 Snag - Dea( Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E3 185 L104 187 186 Alder 30' 5 1/2, 6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E3 186 L104 188 187 Scots Pine 25' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E3 187 L104 189 468 Scots Pine 35' (under 6") Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-468 468 L104 190 469 Scots Pine 40' 6 Removal Slope risk - Highest Part of hill I L104-469 469 L104 191 470 Scots Pine 50' 9 Removal Slope risk - Highest Part of hill I L104-470 470 L104 192 471 Scots Pine 20' (under 6") Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-471 471 L104 193 472 Scots Pine 12' (under 6") , Dead Tree has Died Dead L104-472 472 L104 194 473 Scots Pine 30' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-473 473 L104 195 474 Scots Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-474 474 L104 196 475 Scots Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-475 475 L104 197 477 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II L104-477 477 L104 198 485 IScots Pine 25' 1 (under 6") Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-485 485 L104 0 a c J N 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a r c a� E R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD W CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 73 2.2.a A B C D E F I G I H I J K L 199 486 Scots Pine 25' 8 Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-486 486 L104 200 188 Alder 35' 5 1/2, 6 1/; Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 188 L105 201 189 Alder 35' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 189 L105 202 190 Alder 40' 7 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' "'Living I E2 190 L105 203 191 Alder 40' 6 1/2 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 191 L105 204 192 Alder 35' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' "'Living I E2 192 L105 205 193 Spruce 20' (under 6") Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 193 L105 206 194 Alder 35' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 194 L105 207 195 Alder 40' (under 6") Snag - Deai Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' —Dead I E2 195 L105 208 196 Alder 40' 6 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 196 L105 209 197 Cedar 30' 6,7 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II E2 197 L105 210 198 Cedar 35' 7 1/2, 6 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II E2 198 L105 211 199 Scots Pine 30' 7 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E2 199 L105 212 200 Cedar 25' (under 6") . Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E2 200 L105 213 201 Alder 35' 4 1/2, 7 1/; Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 201 L105 214 202 Alder 35' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 202 L105 215 203 Alder 35' 6, 6 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E2 203 L105 216 204 Alder 32' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 204 L105 217 205 Cedar 30' 6, 7, 7, 2 1/ Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II E2 205 L105 218 206 Cedar 30' 8 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E1 206 L105 219 207 Cedar 40' 9 Removal Encroachment I E1 207 L105 220 208 Scots Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp 11 E1 208 L105 221 209 Scots Pine 44' 9 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II E1 209 L105 222 210 Fir 35' 614 Removal Encroachment I E1 210 L105 223 211 Alder 50' 14 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E1 211 L105 224 212 Fir 45' 12 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E1 212 L105 225 213 Fir 50' 10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W1 213 L105 226 214 Fir 40' (under 6") Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W1 214 L105 227 215 Scots Pine 30' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II W1 215 L105 228 216 Fir 50' 11 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W1 216 L105 229 217 Fir 55' 12 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W1 217 L105 230 218 Alder 45' 14 Snag -Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' "'Living I W1 218 L105 231 219 Fir 40' 110 IMonitor I Not at risk - branches not long IFuture IW2 1219 L105 0 a c J N 3 w r c 0 a LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a r c a� E R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD w CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 74 2.2.a A B C D E F I G H I J K L 232 220 Fir 40' 10 Removal Encroachment I W2 220 L105 233 221 Fir 40' 11 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 221 L105 234 222 Fir 40' 11 Removal Encroachment I W2 222 L105 235 223 Fir 40' 10 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II W2 223 L105 236 224 Alder 35' 8 Snag - Live Wild life habitat - 12' to 15'—Livini I W2 224 L105 237 225 Willow 45' 4 to 12 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 225 L105 238 226 Cedar 30' (under 6") Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 226 L105 239 227 Cedar 30' 10 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II W2 227 L105 240 228 Scott Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp 11 W2 228 L105 241 229 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II W3 229 L105 242 230 Scots Pine 25' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II W3 230 L105 243 231 Shore Pine 20' 12 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W3 231 L105 244 232 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W3 232 L105 245 233 Shore Pine 12' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W3 233 L105 246 234 Shore Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II W3 234 L105 247 235 Cedar 40' 10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 235 L105 248 236 Fir 45' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 236 L105 249 237 Cedar 35' 10,6 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 237 L105 250 238 Cedar 40' 13 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 238 L105 251 239 Cedar 40' 5,7,10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 239 L105 252 240 Cedar 45' 9 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 240 L105 253 241 Shore Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Imp II W4 241 L105 254 242 Shore Pine 20' 9 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W4 242 L105 255 243 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W4 243 L105 256 244 Shore Pine 10' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If r W4 244 L105 257 245 Cottonwoc 70' 13 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W4 245 L105 258 246 Cottonwoc 70' 15 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 246 L105 259 247 Cottonwoc 70' 13 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 247 L105 260 248 Cottonwoc 70' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 248 L105 261 249 Cottonwoc 70' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W8 249 L105 262 250 Cottonwoc 50' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W8 250 L105 m a c J N cu 3 w r c 0 a- LO CO 0 0 N 0 N z J a c a� E V R Q t r 3 r 0 a aD W CU v LO 0 0 0 N O N z J a c m E t �a r w Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 75 2.2.a A B C D E F I G H I J K L M N O P Q R S 1 Tree # Species Ht (ft) Caliper Mgmt Ai Management Reasoning Phase Location Tree # Map 2 22 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") 3 Already I Dead -Wildlife snag - killed by buck rub Dead E39 22 L102 Note: Tree #42 is laying on the ground acting as a log, no 3 42 «,�. �e �P:.... 38 3 Akeady I Dead Pie i,...,.,._ standiRg . ,,._i, ...,...:...a 9ead E-33 Q L—Wa 4 1 Fir 22' (under 6") 5 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 1 L102 5 2 Fir 50' 9 3/4 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 2 L102 6 13 Fir 45' 71/2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 3 L102 7 4 Shore Pine 31' S 1/2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 4 L102 8 5 Shore Pine 20' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 5 L102 9 6 Shore Pine 24' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 6 L102 10 7 Fir 52' 10 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E43 7 L102 11 8 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") 4.625 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future I E42 8 1 L102 12 9 Shore Pine 34' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E42 9 L102 13 110 Shore Pine 27' (under 6") 5 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E41 10 L102 14113 Shore Pine 30' 6 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E40 13 L102 15 16 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") 2.5 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 16 L102 16 17 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 17 L102 17 18 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 18 L102 18 19 Shore Pine 10' (under 6") 2@ 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 19 L102 19 20 Shore Pine 10' (under 6") 1 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 20 L102 20 21 Shore Pine 11' (under 6") 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 21 L102 21 123 Shore Pine 9' (under 6") 1 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 23 L102 22 124 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") 1 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 24 L102 23 25 Shore Pine 8' (under 6") 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 25 L102 24 26 Shore Pine 16' (under 6") 3 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 26 L102 25 27 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") 3 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E39 27 L102 26 28 Alder 27' (under 6") 4 @ 4 Monitor Not at risk Future E38 28 L102 27 29 Alder 40' 4 @ 5,1 @ 6 Monitor Not at risk Future E38 29 L102 28 31 Shore Pine 9' (under 6") 2 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E37 31 L102 29 133 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") 4 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E36 33 L102 30148 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") 4 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future E33 48 L102 31 11 Shore Pine 38' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E41 11 L102 32 12 Shore Pine 42' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E40 12 L102 33 14 Shore Pine 24' (under 6") 5 Pruning Snow uprooted tree - trying to save 11 E40 14 L102 34 15 Shore Pine 36' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E40 15 L102 35 30 Shore Pine 40' 7 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E37 30 L102 36 32 Shore Pine 42' 7 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E36 32 L102 37134 Shore Pine 35' 7 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E36 34 L102 38135 Shore Pine 32' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E35 35 L102 39 36 Shore Pine 37' 8 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E35 36 L102 40 37 Shore Pine 30' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E35 37 L102 41 38 Shore Pine 30' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E34 38 L102 42 39 Shore Pine 20' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E34 39 L102 43 40 Shore Pine 20' (under 6")5 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential -Improve structure 11 E34 40 L102 44 41 Shore Pine 20' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E34 41 L102 45143 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Pruning Snow uprooted tree - trying to save 11 E33 43 L102 46144 Shore Pine 36' 8 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E33 44 L102 47 46 Shore Pine 25' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E33 46 L102 48 47 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E33 47 L102 49 50 51 Phase 0 52 Dead 2 53 Phasell 54 Monitor 27 55 Pruning 18 56 Total 47 57 d Q t4 V N C t4 J to L t4 3 W r C O a LO O O O N O N Z J IL N C O E L V <4 Q t r r L O Q O R LO O O O N O N Z J d r C d E t t) t4 r-+ Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 76 A B C D E F G H J K L M N O PTsna 1 Tree # Species Ht (ft; Caliper Mgmt Actior Management Reasoning Phase Location Tree # Map 2 54 Shore Pine 15' (under 6") 5 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E31 54 L103 L103 Phase I 3 60 Shore Pine 16' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E30 60 L103 Prune 2 Big leaf maples 4 63 Shore Pine 18' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E29 63 L103 Snag 2 Red Alders; 1 dead and 5 64 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") 5 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E28 64 L103 L103 Phase II 6 166 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E28 66 L103 New Pruning 15 Shore Pine Q 7 67 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning -Thinning -Japanese Style Phase II If needed E28 67 L103 Monitor/Reprune 18 Shore Pine V 8 68 Shore Pine 15' 8 Monitor Pruning -Thinning -Japanese Style Phase II If needed E28 68 L103 L103 Futur 0 N 9 71 Shore Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phaselllfneeded E26 71 L103 10 72 Shore Pine 6' (under 6") 3 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E25 72 L103 L103 Total 371 M 11 73 Shore Pine 6' (under 6") 3 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E24 73 L103 J 12 74 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phaselllfneeded E21 74 L103 to 13 175 1 Shore Pine 15' 18 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E20 75 IL103 Phase I IL R 14 76 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E19 76 L103 Pruning 2 ?� 15 77 Shore Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed E18 77 L103 Snags 2 W 16 78 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning -Thinning -Japanese Style Phase II If needed E17 78 L103 Phase II 15 17 80 Shore Pine 10' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase lllfneeded E16 80 L103 Monitor 18 r C 18 83 Shore Pine 22' 8 Monitor Pruning -Thinning - Japanese Style Phase lllfneeded E15 83 L103 O 19 84 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning -Thinning -Japanese Style Phase lllfneeded E15 84 L103 Total 37 a 20,45 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E32 45 L103 LO 21 149 Cedar 20' (under 6") 5 Pruning Encroachment - Improve structure II E32 49 L103 C 22 50 Shore Pine 23' 71/2 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E32 50 L103 C 23 51 Shore Pine 12' 3 Pruning Snow uprooted tree -trying to save II E32 51 L103 N 24 52 Shore Pine 24' 10 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential -Improve structure II E31 52 L103 C N 25 53 Shore Pine 32' 7 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E31 53 L103 Z 26 55 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") 5 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E30 55 IL103 J 27 57 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") 5 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E30 57 L103 d 28 58 Shore Pine 22' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E30 58 L103 In 29 59 Shore Pine 20' 61/2 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E30 59 L103 30 61 Shore Pine 30' 8 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E29 61 L103 31 62 Shore Pine 17' (under 6") 4 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E29 62 L103 32 65 Shore Pine 22' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E28 65 L103 E V 33 69 Shore Pine 22' (under 6") 5, 4 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E27 69 L103 CU 34,70 Shore Pine 34' 6 Pruning Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E26 70 L103 Q 35181 BLM 65' 5, 6, 6, 8, 4 Pruning Preserve immature characteristics I E15 81 IL103 36 82 BLM 65' 6, 5, 7, 9 Pruning Preserve immature characteristics I E15 82 L103 3 37 79 Alder 60' 18 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat -18' +/-2' `Dead I E17 79 L103 38 56 Alder 40' 6 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18+/-'—Living I E31 56 L103 C 39 IZ 40 0) 41 42 Phase l R 43 Pruning 2 N 44 Snags 2 45 Phasell to 46 Pruning 15 C 47 Total 19 p 48 0 N Z J d r C d E t V R r-+ Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 77 A B C D E F G H I J 1 Tree # Species Ht (ft; Caliper Mgmt Action Management Reasoning Phase Location Tree Map 2 118 Alder 40' 9 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 118 L104 3 184 Alder 38' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E3 184 L104 4 1109 Alder 45' 9, 8, 5, 7 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 109 L104 5 110 Alder 50' 8 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 110 L104 6 111 Alder 50' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 111 J L104 y 7 112 Alder 45' 11 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E8 112 L104 ca 8 117 Alder 45' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 117 L104 3 9 1119 Alder 45' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E7 119 L104 r 10 127 Alder 42' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 127 L104 o 11 129 Alder 40' 7 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 129 L104 a �t 12 132 Alder 40' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 132 L104 c 13 134 Alder 40' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 134 L104 c 14 135 Alder 40' 6 1/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E6 135 L104 0 15 177 Scots Pine 25' 6 Dead Tree has died Dead E4 177 N L104 Z J 16 472 Scots Pine 12' (under 6") 4 Dead Tree has Died Dead L104-472 472 L104 a 17 85 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-85 85 L104 18 86 Shore Pine 20' 7 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-86 86 L104 19187 Shore Pine 20' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-87 87 L104 z 20190 Scots Pine 20' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed L104-90 90 L104 r 21 193 Shore Pine 12' (under 6") 3 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-93 93 L104 a 22 94 Scots Pine 15' (under 6") 4 1/2, 4 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed L104-94 94 s L104 23 95 Scots Pine 20' 7 1/2, 6 1/2 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-95 95 L104 t 24 98 Scots Pine 20' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed L104-98 98 L104 0 25 100 Scots Pine 22' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-100 100 L104 26 101 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed L104-101 101 L104 27 102 Scots Pine 25' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-102 102 L104 Cn 28 103 Scots Pine 15' 8 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed L104-103 103 L104 c 29 104 Shore Pine 20' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase II If needed L104-104 104 L104 c 30 146 Cedar 35' 24 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E5 146 L104 c 31 1158 Cedar 28' 22, 7, 5, 4, 7, 8, 5 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E5 158 L104 Z 32 1175 Willow 38' 14 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E4 175 L104 a 33 179 Alder 45' 6, 7 1/2, 8 Monitor Monitor Tree and Non -Active Nest Future E4 179 L104 34 88 Shore Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-88 88 L104 35 89 Scots Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-89 89 L104 36 91 Shore Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 L104-91 91 �a L104 a 37 92 Shore Pine 25' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-92 92 L104 38 96 Scots Pine 35' 12 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-96 96 L104 Attachment 4 F Packet Pg. 78 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J 39 197 Scots Pine 30' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-97 97 L104 40 99 Scots Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-99 99 L104 41 105 Shore Pine 25' (under 6") 5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E8 105 CL L104 42 106 Shore Pine 32' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E8 106 L104 43 107 Shore Pine 32' 9 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E8 107 L104 44 108 Shore Pine 36' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E8 108 L104 y 45 122 Shore Pine 20' 7 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E7 122 L104 c� 46 123 Shore Pine 35' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E7 123 L104 3 47 130 Shore Pine 30' 9 1/2, 5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E6 130 L104 r 48 136 Shore Pine 30' 7,5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E6 136 L104 0 49 142 Scots Pine 32' 6 1/2, 5 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E5 142 L104 a. �r 50 143 Scots Pine 23' 6,7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E5 143 L104 c 51 153 Scots Pine 20' 4 1/2, 4 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E5 153 L104 c 0 52 160 Scots Pine 20' 6 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E4 160 L104 0 53 167 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E4 167 N L104 J 54 170 Scots Pine 20' (under 6") 4 1/2, 4 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E4 170 L104 a 55 174 Scots Pine 25' 7 1/2, 4 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E4 174 L104 56 187 Scots Pine 25' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E3 187 L104 w 57 468 Scots Pine 35' (under 6") 5 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-468 468 L104 t 58 473 Scots Pine 30' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-473 473 L104 r 59 474 Scots Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-474 474 L104 Q 60 475 Scots Pine 30' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-475 475 L104 61 477 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II L104-477 477 L104 62 113 Alder 50' 112 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 113 L104 a 63 114 Alder 35' 7,6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 114 L104 64 115 Alder 45' 12 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 115 L104 CU 65 116 Alder 45' 10 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E8 116 L104 U) 66 125 Alder 40' 10 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 125 L104 c 67 126 Alder 45' 10, 5 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 126 L104 c 68 128 Alder 45' 6 Removal Encroachment/Vine Maple I E6 128 L104 c 69 137 Alder 30' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 137 L104 Z 70 138 Alder 40' 12,5 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 138 L104 a. 71 1139 Alder 40' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E6 139 L104 72 144 Alder 37' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 144 L104 E 73 145 Alder 40' 8 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 145 L104 cLi 74 147 Alder 40' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 147 Ca L104 Q 75 150 Alder 43' 6 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 150 L104 76 154 Alder 40' 7 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I JE5 154 L104 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 79 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J 77 1155 Alder 40' 5 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 155 L104 78 156 Alder 40' 6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E5 156 L104 79 159 Alder 38' 7 Removal Encroachment/Cedar dripline I E5 159 CL L104 80 166 Alder 40' 11 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E5 166 L104 81 168 Alder 40' 9, 8, 7 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 168 L104 82 169 Alder 40' 6, 7, 8 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 169 J L104 y 83 172 Alder 40' 9 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 172 L104 c� 84 173 Alder 55' 13 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 173 L104 3 85 176 Alder 35' 10, 6 1/2 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 176 L104 r 86 178 Alder 39' 8 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E4 178 L104 0 87 186 Alder 30' 5 1/2, 6 Removal Encroachment/Pine damage I E3 186 L104 a 88 469 Scots Pine 40' 6 Removal Slope risk - Highest Part of hill I L104-469 469 L104 c 89 470 Scots Pine 50' 9 Removal Slope risk - Highest Part of hill I L104-470 470 L104 c 90 471 Scots Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-471 471 L104 N 91 485 Scots Pine 25' (under 6") 5 Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-485 485 L104 J 92 486 Scots Pine 25' 8 Removal Reduce windthrow potential I L104-486 486 L104 a 93 120 Alder 45' 10 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E7 120 L104 94 121 Alder 50' 14 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' "'Dead I E7 121 L104 95 131 Alder 45' 7 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' —Dead I E6 131 L104 t 96 133 Alder 40' 7 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15' to 18' —Dead I E6 133 L104 r 97 149 Alder 45' 6 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20' Dead I E5 149 L104 Q 98 151 Alder 45' 6, 6 1/2 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20' —Dead I E5 151 L104 99,157 Alder 40' 6 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 15 - 20' Dead I E5 157 L104 100 163 Alder 42' 9 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E5 163 1-104 a 101 165 Alder 42' 7 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E5 165 L104 102 180 Alder 40' (under 6") 4 1/2 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E4 180 L104 CU 103 181 Alder 40' (under 6") 5 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E4 181 L104 U) 104 183 Alder 40' 8,7 Snag- Dead Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Dead I E3 183 L104 c 105 185 Alder 38' 6 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Dead I E3 185 L104 c 106 141 Alder 45' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Living I E5 141 L104 c 107 152 Alder 45' 9 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 15' to 20' ^'Living I E5 152 L104 Z 108 161 Alder 42' 12 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E5 161 L104 a. 109 162 Alder 45' 13 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Living I E5 162 L104 110 164 Alder 42' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E5 164 L104 E 111 171 Alder 45' 9, 6 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Living I E4 171 L104 cLi 112 124 Alder 40' 7, 6, 6 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' "'Living I E7 124 Ca L104 Q 113 140 Alder 45' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Living I E5 140 L104 114 148 Alder 42' (under 6") 5 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15'—Living I JE5 148 L104 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 80 2.2.a A B C D E F G H I J 115 182 Alder 40' 7, 7 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' -Living I E3 182 L104 116 117 118 Phase Red Alder live 10; dead 13 J 119 Coppice 13 1201 Removal 31 1211 1 Snag 23 122 Total Phase 1 67 3 w 123 Phase II 124 New Pruning 28 a 125 Monitor/Reprune 13 Shore Pine a v 126 Total Phase II 41 c 127 Monitor 4 Cedar, Willow, Alder c 128 Dead 2 0 N 129 L104 Total Trees 114 ? IL r c a� E R Q t r 3 r L C Q W CU N LO 0 C Q N O N Z J d r C d E t V R r-+ Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 81 A B C D E F G H 1 Tree # Species Ht (ft) Caliper Mgmt Action Management Reasoning Phase Location 2 188 Alder 35' 5 1/2, 61/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 3 189 Alder 35' 61/2 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 4 204 Alder 32' 6 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I E2 5 245 Cottonwood 70' 13 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W4 6 246 Cottonwood 70' 15 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 7 247 Cottonwood 70' 13 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 8 248 Cottonwood 70' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W6 9 249 Cottonwood 70' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W8 10 250 Cottonwood 50' 10 Coppice Encroachment - Retain roots I W8 11 191 Alder 40' 61/2 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 12 193 Spruce 20' (under 6") 4 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 13 194 Alder 35' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 14 196 Alder 40' 6 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 15 1201 Alder 35' 41/2, 7 1/2 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 16 202 Alder 35' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E2 17 211 Alder 50' 14 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future E1 18 213 Fir 50' 10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W1 19 214 Fir 40' (under 6") 5 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W1 20 216 Fir 50' 11 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W1 21 1217 Fir 55' 12 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W1 22 219 Fir 40' 10 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 23 1221 Fir 40' 11 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 24 225 Willow 45' 4 to 12 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 25 1226 Cedar 30' (under 6") 5 Monitor Not at risk - branches not long Future W2 26 231 Shore Pine 20' 12 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W3 27 232 Shore Pine 15' 6 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W3 28 233 Shore Pine 12' (under 6") 5 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W3 29 235 Cedar 40' 10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 30 236 Fir 45' 8 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 31 237 Cedar 35' 10,6 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W3 32 238 Cedar 40' 13 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 33 239 Cedar 40' 5,7,10 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 34 240 Cedar 45' 9 Monitor Continue to Monitor Future W4 35 242 Shore Pine 20' 9 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W4 36 243 Shore Pine 20' (under 6") 5 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W4 37 244 Shore Pine 10' 10 Monitor Pruning - Thinning - Japanese Style Phase 11 If needed W4 38 197 Cedar 30' 6,7 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E2 39 1198 Cedar 35' 7 1/2, 6 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E2 40 199 Scots Pine 30' 7 1/2 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure 11 E2 41 1200 Cedar 25' (under 6") 41/2 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure 11 E2 42 205 Cedar 30' 6, 7, 7, 2 1/2 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure III E2 43 206 Cedar 30' 8 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure III E1 44 208 Scots Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce wind tWhMentc+ structure III E1 I Tree # Map 188 L105 189 L105 204 L105 245 L105 246 L105 247 L105 248 L105 249 L105 250 L105 191 L105 193 L105 194 L105 196 L105 201 L105 202 L105 211 L105 213 L105 214 L105 216 L105 217 L105 219 L105 221 L105 225 L105 226 L105 231 L105 232 L105 233 L105 235 L105 236 L105 237 L105 238 L105 239 L105 240 L105 242 L105 243 L105 244 L105 197 L105 198 L105 199 L105 200 L105 205 L105 206 L105 Packet Pg. 82 a) a n: c c� J 3 w Y c 0 d wr 0 0 0 N O N Z J a Y c a� E CU Y Y Q r 3 0 a (D W ns Y U) le uO 0 0 0 N 0 N Z J d c m E t 0 M Y Y a A B C D E F G H I 45 1212 Fir 45' 12 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II E1 212 L105 46 215 Scots Pine 30' 10 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W1 215 L105 47 223 Fir 40' 10 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II W2 223 L105 48 227 Cedar 30' 10 Prune Encroachment - Improve structure II W2 227 L105 m a 49 228 Scott Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W2 228 L105 M 50 229 Scots Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W3 229 L105 -a 51 230 Scots Pine 25' 7 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W3 230 L105 J 52 234 Shore Pine 35' 8 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W3 234 L105 N 53 241 Shore Pine 25' 6 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II W4 241 L105 54 209 Scots Pine 44' 9 Prune Reduce windthrow potential - Improve structure II E1 209 L105 55 207 Cedar 40' 9 Removal Encroachment I E1 207 L105 w 56 210 Fir 35' 6,4 Removal Encroachment I E1 210 r L105 57 220 Fir 40' 10 Removal Encroachment I W2 220 L105 d 58 222 Fir 40' 11 Removal Encroachment I W2 222 L105 59 195 Alder 40' (under 6") 5.5 Snag - Dead Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' —Dead I E2 195 L105 CD 60,190 Alder 40' 7 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' ^'Living I E2 190 L105 0 N 61 192 Alder 35' 8 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 12' to 15' "'Living I E2 192 L105 N 62 203 Alder 35' 6, 6 1/2 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Living I E2 203 L105 z 63 218 Alder 45' 14 Snag - Live Wildlife habitat - 18' +/-2' Living I W1 218 L105 a 64 224 Alder 35' 8 Snag - Live Wild life habitat - 12' to 15' —Living I W2 224 L105 65 66 67 R 68 Q 69 L105 Phase I r 701 Coppice 9 3 71 Removal 4 0 0 72 Snag 6 live 5; dead 1 CL (D 73 Total Phase 1 19 w 74 L105 Phase II CU 75 Monitor Future 21 N v 76 Monitor Possible Phase 11 6 `O 0 77 Pruning 17 0 0 78 Total Phase 11 44 N 0 79 1 1 1 1 jL105 Total Trees 163 1 1 04 1 Z d r c m E t R r w Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 83 2.2.a EXHIBIT 3: Tree Inventory Database and Replanting Plant List - Replanting List Point Edwards HOA Updated for submission on June 18, 2021 Permit III -A Revegetation Map: L102, E33-E42 and L104 E33-E42, L04, E3-E8 To make the amendments obvious, the new native plants to be used are in this color of blue font. The plants not being used are being crossed out. Many plants in the original plan are natives so no change to them. Symbol Type Scientific Name Common Name Quantities Size Spacing Trees: A Tree AmurMaple3 4_� �n' •^+�• A Tiee ArnPlannh'Pr'AltPrn'fPl'a '98FV1G8la8FFY'QlaelioL' 3 i-1/4,1111 45'-GG G T-ree GOFRI616pag9da Dagweed 6 4_� �n' •^+�• V_M Tree .6 lantu.m. V��,.. Maple 2 79 20'e.G G Tree Corn- io'CherokepR' Dagweed 5 4 45'-GG 9 Tree GryptemeF1aJ-. $laGkDragGR' 3 79 10,GE VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple 'Sunglow' 2 7g 10' o.c. VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple 'Pacific Fire'3 3 7g 10' o.c. A Tree Amelanchier Serviceberry'Regent' 3 7g 10' o.c. B Tree Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 3 8' 15' o.c. C Tree Corpus kousa x nuttallii Dogwood Eddies White Wonder 6 log 12' o.c. C Tree Corpus kousa x nuttallii Dogwood Venus 6 6' toT 15' o.c. Bu Tree Rhamus p. 'Cascara' Buckthorn 8 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata'Excelsa' Excelsa Western Red Cedar 7 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata'Hogan' Hogan Western Red Cedar 7 7g 10' o.c. Shrubs: M Large Shrub Mock Orange Philadelphus'lewisii' 8 5g 6' o.c. I Large Shrub Ribes S. Currant 17 5g 6' o.c. H Large Shrub Vaccinium 'ovatum' Evergreen Huckleberry 23 3g 6' o.c. O Medium Shrub Mahonia'aquifolium' Oregon Grape 12 2g 4.5' o.c. R Medium Shrub Rhododendron Rhodendron 15 5g 4.5' o.c. S Medium Shrub Symphoricarpos Snowberry 25 2g 4.5' o.c. V RAeduFa Shrub VibuFRUF�aui&L Viburn--rn 9 39 45'0 G D Medium Shrub Corpus stolonifera 'Sericee Red Osier Dogwood 5 4.5' o.c. 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Corpus stolonifera'Sanguil Mid -winter Fire 4 5g 4.5' o.c. Low Shrub Mahonia'nervosa' Oregon Grape 27 1g 2 o.c. Low Shrub Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Blechnum spicant Deer Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Polystichum minutum Sword Fern 30 1g 3' o.c. Groundcover Arctostaphylos Kinnickinnick 126 4" 2 o.c. Groundcover Gaultheria shallon Salal 65 1 g 2 o.c. E Existing Trees Existing Low Shrubs/Groundcover Polystichum munitum/Sword fern = 42 existing throughout E3-E8 The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ slightly based on original map dates File: Permit Planting Key S/2020 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 84 2.2.a EXHIBIT 3: Tree Inventory Database and Replanting Plant List - Summary Tables 11 North Slope Inventoried Tree Species Alive Dead Total Trees Phase I -North Slope Number Percentage of Total (261) Removals 35 13.41% Shore Pine 96 1 97 Coppice 22 8.43% Alder 82 Snags 31 11.88% Scots Pine 38 15 Dead Western Red Cedar 16 16 Live Douglas -fir 16 Prune BLM's 2 0.77% Black Cottonwood 6 Phase I Total Trees: 90 34% Big Leaf Maple 2 Willow 2 Phase 11 - North Slope Number Spruce 1 Pruning 80 2 Total 259 1 260 Monitor/Reprune 31 Phase II Total Trees: 111 42% Future - North Slope Number Dead 3 Monitor 19 Counted Continue to Monitor Prune Future 37 Counted Pruning Thinning Future Total Trees: 59 24% TOTAL TREES 260 100% L104 Phase Coppice 13 Red Alder Removal 35 26 Red Alder, 5 Scots Pine, 3 Firs, 1 Cedar Snag 16 Live - Red Alder 15 Dead - Red Alder Total Phase I L104 79 L104 Phase II Pruning 33 Shore & Scots Pines 28 Monitor previous prune 13 Shore Pines minor pruning and only if needed Total Phase II L104 46 Future L104 Monitor 4 Cedar, Willow, Alder L105 Phase I Management Action Number Coppice 9 6 Cottonwoods; 3 Red Alder Removals 4 3 Doug -fir; 1 Cedar Snag 5 Live -Red Alder 1 Dead - Red Alder Total L105 Phase 1 19 L105 Phase 11 Management Action Pruning 17 Monitor previous prune 6 Shore Pines minor pruning and only if needed Total L105 Phase 11 23 L105 Future Monitor Future 19 Fir; Cedar; Willow; Spruce Monitor for Wildlife 6 Red Alders C O 2 O N Q t� N C J N L 3 w c a a le In 0 0 0 N O N Z J a (n r C 0) E t U O a t r 3 O CL d co le to O O O N O N Z J a r+ C 0) E s t� r r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 85 2.2.a Red Alders Douglas -fir Monitor 3 Removal 3 Coppice 16 Prune 2 Removal 26 Prune Future 11 Wildlife Snag 31 Dead 15 Live 16 Total 16 Total 76 Big Leaf Maple Scots Pine Prune 21 Removal 5 Total 2 Prune 26 Pruned Previou 7 Western Red Cedar Total 38 Prune 7 Prune Future 8 Shore Pine Removal 1 Dead 1 Total 16 Prune 45 Prune Future 21 Black Cottonwood Pruned Previou 30 Coppice 6 Total 97 e I -North Slope Number Percent of Total Removals 32 Coppice 22 Snags 39 17 Dead L102 Phase I 22 Live 0 Prune BLM's 2 Phase I Total Trees: 95 36.50% L102 Phase II Pruning 18 Phase 11 - North Slope Number Pruning 79 L102 Future Monitor 37 Monitor 27 Phase 11 Total Trees: 110 42% Dead #22 1 Future - North Slope Number L103 Phase Dead 1 Management Action Number Monitor 48 Prune 2 Future Total Trees: 49 19% Create Snags 1 1 TOTAL TREES 260 Total Phase I L103 4 L103 Phase 11 Management Action Number Monitor 18 Shore Pine Pruning 15 Shore Pine Total Phase 11 L103 33 C O 2 O N Q V N C J N L 3 LU C O IL le Ln O O r O N O N Z J a fn r C dC G t U cc a t r 3 O a m co le to O O 6 N O N Z J 11 c d E s c� .r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 86 2.2.a Phase I - Removals by Species Number Red Alder 26 Cedar 1 Fir 3 Scots Pine 2 Total 32 Phase I - Coppice by Species Cottonwood 6 Red Alder 16 Total 22 Phase I - Snags by Species Living 14 Dead 17 Total 31 Phase I - Pruning Big Leaf Maple 2 Total 2 PHASE I TOTAL TREES c 0 r M U 0 a� a y C 0 J L 0 3 w r c 0 LO LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a c m E 0 r r a t 3 L 0 Q N� LO ::i 0 O 0 N O N Z J a c a� E t a Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 87 2.2.a Phase II - NEW Pruning by Species Number Shore Pine 45 Scots Pine 29 Cedar 3 Fir 2 Phase II - Repeat or Monitor for Pruning Needs Shore Pine 30 Scots Pine 7 PHASE II TOTAL TREES 116 c 0 M U =a 0 a� a U y C fC J N L 3 w r c 0 LO LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a c m E 0 r r a t 3 L 0 Q N� LO ::i 0 O 0 N O N Z J a c a� E t a Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 88 2.2.a Phase I - Removals by Species Number Red Alder 26 Cedar 1 Fir 3 Scots Pine 5 Removal Total 35 Phase I - Coppice by Species Cottonwood 6 Red Alder 16 Coppice Total 22 Phase I - Snags by Species Red Alder - Living 16 Red Alder - Dead 15 Wildlife Snag Total 31 Phase I - Pruning Big Leaf Maple 2 Pruning Total 2 PHASE I TOTAL TREES 93 c 0 r M U 0 a� a y C 0 J L 0 3 w r c 0 LO LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a c m E 0 r r a t 3 L 0 Q N� LO ::i 0 O 0 N O N Z J a c a� E t a Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 89 2.2.a EXHIBIT 3: Tree Inventory Database and Replanting Plant List NOTE: West slope trees have not been tagged or numerically inventoried. Numbers listed below are best estimates using TRA Maps L105 and L106 plus groundtruthing. Map: L105 Map Locations: W5-W9 Pine 10 Doug -fir 6 Cedar 21 Alder 5 Cottonwood (Birch on Map) 4 Big Leaf Maple 4 Estimated Total: 50 Map: L106 Map Locations: W11-W21 Pine 20 Doug -fir 22 Cedar 8 Alder 2 Big Leaf Maple 33 Estimated Total: 85 L105 Total 50 L106 Total 85 Combined Total 135 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 90 2.2.a Point Edwards HOA Updated 6/7/21 Permit III -A Revegetation Map: Map L102, E33-E42, L104, E3-E8 Symbol Type Scientific Name Common Name Quantities Size Spacing Trees A Tree Acer `r-'nn;;r Amur Maple 3 11,429' A Tree Arnelanc 3 11 W' GR eeRter 15�G. C Tree i.e,'A;te,rof Ga eeber;y'C)be'Rsk' Dogweed 6 1114— VAA Tree e Aver ^*rr,*n",t, ^A Van8Ma; le 2 7g 29�G. r Tree Ce;�;asCherokee�Dogwood 5 1 15 � Tree Crto„reria '.'Black Dragon' 3 7g 10�G. VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple `Sunglow' 2 7g 10' o.c. VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple `Pacific Fire'3 7g 10' o.c. A Tree Amelanchier Serviceberry `Regent' 3 7g 10' o.c. B Tree Betula `papyrifera' Birch 3 8' 15' o.c. C Tree Cornus Kousa x nuttallii Dogwood Eddies White 6 10g 12' o.c. C Tree Cornus Kousa x nuttallii Dogwood Venus 6 6' to7' 15' o.c. Bu Tree Rhamus p. `Cascara' Buckthorn 8 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata `Excelsa' Cedar 7 (cross red c) 7g 10' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata `Hogan' Hogan Red Cedar 7 (cross red c) 7g 10' o.c. Shrubs: M Large Shrub Mock Orange Philadelphus `lewisii' 8 5g 6' o.c. I Large Shrub Ribes S. Currant 17 5g 6' o.c. H Large Shrub Vaccinium `ovatum' Evergreen Huckleberry 23 3g 6' o.c. O Medium Shrub Mahonia `aquifolium' Oregon Grape 12 2g 4.5' o.c. R Medium Shrub Rhododendron Rhodendron 15 5g 4.5' o.c. S Medium Shrub V Medium b Symphoricarpos Viburnum `davidii' Snowberry Viburnum 25 9 2g 3g 4.5' o.c. 4�' D Medium Shrub Cornus `Sericea' Red Osier Dogwood 5 5g G.G. 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Cornus 'Sanguinea' Mid -winter Fire 4 5g 4.5' o.c. Low Shrub Mahonia `nervosa' Oregon Grape 27 1g 2 o.c. Low Shrub Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Blechnum spicant Deer Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Polystichum minutum Sword Fern 30 1g 3' o.c. Groundcover Arctostaphylos Kinnickinnick 126 4" 2 o.c. Groundcover Gaultheria shallon Salal 65 1g 2 o.c. E Existing Trees Existing Low Shrubs/Groundcover Polystichum minutum/Sword fern = 42 existing throughout E3-E8 The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates File: Permit Planting Key 5/2020 Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 91 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a Submitted Draft: October 25, 2020 Supplemented for June 18, 2021 Submittal Justina Kraus; ISA Certified Arborist; justina.champtreecare&amail.com Champion Tree Care, LLC And: Bel Johnson, Point Edwards Landscape Manager 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA. 98020 Site Contact: Bel Johnson; bel(&,pointedwardshoa.com Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan The intent of this document is that it be a perpetual, but adaptable landscape management plan held in agreement between the Point Edwards Owners Association (PEOA) and the City of Edmonds (COE). The following plan will describe past, present, and future landscape management methods. The goal of this outline is to allow routine management to be carried out by PEOA staff well into the future. The PEOA landscape is currently managed and overseen by Bel Johnson and her team. This document has been drafted in conjunction with the PEOA landscape management team and Justina Kraus, Consulting Arborist at Champion Tree Care, LLC. The Point Edwards (PE) development process began in 2002. Unfortunately, at that time, the developer (Triad Development/PT. Edwards LLC) authorized clearcutting in direct violation with a development plan already approved with COE. These actions received financial penalties and required a new plan to be drafted. In 2004, an approved revegetation plan for the west slope was installed and monitoring reports were routinely sent to COE for approximately three years. The PE Landscape Team confirms our clear intent to artfully prune, evenly trim, sometimes transplant shrubs and/or trees that have grown and evolved since installation 15 years ago. The replanted west slope and upper terrace along the north slope is based on the legacy created by Consulting Arborist David Reich. He was the consultant on the development project and created both the plan that was violated as well as the mitigation replanting plan in 2004. The PE landscape has been managed in the interim using the original guidelines outlined by David Reich's reports. This document will merge all that information together into one current record, as well as identify some challenges and changes to methods needed to increase rates of success for the future landscape. The PEOA grounds are attractive, well -maintained, and managed for multiple benefits such as seasonal variation, slope stability, wildlife habitat, and view corridors. The entire PE complex is about 20 acres. Though the landscape is continuous, it has been designated as three different management areas (see Picture 1). The formal grounds surround the buildings and pathways, the west slope is located below buildings 31, 41, and 51 from the property line with Woodway to below building 51, where the slope curves facing north (TRA Map L106 and part of L105), and the north slope is located beginning below building 51 and running to the Maintenance Office and Pine Street (Part of TRA Map L105, and TRA Maps L104, L103 and L 102). Page 1 of 15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 92 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a Picture 1. Point Edwards had been designated into three landscape sections, simply for management purposes, and reference. The formal grounds surround the buildings, roads and walkways while the west slope is from the property line below building 31 running north to below building 51. The slope curves under building 51 towards the north. The north slope runs from under building 51 to Pine Street and the Maintenance Office (blue dot). The change from west slope to north slope is clear on the TRA Maps but is approximate here and not to scale. 1. Formal Grounds The formal grounds were designed and installed in conjunction with the buildings. The plan for the formal grounds was not changed by the cutting violation during development. The formal grounds require maintenance all year round to keep everything in order throughout the seasons. The current landscape design still adheres to the original installation. Work tasks vary based on the current season and get repeated annually. General tasks for the formal grounds include deicing walkways, blowing and collecting leaves and debris, weeding, replacing any dead or diseased plants, mowing and edging, changing out annual color spots and bulbs, transplanting shrubs and perennials, pruning trees and shrubs, and shearing hedges. Page 2of15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 93 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a Point Edwards Landscape Team would like to maintain the formal grounds as follows: • Adhere to the original design as originally approved, installed and expected. Trees, shrubs, perennials, or annuals may be replaced, removed, or divided with some or all being relocated when necessary for the health of surrounding plants and to match the overall look of the adjacent landscape. • The "lush" and full appearance will be maintained through replanting and renovation as plantings evolve. Like or similar plants may replace original plantings. If a tree dies, it will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio though it may not be the same species or placed in, exactly, the same location as the one that failed. The new plants should be installed in the best place, rather than be an exact replacement. Shrubs, perennials, groundcovers, and turf will be trimmed and fertilized as needed to keep a lush, attractive, and healthy plant community. • Trees, shrubs, and hedges shall be trimmed and shaped to frame rather than impede view corridors and to allow ample clearance along walkways and roads. • Continue managing these grounds with our current strategy of minimal chemical use, and using natural pest control methods, like vinegar and hot cayenne pepper powder instead of harsh chemicals. • There have been no instances of WDFW regulated wildlife species ever using the ornamental plantings near buildings of the formal grounds. Nonetheless, work on the formal grounds will be done using handheld equipment, and an eye out for wildlife. • A formal landscape requires more maintenance than a wild one. The formal grounds need to have pruning of small trees, shearing of small shrubs, and debris clean-up all year round because of seasonal changes, and maintenance needs. • The management team will use the lowest -impact, best management action when performing work, and will monitor for use by wildlife to determine the best possible methods for wildlife. 2. West Slope The west slope is shown on TRA Maps L106 and on L105 and is designated by map locations W1, where the west slope ends, and El, where the north slope begins. West slope is designated by W map locations, while for the north slope an E is used. The aspect of the west slope roughly faces west from the property line with Woodway down to the railroad tracks and then veers to share a property line with Chevron Corporation. The property line then runs from west to north until the slope changes direction facing north. The management areas switch from the west slope to the north slope on TRA Map L105. The west slope starts at the same level as the lawn, west of buildings 31 and 41, and extends across 570-feet. The elevation south of Building 51 is 110 feet then drops down to sea level. The slope decreases from 110 feet to 60-feet in elevation. It is terraced between the 60- and 40-foot elevations, then drops to the toe. The slope is classified as an erosion and landslide hazard area with much of the west slope 40% and greater. The west slope was successfully replanted in 2004 after it had been clear cut. Most of the species chosen and installed grow and thrive. Hardy ferns, ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), and Page 3of15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 94 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a native roses (Rosa species) have done well. The salal (Gaultheria shallon) has spread nicely but the mahonia (Mahonia nervosa) has not done well in areas with the most sun exposure. The serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) has essentially all died out in tree and shrub forms. The twinberry honeysuckle and rambling rose have become invasive and should not be used in the future. Non-native invasive species, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius) are managed using handheld tools but because the roots are not dug out or the plants chemically treated, the invasives persist on the slope. The PEOA would like to maintain the west slope as follows: Only trees within PEOA property boundaries or impacting fence lines will be maintained. Pruning will be done at least every other year in accordance with COE defined exempt activities to perform normal maintenance of vegetation. All trees and shrubs along property line boundaries, especially near the railroad tracks will be surveyed by an ISA Certified Arborist that is also TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified) every 2-4 years. They should identify issues to fence lines as well as to locate any visually apparent tree/shrub problems or potential hazards along the property lines. They will submit a brief written summary to the PEOA Landscape Team. PEOA will send a memo with any new information to the COE planner. If needed, a report would be prepared and submitted if any recommendations for mitigation included non-exempt tree work activities. All cuttings are to be left diced up on the slope. It needs to be cut to lay flat so that the material does not smother living plants or have any potential to move or cause slope erosion. The exception is Himalayan blackberry, thistle (Circium arvense), and Scots broom woody debris should be removed from the slope as much as possible. Cuttings of Himalayan blackberry can root themselves and Scots broom makes seeds that can live in the soil for decades awaiting the right germination conditions. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), Shore pines (Pinus contorta) and vine maples (Acer circinatum) were planted along the top, mid, and lower portions of both slopes (west and north). They are small trees, ranging from 10- to 30-ft, in height depending on their location, species form, overall growth, and ability to establish. PEOA will maintain the trees through pruning by using known Japanese garden methods for height reduction pruning, (which is not the same as topping) plus crown thinning and shaping to manage the heights, and forms into perpetuity. Please note that February 2019 had extreme snow events. In Feb 2019, several pines that had never been pruned fell over or lost branches because they caught and held snow. The roots could not support the canopy that held the extra weight. Whole tree failures, like this, could cause soil exposure, change the water holding capacity, and/or lead to soil erosion with soil sloughing. Top of slope at 110-ft elevation down to the 60-ft line will be annually trimmed to keep the invasive species population low, to keep plant sizes smaller so that the routine maintenance pruning cuts are small and so work can be done from the ground using handheld tools. From the 60-ft elevation, down to the toe of the slope, plants will be trimmed every year, to knock back the invasive species, keep trees and shrubs shorter than the 110-ft elevation marker and prune using ISA Certified Arborists and rope and saddle tree climbing techniques to trim and shape trees. Page 4 of 15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 95 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a • Volunteer trees less than 4" diameter at breast height (DBH) may be removed and if so, the woody debris is to be left diced up to lay flat on the slope. Some volunteer trees may be left if the right species lands in the right place (for example, native willows (Salix species) are very desirable because of shape and water use). • Many of the trees removed in 2002 have been managed as coppiced, resprouting stumps. The stumps are still alive, needing to be managed, with living roots and other plants have filled in around them on the slopes. The stumps are decaying even as they sprout, which slowly releases nutrients. The species that were coppiced and are still alive are big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). The remnant stumps will be maintained depending on their elevation on the slope. Coppiced trees will generally be maintained either as low uniform shrubs or by pruning out 30% of the oldest largest sprouts when they are less than 4" and leaving the smaller and younger new sprouts to keep the tree in a juvenile state rather than allow its structure to mature. This method was outlined in Consulting Arborist David Reich COE approved 2002-2004 reports. Even prior to the developer's permit violation, some cutting had been approved to take place and the retained stumps were to be treated using this method. • Volunteer plants, plants excessively reproducing or spreading, or plants not doing well, may be transplanted, or replaced if the small amount of disturbed soil were kept small, and less than 100-sq ft. These small patches, during this activity, would be covered with mulch to ensure no exposed soil remains once activities are completed. • PEOA would like to be able to replace any plants or trees that die with a like or similar species (for example no more amelanchier should be used on the west slope, they are not aggressive and die out from encroachment). If an area of dieback is larger than 100-sq ft., the COE will be notified with a proposed mitigation plan for COE to approve. • Trees will be pruned to reduce encroachment and done in a manner that will benefit the desirable species. • PEOA would like to maintain deciduous trees below the 60-ft elevation as trees that stay about 50-ft tall, or near the height of the top of the slope. Rather than topping the trees, the plan would be to reduce the height on a fairly regular schedule (every 1-3 years) by using drop crotch style pruning back to strong side growing lateral branches and repeating so the cuts and amount pruned do not exceed 25% for any single pruning event. Pruning would have to be done using tree climbing ISA Certified Arborists with rope and saddle using handheld battery, or gas -powered tools. • Shore pine (Pinus contorta) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) should be pruned using similar methods as the deciduous trees and be maintained in a Japanese Garden pruning style to keep the size and structure the same year after year once the structure is established in the first two pruning cycles. Pine trees are conducive to these methods (or bonsai methods) because the new growth emerges in bundles of needles that can be trimmed off to shorten the amount of growth the tree will expand each year. • Larger conifer trees should not be pruned like deciduous trees or the pine trees. The western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) should have windowing, canopy thinning and selective branch pruning back to the trunk or end weight reduction back to living lateral branches. PEOA would like the ability to manage all the trees on the west slope at some point in the future even though it may not be needed presently. Please allow PE to prune the coniferous Page 5of15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 96 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a trees, so the canopies may be managed with proper pruning techniques. A pruning plan for the conifers could be the selective removal of branches and shortening long branches so the tree remains green, and tree shaped, but frames and maintains view corridors. Pruning should be done to reduce risk, not create more. A tree inventory database could be created for the west slope to complete the inventory database in place on the north slope. That inventory would then be described under the north slope information below. A tree inventory is a numerical database cataloging stands of trees. An inventory would include map location, slope location and/or elevation, tree species, tree size, longevity and/or hazard potential, and any management action and/or timing. Pruning and trimming work will be done in the spring and in the fall though not be performed during the wettest times of those seasons (precipitation patterns annually vary). Work should not be done during the hottest and driest summer months when trimming could cause dieback due to dry air desiccation of fresh cuts. Also work would not be performed in the wettest periods in winter to avoid disturbing highly saturated soils on the slope. Work should also not be done in the frozen months because trimming could cause dieback from desiccation due to lack of water movement within the plants. The COE is notified when the repeating work takes place on the slope by an email from Bel Johnson to Kernen Lien. No cutting of trees outside of the established routine maintenance takes place. However, in the future, if site conditions change, and a change to the cutting of the west slope trees was thought necessary, then a Wildlife Biologist will be retained to assess the project area. PE would share the arboricultural reasoning, and biologist report with COE to comply with procedures and regulations. This would only be in order to get work deemed necessary done, in the future. The timing for routine maintenance work during the nesting season has been guided by Raedeke Associates, Inc. PE will maintain compliance with all recommended guidance regarding the management of regulated wildlife species: (1) any observed nests are to be left undisturbed (2) work only involves pruning, or maintenance work with hand tools and no large machinery is used and (3) no significant trees or excessive portions of trees are removed during this time on the north or west slopes. No heron, eagles or other raptors were found at, or to be using, the project site based on a March 25, 2021, technical memorandum by Raedeke Associates, Inc. If any invasive species removal work must take place during the nesting season, hand-held or battery - operated tools will be used by a small crew of a few workers to reduce the noise and possible disturbance. If any regulated species, such as blue herons or bald eagles are observed by a reputable and identifiable source making use of trees on the PE complex, then a Wildlife Biologist will be consulted before any work would take place. The COE will be notified to be sure PE maintains communication and complies with all regulations and procedures. If any extreme storm events happen, the trees may need to be reassessed for preservation potential by an ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor. If any regulated wildlife species begin to use any portion of the PE landscape, then a Wildlife Biologist will need to be retained to determine site use and occupancy, and make management recommendations. Page 6 of 15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 97 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a 3. North Slope The change from the west slope to the north slope is shown on TRA Map L105 and is designated by map locations W1, where the west slope ends, and E1, where the north slope begins. West slope is designated by W map locations, while for the north slope an E is used. The north slope is mapped on four TRA Maps; L105, L104, L103, L102. The north slope begins below the southwest corner of building 51 and extends across about 1,600-feet to the Maintenance Office driveway and Pine Street. The elevation at the top of the north slope is approximately 70-feet elevation. The elevation decreases from that highest point and drops to the property line at about 30-ft elevation in some areas, and in other areas it drops to about 0 to 10-ft elevation, or sea level. The north slope is managed differently and as a separate landscape area from the west slope for a few reasons: 1. The north slope was not completely replanted during development. An application to improve the plant species diversity and to allow pruning, Permit Type III -A; Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope, is being submitted. 2. The north slope is not as steep as the west slope; a large percentage of the north slope is not greater than 15%. This means that there are grassy patches that are easy to maintain between the shrubs and trees using hand-held equipment from the ground. There is space between plantings, in much of this area, because it is grassy. 3. Another difference, between the north and the west slopes, is the north has an engineered water -holding pond with a requirement to keep the fence line cleared and is dredged periodically to maintain water holding capacity. There is a small but steep area of the landscape between building 51 and the detention pond that needs to be addressed for slope stability and invasive species eradication that is proposed for improvements in the 2020 Permit Type III -A application. 4. A fourth change is humans walking on footpaths are encouraged to access this slope The paved public walking paths run at the 60-ft elevation, from the maintenance area with offshoot -paths connecting the formal grounds with the wide level path on the north slope that runs to below the detention pond. 5. A fifth difference is that a remnant structure exists at the toe of the north slope near the property line with Chevron. It is a cement roofless floor with one wall, covered in English Ivy, a legacy of the land use prior to PE development. 6. The final difference is a detailed tree inventory has been installed on the north slope to facilitate landscape maintenance planning and a permit to change the landscape and then maintain it according to COE exempt landscape activities. Fall 2020, a Permit Type III -A; Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope has been submitted. The permit has been supplemented to include recommendations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and to include the data from Citizen Scientists Scott Markowitz. Large healthy red alders have been retained, and more wildlife snags will be created to retain standing wood for keystone species like Downy Woodpeckers. Page 7of15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 98 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a The actions of that plan are summarized below. The landscape change, from one plant community to another, will perform the following: • Removals (cut down and leave dead stump): 45 trees • Coppicing (cut down but leave stump expected to resprout): 28 trees • Snagging (living and dead wildlife snags): 24 trees • Pruning (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape): 78 trees • Pruned previously and may need small amount of pruning again: 37 trees • No Action, just requires monitoring: 47 trees • Plant new community with 462 plants: 45 trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns, 126 groundcovers Monitor and report to COE after project completion for 5-years. There are actually 260 trees in the north slope inventory because tree #42 is dead and laying on the ground but it has been included in the inventory. • Removals:35 • Coppicing:22 • Snagging:31 • Pruning:80 • No Action just Monitor: 89 • Replanting: Same numbers but will be native species (including varieties and cultivars) not introduced ornamentals. PEOA would like to manage the north slope as follows: PE wants to work with the COE on landscape improvements to maintain slope stability and create a diverse, species rich plant community managed into perpetuity. Only trees within PEOA property boundaries will be managed unless a tree needs to be cut at the property line, if damaging fence lines. Property line clearance pruning will be done at least every year in accordance with COE defined normal maintenance of vegetation. All trees and shrubs along property line boundaries will be surveyed by an ISA Certified Arborist that is also TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified every 3-5 years. An arborist should identify, document, and report any issues to fence lines and/or targets on adjacent property. The arborist will also provide recommendations to mitigate the documented problems or potential hazards along the property lines to the PEOA Landscape Management Team. PEOA would then share the results with the COE planner and discuss any recommendations for mitigation. COE and PEOA would also plan to work together to have the problems/hazards corrected or reduced. All cuttings will be left diced up on the slope if the material does not smother living plants or have any potential to move or cause slope erosion. All material from Himalayan blackberry, Scots broom and English ivy (Hedera helix) woody debris should be removed from the slope or piled and covered with a tarp until it can be removed. Cuttings of Himalayan blackberry can root themselves and Scots broom makes seeds that can live in the soil for years awaiting the right germination conditions. Just a small stem section Page 8 of 15 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 99 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a even without leaves of English Ivy can root itself. English holly (Ilex aquifolium) especially any female trees with berries will also be removed from the slope. All tree and shrub branches and trimmings will be left diced up on the slope to lay flat unless it could smother existing plants or prevent new plants from being installed. If debris must be removed, then it should be turned into wood chips and left onsite to be used as mulch. Only hand labor and handheld tools will be used on the slope. The landscape change application will allow PEOA to manage the areas of red alder regrowth by removing some trees and creating wildlife snags in others, to open the space to replanting with a mixture of species. Some of the successful species from the west slope will be used along with any lessons learned about known methods that will increase slope stability. The slope is always paramount, but the plan will also improve wildlife forage and habitat opportunities by increasing the overall numbers of plants and increasing the diversity of plant species. The thicket of volunteer red alders has become a monoculture, shading out any understory plants except English ivy, and causing encroachment damage on the long-term trees and shrubs planted intentionally. Some of the largest, healthiest red alders will be retained to preserve the red alder habitat functions of nitrogen fixation and soil retention. Any trees with nesting structures will have the management action changed to retained and monitored. One red alder tree with a remnant nest that showed no evidence of being active during 2021 field investigations was found in the project site by Wildlife Biologist Andrew Rossi. Tree #179 will be retained and monitored. Scots pine, shore pines and vine maples were planted along the top, mid, and lower portions of both slopes (west and north). They are small trees, ranging from 10- to 30-ft in height depending on their location, species form, overall growth and ability to establish. PEOA will maintain the trees through fine pruning by using known methods for long-term canopy management. Please recall that in February 2019, Edmonds had an extreme snow event. In Feb 2019, several pines that had never been pruned fell over, and/or lost branches because they caught and held snow that the center of gravity could not support. The extra weight caused three unpruned pine trees to fall over. Whole tree failures can cause soil exposure leading to soil erosion, or sloughing, and are not desirable on a slope. The detention pond is maintained annually so that the fence line is kept clear of volunteer plants. The pond is maintained so that only cattails can grow but that the drain is clear, not blocked by plants or debris. No change to the ongoing maintenance protocols and schedule is proposed. The pond has become a naturalized feature used by avian wildlife including individual blue herons. No change to the maintenance is proposed. The timing for routine maintenance work during the nesting season has been guided by Raedeke Associates, Inc. PE will maintain compliance with all recommended guidance regarding the management of regulated wildlife species: (1) any observed nests are to be left undisturbed (2) work only involves pruning, or maintenance work with hand tools and no large machinery is used and (3) no significant trees or excessive portions of trees are removed during this time on the north or west slopes. No heron, eagles or other raptors were found at, or to be using, the project site based on a March 25, 2021, technical memorandum by Raedeke Associates, Inc. If any invasive species removal work must take place during the nesting season, hand-held or battery - Page 9 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 100 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a operated tools will be used by a small crew of a few workers to reduce the noise and possible disturbance. If any regulated species, such as blue herons or bald eagles are observed by a reputable and identifiable source making use of trees on the PE complex, then a Wildlife Biologist will be consulted before any work would take place. The COE will be notified to be sure PE maintains communication and complies with all regulations and procedures. If any extreme storm events happen, the trees may need to be reassessed for preservation potential by an ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor. If any regulated wildlife species begin to use any portion of the PE landscape, then a Wildlife Biologist will need to be retained to determine site use and occupancy, and make management recommendations. PEOA Landscape: Future We have identified six goals to constantly work toward every day, because by doing so we can positively influence and create a sustainable landscape into perpetuity. Maintaining slope stability and integrity into the future is primary. Secondary and tertiary goals include improving the landscape diversity and maintaining view corridors from public viewpoints. Using best management practices and industry standards while building a relationship of trust between COE and PE are the fourth and fifth goals, respectively. Finally, to preserve and maintain future use of site benefits, action needs to take place now. The final goal is to use foresight to increase landscape benefits now and into the future. A seventh goal is to be a good caretaker of the land, for the benefit of current and future generations of people and wildlife. The quality of wildlife habitat at PE will be preserved and enhanced through thoughtful management. Please accept this document as a management guide by which PEOA will manage the formal grounds and both slopes. PEOA wishes to be transparent about landscape management and continue a positive working relationship. The developer that changed the site is no longer involved, and now Point Edwards is made up of property owners that pay city and state property taxes. We hope this document can be adaptable. If unforeseen site conditions arise, new legislation passed, or unexpected natural circumstances occur, then this document should be reviewed, and the necessary item(s) updated at that time. After updating, then this document should be re -confirmed by both parties, as needed, depending on the situation. In the event nothing unexpected or unusual happens, then a formal update should be done every 8-10 years. The update would summarize the projects and maintenance that has been completed including successes and any problems. Depending on the amount of new information to be added, or if major landscape changes happen, shorter intervals could be considered. For example, fall 2020, a north slope permit has been applied to the COE and if accepted will take approximately 3 years to complete, then be monitored for 5 years. PEOA and COE will be in frequent contact during this eight -year period. We recommend an update to the LMP after this 8- year period is over, but before 10 years passes. Ten years is a reasonable increment of time to add an update to the LMP, since decadal changes can have significant differences in temperature and precipitation. Plus, there are likely to be some updates/changes to ordinances and regulations. Page 10 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 101 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a Future possible issues as forecast from 2020 include the following: Some of the 2004 planted conifers are growing too close together and are keeping sunlight from penetrating the forest floor and causing significant dieback amongst any slower growing trees. PEOA expects to create and submit a redesign plan, within five to ten years, to use known forestry thinning practices by selective tree removal and low branch pruning with understory replanting in areas on TRA L105 and TRA L106. Someday the adjacent Chevron property may have another owner and could even be developed. In the past, it had been hoped to work with the adjacent property to develop a shared plan decreasing the number of red alders and increasing plant diversity through replanting. Any future use, of the adjacent property, may impact the PE landscape and/or necessitate changes, or adaptions, to the management of the shared fence line. If any extreme storm events happen, the trees will need to be reassessed for preservation potential by an ISA Certified Arborist and Tree Risk Assessor. If any regulated wildlife species begin to use any portion of the PE landscape, then a Wildlife Biologist will need to be retained to determine site use and occupancy and make management recommendations. Goals: PEOA has many goals upheld by the owners, managers and caretakers. Always maintain slope stability, to avoid landslides of any size, by using techniques shown to be ecologically low impact. This includes employing best available science and using established management practices for any work, as the situation requires. Eradication of invasive and noxious weeds, for those species as described on the Snohomish County Noxious Weeds website (https://snohomishcountMa.gov/722/Noxious-Weeds). Improvement of the community ecology through individual pruning and diversity of plants' structure and composition. Reduce stormwater runoff by improving the interception and retention of precipitation using tree and shrub canopies. Protect the unique and special Edmonds viewshed that includes the Olympic Mountains, Puget Sound Waters, Washington State Department of Transportation Ferry System, and Marsh, to maintain the vistas for the benefit of future users. Definitions and Best Management Practice Methods: Cuttings and plant debris from all tree and shrub work on the slopes will be diced up and left on the slope except if doing so would present an erosion or slope stability problem. Because problems from leaving debris are not highly likely, it can be assumed that all coarse woody debris will be cut and scattered on the slope. No debris will be left to lay in the formal grounds unless it is intentionally being used as decoration or mulch. Coarse Woody Debris is not size dependent but rather any material from leaves to woody stems from plants that falls naturally or is produced by tree trimming work. CWD improves soil structure and composition along with releasing nutrients slowly through time by sheltering and Page 11 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 102 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a shading the soil and slowing rain and water movement. Nutrients bound in the material are slowly leached into the soil profile and made available to adjacent plants through decomposition. Living plants can be smothered by excessive amounts of CWD and so care will be taken to dice up the debris and scatter it between plants. Tree and shrub work will be done using hand pruners, hand saws, lopping shears, and small power tools like chainsaws or pole pruners. PE is required to ensure that persons doing the work have the proper training and expertise to use the correct tool for the situation. Consideration of personal safety of employees and reasonable use of suitable equipment will improve the ability of PE employees to perform proper pruning and tree care activities. Tree pruning will be done to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards, and/or by an ISA and TRAQ Certified Arborist, and/or will be overseen by the PEOA Landscape Manager to meet known COE expectations. Tree topping is the canopy removal of a tree back to a certain height using heading cuts regardless of lateral branches and tree species age, health, or form. Height reduction pruning is not necessarily the same as topping. Instead, it is intentional pruning to reduce height and shape on deciduous tree species using knowledge of the given tree species wood strength, mature growth form, and the age and health of the tree. Primarily it requires the desired goal be defined and realistic, and it is not appropriate to perform on single - trunk conifer species. Point Edwards is approved for Exemption under ECDC 23.40.230 which is the "Normal maintenance of vegetation" on a critical slope. This means removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occur at least every other year. Maintenance also may include repeated tree topping if that has been previously approved by the City in the past five years. Exemption Letter remains in perpetuity in the City of Edmonds files. Benchmark Heights are those heights established based on the species, location and health. The heights are established when the plant is as young as possible, so the pruning cuts are as small as possible. Then every 1-3 years the pruning is repeated back to the same shape or benchmark height. Timeline: Past, Present and Future Prior to 2001: Unocal Tank Farm 2002 — 2004: Site was approved for development with an established slope maintenance program. However, the Point Edwards Developer cut all existing trees regardless of elevation or position on slope, effectively not following the approved plan. After negotiations and settlement with the City of Edmonds, the original revegetation plan was modified, an approved plan was installed, and monitoring began. 2005 - 2008: Monitoring reports were sent to COE to fulfill the 2004 agreements with the COE. Maintenance work becomes necessary right away at large complexes to manage the various landscape zones. The work for the formal grounds includes blowing and clearing leaves, maintaining and edging areas of turf, pruning ornamental plantings, shearing and Page 12 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 103 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a trimming hedges, changing out seasonal color in large pots at public viewpoints. The replanted West slope work included removing blackberry, keeping small foot paths open and trimming shrubs and trees at the top of the slope. The north slope and retention pond were both weed whacked to keep paths open and edged, the maintenance road to pond clear and blackberry was removed. 2009 - 2012: The maintenance routine for all landscape areas was established after the 2004 agreement with COE continued to be followed until work on the north and west slopes were halted by COE in August 2012. The COE allowed some routine maintenance to occur while waiting for an updated Landscape Management Plan and Operating Agreement. 2013 — 2014: Ongoing maintenance to the formal grounds. No pruning on the west slope. North slope had paths maintained and invasive plants removed. 2015 - 2019: Ongoing maintenance to the formal grounds goes on all year round. Work resumed on the west slope consisting of invasive blackberry removal, maintaining the small footpaths, installing elevation markers, and trimming trees and shrubs installed or modified during the 2004 agreement. The west slope work has, and will, continue to be worked on by an outside tree care company with a crew of three to four people using handheld tools. 2020: Updated Landscape Management Plan submitted to the COE along with a design review for landscape modification on the north slope. Begin north slope project Phase I. Continue formal grounds maintenance. A crew will perform less than five days of trimming to the west slope, with days in the spring or in the fall. Work through north slope Phase I, while maintaining the pathways, maintaining the detention pond, and removing invasive species.2021: Continue formal grounds maintenance. On the west slope, about two -three days of trimming to trees and shrubs and two to three to remove invasive species while maintaining small foot paths and elevation markers. Complete permit process and begin implementing Phase I removals, coppicing, wildlife snagging and pruning two big leaf maples. Send monthly memos to COE regarding progress. 2021: Retain Wildlife Biologist and incorporate his recommendations, Citizen Science data, and Public Comments into Permit and LMP to improve management for wildlife benefits. Per Raedeke Associates for 2021, based on our on -site observations, there is no evidence of nesting on site by herons, eagles, or other raptors. It is these species that are most relevant to the March — September breeding season. We would expect most songbirds to fledge by late July, so trimming needing to be done then or in August - September would have less impact on most of these species. Phase I work could begin in October 2021. 2022: Continue formal grounds maintenance. On the west slope, about two to three days of trimming to trees and shrubs, and two to three days to remove invasive species while maintaining small foot paths and elevation markers. On the north slope, complete Phase I, potentially begin and complete Phase II pruning. Planting for Phase III will then follow. Regular project updates will be submitted. Ongoing maintenance to remove invasive species, weed whack grass and maintain pathways will be performed. 2023: Continue formal grounds maintenance. On the west slope, about three days of trimming to trees and shrubs and three days to remove invasive species while maintaining small foot paths and elevation markers. On the north slope, complete Phase II and III. Submit regular project updates, remove invasive species, weed whack grass, and maintain Page 13 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 104 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a pathways. Have an inspection, complete project implementation, and begin a five-year monitoring program. 2024: Continue formal grounds maintenance. On the west slope, about three to four days of trimming to trees and shrubs, and three to four days to remove invasive species while maintaining small foot paths and elevation markers. On the north slope, monitor and submit memos for project updates as needed, remove invasive species, weed whack grass and maintain pathways. Submit an Annual Monitoring Report by an agreed upon date. 2025-2029: Continue formal grounds maintenance year-round. Continue routine trimming on the west slope. Adjust the number of workdays and/or number of crew as needed to address future growth and conditions. Notify COE about any changes and continue to notify before work dates. On the north slope, monitor and submit memos for project updates as needed to complete the five-year monitoring. Remove invasive species, weed whack grass, and maintain pathways. Submit an Annual Monitoring Report by an agreed upon date until the project is completed. Continue to submit memos notifying COE about slope work dates. Any detection of regulated wildlife species will result in a Wildlife Biologist being retained and the COE being informed of the situation. 2030: Update to LMP. By the year 2030, it will be time to revisit the landscape management plan and goals to align with any new laws or ordinances and meet the future use for COE residents, adjacent properties, and wildlife. PE will submit a brief, but concise, report summarizing ongoing maintenance to all landscape zones, listing ongoing projects in each zone and proposing any new projects or changes to existing methods. 2031 — Future: Continue to use adaptable management with monitoring and perpetual care. Known, established, best management practices will always be appropriate to achieve goals for PE and COE. An update to this LMP should be done at least every 10 years to summarize the ongoing maintenance, present challenges, and successes, and to revisit COE critical slopes regulations at least every ten -years. Learning from the Past: Q & A about the West Slope: What has worked since 2004 installation? A combination of PE staff and outside tree vendors, has worked well for ongoing maintenance so that all parts of the west slope are gently "touched". This allows PE to maintain the grounds within the exemption for the 1500 sq. ft. rule. It also allows PE's staff to work on the manageable, most time sensitive upper areas. Have any plants thrived? Most shrubs on the west slope have thrived... ferns, rose and ocean spray are doing well. Mahonia is okay but not thriving — salal has spread nicely. Any died? The amelanchier have died out in tree and shrub form. Ribes — there are not as many as there were and the Lonicera `Twinberry' has become quite prolific. What should be changed to make more successful the proposed plan for the north slope? Limit the use of tripleberry, twinberry, and rambling rose or other types of prolific native plants. Introduce the right plant in the right place, such as mahonia closer to light shade (as we have lost quite a lot of them on both slopes). As David Reich said, there should have never been pine trees placed in some of the areas such as right below building 51 or between 110' and 60' elevation markers on the west slope. Repeated work to keep invasive plants at bay is a key for the health of long-term desirable plants. Page 14 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 105 Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020/2021 2.2.a How often should monitoring with likely revisions occur, to be useful to management? West slope — we prune the 60' to 110' areas throughout the growing season in order to maintain height for slope stability and control over shrubs mainly. Revisions do not seem necessary as we monitor the upper west slope area closely. Below 60' to the toe of the property line is normally where an outside company will perform work every other year, or even less often, depending on the growth of trees, noxious weeds, and annual weather patterns. Further down from the 60' survey line the slope becomes steeper and is monitored by the Landscape Manager on a quarterly/seasonal basis. How often should monitoring occur to be useful for plant health? Monitoring occurs monthly on the north slope and the upper 110' to 60' on the west slope as well throughout the growing season — approximately March to October which is beneficial for the plant community. Slopes are spot checked for invasive and plant/tree health. Once growth begins to slow the slopes are monitored on a quarterly basis. How well were invasive species like blackberry and Scots broom suppressed? Suppression of invasive species such as blackberry and Scots broom has been a continual challenge for both the north and west slopes. We have an outside company that helps to maintain the invasive plant and volunteer trees annually throughout the west and north slopes. Due to how large the west slope is, the vendor will touch every part of the west slope by working with Point Edwards on an annual basis to maintain the exemption time frame of 3 to 5 years. The north slopes invasive plants will continue to be controlled throughout the growing season by handheld tools and small gasoline -powered equipment. English ivy has a good foothold on the lower portions of the north slope currently, and we are working diligently to try to control the spread. End of Document. Page 15 of 15 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 106 Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM June 16, 2021 To: Ms. Bel' Johnson Landscape Manager Point Edwards HOA 93 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Andrew J. Rossi, B.S. Wildlife Biologist Raedeke Associates, Inc. Richard W. Lundquist, M.S. President / Wildlife Biologist Raedeke Associates, Inc. RE: Point Edwards HOA Edmonds — Great Blue Heron Assessment (RAI Project No. 2021-010-001) This report documents the results of our field investigation at the Point Edwards Condominium Complex in Edmonds, WA. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate current wildlife use and habitat conditions within the study area, as well as evaluate the historical mapped sites of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony and any other regulated species such as bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the vicinity of the project site. This Technical Memorandum is intended for submittal to the City of Edmonds as part of an application by Point Edwards HOA for a Type III -A Permit seeking authorization from the City to (1) remove, coppice, or trim existing trees including a number of red alder (Alnus rubra) trees and (2) revegetate the slope with other native plant varieties, as well as some non-native cultivars. See the Combined Map Set (Exhibit 2) of revegetation plans for specific tree locations and treatments (Thomas Rengstorf and Associates. 2015), which is attached as Appendix A to this technical memorandum. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the study area on February 16, 2021, and on March 11, 2021. During these field investigations, we documented wildlife presence, sign, and habitat, and we also described plant communities. We recorded information regarding 2111 N. Northgate Ave, Ste. 219 Seattle, WA 98103 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 107 2 2.2.a reproduction, habitat use, and activities of all wildlife species observed. In addition, we noted special habitat features such as large and/or hollow trees, snags [standing dead or partly dead trees at least four inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and at least six feet tall], and large downed logs. STUDY AREA LOCATION The project site consists of a 21-acre property, containing 261 Snohomish County Tax Parcels, at 93 Pine Street in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). This places the property within the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. Site details received from Bel Johnson on January 20, 2021 determined the property boundaries. The project site is immediately adjacent and southwest of a parcel owned by The Chevron Corporation (Figure 2). This Chevron Site is not currently being utilized for any commercial uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Type III -A Permit application submitted to the City of Edmonds by Justina Kraus and Bel Johnson (2020) outlines the complete summary of proposed actions at the project site. The project will be completed in three phases. Phases I and II involve the removal, coppicing, and pruning of trees. In total, the project proposes to remove 35 trees, coppice (cut but leave stump for resprouting) 22 trees, prune 82 trees, create 31 snags, and leave 87 trees unchanged. All tree modifications will be completed using small handheld tools such as chainsaws and/or trimmers. A wood -chipper may potentially be used to create mulch, but would only be positioned on the existing access road above the slope to the south of where tree modifications will take place. Phase III involves the replanting of the slope. Similar to Phases I and II, the revegetation in Phase III will be completed using only hand tools such as shovels and wheelbarrows. In total, the project proposes to install 45 trees, 48 large shrubs, 61 medium shrubs, 92 low shrubs, 90 ferns and 126 ground cover plants. See Appendix A for figures outlining revegetation plans (Thomas Rengstorf and Associates 2015). These modifications will take place on the northern and northeastern edges of the project site (Appendix A). The northwestern slope will be unaltered. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment 7 2.2.a REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION WDFW PHS Database The current Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2021) online Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database map depicts two areas at or in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 3) with records of use by great blue herons. The first area is located at the southwestern corner of the stormwater pond in the northern portion of the project site and extends towards the nearest condominium building to the south. The second area is located within the Chevron Parcel to the northeast of the project site and it is approximately 135 to 250 feet northeast of the project site. Both entries in the PHS database are listed under March 25, 2002. They also both indicate the presence of three unoccupied nests and up to 17 herons in previous years. There are no entries on the PHS database that indicate these nests have been active since before 2002. The PHS map also indicates the presence of wetland, resident coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarki), and Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) habitat within the northeast portion of the Chevron parcel and extending towards the northeast into Edmonds Marsh. Finally, estuarine wetland and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) habitat are indicated on the PHS map west of the project site within the Puget Sound. No other priority or otherwise regulated species or habitats are indicated as occurring within 1,000 feet of the project site on the PHS database. Great Blue Heron Colony History WDFW no longer conducts annual monitoring of heron colonies (Gary Bell, WDFW, personal communication 2021), and information that WDFW does provide is second- hand. The last known successful nesting period was before the PHS entry in March 2002, when there were reportedly up to 17 herons. It is possible that eagle predation greatly reduced the number of nesting pairs and fledglings. WDFW (Gary Bell, Gretchen Blatz, WDFW, personal communication, 2021) confirmed that they had no further information regarding this potential rookery area. They also indicated the nearest documented activity was approximately 1 mile from the site and this information had not been updated since 2002. EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation and Habitat Description The majority of the project site consists of the "formal grounds" surrounding the condominium buildings. Plant communities in these areas are characterized by small ornamental trees and ornamental shrubs with some areas (particularly around the perimeter of the formal grounds) characterized by more native plant species such as salal (Gaultheria shallon), red -twig dogwood (Cornus sericea), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment 7 El 2.2.a The proposed revegetation area in the north section of the project site is characterized by a low diversity stand of red alder (Alnus rubra) with very few shore pine (Pinus contorta) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata), where an understory of invasive species such as holly (Ilex aquifolium), English ivy (Hedera helix), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) are beginning to become more established. The proposed revegetation area along the northeastern edge of the project site is characterized by dense growth of shore pine with some bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and red -twig dogwoods (Cornus sericea) interspersed between them. These vegetation communities extend off -site slightly to the north and east onto the Chevron property, but then end where an empty gravel pad exists on most of the Chevron site. The proposed revegetation areas are bordered to the south by a publicly accessible walking path that extends just northwest of the stormwater pond, where it ends. Current Status of the Heron Colony and Other Significant Habitat Features During our field investigations we observed a single nest structure within the boundaries of the project site in the northern portion (Figure 4) of the site. This nest was approximately 2 feet wide and 1.5 feet deep, and was constructed out of approximately 1/4 — inch sticks, but we did not observe any activity by herons or raptors at this tree during our site visits. Also, we did not observe any individual herons or signs thereof at the project site during our two field visits. We did, however, observe 3 stick nest structures off -site to the northeast from a vantage point to the north of Edmonds Marsh. These nests appeared to have the size and structure to support great blue herons, but also did not show any signs of heron activity during our site visits. The nests were located approximately 250 feet from the northeast edge of the project site. Based on our observations at the Edmonds Point property during our two visits to the study area, it appears that the herons have abandoned the former colony site, with (1) only one remaining potential 2-foot diameter nest (that is not confirmed as having ever been utilized by herons) still present, (2) no herons present during site visits, and (3) no evidence of current heron nesting activity such as whitewash or feathers beneath nest tree areas. We do not have any evidence to suggest that herons have nested at this site since before the WDFW PHS entries dated March 2002. Thus, based on our observations and information available, we believe the Point Edwards heron colony is no longer active and has likely been inactive for over 18 years. There is, however, anecdotal evidence to suggest herons utilize the area for other non - nesting purposes. Local residents have reportedly observed a single heron in the vicinity of the stormwater pond on the ground (Bel Johnson. Personal communication. Feb 16, 2021). It appears the stormwater pond with its cattails (Typha latifolia) functions as foraging habitat for at least one heron on an irregular basis. Further, Edmonds marsh serves as foraging and potential nesting habitat for herons. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment 7 2.2.a 5 Regarding other regulated species, we saw no evidence of nesting activity by bald eagles in the vicinity of the Point Edwards project site during our field investigations. During our field investigation Bel Johnson indicated two trees located south of the project site that were common perching locations for bald eagles (Figure 4), but no bald eagles were observed on or over the project site during our field visit. We did not observe any priority logs or snags during our visit to the project site, nor any other priority habitats or otherwise regulated wildlife species. Other Wildlife Observations During our field investigations, we observed 17 bird species, spotted towhee, red - breasted nuthatch, song sparrow, Anna's hummingbird, American crow, dark -eyed junco, golden -crowned sparrow, golden -crowned kinglet, Canada goose, red -winged blackbird, black -capped chickadee, pine siskin, American robin, Cooper's hawk, red-tailed hawk, varied thrush, and killdeer. The Cooper's hawk and red-tailed hawk were observed soaring over the site. We did not observe any other wildlife species or their sign during our field investigations. CURRENT HERON PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The WDFW (Azerrad 2012) revised its Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) recommendations for great blue heron protection in 2012. These management recommendations state "...recommendations applying to an active colony should remain in effect for at least 10 years after nesting has ceased at the site of any former colony". Because there is no evidence to indicate neither the nest in the northern portion of the project site, nor the three observed nests to the northeast of the project site have been active for over 18 years, according to the great blue heron guidance, the management recommendations do not necessarily apply to these habitat features. WDFW's current recommendations categorize colonies (which are defined in the recommendations as Heron Management Areas — HMAs) as "rural," "suburban/rural," and "urban." These new recommendations provide separate buffer and protection guidelines for each such category. Had the colony been active, it would fall into the "suburban/rural" category due to (1) the amount of development around the colony site, (2) the herons' historic habituation to human activity within a short distance to the colony site (e.g., the use of the public trail with colony viewing sites located within 250 feet of the colony site), (3) construction and commercial activities in the adjacent roadways, and historic gas station, and (4) the overall developed nature of the surrounding habitat within a commercial/industrial area of the City of Edmonds. For active "suburban/rural" HMAs, the PHS recommendations are for a 200-meter (656-foot) year-round vegetated buffer and a seasonal (nestingibreeding) no -activity buffer of 200 meters (656 feet), extending out from the year-round buffer. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Raedeke Associates, Inc. Great Blue Heron Assessment June 16, 2021 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 111 0 2.2.a The WDFW PHS guidelines recognize that new activities in proximity to an HMA are a concern mainly when they exceed the type and intensity of historic activities in the area (Azerrad 2012). Therefore, any project disturbances must be considered in the context of the existing land use. Neither great blue herons nor bald eagles are listed on the Washington State endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species lists (WDFW 2019). EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impacts to the former Great Blue Heron Colony As noted above, the WDFW (2021) PHS entries and correspondence with WDFW (Gary Bell, Gretchen Blatz, WDFW, personal communication, 2021) indicate that no heron nesting activity has been documented at the project site nor at the site to the northeast since before March 2002. This is further confirmed by our field observations. Accordingly, there are no great blue herons nesting at the project site that could be impacted by the proposed vegetation management project. Any revegetation occurring outside of a nesting season, while increasing overall species diversity and leading to the development of high -quality large native trees (through planting and maintenance) would enhance the overall habitat quality at the project site. Impacts to Bald Eagles and Other Wildlife Habitat The currently proposed vegetation management would occur entirely within the north and northeastern edges of the project site. Those do not appear to have any habitat features utilized by bald eagles. The two eagle perching trees (as well as other large potential perching trees nearby to these two documented trees) located to the south of the project site (Figure 4) will have significant visual screening from any vegetation management activity due to existing vegetation, buildings, and a topographic break between them and the vegetation management areas. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Bald Eagle Management Guidelines encourage preserving large roost trees, preventing disturbances to flight paths accessing foraging sites, and using pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines. These recommendations are all consistent with the proposed vegetation management plan. Removal of many of the red alder trees as part of the proposed vegetation management plan would cause the temporary displacement of some individuals of common species, such as those documented in the "Other Wildlife Observations" section. However, we expect these losses of individuals to be replaced over time with the establishment of the variety of native plant species proposed. Thus, we anticipate relatively little adverse impact over the long term to existing wildlife habitat or special habitat features on the project site as a result of the vegetation management proposed. The proposed increase in plant diversity, coupled with the ability to properly manage the health of the trees in these areas over time will likely enhance the habitat within these vegetation management areas. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment 7 7 2.2.a Summary of Impacts on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The proposed project would have no adverse impacts on the former heron colony within the site boundaries and to the northeast, or either of the known eagle perching trees located to the south of the project site. The heron sites have not been occupied for over 18 years and the eagle perching sites would have sufficient screening to avoid adverse impacts. Further, we have not observed any evidence of nesting by bald eagles on or near the project site. We would expect an increase in overall wildlife species diversity utilizing the project site as a result of an increased plant community diversity and increased overall tree health from maintenance. Replacing the relatively sparsely vegetated understory that includes invasive species with a variety of native shrubs and ground covers will increase plant species richness and structural diversity, which should benefit wildlife habitat over time. Additionally, the creation of snags through the management of the red alder trees will promote further species diversity by encouraging use of the project site by cavity -nesting species such as pileated woodpeckers. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation includes measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to any great blue herons that may utilize the project site or habitats in the vicinity of the project site. As stated in the permit application (Kraus and Johnson 2020) arborists will perform or supervise tree and plant modifications using known industry standards and protocols, including the American National Standards Institute ANSI-A300 standards, which apply to the tree care industry. For the proposed revegetation project, measures to avoid or minimize the potential impacts to herons and other wildlife species include the following • To the extent feasible, schedule all revegetation to take place outside of the nesting season, or late August through February (Azerrad 2012). • Retain some of the healthiest red alder trees, including the individual with the existing potential remnant nesting structure, to promote overall plant species diversity and retain soil stability and habitat functionality. • Most of the trees listed on the planting plan actually grow as tall shrubs (e.g., vine maple, serviceberry). Thus, we recommend including the installation of native tree species such as western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and shore pine (Pinus contorta) that can continue to grow under the partial shade of existing vegetation and enhance the habitat quality in the future as the plant community matures. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment 7 2.2.a • Focus on planting Pacific Northwest native plant varieties on the slopes and reserve non-native cultivars to the periphery of slopes nearest the formal grounds as much as possible. • Any removal of invasive plants that must take place in the spring before fruiting or seeding should be conducted without the use of power tools or heavy equipment wherever possible to avoid any disturbance to potential nesting species on our near the project site. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Bel' Johnson / Point Edwards HOA and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely on the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Bel' Johnson / Point Edwards HOA. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then -current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by Permit III -A proponent Bel' Johnson / Point Edwards HOA and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information. If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information, we are available at 206-525-8122 or via email at rwlundquist@raedeke.com. LITERATURE CITED Azerrad, J. M. 2012. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species: Great Blue Heron. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. March 2012. Kraus, J. Johnson, B. 2020. Point Edwards Homeowners' Association Board Presents City of Edmonds Type III -A Permit Application: Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope. December 16, 2020. Thomas Rengstorf and Associates. 2015. Existing Tree Survey and Revegetation Plans. Exhibit 2. 29 July, 2015 plan set for Point Edwards HOA Edmonds, Washington. Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment 7 0 2.2.a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. May 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. PHS on the web. Available at: https:Hgeodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/. Last accessed February 19, 2021. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. State Listed Species & State Candidate Species. Revised June 2019. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 06/threatened%20and%20endangered%20species%201ist.pdf. Last Accessed March 12, 2021 Point Edwards HOA Edmonds Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. June 16, 2021 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment 7 2.2.a 2 a� Q. c� U Additional Figures 'aa C a J N L 3 w c 0 a le LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a. N r� C d E L V R r r Q W r- R r LO O O O N O N Z J d 4+ C N E t V cC r� Q Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 116 :1 Puget Sound �fril 5xOnTa-8 Port of Edrnoricls e. M Marina Beach Park Off Leash) Area Edmonds 4� Edvvards Point pGIM E4r19YdS Fi 1 SFr r-UL UUUYI f IIU IS 'F Edmond$B F Edmonds Kingston Ferry Toll. Synth 14 UaYtaF SY Harbor Square Athletic Club I D) IL Edmonds Marsh 2.2.a c I Alder St I 4 I e Walnut # SheReberger Creek o- Edmonds ' ,aa Clly Park ` 4 1 Paint Edwards a i Condamin�ums '" `- Pium $p EL PA,# 01'. P. 11 6 Pg r � . F � ru b rt Bella Ccda Rd 4 l � I m r I � � I a �ornL 1': I 3 Gongle i Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 117 L47 . 4w -.1 " .. I . '... * a ,4 TA, 4,` 5nvhvmishCvunty Assessor Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 118 2.2.a 7 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. -- 1 119 1 2.2.a la r r W �i * �+ ;4VA Ar w -k 'T i liij� Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 120 2.2.a Appendix A Existing Tree Survey and Revegetation Plans (Thomas Rengstorf and Associates. 2015, Exhibit 2) Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 121 I - — 2.2.a I r•, OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Removal Coppice Prune { �' ` Snag- Live Snag -Dead Pruned Previously Prune Future I� Property Line >� Fence Line MP-� w- PI - � AL PI DER - = r (��L�DE )R P I �t �P =� MPL PI ?.0I 4. 0' 0 MAX) �z. R T) 10 S� s LID E '[ �ALDER ALDER t k� Cj %AL DER ALDER AL DE. 4 { -- ALDE L,OE. D E L E I A_ 'LaE, I_DE PLANT SCHEDULE TREES 801ANICAL NAME COMMON NAME cONT — MP ACER CIRCINATUTA VINE MAF-_E EXISTING 6Ll� ACER MACROP HYLLUM BIG LI.AF iV.APLE EXISTING O OALDER AI NUS RUGOSA SPECK I t 1 OLDER EXISTING POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING, PlNuS CONTORTA SHORE P'NE EXISTING l r CJ �� PINES PILAUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH SINE EXISTING �nPL 'PO ALOE y r� MP . `_ M P l X lie�R PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLA' FIR EXISTING jyjP Plr •��r _ .I �� - THIJJR PLICA�A CL7rt 'wESTEI;�. RED CEDAR EXISTING -7 r^ l (DMLK TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMi_OCK EXISTING v L C Rr F - r SR4QJD CQVFR� SOTANIC�QNN_QN NAME \ y..�1B �,.MI LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADDOW GRASS — \ S H a EXISTING VE.ADOW GRASS -- s f y a s ii7 : = POL.YSTICHUM MUNiTUM WESTERN, SWORD FERN' � � � 4 i ' � � I i:' i 'i k I i '' g it • � �� L l__J ~ J EXISTING SHRUB MASS f � I iT J 5 Y 6 i •� C i � � � LiAAI � Ll�J� 1 r u r IWi L� - y " ' r .E. ' c ' e 1 , E t ; RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYaN BLACKBERRY y �a 0 EXfSl'}NG INVASIVE SPECIES 414�CjR l::I` �' SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHH MASS — MIXED SPECIES �� 4� : 4iSn�=; • EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES RJ J � 1 i �• s it � Y t Sr I r IC K � � U liltI�=1�f= a s 1' s The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates 61��s�rRti1�#�rv�s'� E LJ iy � ! � T � 5 � � Y fit ' V « ril ' I f 1 �' ' �. • • • Y � � � , 1 � i r � h � � - i . l`'/1]}j/ r # 9 a rj _7 8 L. 14 - } ; ,. � BLM v. I Fr E 40 s ' • �r' s ^ � y I i� f - ` r I fj , • LN 41 0 i7 E 42 ;� - �• FA+f 1 R E 43 f _ I ■ �,� Pool Room � '�,�. r � � I ; � 17 HMLK Y 1 1*1'. -. �" is r U n o c c Access - # �J I� I BLM Y i w i. el s IL r t --- _�, Road/Gote .wj Y "r E. Charter Club F''-, l,Ir;•;f,l _ Maintenance "A - Office . - i F . - FIR ------------- - � h II II i1 � t � NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY III w 20P - nfl Pine St. 25 49. 52/124 7 63 69 58 45 2 SPA-CIN- 34,863 SF 273 SF 44.988 SF 1 10.223 SF D 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARC'IIITE['•r[ RE %I F PIASNNING ! RRAN DESIGN SUITE 2D2, 911 WESrERN AVE., SEATTLEL WA 66104 PHONE: (2DS) 6S2-75Ef2 FAX: (205) 6024721 I i r _ ..l L J A iIJ r - -- O O O N PROJECT TITLE v POINT EDWARDS J HOA E w C O IZ E-D-MON IN WA LO 0 N 0 N SHEET TITLE J d NORTf1 SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE E SURVEY M NO- DATE REVISION 6Y 1- I DATE ? AIL Y'2015 DESIGNED ri � - DRAWN F.# CHECKED I.R SCALE I» .. ,ly _ 0".... TRA No 2235-201 i CAR FILE 2235 1.102 PROJECT PI I0WARDSHOA SHEET No Exhibit 2 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment 7 PLANT SCHEDULE 2.2.a 'Point r OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Removal Coppice 10 Prune Snag- Live Snag- Dead I* Pruned Previously Prune Future Property Line Fence Line UNOCAL R PUBLIC PATHWAY 4i 1 Building 61 Pine St. NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY 1"=20'-0" E24 PUBLIC PATHWAY IIE22 f I I I I TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CITY MP ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE EXISTING 25 BLM ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 OALDER ALNUS RUGOSA r SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 0 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 ,.. PI PINUS CONTORTA. SHORE PINE EXISTING 63 PINE PINUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE EXISTING 69 FIR PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 CDR THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR EXISTING 45 HMLK TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING rrv°cVr� LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS — 34,863 SF uq.1rY� EXISTING MEADOW GRASS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN — 273 SF EXISTING SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY - 44,98B SF EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES. SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECKS SHRUB MASS - MIXED SPECIES - 110,223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates UNOCAL I J E29 I r� E3 2 I I I E I 2� I I ' I I I UNOCAL I I I I I i ( I I J I I j�� sue► _ ., ... _ . PS NO r ri y may,. � �� .�V .'.; �+ � � A• ♦v � •^ • � L \ t ■ - s 1 SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. I 0 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES I.AN"'APE ARC'NITBC'TURE SITE: PI_ NNING URBAN DESIGN SUITE 202, 911 WESTERN AVE., SEA7U, WA 98104 PHONE (206) 682-7562 FAX (206) 6824721 S'A!... . *iii ii iTON R -j, ,TIRED LAN�S,,'AAPF AR'-:7FCT V T iOMAS V ice, GSTORF (;i ICATF_ NO 298 PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY -%tea • �;; ... No. DATE REVISION BY Lam.: DATE 29 JULY, 2015 DESIGNED FJ DRAWN FJ CHECKED TR SCALE - 1 -- 20 0' - - TRA No. 2235-2015 — — CAD FILE 2235 1103 PROJECT P I' EDP ARDS HOA ..........% SHEET No ,�pnment h„Tk�.,t Packet 12 ac et P.3 $�*.„.. ... ...:.-YAsa.. .... .. .., .: ..-..-,_... .,.,.. e�'.d- .-F•.T'i^1... _ ... :..:. ._ u0.•. ."'Fc:..^� ," ra'..��GR' "✓3... _. -, , xsv ': - .- :. .N4'.. - vi: a9�+Y., }',en' ie. _ _ _ _ _ ,.._ . -,_ -.. ..: .- RT ,._.:. �.. a ,... - ,—vv _ -. _ . _ I, • F ...� _..«_.:u..+-._...w.✓.r_...+:.=:,ur.+ww..rr:zs�. >c...._.:.t�..v.,a... .s.s ...r..>, ..k: .r��.�s OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Removal 4# Coppice Prune Snag- Live Snag -Dead I& Pruned Previously Prune Future Property Line Fence Line E' r; ONocp'` NORTH SLOPE - EAST S III =20'-0" TION - FXIIRTING TREE SURVEY vN°CP - Building 51 Pine St. PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT QT� MP ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE EXISTING 25 OLMRACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 LDER ALNUS RUGOSA SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62/124 �. POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 G PINUS CONTORTA SHORE PINE EXISTING 63 tINE PINUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE EXISTING 69 FIR PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 CDR THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR EXISTING 45 HMLK TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING 2 Q.RQQND CQVERS BOIMICAL NAME COMMON NAME LDIJ SPACING Q -' rYr��t1 M1 rr rr tf r LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW GRASS - 34,863 SF EXISTING MEADOW GRASS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN - 273 SF �+ EXISTING SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY - 44.988 SF EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUB MASS - MIXED SPECIES - 110,223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE SPECIES SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. Building 61 Pine St. 0 10' 20' 40' THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES LANDS('APE ARCHITEC'71'RE SITE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN! SUITE 2112, 911 WESTERN AVE, SEA'TTLE, WA 08104 PHONE: (206) 6W-75V FAX (206) 5W-4721 -�� STALL Ot- WASHING'70N REGISFEREE LAN^STAFF ARCHSTFCT V PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY No DATE REVISION BY j DATE 29 JULY, 2015 DESIGNED FJ DRAWN CHECKED -- --- TR --- ---- SCALE --- - i"-'70 0 _------ TRA No. 2235-2015 CAD FILE 2235 L104 PROJECT PT EDWARDS IJOA SHEET No Exhibit 2 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment 7 -. -_ :-� , 4 r� - -- . - -- -- - - - - -- - - ti - - -- - .} - - - - - �s� - __ - -- - — -= - - -� - =- - - — - - --ME =11111111111111MIIIIIIIIII - .� - �. =: ; -_ --- - - -_ - ...•ram€- - - - _�--y- - -a - - - _�F _ -- _ _ - _ ---- ;-�--;I:— �-.-w --- - --.-- �-7 -- -�7-:� - . - - ...�..� _ TI.� _ —- _- - _ p - - _. _ -. - -�.__ _ - _ __ tea. ----� - - - - _" _'�- .! - _ - - _ - - . __ - -- - .��..- _ -_. _ - - -nT .. .--s_ _ - - _ - __ T- - _._ i__ _ - - - •-+-awl �'.`�'Y "'F=a _ _ �---stT�._ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ z_ -..� .z -- -�'. - - - - - �_r_f_-___ems�a ..w � sa �_ _ '-` . -_ 1. --- - - -- - - - __ -- _ - _ _ . .- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ __;_�� _ x . _ - �.. _y - : rr - _ = y - �.- . = y F _ - - - - - _.. - - - - - - — - . r= _ - - = _� - -� -- - - ---- -- - - _ - _ �r -a - - - _ - -��. r _ _ _ _ .- - _.. _-- - y _ _ - _ - _ -- - - - _ �� - - _ _ • - _ _ -- - _ �tea`''`-- - _ Mgr _-i -_- - - - -_ --- - - - ----_. -� -- - - - - _..•_ -- W go - ---- . - ----- ------..---.--,.�- �-- -.._ - I �-�-- . - - -- - _ - - i- - - - -- Y -- --_-- -- - - _ - - 7-.- _ - . - - -. --_ -_ - - _ r `-]^"'- - - - -_W--_:�� - 2 �m--. ��.---- .-i — -- � 1 ft- � i 0 i I 4 I 1 4 I I I am PLAIN SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAM CC)MMCN NkME CONT I#P ACER CIRi INATUM FINE MAPLE ExiSTING 25 r �-r ACER h�ACROP11YlLLUM 61G LEAF MAPLE EXISTING 49 �f pj7int -Aq +CLDER)SPECKLED ALDER EXISTING 62ft24 � ALI�tJ5 RCIGOSA f. POPULUS TRICHOCARPA COTTONWOOD EXISTING 7 .11 OWNERS ASSOCIATION G PINUS CONTORTA 5'ioRE PINE EXISTING 63 e P}NUS SYLVESTRIS SCOTCH PINE ExISTIfiIG 69 93 Pine St. Edmonds, VITA 980�� — - — G PSELjDOTSVC,A MENZIES11 DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING 58 40 Removal �pR T#-IIJ.)A PLIC+4TA VFESTERN REQ CEDAR EXISTING 4S ;# Coppice e TSLIGA HEiEROPHYLLA WESTERT� �iirbiLDCK EXISTING 2 0 Prune QTY GROUND COVERS aoraNlcAL NAME or,�lhonl NACol�r sI=AcIr�c Snag- Live - � e s r 34,$63 SF [� ISErr!'a LOW GROWTH MEADOW GLASS MEADow GLASS l' 0 1 Snag- Dead �s,rr�� EXISTING ME�4DOW GRASS ti . POLYSTiCHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWOIiQ FERN - 273 SF ' Pruned Previously 4 >-. 5` , EXiSTI]�IG SHRt1B MASS \ I* Prune Future � l RUBUS ARIAEN;A�CUS HiMALAYAi�l E3lAC1 BERRY - 44,988 SF � �� PropertyLine EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES y F�1�+ _ - SHRUB MASS Mi?LEQ SPECIES SHRUB AAASS - MIXED SPECIES 110,223 5F �, � = Fence ce Line EY E � EX[STiNG MIXED NATNE SPECIES -. A The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original reap dates I i I I I UNOCAL UNOCAL I! I i I / VV 2 VV - - I - ., - 4 ��/ - 4�� / VV 8 W 7 VL E �Aji . VV 4--.. - V� ,� - M a j I I- W Q- - - � rv- - - . - - - - I - - - 0 / - . / 1 � - -r - - - - 1 -111-,., --�, J, f . I I / I . I 1-r . ��- ,---,,�* -�, -1�r -, ,,,- -�- �- r, -Pr r �, , I I / - . I .- --419- - .. - -- I t �-� . � 7 t I.. m - - '�---� . I . - - 4 1 . I I � . I . I I I . A , .. I I - I 1, 2 f V, ff If f 22 4' 1 .10 .� 4 I 0 . . . I . . . " - /11? ,-,,�- uj�- I I i ----.r � - -1 --- -- .,. f j",rf / - (le 7f " 0'.'- �"- 4iii 0 -, r * &I'V 7 i , I ."', t,,,,j, 4 " � f I . +, ., 4 t4o' At' x r4 � I i . �1- I - -V ,or 'r W 'r F - "Mr - 9 I01? -0�4 0 r r' I g cbl-c�? — - I I i - ---11�1 ,,, -,� - - --, t f ir ,,, P Ir 0 / 1 .. - \,-, 6 1 yi, -.,-�. -/, -�4, , , '1� "" " � .. - I I ,,',- Pr -t 17 ,V -.jr: , ./ 0 . I a - *, -- 7 -' --4 -� 71 I A,. I . & , -1 - / - �- 10 i CO } f 11 Y �,i�_ /- - . -� + I - _ l ,* r 4 f _� �,.- � f �; j' .# , r 0 I .� �, ! 11 � I �-- I f r•+ �l `f L , ' A f f �5 c z 'x. :.-. r 4 -• ,_ ,J ' �, 4 f "�. F, '1 j !` r ( fir, �`,- t � J E - r f - — r!• Ili �} T% - 1 - ti - -- ,� -- '�_ .t_. .. --, ` fi f #, �' i . - f f r , r - - �. y 4 � � . 1 - c - . - I „ � - , t V I� f � I I `� — .:.��r l �3- xT, t ! r F r r r= l r ,--.�� _�i �r ` t hI y . -'I- ( I i �/ rr~ tir^ . 4 \t i Y I `. �[ fa �+ 0 � --- 11 - � , 1 ^ - a --. t. - j"� p � f . 0. �, r Y�", + r I -.-� � ti-. _ �%� I I /i ~' / �# r �"' ` ? LIJ 3 l ��5 f J ,- v �, ,, ��-- %- - _ _r tea.=r" .t �- - �_ . or Y ! CP f fP��F � � p i ,!'-e�.ri. r.41� i' i.. w�� . ~ *J �/�"'� �! �' -"�'�. .�-r1.1' -! ` ` .- s. { f ` i = l _ J _ . . ', '1F � F •',' _ + , I , � . - � . 60 Ft. Contour {'' # r ` # ` i >' �'� F - t 1�. ' `. 4 — � - _ — � .-'— 7 - - — - — y 11 lLU } ✓ yr" r r _ '� c f-i # Y f —" f 1 Fy ~N-' _I� ` t' j F �" F , t " - 1 - I 'r • �. Z.„ • : -- � _._� - — � fi� 'f O IP - 9 f " It" �` - i 1 - J I► jr # r , r . _ - .: .- , ~ ' •r *a # 1 ti— — - i y P i Y t T!11 r r a� }iF ' r �''- J. , i,� ' # #' r f +fr ■ # r/7 r , t +r r r t _ 41Q ;I _; yr of X, r r# r 1xi s } #{ r r r #r d r' r * r r t } �.c. I F a i" Jr a 1 $ #' i• �' ar # it ! it x I ! # d � T i• �' F dF f Y # W 6 s 1 :.� i # F I k - } f i } . i' t 6F � -r t � r f � I L 4 % r � r 9 _ {' -*•fir �r }' - l' f # r _ r • 1' a �• �' _ �I- is �"D�N t } Z C - R , y # - �' F LiJ :, .) .- F fi 3 f`Jr - i T - t - . f r ! a A ! r _ ♦ r `1 r x r r F r J �' { J f t r r i F } r. aT 4 - T '. � � i• r C # i`� - - i f f • { s Y r f i w', ,t , p- � r t'' f x J r h a tf f � f - " ..' ' r T I. � r ` r � 'r f r ■ 'r [ { #' rs i P 1 2 c f s r , ,t I i k µ I {C �__._r i ••k � 7 Y - :! 1 r- 5_ I T r p Y {' 4 i'. y '.f . * i �` '� - i � T Y' `F , f-. - tr f _ '. k h 1 -. . t < fLy-�S•- 'r } {{ .*) . Sry l 1. T e r x r~ �i r x _- -� - - T{ tit { f 1 \ f: V r - ' f !' . ^f — • — 1 _f ., -1 . .+ -�- 's rs r. P'', ,I ,- y ,.-(. - - - 1 T \ ti ti _ _ '� - - j s y�j`+ f T a r j r�T r -'- 1-r Ii Y' - , �� v Fti' f 77 - 3# 7 'T4Y `J ` i �• Y 4 4 t t I 1 1 74 "CC I ��. F 'S h `� Y X. ii }. 4 k I I` ,f- I K �f - � tT r `t. - i L � - ' h i`. �' T�Y ' ` < { ` T Yr r. , I --- - I _ - '{ - il •, k €y t I __ -A -ti _ �I, � t t- I I 'tf7 � '� --� - i 1• , #44".01 , % ,,, - � " ,� " j! JA & I' '�, 1. - "--, - ,,1111111111111!! 'I -I 01-1 I'!'I �L-:---�- 1 _ _ ,- r _ - 4�- - -J - - - - - ----- �` } , -I -:..�l - - - '. �, I - I -- -X� ,.- - --,- . - - _ _- - -- ` I _ - -, ,I _- ^�y_ 1 y ,[J G s } ?. .1, I- `I � ��l - 0,� - 0 1 if - -4�i 0,-:� - ,�.. - �Pl I !-- - C j`. Building 4i Pine fit..yy�Q, _ _ - - % r I r I "/ J - - r t .- - - - NORTH SLOPE - WEST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEIL - t ' �� -- clj I"=24'-0'I �l ` }�� p� � _ SECTION 2�� TOIV��1P ��1V.a Cl1r1NL�E �E.f - U-, - -- -- } {' --------- (-: 1, Attachment 7 --%-;,� 0 7-�6T Ilk `]L5-1-4n_ 0 i 0' 20' 40' ;: IBi; ' 'l �� '.£' rf a - T. THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES FADS( •PE .kR('FFFTF.('TF"TRF: SFIF PLA'kNaV%f, t RB;N Dt.SFG% Si)fiE 202, 911 WESTERN AVE.. SEATrM WA 951d+1 p"ME PM) 6V-75f32 FAX- (2N) ffW4721 fZ--.- " - - . � _ ' �' -- - - - - :, c-�,,�l e— if t.'k Y. _,izl PROACT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - WEST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY c 1 V 2 d a M V ,n M0 r- R J to M0 R M0 W C O a V tn O O CD N O N z J. a j I 1 No HATE 4 a REVISKA e l r • - - 4 I -- _ I I __ V V - - I 4 - L-\ — — e u C C C C --\ C �A\ . .9 . E :- s J , I I - —\ J I I -C • — ----- - - - - ❑ATE 241U1"Y"_^4i5 DESIGNED - - -- F!- - - - - DRAVM - . F} Ch1, EKED YR-- - SCALE —I _ _2(V - 14• . _ . TRA No ,3235-2015-- CAD FELE 21-3{ 1.105 PROJECT PI i-110WARD,%HOA -- --- SHEET No L105 Exhibit 2 -- _ 5�,--- - - _ - - - C•i-cr- -1 - - _ __ - ---.gip Packet ., � � th- = L2 0 w CL. LLJ Ln I � r-4 rn I.IJ l 3 — Cff ll PLANT SCHEDULE T 80TANICAiL Kl [-()MMIDN CONT MR ACER OIRDNATUM VINE Al EXISJING ACER MACA0PHYLLtW BPG LEAF VADLE E (MTING +� ALM14U5 RUCO$A SPEC KtEU ALDER EISTINn 1RO BETI]LA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH EX19TRM PI P1H J5 0DNTORTA $HARE PINE EXISTING CPNG PIN U5 5YLYEaTRIS SCOTCH FINE EXI STING �R PSEUODT5UCA MEN21E51I IIIJUGLA.5 FIR DCISTINC CDR THUTA PLICATA WE7E-RH RED CEDAR EX15T14G TELIl HE'TEROPMLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK EXISTING G17GWR5 BOTANICAL KAk1 F' COMMON NAME COI+�T LOW GR41,ti'TH Ljl�DYI' GRASS MEADOW GRASS OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 L 10B IS INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY 1 rrrrrl r EKISTI ND MEADOW GFU S � OTY 25 49 62/124 7 63 69 55 45 2 M 34,563 ELF w P LYSTICHUM MU NI -rum WESTERN SWORD FERN — 273 5F . ExIsrlHG :SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMElIlulCRJS RMALAYAN IRL+41l(EIERRY - 44.l SF .-.� .-.- EXInIl INVill SPECIES x pe L— —-----T-- _ I -- -_,--- ;� l e 41F-1 0 -1< x �Y, o4fjr, rP44PP k1 { r �Pfr�# 4 * pJJr ice# pry#r, r ra r 40F if Jr # # � � 0�6#jr F if { JO, jr 4F ore le 40L f y y y + F} y � }L � } i i� # � 4p# 4 # - 00 *# s r r OPr e 4P 4P040 � if + 1 jr p r**41r 4P' le At y jr4f,#r '1 �� 7 * y NORTH SLOPE - WET SECTION - EXISTING TREE BURNED I .x -- --• .. -- iF- -- o ta� za � 401 V•V THOMAS RENGSTORIF AND ASSOCIATES LAhDL4-AFF, AR C71 rF DM, RF. SRIE PlAhi- NING Ift&N 11F.Uf:N 8IUTE 2M. 211 14E!MYAl SFl vA a I u PHONE: C27 l-F&w FAX RN ] 60.4721 STATE 43f WASHMCTCtN REGSTERED Lkhl05GARE ARCHITECT T� -MRInFrl NOL 29B POINT EDWARDS HOA &HEEL vu NORTH SLOPE -WEST-SECTION - - .. . EXISTING 'FREE SURVEY ..f Na. DATE REM;3KM gy ' a DrtTE 299AW.20is CRAM FF CHIE;- ,a D TA TRk W. 7305-71)i1 UbFILE 2WLID6 SHEET 8:L L106 Exhibit 2 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 126 WAr 51,, OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 a 1 Existing Trees #0 Shrubs Groundcover \� Low Shrubs Property Line !Fence Line P I P I E rR, -77 /* -7 2) L, D EEL L E V. 7 v L41 "I LD N '5 LL L it \,jAL T T- X, 00, --7 19 i� V H r1kv! It 0 7 v Building 71 Pine St, / \ a e E�- :; Point Edwards HOA Permit 111-A Revegetation Map A v > J 9 L 14' A B L V lip A OR V 0 A Alk lit r A, �X Poo M LV,) A s. -7 X 7 < V 5� < X V71-- 4 Charter Club L Maintenance =4=j Office 7- T- T -1 7 PLANT SCHEDULE 1-102, E33-E42 Updated on 6/7/21 vM C Tree Tree Acer circinanturn Vine Maple'Sunglow' C Tree CornUS Kousa x nuttaiii Dogwood 'Eddies white' Bu Tree COMUS Kousa x nuttaiii Dogwood'venus, Ce Tree Rhamus p. 'Cascara. Buckthorn Ce Tree Thuja plicata 'Excelsa' Cedar Thuja plicata 'Hogan' Hogan Red Cedar The tree quantities stated on the action map may differ based on original map dates File: Permit Planting Key 512020 2 7g 10' o.c. 3 109 12' o.c. 6 6' to7' 151 o.c. 8 7g 10' o.c. 4 (cross red c) 79 10' o.c. 2 (cross red c) 79 10' o.c. R. W-ADC'A' GRASS 1J1 EADOV), 1 X[ f rNi, GRASS POLYSTICHUM mi";`�:7-ijV1 WFSTFRK it I(N 2-/!, SF EXISTING SHRUP NVA�,S RUHUS ARM iiWA—k..:c. 44.9BR SF EXISTING INVA--,,Wf. !i SHRUB MAS, MIXED SHRUB �A' WXJ j 1 10,4223 SF EXISTING MIXED NATIVE r-,IES ve V z -47i-- 2 X "'CALL DIA. DECIDUOUS TREE - STAKING AND INSTALLATION DETAILS NO SCALL, C c) a a ;'ate Fli RR 7-) 41 Tti- NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY 1 " = 20'- 0" T- Af 41&, SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. 0 10' 20' 40' IiNl)•( lkpl %R( 111111 11 RU "Jit PIANNIM. i RRI,N DLSI(;,, WESTERNA'v'T—, SEA-1 LF, itA WA PHONE !21,115;) 682 -7562 FAX- (2M) 68;-4?2, PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS. U A SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - FAST SECTION -- EXISTING TREE SURVEY No DATE REVISION Fy ,TE Uj! N 1!) 1 PA, N.:: PROJECT l'i $ iMARDS HOA Exhibit 2 S 2 4- ia.2 0 CL M U U) rn LU 0 IL le O Q 04 Q C%j z Revegetation Plan Packet Pg. 127 Attachment 7 point OWNERS ASSOCIATION 93 Pine St. Edmonds, WA 98020 I* Existing Trees Shrubs \\Groundcover Low Shrubs Property Line lo" I Fence Line � Point Edwards HOA Permit III -A Revegetation Map: L] LID DER � f/ NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXI -.�•- x. �.• Ncs ��ti��-� �� ,,_ '�., � _ice � _ _�•. 7 ^� v� , 2 X BALL DI.::.. DECIDUOUS TREE - STAKING AND INSTALLATION DETAILS TREE SURVEY vN0CNV >. I GROUND COVER INSTALLATION DETAILS NO SCALE / \ 1\\ gam, 3".a ;j }ppYA a-i VIE SHRUB INSTALLATION DETAILS SCALE " N. EVERGREEN TREE - STAKING AND INSTALLATION DETAILS 110 SCALE PLANTING SCHEDULE AND INSTALLATION DETAILS NO SCALE UNocA` � \ O PLANT SCHEDULE L104, E3-E8 Updated 6/7/21 Symbol Type Scientific Name Common Name Quantities Size Spacinq VM Tree Acer circinantum Vine Maple 'Pacific Fire' 3 7g 10' o.c. A Tree Amelanchier Serviceberry 'Regent' 3 7g 10' o.c. B Tree Betula 'Papyrifera' Birch 3 8' 15' o.c. C Tree Corms Kousa x nuttanii Dogwood 'Eddies white' 3 10g 12' o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata 'Excelsa' Cedar 3 (cross red c) 7g 10, o.c. Ce Tree Thuja plicata 'Hogan' Hogan Red Cedar 5 (cross red c) 7g 10' o.c. M Large Shrub Mock Orange Philadelphus 'lewisii' 8 5g 6' o.c. I Large Shrub Ribes S. Currant 17 5g 6' o.c. H Large Shrub Vaccinium 'ovatum' Evergreen Huckleberry23 3g 6' o.c. O Medium Shrub Mahonia 'aquitolium' Oregon Grape 12 2g 4.5' o.c. R Medium Shrub Rhododendron Rhodendron 15 Sg 4.5' o.c. S Medium Shrub Symphoricarpos Snowberry 25 2g 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Cornus 'Sericea' Red Osier Dogwood 5 5g 4.5' o.c. D Medium Shrub Cornus 'Sanguinea' Mid -winter Fire 4 5g 4.5' o.c. Low Shrub Mahonia °nervosa• Oregon Grape 27 1g 2 o.c. Low Shrub Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Blechnum spicant Deer Fern 30 4" 3' o.c. Low Shrub Polystichum minutum Sword Fern 30 1g 3' o.c. Groundcover Arctostaphylos Kinnickinnick 126 4" 2 o.c. Groundcover Gaultheria shallon Saial 65 1g 2 o.c. E Existing Trees AROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME COMM )N NAME icSi!,-t SPACING Q `! Y S�f'4 LOW GROWTH MEADOW GRASS MEADOW CRASS — 34,863 SF r i r EXISTING MEADOW GRASS POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 273 SF EXISTING SHRUB MASS RUBUS ARMENIACUS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY — 44,988 SF EXISTING INVASIVE SPECIES x SHRUB MASS MIXED SPECIES SHRUB MASS — MIXED SPECIES — 11D,223 Sr - EXISTING MIXED NATN(E SPECIES Existing Low Shrubs/Groundcover Potystichum minuturn/Sword fem = 42 existing throughout E3-E8 J 1 00 ILI � � t ki --�- 1 �ND6t �r�R t p9D 4 t `"- ` i V-i t- 1 6 ;r t" 4- 617 ER 1 P ;- 6 J pE6-7,3 C� Xj . -.. {� ti 5 • r✓ t 1,., 4 �\X i�ii4tit` 1 i Wi�� ; 4•F i� v�t ii i �Y i fi. i i 1 �, � t: � .i p� i Q i qi 9V r H t� ��2 r<1 A w i t w i 1 fit. t' t li ,t w S i xi y fi t t i � �i �� i o�It �,� _ � �, A � �+ � �� i t d ,t r.ti .�i � t i iir�t +A,i + �I�i°'r.t tI � ti t '1ffEi i �� f .4 i� +� r4t't t•i t �� t � i4 t _Y - ! �* t 1� ii� ai `y ►i 9�ii t�ii i i �i i / p�'•f� of y ii i'- ai`i�i i 1iAt i k k j iG. it � �.ri C PA � �y �� rt� r r t,-` ,>i, t .mot Detention Pon } ' t + . .t k ' Y, s }+1 X r • �.y {-' � ...,}. - } ° I !- . h �s Rt yam. � +-t` i �.-! -�". �,. � _� - �' 1-.�': -.-..#•� � i } k�,�� _ * Jr � a{t ; { � i r+'' -,l '��.� }�,,,. '�a' -+-. L�� X-F�t r,.t t*��-t �i. ',i� S.. -`r- �' i- �_. ;e 5 may`I i h t_.1--F iA '- i-A Building 51 Pine St. rt f .+-� a y�- - E � • F k t M r.k . + 'i x . ' 1.,.,"- r^)1✓tll C }- ;- s � 1> _S1i�h" 1 k L 'r+b .+F�.r. • .+..t 4+'. .nr.. T T l �t _ i +- t 1- �' _':. a .a , :Y , ; k� t -ta + y. t n , 4 •. . - - L SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. Building 61 Pine St. THOMAS RENGSTORF AND ASSOCIATES LANDS('APV AR(H17-M TL RE SITE PLANNING i"RBAN DESIGN' .r , f - fr 1 } ✓ `} J Nf �iP i�K I A'% �i f. �R ,. C7 PROJECT TITLE POINT EDWARDS HOA EDMONDS, WA SHEET TITLE NORTH SLOPE - EAST SECTION - EXISTING TREE SURVEY PROJECT Ai'..l'�' N.. .11:/3%/ i% .�� r%✓%n, �". A';`Yi9R.�'d%:<l Exhibit 2 Revegetation iMan Packet Pg. 128 2.2.a 56ence at W or community r� Yu c.rtuc�: March 25, 2021 .,_:..� cAw.onm-z HOA Meeting - The Edmonds Marsh Surve Pro ect Overview: The Edmonds Marsh Survey is a community science nsue enness ofroject powered the avianbspe`lchuck cies n the Audubon volunteers that is evaluating the richness and marsh's micro -habitats. This study has been actively surveying the marsh since December of 2018, and will continue through 2028. The data collected during this time will allow the researchers to look at the relative diversity in the marsh, and will give us a baseline by which to evaluate the impact of the upcoming changes to the marsh on its avian residents and visitors. The primary objectives of the study are: J • to understand which avian species are using the various habitats within and a N associated with Edmonds Marsh. • to assess how different avian species are interacting with microhabitats within the Edmonds Marsh. r Q� • To establish baseline richness (abundance) (S), diversity (Hm ,=In(S)), and evenness (E= HlHmax) of the avifauna in the different microhabitats in the Marsh. 3 • to document trend data for analysis against changeslimpacts and for developing best 0 management practices that support a diverse bird population in an urban marsh setting • to provide community engagement through opportunities to participate in citizen science 0 r LO 0 0 How we're collecting the data: N 0 The Edmonds Marsh Survey is entirely dependent on a team of excellent volunteers. Our J surveyors are making time in their schedules to help with this community science research. a Survey teams go out to the marsh twice per month to record all the birds they encounter, CD recording the observed behavior and the microhabitat within the marsh the birds are using when E recorded. Beginning fifteen minutes before sunrise, observers visit each of seven observation points. At a each point, surveyors document every bird they detect within a 10 minute window, using data codes to mark down behavior and location of the birds detected, because of the early morning start, and the access to non-public areas deep within the marsh, our observers get to experience so many interesting animal interactions right in the middle of the City of Edmonds. So far, we have recorded over 70 unique species with more than 14, 000 data po)M5. Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 129 ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA 2.2.a The Survey Area: The proposed vegetation management is covered by the following survey circles: ED.002 — Unocal ED.003 — Condo Overlook The habitat linked to and likely affected by the proposed vegetation work adds the following survey circles: ED.004 Hatchery West ED.005 Hatchery East This forest buffer and the forest buffer on the bank to the Southwest of the marsh is an important wildlife corridor, breeding and foraging area for both resident and migrant birds. and provides cover for birds and animals approaching Willow and Shellabarger Creeks. 9)2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Hi�aCfirilMI 6A u Packet Pg. 130 2.2.a Species Richness in the Edmonds Marsh: As of March 2021, 75 unique species have been detected in the Marsh by the surveyors. Birds highlighted in yellow are likely to breed in the marsh and the surrounding buffer. Greater White -fronted Goose Red -breasted Sapsucker Bewick's Wren Canada Goose Downy Woodpecker Golden -crowned Kinglet Tundra Swan Hairy Woodpecker Ruby -crowned Kinglet Gadwall Red -shafted Northern Flicker Swainson's Thrush American Widgeon Pileated Woodpecker Hermit Thrush Mallard Western Wood Peewee American Robin Green -winged Teal Willow Flycatcher Varied Thrush Unidentified Teal Pacific Slope Flycatcher European Starling Unidentified Duck Stellar's Jay Cedar Waxwing Great Blue Heron American Crow Orange -crowned Warbler Cooper's Hawk Northern Rough -winged Swallow Common Yellowthroat Bald Eagle Purple Martin Yellow-rumped Audubon's Warbler Red-tailed Hawk Tree Swallow Townsend's Warbler Unidentified Accipter Hawk Violet -green Swallow Dark -eyed Oregon Junco Virginia Rail Barn Swallow White -crowned Sparrow Killdeer Unidentified Swallow Golden -crowned Sparrow Western Sandpiper Black -capped Chicadee Savannah Sparrow Wilson's Snipe Chestnut -backed Chickadee Song Sparrow Mew Gull Unidentified Chickadee Spotted Towhee Herring Gull Bushtit Red -winged Blackbird Glaucous -winged Gull Red -breasted Nuthatch Brewer's Blackbird Western x Glaucous -winged Gull Hybrid Brown Creeper House Finch Unidentified Larus Gull Tree Swallow Purple Finch Caspian Tern Violet -green Swallow Pine Siskin Rock Pigeon Barn Swallow American Goldfinch Anna's Hummingbird Pacific Wren Belted Kingfisher Marsh Wren The breeding season in the marsh begins in early March and continues through the end of August. This is the most sensitive time for birds and is critical to their nesting and reproductive success. ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 131 2.2.a Species Richness in the Zone of Proposed Vegetation Management and Surrounding Linked Habitat: The following list is an aggregation of lists compiled by our survey, eBird, and Bill Anderson which covers the area where the vegetation management is being proposed. Over the last two years, 66 unique species have been documented. Many of the birds that breed in this region forage throughout the zone, and are dependent upon the resources provided by the mixed forest once they've established their nests in the zone. Bill Anderson photos from 2013 to Pilchuck Audubon Marsh Study area E-Bird sightings listed for the "Point Edwards Community Trail, Edmonds" 2016 in the Point Edwards Walkway, Sightings hot_ spot Condos Unocal area. American Crow American Crow American Crow American Goldfinch American Goldfinch American Goldfinch American Kestrel American Pipit American Robin American Robin American Robin Anna's Hummingbird Anna's Hummingbird Anna's Hummingbird Bald Eagle Bald Eagle Bald Eagle Barn Swallow Barn Swallow Barred Owl Belted Kingfisher Belted Kingfisher Bewick's Wren Bewick's Wren Bewick's Wren Black -capped Chickadee Black -capped Chickadee Brown Creeper Brown -headed Cowbird Bushtit Bushtit Bushtit California Quail California Quail Canada Goose Canada Goose Canada Goose Cedar Waxwing Cedar Waxwing Cedar Waxwing Chestnut -backed Chickadee Chestnut -backed Chickadee Common Yellowthroat Coopers Hawk Coopers Hawk Dark -eyed Junco Dark -eyed Junco Dark -eyed Junco European Starling Fox Sparrow Gadwall Gadwall Glaucous -winged Gull Glaucous -winged Gull Golden -crowned Kinglet Golden -crowned Kinglet Golden -crowned Sparrow Golden -crowned Sparrow Great Blue Heron Great Blue Heron Great Blue Heron Great Horned Owl Greater White -fronted Goose Green Heron House Finch House Finch House Sparrow Killdeer Mallard Mallard Mallard ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Piichuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 132 2.2.a Marsh Wren Northern Shoveler Orange -crowned Warbler Orange -crowned Warbler Pacific Slope Flycatcher Marsh Wren Pacific Wren Pileated Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Pine Siskin Pine Siskin Purple Finch Redhead Red -breasted Nuthatch Red -breasted Nuthatch Northern Flicker Red -shafted Northern Flicker Northern Flicker Red-tailed Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Red -winged Blackbird Red -winged Blackbird Red -winged Blackbird Ring-necked Duck Rock Pigeon Ruby -crowned Kinglet Ruby -crowned Kinglet Ruby -crowned Kinglet Rufous Hummingbird Savannah Sparrow Sharp -shinned Hawk Sharp -shinned Hawk Song Sparrow Song Sparrow Song Sparrow Spotted Towhee Spotted Towhee Steller's Jay Steller's Jay Steller's Jay Swainson's Thrush Tundra Swan Varied Thrush Varied Thrush Violet -green Swallow Violet -green Swallow Virginia Rail Western Tanager White -crowned Sparrow White -crowned Sparrow Yellow-rumped Audubon's Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Critical Marsh Buffer Habitat: The map on the left shows the critical buffer zone habitat surrounding the marsh. The area indicated in green is the healthiest portion of the Edmonds Marsh Buffer. Consequently, this area holds the highest diversity and population of all the marsh's habitat. This is a critical area for breeding and foraging species, avian and otherwise. ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 133 2.2.a Relative Abundance: This relative abundance graph shows the percentage of the total animals detected each species makes up. This chart is the RA of the top 30 species for the entire marsh. Of note here is that all but one species with the highest RA (Green -winged Teal) are found on the previous list of birds seen within the proposed vegetation management area. ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Piichuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 134 2.2.a The graph below shows the relative abundance by individual survey circle. The graph can be misleading, but there are a few important things to take away from it. First, ED.001 has the highest relative diversity because it has the best and clearest view, and many of our volunteer surveyors are primarily sight birders. Next, the circle with the highest diversity is ED.005, which is in the hatchery forest. The forest there is the healthiest habitat in the survey, with multiple canopies to the forest cover, snags, water, dense ground cover and foraging area, and a native plant garden. 9)2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 135 2.2.a Microhabitat Use of the Forest by Canopy Level: Location 1 7 Count of Specws t13_'NTTI Ut, Irac kc>d ( hic kxli,�' 2 ^ice e�ae?t:�,lEi T. Mallard 2 e, Bald faAw 3% Hid tailr+tl Hawk (ic)jdeaa crn:vnnd Kin& 34- w Y,,Rov: riampod Ar1dnhoW Warb€car O,ifi eymd(iregonlonco Crrr.��n�tvongfi�d Teal iSrs i'3eviick's Mini 4% Clrsat 61tan Fir�rcm 40 Anna's Fit immi ng:FI Id 1% Microhabitat Forest - All Canopy Levels 1?, �. .�•rfi x: Ei li tl; This graph shows all species at all levels of the forest including emergent, canopy, understory and forest floor on one graph. The chart only includes the top 20 species present and doesn't include the full range of species in the forest. Most of the migrant breeding warblers and flycatchers are underrepresented by birders who are not birding by ear. ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 136 2.2.a The cart to the right represents species detected in the understory above 6 feet and below the canopy. These three graphs represent the species present at each level of the forest structure. The interesting thing to notice is that some species depend on all three levels of habitat, while others are specialists The chart to the left represents species detected in the top layer of the forest. W:/m1 T tweFet S{p>n hlk: ,cM.L,Adt Foos: )arr;, N7m The chart to the left represents the lower level of the forest structure, from the forest floor up to six feet. Notice the sudden increase in Song Sparrow in this habitat, where they are the dominant habitat specialist here. They and Spotted Towhee make up over half of the birds at this level. ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 137 2.2.a Count of Behavior 1 160 140 120 BEHAVIORS BY SURVcY CIRCLE 10072 2 80 60 40 2° 0 Eo.001 i=D.a02 ED.003 ED.004 ED.005 ED.a06 ED.007 Ei).003 OLD BNSL UNKNOWN 7 2 5 1 10 4 TERRITORIAL 3 2 1 4 1 N SWIMMING 5 5 1 I SONG/COURTSHIP 17 13 22 15 21 i,8 12 ■ SLEEPING/ROOSTING 1 ■ RESTING 29 3 10 6 8 11 16 7 1 PREY ABATEMENT 1 2 3 1 1 ■ PREENING 2 1 1 ■OTHER 2. 8 2 3 ■ ARASSiNG/MOBBING 2 3 4 3 1 1 FLYOVER 24 4 5 10 S 8 9 1FLY IN 10 4 8 2 S 5 2 9 FLY OUT 5 2 7 3 2 2 FORAGING 28 8 24 22 35 28 9 ■ CONTACT CALLING 13 28 26 28 50 29 14 ■ BREEDING CONE 1 1 1 1 Obs.Cirde y ©2021 Scott Markowitz, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Snohomish, WA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 138 2.2.a March 23, 2021 The Point Edwards Homeowners Association (PEHOA) submits this reply to those public comments filed with the City of Edmonds (COE) regarding Point Edwards (PE) proposed permit (Type III -A) PLN2020-0054 and Land Use Management Plan (LMP). Questions of Mike Shaw dated February 16, 2021: 1. With a previous history of unauthorized (and very environmentally detrimental) tree removal in their past, have the Point Edwards people shown the awareness and willingness to do better this time. PE: In reference to Mr. Shaw addressing the applicant is not as "the Point Edwards' people," we are proud to be citizens of Edmonds who own condominium units at Point Edwards (PE) organized as the PEHOA. PE does not have a history of unauthorized and environmentally harmful tree removal in their past. Mr. Shaw is likely referring to the wrongful clearing of what is called the West Slope by the developer in 2003. That action was not known or approved by the PEHOA prior to its occurrence. In fact, the developer's wrongful actions took place long before the first two condominium buildings (Bldgs. 61 and 71) were built and ready for occupancy in January 2005. See, 20050112563, Snohomish County Records. Neither the residents nor the PEHOA had the power to stop the unforeseeable actions of the developer as the West Slope was under the sole control and ownership of the developer. The PEHOA hired Bel Johnson as its Landscape Manager. She is a well -respected landscape designer and manager. Bel works closely with the COE in managing the slopes. Since her full- time employment with PE there has been no complaints regarding slope management, wildlife habitat nor vegetation issues. She has worked diligently within the codes and guidelines that the City of Edmonds sets forth. We share Mr. Shaw's interest in the health of the slopes, their flora and fauna. Slope preservation, wildlife habitat, and healthy vegetation are always at the forefront of all decisions. 2. If active bird nests (one's birds are currently using and that may have eggs in them) are discovered in any of the trees to be cut down, is there a plan? PE: The residents are mindful of the environment and ecology surrounding PE. The trees, shrubs, and foliage on the slopes are a part of the residents' back yard. 1. The birds and wildlife live in the residents' back yard. Very few birds' nests have been sighted within the areas proposed for actions under the permit. So far 1 nest has been sighted and appears it is inactive. PE' s plan is not to take action except -1- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 139 2.2.a for possible pruning, on any trees harboring nests, active or inactive. If pruning is planned on a specific tree, that pruning will occur when no birds are present. 3. If active bird nests are discovered in any of the trees to be pruned, will they be treated with all due caution and respect? PE: Point Edwards has a regular and well -established practice of not pruning trees, shrubs, and bushes when birds are nesting within them. This is nothing special. It is just how PE and its Landscape Manager Bel Johnson conducts landscape management. See also, reply to question number 2 above. 4. If animal dens or burrows are discovered in the areas necessary to achieve tree removal or pruning, will they be left undisturbed as much as possible? PE: If dens and burrows were to be found during the proposed management of the slope, they would be treated as they are on the West Slope. Dens and burrows are left alone and not disturbed. This is a part of a well -established landscape management plan. It is how Bel Johnson conducts her landscape practice. S. Will care be taken not to let potential pollutants (petrochemicals, pesticides, high nitrogen and/or high -phosphorous fertilizers) leach into the ground/groundwater? PE: Trees that are marked for removal will be continually recut to avoid use of chemical applications. Organic composted material will be used as soil amendments where required. Chips made by work performed will be used as top dress once revegetation has occurred. At least 50% of the material from the trees felled will remain in place to break down organically. No petrochemical or other toxic chemicals are planned for use in PE's proposed permit actions There is no plan to use high nitrogen and high phosphorous fertilizers. See Permit Application, p. 26. 6. Will the access footprint for this activity be as small and minimally invasive as possible? PE: Yes, the actions proposed in the permit have been developed by PE in collaboration with Arborists, Biologists and Save Our Marsh citizen/scientists so that the final result will be beneficial to wildlife and -slope stabilization into the future. Yes, the footprint will be small and minimally invasive. Each proposed action is limited to a specific tree which is identified by number and species. There are no generalized actions involving the trees on the slopes. The area proposed is quite specific and small -scaled in comparison with the size of the north slope Once again, each action is limited to a specific tree. 7. If any of the above is NOT achieved, is there a plan for mitigation/restoration? -2- Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 140 2.2.a Raedeke and Associates has submitted a Technical Report as part of PE's supplemental package which covers Mr. Shaw's questions regarding mitigation measures. PE also will be monitoring, inspecting, and reporting to the COE the progress of the revegetation for 5 years. There are plans for the possibility that some revegetation may fail. PE also proposes sharing annual pruning schedules with the COE. See, Permit Application, pp.27-28. 8. Will the company chosen for this work be vetted and held accountable for a high environmental and ecological awareness, sensitivity, and track record? PE: Champion Tree Service under the supervision of Champion Tree Care, Justina Kraus, and the PE Landscape staff under the supervision of Bel Johnson will be conducting the proposed permitted actions. Justina Kraus is ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) certified arborist. Every three to five years, Ms. Kraus meets TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualified) standards. Ms. Kraus has a B.S. and M.S. in Urban Forest Ecology and Management from the University of Washington. Bel Johnson is a well -recognized landscape designer who has received several awards from the Edmonds horticultural community. Bel's qualifications are evident in the condition of PE' s formal grounds. Comments from the SOM dated February 13, 2021: 1. Is the proposed site for tree removal in the vicinity of the 'illegal' tree removal that occurred when Point Edwards condos were developed, and will the land management actions affect the mitigation that should have occurred for the illegal cutting? Answered by Kernen Lien: Following the cutting in 2003, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the developer that included replanting of the western slope to mitigate the cutting. The settlement agreement with the developing provided little language on the maintenance of the planting. The current application does not propose any tree removal on the western slope (the area of the illegal tree cutting referred to) but does provide information on vegetation maintenance on the western slope. The tree cutting action are in the different portions of the property than the 2003 cutting. 2. Has a wildlife professional assessed the potential effects of the proposed landscape changes on wildlife in the area including 1) the resident bald eagles on Pont Edwards; 2) the wildlife using the Demo Garden, the Willow Creek wildlife corridor, and the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary and Wildlife Sanctuary; and 3) wildlife that currently or in the future (after restoration) will utilize lower yard of the old Unocal property that has a large pond used by migrating waterfowl and is the potential sit of an expanded Wildlife Sanctuary in Edmonds? Answered by Kernen Lien: The application has not been evaluated by a wildlife professional. Staff has requested a survey for a potential blue heron colony on the site that was identified on the State's Priority Habitat Species layer, but not an overall evaluation of the proposal. The -3- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 141 2.2.a proposal will create 24 wildlife snags, each tree that is cut will be replaced at a ratio of one to one and the proposal also calls for planting of shrubs and groundcover which will improve the diversity of habitat of the primarily alder stand that currently exists. PE's response to comments from SOM dated February 13, 2021: PE: Point Edwards at the request of the SOM and Raedeke Associates, Inc. has amended the Permit to address the wildlife. Raedeke Associates, Inc. has been retained to provide Great Blue Heron information as well as the review of PE's Permit Application and LMP with respect to bird and wildlife habitat and impact. Raedeke Associates' qualifications can be reviewed at https:Hraedeke.com. In short, the firm was founded over 40 years ago by Dr. Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D., a former professor at the University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. Raedeke Associates has expertise in environmental impact statements, land stewardship planning, habitat conservation plans, habitat management plans and wildlife inventories among other ecological and environmental subjects. Raedeke Associates' report will be filed with PE's amended permit application and LMP. Bebobopbill dated February 24, 2021: 1. I would encourage you to space out your timetable, and not cut so many at once. And it being on a steep slope above a wetland, I would think that this is a critical area, and all tree cutting should be limited and curtailed. Mr. Phipps believes that the slope is steep and critical. He is correct. The slope is classified as a critical slope by the COE with resulting management requirements for the vegetation on the slope. The vegetation on the slope must be managed to minimize slides and soil erosion. Fostering the health of the urban forest on the slope requires selected tree cutting and pruning. Mr. Phipps believes that any cutting should be done in phases. PE did consider whether performing the removal work in phases would benefit the wildlife, but it does not. If PE did not do the work consecutively but phased it over a longer period of time this would have a much larger consequence on the wildlife, due to continued disturbance. SOM dated February 23, 2021: We urge you to revisit your Landscape Management Plan with an eye towards the adverse as well as beneficial aspects of vegetation management on wildlife in the area. We appreciate the desire to maintain views of the beautiful environs around Pt Edwards, and only ask that your landscape planning take into account and "balance" the value of trees for life history needs of wildlife (as well as human health) with property owner desires open views. M Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 142 2.2.a The application and its accompanying LMP is required because the vegetation on the slope need to be managed to minimize the risk of slide and erosion. No LMP will prevent slides or erosion. However, slides and erosion can be managed, and they present a direct, not speculative, risk of harm to wildlife. The North Slope presents " ... a significant concern for slope erosion and loss. If this occurred, the impact on habitat would be substantial." See, Blair Bernson, Public Comment submitted on February 24, 2021. PE accepted SOMs suggestions for consultation with wildlife professionals. See, Raedeke Associates' Technical Memo discussed above. Their professional opinion is that phasing in the removal of trees is more likely to adversely impact wildlife than acting at one time. They have years of experience and considerable expertise in the application of both the state and federal Environmental Protection Acts and SEPA. We trust in their judgement. PE shares the same vision you espouse regarding the Unocal property. We do not want to see commercial development or waste land. What we see now, however, is a wildlife corridor that could be far better than it is. A monoculture of alder is developing and, in some places, has taken hold. In this area, there is limited production of berry, fruit or seeds for animals, birds, or beneficial insects. There is dense canopy, spreading ivy, and bramble. In that part of the monoculture encroaching on PE's property, the proposed permit and LMP will take this habitat which lacks diversity and turn it into a place where a variety of birds and animals can nest and live. Marthlynn Jones dated February 24, 2021: 1. As a citizen and member of Save Our Marsh who appreciates all aspects of nature, I carefully read the proposal and studied the maps for the petition by the Point Edwards Homeowners Association to remove or prune 175 trees that are close to the Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek, and the Salmon Hatchery, and I have several concerns. According to the application, 175 trees will be altered (removed, turned into stumps, pruned) across the area in front of the entire Point Edwards complex yet only 45 trees will be replanted, and all of those are in section 102 on the east side. PE: Ms. Jones mis-characterizes how the proposed permit activity will occur. The proposed permit will affect only the North slope, not the entire PE complex. Nor will the entire border of the Unocal property be without trees. PE's property intersects with the Unocal Road only at two small points. There is a considerable barrier of trees between PE's property line and the Unocal Road that is on Unocal property and will not be touched. Where the Unocal Road ends, the trees on PE's property merge into the Alder on Unocal property which unfortunately will remain. For example, on map L102, which is close to the Unocal Road, and off Pine Street and the Demo Garden and hatchery, no trees are scheduled for removal. There are two trees that will remain -5- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 143 2.2.a untouched and be monitored in the future. Yet even though no trees will be removed, 25 trees will be replanted. On map L103, a bit farther from the Unocal Road and with a substantial barrier of trees between that road and PE' s property line, no trees are being removed. No trees will be replanted. On map L104 and L105 showing PE's property merging into the Unocal monocultured forest, 35 trees will be removed, and 20 trees will be replanted. However, in these two areas 437 new plants, including the noted trees, will be planted bringing seeds, berries, fruit, and foliage to this area which lacks any nourishment for wildlife. See, Permit Application, pp. 24-25 and Permit Application, Maps, Exhibit 2. 2. On the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist form under "animals that could be affected," only rabbit and coyote are noted. There are no listings under the headings for birds or fish. The truth is, the Point Edwards Community Trail is listed as a birding hotspot on the popular bird website eBird. Fifty-seven bird species have been sighted from the trail in recent years. You can see the list at #bit.ly//3glwBj#. Shouldn't this information be included on the SEPA checklist? PE: The SEPA checklist form has no such phrase "animals that could be affected". Section b.5.a.(page 10) asks for "birds and other animals that have been observed ... the site. Save our Marsh have addressed the SEPA Study as well. Our SEPA Study has been amended by Raedeke Associates, an environmental and wildlife consulting firm who has reviewed PE's SEPA Checklist. PE recently received an amended bird list from Save Our Marsh which is referred to in the SEPA Checklist as exhibit 11 in the Permit. Raedeke has had years of experience and expertise in the application of both the state and federal Environmental Protection Acts and the SEPA Checklist. PE will follow Raedeke' recommendations. In their Technical Report it notes observations of 17 bird species during their field investigations and references the bird list provided by Save Our Marsh, which is referred to in the SEPA Checklist as exhibit 11 in the Permit. They recognize that a wide variety of birds and mammals may be found on the site or in the vicinity at different times of the year. Point Edwards and Raedeke Associates are confident that all the SEPA questions have been addressed. We are pleased that we are listed as a birding hotspot. We take great care and passion regarding our slope wildlife. 3. The petition states that they will plant shrubs and groundcover to "increase species diversity." There is already a lot of species diversity documented in the area. We need to understand how all the species that are present now use the current vegetation before we make drastic changes to it. Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 144 2.2.a PE: The revegetated areas will enhance the wildlife habitat. Presently, there are only alder, ivy, and other invasive plant material in the area proposed for revegetation at this time. The area is barren of any beneficial wildlife habitat. The backside of the Pines and their structure have been completely compromised by the alder and there is few wildlife that can forage in this planned revegetated area. While rabbits abound unfortunately on the upper edge of the North and West slopes where the slopes abut PE's formal grounds, they are not sighted in the dense alder where there is limited food or shelter for them, only ivy and bramble. While many birds are sighted in the permit area, there is little signs of nesting activity. We believe that with the introduction of low structural diversity and the presence of the invasive species being improved by that structural component and the elimination of those invasive species, (replaced by native species) it will provide a higher quality habitat. By planting a diverse variety of food and foliage for bird and wildlife, it is hoped there will be an increase in the number and type of bird and wildlife residing in the permit area. 4. The petition states that there will be no tree work within 200 feet of any of the waterways that are nearby including the marsh, Deer Creek Hatchery, Willow Creek, and the Unocal property. None of the properties were shown on the tree maps, so how do we know that this claim is accurate? PE: Ms. Jones is referred to Google Earth and Google Maps where she can review the location of PE's property line and waterways and other locations. Lastly, the commentator needs to review why the COE requires critical slopes to be managed. The slope is harmed by erosion and slides. Animals and birds are harmed when their habitat is destroyed by slides and erosion. Wildlife habitat is enhanced when dense, dark, monoculture urban forests are changed into areas where berry and seeds can feed the birds and wildlife. 5. And how will the pond on the Point Edwards property be affected? PE: The pond will not be impacted by the work. The tree work will be done in fall to winter to not disturb nesting periods. In the spring when the revegetation occurs, PE believes that it will invite more wildlife into this section due to the native plant life that will be installed of which there is none at this time. 6. The trees that are to be removed are all listed as being 36 feet tall. Replacing the 36- foot tree with a 2-foot tree does nothing to improve wildlife habitat. Shouldn't there be requirements for the maturity as well as a type of tree that is replacing a fully grown tree? PE: We believe most trees will be in the 6' to 12' range depending on availability. It would take heavy equipment to install for instance a 20' tree or larger caliper trees which we will not be using. All plant material will be brought in, holes dug, and planted by manual labor. There is -7- Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 145 2.2.a documented evidence that planting a tree that has a smaller root structure is more likely to survive. Statement made by Marthlyn Jones — "I believe that we need an independent evaluation by a wildlife ecologist to answer questions about how wildlife is currently utilizing the areas that would be affected; ... and the streams and wetlands." PE: Ms. Jones wants to understand what the risk to wildlife would be with the removal, coppicing, and pruning 175 trees. She would like to understand how the removal of the trees might impact the waters. Whether there is indeed a 200-foot buffer between the project area and streams and wetlands. Raedeke Associates has been hired and has done a thorough study of the revegetation area which will be available for review (Technical Report by Raedeke Associates). The Technical Report is part of the supplemental information being sent to the COE to update the original Permit. 9. Many Edmonds citizens were appalled and sickened when the tall trees in this area were butchered illegally one weekend during the building of Point Edwards many years ago — trees where bald eagles roosted, and herons nested. PE: There are over 400 Edmonds citizens that reside at Point Edwards currently. The slopes are an integral part of our 21-acre site. With passion and attention, we manage our slopes. The Landscape Management Plan will allow us further attention to detail, and we continue to join with the City of Edmonds to make our critical slopes healthy and inviting for all types of wildlife and people to enjoy. Below are two selected comments published in MY EDMONDS NEWS which cover different issues than those sent to the COE are included here for a response. Comments by Joe Scordino dated February 25, 2021: PE: We appreciated Mr. Scordinos' input and on sight meeting at Point Edwards. Point Edwards has addressed the questions that Save Our Marsh and Joe Scordino posed and have amended all Permit documents so the wildlife on Point Edwards north slope is more thoroughly addressed. The vast majority of the trees being scheduled for removal are alder. The vast majority of the trees remaining are alder. The trees are being replaced on a one-to-one basis and the replacement trees are either 100% native or native cultivars hybridized with other species to increase their chance of survival. The replacement trees will bring diversity to the forest and food for wildlife that is not now present. PE would like to plant Pacific Northwest Dogwood, Cornus 'nuttallii'. That species is beautiful, provides fruit and seeds -for wildlife and is native. However, it suffers from Dogwood anthracnose and would not be a good choice. Cornus 'Eddies White Wonder' provides the same beauty and adds the additional fruit and seed as the native species because it is part of the native species that has been hybridized to resist In Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 146 2.2.a anthracnose. This is but one example. However, PE has reviewed with its wildlife biologist the ratio of non-native species in its replanting plans and have altered its selection of plants and trees so that they are all native or native cultivars. And finally, this is not about views. Those trees being removed or pruned are being acted on to improve the slope and forest. If view were a paramount or even high priority, an entirely different selection of trees in entirely different locations would be identified for removal. Comments by Alan Mearns dated February 27, 2021: We need an assessment, right now, of the birds and wildlife uses of the forest below the Residential buildings. At least 3 large nests are easily visible in the currently leafless native deciduous tree canopies. The nests are even visible from the boardwalk on the north side of the Marsh (from Harbor Square lookouts), using binoculars and cameras with telephoto lenses. Two nests look very much like Bald eagle nests. "Right now" means before the deciduous trees leaf out in mid -March, when it will be much difficult to view existing and new nests. Ironically, we are into the second year of an ongoing, decade -long, professional biweekly "Edmonds Marsh Avian Habitat Us Monitoring Study -at -Edmonds -marsh -project)). sponsored by the Pilchuck Audubon Society and the Puget Sound Bird Observatory (see Avian Habitat Use Monitoring at Edmonds Marsh — Pilchuck Audubon Society). This study includes the buffer zone and tree habitats below the condominiums. I would appreciate knowing if the PE HOA or the City is looking at that data as part of the permit evaluation. What a shame if that science is being ignored. PE: has hired Raedeke and Associates to review the herons and other wildlife. Wildlife including nesting birds is paramount to their consideration. PE does not know if Raedeke is using the website you mentioned but as experienced experts in bird and wildlife habitat, PE is sure that they are aware of the resource. Supplemental filing for the Point Edwards Permit has updated information that is being submitted to the City of Edmonds. In Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 147 2.2.a From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 11:07 AM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; mtmlan1946@gmail.com; bel@pointedwardshoa.com Subject: Point Edwards Tree Removal Application #PLN2020-0054 In response to the public notice (copy attached) placed on Pine Street near the Demo Garden and potential 'soon -to -be' Wildlife Sanctuary adjacent to Point Edwards, we request you provide us advance notice of all hearings, actions and subsequent documents posted at http://edmondswa.gov/public- notices-text/development-notices.html for Application Number PLN2020-0054. Save Our Marsh will be added as a party of record and receive future notices for this application. However, parties of record are not contacted every time new material is submitted on a application. To see if other documents have been submitted, Save Our Marsh can reach out to me periodically to see if additional information has been submitted. The applicants have until April 28t" to respond to the City's first round of comments. From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:37 PM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Point Edwards Tree Removal Application #PLN2020-0054 Mr. Lien - we note that the PLN2020-0054 website does not currently include several exhibits referenced in the application (Exhibit 413, 4C and Critical Area Checklist) - will those be posted soon? Will future postings include the additional information request(s) you made of the applicant? Exhibit 413, 4C, Critical Area Checklist and the subsequent critical area determination are attached. Additional information will be posted with the Notice of the Public Hearing and will be included in the staff report to the ADB. Also, would it be possible for the City to post the Settlement Agreement(s?) referenced in the application for the Point Edwards illegal cuttings on the PLN2020-0054 website? If posting is not appropriate, could you E-Mail us the documents? Settlement agreement is attached. Lastly, could you clarify the approval process? Is the City's Architectural Board the only entity involved in recommending approval/denial to a Hearing Examiner or are there City of Edmonds recommendations/approvals (such as critical areas) involved? The application is a Type III -A process with the Architectural Design Board issuing the decision which is appealable to Superior Court. The application is design review because it is a modification to the landscape plan for the Point Edwards development. The City has issued the critical area determination for the property which is attached. The project also requires SEPA review and the City will issue a SEPA threshold determination prior to the public hearing before the Architectural Design Board. The SEPA determination is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. If the SEPA determination is appealed, the ADB's -10- Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 148 2.2.a meeting will only be a public meeting (no public comment due to state law restrictions against two open record public hearings) and the ADB will make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner would issue the decision on the SEPA appeal and design review application. A staff report analyzing the proposal consistency with City code will be available a week before the ADB meeting. Thank you for your assistance. We're sure you understand the proximity of the proposed tree removals to a wildlife corridor and future Wildlife Sanctuary is of great concern to Edmonds citizens. Yes I was aware this application would be of interest to Edmonds' citizens. Letter to the editor: Wildlife concerns with tree removal at Point Edwards Posted: February24,2021 @ 1126 Save Our Marsh sent the following letter to the Point Edwards Homeowners Association and requested that it also be published as a letter to the editor To: Point Edwards Homeowners Association We urge you to revisit your Landscape Management Plan with an eye towards the adverse as well as beneficial aspects of vegetation management on wildlife in the area. We appreciate the desire to maintain views of the beautiful environs around Point Edwards, and only ask that your landscape planning take into account and "balance" the value of trees for life history needs of wildlife (as well as human health) with property owner desires for open views. The vegetated strip on the hillside below the condos is part of the Willow Creek wildlife corridor, and the timing, numbers, and species of trees removed and replanted should take this into account. Removing patches of mature trees all at one time is likely to adversely affect the wildlife that utilize those trees and affiliated habitat. Great blue herons used to nest in areas of dense alder trees between the marsh and the Point Edwards property, and herons have been observed in recent years carrying nesting material over the marsh (though no active nests have yet been documented). Bushtits and other birds commonly use alder trees for their nests, Deer fawns and coyote pups have also been observed in the wildlife corridor. As you know, with WSDOT terminating their plan to relocate the ferry terminal below Point Edwards, the Save Our Marsh group has urged the city and State to designate the old Unocal property as a wildlife reserve (or sanctuary) with a tidal channel across it to bring back salmon and restore the estuary. Thus, vegetation management on the hillside above the old Unocal property will be important for and affect wildlife restoration. We ask that the Point Edwards Homeowners Association consider incorporating the "Certified Wildlife Habitat" criteria established by the National Wildlife Federation (see: www.nwf.org/certify (https://www.nwf.org/certify) ) into your Landscape Management Plan, and obtain wildlife habitat certification and post signs of such on your property. We'd also suggest the association consult a wildlife ecologist in making necessary revisions to the Landscape Management Plan. We did note that the SEPA checklist that you sent to the City of Edmonds does not adequately address wildlife in the area, nor the potential adverse effects of tree removal on wildlife. Further, the SEPA checklist does not acknowledge the wildlife value and usage of the stormwater detention pond on your property. Even though it is a manmade pond, it has aevaluable asset to wildlife and any tree removal near the pond can adversely affect that wildlife. Bill Anderson, a local wildlife enthusiast and photographer who recently passed away, documented 28 different bird species from 2013 to 2016 in the 'I Point Edwards Walkway, Condos, Unocal" area. The following bird species that Bill has documented at Point Edwards should be addressed in the SEPA document: Canada goose, Gadwall, Mallard, Northern shoveler, Redhead, Ring-necked duck, California quail, Great blue heron, Green heron, Bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, Sharp -shinned hawk, Rufous hummingbird, Anna's hummingbird, Northern flicker, Steller's -11- Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 149 2.2.a jay, American crow, Violet -green swallow, Barn swallow, Bushtit, Bewick's wren, Ruby -crowned kinglet, American robin, Cedar waxwing, Song Sparrow, Dark -eyed junco, Red -winged blackbird, and American goldfinch. Deer (adults and fawn), coyotes (adults and pups) and racoons have also been observed at Pt Edwards and should be addressed in the SEPA document. Thank you for your consideration of our request to modify your Landscape Management Plan to "balance" wildlife needs and the value of mature trees to human health and well being with your goal to maintain views. Marjorie Fields Edmonds on behalf of Save Our Marsh Letter to the editor: Point Edwards responds to Save Our Marsh concerns Posted: March 5, 2021 903 Editor: We want to thank Save our Marsh for sharing their thoughts with Point Edwards (see the Feb. 24 letter here) and to thank the Edmonds community as well for their questions and comments. Point Edwards Homeowners Association and Landscape Team, in conjunction with Certified Arboricultural and Biological Experts, have submitted an application for a Type III -A Landscape Modification Permit to be able to work on a small portion of the PE complex. The project does not propose any new development, will not change the slope or stormwater movement, and will not create any impervious surfaces. Instead, the entire goal is to positively influence the landscape by responsible tree work, and then careful replanting. This project balances current zoning, the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, the COE Urban Forest Management Plan, as well as the wildlife goals of adjoining properties with the goals of the owners making up the HOA. Our application has been uploaded and can be found on the City of Edmonds website. Though the public comment period has closed, comments will still be considered if sent to Landscape Manager Bel Johnson, if received by March 20, 2021. The following statement was already shared with COE City Council and Development Department Staff, with Point Edwards residents, and was sent to Marjorie Fields, as lead contact for Save Our Marsh. Because we cannot be sure if everyone interested has seen our response, and to reach a broader audience, we want to share the following: To: Marjorie Fields on behalf of Save Our Marsh, Point Edwards would like to thank you for your comments during the open comment period regarding Point Edwards Permit application PLN2020-0054. We have submitted -12- Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 150 2.2.a the Permit to modify a small area located on our north slope and also a required Landscape Management Plan for both West and North slopes. We have taken the open public comments received by you as an opportunity to further consult with experts regarding the subjects you have addressed. The experts we are working with have considerable experience in wildlife habitat management and wildlife habitat conservation including endangered avian species. Also, we have worked with a very qualified Arborist throughout the development of this plan. We will incorporate, amend, and supplement our Permit and SEPA Studies with their guidance and attention to the sensitivity regarding slope integrity and wildlife habitat. We have worked diligently to develop a plan that fosters diversity in plant life so that food and forage for the birds and other wildlife will be enhanced. The wildlife inhabiting our slopes is such an important part of living at Point Edwards and we believe a key reason why Edmonds residents visit. There was an established revegetation plan that was put in place in 2004 for the developer to complete. The revegetation plan reintroduced evergreen trees and native northwest plants that now grow healthy and vibrant on the west slope. It was in 2009 that Point Edwards HOA took over the care of the west and north slope. We own these critical slopes and take our responsibility for them very seriously. We are the stewards of our critical slopes and are passionately interested in the best health of the slope and the health of the wildlife. We are so fortunate to share our slopes with the Edmonds community. It is with great care and compassion that we covet our role. PE wants to be able to maintain and improve the landscape on PE property and is doing so in accordance with guidance from the COE and with consideration toward long term slope integrity and wildlife habitat. The City of Edmonds is a very special place and Point Edwards and the Edmonds community enjoy the marsh, ferry views, mountain views, eagles that soar, and the wildlife that enjoy the critical slopes in so many areas throughout Edmonds but uniquely at Point Edwards and the Marsh. It is our belief and our hope that putting forth the most successful landscape plan, with the greatest impactful results, is imperative and will define our slopes into perpetuity. Yours truly, Bel' Johnson Landscape Manager Point Edwards HOA -13- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 151 2.2.a Point Edwards staff, Edmonds Marsh advocates find common ground during review of vegetation management plan Posted: March 26, 2021 944 Joe Scordino with Save Our Marsh, far left, asks a question of Point Edwards Homeowners Association President Mike Mitchell, center. A Thursday morning field trip drew representatives from Save Our Marsh to the Point Edwards condominiums, where they met with staff from the complex and consultants to get a first-hand view of the Point Edwards plan to manage vegetation on the slope above the Edmonds Marsh and the adjoining Unocal site. According to the group's Facebook Page, concerned Edmonds residents formed Save Our Marsh "to prevent continued degradation of the Edmonds Marsh and to restore and enhance its ecological functions." In the making for several years, the Point Edwards plan will affect 175 trees on the north and west slopes above the marsh. Forty-five of those trees would be removed, 28 coppiced (cut down to stumps but expected to resprout), 78 pruned, and 24 left as -14- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 152 2.2.a snags. The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns, and other groundcover to increase the species diversity on the project site. No action will be taken on 86 trees. See the full application package here. * IL i # rae ' ... mot... ... q'f.�n4r rar*1, W.�. i1. 71�,l�i�\Vr l,f.•x U � !,7.,+i7k.11U,7EC,IP��Fd1,.4'L 4/,1■T } -15- :t L104 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 153 2.2.a iww I.4e • _••' i--- --- - ---- ---- * ,I,......I,,o..t..l n41 W- ,—,. ,. ,• �.� ,. o.ws , . �� . • • . These three maps show details of which trees are proposed for removal, coppicing and retaining as snags. L103 details the north slope above the fish hatchery. Maps L104 and L105 proceed to the west. • per, � � .� . 1 iL MFA w v,in11fK"I nius�,411—A• b,.nry ]I Mrs sxcllul a{,X�l7�MIR K, iIi S -16- L104 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 154 2.2.a ZZ 0 one* "604% IS a � � ��rtak-IIU�7ECFlP��Fdl�r4'L 4/4iT • c.rrr. i � rtrr. t f •- a+4�r 41 .��• T i1GAF Lp� � Vy� �{[TOI. kAr7�6 A41 7.IM-i 1 W tl7.I M1VY `{.5 L103 +J.Tnr u �f�.4i T%. �aY-J 1• W Y � }� � �. . a i These three maps show details of which trees are proposed for removal, coppicing and retaining as snags. L103 details the north slope above the fish hatchery. Maps L104 and L105 proceed to the west. -17- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 155 2.2.a Ion 2� ei+2trm - •-- — ..._�T eO • w .R �M.. a r _ GWM1Ir ` �'LiOl� r� — A+`y1Lw ' J * Aop 4 • • .. ,� L, L 104 1 4MM1.lWT.lYI� .� _ry yi >•�- .i�A4A 7R igw��iA�Mri y.Ae.l y The proposal has caught the attention of many community members who are concerned about potential negative effects on the marsh environment, wildlife, runoff, and more. Among these are what critics see as the plan's cursory mentions of birds, wildlife and the sheer diversity of species that depend on the marsh for shelter, breeding and foraging (see recent letter to the editor detailing these concerns and the species affected here). M Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 156 2.2.a Edmonds Senior Planner Kernen Lien, who has been overseeing the permitting process, explains the priority of slope and wildlife preservation in the plan. Organized by City of Edmonds Senior Planner Kernen Lien, Thursday's tour provided the opportunity for those concerned about the potential effects of the project on the marsh environment to learn about, ask questions and voice concerns about the proposed work, and have these included in the final plan. Point Edwards, a condominium community overlooking the Edmonds waterfront, has been granted an extension until July 27 to respond to the city's request to include a heron study. They will also use this extension to take another look at the SEPA study, add more bird and wildlife names, and include the man-made storm detention pond between the condo building and the westernmost slope. -19- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 157 2.2.a Point Edwards Landscape Manager Bel' Johnson points out a copse of alder on the west section of the slope that are proposed for removal (red flagging) and coppicing (blue flagging). In this case the alders proposed for removal are encroaching on existing shore pines, and when gone will give these more room to spread and grow. Coppicing removes the trunks but leaves the root system intact to enhance slope stabilization. Coppiced alders will regrow. "Our primary goal with this project is slope preservation and stabilization," said Point Edwards Landscape Manager Bel' Johnson as she welcomed attendees. "We have worked diligently to develop a plan that fosters diversity in plant life so that food and forage for the birds and other wildlife will be enhanced. The wildlife inhabiting our slopes is an important part of living at Point Edwards and to the Edmonds community as a whole, and this plan aims to retain and enhance these benefits as we move into the future." The project includes the natural areas on north and west slopes that fall within the property boundaries of Point Edwards, which extend roughly 50 feet beyond the existing paved public walkway. Areas further downslope are part of the Chevron/Unocal property and outside the Point Edwards boundary; hence they do not fall within the proposed plan. -20- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 158 2.2.a A situation the plan hopes to avoid by careful management is trees becoming uprooted during windstorms and due to slope destabilization. This tree is just outside the Point Edwards boundary (indicated by the red stake) on the Unocal property. In addition to enhancing runoff control and water quality, the slope forms a continuous wildlife corridor used by deer, coyote and more than 70 species of birds. Among the tour attendees was Scott Markowitz of the Pilchuck Audubon Society, who has been working with the Save Our Marsh group to identify bird species and how they interact with the marsh environment. -21- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 159 2.2.a "A primary concern is with the timing of the proposed activities," he stressed. "I want to see any activity such as tree removal, pruning, etc. not coincide with times of nesting and other sensitive periods in the life cycles of these inhabitants." Bel' Johnson, left, and consultant Justina Kraus of Champion Tree Care. Kraus has been the primary source of botanical expertise on the project. This concern was echoed by Point Edwards arborist consultant Justina Kraus, who has been working closely with Point Edwards on the plan. "It's much better to do all the work just once rather than spread it out," she explained. "And it's more than just trees — the shrub understory provides critical shelter and food for wildlife and the less we disturb it the better." Another of Markowitz's concerns is the potential of adding view corridors for the benefit of Point Edwards residents that would create breaks in what is now a continuous wildlife corridor along the north and west slopes. -22- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 160 2.2.a red -winged blackbird visits the cattails in the made -made storm detention pond between the condo building and the west slope area. While not a natural area, the detention pond is being added to the SEPA study. "There is a high density of different species along this corridor, especially the section just above the fish hatchery where we have observed more than 70 distinct bird species," he explained. "Many travel back and forth through this area in `feeding flocks' and creating gaps carries the potential to disrupt this." Responding directly to this concern, Point Edwards Homeowners Association President Mike Mitchell made it clear that while views are important, other factors take precedence. "People talk about residents wanting to cut trees to maintain views, and as part of our commitment to our residents we are under obligation to preserve views," he explained. "However, we are already losing views due to vegetation growth on the Unocal property [over which Point Edwards has no control]. We also need to maintain slope integrity not only to take care of views, but also maintain the wildlife which is a critical part of the ambiance of living at Point Edwards. For us, in the end, protecting slope integrity and wildlife is a higher goal than views." -23- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 161 2.2.a Point Edwards Homeowners Association President Mike Mitchell points out the Alders growing on the adjacent Unocal property, which have the potential to block views but are not under the purview of Point Edwards. Mitchell added that in several cases residents asked Landscape Manager Johnson to cut trees to enhance their views and she refused, citing wildlife and slope integrity as the reasons. "And what's wrong with a nice green forest view," observed Johnson. "Point Edwards is a special area. We have formal gardens plus all this natural beauty on the slopes. Add to this the chance to observe, photograph, and interact with a wide diversity of wildlife. It's a resource not just for Point Edwards residents, but for the community as a whole." — Story and photos by Larry Vogel -24- Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 162 E U/ Purpose of Checklist. n �; pe text h, #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Amended June 1, 2021 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions f br Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions fi•om your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North Slope Tree Removal and Re -vegetation for Point Edwards HOA 2. Name of applicant: Point Edwards Homeowners Association 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Point Edwards Homeowners Association 93 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 Contact Person: Bel' Johnson, Landscape Manager/206 423-4433 4. Date checklist prepared: May 6, 2020 Amended June 1, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds Revised on 9116116 P71 - SEPA Checkhst.doc Page I of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 163 2.2.a G. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):. Phase I: Upon Permit Approval September- February Phase II: Fall after Phase I completion Phase III: Spring or Fall during or after Phase II - Amended June 1, 2021: Raedeke Associates, Inc. - Each phase will be completed with the consideration of the nesting behaviors and potential site use by any herons or large raptors. (See landscape plan for more details) (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes ongoing slope maintenance Amended June 1 2021• Raedeke Associates Inc. has provided vegetation will be maintained to maximize the health of the native species planted and to enhance the overall plant necies diversity and Habitat {finality. in these modified areas (STAFF COMME List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Wetlands & Wildlife Environmental Consulting, Wetlands Report, Shannon & Wilson Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Geo-tech Report. Amended June 1, 2021: Raedeke Associates, Inc. has provided a great blue heron and overall wildlife/ habitat assessment of the project site and how the proposed vegetation modifications relate to the potential listed or other priority wildlife species at the project site. (STAFF COMMENTS) Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly a ec mg the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SETA Cheeklist.doc Page 2 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 164 2.2.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for ,your proposal, if known. Type Ill -A Permit (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of ,your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Point Edwards Home Owners Association, 21 acre site - PEOA requests to remove/coppice 73 trees (36 alder removal, 28 coppiced alder, 3 fir, 5 scott pine, 1 cedar and 24 wild life snags. Prune, monitor, and maintain 164 evergreen trees. Modification based on Raedeke Associates/Aborist recommendations to maximize native species diversity and overall plant health. Remove 35 trees [1 Western Red Cedar, 3 Douglas -fir, 5 Scots Pine, 26 Red Alders] / Coppice 22 trees [16 Red Alder and 6 Black Cottonwood], 31 wild life snags. Prune 80 trees and monitor 89 trees. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic snap, if reasonably available. While ,you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Point Edwards is located at 93 Pine street and zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use (MP-1 ). Proposal will occur on the North Slope and re -vegetation will occur in a section approximately 17,600 sq. ft. Trees will be added in Map L102 (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist doc Page 3 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 165 2.2.a TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS I Earth a General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Hilly with flat areas terraced into and above the hillside. The North Slope has some steep slopes and rolling, hilly areas. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 553/4 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you lmow the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Gravelly sandy loam, Kitsap silt loam, dense silt, and hard clay. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SE PA Checklist doc Page 4 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 166 2.2.a e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any tilling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMME g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Monitor irrigation in revegetated areas. Use erosion control fabric where necessary, add understory shrubs and groundcover and trees to newly planted area. (STAFF COMM ►�\ID a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 5 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 167 2.2.a b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMM 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Fnnouds Marsh, a Marsh that is a Class I wetland, lies northeast of the identified area in prior studies as a class 3 wetland (originally developed as a storm water facility) is located north of the site. The Willow Creek riparian corridor runs through the Deer Creek fish hatchery that is located northeast of the site. Amended June 1, 2021: An existing man-made stormwater pond exists in the northern portion of the project site, just south of the proposed vegetation modification area. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None is proposed. Amended June 1, 2021: Work will be conducted within 200 feet of the man-made s ormwa er pond, u will not impact the pond. vegetation such as cattails yp a latifoli that currently exist in the pond will be left unaltered. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklisi. doe Page 6 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 168 2.2.a (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 7 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 169 2.2.a (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENT C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doe Page d of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 170 2.2.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Does not apply. _ 4. Plants a. b. (STAFF COM Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: Willow x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: Hemlock x shrubs salal, redtwig dogwood, Oregongrape, sword fern, vine maple X grass _ pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: cattail growing in storm pond water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: X The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife other types of vegetation: (Ado]phson Associates, 1995) includes adetailed listing ofplant species, some of which are found on the site. Amended June 1,2021: Raedeke Associates (2021) also observed many invasive plant species such as holly (flex aquifodum), blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and ivy (Hedera helix) beginning to establish underneath the understory of alder trees in the northern portion of the Project site. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Remove 73 trees (36 alder removal and 28 coppiced), 5 Scott Pine, 1 cedar and 3 fir Create 24 31 dead and living snags Amended 6115: Remove 57 trees (35 alder removal and 22 c�pic d), _ Prune, monitor, and maintain 164 evergreen trees (26 Alder, 5 Scotts Pine, 3 Fir, I Cedar Amended June 1, 2021: Modify based on Raedeke Associates/Arborist recommendations to maximize native species diversity and overall plant health. See amended Permit information. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9,119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 9 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 171 2.2.a 5. C. List threatened or endangered species (mown to be on or near the site. The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetatoin, Fisheries, and Wildlife (Adolphson Associastes, 1995) does not note the presence of any threatened or endangered plant species on the site. Amended June 1: Raedeke Associates (2021) also did not observe any evidence of threatened, endangered, sensitive, or otherwise regulated plant species at the project site. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Use of native plants for proposed landscaping will be native fern, Vine Maple, Salal, Rhododendron, Ribes, Mahonia, Amelanchier, and native groundcovers such as Kinnikinnick. Amended June 1, 2021: Raedeke Associates, Inc. statement -Some of the largest, healthiest alders and western redcedar trees will also be preserved to maintain some structural components of the existing habitat. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Rubus 'blackberry', Hedera 'ivy', Cirsium arvense 'canada thistle', Equisetum 'horsetail', Scotch Broom (STAFF COMMENTS) Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Amended June 1, 2021: Raedeke Associates documented 17 bird specie See Permit Exhibit: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: the project site common to suburban regions of Puget Sound Lowlands mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Rabbit, Coyote and Deer fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Amended June 1. 2021: Raedeke Associates completed two site visits to the proiect site and did not observe anv evidence of use b great blue herons, or any large raptor species. Historic data obtained from WDFW (elaborated upon in Raedeke Associates' report) seems to further indicate a is areas has norbeen used by tierons for at Ieastyears. A number of onier wildlife species com on to this region and often found in urban/suburban habit atshave been identified at the proiect site by Raedeke Associates (2021). No threatened, endangered, sensitive, or otherwise regulated species are known to nest at the project site. See attached bird list provided by Save Our Marsh. Remised on 9119116 P71 - SE PA Checklist. doc Page 10 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 172 2.2.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife (Adolphson Associates, 1995) indicated that \Mllow Creek offsite to the east and north has a small run of coho salmon as a result of plantings made at the Deer Creek fish hatchery. Stray chum salmon and cutthroat trout have also been observed. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is part of the Western Flyway for migratory birds, as is most of Western Washington (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to presence or enhance wildlife, if any: Re -vegetate areas where the Alders and noxious plant material will be removed and are so thick that the understory groundcover and shrubs have perished. Plant with native species that will provide food for wild life, shelter, and give strong rc structure for soil retention. Revegetation areas will enhance nesting and foraging while dead and live snags will preserve it. Amended June 1, 2021: Raedeke Associates, Inc. statement - Retain functioning areas of currently existing habitat and manage them along with newly planted areas to ensure optimal habitat quality as the site matures and progresses. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SE_PA Checklist doc Page 11 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 173 2.2.a 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMME C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 12 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 174 2.2.a (STAFF COMMENTS (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPR Checklist. doc Page 13 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 175 2.2.a (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Machine noise by chippers, saws, and other small power equipment. Hours: 8:00 to 4:30 (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Measures to reduce noise include equipment in good mechanical repair and adherence to normal construction hours to control noise impacts. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doe Page 14 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 176 2.2.a S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Multi -family condominium complex. The adjacent property is vacant land and the proposal will not affect current land use However, it will aesthetically enhance current land use and nearby adjacent properties with pjant diversity and habitat structures that will be introduced - (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe any structures on the site. Nine condominium buildings, a maintenance office, and two amenity buildings. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 P71 - SE PA Checklist. doc Page 15 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 177 2.2.a d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MP-1 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. Portions of the site are classified as landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, and steep slopes. See Exhibit 3 Critical Areas Checklist (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9/19116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doe Page 16 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 178 2.2.a i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compliance with the City of Edmonds Type Tll-A Permit and a phased approach to tree reduction and revegetnti on (STAFF COMMENTS) M. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENT Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 17 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 179 2.2.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply._ (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklisl.doc Page 18 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 180 2.2.a b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Does not apply. (STAFF COMME b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. C. (STAFF COMME What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply. (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 19 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 181 2.2.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? City Park is located approximately a 1/2 mile east of the site across SR 104. Recreational facilities include picnic shelters, picnic tables, wading pool, a multi- purpose athletic field, play equipment, and a bandstand (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 20 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 182 2.2.a 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Does not apply. (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEP.4 Checklist. doc Page 21 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 183 2.2.a 14. Transportation a Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Pine Street. Access to Pine street for 10 of the 11 buildings is provided via an internal loop road which intersects Pine street at the east opposite Nootka Road and at the west as Pine street curves into a connection with Highland Drive. The remaining residential building has two driveways directly accessing Pine street. (STAFF b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. A transit stop is located approximately 0.7 miles to the north at the intersection of SR104 and Dayton street. (STAFF C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Does not apply. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist doe Page 22 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 184 2.2.a (STAFF COMMENTS 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklisl.doc Page 29 of 27 Attachment 10 1Packet Pg. 185 2.2.a Does not apply. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare N of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand is Nlying on them to make its decision. of Proponent Date Submitted Amended Date: June 1, 2021 Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doe Page 25 of 27 Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 186 2.2.a of EDA, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 260trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 35 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 22 Tree Coppiced (trees to be maintained as large shrubs) • Prune 80 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) • 31 wildlife snags (create 16 live and 15 dead wildlife snags) • No Action on 89 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns and groundcover to increase the species diversity on the project site. Proponent: Point Edwards Homeowners Association Location of proposal, including street address if any: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is located in the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 20, 2021. MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: ALL TREE REMOVAL, COPPICING AND SNAG CREATION ACTIVITY MUST OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE NESTING SEASON. THESE TREE CUTTING ACTIVITIES MAY OCCUR APPROXIMATELY LATE AUGUST THROUGH EARLY FEBRUARY. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_PE TREES.DOCX 8/5/21.SEPA Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 187 2.2.a Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: 8/6/2021 Signature: Rcuelrte XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than August 27, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on August 6, 2021, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at httr)s://www.edmondswa.eov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2020-0054. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 1215t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ❑X Applicant ❑X Parties of Record ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish and Wildlife ❑ Puget Sound Energy ❑ Snohomish PUD ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑ Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ South County Fire ❑ Swedish Hospital ❑ Community Transit pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑X Dept. of Natural Resources ❑ Dept. of Commerce ❑ WSDOT ❑ WSDOT — Ferries ❑x Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑X Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ Puget Sound Partnership ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑ City of Everett ❑ City of Lynnwood ❑ City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo ❑ City of Shoreline ❑ Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County— Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_PE TREES.DOCX Attachment 11 aisi2I.SEPA Packet Pg. 188 2.2.a 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/ 18/02 R:7/19/02gjz ORDINANCE NO.3411 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REZONE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM CW TO MP-1 AND MP-2; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT; APPROVING A MASTER PLAN APPLICATION FILE NO. CDC-2002-37, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, a request for the rezone of certain real property located in the City of Edmonds, owned by the Unocal Corporation, was considered by the Edmonds City Council at a closed record review. The review was continued to July 2, 2002; and WHEREAS, this matter came to the Edmonds City Council upon the record and recommendation of its Planning Board, dated May 22, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council, based upon the record and the argument presented, finds it to be in the public interest to approve the contract rezone, accept a concomitant zoning agreement, substantially in the forth set forth in the attached Exhibit 1 and approve a master plan amendment adopting by this reference and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, the findings, conclusions and recommendations of its Planning Board as its own; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: (wss522252.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 1 - Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 1 9771 2.2.a Section 1. Certain real property described in the attached Exhibit 1 and in Planning File No. R-2002-38 is hereby approved for rezone from CW to MP-1 and MP-2. The delineation of the boundaries of said rezone designations are shown on the attached Exhibit 2, and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The findings adopted by the City Council are based in part upon an assessment that the application satisfies the City's criteria for rezone as such project is delineated and limited pursuant to the terms of a concomitant rezone agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The City Council hereby accepts such agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute such agreement and for the City Clerk to attest to his signature. Said concomitant rezone agreement shall be forwarded for filing with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 3. A master plan submitted in File No. CDC-2002-37 of the planning records of the City Council and conditioned in accordance with the Planning Board's recommendation and adopted by the City Council is hereby approved. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAY R G HAA ENS ON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS522252.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -2- Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 1 0771 2.2.a APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. Scott Snyder FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/19/2002 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/23/2002 PUBLISHED: 07/28/2002 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/02/2002 ORDINANCE NO. 3411 {WSS522252.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 1 1771 2.2.a Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 1 2 2.2.a When Recorded Return To: City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Document Title: Contract Rezone Reference No.: R-2002-38 Grantor(s): Union Oil Company of California Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description: Portion of Gov. Lot 3, Section 23 and Gov. Lot 1 and NW1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 26 in Township 27 N, Range 3 E, W.M. (See Exhibit A for Complete Legal Description) Assessor's Parcel #: 270-326-001-026-00; 270-326-002-006-00; 270-326-001-024-00; 270-326-001-021-00 COVENANT REGARDING USE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (CONTRACT REZONE) WHEREAS, Union Oil Company of California ("Grantor") is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"), and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), within the boundaries of which the Property is located, and WHEREAS, the Grantor has applied for a rezone of the Property from Commercial Waterfront (CW) to Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 1 (MP I) on one portion of the Property and Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 2 (MP2) on another portion of the Property as described in Exhibit A, on the condition that the future development of the Property is restricted in the manner set forth in Section 2 below, and the Grantor is desirous of restricting the future development of the Property and obtaining the rezone referred to herein, the Grantor does hereby covenant and agree as follows: Y:\WP\unoca1\Covenant Re Use & Future Dev.c.doc 0 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 1 3 2.2.a 1. Consideration. This agreement is made as an inducement to the City of Edmonds to approve the rezone referred to above and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. 2. Future Development Restricted. Any future use, development, modification or improvement of the Property shall be subject to the restrictions of the MP 1 and MP 2 zones on the respectively zoned portions of the Property as described in Exhibit A and subject to and consistent with the provisions of the Site Master Plan for Point Edwards as presented to the Edmonds City Council as Exhibit 1 in Agenda Memo # 7 on June 18, 2002 (the "Master Plan") provided, however, that these limitations may be modified, repealed, or otherwise left in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 below. 3. Amendment or Repeal. This contract may be amended or terminated in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures applicable to a rezone of the Property under the ordinances in effect at the time such application is made to the City of Edmonds. Grantor covenants that it shall not initiate a rezone request or attempt to terminate or amend this covenant within five (5) years from its effective date; provided, however, that this shall not preclude the City from initiating a rezone of the Property nor shall it preclude the Grantor from initiating a revision to the Master Plan in said time period. 4. Covenant to Run With the Land. The restriction contained herein shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding upon the Grantor, its heirs, executors and assigns forever. 5. Effective Date. This covenant shall be effective on the later of the date this Covenant is executed by the Grantor or the date this Covenant is accepted by the Grantee. Union Oil Company of California, a California Corporation Its: a ;tiw��er� Date: "i ik ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation By: Its: Md Date: 7-.3® -off, YAWP\UNOCAL\COVENANT RE USE FUTURE DEV.C.DOC 2 Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 1 47 2.2.a STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF } 94 r� �i' ss. f z On it /� , 200$ , before me, �'� a Notary Public id and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me _(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. BEi7Y a BEAN Commission # 1208319 Z Notary Public - California Notary P lic Santa Barbara County My Comm. 6�sM Jan 16, 2003 Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 1 57 2.2.a EXHIBIT A MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE 1 (MP 1) ZONE LOT 3, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT -(S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216th STREET SW), THENCE N 01 *08' 01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S75063'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78034'50" 1N, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S 78034'50"W, 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE S 4203434" W, ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S 59001'17" W FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 59001'17" E, 566.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216th STREET SW), THENCE N 01 °08' 01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S 75°53'15" W. 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78"34'50" W 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N 59*01'17" E, 262.97 FEET, THENCE N 89*36'15" E, 359.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3 THENCE S 75053'15" W, 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS N78°34'S0' E FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 7803450" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 196 2.2.a EXHIBIT A CONTINUED THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 26 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 88051'46" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 527.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21035'00" WEST 130.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 86.57 FEET TO A POINT OF A COMPOUND CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 165.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 213.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 65035'00" EAST 37.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 89.81 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 54051'46" EAST 207.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 520.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 187.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 88051'46" EAST 83.18 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88051'46" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 83.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (BEING PARCEL III OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 8101160175). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 1 7 2.2.a EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE 2 (MP 2) ZONE REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Lot Line Adjustment for Union Oil Company AF #200202145001 PARCEL A LOT 2, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-148) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLATS-98-018)AND PINE STREET EXTENSION(216th STREET SW),THENCE N 01008'01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52'39'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S 75053'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78034'50" W 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N 59001'17" E, 262.97 FEET, THENCE N 89'36'15" E, 359.47 FEET, TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, THENCE S 75*53'15" W, 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS N78°34'50'E FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 78034'50" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND PINE STREET, EXTENSION (216th STREET SW),THENCE N 01 °08'01"E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE 875053'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78°34'50" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S 78034'50"W, 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE S 42034'34" W ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S 59`01'17" W FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 59001'17" E. 566,66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 198771 2.2.a EXHIBIT A CONTINUED TOGETHER WITH LOT 1 7HAT POR7/ON OF GOVERNMENT LOT I AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NOR7T (EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE .3 EAST W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTiW DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE N0R7HWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAND SE'C77ON 26, THENCE NORTH 86'51'46" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 571.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2135'00" HEST 113.73 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET, THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6V 5956" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 129.85 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 205.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74'00' " AN ARC DISTANCE OF 264.77; 7HENCE SOUTH 65:35'00' EAST 37.89 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 520.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 43'15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 97.30 FEET; THENCE. SOUTH 54'51'46" EAST 20Z70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID .CURVE THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34i10101" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 284.84 FEET TO A POINT 26.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 7HE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SOUTH UNE; THENCE SOUTH 88'51'46" EAST PARALLEL W17H SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET, THENCE NORTH 1T)8'14' EAST 24.00 FEET TO 7HE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 1VO4' EAST 137.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30'7553 EAST 219.53 FEET THENCE SOUTH 6471'45- EAST 248.85 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SR 104 AS CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR STATE ROAD 104 BY DECREE ENTERED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 106375, THENCE SOUTH 12 49'15' WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 187.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83'07'35" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 297.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING c 0 r R =a 0 a� a c J y L 3 w r c 0 a Lo 0 0 0 N 0 N Z J a Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 199771 I 2.2.a I Packet Pg. 200 2.2.a A y prepared b David Evans i Associates, Inc. Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 201 2.2.a Executive Summary The purpose of this master plan is to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as they relate to the development of that area of the city known as Point Edwards. The drafting of this master plan is the first step to development of the Point Edwards property (the planning area), as contemplated by the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan. This master plan is submitted concurrently with a proposal to amend the text of the City of Edmonds zoning regulations, creating two separate but complementary Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones to be applied to different portions of the study area. These proposed zoning designations would permit land uses and intensity of development that are consistent with the uses and densities contemplated in the city's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan'. All future development within the study area would occur in a manner that is generally consistent with the uses and densities shown in this Master Plan. The study area has been in the same ownership since 1920, and was once a portion of a larger property. The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products resulted in spills that are now subject to environmental remediation efforts. Any future uses of the property within the study area will require that cleanup efforts be successfully concluded prior to development, and the level of cleanup will help to determine the range of future land uses permitted. Existing zoning regulations require `water dependent' uses to be the primary focus of site development. Because the property no longer has direct access to the waterfront, such uses are no longer feasible. The two alternative development strategies shown herein propose future land uses that have been discussed in detail as a part of the adoption process for the city's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan. Each of the alternative development strategies contemplates that the "Upper Yard" portion of the study area would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential development. The "Lower Yard" would evolve as a mixed -use development, with the preferred alternative focusing that development around a multi -modal transportation center that would relocate the ferry terminal and the railroad station to the site. A second development alternative without the multi -modal facility is provided in the event that the development of the multi -modal center is not pursued by all the parties within a reasonable time frame. ' Although the Downtown Waterfront Plan has been adopted as a part of the city's Comprehensive Plan, these plans are often referred to separately because each document expresses a different level of detail with regard to planning for the Point Edwards study area. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 1 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMDNDS, WA , MAY 14200 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 202 2.2.a r.... Background INTRODUCTION In 1995, the City of Edmonds adopted its Downtown Waterfront Plan as an element of its Comprehensive Plan. That plan called for any future development of certain properties located in the southwestern portion of the city to occur only upon the formulation of a "master plan" to guide that development. Since that time, the city has approved master plans for portions of those properties, most significantly for property owned by the Port of Edmonds. This Master Plan is intended to analyze development potential and establish parameters for the future development of the planning area in accordance with two new MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this master plan will describe the parameters of land uses within the planning area. It will describe, in a general manner, the height and bulk of structures, the types and arrangement of land uses, and site access and circulation patterns. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Point Edwards planning area consists of 44.54 acres of land in Edmonds, Washington, improved with small buildings currently used as office space. The planning area lies on the western perimeter of the Edmonds Downtown Activity Center, and is bordered on the northwest by Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, and on the south by the corporate boundary of the City of Woodway. The area is the site of a former `tank farm' used for the storage and distribution of petroleum products. A portion of the planning area was divided by a short plat approved by the City of Edmonds in 1998. The. 1998 short plat excluded the "teardrop" parcel located to the south of Pine Street Extension. Access to the planning area is from the east via Pine Street Extension (216"I' Street SW), connecting -to SR104. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 2 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 200 Packet Pg. 2 3 2.2.a EXISTING CONDITIONS History of Land Use In 1920, the Union Oil Company purchased approximately 110 acres of land in the area known as Point Edwards in Snohomish County. Additional property was acquired in the ensuing years, and the City of Edmonds subsequently annexed this property. At its peals, the site included what is now the Port of Edmonds, Harbor Square, and Marina Beach. The property was developed with tanks and pipelines for the transshipment of petroleum products via tanker ships. Union Oil Company (now Unocal) has gradually divested much of these holdings, until the Point Edwards site is now its only remaining property. Within the past year, activity on the site has been devoted primarily to demolition, with the removal of all of the tanks in the upper yard, and much of the supporting infrastructure in the lower yard. The site is improved by two small wood -frame office buildings, one of which houses the local office of Unocal Corporation. The office uses are the only active uses that remain on the site at this time. Environmental Summary The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products has resulted in subsurface soil conditions that include deposits of petroleum compounds. The presence of these contaminants requires the implementation of a cleanup plan approved by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Site remediation has commenced in the upper yard by the removal of the tanks on the site. Additional remediation activities will occur on the site, in both the upper and lower yards, prior to site development on those portions of the property. Cleanup efforts in the Lower Yard are expected to commence by 2004. This Master Plan includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Analysis in the form of a checklist2. This SEPA checklist incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the city in the course of adopting its Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a significant amount of environmental analysis related to the planning area has previously been conducted. A list of those studies is shown in Appendix B. In October of 1995 the Washington State Department of Ecology approved the Unocal "work plan" acknowledging the next steps in the agreement (Agreed Order) with the State to environmentally investigate the Point Edwards property in Edmonds. This approval allowed Unocal to commence exploratory drilling and testing in conformance to the work plan and thereby provide insight to the contamination. This work was completed in August of 1996. A draft work investigation report was submitted to Ecology. An interim action plan was submitted and approved by Ecology in 2001 that led to Unocal's voluntary removal of the tanks and lines in the Upper Yard, and removal of strategically 2 Submitted concurrently with this Master Plan REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 3 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMDNDS, WA MAY 14, 200 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 2 47 2.2.a important plume contamination in the Lower Yard. The interim action plan calls for complete cleanup of the upper yard with follow up action on the lower yard consistent with the order and regulation under MTCA in 2002. Critical Areas The area is bordered on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, the Point Edwards Marsh. This wetland extends for several acres to the north of the site. Immediately abutting this wetland in the northern portion of the planning area is a constructed stonnwater facility that was classified in a previous study as a Class 3 wetland. Because this stormwater facility was constructed as an element of previous site development, its classification may be re-evaluated as new development occurs. According to flood maps available to the city from the Federal Emergency Management Agency3, the planning area is located in `Flood Zone C,' meaning that the area is not located within any 100-year or 500-year flood zone. The city's Shoreline Master Program regulates shoreline use and development on coastal waters, and on all land located within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. None of the property shown in this Master Plan is located within 200 feet of the shoreline's high water mark. The original hillside was terraced as tanks were placed on the site. The tanks were commonly placed on the southern and upland portion of the study area commonly known as the `upper yard.' The remainder of the site is commonly known as the `lower yard.' This lower yard generally is more level than the upper yard, where steep slopes (in excess of 40%) still exist in some areas. Despite the presence of these steep slopes soil conditions on the site appear to be stable, with little indication of erosion. Zoning The City of Edmonds Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16.40 ECDC), currently designates the Point Edwards property as CW (Commercial Waterfront). The primary uses now permitted in this zone are: • Marine -oriented services; • Marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented retail uses; • Petroleum products storage and distribution; • Offices located above ground floor (excluding medical, dental, and veterinary); • Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; and • Parks and open space. 3 Ref: Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 530163-0005D, 2/19/86; Federal Flood Insurance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE .4 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 packet Pg. 2 57 2.2.a The CW zoning designation was applied to the site at a time when the property was used for the shipment and storage of petroleum products, an activity that required direct water access. In the intervening time, that use of the property has been discontinued and direct access to the waterfront has been eliminated. Because the site no longer has direct access to the waterfront, the requirement for water -dependent uses severely limits potential future uses of the property. Figure I shows the city's zoning map. The City of Edmonds adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1995, pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. That plan designates the subject property and surrounding lots for `Master Plan Development.' In the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, site development options discussed site development consistent with a multi -modal facility. Figure 2 shows the Comprehensive Plan's Downtown Activity Center concept map. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 5 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 2 6 _ :r ire z1. �� _ 1 +y I - , fw-�',:"' E -:r I _ !' , r. fl - - �. f a Zoning Desrgnattons k—+� anal Descriptions: � +� =1 C7 RG6 blrgl. FmdN b,000 W n bla - I. r j C7 R.4 t - B000agnlnt - - '-"' .C7 R51T 1T,U09 agnlot. '1 --+ O Rewi2 12,000, . 1 dronlf 1 _ '=i `' �, + ' O as2o 20,000�nla.r + C RAFu-MutgFcmlly 1� gnof 9t -!OU �h —_L _ - G7 RM.1 0000 qn y -(`%lam r,"j ' ® eR Rnlgh"h '.daualll sa -i �+lc { - BC Canmw AY eu Inn's - / e ~a 1,'i R. _ Y t cw comm.rol Iw.l rnoM - 9:. CG C.rr: ! C rm i 7 r l- i �c' f 1 t C G CC2 - / y.. 1 1.�.. // C ® MU Midi I U - ". �' 1' 7 ' f s _ S l� P hbikU C i t / PU od R.NA�nM ID.V loprmnb(PRD) / T ;( I r 1 l.-. ��kr-� t I. ( f 43 C pIR<iR f' ._f f 2jL ii 3`"-1 r�11.. (-Tl t`, f §p Z ® SCaIe 1 fi00. - �y.4 i t •� 1�;� i^ -r. �T• ' ;a'I 3 ` I �/11 -- _ na niA. a 1 I L '11 F. JI r _` !. rNrmo ' Par>nrayara�rr«a .g l" pu•!rA.at MtMP N EbnMtl/No-mr m _ _ t _Fr L' h �- �.. r7 h �� 2 %1•f i t G t - l.' w 4rmbM� ryry araDH fN mp. F aixr 7� ^t V _ ' .2 II r 'To, Mn r t J ( .Y r d .7,.�- Y ,i, b4v . , 1 _ �J� gg •-� bt t 1 J 1 �°,j, 4 N r. ilT N 5 "'�''tt I _1 S _ " . fY. i- M ^eft �(�6 J,C- 7—j_ T 5 hAl f i _ •( 'i4�Xt�.!_,�_ m'�.VI .�'II�f..�;I .J, '--',.-,, ��7Ii'I MEN-. ''.-- ri� i,;i_.-,'_'__---'�:�- -��-V_� :''_ -r-1',�,_M51' ,�M-z _,VtI'-� ,i-- ,-. r i p GTF� 7' gr i.,_'_,,- `#L' � i rb G` .-,. �; "I 1., - -1'':_�� ,,II,t - �r jI I _ { G Z�_;�j ;',R_,;�'V�-Iq. �- �-�----`:.%i,_,m�ja—.qi_-"M��I-'.�"_,--'�,I,w,-,�.�"-;I,,,4-'.:VL�.-��.._4-. y .1 s -4 NE�!,�m�-"--,�';�,--- .-1z--I-A''_O�-;";_-TnI-.7f__�.',�J_f� �, _:."-;�� 9-- Fti-_--:5-,.5�-*'".'"�p;'_.._,'-.tt*-- -.!II' �_.—. i'&_"I'i—�.�_ �..,_I!�-n'-.1�am_7_ �=-�.5_E-,�_j�'�_�_ _'. :i:;.��'��,,�_ *_ '-� j__'�-!,�_� lDI�M'"�:.I--., �'F,�-I'y.,I�-1'ik-r-2o.-'- I -AI.=r._-.�",-�-:-'.'%�'0--j"'�I-__,�k�IR-,-p'_:�.(�-":-1.'`-�_"-I- ,,�*',I;, ..'- .- :_' ",!- I�*��**-I-' .�'-_,,-z y.,� 1j..''TI �j"0�.'"j'-'. �,-;.a'4I �I�1tFjiI._.,gj1r-��g.;I;---�--t�,,— :_--." ;��I -MA��IMW1- _- _I=_'I1--.�r,I'--�-,a,I '..-Ij":- Z.. w-�p_�Lr�;1�'I::�.rr.I'�""--:f�z-'*'I1 ,?�l'?"'_.��a_-mI.D �'u�-tP�- ;2�'-_ -"-wl�.zE�".'' _7f-J�iZ_t�Z_,�_''.- I'I -,_ �P_-'�,-'-'.m;�-*-i�,-F " , z�Ij7), �;�U,e�- -_I.!L�.�I 't.-t8t.ti-_. I_ --'--'i-t I' '�f...7" ,JL, L-j' 1,-. - -" -l'-'�`.I--",. - '0 '�'I,--' '�1"�- . .� , I.T�.-_:�"MMEF- '"� rZ-_-.._i7 ' -.11;" �'' 1�'';��('N I".-_.oIfl"I''�-I.-R .'_''� m& "�. I'�-Il1-'._ _:, t :��-.�-__;'�."'S�-� -.l, _,L � 1�': ,�, � 't a_ -''f� � 4l�._- --.j'.- 1I"i-.''.'!- - I '�n�,_�"- 1��I- - >'I�[a� "� -��:- r, - �I �1-�'-:�, * - ,C'' -- �--I �""__,I ?-1_;�.-,I�-' ' ... I�,o, ,-,_'�'v'I, -I -. -.- �- :,�, �.I._ ;� �, — .'_� I;�� - --�_�� I "I�.�, ._ a,: .. -� _�,L' I�- �I� _� '' -j� :�: --,_ �1.�,, ' .x -- ";��1 :-*-,- I �..�L. II -:.- ,�- '- �'.'I1�, -' -,� . ,.-L:I � �"Z.��.. .I:-:-�.. 1,�- ;1. I ..1.:-�_ i:' .'-�- "_I 7,.'I�- -,r . ,, ;-'.',- I , ,�" ��. �, -,� _��I. �- . "—:5�: -'i ._I , i'L,1�� - - jf, --., �.�"- - , --� I : , - : ,.' �_fI*. ';� 1�, .� . , I .'� �I , I,-� I'.,IIi I �I, ,J. i ;Ii,I:;.m;"I. .! .& �.,. - I , I. II-' � '�.�:II:1 1I I, ., , % . ,, —,I.: . ' � I-.� ,I: '11 1"I .:� �. ' I I '1I�I . 1, �I.I�� .I..,1 , _ ti ti .0 -\' . ,C- PI 'F Ti'--i 1 - 5 k'' s .t .� C '4 r.1'�I[;"-n`I�-.".. FP-�".'R�.Z:�-�R a � j r ` r -t "G,�Hs:.&sml , ' u [" ~Flf w ��2 "1PA }; i r A C '_,',�!T--�.'X�iS;,,-! ��,,� .,,�.,-'I'.-,1-- ,;;6;"`- . '�II-:/�'!-�1,.55-,. 1 ",.-I-'! ,i. ,-��'�.,,'1.�I7�-�.q,_.-',:"- �'-+ �-.;:,_ Ia�', �`1k_-,_.�.A. �T:�.,�''t�_��. �--��?.;,'g"..W,''-1_:T _'M�r�--:'';- -�-'�-�',;,-:'- ��,�'�_,i;�-_4.�..�"-� ,� :"x*�-n �---4�"":f-'-,I'��-��,-,- M��- _:'-n.,I ��*.�2�,. --�&4-&--"_*�I'W,'��-J;�"',[�-�'��. ,, 1�?�- - .,J& ..z�'."'�_.�'R� -I,-�_f-.-;'.-2:I, "-',, :._' -l''_ I-74"!'� .�-.--"� , , 'j - + � y� 3 Jai e i F� H f =' e f u �-+;j -ks��'tinn 1� c c , ..tKl r1,11r ..1•i ({ 1 4 r - t i Z 1 L 7. n I lh +� %r filar z1 �"-., �'.--��;_i��- ,'� '.I'll �.A��, 1��,._4_& E_'��--�-,-.V.'',� -� -�',I_0'1�"�.�__'"��r�'t_. 7Z-�',I= �,z.'�-H:, 1'Z1"�-,,-'.�-3N�.-.-'z5.;�;'g;--'',�'-T,4"',A- t�=z--,r,"""�_�.,-�� '.7-:t,:_, It'��.�"I,,�-�i.,-"-1:-_� lZ__g,, _,a_'_1&t��_;--_t_--.!' 7i0� _"t-�1-�q��.'---��1,' -�"..HW,r�,�.i�-:-''-__j'-E'�:t14I Lg -,J,�1�T.r�'.'W-- �!"�z,- T--?,7_-��'` .;,.11�-, -'`-- _�--,i._I,-4J"-P ( �t Z r k� c s e t ', ,I.fl'.,-i�'- . p' r r < t '>€l•{ a c a _ �. y-�j.�,:c` `(i (i2S�'�.� Ks�a �� fF�I3T;-'P•Lty77 I� �.. ,'� i . �4O7":-.,-�-�. �,'�, ''',WI ��'_�!. _,,, L.",� -1."--, V.'{1'� f�y��uwrc�±cTr. t^�{. M - 4- s .c �6 '•z cSY'f-]}, L < �- _� ;*4.�': " ;�.'_ ; .! -f-: '-�'_,�Z�,i�� 'I� ,�.-�.;I_,.�-,;t .L�� r,.- -'--"�-,�-F�:. ,'-.-M.�'' _: ,, A'1 c'r kllliGLl 11I.ltFr F�,.�l.y a_.� i-.t .t�L.TS 16, yl �_I -"��_Wi,,��, k4��'.�I;':�;-i--,.�,-".�_I--"'I�'LP�-,..;.,.�cz_".-f.," ''�'-,,i.I,-.I,_ '-�-,..77_I;'&*��,'."-d. ' '':'.I -t-�;,�_I!�.T�..;"�_�-�''�4'�'�."i�-"��,��:��"'' 1,�,';,�, L�I�&-'Z.'��"*:'i-��--�7�I,".''1,_r!, .�l�,''-'�-..-�'-i-t�'':�.i!";:",'.�'_��..�,*�i".��.."�'�'!*1.'T"'�--*��.�-�-i�-'L."''-�_,-_ ',j��".��';-" �'' ;, ',_�- �137 '�1,;I�-I, �,I.;�ij `��.-��I�"--""�-,-�_.;� ',,-i1 .'"�-�.-r'I- ,1T �1_-a ,. �,"'�I"'.1, -.-";"�':�� '..1ii!,'-.t! ,-` �,1,!j .'.,',�:;1.I, �';� '.;, _'...;,-I�`iz -�-.I _ zs Yo '4 7lli c� 1---A ry ..F y -. �.' I i�-_';_',�.4:�-L�__-;,--Z�' �j"-- .-I-.�.�_._!f�_ -"-I,�t,�,:"-. I��I-,,"',-�"'_� '.:" �_-,��_31t-"'', -",-'r";�_�*"�� "-' '"'!'�_�, ,,'-�iII�:'w !-_i.,'," ,"1?__ "4_ --.I �""- �E'�:.''ll;IA'�-_�_z-.��"'4T-"'.�""'.` �.�,"�:"��_-_ ,;_'�-. ,,'7* ,A_-,-,�.��- �, "_��''. .%:.�_� ,_, �'e : '_'�i�'4r�)��, -1;�-�'-�'--,-f.�-,:--::-'�;;,�L�-1t-��-':I��_*o-,,'�"'.- �,::'�_ .A? " ` �.";�!__,-.'*-.1.�"�i_-_jI-;', �:. Z.�I�;&�"I'.�.-'�:."''-��_�-.I'-��'L--,i1� � -.i�'"' "�_.�l'iL--_�I_�. � ,� �'-.;_,�"I�zZ�-;,-I;.-'-�.,'�.��'. ,-:r ,_;�i'.''*,"��_I�i,', "',':f. �,.-*...!_,.0,I.& ; �-,�-. �;I;'V t4E�>s >: t{ rS jj� t-�i��r �"k1, s, -r .. K 'r �z { ! i 4,1r=��',.�_ c" •"{w 1r -r�' err' Iing tr�na i(� a �a.ti�lY4trY �� r r ffk �`Fi L �� 4l _' 1 4 st` d1 `m' t r u z r� N'a- u F a.,"�y'k' f t a ,• Y d` � 3, 1r `P FL F4 gr 1.,..a„",, a'r. _ ,-' e k7 .r 1 i u' "G z +� �r "1 t Fc} 7 Lr 1Sri+c., r �6Yl�s t1' 1 k f .i J 1 '� c 5'.� = i�'-t-�„},�,c r . .sT 1� hti'.�LY� ;t F'-'` xk i !_.. 1 4r : Q. ti a A d- . h { !..l l !1 ¢ ' r�,Ait4 'L`iM,� 1C �Sl'S `*t`ET i (4 G I.t s , . � A' f zr7C {C r, 1 _ , `1 !� ....j..'E�I�:I�,-.2�-f_'.�,.. .'R'-'-E:--_ !,.0 *rzd..�- -.*--='�",-.,-1_.Ij 7 @gp7{o r S � Styli, a 6 - 5�s �a ` '(1-r-��-- I -? �, �,c-'',�.n.... ,;1 ii�''yr'+��u.. p "t 'G tti y>ax .5�-7;<'- y r� G:R 85 i € i ti ee uX � 1 7 7 19 �_ 1e rI - 'I I ply Y i l I XF ,JJ IJ L Y (` JFI N' v i �1 ] i` 1 �� e} . t� 9-F 1 i?t tt t a its , /% -7--? n _}s �i� r .c-i �� v v ! ?�.e.Is�• a $ u - e� i i I1frt7.1(M 7ri ^)at (�( pe / C 'i'r , >C'--II �" ft �r-4 t.._yw xl pj(( i'tiliT (. "' l�'iq;jjIII -lei 'Y --=-r 1 C r ,;� h ' - "1c-J'-��`• �[-t}J�,��f., rl E:'fir J ��- *'J +.+t r"--3j } r y f m / a" a` Fh l�n{-i > r ,N� (7ai1E x a r� i�� 1T C y ,� " t_ 6 Y ti{{ ,�`��--6}-SE`� 1kT. N.,' j- mcu yF -�� 4c �-� *--t`-i�_� J �. �'*.s., i-�F4}, £,y .:�?L �•= n.,jii�, a 7�'I r{ [r'[r f '1� A wtt a.. 3 . , I S t1� �'.i t I a r'` < .iI (7l rl-�•�`]I y - �',f7` k� � I. �; -�Uy gtEtT' t y "�'%s r S i1 �,!CT I }.r. nt`_.,t.7 _-,31tFLL+-syiy IiB. � ' .tf``�r fi-v�-•G'L--'lr'%v ' a2 "_r 4 t' J, { 1:.-LL '7',,,p' n , S 7-f�.LE r p, }.'u`a•r 1 5�.-,_{ f.. . � r < -'_", --' 1 i � 1 3 1, - 1 SrsJ� j' t, '3 i 1�I? ac`%�� - r JYsa +. t.r.� 1 i �-" i t +.. r !V� .Y1" �k i F�, (�-3T'1 t�=5, ! ,'-�-- ' q �.! rr ` . F _:r-^ c� l ��n r p .u-s`L,S �'v' t r-�' l - f y , '� r' i'`"7Y-1- �t t f`c- L. 5 .j ,. 31! ,�i �� 'F�`k {-_ f-a 7>� �. L(�*' .1 rL"I.d Ir�-'{"'Y_ �� iw l�i'1 1.E�v3,.. A"-:.i''� r f-� ,p_--M-";" rr4' 7 y� i Izt�`• '� s{. u''-� - i r- �f*�.' 9*>• z � 1 y r fh : 1 �.�s'u r ,y.t err, rltL r {3 1 Sr�v.�� ' `C[2F'.' S- .J ' -�� i 7A�_3.7_. yr — l'.L .�1 FT1- u�•�"'�.4�`f- t . i' Y � Vill I - E 11 F h%4 } �:� 1 r'�it_4 l�,l ra -Cif a I Si 'r•+'w n49�L...�,,'_LJ.�H t �£�' 4 T Srl�jl<.:_._:.__ rri- 4 .., _ „ _ :_ t S '@..'- tom- y I` , i .—. It rS.,_ — + -� s aC M—el Packet Pg. 207 r i 1 of ' �j Pianning Area, m s,�jop Y ooftay 1211/99 ,. _ l4tt�ehrr 2.2.a +'. /: Alternative Development ,. ks CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Downtown Waterfront Plan that was adopted as an element of the city's Comprehensive Plan took a close look at the Point Edwards site as a focal point for a multi -modal transportation center that would become a "regionally important transportation facility." This center would integrate a relocated ferry terminal, inter -city and commuter rail, buses, and park -and -ride facilities. Of the three alternate sites identified by the city, Point Edwards was named as the preferred alternative for the transportation center. The Downtown Plan also allowed for further development of the site, suggesting specific redevelopment options that would complement the transportation center. The Comprehensive Plan notes that development of a multi -modal transportation facility helps to solve a number of problems throughout the city: • the existing ferry terminal location creates traffic conflicts due to its close proximity to downtown. • access to the existing terminal is sometimes blocked by the at -grade crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks. • the ferry holding area creates a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. • the ferry location restricts the expansion of downtown, reducing potential economic growth. • congestion created by ferry traffic discourages new businesses from locating downtown. By relocating the ferry terminal to the Point Edwards site, the city can create a more pedestrian -friendly downtown area that is tied more closely to the waterfront. At the same time, traffic congestion could be reduced by creating a true multi -modal center where passengers can access an integrated mass -transit system via road, rail, or water. REVISED FINAL - PDINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PA E 8 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMDNDS, WA Attacfiment 12 MAY14, 20 Packet Pg. 209 2.2.a The city's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Point Edwards property as a part of the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center." Within that activity center, the planning area is designated for "Master Plan Development." The Point Edwards property is one of several that share the Master Plan Development designation. Some other properties within that area have already drafted a master plans, with each plan intended to promote mixed -use development: ® The Port of Edmonds submitted a Master Plan for its properties to the city, which plan was adopted by the city in January 2002. ® Owners of the Harbor Square property entered into a "contract rezone" agreement with the city, and are proceeding with development in accordance with this "master plan" concept for its redevelopment., In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, this Master Plan is based upon the proposed adoption by the city of a "Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use" (MP)4 zone. This designation would create two separate and compatible zoning districts, that would be applied to the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard, respectively. The MP1 zone for the Upper Yard would permit a range of uses that include multi -family residential, office, hotels/motels, some restaurants, conference centers, day care, and certain secondary uses. For the MP2 zone, neighborhood -oriented retail uses and multi -modal transportation centers are added. The application of these zones to the study area will be illustrated in greater detail in the following section, Alternative Development Strategies. This Master Plan sets forth two alternatives for future development of the properties within the study area. Each of these alternatives has been designed to conform to the requirements of the proposed MP zoning. A map illustrating the proposed zoning boundaries is shown in Figure 3. A plan illustrating the mix and relationships of land uses in the preferred alternative is shown in Figure 4, and an alternative plan that would permit development without a multi -modal transportation facility is shown in Figure 7 This second alternative is set forth to permit reasonable development within the planning area in the event that a multi -modal facility is not pursued within a reasonable period. It should be noted that Figures 4 and 7, illustrating proposed development alternatives, are intended as conceptual designs only. It is anticipated that reasonable adjustments will be made to these conceptual designs as more definitive development plans are devised, as part of a project -specific review. However, the boundaries of the MP and M22 zones will remain constant. 4 See Appendix A for the full text of the proposed zone. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 9 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, Z Packet Pg. 210 LL C) 0 X 'N' i, "I 2.2.a p, Li Cn LU 'Al CE Packet Pg. 211 1 � a I y i i it= ILI, i f a 10 O Q CD 04 yfi/r,) ).,x.�,�� G'rx - _ _ � ,t♦� ?" r f/ •.r�Jjfrr �. s* ��>�r- r ;J F - a i i +!1 XXS .� .� -7 ♦ t Y7 l "{.: 3 .` Zy '; "�L� !�`Y � /• 1 t � ♦ �� I��./ ,�CXt�li}. ��!)�.r�/i//��j /'L� � s Vie; •`'y �.,� S� t a't <t } .� �r �fte� 1x �y ,l Sri { .rf�<> a nod Fj��f�<'�y �F y J/f ! a t� 1;Yt x Rd�Y zf •Y7� �``��" Q. ' ail �. lr r" CD 1 O )�f ; y ~'f;� r '�7xi1'•\ t ; �` -�rx ! I i ' ., Z ` e f hment 1 V Packet Pg. 212 2.2.a THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Multi -Modal Center The primary focus of the Preferred Alternative is to create a multi -modal transportation center that will integrate a relocated ferry terminal, a railroad terminal, bus service, park - and -ride facilities, and accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. The multi -modal center would realign SR 104, taking advantage of site topography to create an overpass over the BNSF railroad tracks for ferry access, complete with stacking lanes. Immediately to the north of the highway realignment, a train/transit station with an oversized parking lot would be developed. The siting of this building will create a link to the railroad tracks that border the study area to the northwest. The SR 104 realignment would run roughly along the boundary between the MP 1 and MP2 zones, extending west to a ferry access ramp. The realignment route would be wide enough to accommodate stacking lanes for the ferry. The highway realignment would occupy approximately 6.3 acres of land within the study area, while the adjacent multi - modal facility would occupy an additional 3.6 acres. Multi -Family Residential In the Preferred Alternative, the land shown in the MP 1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use. At a permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit, the maximum number of dwelling units that would be allowed on this 24.06-acre site would be 419. However, after setting aside land for roads and open space, accounting for site limitations related to steep slopes, and observing setback and height restrictions, the probable density would be lower than the maximum permitted density. Densities at build -out will be consistent with urban densities contemplated by Washington's Growth Management Act, and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Pockets of open space would be located to the north and west of the residential development, providing a measure of buffering between the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard. In addition to the designated open space areas in the Upper Yard, smaller pockets of public open space would be integrated into the site design. Where feasible and appropriate, these public open spaces would be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street. The residential development would constitute phase 1 of site development within the planning area, with sub -phases in this area to be determined as development is proposed. Multi -Modal Transportation and Mixed Use Development As noted earlier, the area located generally to the north of the realigned highway (the Lower Yard) would be devoted to a multi -modal transportation facility, and to development that complements that facility. Adjacent to the multi -modal facility is an area designated for mixed use development. The primary use of this area is anticipated to be office space, with supporting retail and service uses. This mixed use area encompasses approximately 4.6 acres. To the southeast of this area lies a small site designated as a commercial node of less than one acre. This area is intended to provide REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 12 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 3 2.2.a goods or services to residences and businesses located within the study area. The location takes advantage of visibility from the realigned highway, and is located at the intersection that leads to the mixed use area. Located to the northeast of the mixed use area is a portion of the study area that will be devoted to open space, a buffer for the abutting marsh, and possibly for storrnwater management. This area, which includes a site currently used as a salmon hatchery, provides a transition to the abutting property to the northeast. Circulation and Access The realigned SR 104 would be the main thoroughfare through the study area. Internally, Pine Street Extension will provide access to the multi -family use on the Upper Yard along its existing right-of-way. Access to the northerly portion of the study area, and to the multi -modal facility, will necessitate the relocation of the existing Unoco Road. The alignment for the relocated access road will result in a signalized intersection at SR 104, and may necessitate some encroachment into the wetland buffer. Potential intersection designs are shown in previous site studies, and are expected to be further refined during the development review process. The ferry access will be achieved via an overpass across the railroad tracks. This access will also include provisions for pedestrians and bicycles. The multi -modal facility will improve rail access to the community, permitting rail passengers to gain access to ferries, buses, and the local highway system. Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. In addition, the railroad tracks create a barrier that effectively isolates the site from port and waterfront property to the west. Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography, the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from the Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the Edmonds Crossing project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate such access as it may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development. The issue of access and circulation is discussed in greater detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared in 1995 for the proposed Edmonds Crossing project. That study evaluated traffic related to automobiles, rail, and ferries. Utilities The study area is served by or has available all necessary public utilities. Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are provided by the City of Edmonds, while electricity and natural gas are available through Puget Sound Energy. The capacity of sewer lines REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I Nr EOMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 214 2.2.a within the study area may need to be upgraded to accommodate anticipated development. This capacity will be analyzed in greater detail prior to development approvals. As provided in City of Edmonds regulations, all utilities that serve the site will be placed underground as development occurs. Building Dimensions and. Relationships In the Upper Yard (governed by the proposed MPl zoning regulations), the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. Building heights will be limited to 35 feet, except that an additional five feet in height will be allowed as part of an approved, modulated roof design. Building height will be calculated according to approved city standards. To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses, building heights will be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building. Because the realigned highway will be built into a hillside, allowances will be made for the height of the highway's supporting structure and its relationship to the multi -modal facility. Thus, in the MP2 zone, heights of up to 45 feet will be allowed. Because building in the lower yard area will be significantly lower in elevation than the steep slopes immediately to the south, 45-foot buildings will not obstruct views from surrounding properties. Due to this more liberal height allowance, no additional credit would be granted for roof features as part of an approved modulated roof design. The 45-foot height limit in the lower yard would permit four-story buildings. However, due to the limited area available for development, it is likely that the first floor of buildings would be devoted primarily to structured parking5, with some supporting retail uses. Upper stories would be devoted primarily to offices. However, the potential for residential dwellings on the upper floors of buildings may be considered. Given the size of the area set aside for mixed use development (less than five acres) and the need forparking and landscaping, the maximum amount of floor area devoted to individual land uses may occur as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Development Potential, MP2 Zone FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 parking; retail/service 30,0006 2 office; residential 100 000 3 office; residential 100,000 4 office; residential 80 000 TOTAL 310,000 a s If structured parking is not constructed, then the amount of required surface parking will result in less ground area available for buildings. Thus, the assumption that structured parking will be used should not impact the site's overall development potential. 6 Does not include parking. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 14 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 215 2.2.a It should be noted that the numbers and uses shown in Figure 5 are not absolute. For example, a first -floor restaurant or bank may extend onto the second floor, or may choose an upper floor location. Also, the total square footage of development may occur in one building, or in several buildings that would add up to the total square footage shown above. For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, an average of 1,500 square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit. Thus, if the upper floors of buildings were devoted to residential uses, the number of potential dwelling units per floor would be calculated as follows: Figure 6: Potential Residential Development, AIP2 Zone FLOOR MAXIMUM SQUARE POTENTIAL MAXIMUM # FOOTAGE DWELLING UNITS 1 30,000 07 2 100,000 66 3 100,000 66 4 80,000 53 TOTAL 310,000 185 In the calculations illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, dwelling units are substituted for office space at a ratio of 1: 1,500, or one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of office space. Thus, total potential site development would consist of up to 310,000 square feet of office space or as many as 185 dwelling units, or some combination thereof. Phasing The size and topography of the site lends itself to a phased development approach. Phase 1 would be the residential and open space development of the Upper Yard. Due to the size of this project, sub -phases will be identified when specific development plans are submitted. Because adequate access to the Lower Yard would be required for development, Phase 2 would be the Edmonds Crossing multi -modal facility. Phase 3 would encompass the mixed -use, `transit -oriented' development in the Lower Yard that would support the multi -modal facility. While the timing of these development phases has not been firmly established, it is likely that plans for Phase 1 development would be submitted to the city within one year of adoption of this Master Plan. The timing for Phase 2 will depend upon state funding for Edmonds Crossing. Portions of Phase 3 may commence prior to the completion of Phase 2. ALTERNATIVE - The city's Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the development of a multi -modal facility as a high priority, and selects the Point Edwards planning area as the preferred 7 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 15 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I EDMDNDS, WAAttachment 12 MAY 14, 2 Packet Pg. 216 2.2.a location for that facility. However, the development and construction of such a facility (including the highway realignment) will not be possible without the active cooperation and support of the ferry system, the railroads (both Burlington Northern and Amtrak), the state's Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and local transit service providers. Getting support and financial commitments from all of these entities, especially in an era of tight budgets, may prove to be an impossible challenge. This Master Plan recognizes the possibility that plans for a multi -modal transportation facility may not be pursued by these third parties in a timely manner, and provides development options in Alternative Two that address this possibility. As noted earlier, cleanup of the Lower Yard is expected to commence by 2004. Planning and environmental studies prepared by the City of Edmonds and others suggest that planning for components of a multi -modal facility should be underway within this same general time frame. In the event that site -specific planning for a multi -modal facility is not commenced by 2004 or 2005, current or future owners of property within the planning area should have the flexibility to develop the site using Alternative Two. This alternative is conceptually depicted in Figure 7. Balanced Development Alternative Two attempts to balance development types throughout the study area, using the same basic mix of uses (excluding the multi -modal facility) that are planned in the Preferred Alternative. Multi -Family Residential The multi -family development planned for the MPl zone in the upper yard remains essentially the same as in the Preferred Alternative. The open space area to the west of the housing development is expanded to include much of the steep slope area that was dedicated to the highway realignment, and the need for the open space area to the east is eliminated when the highway is removed. Mixed Use Development The area of mixed use development in the lower yard is expanded to include the area that was designated for the multi -modal facility. This expanded area encompasses approximately nine acres, plus a one -acre commercial node at the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. Circulation and Access The key to safe and efficient traffic circulation in this alternative is the realignment (and perhaps signalization) of the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. This realignment will result in improved sight distances, fewer turning movement conflicts, and increased traffic safety. REVISED FINAL - POINT'EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 16 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 2 7 vm tomm NmLW CELVARW SaUVMCS INKM INMJO-GGJCI aSn-MM OMi aMLVNHaL-W NV-W UalSVA z 3WVDH Z tij << V) V) V) Ld z C) 0 < < p < 0 ,W- IL LL, 0 C) j Z LLJ Oz ILI z 00 LLI F- zo ui Cn Cwt ,I)Cr F- K L ---1 —2.2.a tachment 12-1." Packet Pg. 218 2.2.a Pine Street Extension from SR 104 provides the only access to the planning area, and improvements to this street such as sidewalks and turning lanes will be required to ensure safe and adequate site access. The railroad continues to present a barrier to site access from the west. With the elimination of the ferry access and the multi -modal facility, projected traffic volumes to and from the study area will be significantly lower. Without the Edmonds Crossing project, pedestrian access from the site to the waterfront becomes problematic. Aside from topographic and engineering constraints, the high costs associated with providing a grade -separated access across the railroad, including negotiating an appropriate easement or license from the railroad, would create great difficulty. However, the design and development costs alone should not preclude the potential of providing such access. Accordingly, Upper and Lower Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate future pedestrian access to the waterfront. To the extent that waterfront access is later afforded with Lower Yard development and benefits site development, the developer(s) may contribute to this effort through the donation of land, or through other mutually agreeable means. Building Dimensions and Relationships Height, bulk, and overall dimensional requirements for Alternative Two do not differ from the Preferred Alternative. Due to the increased size of the area designated for mixed use development, the development potential in this area is increased as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Development Potential, MP2 Zone Alternative Two FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION 1 parking; retail/service 55 000" 09 2 office; residential 180,000 120 3 office; residential 180,000 120 4 office; residential 140,000 93 TOTAL 555,000 333 Phasing As with the Preferred Alternative, the first phase of development would feature the residential and open space development on the Upper Yard. Development of the Lower Yard would occur in Phase 2. The timing of these development phases has not yet been determined. For each phase, sub -phases of development would be shown as plans are submitted to the city for review. $ Plus parking. v The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 18 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 219 2.2.a CONCLUSION The Point Edwards site is one of the few significant development opportunities remaining in the City of Edmonds. The significance and visibility of the site is evidenced by the high degree of interest shown by local, regional, and state governments and agencies. However, despite the high level of interest shown, and despite the clear documentation of the need to improve ferry access by moving its associated traffic congestion away from Downtown Edmonds, little has been done by any public agency to secure the Point Edwards site for use as a multi -modal facility. This Master Plan preserves the option for a multi -modal facility, while acknowledging that such a development may not come to pass within a reasonable period of time. Unocal Corporation, the property owner, has enjoyed a long history of cooperative working relationships with city government and other involved agencies. The type and intensity of development illustrated in this Master Plan is intended to meet the spirit and the letter of the city's Comprehensive Plan, to encourage action toward the development of a multi -modal center on the property, and to promote the efforts of those who wish to maintain a high quality of life in Edmonds. A multi -modal facility or other development of comparable scope at Point Edwards will benefit the city by providing a development that complements Downtown Edmonds. As noted in the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, the relocation of rail and ferry service from their current locations will improve traffic congestion in the downtown area. At the same time, the site of these relocated facilities can benefit from increased exposure by creating a mixed -use development that maximizes development opportunities while creating an atmosphere that is faithful to the vision set forth in city plans. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 19 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I tfa EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 2 Packet Pg. 220 2.2.a Appendix A: Proposed Text of MP Zones Appendix REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 20 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14,201 Packet Pg. 221 2.2.a _ 0 0 =a 0 a� a R v _ J y L 3 w 0 a 14 u� 0 0 0 N O N Z J a w d s 0 Q s 0 a m 0 Co I* Lo O O 0 N O N Z J IL m E 0 Q FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 200 Packet Pg. 222 2.2.a y.. �PFW _ ' � :11 • ,, 16.75.000 MP -MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE ZONE This chapter establishes the hillside mixed use zoning district comprised of two distinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in 16.75.010 and 16.75.020 ECDC. 16.75.005 Purpose The MP1 and MP2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve an area where potential exists for planned development that can benefit the public by providing new tax revenue; B. To reserve an area where a mix of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and water views; C. To permit construction in accordance with a master plan concept and site design that is visually pleasing; and D. To promote a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and with the Downtown Waterfront Plan that has been adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan. The mix of uses is contemplated to occur throughout the MP1 and MP2 zones; mixed -use development is not required on any specific parcel of land. 16.75.010 Ekes A. Permitted primary uses in MP1: 1. Multi -family Residential 2. Office 3. Hotels/Motels 4. Restaurants, excluding drive-in businesses 5. Local Public Facilities as defined in ECDC 21.55.007 6. Mixed Use Development for any use permitted in this zone. 7. Secondary Service and Retail Uses to the primary use, but excluding trailer sales and service, car lots, heavy equipment sales and service, and any other retail activity that relies primarily on outdoor display of merchandise 8. Conference/Performing Arts Center Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 223 2.2.a 9. Day Care 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 B. Permitted primary uses in MP2: 1. All uses permitted in 16.75.010(A), except that residential use is prohibited on the ground floor of any building 2. Neighborhood oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area, but excluding trailer sales, car lots, heavy equipment sales and service, and any other retail activity that relies primarily on outdoor display of merchandise 3. Service uses as a primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area, but excluding trailer, car, boat, and equipment services 4. Multimodal transportation center 5. Educational facilities. C. Permitted secondary uses in MP1 and MP2: 1. Off-street surface parking and structured parking to serve a permitted use 2. Shared parking facilities to serve more than one permitted use 3. Off-street loading facilities to serve a permitted use. D. Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit 1. Buildings or structures that exceed the maximum height limit. This permit is intended to be limited to the approval of a `landmark' building or structure, such as a clock tower, viewing platform, or similarly unique structure that contributes to the overall development. Not more than one such landmark structure shall be permitted for each zone. 16.75.020 Site Development Standards A. Any development located in MP1 or MP2 zones shall be subject to design review in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC. B. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Sub Minimum Minimum . Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum District lot area lot width street side rear height coverage . floor lot area setback setbacks setback2 % area3 per 1 For residential buildings, setbacks apply to exterior lot line only, and not to any interior lot lines within a development. Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 224 2.2.a dwelling unit S.F. M131 none none 15, 10, 15' 3514,5 75 3 sq.ft./s.f. 2,400 of lot area MP2 none none none none none 45' 75 4 sq.ft./s.f. 2,400 of lot area C. Signs, Parking, and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. D. Master Plan Required. 1. No development shall be permitted in an MP1 or MP2 zone unless a master plan has been prepared, identifying potential land uses and densities as set forth in 16.75.020(D)(2). 2. A Master Plan shall describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future site development. The plan shall, in a general manner, define the site layout by showing development areas by type of use, circulation patterns, site access, residential densities (if applicable), maximum square footage of non-residential uses (if applicable), and any open space areas and buffers. The plan shall also illustrate the relationship between the site and adjoining properties. 3. All property identified in the master plan shall be developed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the master plan. 4. It is intended that site layouts, the range and intensity of uses, access, and circulation shall be depicted in both graphic and narrative form in a general manner. Subsequent to the adoption of a master plan, more detailed site and design information shall be submitted for review in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC. The applicant also has the option of submitting a master plan concurrently with a specific site design. Other necessary applications, such as subdivision, Binding Site Plan (BSP), or Planned Residential Development (PRD), may also be submitted concurrently. If submitted concurrently, the city shall review the applications concurrently. However, no site design or other approval shall be granted until such time as the master plan is approved. Figure A: 2 See footnote 1. 3 The Maximum Floor Area is intended to limit the size of non-residential development only. In the case of a mixed -use development that includes residences, the Maximum Floor Area calculation shall be applied to the residential use as well. 4 Roof may extend up to five feet above the stated height limit if designed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with 20.10 ECDC. 5 Building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to, Figures A, B and C. Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 225 2.2.a A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when each portion is separated by a one-story high (min.) space above a plaza or roof. Multiple floors above the plaza may be connected by an open-air bridge no wider than 10'-0". Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the plaza or roof as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: Figure B: A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when the line of the roof changes (a vertical shift). Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the wall below the shift in roof heights as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: Figure C: A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when the floor plates shift (.a horizontal shift). Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the wall along the shift in floor plates as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 226 2.2.a 5. A master plan may be approved as a comprehensive plan amendment, a Planned Residential Development (PRD), or as a contract rezone. The planning advisory board and city council shall review -and act upon a proposed master plan in accordance with the provisions of 20.100.020 and 20.100.030 ECDC, except in the case of a PRD, which shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of 20.35 ECDC. Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 227 2.2.a _ 0 0 =a 0 a� a R _ J y L 3 w 0 a 14 u� 0 0 0 N O N Z J a 0 d E s 0 0 Q s 0 a m 0 Co I* Lo O O 0 N O N Z J IL m E 0 0 Q FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMDND$, WA Attachment 12 MAY 14, 200 packet Pg. 228 2.2.a 0 1, 1 k I 1 1 GeoEngineers 1986. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for UNOCAL Corporation. December 4. GeoEngineers 1987. Progress Report No. 1, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. August 31. GeoEngineers 1988a. Progress Report No. 2, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. October 10. GeoEngineers 1988b. Report of Geotechnical Services, Subsurface Contamination Study, Upland Fuel Tank Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1988c. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989a. Progress Report No. 3, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. September 19. GeoEngineers 1989b. Technical Report, Phase H Site Assessment, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989c. Report of Geotechnical Services, Site Contamination Assessment, Waste Soil Stockpile Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1990 Results of Site Characterization, Marine Diesel Spill, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1991 a. Progress Report No. 4, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. April 19. GeoEngineers 1991b. Site Contamination Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1993 Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad Properties, Edmonds, Washington EMCON 1994a. Free Petroleum Product Recovery System Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 20. EMCON 1994b. Background History Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 15. EMCON 1995a. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 26. Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 229771 2.2.a EMCON 1995b. Final Upland Sediments Evaluation Work Plan. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 1. EMCON 1995c. Addendum, Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, April 26, 1995. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 31. EMCON 1995d. Existing Monitoring Well Assessment and Proposed Monitoring Well Network, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. September 21. EMCON 1996a. Interim Deliverable, Drainage System Inventory Results, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 8. EMCON 1996b. 1995 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 29. EMCON 1996c. Final Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 12. EMCON 1996d. Preliminary Upper Yard Hydrogeology Evaluation, Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 6. EMCON 1996e. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal RI/FS, Combustible Gas Monitoring and Evaluation. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 25. EMCON 1996f. Draft Remedial 'Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 23. EMCON 1997a. 1996 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 27. EMCON 1997b. Revised RI Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. October, as amended March 26, 1998. EMCON 1998a, 1997 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. March 24. EMCON. 1998e. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation Asset Management Group. October 19. EMCON 1999. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, August 1998 and February 1999 Groundwater Data. May 13. Maul Foster & Alongi 1999. 1998 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 1. 2 Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 2 0771 2.2.a Maul Foster & Alongi 2000a. 1999 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. January 31. Maul Foster & Alongi 2000c. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, February 2000 Groundwater Data, July 25. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001 a. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. February 2. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001b. 2000 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 6. Documents concerning Marina Beach, Tidelands and Neighboring Properties: MFA. 2001 a. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001b. Draft Interim Action Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001c. Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001 d. Updated Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. WA. 2001e. Bidding Documents for Lower Yard Interim Action, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 10. WA. 2001f. Letter to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Terminal, September 2001 Surface Water Data. November 21. MFA. 2001g. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. Updated November 29. U FA. 2001h. Letter to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Terminal, 2001 Groundwater Data. November 29. MFA. 2001i. Technical Memorandum. Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation of Upper Yard, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. November 30. MFA. 2001j. Draft Storm Water Management System, Operations and Maintenance Manual, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. December 28. 3 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 2 1771 2.2.a MFA. 2002a. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures for Groundwater Monitoring Well Borings Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Lower Yard. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 21. MFA. 2002b. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Survey Procedures, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Upper Yard. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 25. MFA. 2002c. Draft Whole Effluent Toxicity Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 31. MFA. 2002d. Draft Lower Yard Interim Action As -Built Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. January 31. Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 2 2 2.2.a IhC 1B911 Date: To: Subject: Transmitting CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Letter of Transmittal June 18, 2003 ADB Applicants ADB Meeting of 6/1 1 /03 REVISED Architectural Design Board Synopsis For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Comment: Enclosed is your copy of the ADB Synopsis. Please call if you have any questions. Note attachments: X Sincerely, Diane M. Cunningham, Administrative Assistant IncnAr tt ghTent ,-1,390 Attachm Packet Pg. 233 2.2.a BOARDMEMBER LOWELL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER CHRISTIANSON, TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, FILE NO. ADB-03-38, AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR A DECISION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. MINOR PROJECTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — MAJOR PROJECTS: a. FILE NO. ADB-02-226: Application by Point Edwards, LLC. for a 295-unit multi -family development. Project will include all elements to provide access to the site. The subject property is located at xx Pine St. and is zoned Master Plan Hillside mixed use zone (MP1). BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER UTT, TO APPROVE ADB-02-226 BECAUSE THE BOARD FEELS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BULK STANDARDS, USE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRITERIA OF ECDC SECTIONS 20.10 AND 20.12, AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS; • WITH ALL BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS, THE FINAL UNIT COUNT AND UNIT MIX MUST BE SUBMITTED TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS; • ALL TREE CLEARING AND REPLANTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SUBMITTED ARBORIST REPORT AND FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN; • ALL TRAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY IN CONFORMANCE WITH ECDC 20.15B.110; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY REQUIRING FENCING TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE EDGE OF THE STEEP SLOPE BUFFER PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE, AND SAID FENCING OR A REPLACEMENT OF IT SHALL REMAIN PERMANENTLY IN PLACE; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS PROTECTION EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY THAT PRESERVES THE STEEP SLOPE CRITICAL AREA AS A PROTECTED AREA; • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OR IT MUST RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • THE DESIGN OF THE AMENITY CENTER MUST SUBSTANTIALLY BE CONSISTENT a WITH THE DESIGNS APPROVED FOR THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS OR IT MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 2 June 11, 2003 Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 234 2.2.a • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE MATERIALS AND COLORS USED ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THEY MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • A ROUND -ABOUT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TRAFFIC CALMING AT PINE AND CHINOOK, WITH A CENTER PLANTER; • GLAZING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SELECTED FOR ITS ABILITY TO MINIMIZE GLARE; • STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS: None. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 11. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: CHAHZMAN MICHEL CALLED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING AT 10:39 P.M. Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 3 June 11, 2003 Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 235 2.2.a To: From: Date: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT June 11, 2003 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Senior Planner JUNE 4, 2003 ADB-2002-226: Application by Point Edwards, LLC. for a 295-unit multi -family development. Project will include all elements to provide access to the site. The subject property is located at xx Pine St. and is zoned Master Plan Hillside mixed use zone (MPl). A. Applicant/Property Owner Pt. Edwards, LLC Pier 702801 Alaska Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 B. Site Location: xx Pine St. C. Introduction: Architect/Revresentative Weber + Thompson 425 Pontius Ave. N. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 The Pt. Edwards condominium project is before the Architectural Design Board for final review and approval. It consists of 295 units located in nine buildings with an associated Amenity Center in a tenth building. Access roads, street improvements, landscaping and public promenades and trails are included as elements of the entire proposal. The property is located in the Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 1 Zone (MPl) and the site is controlled by a Master Plan approved by the City Council. All of the submitted drawings and documentation are intended to show how the proposed project has been designed to comply with these plans and regulations. D. Background: Zoning: As mentioned above, the site has been rezoned to MP1 and the City Council has approved a master plan for the property. The current proposal would implement the approved master plan for the hillside portion of the site otherwise known as the Unocal upper yard. 2. Environmental Review: The proposed project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The applicant has submitted an Environmental Checklist and a number of studies to support it. On May 9, 2003, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. Both the City and the Applicant have complied with the State Environmental Policy Act. Page 1 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 236 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development 3. Issues: Staff must confirm the compliance of the project with the bulk standards of the MP zone and other city regulations like parking and critical areas. The Architectural Design Board must determine whether the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.10 and 20.12 and also with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. In the Urban Design Guidelines, the subject property falls under the direction of the Downtown Activity Center — Multi -Family Residential. E. Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The following is staff s analysis of the project's compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Included in the applicants submittal packet is extensive documentation of how they feel their project complies with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 2) 1. ECDC 16.75 MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed —Use Zone: a. The MP zone specifically provides for Multi -family development as a permitted primary use. b. ECDC 16.75.020 is the table that articulates the bulk standards of the MP 1 zone. 15 foot Street Setback, 10 foot Side Setback and 15 foot Rear Setback, 35 foot height limit with provisions for 5 additional feet with modulated building designs. c. While some of the buildings approach the required street setback along Pine St., the proposed building locations provide substantially more than required for all the other required setbacks. Also, and probably more significantly, all of the proposed buildings are significantly below the maximum height allowed. This will allow for the protection of views for units within the complex, surrounding properties and the general public walking along the promenade and using the overlooks. d. Page 10 and 11 of Attachment 2, the applicant's declarations, include a table documenting how the applicant feels they meet the provisions of the MP1 zone district. Staff agrees. e. The "Site —Concept Plan" and sheet "Cl of 2" both indicate in further detail how the proposed project complies with the required setbacks, height limits and lot coverage provisions (see Attachment 3). f. A condition which requires the ongoing compliance of the individual parts of the project with this code section through construction/building permit review stage would be appropriate. 2. ECDC 17.50 Parking: a. For multi family development, parking is required based on the number of units and the number of bedrooms in each unit. 1.2 stalls/studio unit, 1.5 stalls/1 bdrm unit, 1.8 stalls/2 bdrm unit and 2 stalls/3 and greater bdrm units. b. Page 10 of Attachment 2 includes a line in the code compliance table that documents the need for 502 off street parking stalls for the entire development while indicating that 529 off street parking stalls are provided. Staff has confirmed. C. The Off Street Parking Plan Map documents how those stalls are provided on the project (see Attachment 4). d. A condition which requires the final unit count and unit mix to confirm compliance with this section of the code at building permit stage is appropriate. 3. ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting: a. This chapter regulates the clearing of land and the cutting of trees on all underdeveloped properties and in areas of steep slopes or other environmental significance. In this case, the Page 2 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 237 2.2.a Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development property is significantly underdeveloped at this time and the project proposes significant impact to vegetation in sloped areas. b. Projects, such as this one, that are subject to review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) are exempt from the permitting process of this chapter. However, the project is still subject to the direction this chapter gives in regards to replanting and scheduling of work. C. The applicant has submitted a report by a consulting arborist which inventories the existing vegetation and gives recommendations regarding it. The applicant's landscape plan has been created in response to this report. d. A condition which requires all tree clearing and replanting to comply with the submitted arborist report and final landscape plan would be appropriate. 4. ECDC 20.15B Critical Areas: a. The applicant and the City, through the critical areas ordinance, have confirmed the presence and location of a Geologically Hazardous Area, a Steep Slope Hazard Area, on the property. Steep Slope Hazard Areas are prohibited from being developed and have a required 50 foot buffer and a 15 foot building setback from the buffer. b. The critical areas ordinance does provide a process where an applicant, with the proper geotechnical support, may propose to reduce their required buffer down to a minimum of 10 feet. The 15 building setback still applies. In this case, the applicant submitted exhaustive geotechnical support for the reduction of the buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet. After reviewing the reports and having a peer review of the report completed, Staff has issued a decision allowing for the reduction of the required buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet. You will note on most of the site plans, a large shaded area on the northwest side of the property and a smaller shaded area on the north northeast portion of the site. These are the Steep Slope Hazard Areas. You will also note that all the buildings are 25 feet from those Hazard areas, a 10 foot buffer plus a 15 foot building setback. C. Land clearing and tree cutting that complies with ECDC 18.45, as described above in section EA of this report is exempt from the Critical areas chapter. Also, trail construction in a Geologically Hazardous Area, if done to the best available technical standards approved by the City, is exempt from critical area regulations. d. A condition that requires the trail construction design to be approved by the City in conformance with ECDC 20.15B.110 would be appropriate. e. Because the primary goal of the critical areas chapter is to protect critical areas and public and private property, a condition that protects the steep slope areas by requiring prior to the start of any construction on the site, fencing to be installed along the edge of the steep slope buffer to protect the Critical Area and its buffer throughout the construction process would be justified. f. Because of the requirements of the Critical Areas chapter, a condition that requires a document or map to be recorded that preserves the steep slope critical area as a protected area should be included. 5. Comprehensive Plan: a. In the applicant's declaration, see Attachment 2 pages 1-7 and Appendices, they have described in great detail how their project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and several adopted elements or approved plans, namely the Downtown Waterfront Plan and the approved Master Plan for the Unocal property. Page 3 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 8771 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development b. Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Waterfront Plan and the approved Master Plan for the Unocal property and agrees. F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria and Urban Design Guidelines: The following is an analysis of the project's compliance with ECDC Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 and the Urban Design Guidelines. This project is subject to the specific standards for Multi -Family Residential in the Downtown Activity Center as outlined in the Urban Design Guidelines (see Attachment 2 Appendix D of this packet). 1. Site Design: a. Site Organization: The subject proposal is only for the southern portion of the Unocal property that lies above, higher in elevation, the future alignment of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry/Multi-Modal Terminal. This portion of the property rises up fairly sharply from the waterfront and wetland areas and then rounds off to the top of the bluff that runs along the west side of the town of Woodway. The project would make use of an existing public right-of-way, Pine Street, to gain access to the site from the southeast. A new road is proposed that would provide for a looped access and also allow for terraced development of the site. The proposal includes ten buildings on the site, nine residential buildings and a tenth amenity center. Siting of the building footprints has been carefully considered, both horizontally and vertically, to protect views from the individual units but also to create vistas and lookouts from public places throughout the site. Also, because the buildings are "wrapped" around the site, very few of the buildings present the exact same "face" at the same time to people looking at the site. A majority of the required parking for the proposed residential units will be provided in subterranean garages in the proposed buildings. But the applicant is proposing some parallel parking along the street and in small pocket parking areas over and above their required parking, to accommodate guest and overflow parking needs. Sidewalks and pathways are shown throughout the plan as well as a number of community open spaces, overlooks and parks. The guidelines encourage the Downtown Activity Center to be pedestrian oriented and provide features of pedestrian interest. According to the submitted plan, it appears that this guideline has been addressed. b. Parking: As mentioned above, most of the required parking is proposed to be provided in parking garages. Guest parking and overflow parking are provided by on street parallel stalls or small parking areas in front of individual buildings. All of these techniques for dealing with parking are supported in this section of the Design Guidelines. Landscaping: Both of the drawing packets, Attachments 3 and 4, give detail regarding the proposed landscaping for this project. While the landscape plans included in Attachment 3 are more detailed in regards to the size and species proposed, the four or five landscape vignettes included in Attachment 4, which typically had an enlarged plan and section, seem to be developed to a greater degree in respect to an overall design theme which could assist in tying the site together. Although species and size and quantity are not specifically addressed in the attachment 4 plans, the plans do indicate more thought and care has been put into creating and defining outdoor spaces at the overlooks through plantings, terraces, arbors and other architectural features. Both plans indicate the use of trees along the sides of buildings to enhance the privacy of the residents and further enhance the views by framing them in green. Page 4 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 9771 2.2.a Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development Attachment 3, sheets L1.2 and L1.3 show the proposed replanting plan immediately adjacent to or in the steep slope critical area. Clearing and replanting should happen as described in the arborist's report. Street trees consistent with the City's Street Tree Plan have been proposed. If the trees are to be located in the sidewalk, tree grates should be used to ensure a walkable surface. The sidewalk promenade with the periodic overlooks should be a very attractive public amenity. In adding trellis', water features and other features as part of the overlooks, the overlooks take on more spacial qualities that will allow them to act as outdoor rooms. One thing that might be desireable in tying the overlooks together and to the site might be to consider connection of the water features through a dry stream bed type of feature. However, plantings and architectural details can and maybe already are creating some of this connection. The Design Guidelines encourage trees and landscaping to be used to buffer streets, buildings and parking lots from each other. It appears that the proposed plan is doing this to a great degree, although one place that might benefit from more trees is the south property line adjacent to the Town of Woodway property owners. It may be appropriate for the Board to defer final approval of the landscape plan. d. Streetscape: The Design Guidelines for the Downtown Activity Center strongly encourage amenities that would include street furniture and lighting with an early 1900's theme, street trees with tree grates if located in a sidewalk, 7' sidewalks and awnings. These elements appear to be directed at development that has more of a connection with the downtown commercial area than this project does. But, in looking at the proposed site plan(s), it appears as if a number of those items are being considered by the applicant for inclusion in this project (i.e. Street Trees, Sidewalks and Open Spaces). Staff is comfortable with the applicant's proposal. e. Signage: The applicant has a entry sign included as part of the attachment 4 drawing packet. It would be located at the intersection of Pine St and the lower loop road at the east side of the site. Because the wall the sign is mounted on is located in a setback area, it will have to meet any required sight distance setbacks. Otherwise the sign and the wall appear to use materials compatible with the design of the rest of the complex. f. Lighting: The City of Edmonds will control the design of the lighting in the Pine St. right-of- way. Attachment 4 includes a lighting plan that indicates the type and height of fixtures planned by the applicant. No examples of the fixtures are included. Fixtures that are shielded and directed down will be preferable to other globe type fixtures. g. Screening: At this time the applicant has not shown how utility vaults and heating and cooling equipment are being screened. However, since nothing is shown, it is assumed that nothing will be visible. If some utilities or mechanical is required that will be visible, the applicant will need to demonstrate how it is screened. h. Dumpster Enclosures: Same as above for garbage enclosures. i. Context: The Design Guidelines state that buildings and site development should be designed to fit in with their surroundings. This is a unique site, both because of its size, the surrounding vegetation and the lack of any visible improvements after the tanks were removed. That is not to say that the site is a complete blank slate, but there may not be as many immediately adjacent buildings and cues to draw on. It appears from some of the submitted building elevations, that cues have been taken from Page 5 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 240771 2.2.a Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development development in downtown Edmonds as well as residential development. Materials and individual volumes of the proposed buildings have a residential feel. 2. Building Design: a. General: As indicated immediately above, the Design Guidelines state that buildings should be designed to fit into the context of the surrounding areas. Because this site is somewhat isolated due to its aspect and the fact that it is separated from downtown by the marsh and the topographic change, there are not as many cues upon which to "fit" the buildings into the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted building elevations that have a distinctive character. Previous feedback the Board gave the applicant in preliminary review sessions, indicated a concern for the "block" appearance of the buildings and the apparent lack of modulation. The drawings submitted by the applicant, especially in Attachment 4, which include several perspective drawings, give a much clearer sense of the depth and amount of modulation proposed by the applicant for the buildings. Deep decks, trellis' and building projections result in the face of the buildings moving horizontally close to 20 feet. One building that very little detail has been submitted for is the amenity center located in the southeast corner of the site. While the footprint appears to be fairly specific, no elevations have been submitted that would indicate the look and feel of the building. This is something that should either be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. In that case, it would only return to the Board if staff felt it didn't continue the character established in the buildings on the rest of the site. b. Materials: Although the drawings don't state materials specifically, they appear to indicate panelized stucco system combined with areas of beveled horizontal siding and glazing. On page 8 of attachment 2, the applicant gives some additional detail. If the Board felt that not enough detail has been submitted related to the proposed materials, they could require that element to return to the Board or direct staff to review. C. Shapes and Forms: In examining the building footprints and elevation drawings and perspectives, it is apparent that the designs are internally consistent. That is to say, similar roof pitches, building volumes and architectural features are used throughout the buildings which allow both individual buildings and the group of buildings to look a little different on each side, while at the same time looking like one building or development. It is apparent that care was taken to minimize unbroken walls, ridge lines and other building elements which could lead to large uninteresting buildings. d. Details and Fenestration: The elevation drawings and perspectives indicate a number of elements that can lead to interesting buildings. Trellis', arbors, bay windows and/or bump outs are indicated on the buildings. A number of window types and sizes ranging from small squares to large window walls are shown on their elevations. Exposed beams and implied columns all give the buildings richness and complexity that should allow them to remain interesting. e. Size, Height and Bulk: The Design Guidelines state that large multi -family development should be broken down into smaller house sized elements through the modulation of the facades and roof. The perspective drawings are very descriptive of how the buildings will be broken into many smaller house size pieces. Also, the section drawings show how the buildings have been ticked into the slope and how buildings at the different levels of the site will break up the apparent mass of buildings upslope of them. Furthermore, the fact that the buildings have remained substantially under the maximum allowed height has minimized the impact the project could have had regarding height and bulk. It has also protected views from within the property and adjacent properties. Page 6 of 8 Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 241771 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development 2.2.a f. Transitions: When multi -family development is adjacent to single family development in a single family zone, transition elements may be required on the multi -family project. This is especially true for developments adjacent to single family zones where adjacent buildings are much smaller or downhill from the proposed development. In this case, the adjacent single family development in Woodway is uphill from the subject project and they are typically large homes. The site section drawings also indicate how, at maximum, only one floor elevation reaches the elevation of the adjacent Woodway properties. F. Summary: With the proposed conditions, staff feels that the development is consistent with the bulk standards, use requirements and other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the requirements of the criteria of ECDC sections 20.10 and 20.12. Typically, compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines indicates compliance with the Design Review Criteria. G. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Board approve ADB-2002-226 with the following conditions: 1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits. 2. With all building permit submittals the final unit count and unit mix must be submitted to confirm compliance with the City's parking requirements. 3. All tree clearing and replanting shall comply with the submitted arborist report and final landscape plan. 4. All trail design and construction shall be approved by the City in conformance with ECDC 20.15B.110. 5. Steep Slope Hazard Areas shall be protected by requiring fencing to be installed along the edge of the steep slope buffer prior to the start of any construction on the site. 6. Steep Slope Hazard Areas protection easement shall be recorded on the property that preserves the steep slope critical area as a protected area. Optional conditions: 7. The landscape plan must return to the Board for final approval or staff confirm that it hasn't significantly changed from the current proposal. 8. The design of the amenity center must be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. 9. Elevations with materials and colors must be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. Because with these conditions the board finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies, the staff has found the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria and ECDC section 20.12, landscaping: Attachments: Page 7 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 242 2.2.a Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's declarations regarding project compliance with code design criteria, Includes Appendices A, B, C and D (D is the City's Urban Design Guidelines) 3. Drawing Packet 1, Dated 12/13/2002 4. Drawing Packet 2, Dated 05/29/2003 5. Minutes from ADB meetings, 9/18/02 and 11/20/02 Page 8 of 8 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 243 2.2.a qM ZOE Attachment ' File No. ADB-2002-22(- Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 244 I...CEIVED 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 13 2002 PERMIT COUNTER CONFORMANCE OF POINT EDWARDS MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPROVED POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN, AND LAND USE REGULATIONS The proposed development has been designed in conformance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan [including the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center guidelines, the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan (D/W Plan), the City's Urban Design Guidelines (UDG), and the Design Criteria codified at ECDC § 20.10.070], the City's approved Site Master Plan for Point Edwards encompassing the property covered by this application (Pt. Edwards Master Plan, or Master Plan), and the newly adopted land use and development regulations for the subject property, codified at ECDC ch. 16.75, MP - Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MP Zone), which correspond to and implement the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Plan. The following discussion is not an exhaustive listing of every section of the City's planning guidelines and regulatory standards with which the proposed project complies, but rather a summary of principal elements showing the proposal's broad conformance. To facilitate review and comparison, excerpts from the City's Comprehensive Plan documents and the approved Pt. Edwards Master Plan showing the goals, objectives, and/or narrative referenced in the following discussion are attached to this summary as Appendix 1. Pt. Edwards LLC's proposal to create 295 units of condominium housing incorporates many of the goals established in the documents referenced above, in particular development of a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment that enhances slopes with view to the waterfront. Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center A.3. As designed, the project promotes a more efficient, multi -faceted transportation system. Bike lanes and a pedestrian "promenade" are provided along the existing Pine Street ROW. The street is to be rebuilt and improved to City standards. Improvements include 16 on -street, parallel parking stalls for public use along the North (view) side of Pine Street. An attached Private Drive, serving the lower portion of the site is, similarly, to be developed with a sidewalk on the view side, completing a pedestrian "loop" through the site. Parallel parking stalls along the Private Drive provide additional off-street parking. [CP, p.29] A.4. By proximity and demand volume, it is anticipated that Pt. Edwards multi -family development will encourage a more vital setting for Downtown -]- Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 245 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 businesses as residents access closest businesses for required goods and services. [CP, p.29] A.7. Pt. Edwards multi -family development provides new residential importunities suitable to a senior population including elevator -served flats, covered, and attached parking and ADA compliant units. A pedestrian - oriented landscape supports the above. [CP, p.29] A.10. 545 total (529 off-street proposed / 502 required) off-street parking stalls will be provided. 453 stalls will be accommodated in sub -grade parking garages. The balance will be provided in the form of screened, landscaped surface parking lots or parallel parking stalls off Private Drive. Please see zoning compliance chart below.) [CP, p.30] A.11. Pt. Edwards Condominiums will transform the Unocal Tank Farm from a highly industrialized site into a housing site within a park -like setting. [CP, p.30] A.14. Numerous landscape, rest and comfort areas for pleasure of citizens will be created exploiting view opportunities off Pine Street and the Private Drive. 3 mini -parks / lookouts are scheduled along Pine Street. A Pedestrian Promenade, featuring seasonably blooming trees, connects these amenities. Supporting View Corridors are developeed in the Site Plan design. The Pedestrian loop further connects all"front doors" of residential buildings and the Amenity Center beyond. Additional vistas and view opportunities are available to pedestrian from the Private Drive below. [CP, p.30] A.17. Street, landscape and building lighting will be selected to minimize glare, enhance architectural and landscape character and provide for the safety of the public and residents. [CP, p.30] A.20 see A.14 (above) [CP, p.30] -2- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 6 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 MASTER -PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. The Plan specifically designates the entire Unocal site, including the property under this application commonly known as the "upper yard", for "master plan development". In July 2002, the Edmonds City Council established the MP Zone, then adopted the Pt. Edwards Master Plan and rezoned the subject property to MP1 under the MP Zone as part of a contract rezone, to allow for master planned development of the property as contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and as more particularly described in the D/W Plan. In so doing, the Council determined that the MP Zone and the Pt. Edwards Master Plan were consistent with and directly implements the Comprehensive Plan as well as the D/W Plan, which target the site for master plan development. Although not technically a Comprehensive Plan element at this time, the Master Plan provides the implementing framework for the Comprehensive Plan, express designation of and planning directives for the site. Multifamily residential development is a permitted primary use in MP1 pursuant to ECDC § 16.75.010. In the master plan provisions of the MP Zone set out at ECDC § 16.75.020(D), part 3, "All property identified in the master plan shall be developed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the master plan." As designed, the proposed multifamily residential development in the upper yard accounts for and conforms to the guidelines and standards set out in the Master Plan and the new MP Zone. The Pt. Edwards Master Plan at pages 12 and 16, provides that "the land shown in the MP1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use," under either the Preferred Alternative (including eventual multi -modal transportation in the lower part of the Unocal site adjoining the upper yard, commonly referred to as the Edmonds Crossing project), or under Alternative Two (excluding multi -modal development). This project has been sited and designed consistently with the Preferred Alternative, and fully accommodates the City's contemplated future re- development of the lower portion of the Unocal property as part of a multi - modal facility, including the possible re -alignment of SR 104 for such future re -development as shown in the Master Plan. In all respects, the proposed project meets the Master Plan requirements, accommodates Edmonds Crossing, should that project become a reality, and does not preclude consistent re -development of the lower yard. The proposal's conformance to the Master Plan is discussed in more detail below. -3- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 7 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 Multi -family residential Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two plans designate the Upper Yard (MP1 Zone) for multi -family residential development at a maximum density of 419 units on a 24.06-acre site. A reduced density of 295 units is actually proposed. Multifamily development on the uplands portion is envisioned as Phase 1 development of the Pt. Edwards site compatible with future Mixed -Use development and a new multi -modal transportation facility proposed for the Lower Yard (MP2 Zone) in the earlier Down Town Waterfront Plan. [MP, pp.12, 16] • Multi -family development in the Upper Yard, in accordance with the Master Plan, ensures compatibility with the Multi -Modal Transportation Facility and the current site design does not preclude such future development. The Site Plan design also makes allowance for the realigned SR104 as conceptually shown in the Master Plan. [MP, Fig.4] Undeveloped pockets (open space) have been left at the west periphery of the Upper Yard as called for in the Preferred Alternative. As noted, smaller pockets of open space are integrated into the site design throughout. Mini -parks along Pine Street exactly conform to the statement, "where feasible and appropriate these public open spaces will be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street." As mentioned elsewhere the Pine Street sidewalk extends through the lower portion of the site, forming a pedestrian sidewalk loop with additional view opportunities. [MP, p.12, Fig.4] • "Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. " [ M P, p.13 ] "Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate such accesses may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development."' It should be noted that no reliable designs for the Multi -Modal Transportation facility are currently available. [MP, p.13] Circulation and Access • The existing Pine Street R.O.W. is retained, providing access to multi- family use at the Upper Yard. [MP, p.13] -4- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 8771 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 Building Dimensions and Relationships Individual buildings fit into a terraced hillside and take advantage of the site topography to show their full height only on the downhill side. Uphill, each typical 3-storey structure shows only a 1 to 2-story facade above sidewalk level. The top story of each building also steps back. The proposed structures are consistent with MP1 height requirements: max. 35' + 5' with approved modulated roof design (see table below) [mp, p.14] Residential Development Guidelines B.3. Pt Edwards Condominiums have been designed to protect (external) views from adjacent properties. New buildings are terraced into the site's steep terrain. View is also critical to the marketability of individual units. Accordingly, each new building has been carefully situated to protect internal views. We anticipate little or no impact on views from adjacent homes. [CP, p.32] B.5.a. The designers have tried to balance public and private needs: protecting residential privacy with I'scape screening, horizontal separation distance and building design while providing view opportunities for the public. [CP, p.33] B.5.c. Pt. Edwards Condominiums replaces the Unocal Tank Farm and is an objective improvement over the previous use. This change of use is, of course, supported by a full environmental remediation program and re- landscaping of the industrial site. Recent alternatives for the site included the BrightWater sewage treatment facility. Property values are protected and enhanced by this development. [CP, p.33] B.5.d. Private property, particularly in the adjoining City of Woodway, will be protected from any adverse environmental impacts by development to the City of Edmonds and State standards. The development is subject tot Architectural Design Board (ADB) Review and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Additionally a Critical Areas review will be undertaken and submitted for professional peer review. Site improvements will be completed to the satisfaction of City staff and to City Building Codes and other applicable standards. [CP, p.33] B.6. Pt. Edwards Condominiums are designed to conform to the unique site constraints imposed by topography, soil conditions, subsurface geology, natural vegetation and drainage. Individual structures are, typically, 2 stories of frame construction over a 1-story sub grade concrete parking structure with a single row of units fronting the garage structure on the lowest (downhill) level. Typical 3-story buildings only show 1 to 2 story -s- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 9771 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 facades at the uphill face. By exploiting the sites sloping topography, internal and external views are protected. Non -engineered rockeries will be deployed as required to retain soil in a naturalistic manner. Soil retention and seismic design will conform to all applicable City and State Codes and guidelines. Existing vegetation will be selected or augmented by new planting per the Vegetation Management Plan submitted as part of this application. [CP, p.33] C.2 Proposed structures are heavily modulated both in plan and section (terraced) to add scale and avoid "stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential buildings. Numerous decks, balconies, courtyards and patios enliven the surface of each building and add opportunities to inhabit the building exterior. [CP, p.33] Open Space Guidelines: B.3. Open space is distributed throughout the site in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of the development and providing sufficient space for recreation. Open space and numerous view opportunities are integrated into the site design as described previously. [CP, p.42] Soils and Topography Guidelines: B.2. Streets and access ways at Pt. Edwards Condominiums have been designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. Primary access utilizes the existing Pine St. R.O.W. [CP, p.43] C.1 Grading and fill on this site is largely restorative in nature following mass removal of contaminated soils from the decommissioned UNOCAL tank farm. The finished site will refer to the Historical Grade of the Upper Yard. New grading will not jeopardize the stability of adjacent properties. Buildings have been designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural. topography. Natural vegetation shall be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes. [CP, p.43] C.2. Buildings designed for minimal site disruption as described above. Note that building footprints follow the contours of the Site. Also buildings are "stepped" according to topography. Small (non -engineered) retaining walls are preferred throughout the Site. [CP, p.43] -6- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 0771 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN - PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS (AUGUST, 1997) The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and approved Site Master Plan for Point Edwards embody many of recommendations given in the earlier Downtown Waterfront Plan which elaborates upon the development of a Multi -Modal Transportation Center occupying the Lower Yard of the UNOCAL site while emphasizing compatible development opportunities in the "upland portion of the site. These are expressed as "...general guidelines for new uses and construction..." Residential use is identified as an option for redevelopment of the uplands portion (Concept Plan, p.31). The proposed Pt. Edwards Multi -Family Development complies with these guidelines as a planned re -development of the uplands, which accommodates and does not preclude development of the multi -modal facility scheduled for the Lower Yard. The proposed development further conforms to Preliminary Guidelines for the Point Edwards Site [p.44] as follows: Buildings designed to fit with topography and terraced to conform to ridgelines and utilize the headlands as backdrop. (D/W 1, p.44) Greenbelt of trees retained on steep slopes. (D/W 2, p.44) (Please see Landscape Plan) Recommended 35' max. Height limit adopted. (D/W 4, p.44). (However, please note that the method of height calculation differs in the approved MP1 zone. Height is calculated from approved Extrapolated Historical Grade and Average Level per ECDC 21.40.030 to max. 35' + 5' with approved modulated roof design rather than the center of a gable roof). The proposed development is realized as a composed complex of structures. (D/W 5, p.45) -7- Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 1771 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Downtown Activity Center bl) Building Design -Multi -Family Building Design (a) General As the subject development occupies a heavily graded site and replaces a tank farm, there is very little building context. The closest structures are large single family homes (City of Woodway) that occupy the ridge above the former UNOCAL site. From the middle of the site these are largely obscured by the lie of the land or a line of screening trees, planted, exactly for that purpose, sometime in the past. [UDG, p.20] Rather, the dominant aspects of this site are Topography and View. The interactions of these two elements inform the scale, form, height and massing of the buildings proposed and are discussed in further detail in the sections below. (b) Materials Again, there is little built context for reference but each structure should be understood as a figure (Building) against a large backdrop (Landscape) provided by the Pt. Edwards promontory. Landscape elements will be more naturalistic with pockets of trees and grasses retained by rockeries defining various outdoor areas. To provide complimentary balance, the buildings will be lighter, crisp and contemporary. Typically, each structure will be realized as 2-3 stories of wood -frame construction over a concrete subgrade garage. Ground -face concrete masonry units are proposed for foundation faces and other `grounded' building elements and formal landscape elements such as entry monuments, etc. Bevel siding in various sizes, panel and batten systems and shingles are proposed for exterior wall cladding. Vinyl windows will be used at punched openings with aluminum window -wall' systems forming large glazed bays. Roofs will be mineral -faced membranes to control reflectivity and metal for low -sloped shed roofs. [UDG, p.21] (c/d) Shapes and Forms / Details and Fenestration Generally, the buildings proposed are `bars' deployed in a radial pattern about the site. Building footprints essentially follow site contours with the lowest levels terraced into the slope to minimize their mass. The roof of the subgrade structure provides walk -out patios for rear -facing units. Above, the penthouse' story is setback, further reducing the bulk of each building and providing another inhabitable surface. This may be reminiscent of the superstructure and deck on top of a ship's hull and this nautical' metaphor may be reinforced in details like cable -rails, etc. Building facades are heavily modulated and characterized by 2-story bays corresponding to individual dwelling units. These elements are similarly reflected in bays on the top floor, which express at the modulated roofline as -s- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 2 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 shed -roofed pop -ups. Continuing with the theme above, these high-ceilinged spaces may be the "bridge". The sheds deploy generous overhangs and slope inward, expressing the more generous face toward the view. Clerestory windows add detail to these faces and allow light to penetrate deeper into units. Selectively placed "eyebrow" awnings and brackets continue the theme of overhangs and protection on other parts of the facade. Numerous cantilevered bays and balconies also engage this interplay of surfaces and indicate residential development. Fenestration ranges from floor to ceiling "'window -wall" assemblies to small porthole -like openings. The various sizes roughly correspond to privacy needs of the individual spaces within and are composed to add variety and rhythm to the building face. [UDG, p.21] (e) Size, Height and Bulk As mentioned above, the proposed building footprints follow topography and are cut into the slope of the site, minimizing the apparent bulk of each structure. The typical building shows 1 story less on the uphill face with the lowest story on that side assigned to an underground garage structure. Private walk -out patios are developed off the garage roof, serving double height "garden loft" units. In, most cases, these sunken courtyards face an elevated street, adding horizontal separation to an already diminished mass. A modulated roof line with low slope shed roofs was selected in order to protect private and public views. [UDG, p.21] Each building is further broken up into 2-3 story house size elements with each modulation in plan corresponding to individual unit divisions within. A further layer of residential articulation is developed at the building face with cantilevered balconies, window bays, roof and awning overhangs supported by detailed wood bracketry. (f) Transitions The closest existing structures occupy a ridge above the Point Edwards site and, benefiting from their elevated location, overlook any proposed development. With the measures to reduce building mass outlined above little impact upon their views is anticipated. There are no existing structures below the new development that may require transition mitigation. [UDG, p.21] -9- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 3 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 MP1 SUBDISTRICT 16.75.05 PURPOSE STATED PURPOSE PROPOSED BENEFIT • (A.) ... benefit the public by . add up to 295 owner households providing new tax revenue to community • (B.) mix of land uses ... take • design for sloping topography to advantage of site conditions and maximize view opportunities water views from private dwellings and public view lookouts • (C.) ... permit construction in • proposed development conforms accordance with a Master Plan to "SITE MASTER PLAN for POINT Concept and site design that is EDWARDS". Please see visually pleasing ... commentary above. • (E.) ... encourage visual access to • public view outlooks linked by the water for the public from public pedestrian promenade provided spaces within the development in site design. Significant view corridors proposed. 16.75.010 USES ALLOWABLE PROPOSED PRIMARY USE 0 Multi -Family • Multi -Family Residential Residential • Local Public Facility • Local Public Facility (Amenity Center SECONDARY • Off street Surface • Off Street Surface Parking, USE Parking and Sub grade Parking Garage Structured Parking to Serve A Permitted Use 16.75.010 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOWABLE PROPOSED HEIGHT • Max. 35' + 5' • Max. 35' + 5' • (with Approved • (Calculated from Historical Modulated Design in Grade per 21.40.030 accordance with ECDC) 20.10 ECDC MAX. LOT 0 Max. 45% . 18.74% COVERAGE MIN. STREET • 15' • 15' SETBACK MIN. SIDE 0 10, . 10, SETBACK MIN. REAR • 15' . 15' SETBACK REQUIRED • 502 (total off-street) • 529 Total off-street + 16 PARKING (PER Public Stalls' @ Pine Street -10- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 254 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 PARKING (PER 17.50.020 ECDC DENSITY: 2,400 SF Lot Area 295 Units = 3,419 SF Lot MINIMUM LOT per Dwelling Unit = Area per Dwelling Unit AREA PER 420 Units DWELLING UNIT 0 r 0 �a 0 a� a c J y L 3 w r c 0 a LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a c aD E 0 �o r a 3 0 a m �v r M 0 0 0 N O N Z J a c a� E a -11- Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 255 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX A: CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,, 20. APPENDIX APPENDIX C: EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN August, 1994 TEXT EXCERPTS URBANAPPENDIX D: CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES Current, December, 2002 TEXT EXCERPTS Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 6 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPEtIDIX CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 200 TEXT EXCERPTS I Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 257 2.2.a The Downtown/Waterfront activity center is designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Downtown/Waterfront activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: A. To proceed on a program providing for a more livable, beautiful and successful downtown Edmonds, while preserving the small town atmosphere desired by our citizens. To encourage downtown development that enables the realization of an aesthetically pleasing business community consisting of people comforts, park -like surroundings and de-emphasizing auto pollution and congestion. Recognize and plan for the coordinated and mutually supporting development of the three dominant regional uses in the downtown/waterfront area; the port, multimodal transportation, and beach/open space facilities. The Downtown/Waterfront Plan is adopted by reference as a part of this element. Policies to achieve these goals include the following: A.1. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by positive mixed - use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. A.2. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, and marina facilities. �A.3. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. AA Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.5. Support a mix of uses downtown without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. �.A.6. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Existing height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. /-A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate needs of senior citizens. AX Reroute auto traffic to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. Land Use 29 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 8771 2.2.a A.9. Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. ,'A.10. Create off -site, off-street parking/park facilities. A.11. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. A.12. Provide weather protection for citizens while using the downtown shopping district. A.13. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles as expeditiously as possible. f A.14. Provide landscaping, rest and comfort areas for the pleasure of citizens while in the business district. A.15. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration. A.16. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown. A.17. Provide public area and street lighting best suited for comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. A.18. Initiate a program of enforcement of abatement procedures. A.19. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys along Main Street. A.20. Develop mini -parks in the downtown business district. The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense uses serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. This is in contrast with a pattern of mixed use commercial and residential development which dominates the activity center just west of the Highway 99 corridor. The overall character of this activity center is intended to be similar to a campus, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park -like atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: 30 Attachment 13 LandPacket Pg. 259 2.2.a A. Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting of a campus atmosphere of park -like surroundings and inter -connected development. Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access patterns on local streets. Policies to achieve these goals include the following: A.1. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. A.2. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. A.3. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. A.4. Route auto traffic to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. A.5. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support a "campus" pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. A.6. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access. Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses, access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center, development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference: A. Edmonds-Woodway High School B. Stevens Hospital Land Use 31 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 260771 2.2.a C. City Park F. MP® I'lA5?'Ef— pt,4t l IflaewpE /h i?c £® vt SE ,VAlbi -� D. Pine Ridge Park AWW11 AW - 9k E. Southwest County Park A. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington state. Located on the shores of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town, quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for annexation and development is limited. Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens. Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves conditions for all citizens. B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. BA Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 32 Attachment 13 La Packet Pg. 261 2.2.a A B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.S.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. B.S.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. B.S.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B. S.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C.1.a. Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc). C.1.b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning. C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. C.2.a. Location Policies. C.2.a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets C.2.b. Compatibility Policies. C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. C.2. b. ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. Land Use 33 Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 262 2.2.a 13.3. Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting residential areas, parks and other public -institutional land uses. BA. All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad lines). • A. Generally in urban areas a lack of open space has been one of the major causes of residential blight. This lack has contributed to the movement of people from older densely developed neighborhoods to peripheral areas still possessing open areas. Open space must be reserved now for assurance that future settled areas are relieved by significant open land, providing recreational opportunities as well as visual appeal. Not all vacant land in the City should be considered desirable or valuable for open space classification. Therefore, the following set of criteria -standards have been developed for determining those areas most important for this classification. B. Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with the following policies. B.1. Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and appropriate areas designed as open space. B.I.a. No city -owned property should be relinquished until all possible community uses have been explored. 13.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: B.2.a. Lands which have unique scientific or educational values. B.2.b. Areas which have an abundance of wildlife particularly where there are habitats of rare or endangered species. B.2.c. Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the priority to highways classified as scenic. B.2.d. Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as water sheds. B.2.e. Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or industrial development. B.2.f. Bogs and wetlands. Land Use Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 263 2.2.a B.2.g. Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and adjacent uses. B.2.h. Lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses both passive and active. B.2. i. Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation. B.3. Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate setback space and separation between structures. C. Goal. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality its location on Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs. C.2. Provide wherever possible, vehicular or pedestrian access to public bodies of water. A. General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental amenity of the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These are frequently areas where natural drainage ways exist and where the second growth forest is still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for urban development. Based on soil and slope analysis for the city, several areas may be identified as potentially hazardous for urban development. (See report to Environmental Subcommittee on Soils and Topography, February 3, 1975.) Some areas which are limited for development are desirable for public recreation, open spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological communities and protection of natural storm drainage system. In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development, grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property. 42 Attachment 13 LaInd Use Packet Pg. 264 2.2.a B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD's, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. 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.1. Grading and Filling. C.I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. CIA b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding IS• slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. 11 CIA Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 1 S% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2. b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff I at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall betaken 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. Land Use Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 265 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 SITE MASTER PLAN FOR POINT EDWARDS, Final., May • 11 TEXT EXCERPTS Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 266 2.2.a .'One,:'Background INTRODUCTION In 1995, the City of Edmonds adopted its Downtown Waterfront Plan as an element of its Comprehensive Plan. That plan called for any future development of certain properties located in the southwestern portion of the city to occur only upon the formulation of a "master plan" to guide that development. Since that time, the city has approved master plans for portions of those properties, most significantly for property owned by the Port of Edmonds. This Master Plan is intended to analyze development potential and establish parameters for the future development of the planning area in accordance with two new MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this master plan will describe the parameters of land uses within the planning area. It will describe, in a general manner, the height and bulk of structures, the types and arrangement of land uses, and site access and circulation patterns. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Point Edwards planning area consists of 44.54 acres of land in Edmonds, Washington, improved with small buildings currently used as office space. The planning area lies on the western perimeter of the Edmonds Downtown Activity Center, and is bordered on the northwest by Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, and on the south by the corporate boundary of the City of Woodway. The area is the site of a former `tank farm' used for the storage and distribution of petroleum products. A portion of the planning area was divided by a short plat approved by the City of Edmonds in 1998. The. 1998 short plat excluded the "teardrop" parcel located to the south of Pine Street Extension. Access to the planning area is from the east via Pine Street Extension (216th Street SW), connecting to SR104. REVISED FINAL - POINT °EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Attaqhrpent 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I Packet Pg. 267 2.2.a EXISTING CONDITIONS History of Land Use In 1920, the Union Oil Company purchased approximately 110 acres of land in the area known as Point Edwards in Snohomish County. Additional property was acquired in the ensuing years, and the City of Edmonds subsequently annexed this property. At its peak, the site included what is now the Port of Edmonds, Harbor Square,, and Marina Beach. The property was developed with tanks and pipelines for the transshipment of petroleum products via tanker ships. Union Oil Company (now Unocal) has gradually divested much of these holdings, until the Point Edwards site is now its only remaining property. Within the past year, activity on the site has been devoted primarily to demolition, with the removal of all of the tanks in the upper yard, and much of the supporting infrastructure in the lower yard. The site is improved by two small wood -frame office buildings, one of which houses the local office of Unocal Corporation. The office uses are the only active uses that remain on the site at this time. Environmental Summary The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products has resulted in subsurface soil conditions that include deposits of petroleum compounds. The presence of these contaminants requires the implementation of a cleanup plan approved by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Site remediation has commenced in the upper yard by the removal of the tanks on the site. Additional remediation activities will occur on the site, in both the upper and lower yards, prior to site development on those portions of the property. Cleanup efforts in the Lower Yard are expected to commence by 2004. This Master Plan includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Analysis in the form of a checklist2. This SEPA checklist incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the city in the course of adopting its Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a significant amount of environmental analysis related to the planning area has previously been conducted. A list of those studies is shown in Appendix B. In October of 1995 the Washington State Department of Ecology approved the Unocal "work plan" acknowledging the next steps in the agreement (Agreed Order) with the State to environmentally investigate the Point Edwards property in Edmonds. This approval allowed Unocal to commence exploratory drilling and testing in conformance to the work plan and thereby provide insight to the contamination. This work was completed in August of 1996. A draft work investigation report was submitted to Ecology. An interim action plan was submitted and approved by Ecology in 2001 that led to Unocal's voluntary removal of the tanks and lines in the Upper Yard, and removal of strategically 2 Submitted concurrently with this Master Plan REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Attachment 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCI, IN Packet Pg. 268 EDMONDS, WA ATES_I 2.2.a important plume contamination in the Lower Yard. The interim action plan calls for complete cleanup of the upper yard with follow up action on the lower yard consistent with the order and regulation under MTCA in 2002. Critical Areas The area is bordered on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, the Point Edwards Marsh. This wetland extends for several acres to the north of the site. Immediately abutting this wetland in the northern portion of the planning area is a constructed stormwater facility that was classified in a previous study as a Class 3 wetland. Because this stormwater facility was constructed as an element of previous site development, its classification may be re-evaluated as new development occurs. According to flood maps available to the city from the Federal Emergency Management Agency3, the planning area is located in `Flood Zone C,' meaning that the area is not located within any 100-year or 500-year flood zone. The city's Shoreline Master Prorgi am. regulates shoreline use and development on coastal waters, and on all land located within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. None of the property shown in this Master Plan is located within 200 feet of the shoreline's high water mark. The original hillside was terraced as tanks were placed on the site. The tanks were commonly placed on the southern and upland portion of the study area commonly known as the `upper yard.' The remainder of the site is commonly known as the `lower yard.' This lower yard generally is more level than the upper yard, where steep slopes (in excess of 40%) still exist in some areas. Despite the presence of these steep slopes soil conditions on the site appear to be stable, with little indication of erosion. Zoning The City of Edmonds Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16.40 ECDC), currently designates the Point Edwards property as CW (Commercial Waterfront). The primary uses now permitted in this zone are: • Marine -oriented services; • Marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented retail uses; • Petroleum products storage and distribution; • Offices located above ground floor (excluding medical, dental, and veterinary); • Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; and • Parks and open space. 3 Ref: Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 530163-0005D, 2/19/86; Federal Flood Insurance Administration; U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Attachment 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN Packet Pg. 269 EDMONDS, WA 2.2.a The CW zoning designation was applied to the site at a time when the property was used for the shipment and storage of petroleum products, an activity that required direct water access. In the intervening time, that use of the property has been discontinued and direct access to the waterfront has been eliminated. Because the site no longer has direct access to the waterfront, the requirement for water -dependent uses severely limits potential future uses of the property. Figure I shows the city's zoning map. The City of Edmonds adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1995, pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. That plan designates the subject property and surrounding lots for `Master Plan Development.' In the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, site development options discussed site development consistent with a multi -modal facility. Figure 2 shows the Comprehensive Plan's Downtown Activity Center concept map. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Attachment 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOQATES, IN Packet Pg. 270 EDMONDS, WA _ _ _ P J F Lu r}Pm k 7 C�c� tyre ufins ��1 YilLE� A 'V14 4�r. yrjI�C'ik��tS��{{'.v,v�'raf� �- II1 I�i c c C c i 1 - y e ti ti ��_�_ Packet Pg. 271 r murtr -amtry Mrgn vensity , u Mlultr Famrly Med Ciensrty o 'r O Srngle Famrly Small Lot Z { c Single Famrly f G c1 i . O Park/Open Space � _ / 1 .. s Note Thismap depicts land use / / ��;, ", : '' i wlthIh:the Downtown -Activity o s Center; Referfd_theEdmands Q ' Comprehensrve-Plan Concept ,� t Map for land use I other F�F a areas a fer tZ' rt € Daft CO u r R Y C Plannin Area 9 i k Walnut St p t, Marsh Pine St a t _ We3tgate( WO: , 1Way 4®r= �.®.®._. 1 Unincorpora a Packet Pg. 272 2.2.a r it Two. Alternative De ent r r CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Downtown Waterfront Plan that was adopted as an element of the city's Comprehensive Plan took a close look at the Point Edwards site as a focal point for a multi -modal transportation center that would become a "regionally important transportation facility." This center would integrate a relocated ferry terminal, inter -city and commuter rail, buses, and park -and -ride facilities. Of the three alternate sites identified by the city, Point Edwards was named as the preferred alternative for the transportation center. The Downtown Plan also allowed for fiirther development of the site, suggesting specific redevelopment options that would complement the transportation center. The Comprehensive Plan notes that development of a multi -modal transportation facility helps to solve a number of problems throughout the city: • the existing ferry terminal location creates traffic conflicts due to its close proximity to downtown. • access to the existing terminal is sometimes blocked by the at -grade crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks. • the ferry holding area creates a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. • the ferry location restricts the expansion of downtown, reducing potential economic growth. • congestion created by ferry traffic discourages new businesses from locating downtown. By relocating the ferry terminal to the Point Edwards site, the city can create a more pedestrian -friendly downtown area that is tied more closely to the waterfront. At the same time, traffic congestion could be reduced by creating a true multi -modal center where passengers can access an integrated mass -transit system via road, rail, or water. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN AttaQh ui ant DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES I Packet Pg. 273 FnMn"nc W4 2.2.a The city's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Point Edwards property as a part of the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center." Within that activity center, the planning area is designated for "Master Plan Development." The Point Edwards property is one of several that share the Master Plan Development designation. Some other properties within that area have already drafted a master plans, with each plan intended to promote mixed -use development: ® The Port of Edmonds submitted a Master Plan for its properties to the city, which plan was adopted by the city in January 2002. ® Owners of the Harbor Square property entered into a "contract rezone" agreement with the city, and are proceeding with development in accordance with this "master plan" concept for its redevelopment.., In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, this Master Plan is based upon the proposed adoption by the city of a "Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use" (MP)4 zone. This designation would create two separate and compatible zoning districts, that would be applied to the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard, respectively. The MP1 zone for the Upper Yard would permit a range of uses that include multi -family residential, office, hotels/motels, some restaurants, conference centers, day care, and certain secondary uses. For the MP2 zone, neighborhood -oriented retail uses and multi -modal transportation centers are added. The application of these zones to the study area will be illustrated in greater detail in the following section, Alternative Development Strategies. This Master Plan sets forth two alternatives for future development of the properties within the study area. Each of these alternatives has been designed to conform to the requirements of the proposed MP zoning. A map illustrating the proposed zoning boundaries is shown in Figure 3. A plan illustrating the mix and relationships. of land uses in the preferred alternative is shown in Figure 4, and an alternative plan that would permit development without a multi -modal transportation facility is shown in Figure 7. This second alternative is set forth to permit reasonable development within the planning area in the event that a multi -modal facility is not pursued within a reasonable period. It should be noted that Figures 4 and 7, illustrating proposed development alternatives, are intended as conceptual designs only. It is anticipated that reasonable adjustments will be made to these conceptual designs as more definitive development plans are devised, as part of a project -specific review. However, the boundaries of the MP1 and MP2 zones will remain constant. 4 See Appendix A for the full text of the proposed zone. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN AttaGh m ant 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I Packet Pg. 274 EDMONDS, WA NEWS F 2.2. a Attachment 13 I Packet Pg. 275 1 2.2.a fA4� l= Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 276 2.2.a THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Multi -Modal Center The primary focus of the Preferred Alternative is to create a multi -modal transportation center that will integrate a relocated ferry terminal, a railroad terminal, bus service, park - and -ride facilities, and accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. The multi -modal center would realign SR 104, taking advantage of site topography to create an overpass over the BNSF railroad tracks for ferry access, complete with stacking lanes. Immediately to the north of the highway realignment, a train/transit station with an oversized parking lot would be developed. The siting of this building will create a link to the railroad tracks that border the study area to the northwest. The SR 104 realignment would run roughly along the boundary between the MPl and NM zones, extending west to a ferry access ramp. The realignment route would be wide enough to accommodate stacking lanes for the ferry. The highway realignment would occupy approximately 6.3 acres of land within the study area, while the adjacent multi - modal facility would occupy an additional 3.6 acres. Multi -Family Residential In the Preferred Alternative, the land shown in the MP 1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use. At a permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit, the maximum: number of dwelling units that would be allowed on this 24.06-acre site would be 419. However, after setting aside land for roads and open space, accounting for site limitations related to steep slopes, and observing setback and height restrictions, the probable density would be lower than the maximum permitted density. Densities at build -out will be consistent with urban densities contemplated by Washington's Growth Management Act, and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Pockets of open space would be located to the north and west of the residential development, providing a measure of buffering between the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard. In addition to the designated open space areas in the Upper Yard, smaller pockets of public open space would be integrated into the site design. Where feasible and appropriate, these public open spaces would be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street. The residential development would constitute phase 1 of site development within the planning area, with sub -phases in this area to be determined as development is proposed. Multi -Modal Transportation and Mixed Use Development As noted earlier, the area located generally to the north of the realigned highway (the Lower Yard) would be devoted to a multi -modal transportation facility, and to development that complements that facility. Adjacent to the multi -modal facility is an area designated for mixed use development. The primary use of this area is anticipated to be office space, with supporting retail and service uses. This mixed use area encompasses approximately 4.6 acres. To the southeast of this area lies a small site designated as a commercial node of less than one acre. This area is intended to provide REVISED FINAL -POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN EDMONDS, WA Atta" M ant 13 DAVID`g• EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, Packet P 277 MAY 14 9 2.2.a goods or services to residences and businesses located within the study area. The location takes advantage of visibility from the realigned highway, and is located at the intersection that leads to the mixed use area. Located to the northeast of the mixed use area is a portion of the study area'that will be devoted to open space, a buffer for the abutting marsh, and possibly for stormwater management. This area, which includes a site currently used as a salmon hatchery, provides a transition to the abutting property to the northeast. Circulation and Access The realigned SR 104 would be the main thoroughfare through the study area. Internally, Pine Street Extension will provide access to the multi -family use on the Upper Yard along its existing right-of-way. Access to the northerly portion of the study area, and to the multi -modal facility, will necessitate the relocation of the existing Unoco Road. The alignment for the relocated access road will result in a signalized intersection at SR 104, and may necessitate some encroachment into the wetland buffer. Potential intersection designs are shown in previous site studies, and are expected to be further refined during the development review process. The ferry access will be achieved via an overpass across the railroad tracks. This access will also include provisions for pedestrians and bicycles. The multi -modal facility will improve rail access to the community, permitting rail passengers to gain access to ferries, buses, and the local highway system. Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. In addition, the railroad tracks create a barrier that effectively isolates the site from port and waterfront property to the west. Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography, the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from the Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the -s Edmonds Crossing project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably F accommodate such access as it may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development. k The issue of access and circulation is discussed in greater detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared in 1995 for the proposed Edmonds Crossing project. That study evaluated traffic related to automobiles, rail, and ferries. Utilities The study area is served by or has available all necessary public utilities. Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are provided by the City of Edmonds, while electricity and natural gas are available through Puget Sound Energy. The capacity of sewer lines REVISED FINAL - Pow EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Atta @ 11 Packet Pg. 278 Cnunr.in.- MADAVID EVANS AND ASSDQA�S, 2.2.a within the study area may need to be upgraded to accommodate anticipated development. This capacity will be analyzed in greater detail prior to development approvals. As provided in City of Edmonds regulations, all utilities that serve the site will be placed underground as development occurs. Building Dimensions and. Relationships In the Upper Yard (governed by the proposed W l zoning regulations), the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. Building heights will be limited to 35 feet, except that an additional five feet in height will be allowed as part of an approved, modulated roof design. Building height will be calculated according to approved city standards. To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses, building heights will be calculated separately for. each clearly separated portion of a building. Because the realigned highway will be built into a hillside, allowances will be made for the height of the highway's supporting structure and its relationship to the multi -modal facility. Thus, in the W2 zone, heights of up to 45 feet will be allowed. Because building in the lower yard area will be significantly lower in elevation than the steep slopes immediately to the south, 45-foot buildings will not obstruct views from surrounding properties. Due to this more liberal height allowance, no additional credit would be granted for roof features as part of an approved modulated roof design. The 45-foot height limit in the lower yard would permit four-story buildings. However, due to the limited area available for development, it is likely that the first floor of buildings would be devoted primarily to structured parking5, with some supporting retail uses. Upper stories would be devoted primarily to offices. However, the potential for residential dwellings on the upper floors of buildings may be considered. Given the size of the area set aside for mixed use development (less than five acres) and the need forparking and landscaping, the maximum amount of floor area devoted to, individual land uses may occur as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Development Potewial, MP2 Zone FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 parkins; retalyservice 30,0006 2 of 1; residential 100 000 3 office; residential 100 000 4 office residential 80 000 TOTAL 310 ®0® 5 If structured parking is not constructed, then the 'amount of required surface parking will result in less ground area available for buildings. Thus, the assumption that structured parking will be used should not impact the site's overall development potential. 6 Does not include parking. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN EDMONDS. WA ent uDAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I Packet Pg. 279 2.2.a It should be noted that the numbers and uses shown in Figure 5 are not absolute. For example, a first -floor restaurant or bank may extend onto the second floor, or may choose an upper floor location. Also, the total square footage of development may occur in one building, or in several buildings that would add up to the total square footage shown above. For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, anaverage of 1,500 square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit. Thus, if the upper floors of buildings were devoted to residential uses, the number of potential dwelling units per floor would be calculated as follows: Figure 6: Potential Residential Development, MP-7 Zone FLOOR MAXIMUM SQUARE POTENTIAL MAXIMUM # FOOTAGE DWELLING UNITS 1 30 000 0� 2 100,000 66 3 100 000 66 4 80 000 53 TOTAL 310 000 185 In the calculations illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, dwelling units are substituted for office space at a ratio of 1:1,500, or one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of office space. Thus, total potential site development would consist of up to 310,000 square feet of office space or as many as 185 dwelling units, or some combination thereof. Phasing The size and topography of the site lends itself to a phased development approach. Phase 1 would be the residential and open space development of the Upper Yard. Due to the size of this project, sub -phases will be identified when specific development plans are submitted. Because adequate access to the Lower Yard would be required for development, Phase 2 would be the Edmonds Crossing multi -modal facility. Phase 3 would encompass the mixed -use, `transit -oriented' development in the Lower Yard that would support the multi -modal facility. While the timing of these development phases has not been firmly established, it is likely that plans for Phase 1 development would be submitted to the city within one year of adoption of this Master Plan. The timing for Phase 2 will depend upon state funding for Edmonds Crossing. Portions of Phase 3 may commence prior to the completion of Phase 2. ALTERNATIVE The city's Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the development of a multi -modal facility as a high priority, and selects the Point Edwards planning area as the preferred 7 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Att�:lin e n t 13 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES IN EDMONDS, WA Packet Pg. 280 MAY 14. 20 2.2.a location for that facility. However, the development and construction of such a facility (including the highway realignment) will not be possible without the active cooperation and support of the ferry system, the railroads (both Burlington Northern and Amtrak), the state's Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and local transit service providers. Getting support and financial commitments from all of these entities, especially in an era of tight budgets, may prove'to be an impossible challenge. This Master Plan recognizes the possibility that plans for a multi -modal transportation facility may not be pursued by these third parties in a timely manner, and provides development options in Alternative Two that address this possibility. As noted earlier, cleanup of the Lower Yard is expected to commence by 2004. Planning and environmental studies prepared by the City of Edmonds and others suggest that planning for components of a multi -modal facility should be underway within this same general time frame. In the event that site -specific planning for a multi -modal facility is not commenced by 2004 or 2005, current or future owners of property within the planning area should have the flexibility to develop the site using Alternative Two. This alternative is conceptually depicted in Figure Z Balanced Development Alternative Two attempts to balance development types throughout the study area, using the same basic mix of uses (excluding the multi -modal facility) that are planned in the Preferred Alternative. Multi -Family Residential The multi -family development planned for the MP1 zone in the upper yard remains essentially the same as in the Preferred Alternative. The open space area to the west of the housing development is expanded to include much of the steep slope area that was dedicated to the highway realignment, and the need for the open space area to the east is eliminated when the highway is removed. Mixed Use Development The area of mixed use development in the lower yard is expanded to include the area that was designated for the multi -modal facility. This expanded area encompasses approximately nine acres, plus a one -acre commercial node at the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. Circulation and Access The ,key to safe and efficient traffic circulation in this alternative is the realignment (and perhaps signalization) of the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. This realignment will result in improved sight distances, fewer turning movement conflicts, and increased traffic safety. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MDAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, I EDMONDS, WA AttASTER PLAN 13 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 2 1771 K,4►�.wA t 5 p .. IIC 4�8'M3'RWi�00[1' an t11Y1'JOtp�nr gg I � 8 O J O O of — a O d zw V) <¢ Z / 1AJ �z / o Q ¢Q / U LA- 0 M W ~ W9 W O oz a PI)w UJ II z LU .J < O / `. NI i i `i i` Attachment 13A- 2.2.a Packet Pg. 282 2.2.a Pine Street Extension from SR 104 provides the only access to the planning area, and improvements to this street such as sidewalks and turning lanes will be required to ensure safe and adequate site access. The railroad continues to present a barrier to site access from the west. With the elimination of the ferry access and the multi -modal facility, projected traffic volumes to and from the study area will be significantly lower. Without the Edmonds Crossing project, pedestrian access from the site to the waterfront becomes problematic. Aside from topographic and engineering constraints, the high costs associated with providing a grade -separated access across the railroad, including negotiating an appropriate easement or license from the railroad, would create great difficulty. However, the design and development costs alone should not preclude the potential of providing such access. Accordingly, Upper and Lower Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate future pedestrian access to, the waterfront. To the extent that waterfront access is later afforded with Lower Yard development and benefits site development, the developer(s) may contribute to this effort through the donation of land, or through other mutually agreeable means. Building Dimensions and Relationships Height, bulk, and overall dimensional requirements for Alternative Two do not differ from the Preferred Alternative. Due to the increased size of the area designated for mixed use development, the development potential in this area is increased as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Development Potential, MP2 Zone Alternative Two FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION. 1 parking; retail/service 55,0008 09 2 office; residential 180,000 120 3 office; residential 180,000 120 93 TOTAL =cc 000 333 Phasing As with the Preferred Alternative, the first phase of development would feature the residential and open space development on the Upper Yard. Development of the Lower Yard would occur in Phase 2. The timing of these development phases has not yet been determined. For each phase, sub -phases of development would be shown as plans are submitted to the city for review. s Plus parking. 9 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMONDS, WA Attftl'�nent 13 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 283 2.2.a CONCLUSION The Point Edwards site is one of the few significant development opportunities remaining in the City of Edmonds. The significance and visibility of the site is evidenced by the high degree of interest shown by local, regional, and state governments and agencies. However, despite the high level of interest shown, and despite the clear documentation of the need to improve ferry access by moving its associated traffic congestion away from Downtown Edmonds, little has been done by any public agency to secure the Point Edwards site for use as a multi -modal facility. This Master Plan preserves the option for a multi -modal facility, while, acknowledging that such a development may not come to pass within a reasonable period of time. Unocal Corporation, the property owner, has enjoyed a long history of cooperative working relationships with city government and other involved agencies. The type and intensity of development illustrated in this Master Plan is intended to meet the spirit and the letter of the city's Comprehensive Plan, to encourage action toward the development of a multi -modal center on the property, and to promote the efforts of those who wish to maintain a high quality of life in Edmonds. A multi -modal facility or other development of comparable scope at Point Edwards will benefit the city by providing a development that complements Downtown Edmonds. As noted in the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, the relocation of rail and ferry service from their current locations will improve traffic congestion in the downtown area. At the same time, the site of these relocated facilities can benefit from increased exposure by creating a mixed -use development that maximizes development opportunities while creating an atmosphere that is faithful to the vision set forth in city plans. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAG 1 OAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, IN EDMONDS, WA Attacflnent 13 MAY 14, 20 Packet Pg. 284 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX C: EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFR• V gazov= I I *-A 2 *xG] 4.0,4:A &I Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 285 2.2.a D H.- .-1 c a� E m 4 A a y t L H `mc_�EE d o o 0 x 0 0 Y w E c H Q ® N :« O �� n d avi a OC �_ Q F- c ® ac c c � ® ®O 48 v = c c w E y E o �'� E W�� U. M M a Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 6 2.2.a >, "d a) a) rn �' rJ cd O ni .0 •C N 0 O® p yxj N .d Cd O U .40" kN. O >-, cd" U N N O 3 0 ° N 4, a� o y a03 td U •�. �i ,:y N O ° N �N U ' N .U.tUA 'b 4a 1 U N O C"i J Ri = C." + y~.� .r Cd =-.o + O 0 A- 4_4 0 CA U W N .a - 1 1 0 Cv fN .b 0)" � "o N N N O O `� ° N 1Ui O 4a+ " O ti N o ° ; ° °° � °�' o ff° °�' � �, ° 0 En 0 0 Cd o o o a N. -o bA bA N kn — 0 N N O O N8 El to o .o U �-' N 4r ,� O N Q� +jO �, "v O N N b ° N ice-+ N N 4� N +cd., vi 0 N U O M C +�' N U O Cd d N "U t ••' 44 Cd —e�� : '• N O N O cd o • ° o x a' No -� ' a ° tin � •x ® , o v °o 4-a�i t d Z 3 as CJ � `� - N Ca U 30 H -� bn O O �. ° N t, BoomW . U Cl. U '0 " H id Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 7 2.2.a d r Ci O U 00 U O �n bA cd �, , vi ® � U U y O cO Cd >C m O rA 0 " N A ti U ��. CD Gn U U) °r1 a+ A ® v) 4..' v� o � p u C4 En Cts W ° � U � U � 00 0 Q, O. rn � • � O wo Cd +4r CL ® a) 0 bU M � o 0 CL O �U �:tiN CL N n UO Uy "7 � O O p ® NL Oty rA O 'Co" Cd 1.0 C O a p, U 4-4 O � dO 73a. MEMO r ® N M d Vl �10 0 0•-� N M OMM x p Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 2 8771 2.2.a is ;t:� -C� 4 w 413, N Cd 0 ¢" Cd ? py.D .b O 0 W CdW' oo" P" ' . n . � v� n � Cd 43 � � O G 4-1 (� N p •sue � N N 'd O >, .E p � .�+ N ■ O d NO O ,� N N ti ��+ cd is �,' V OLM imam —00 U Cd Cd Cd U b0 y 'O Oi v O En Cd O UO 'O ) O W V O +� dA p 'O ''vi '� � •� a � W ice., Cd oA v9 Cud ) +-' vpi O s N Cd O a� b � o C 0 0 Cd U - b i LM O 'ly p N N N .Q p" Cd "ZI O Id N • e.'S 2cd W o 3� -d+�o3� W � Co o'3 -did W o � F., 3 Cd a � 'a U .0 3 a C Ei a) ■ H 49 � � W 0 .. F. Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 9771 2.2.a il ON All a Lei o -d � .� o ° con ' con ° °'' 0 ° N° o o. a° v o o g .n a c0 o i Cd u�� 0 aoi "4-1�^ b o 9, to sd sd rn -� > U V 47 O to 60) to9n 'o w �, - o 1 ,-' o E 0 ao .b " 4, o �, , boA ' aoi w N U o+ b p -0 4. N a� i , sd . N a. sd N ° o U aw —0 i o.+1 p oO 0 cn 0 N. O0.d .� 4: W cn an . �' a b cd -= o En 00 v N W 0 .r3 "o cUi °o > ca > > n ai `p' o o a� cad cd o as4. °� . .. - o I- o cd 'b , o � '� � 0 oo n a� a� 3 0.. a 06 al -71 to con , o o a o ° b °Cd -d ! > -d sod °+'' `" °' ° O Cd N En O rn Cd ° rn ti bn rn O �° U cd 03 a.N o �� oono o..�'� .o a�i 4-4.� .0 ® o U. v° o o 0 o C o o A cd .. cd O i O N p cd „d ss. y 0. &. O 0 V N bl) c" m Cd o O, •.+ N a. R. N rV+ c7 r�i� ^ O .O U N rn V cd C U N . Q � En O Cd 'O '� U_r� � 3 coA 00 In O v-+' cn Cd o .o c1, w cn -� C° ® a. � 0 co ° ;j 3 gi b . a�i oo' aQi o � ' 3 a`di .o° `� "� o 00 = o A bn O ' rn O °U 'C OV Q. cd +, "' 42 Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 0771 4-1 C T; > g M Lu r. M C CL (L 9 WE a> C Q) 0 V Q 0 - 0) C E w > w V E CL 0 u 0 C: CD 06 PR CL0 CL E -0 a o o Attachment 13 2.2.a ni a� cd CO j 4r �n b 0 o > v t: 0 0 0 .: o g .� b 0� 0 y� 0 ti � 0 o U � N N � O ° Tj N � ' cd cpi p 0 U O= U 4� Q. p U 0 U b .a ... 0 0 p N to o � ' ~ 4-Cd 4-4 0 0 N 0 o , 4 �, an a� W Cd bn i rn 0 w a� cd .� cd a) �. C o o 'b °rA 3E-+ C d �. Ei -a oCd b ti tn Cn 0 0 a b 0 o U on o a. R 0 .n 0 (� Cl 3 o +' a, o ~ .0 a ° r. vi U ! �° 'U °� N� cC U 4 +-' U U U U o°' ti N 4r. N ti• U U p y, 'ram °b C]. o o 5 a 'd o 0 0 W 41 � on W ro 0 0, o� o 0 b o 0 Ei a� 04 Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 2 IM Co 0 4� a l� Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2937 2.2.a Co m E E O 0 C 0 Co Co N W V 'a e. N Cn CI V.—O �i Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 294 1 2.2.a 4 R a Cd 'a a) a) ' * bU ti _�. N p ��' '+' rn U � Oo .O 4: 'p �' OU U "d N ^ 4,� N � � R" O � ^ U 4 CdCd O 0 Cd O -010 rA tom. pr O cn � Cts^ 0Cd 0 O O tiU• '�' U 04 en Cd Q Cd Cd O a) N td bq N b U cad *U'' (7 bA �' -b u Cd ai � 4)O +��' Q) U 4� a) O a) 3 .- 'a 4) U. �, 'ti OtiU. 'L7 0 Cd � � +U.�U Nv � +-OU .�^ t O bU o O p 3 �p+.� O CIO 0 o o ¢' -� .c bA 0 °° a) a� arcs w a) N o ° o o o s~ U a U op U •a U H y r. U vi a) v N M d vj >, a) NrA b N 40 � t . •� �n a) 0. °� +� o v o. 6 a) .� 4.)U a' � -0� � � o .� a .d y a' y N vCn Cd 0 to CJCd +� cd 4) Q .� U O rn Q. O 4 w ti a) bq ti O d. W Cd 4 9.110.1 pi 4) O � O cta4 o C. 'Q� Q '."Inzc�O o n a)0 0 OO > O4-1O4- i0t+v�O a) Q O°®Ud tEl +,,, icd 4O ®p Co 1) 4-- 0 7t; O. .r- 3 U -a a o o A 4) o a �, "a o� ' �-' +�� '> 'a -a > o U � Cd o ' @ ' r. W U 0. bA as j w > U >`0 O 4.) ® ✓� O a) ®�o -0 O �p a)�' Oja4 4. -a F-+ '+J •cs aa.) o b°n v Attachment 13 Co Ir Packet Pg. 2 57 2.2.a :U a 1CL : v U i.i rn L" Cd G H° o P.O +' O U Cd O Cd ,0 v V ti vi Cd Cd 'd Cd 4. W 0 cd 'L7 Cd o y O 0 4 - .L Cd O 4-'0 N bq N O O IM M a. a a� O +, U N 4O .4 tn C M "o O o O O > . O � tO Vi a-, G•i M i 6, � f~ Cd to h .� O 0 Cd N O > O V 01�+ V Cd b N ti O Q O O N® O w ti I d8 ; A R jplP9 �ICa�NI� \ N a o d \ c d N W = C c R a. C 0 t O 4. 0 3 O N V a O E v W Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 6 2.2.a 4 4` o 0 U cd .. 1 ®I kf� �6 9 W 47 U c +. gv � ++ r N rv+ 4. Gf � U J O a. c rn N V '4, O OCj Vgz y O O tH o V. o O O +-+ v" O 0 Cd o = O. o O s: �n O �; O E b N k � 0 O N 'y y O Cd H o N dQ •w .0 td cd r� O U to C% edd cdd Cd ++ O 4-4 -0 R r1'- u 0 '� O V U N U i�o�3 N 0Cl O � ,6cci N 1-. �., U E3, y U N O' O r ed U 0 cd o 'i7 cV O a cd a? e. O .� O a .0 4 - V) Cd e—a ti > VO u _ M a c 0 3 0 3 0 N 0 w Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 2 7 2.2.a POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX OF •URBAN GUIDELINES December, 1 1 TEXT EXCERPTS Attachment 13 1Packet Pg. 298 2.2.a ()bM-jjj_ b t 6 H OaAk VELtMF'�-) maximum height of 3 feet will be allowed as freestanding signs unless the property owner can demonstrate that a such a sign cannot provide adequate signage. D. Non-residential Conditional Uses in Residential Zones Non-residential conditional uses in residential zones can include churches, schools, offices, hospitals and other uses listed in the Zoning Code. Non-residential conditional uses in residential zones should be designed according to the guidelines most appropriate to the situation. Since these uses are located in residential neighborhoods, the proposal should be designed according to the neighborhood business guidelines and the guidelines for the district where the use is situated. (See Neighborhood Business Guidelines and District Guidelines). 1L Districts A. Downtown Activity Center The downtown area is characterized by older buildings built after 1900 and before 1950. These buildings include residential, commercial and mixed use buildings. As Edmonds has remained a vibrant, growing community for the entire 20th century, there are more modern buildings mixed with the older buildings. Since the street layout of the downtown area was created prior to the advent of the automobile as the primary form of transportation, the downtown commercial area is generally a comfortable place for pedestrians. The design guidelines are intended to retain the existing character of the City while allowing for growth and change over time. For these purposes the City of Edmonds has created the following Downtown Edmonds guidelines. 1. Downtown Activity Center Defined: The boundaries of the Downtown Activity Center shall be the same as those defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Gateway Streets Defined: Gateway Streets are streets leading into the downtown area. The public facilities on these streets are designed to tie into the character of the downtown area. Public facilities are considered to be street lights, bus stop shelters, street furniture and other facilities found in the City right-of-way with the general purpose of serving the public at large. The Gateway Streets are as follows (see attached Gateway Street Map): ® 5th Avenue South to SR 104. ® SR 524 to the intersection with Olympic Avenue. At the time of the writing of this document, SR 524 includes 3rd Avenue N to Caspers Street, Caspers Street from 3rd Avenue N to 9th Avenue N, 9th Avenue N to Puget Drive, Puget Drive to 196th Street SW, and 196th Street SW as it leaves Edmonds. ® Main Street from the Ferry Terminal to Maplewood Drive. 3. Pedestrian Streets Defined: Pedestrian Oriented Streets shall be as follows (see attached Pedestrian Street Map) ® 5th Avenue from Howell Way to Edmonds Street. ® 4th Avenue from Dayton Street to Bell Street. ® 3rd Avenue from Dayton Street to Bell Street. ® 2nd Avenue from Bell to Dayton Street. Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 299 2.2.a • Bell Street from 5th Avenue North to 2nd Avenue North. • Main Street from 6th Avenue to the waterfront. • Dayton Street from 5th Avenue South to 2nd Avenue South. • James Street between 3rd Avenue and Sunset. As Downtown Edmonds develops, it will be necessary to reassess the location of the pedestrian oriented streets. In the event that the Ferry terminal leaves the Main Street location, or in the event that the Ferry Holding Lanes are relocated, the City shall immediately reassess the pedestrian oriented street section of this ordinance. 4. Guidelines for the Downtown Activity Center a) Historic Preservation (1) Historic Resources (a) Design of new or renovated buildings in the downtown area should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings or landmarks. When built adjacent to one of these historic resources, size, bulk, building materials, window patterns, rooflines, orientation, setbacks, signage, and other design features of the new building Snould be compatible with and not ove-.wheiii the histoic resource. (2) Downtown Character (a) Development downtown should be accomplished so as to reinforce the historic character and pedestrian orientation and scale of downtown buildings and streetscapes. Each building should contribute to the character of the downtown environment in a manner consistent with the heights, facades, setbacks, rooflines, signage, and repeating design elements of other buildings found on the street. (3) Rehabilitation and Continuing Use (a) The continuing use of existing structures is a desirable feature of the downtown streetscape. The rehabilitation of existing buildings is encouraged. Within the downtown commercial area, the conversion of old homes into small businesses contributes to the accessible, "small town" atmosphere of downtown. b) Building Design (1) Multi -Family Building Design (a) General Buildings should be designed to fit into the context of the surrounding area, paying special attention to the scale, form, height and massing of the existing neighborhood. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. Or multiple family development usually should use a shingled roof, but a particular design in particular location may call for a metal roof. It should be noted that some areas of the City have developed sites or buildings which would be in substantial non-compliance with these design guidelines. In such cases, a designer should design a proposed building in conformance with the design guidelines rather than in context with the surrounding area. Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 300 2.2.a (b) Materials Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the neighborhood. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to wood, masonry, stucco, and tile. Roofs material choices may include, but are not limited to composition or wood shingles. All these materials are characterized by fairly fine texture. (c) Shapes and Forms A building should have a design theme carried throughout its shapes and forms. These elements should be applied on all sides consistently. Typical forms used in residential development include porches, dormers, and hip / gable / shed roofs. However the building forms are applied, the buildings should avoid large massive unbroken roof and wall lines. Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shapes and forms of the building should accent the corner. Buildings on corner lots must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both streets frontages. (d) Details and Fenestration Residential development is typified by smaller window sizes, i.e. paned windows, overhangs and soffits. All buildings should have a clear entry expression such as arches, awnings, shutters or other entry defining characteristics. In addition, porches and other entry expressions, along with decks, dormers, and balconies, are indications of residential development. All of these items should be combined with the shapes and forms of the building to avoid large, massive roofs and walls. Modulation of walls, texture, materials and windows should be used to break up the appearance of the walls. Colors are considered as a design element and must be compatible with the building design theme, and the design theme of the surrounding area. (e) Size, Height and Bulk Multi -family development should indicate its use by its scale of development. Larger buildings should be broken into house size elements through articulation and modulation of the facades and roofs. (f) Transitions Since the height limit for development in the multiple family zones and in the Community Business zone can be 5 feet higher than the allowable height limit for single family homes, a transitional element(s) should be included in their design. Design mitigations maybe required where adjacent buildings are much smaller or down hill from the proposed building(s). (see Figure 4). (2) Commercial Design (a) General Buildings should be designed in context with the surrounding area. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. (b) Materials Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 301 2.2.a Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the vicinity. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to masonry, stucco, prefab panel, metal, and glazing. Roofs material choices may include, but are not limited to standing seam metal and flat asphalt. (c) Shapes and Forms A building should have a design theme carried throughout its shapes and forms. Small to mid -scale buildings with horizontal relief along the facade typifies development in a pedestrian oriented commercial area. Consistency, unity and simplicity also characterize the application of shapes and forms for this type of development. However the building forms are employed, buildings should avoid long unbroken roof and wall lines. Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shapes and forms of the buildings should accent the corner. Buildings on corner lots must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both street frontages. (d) Details and Fenestration Typical details for this type of development include a strong cornice, building ornamentation, awnings, storefront windows, and balconies. All buildings should have a clear entry expression such as arches, awnings, shutters or other entry defining characteristics. All of these items along with the shapes and forms of the building should be combined to avoid large, massive walls. Modulation of walls, texture, materials and windows should be used to break up the appearance of the walls. Colors are considered as a design element and must be compatible with the building design theme, and the design theme of the surrounding area. (e) Transitions Since the height limit for development in the multiple family zones and in the Community Business zone can be 5 feet higher than the allowable height limit for single family homes a transitional element(s) should be included in their design. Design mitigations maybe required where adjacent buildings are much smaller or down hill from the proposed building(s). (see Figure 4). (f) Context Buildings should be designed to conform to the surroundings. A designer should not leave blank and uninteresting walls on sides of the building facing neighboring properties. If a zero foot setback is utilized for the purpose of joining the proposed building to another building the treatment of the sides of the building adjoining the other buildings shall be appropriate to such development. c) Site Design The designer should create a site design which allows for a consistent theme from the building to the site. Landscaping should be used to complement the building and site design. (1) Site Organization The site design should be oriented toward the pedestrian. Storefronts should be encouraged adjacent to sidewalks. Where storefronts are not possible, other features of pedestrian interest should be created adjacent to the sidewalks. Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 302 2.2.a (2) Parking Lots should be oriented for pedestrian safety with walkways between stall isles and along the sides of the parking lots, and with well defined cross walks where pedestrians must cross the drive isles. Parking lots should be located behind, underneath buildings, or between buildings. Parallel parking on the street is desirable. Corner parking lots should be avoided. (3) Landscaping Interior parking lot landscaping is required. Parking lot perimeter landscaping is required. Landscaping should be used as a buffer between buildings and use changes. Landscaping should be used as a buffer between streets and buildings and/or parking areas. (4) Streetscape Since Downtown commercial developments are pedestrian oriented, the City shall encourage the placement of street furniture and awnings over the public right-of-way where possible and appropriate. Sidewalks with a minimum 7 foot width are required. Street trees are required. Sidewalk tree grates which allow for handicapped accessibility of the sidewalk, and which allow for growth of the tree shall be used. Installation and maintenance of the trees will be the responsibility of the City. Installation of trees may be required of the applicant as mitigation for new development. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian oriented streets. The City should create incentives rather than disincentives for the addition of awnings over public sidewalks. Awning design should allow diversity, while still providing coordination between properties. Street furniture should be encouraged in the public right-of-way, on and adjacent to the public sidewalks. Street furniture, light fixtures, bus stop shelters and other utilitarian fixtures found in the public right of way should have a early 1900's theme. That theme should be continued on the Downtown Gateway Streets. In areas where a portion of the City right-of-way will remain unimproved, the developer will be required to install landscaping between the property line and the improved portion of the right-of-way. (5) Screening Utility vaults, heating and cooling equipment and other utility equipment should be screened in some way by vegetation or walls. Parking should be screened from residential areas with vegetation and fences, and from streets with walls and vegetation. (6) Trash & Recycling Enclosures Trash and recycling enclosures must be screened with solid wood or masonry fencing. Chain link fencing with slats may only be permitted for enclosure gates. Trash and recycling enclosures should be located off alleys, if possible. Wherever they are located, they should be placed to allow safe and convenient pick-up by the trash and recycling haulers. If such a location requires a conspicuous location, additional screening will be required. Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 303 2.2.a (7) Context: Buildings should be designed to conform to the surroundings. A designer should not leave blank and uninteresting walls on sides of the building facing neighboring properties. If a zero foot setback is utilized for the purpose of joining the proposed building to another building the treatment of the sides of the building adjoining the other buildings shall be appropriate to such development. d) Transportation Orientation The downtown area is a pedestrian oriented area. The transportation orientation must therefore be primarily for pedestrians. Therefore developments should promote pedestrian and bicycle use. Buildings should be close to the street. Parking should be in the rear, and not the primary focus of the site. All access from parking lots to the street should be clearly marked for pedestrian safety. All parking areas should provide clearly marked pedestrian walkways. e) Signage (1) Multi -Family Sign Design Signage for multiple family developments should be low level signs that are primarily for building identification. One sign is allowed for each development. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. Freestanding signs must be monument signs. (2) Pedestrian Oriented Sign Design Signage on pedestrian oriented streets should be low level signs that are primarily oriented for pedestrians. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited, while signs with external illumination are allowed. 5. Pedestrian Oriented Commercial a) Location The design criteria found in this section are for development located on pedestrian oriented streets in the Downtown Activity Center. Additional criteria may be applied to construction within the Downtown Activity Center. b) Building Design (1) General Buildings should be designed in context with the surrounding area. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. It should be noted that some areas of the City have developed sites or buildings which would be in substantial non-compliance with these design guidelines In such cases, a designer should design a proposed building in conformance with the design guidelines rather than in context with the surrounding area. (2) Materials Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the vicinity. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to masonry, stucco, prefab panel, Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 304 2.2.a 2020 Aerial Image PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards Landscape Modification HN Scale 1 inch = 300 feet Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 306 2.2.a FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 Applicant: Point Edwards HOA DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 9th day of February, 2021, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City of Edmonds (C1ick2Mail) to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of February, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BPP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 307 2.2.a FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 Applicant: Point Edwards HOA DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 9th day of February, 2021, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.03.002, City Hall and the Public Safety Complex in accordance with ECC 1.03.020. The library was not posted as the public notice area is cordoned off due to COVID related restrictions. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of February, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: { BFP747893. DOC;1 \00006.900000\ Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 308 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION ,hc,. I Ry'i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 261 trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 45 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 28 Tree Coppiced (cut down to stump, but stump expected to re -sprout) • Prune 78 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) • 24 snags (create 11 live and 13 dead wildlife snags) • No Action on 86 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns and groundcover to increase the species diversity on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is located in the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. NAME OF APPLICANT: Point Edwards Homeowners Association FILE NUMBER: PLN2020-0054 DATE OF APPLICATION: December 28, 2020 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: January 28, 2021 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: February 10, 2021 REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review for Landscape Amendment and Maintenance (Type III -A Permit Process). A public hearing before the Architectural Design Board will be scheduled at a future date. A Notice of Public Hearing will be issued once the ADB date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: None. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Wetland Report, Landscape Management Plan Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 309 2.2.a COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: February 24, 2021 Any person has the right to comment on this application during 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 record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.gov/public- notices-text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number PLN2020- 0054, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 310 2.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH919535 PLN2020-0054 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 02/10/2021 and ending on 02/10/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee fo such publication is $84. Subscribed and sworn bef a me on this day ofAza Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN RECEIVE FEB 2 3 2021 PLANNING DEPI Unda Phillips NOW Public ��ate rif V1lasltie�ou �'�oane�2o2a Attachment 16 1Packet Pg. 311 Classified Proof 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 261 trees have been Inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and Includes the folioactivities on the trees: V • 45 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 28 Tree Coppiced (cut down to stump, but stump 0 expected to resprout) • Prune 78 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) d • 24 snags (create 11 live and 13 dead wildlife snags) Q No Action on 86 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, U U 90 ferns and groundcover to Increase the species diversity on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development is an = approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential to buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building J and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is N located in the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. L NAME OF APPLICANT: Point Edwards Homeowners Association FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 DATE OF APPLICATION: December 28, 2020 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: January 28, 2021 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: February 10, 2021 LLI REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review for Landscape Amendment and Maintenance (Type III -A Permit Process). A = public hearing before the Architectural Design Board will be •0 scheduled at a future date. A Notice of Public Hearing will be Issued once the ADB dale has been scheduled. a OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: None. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas LO Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Geotechnical O Report, Wetland Report, Landscape Management Plan O COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: February 24, 2021 r Any person has the right to comment on this application during O public comment period, receive notice and participate in any (V hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. 0 The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the CV closing of the record of an open record predecislon hearing, if any, Z or, If no open record predecislon hearing is provided, prior to the J decision on the Project permit. Only parties of record as defined in a ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. `•� Information on this development application can be obtained online at http!//edmondswa.gov/public-notices-textldevelopment- notices.html under the development notice for application number +N+ PLN2020-0054, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by !_ calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the y application number for all inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Kamen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.lien(Medmondswa.gov U 425-771-0220 Published: February 10, 2021. EDH919635 Ca Q s 3 0 0_ W la 0) LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J a w c m E U Q Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 02/10/2021 09:33:18 am Page: 2 Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 312 2.2.a FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 Applicant: Point Edwards HOA DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 6t" day of August, 2021, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA determination was mailed by the City of Edmonds to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 61h day of Augus,021, at Edmon*1_1\Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 313 2.2.a FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 Applicant: Point Edwards HOA DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 6th day of August, 2021, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA determination was posted at the subject property, City Hall, the Public Safety Building and Library in accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.03.002 and ECC 1.03.020. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 6th day of August, 021, at Edmonds, Washington. ' d Signed:`""— ti {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 314 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 260 trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 35 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead stumps) • 22 Tree Coppiced (trees to be maintained as large shrubs) • Prune 80 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) • 31 wildlife snags (create 16 live and 15 dead wildlife snags) • No Action on 89 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 ferns and groundcover to increase the species diversity on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development is an approximately 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is located in the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. NAME OF APPLICANT: Point Edwards Homeowners Association FILE NO.: PLN2020-0054 REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review (Type III -A Permit Process, Public Hearing and Decision by the Architectural Design Board) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 1, 2021 Any person has the right to comment on this application during 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 record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.eov/services/public involvement/public notices/develoomen t notices under the development notice for application number PLN2020-0054, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771- 0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on September 1, 2021 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/s/95360544929?pwd=ZmdOREFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkNUxMZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 315 2.2.a Meeting ID: 953 6054 4929 Password: 818962 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. DNS Mitigation Condition: All tree removal, coppicing and snag creation activity must occur outside of the nesting season. These tree cutting activities may occur approximately late August through early February. DATE OF ISSUANCE: August 6, 2021 SEPA COMMENTS: Comments regarding the SEPA determination are due August 20, 2021. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than August 27, 2021 by 4:00 p.m. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager kernen.Iien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 316 2.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Maggie Boyd being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH934923 PLN2020-0054 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/06/2021 and ending on 08/06/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $1 ] 0.60. d *�� Subscribed and sworn ore me on this �L day of Nota Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Linda Phillips Notary Public She of Washington LMyAPP0'ntme-nt Expires 011/29/2021 AA. Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 317 2.2.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Point Edwards Homeowners Association has submitted a design review application for landscape modification and vegetation maintenance in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The project location Is primarily on the north and west slopes of the Point Edwards site where 260 trees have been inventoried. The plan will be implemented over three phases and includes the following activities on the trees: • 35 Tree Removals (cut down and leave dead slumps) • 22 Tree Coppiced (trees to be maintained as large shrubs) • Prune 80 Trees (selective trimming of branches to change tree's shape) • 31 wildlife snags (create 16 Ilve and 15 dead wildlife snags) No'Actlon on 89 of the trees The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs, 90 terns and groundcover to increase the species diversity on the pro sct site. PR OJEC LOCATION: Point Edwards Development, 93 Pine Street, Edmonds WA. The Point Edwards development Is an apppfaldmelely 20-acre site that includes nine residential buildings (with a total of 261 units), one administration building and two amenity buildings. The tree cutting and maintenance is located In the open space/common area on the north and west slopes of the development. NAME OF APPLICANT: Point Edwards Homeowners Association FILE NO.: PLN2020.0054 REQUESTED PERMIT: Design Review (Type III -A Perini) Process. Public Hearing and Decision by the Architectural Design Board) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 1, 2021 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on ilia application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https:/Avww-eclmonds%va.gov/services/publlc_involvement/PLib(IC notices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2020- 0054, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on September 1, 2021 at 7 pm. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.usls]95360544929?pwd=ZmdOR EFORI(E3RkRaeV dBRmpkNUxMZz09 Or via phone by dialing 263-215-8782 Meeting ID: 953 6054 4929 Password: 818962 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has Issued a MI8 ated Delemlination of Nonsigraficance under WAC 19-11-340(2) for the above project. DNS Mitigation Condition: All tree removal, coppTcing and snag creation activity must occur outside of the nesting season. These tree cutting activlies may occur approximately late August through early February. DATE OF ISSUANCE: August 6, 2021 SEPA COMMENTS: Comments regarding the SEPA determination are due August 20, 2021, SEPAAPPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by Proofed by Boyd, Maggie, 08/06/2021 09:28:34 am Page: 2 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 318 Classified Proof 2.2.a filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than August 27, 2021 by 4= p.m. Only parties of record as dented In ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager i'_ kemen.11en@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Published: August 6, 2021. EDH934923 Proofed by Boyd, Maggie, 08/06/2021 09:28:34 am I Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 319 2.2.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM February 11, 2021 Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN2020-0054 — Design Review for Tree Cutting Point Edwards — 93 Pine Street Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. As discussed in the application documents, a stormwater pond exists on the north side of the property. In addition, there are both private and public utilities located within the vicinity of proposed work. The City's GIS web map can be referred to for approximate location of utilities, but as a precautionary measure utility locates shall be called for prior to any tree removal. The City's GIS map can be found at www.maps.edmondswa.gov. GIS snap shots of the various utility systems at the site have been provided at the end of this memo. In addition to protecting utilities while work is being performed, all work shall be done in a manner that minimizes slope disturbance as well as disturbance to the stormwater pond. Page 10 of the Point Edwards Assocation Permit III -A Permit Application: Design Review for Vegetation Modifications on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope, dated December 16, 2020, provides the that following methods will be used: "All work will be done by hand to protect the integrity of the slope. There will not be any grading or changes to the slope. There will not be any modification to the slope contour, nor will any heavy equipment or machinery ever be used to move or compact soil. The three project Phases will be completed by people using small handheld, gas -powered tools such as chainsaws and/or trimmers, or using handheld digging tools like shovels and wheelbarrows. If a wood -chipper is used to create mulch, it will never enter the slope or be positioned on bare soil. Instead, the chipper would be parked on the existing access road to the pond; with debris manually carried off the slope to be processed on the road. Only material blocking replanting will be removed from the slope to turn into mulch, and it will in turn be used to mulch new plants". Attachment 18 Packet Pg. 320 2.2.a West and North slope areas as provided for in the Point Edwards Landscape Management Plan 2020 CITY GIS WEBMAP UTILITY SNAP SHOTS: City (public) storm main shown in GREEN Private storm system shown in _ LLLOW Attachment 18 1Packet Pg. 321 2.2.a City (public) water main shown in BLUE Private sewer main shown in ORANGE Attachment 18 Packet Pg. 322 2.2.a My name is Blair Bernson. I am a resident at Point Edwards and offer some comments on the Point Edwards Homeowners Association, Permit Type III -A; Variance for Ongoing and Single -Event Landscape Maintenance on a Geologically Sensitive Critical Slope. I have no background in geotechnical matters but do have significant background and experience in one area of possible concern for the project. That area relates to birds and how the project might affect birdlife. Some background. I am an avid birder and have been birding locally, nationally and internationally for 50 years. I am a member of Pilchuck Audubon, the Washington Ornithological Society and the American Birding Association and a Master Birder under that Program through the Seattle Audubon Society. I have led many field trips, including for Edmonds Birdfest and have been a program speaker for many programs at Point Edwards and a half dozen birding groups — primarily in Washington. None of that makes me a professional ornithologist but I have thousands of hours of experience in the field including specifically many hours birding on and near the Point Edwards property including the Edmonds Marsh, the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery and the Union Oil property. All of these areas are interrelated and important to me. I have had an opportunity to review the permit application and supporting materials and have a good sense of how the Point Edwards HOA and its Landscape Manager, Bel Johnson, attend to projects and maintenance at Point Edwards. This is important because it is not just the planning but also the execution that determines the success of a project. Setting the proper goals is of course critical, but reaching and retaining them is what really makes a difference. Bel and her team are committed to that and are excellent. Any time trees and other plants are removed or pruned, there is going to be some impact and the potential for harm to a habitat, an environment. However, there is also the opportunity for improvement. I just returned from a birding trip with friends in the Walla Walla area where among other things, we observed several mitigation projects they had been involved with, where slope, drainage and reforestation remediation had significantly enhanced habitat and wildlife in addition to stabilizing erosion, streambanks and also providing an improved aesthetic. These were multi -acre projects but involve the same issues and opportunities involved in the Point Edwards Project. The key was ongoing consideration of the need for bank and slope stabilization coupled with careful protection of the better existing vegetation (trees and shrubs and grasses), the removal of harmful or endangered ones, and their replacement with native and diverse vegetation. This latter point is critical and should be and is a part of the Point Edwards planning. On Sunday I walked and birded the area in question at Point Edwards as well as the neighboring Union Oil site. While the existing vegetation (again trees, shrubs and grasses) does provide habitat for some bird life, it could be significantly improved with appropriate removal and replacement emphasizing more native and natural and more diverse species. And it is apparent that there should be significant concern for slope erosion and loss. If this occurred the impact on habitat would be substantial. Although not specifically relevant here, I cannot resist the opportunity to comment that by far the most important land use consideration will be what occurs on the Union Oil property and hopefully that development will be required to maximize benefits to the habitat there as it is inextricably tied to the Marsh, the Hatchery and the Point Edwards buffer. It is my sense from the steps taken by the HOA including the hiring of a environmentally sensitive horticulturist that their plan will first and foremost stabilize soil, erosion and slope conditions and will consider specific impacts on bird and wildlife during and after the project is undertaken and result in a net improvement. If they proceed as planned to provide more diverse and wildlife friendly plantings, we should be able to enjoy birding there for years to come. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 323 2.2.a From: Andrea Bonnicksen <bonnicksen22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 1:46 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Andrea Bonnicksen Subject: PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am writing in support of the permit application and proposed Land Use Management Plan pertaining to Point Edwards (PLN2020-0054). The property in question is adjacent in part to the Chevron property, which has an alder forest. It is an area with public access (a walkway and grass slopes).The proposed permit is designed to remedy problems related to the growth of the forest. If left largely untended, the surrounding area will be left open to landslides, uprooted trees, and early movement. At present the trees are weakened by wind and snow. The key purpose of the proposed action is to enhance slope preservation and promote healthy and stable slopes. While the primary purpose is to enhance slope preservation, steps to short up the slope will open the viewing available from the slope and overlooks, which was originally seen as a benefit of this public area. I urge you to support these proposals that will (1) provide much needed management of the area, (2) substitute new management plans that are consistent with that needed to protect the wooded area, (3) do this without a net loss of rees, (4) open the view available to owners and the surrounding community, and (5) protect against slope erosion. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrea Bonnicksen 75 Pine Street # 204 Edmonds WA 98020 bonnicksen22kgmail. com Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 324 2.2.a From: Ron Eber <ronaldeber@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:22 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Pt. Edwards Tree Cutting Proposal Kernen: I have briefly look over the application and materials relative to this application. I am in total support of the comments submitted my Save Our Marsh with respect to their concerns about the impact this activity may have on the wildlife corridor and Edwards Marsh environment. I am also concerned about any possible negative impacts to possible nesting sites in the identified trees or corridor. I noticed a possible nest on the North slope on Tuesday 2/23 when walking down on the Port Property near the docks. I do not know if it is an active or abandoned nest but this should be checked. If a Heron or eagle nest or area, these are sensitive and should be protected. The Edmonds Marsh and its surrounding and supportive wildlife habitat is a special resource for the City and region and should be given priority over improved viewsheds in any nearby development. Thank you for the opportunity to review and submit comments and please make these general comments and concerns part of the record for this application. Ronald Eber 50 Pine Street, Unit 204 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 325 2.2.a From: Marjie Fields <mvfields@me.com> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 9:48 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Paine, Susan; Monillas, Adrienne; Distelhorst, Luke; Buckshnis, Diane; Johnson, Laura; Johnson, Kristiana; Olson, Vivian Subject: Pt Edwards tree cutting?? Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I'm pretty nervous about this proposal from Point Edwards. We have a bad history there. It sounds like a lot of tree removals, even though some are called "coppiced" — it sounds like the same thing. I get a total of 73 trees cut, and I have no way of knowing the extent of the pruning on another 78 trees. Also, what does it mean to create snags?? How is the city going to determine what effect all this tree cutting will have on birds and other wildlife? This property is adjacent to a wildlife sanctuary and used by the same creatures; the animals and birds don't understand property lines. I am skeptical about the landscape manager's argument that the proposed actions will be good for the environment as well as for the views. Marjie Fields Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 326 2.2.a From: Gerry Gibson <bonger@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 9:01 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Permit/Application PLN2020-0054 I am writing to you in support of the permit referenced above. There are numerous reasons for requesting your support : The permit and the landscape management plan sets forth the right and responsible action; everything and everyone wins with this. The slopes on the Point Edwards property will be made safer, more stable, and better managed. Everyone wants this. Neglect of the slopes has serious negative consequences. The environment, vegetation, and wildlife will be better preserved and benefit with the slope maintenance. Certainly, everyone wants this. Views for the many home owners and those using the public access areas can be maintained as well as the property tax levels. Again everyone favors this. In fact, the city Citizen Housing Commission listed on 8/15/20 that the #1 city resident concern is the "importance of maintaining the character of Edmonds - mainly views ...". Again, for the above reasons and many many more, I request your support of this permit application. Thank you, Gerry Gibson 71 Pine St. #209 Edmonds Ph. 425-330-5238 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 327 2.2.a From: Marthlyn Jones <mjones026@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:41 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Point Edwards Tree Removal Dear Mr. Lien, read the proposal and studied the maps for the petition to remove trees at Point Edwards, and I have some concerns. According to the petition 175 trees will be altered (removed, turned into stumps, pruned) across the area in front of the entire Point Edwards complex, yet only 45 trees will be replanted and all of those are in section 102 on the east side. That means the entire border with the Unocal property which borders the Marsh and through which Willow Creek runs will have no trees replanted. Do we know what the impact will be for birds and other wildlife in those areas? 2. On the SEPA form under "Animals" only rabbit and coyote are noted. There are no listings under the headings for birds or fish. The truth is, the Point Edwards Community Trail is listed as a birding hotspot on the popular bird website eBird. Fifty-seven bird species have been sighted from the trail in recent years. You can see the list here: https://ebird.org/hotspot/L6097875 Shouldn't this information be included on the SEPA checklist? 3. The petition states that they will plant shrubs and groundcover to "increase species diversity." There is already a lot of species diversity documented in the area. We need to understand how all the species that are present now use the current vegetation before we make drastic changes to it. What is their documentation that this will increase species diversity? 4. The petition states that there will be no tree work within 200 feet of any of the waterways that are nearby including the Marsh, Deer Creek Hatchery, Willow Creek, and the Unocal property. None of those properties were shown on the tree maps so how do we know that claim is accurate? And how will the pond on the Point Edwards property be affected? As one of many Edmonds citizens who care deeply about preserving all of our remaining natural areas, I believe that we need an independent evaluation by a wildlife ecologist to answer questions about how wildlife is currently utilizing the areas that would be affected; what the impact to wildlife would be from removing, coppicing, and pruning 175 trees; whether or not replanting with shrubs and groundcovers would Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 328 2.2.a increase species diversity; how removal of trees might impact the waters that are nearby; and whether there is indeed a 200-foot buffer between the tree removal areas and the streams and wetlands. Many Edmonds citizens were appalled and sickened when the tall trees in this area were butchered illegally one weekend during the building of Point Edwards many years ago —trees where bald eagles roosted and herons nested. We need to be extremely cautious and diligent in our examination of the proposal and the impacts it could have on Edmonds' other citizens, our wildlife. Please don't sacrifice nature for all to a view for a few. Thank you for your consideration. Marthlyn Jones 1045 Daley Street Edmonds, 98020 425-775-3816 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 329 2.2.a From: SUSAN LARSON <earlsusan@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:02 AM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Bel Johnson Subject: PLN2020-0054 - Public Comment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To: The City of Edmonds and the Architectural Design Board Att: Kernen Lien From: Earl and Susan Larson Re: Point Edwards Land Use Management Plan - PLN2020-0054 Date: February 24, 2021 As both residents of Point Edwards and the unique city of Edmonds, we highly endorse the proposal in the Land Use Management Plan. Naturally our views are very important to us as they are to all inhabitants of such a beautiful setting as Edmonds. Be it "The Bowl", downtown, the marina, etc., we live in a breathtaking area. Two factors are of utmost importance, the first being the added safety for hillside stabilization. The other factor of high importance is the revegetation of trees and understory plants that will bring back a variety of food and shelter for the wildlife. To enjoy all the animals, deer, coyotes, raccoons etc. that live in this area has been a thrill and we are seeing less and less. These points are well addressed in the Master Plan. It is also important that the Land Use Management Plan restore the accessibility for all to the public paths and outlooks along Pine Street. As the trees have grown over the years, we have noticed a decline in the use of these very community focused amenities. We feel this plan is a win/win situation for all residents, not only of Point Edwards but the City of Edmonds. Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to seeing you all on the public paths and overlooks. Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 330 2.2.a From: JACK MARTIN <jfmartin1969@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20214:38 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Permit/Application PLN2020-0054 Dear Mr. Lien - I fully support the application from Point Edwards HOA listed above. I am a resident but also a retired Development Manager for the Canyon Park Business Center I know and understand the work necessary to maintain developed properties. The effort and design of the Landscape Maintenance plan together with the thought put into the design plan speaks to the environmental concerns and solutions. Keeping the north slope protected with excellent management practices is a benefit to the community for the view corridors preserved for the both for the public and residents. Please have this message forwarded to the decision makers. Looking forward to permit approval. Jack and Karen Martin 61 Pine St.#108 Edmonds, WA Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 331 2.2.a From: Darlene Miller <rkmiller4@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:34 PM To: "Kernen Lien" <Kernen.Lien@EdmondsWa.gov Cc: 'Bel Johnson' Subject: Public Comments re PLN2020-0054 To: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager; City of Edmonds Planning Division From: Rick and Darlene Miller 51 Pine St., Unit 310; Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Land Use Management Plan and Slope Permit Application from Point Edwards — PLN2020-0054 Dear City of Edmonds, Thank you for considering the Slope Permit Application and Land Use Management Plan from the Point Edwards HOA due to the extensive benefit their approval will bring to everyone in Edmonds who doesn't want mudslides and/or rides the Sounder Train or Amtrak, enjoys the view from the Southwest part of the city, and cares about wildlife. We have lived in Edmonds since September 1981 and have been driving past the property the Slope Permit applies to since the Chevron Oil tanks were there. When the city allowed the removal of those ugly tanks, required the proper and thorough clean-up for the land, and stipulated that public walking and viewing areas must be a part of the redevelopment, we were grateful. We took advantage of the views and overlooks many times, and we understand the negative impact landslides have on the economy as well as Edmonds in general. After moving to Point Edwards in 2019, we've been able to enjoy the views and wildlife on a regular basis and continue to care deeply about the public impact an unhealthy slope will have on the environment, wildlife and views. During this Pandemic, many more visitors than before have been out walking in this area, taking advantage of the wildlife viewing and scenic views, which is sure to continue even once life returns to normal, increasing the importance of this Land Use Management Plan. The slope permit plans will improve the quality of the SW Edmonds environment by removing/reducing problematic tree species as needed to ensure the slope stays healthy with the types of trees that will return and then keep the slope strong and healthy all the while keeping wildlife safe and healthy there also. This is an important benefit to everyone in Edmonds due to the viewing overlooks and path that encourage visitor use. Otherwise, the Alders and other problem trees will choke -out more appropriate tree species which will lead to slope destabilization, proliferation of the problematic Alder trees which in turn will reduce the public view point and walkway view corridors and reduce the environment quality for birds and other animals. We ask that you do your part to ensure the slope surrounding the Point Edwards condominium complex can be managed in an environmentally -wise way to ensure the slope, trees and Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 332 2.2.a wildlife stay healthy as well as view corridors are improved and maintained. To do nothing would almost ensure an unstable slope, which would lead to landslides, loss of wildlife and loss of views for everyone in Edmonds who desires to enjoy the view from the overlooks and paths that were provided for many years ago. Sincerely, Rick and Darlene Miller Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 333 2.2.a From: FRANK H MONTGOMERY <frank.montgomery@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 3:15 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Bel Johnson Subject: COE PROPOSED LAND USE MGT PLAN PLN2020-0054 My wife and I are writing to support the proposed Land Use Management Plan PLN 2020-0054. We support this proposal for a number of reasons -- *View enhancement. While the views from our unit will not be affected if the proposal is approved, there are many residents of Point Edwards (PE) who will have corridors opened to the city and Puget Sound. Also, the benefit will not be just for PE residents but for all residents of and visitors to Edmonds who drive into the neighborhood and stop to enjoy the views of the bowl, downtown, water and mountains from one of the 3 Pine Street lookouts that PE maintains with tables and chairs for public use. *Slope preservation. To avoid the probability of future landslides and earth movement, work needs to be done to remove and groom certain trees and replace them with trees that will reduce damage to the slope. * Wildlife diversity. As avid birders for many years, we have enjoyed the wildlife we have around PE, but I look forward to the additional variety of trees, remaining snags, and new shrubs and plants that will provide seeds and berries fostering a larger population of birds and other wildlife. The project will be supervised by the PE Landscape Manager, a highly respected landscape designer with support from a certified arborist. The work will be done with the ecological awareness and sensitivity that is shown in the beauty and care given to the current PE property, and by protecting existing wildlife and avoiding harsh chemical treatments and heavy equipment. In summary PE wants to ensure the health and stability of its North slope property by replacing a dense forest of red alder with no understory and ground covered by ivy and other plants unfriendly to wildlife with trees of varying heights, snags, and a large selection of plantings that provide seeds and berries for wildlife. While this project will provide benefits to PE and Edmonds residents, it will also stabilize the slope and support a growing wildlife population with a more diverse habitat and source of food, forage and nesting. Frank & Mary Montgomery 65 Pine St #304 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 334 2.2.a From: Bobbie Nicholson <bobbie nicholson@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:34 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: City of Edmonds - PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We are writing in support of PLN2020-0054 and the thinning, topping and removal of alder on the north slope of the Point Edwards development. There are a great number of reasons one might cite, and here are just a few. 1. Without proper management of alder overgrowth there is risk of erosion with the likely consequence of landslides. We have only to look up north on the rail lines to know how destructive landslides have been to both Edmonds and Everett. We must do all we can to eliminate such damage to the north slope of Point Edwards. 2. Without proper management of alder overgrowth more desirable trees are choked out. Fowl and wildlife may be adversely affected. 3. Unmanaged alder snap off in wind storms or under snow load and not only damage soil but become an eyesore to the entire community. This community has worked hard and invested greatly in having a beautiful waterfront — and the Point Edwards slope contributes to that beauty. 4. Unmanaged alder growth encourages pests. Just last year (and in many other years as well) Washington had a "crisis" of gypsy moths. Alder are known "hosts" for these pests and invite the use of possibly harmful pesticides to remedy the problem. 5. Without proper management of alder overgrowth the property values will decline, and the City and County will therefore receive less revenue. We moved into Point Edwards a mere 3'/2 years ago and already our view is compromised. Give those trees another 3 '/z years and we'll no longer see anything but distant islands. If we lose our views, we will have no choice but to protest valuations. There will likely be those who consider themselves to be "protectors of the environment" who will argue for denial or amendment of the plan. However, common sense dictates that those who live at Point Edwards ought to be given preference in consideration since they are the ones who invested in the subject property and stand to lose the most when the adverse consequences noted above occur. Likewise, those who live in 5 Corners or Meadowdale, or in Perrinville or Esperance, or any of the other Edmonds neighborhood should be given preference when speaking to the issues that relate to their neighborhoods. This issue is a Point Edwards issue. Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 335 2.2.a One of the amenities Point Edwards residents pay top dollar for is a first-rate landscape team. That management team costs the City of Edmonds NOTHING — but still benefits the City, its residents and visitors. The grounds, the public walkways, and the views from the public oversights on Pine Street are happily shared with visitors who come to take in the beauty of this region. We look up at one such viewpoint from our unit, and see people looking through the complimentary scopes daily. We see families stopping to eat their lunch at the patio furniture provided for the public while enjoying the ferry and boat traffic. We watch people park their cars and take out strollers just to be able to enjoy a safe area in which little kids can explore or skip on maintained walkways. If we desire to keep this pristine setting for generations to come, managing the weed -like growth of alder must be a part of the plan. We urge the Architectural Design Board to approve PLN2020-0054. Respectfully, Rod M. Nicholson Bobbie (Barbara) Nicholson 65 Pine Street, APT 204 Edmonds, WA Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 336 2.2.a From: Joe Niemer <pjniemer@aol.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 6:12 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: permit PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please expedite the approval of this permit. The significant amount of time, money and diligence put into this permit is all but overwhelming. Further delay in the approval process is entirely unwarranted. The minimal impact on the environment of Edmonds is far outweighed by the view preservation and restoration. Please, no further delays. Joe Niemer 9792 Edmonds Way Edmonds Sent from the all new Aol app for 10S Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 337 2.2.a From: bebopbill <bebopbill@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:54 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Council; bel@pointedwardshoa.com Subject: Fwd: Tree Removal at Point Edwards To whom it may concern; I whole heartedly endorse, echo and amplify the enclosed letter by Save the Marsh. We went down there and it was hard to tell exactly what trees are in question. Is there a map posted somewhere that shows what trees are proposed to be cut. That's a lot of trees that you want to cut. I would encourage you to space out your timetable, and not cut so many at once. We saw the black coyote when we were down there. This is truly a wildlife refuge. By cutting so many trres at once , you are directly impacting the Marsh ecosystem. And it being on a steep slope above a wet land, I would think that this is a critical area , and all tree cutting should be limited and curtailed. Pleas be responsible environmental stewards ! Thank you ! Bill Phipps -------- Original message -------- From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Date: 2/23/21 8:44 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Kernen Lien <kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov>, mtmian1946@gmail.com, bel@pointedwardshoa.com Cc: Edmonds City Council <council@edmondswa.gov>, Mayor Nelson <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Removal at Point Edwards Mr. Lien - please view the following message to the Point Edwards Homeowners Association as a public comment on Permit Application PLN2020-0054. To: Point Edwards Homeowners Association, We urge you to revisit your Landscape Management Plan with an eye towards the adverse as well as beneficial aspects of vegetation management on wildlife in the area. We appreciate the desire to maintain views of the beautiful environs around Pt. Edwards, and only ask that your landscape planning take into account and "balance" the value of trees for life history needs of wildlife (as well as human health) with property owner desires for open views. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 338 2.2.a The vegetated strip on the hillside below the condos is part of the Willow Creek wildlife corridor, and the timing, numbers, and species of trees removed and replanted should take this into account. Removing patches of mature trees all at one time is likely to adversely affect the wildlife that utilize those trees and affiliated habitat. Great blue herons used to nest in areas of dense alder trees between the Marsh and the Pt Edwards property, and herons have been observed in recent years carrying nesting material over the Marsh (though no active nests have yet been documented). Bushtits and other birds commonly use alder trees for their nests. Deer fawns and coyote pups have also been observed in the wildlife corridor. As you know, with WSDOT terminating their plan to relocate the ferry terminal below Pt Edwards, the Save Our Marsh group has urged the City and State to designate the old Unocal property as a wildlife reserve (or sanctuary) with a tidal channel across it to bring back salmon and restore the estuary. Thus, vegetation management on the hillside above the old Unocal property will be important for and affect wildlife restoration. We ask that the Point Edwards Homeowners Association consider incorporating the "Certified Wildlife Habitat" criteria established by the National Wildlife Federation (see: https://www.nwf.org/certify ) into your Landscape Management Plan, and obtain wildlife habitat certification and post signs of such on your property. We'd also suggest the association consult a wildlife ecologist in making necessary revisions to the Landscape Management Plan. We did note that the SEPA checklist that you sent to the City of Edmonds does not adequately address wildlife in the area, nor the potential adverse effects of tree removal on wildlife. Further, the SEPA checklist does not acknowledge the wildlife value and usage of the stormwater detention pond on your property. Even though it is a manmade pond, it has become a valuable asset to wildlife and any tree removal near the pond can adversely affect that wildlife. Bill Anderson, a local wildlife enthusiast and photographer who recently passed away, documented 28 different bird species from 2013 to 2016 in the "Point Edwards Walkway, Condos, Unocal" area. The following bird species that Bill has documented at Point Edwards should be addressed in the SEPA document: Canada goose, Gadwall, Mallard, Northern shoveler, Redhead, Ring-necked duck, California quail, Great blue heron, Green heron, Bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, Sharp -shinned hawk, Rufous hummingbird, Anna's hummingbird, Northern flicker, Steller's jay, American crow, Violet -green swallow, Barn swallow, Bushtit, Bewick's wren, Ruby -crowned kinglet, American robin, Cedar waxwing, Song Sparrow, Dark -eyed junco, Red -winged blackbird, and American goldfinch. Deer (adults and fawn), coyotes (adults and pups) and racoons have also been observed at Pt Edwards and should be addressed in the SEPA document. Thank you for your consideration of our request to modify your Landscape Management Plan to "balance" wildlife needs and the value of mature trees to human health and well being with your goal to maintain views. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 339 2.2.a From: Pam Erickson <Erickson1840@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2021 2:05 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: PLN2020-0054 Pam Erickson's comments Subject: PLN2020-0054 Pam Erickson's comments From: Pamela Erickson 45 Pine St#211 Edmonds, WA 98020 Erickson 1840C@outlook.com RE: PLN2020-0054 Dear City of Edmonds, Permit Dept: I have been a resident of Point Edwards for over 8 years. During this time, I have worked closely with the Landscape Committee and with our PE HOA. It has been a fundamental philosophy of our management to integrate organic and indigenous flora and fauna into our grounds maintenance practices. We take these issues very seriously and are passionate about protecting our environment. We know PE is very special and it is a privilege to live here. And with that privilege comes the responsibility to care for it long term. The slope preservation issue is an example of the necessity for a long term investment in a maintenance practice as detailed in our permit. An example of a more immediate impact would be to the birds who use these grounds to rest, feed, and nest. Opening up the canopy and replanting with indigenous plant life will enhance the grounds for all wildlife. Some of our residents are life long birders and they support diverse and healthy flora to attract and keep birds on our grounds. PE HOA, represented by our professional Landscape Manager, Bel Johnson, has worked closely with the City of Edmonds to ensure our permit meets with the letter and intent of the law and best practices. We want to manage our grounds legally and ethically. Thank you for giving the residents an opportunity to speak to the issue. Pamela Erickson Sent from my iPhone Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 340 2.2.a From: David Richman <tithonia65@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:49 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Save Our Marsh Subject: Point Edwards Tree Removal Application Dear Mr. Lien: As a frequent visitor to the area of the Willow Creek Hatchery/Demonstration Gardens, I was somewhat surprised to see the tree removal notice along Pine Street. I appreciate that you are planning to replace the trees, but saplings are not mature trees. It is also disturbing that a wildlife professional has not been consulted, as noted in your email to Save The Edmonds Marsh. Unfortunately this is too often the case when tree removal is considered. I am also unclear as to the purpose or the necessity of this removal. Since these questions seem to be unanswered I am forced to believe that the project should at least be delayed until they are. Sincerely, David B. Richman 534 2nd Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 575-693-9099 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 341 2.2.a From: donald ricker <dcricker99@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:21 PM To: Lien, Kernen; Bel Subject: Pt. Edwards SLOPE PERMIT #PLN2020-0054 Subject: SLOPE PERMIT#PLN2020-0054 I have been a resident of the City of Edmonds since July 1995 and a resident of the Point Edmonds community since January 2007. I moved to Pt. Edwards to take in the beautiful vistas from my apartment, the public viewpoints along Pine Street and the public viewpoints along the public pathway in front of Pt. Edwards's buildings #61 and #71 and I hope with the approval of this permit many of those beautiful views will be for all to enjoy for years to come. As there was no previously approved landscape plan for bluff views overlooking the marsh, marina and Puget sound very little has been done to allow the views to be maintained and the critical slope maintained in a safe manner. Over past few years I have seen the growth of enormous amounts of underbrush and large Alder and evergreen trees, so as to eliminate or severely restrict those views during certain times of the year. At certain points in front of bldg. 51 the evergreen trees and brush are very close to the building that in the dry season are a fire hazard. The fire could start at the flat land below the building and swoop up the slope to the building before reasonable fire suppression equipment could be activated to put out the fire. In addition, the height of the trees growing on the slope is excessive not only for the view preservation, but with the trees growing "top heavy" they are prone to fall over in a big wind event and potentially take out part of the slope and affecting the overall integrity of the slope As a homeowner, living on the top of the slope, I am concerned about the need to retain the integrity of the slope and to retain the public view ways not only for my apartment, but to keep open the public view ways for the rest of Edmonds citizens to enjoy. Thanks, Kernen, to you and the City of Edmonds staff who have provided direction and encouragement to us in preparing this slope permit. Donald Ricker 51 Pine street #308 Edmonds, WA Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 342 2.2.a From: Susie Schaefer <susie.schaefer@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 20214:32 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: PLN2020-0054Notice of Application -Edward Tree Cutting Dear Mr. Lien, Here are a few comments about the Pont Edwards Homeowners new plan for additional cutting and major pruning of the trees on the north and west slopes of the property. I walked up there yesterday to better understand the plan and am now even more concerned. I do know that the e-birds reports show that at least 58 species of birds have been documented in the area but have not done a seasonal review of the information. I am not aware of other documentation sources for other wildlife use by butterflies, bats, frogs, garter snakes and salamander, mammals (large and small) or other amphibians and more information is needed. More documentation is needed before such cutting and pruning should be approved. Wildlife numbers in all of Edmonds have decreased over the last 40 years that I have lived here. I am asking for a denial or at least a delay of this application until there can be a comprehensive analaysis of the cumulative effects of tree cutting in Edmonds has been done. Susie Schaefer 1055 Edmonds St. Edmond WA. 98020 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 343 2.2.a From: Mike Shaw <mikeshaw69@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:26 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Joe Scordino; Marjorie Fields Subject: PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To Kernen Lien; This email has to do with the proposed landscape amendment by the Point Edward Homeowners Association, that described tree removal, tree pruning, and restorative planting in the area in front of Point Edwards in Edmonds, Wa. (PLN2020-0054) I have several points to make, and in no particular order here they are: 1. With a previous history of unauthorized (and very environmentally detrimental) tree removal in their past, have the Point Edwards people shown the awareness and willingness to do better this time? 2. If active bird nests (ones birds are currently using, and that may have eggs in them) are discovered in any of the trees to be cut down, is there a plan? 3. If active bird nests are discovered in any of the trees to be pruned, will they be treated with all due caution and respect? 4. If animal dens or burrows are discovered in the areas necessary to achieve tree removal or pruning, will they be left undisturbed as much as possible? 5. Will care be taken not to let potential pollutants (petrochemicals, pesticides, high -nitrogen and/or high -phosphorous fertilizers) leach into the ground/groundwater? 6. Will the access footprint for this activity be as small and minimally invasive as possible? 7. If any of the above is NOT achieved, is there a plan for mitigation/restoration? 8. Will the company chosen for this work be vetted and held accountable for a high environmental and ecological awareness, sensitivity and track record? I look forward with great interest to the answers to these questions. There are undoubtedly more that I haven't thought of yet; I hope other people ask them during the Public Comment period. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 344 2.2.a Thanks for your time and consideration, Mike Shaw 716 Driftwood PI Edmonds, WA 425-778-9820 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 345 2.2.a February 22, 2021 Comments on PLN2020-0054 Mr. Lien, We want to offer our voices in support of the permit application submitted by PEHOAA. As newer homeowners here in Point Edwards (not quite 2 years) we are very grateful to live in this beautiful community and we salute ALL who have worked many years and so diligently to maintain the grounds we enjoy in living here. The views from the overlooks and public pathway are spectacular and enjoyed by us when we walk the community loop. Our particular ground unit does not offer a panoramic view of the bowl or the Sound but we feel so fortunate to be here, having met many very dedicated neighbors who share our desire to take great care of our grounds and Point Edwards community, and in sharing the beauty of this place with those who visit. We consider ourselves strong supporters of a beautiful and healthy landscape with plantings that strengthen the stability of our slopes and enhance the well being of area birds and wildlife. We want to be a part of good stewardship of the beauty around us which surely includes whatever remediation is needed and revegetation of the areas specified in the permit application. We very much admire and are grateful for the great work our Landscape Manager, Bel' Johnson and her staff do for us year round; maintaining the grounds at the highest level possible AND doing so incorporating best practices, using organic and non -toxic products... which those of us with a little bit of garden area off patios also do per our community guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our support. We hope the permit application will be fairly reviewed and accepted in the next steps towards being granted. Landis and Pat Smaaladen Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 346 2.2.a From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 11:07 AM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Council; Nelson, Michael; mtmjan1946@gmail.com; bel@pointedwardshoa.com Subject: Point Edwards Tree Removal Application #PLN2020-0054 Attachments: IMG 1213.JPG Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged In response to the public notice (copy attached) placed on Pine Street near the Demo Garden and potential 'soon -to -be' Wildlife Sanctuary adjacent to Point Edwards, we request you provide us advance notice of all hearings, actions and subsequent documents posted at http://edmondswa.gov/public- notices-text/development-notices.html for Application Number PLN2020-0054. We have just begun to review the documents posted on the City's website and will be providing public comments. We initially have two questions: 1. Is the proposed site for tree removal in the vicinity of the 'illegal'tree removal that occurred when Point Edwards condos were developed and will the land management actions affect the mitigation that should have occurred for the illegal cutting? 2. Has a wildlife professional assessed the potential effects of the proposed landscape changes on wildlife in the area including 1) the resident bald eagles on Point Edwards; 2) the wildlife using the Demo Garden, the Willow Creek wildlife corridor, and the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary and Wildlife Sanctuary; and 3) wildlife that currently or in the future (after restoration) will utilize lower yard of the old Unocal property that has a large pond used by migrating waterfowl and is the potential site of an expanded Wildlife Sanctuary in Edmonds? Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 347 2.2.a From: Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:45 PM To: Lien, Kernen; mtmjan1946@gmail.com; bel@pointedwardshoa.com Cc: Council; Nelson, Michael Subject: Tree Removal at Point Edwards Mr. Lien - please view the following message to the Point Edwards Homeowners Association as a public comment on Permit Application PLN2020-0054. To: Point Edwards Homeowners Association, We urge you to revisit your Landscape Management Plan with an eye towards the adverse as well as beneficial aspects of vegetation management on wildlife in the area. We appreciate the desire to maintain views of the beautiful environs around Pt. Edwards, and only ask that your landscape planning take into account and "balance" the value of trees for life history needs of wildlife (as well as human health) with property owner desires for open views. The vegetated strip on the hillside below the condos is part of the Willow Creek wildlife corridor, and the timing, numbers, and species of trees removed and replanted should take this into account. Removing patches of mature trees all at one time is likely to adversely affect the wildlife that utilize those trees and affiliated habitat. Great blue herons used to nest in areas of dense alder trees between the Marsh and the Pt Edwards property, and herons have been observed in recent years carrying nesting material over the Marsh (though no active nests have yet been documented). Bushtits and other birds commonly use alder trees for their nests. Deer fawns and coyote pups have also been observed in the wildlife corridor. As you know, with WSDOT terminating their plan to relocate the ferry terminal below Pt Edwards, the Save Our Marsh group has urged the City and State to designate the old Unocal property as a wildlife reserve (or sanctuary) with a tidal channel across it to bring back salmon and restore the estuary. Thus, vegetation management on the hillside above the old Unocal property will be important for and affect wildlife restoration. We ask that the Point Edwards Homeowners Association consider incorporating the "Certified Wildlife Habitat" criteria established by the National Wildlife Federation (see: https://www.nwf.org/certify ) into your Landscape Management Plan, and obtain wildlife habitat certification and post signs of such on your property. We'd also suggest the association consult a wildlife ecologist in making necessary revisions to the Landscape Management Plan. We did note that the SEPA checklist that you sent to the City of Edmonds does not adequately address wildlife in the area, nor the potential adverse effects of tree removal on wildlife. Further, the SEPA checklist does not acknowledge the wildlife value and usage of the stormwater detention pond on your property. Even though it is a manmade pond, it has become a valuable asset to wildlife and any tree removal near the pond can adversely affect that wildlife. Bill Anderson, a local wildlife enthusiast and photographer who recently passed away, documented 28 different bird species from 2013 to 2016 in the "Point Edwards Walkway, Condos, Unocal" area. The Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 348 2.2.a following bird species that Bill has documented at Point Edwards should be addressed in the SEPA document: Canada goose, Gadwall, Mallard, Northern shoveler, Redhead, Ring-necked duck, California quail, Great blue heron, Green heron, Bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, Sharp -shinned hawk, Rufous hummingbird, Anna's hummingbird, Northern flicker, Steller's jay, American crow, Violet -green swallow, Barn swallow, Bushtit, Bewick's wren, Ruby -crowned kinglet, American robin, Cedar waxwing, Song Sparrow, Dark -eyed junco, Red -winged blackbird, and American goldfinch. Deer (adults and fawn), coyotes (adults and pups) and racoons have also been observed at Pt Edwards and should be addressed in the SEPA document. Thank you for your consideration of our request to modify your Landscape Management Plan to "balance" wildlife needs and the value of mature trees to human health and well being with your goal to maintain views. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 349 2.2.a From: Bob Spaulding <megaursa@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:20 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Public Comments Permit PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello, Mr. Lien: I'd like to comment on permit application PLN2020-0054. We are residents of the Point Edwards (PE) community and support the permit request for these reasons: 1) The preservation of the wooded slopes beneath the PE residential buildings is critical. That's why we have Bel Johnson, a professional landscape manager, to not just make the place look pretty but to protect the integrity of the environment in which we are located. Earth movement on the slopes due to mismanagement or no management could result in a catastrophe. 2) 'Bad' trees are crowding out'good' trees in the applicant area and our management should halt that. More good trees protect the slopes, improve the habitat for wildlife, limit forest damage and encourage a healthy forest that's less prone to wildfire, a growing threat. 3) Sure, Bel's efforts will improve the views of Puget Sound for some of our residents. (not us, we look inland) That's not only a good thing for PE, but also for the City as well. Why? Because better views mean higher taxes. A view of the Sound at PE is taxed as an amenity. No view equals lower tax. In fact, we have had many individual bills lowered because their view has been lost over time. 4) Personally, it seems to us that Chevron, who manages the land below us, has done quite little if anything to address any tree issues. We, on the other hand, have. Certainly those efforts should be viewed favorably. In summary, it looks like a win -win -win. PE wins with less possibility of our buildings tumbling down the hill, improved views, higher property values and happy residents, The City wins with better slope protection, higher taxes, better views from public overlooks on Pine St. and the satisfaction of having done the right thing. Last, nature wins. The bad trees are punished, good trees flourish, animals have better homes and natural resources are better utilized. Thank you for your collective time, attention and consideration. Joy & Bob Spaulding 41 Pine St. #309 Edmonds, WA 98020 303-585-0306 megaursa(a�yahoo.com Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 350 2.2.a From: Judith Triggs <jwtriggs@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 1:27 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Re: Permit number PLN2020-0054 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Kernen, I would like to comment on permit number PLN2020-0054. I have lived in Edmonds 28 years and am a member of Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, helped plan and execute the College Place Elementary School garden, and volunteer on the Landscape Committee at Point Edwards. I support the plan Landscape Manager Bel' Johnson and Arborist Justina Kraus propose. I know that slope preservation is their top priority. Alders are not the way to do it because they are shallow rooted, fast growing, and crowd out other trees that would help hold the hill. Removing some alder trees and replacing them with more suitable vegetation is necessary and also will attract more wildlife in the future. Sincerely, Judy Triggs 75 Pine Street #207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 351 2.2.a From: Laura Walls <Laura.D.Walls.12@nd.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:45 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Bel Johnson Subject: Comment on Permit PLN2020-0054, Point Edwards HOA To Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager, City of Edmonds: We write to affirm our joint and enthusiastic support for the proposed Land Use Management Plan and slope permit application submitted to the City of Edmonds by the Point Edwards Homeowners Association (permit number PLN2020-0054). We are owners of Building 61 Unit 212, which faces north overlooking Edmonds Marsh. In the several years since we purchased our property, we have been troubled as our views, along with those of our neighbors and public visitors, disappear behind screens of rapidly -growing even -age alders which now blanket large areas of the north slope, shading out other plants. This is not a functioning forest of diverse native trees and understory plants --not the kind of forest that supports the wildlife and birdlife we so enjoy at Pt. Edwards --but a weedy growth that filled in the disturbed land. The highly successful project of ecological restoration, already begun across this entire marsh and hillside area, urgently needs to be continued on the north slope, in order to assist natural regrowth by the planting, judicious pruning, and overall maintenance of the forest community. Not only will this assure a healthier and more aesthetically -pleasing landscape for all of us to enjoy, it will, by limiting the dominance of fast-growing but short-lived alders, help to stabilize the slope and aid in natural recolonization with a variety of native species. We are deeply impressed with the thought, care, ecological and scientific knowledge, and sensitivity to the concerns of residents and the public shown by this plan. We offer our thanks and praise to those who worked on it, and we strongly urge that it be permitted to go forward. This is a very exciting enhancement of all the reasons we chose to purchase property in Edmonds, specifically Point Edwards, and we look forward in the coming years to watching the north slope grow into a healthy, diverse, and handsome mixed forest community together with all the birds and wildlife that it will attract and support. Sincerely, Laura D. Walls and Robert E. Walls 61 Pine Street #210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 352 2.2.a From: Susan Williams <susanwilliams123@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 3:30 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: File Number: PLN2020-0054 Susan Williams 51 Pine Street #108 Edmonds, WA 98020 Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager RE: City of Edmonds - Notice of Application Name of Applicant: Point Edwards Homeowners Association File Number: PLN2020-0054 February 23, 2021 Dear Kernen: I am writing in regards to the Point Edwards Homeowners Association requested permit: Design Review for Landscape Amendment and Maintenance (Type III -A Permit Process). Over the years, the trees at Point Edwards have grown disproportionately large in relation to their original size and plantings. This is most noticeable on the north and west slopes where there is overcrowding and a significant chance of uprooting and causing landslides. In addition, they pose a crucial and significant fire hazard danger. Should the trees catch fire for any reason they are in a direct path to the surrounding buildings. The thick, bulky, overgrown trees are endangering the lives of hundreds of people within minutes It is critical that we remedy this issue without delay in order to maintain a safe living environment. Point Edwards Homeowners Association has spent an enormous amount of time researching a workable plan to remove the trees and make corrections with a plan for replanting that will be more beneficial for the wildlife and birds that inhabit the slopes. The changes requested at Point Edwards will enhance our environment with a strong overall slope preservation. Thank you. Sincerely, Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 353 2.2.a Susan Williams c 0 4. �a 0 a� Q. cc U N C R J N L 3 w c 0 IL le uO 0 0 0 N O N Z J d N r� C d E L V R r r Q t 3 0 Q. m R r LO 0 0 0 N O N Z J d C N E t V cC r� Q Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 354 2.2.a From: Lewis Wolkofsky <lewbtw@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 20214:08 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Karen Wolkofsky Subject: Fwd: Permit Number: PLN2020-0054 Dear Mr. Lien and Members of the Architectural Board, We would like to be as transparent as possible and state right off that we are residents of Point Edwards and the view from our condominium apartment is one of those that has been greatly compromised by tree growth in the last few years. That being said, we believe that we can still be objective in this matter. As we see it, there are three main issues regarding the permit request. The first (and most important) is slope enhancement and landslide mitigation. As per the Geo-Tech study, it is our understanding that the proposed project will promote the growth of shrubs and trees that will strengthen the slope as compared to what is there presently. The second is view preservation for Point Edwards residents. Needless to say, it would be nice to have some of our view return. We've lived in Point Edwards for 12 years and in that time we have seen the North Slope views slowly, but steadily, change from one of spectacular views of Puget Sound, Whidbey Island, the ferry, Mount Baker, and the Edmonds Bowl, to one of forest terrain. We realize that we will never have those panoramic views again, but it would be nice to have some small "windows" to look out. While the view for us is primarily a quality of life issue, it cannot be ignored that it does affect property values for all those living on the northern slope. The third is enhancement of the public walkway experience for the entire Edmonds community. It's a pleasure to sit at our window and watch families stroll by (particularly in the summer) on the public path. The path is used by joggers, walkers, birders, kids on scooters, moms with baby strollers, etc. How nice would it be if they could experience the public path as it was conceived and be able to once again catch glimpses of the water, mountains, and marina. The proposed project would also provide a better home for our local wildlife. Most of the small mammals have slowly disappeared with the growth of the woods. While the present woods seem to only promote the presence of coyotes (which we enjoy as well); it would be nice to transform the environment to one that sees the return of rabbits, deer, foxes, chipmunks, etc. to our community. It is our understanding that the proposed landscaping will also further promote the number of species of birds we will be able to enjoy viewing from our windows. In conclusion, we believe that moving forward with permit PLN2020-0054 will enhance the beauty, environment, and wildlife in Edmonds for all residents. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Karen and Lewis Wolkofsky 71 Pine Street, Apt. 206 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 355 2.2.a 8-17-21 City of Edmonds Attn: Kernen Lien Environmental Program Mgr Kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 121 5t" Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 45 Pine St. #211 Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Point Edwards Permit PLN2020-0054 Public Comment To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of the Permit for Point Edwards North Slope. As a lifelong Washingtonian, I've lived in Edmonds since 2013 and have learned to appreciate its unique and balanced composition between the residents and the environment. This is something I work to keep in balance. I've participated in the PEHOA Grounds Committee and worked with Bel over these 8 years. Over that time, I've come to admire the work, dedication, and the community involvement Bel and the PEHOA have exhibited to enhance the wildlife and supporting vegetative structure. Protecting and enhancing the North Slope from erosion and invasive species while rebuilding a more native and natural canopy and undergrowth that will support healthy wildlife is what this Permit is going to accomplish. I ask our ADB to approve this permit ASAP. Sincerely, Pam Erickson Erickson1840@outlook.com 206 783 1840 Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 356 2.2.a From: Bobbie Nicholson <bobbie nicholson@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 10:10 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: PLN2020-0054 City of Edmonds - PLN2020-0054 To Whom it may concern: Thank you for recent notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination on Point Edwards Home Association to be held on September 1, 2021. We are owners/residents/tax payers at Point Edwards and "parties of record" according to 20.06.020 132, having submitted detailed support in writing for approval of the plan in February 2021. While we have a vested interest in the approval of the plan, as does every owner/resident/tax payer here, we are not the ONLY ones affected. It is impossible to know how many visitors come to viewpoints to enjoy the view of this beautiful area — but we can attest that there are a great many. I look out my window to a viewpoint on Pine Street and constantly see visitors looking through the telescope, taking photos, and even picnicking at the tables and chairs provided by the Association. It is important, we believe, that the values and comments of those who are most affected by any decision reached by the City, receive weighted consideration. People living in other neighborhoods or districts of the City may have opinions, but little or no consequence. So we urge you to take immediate steps to approve the plan as submitted. It has been well studied and planned by experts, multiple accommodations made for any concerns, and management and enhancements provided for the City and all its residents — yet seems to drag on and on in the approval process. Every month and year that passes results in less view for residents and visitors alike — and the view is the whole reason we're willing to "pay the big bucks" for the property, upkeep, enhancement, and taxes. As stated (in part) in our earlier communication: 1. Without proper management of alder overgrowth there is risk of erosion with the likely consequence of landslides. We have only to look up north on the rail lines to know how destructive landslides have been to both Edmonds and Everett. We must do all we can to eliminate such damage to the north slope of Point Edwards. 2. Without proper management of alder overgrowth more desirable trees are choked out. Fowl and wildlife may be adversely affected. 3. Unmanaged alder snap off in wind storms or under snow load and not only damage soil but become an eyesore to the entire community. This community has worked hard and invested greatly in having a beautiful waterfront — and the Point Edwards slope contributes to that beauty. 4. Unmanaged alder growth encourages pests. Just last year (and in many other years as well) Washington had a "crisis" of gypsy moths. Alder are known "hosts" for these pests and invite the use of possibly harmful pesticides to remedy the problem. 5. Without proper management of alder overgrowth the property values will decline, and the City and County will therefore receive less revenue. We moved into Point Edwards a mere 3 Y22 years ago and already our view is compromised. Give those trees another 3 Y2 years and we'll no longer see anything but distant islands. If we lose our views, we will have no choice but to protest valuations. Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 357 2.2.a 6. One of the amenities Point Edwards residents pay top dollar for is a first-rate landscape team. That management team costs the City of Edmonds NOTHING — but still benefits the City, its residents and visitors. If we desire to keep this pristine setting for generations to come, managing the weed -like growth of alder must be a part of the plan. 7. We urge the City to approve and expedite all aspects of PLN2020-0054. Rod & Bobbie Nicholson Attachment 19 1Packet Pg. 358 2.2.a From: donald ricker To: Lien. Kernen; Bel Subject: ADB Letter Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:32:02 AM To: City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board Application # PLN2020-0054 Point Edwards HOA Landscape modification and vegetation maintenance plan for the north slope common area I wish to request your approval for the above -mentioned application. Starting in 2014/15 the Pt Edwards HOA began to plan for the best way to stabilize the slope area on the north side of their common property and be sensitive to the environment and the City of Edmonds Environmental Requirements. Since that time Pt. Edwards HOA has spent countless hours conferring with the City of Edmonds, Kernen Lien (City of Edmonds Environmental Programs Manager) Justina Kraus, a wildlife biologist, a GEO Tech, numerous nurseries and the Save the Marsh People, in an effort to create a wildlife friendly, people friendly environment and still maintain the stability of the slope. The input from each of these was carefully considered and assisted Pt. Edwards .develop the plan you see before you today I have been a resident of Pt. Edwards since 2007 and I look forward to having this project being approved. Don Ricker 51 Pine Street #308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 359 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 1/8/2021 Point Edwards Homeowners Association 93 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2020-0191) Site Address: Point Edwards Development Dear Applicant/Owner, Please find the enclosed critical area determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted to the City of Edmonds Planning Division. The critical area determination for your property is "STUDY REQUIRED." Note that this determination is a site -specific determination and not a project -specific determination. If the critical area determination is "STUDY REQUIRED," additional critical areas information or critical areas specific studies may be required for development or alteration of your property depending on the location of the activity. "WAIVER" means no further critical area review is required for development or alteration of your property. If you have any questions regarding this critical area determination, please contact the planner on duty at 425.771.0220. Regards, Planning Division Development Services Department Enc: Critical Area Determination Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 360 2.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION ''lc. 1 s9" Critical Area Determination (CRA2020-0191) Based on a review and inspection of the subject site, staff has determined that one or more critical areas are located on or near the site. Critical areas are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are protected in order to maintain their functions and values. Site Location Point Edwards Development Tax Account Number Multiple Property Owner Multiple Applicant Point Edwards Home Owners Association Critical Areas) Present ❑ Wetlands (ECDC 23.50): ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70): ❑ Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) ❑X Erosion Hazard Areas: ❑X Landslide Hazard Areas: ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas: ❑ Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) ❑X Mapped Fish & Wildlife Habitat: Blue Heron ❑ Streams: Site Descriation The Point Edwards development is located at the west extent of Pine Street in the City of Edmonds. The development is located on a hill above the Edmonds Marsh and the Port of Edmonds. Soils on the property are part of the Alderwood-Everett gravely -sandy loams soils series according to the Snohomish County soils survey. The subject site generally slopes down towards the north and west. Portions of the site contains slopes between 15 — 40%. These slopes together with the soils are classified as potential erosion hazard areas. Other portions of the site contain slopes that exceed 40%. Slopes that exceed 40% are considered potential landslide hazard areas. The Washington State Priority Habitat Species (PHS) map identifies a potential great blue heron colony on the site as well. The heron colony identified on the PHS map appears to be near the stormwater pond on the northern portion of the property. What does this mean? The critical area regulations are only triggered when an alteration is proposed to a critical area or its buffer. However, once an alteration in or near critical area is proposed, critical area studies and City review and approval may be required. Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 361 2.2.a What is an `Alteration'? According to Section 23.40.005 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing conditions 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. O Name, Title January 8, 2021 Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found at http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions (ECDC 23.40) Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70) Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) Building permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ECDC 19.10) City of Edmonds GIS map tool with approximate location of critical areas: http://mops.edmondswo.gov Page 12 Attachment 20 1Packet Pg. 362 2.2.a Exhi #P20 Critical Areas File #:.-c 0 Initial Determination - $110 E f Subsequent Determination - $55 Date Received: Date Mailed to Applicant: The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Property Owner's Authorization City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov A property owner, or an authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit, and make a determination of whether there are critical areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a "Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report addressing the applicable critical area requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required depending on the scope of the proposed activity. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge 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 attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, 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. (� SIGNATURE OF OWNER �-� l DATE Owner: Point Edwards Homeowners Association Name Applicant/Agent: Bel' Johnson, Landscape Manager Name Point Edwards Homeowners Association 93 Pine'Street Street Address Street Address 93 Pine Street Edmonds Washington 98020 City State Zip City State Zip Telephone: (425) 673-0629 Telephone: (206) 4234433 Email address: bel@pointedwardshoa.com Email Address: bel@pointedwardshoa.com Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page I of 2 Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 363 Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist #I'20 CA File No:(' -RA 2 ice) ^ U / / Critical Areas Checklist 2.2.a Page l 0 2 Site Information 1.. Site C I �bf 7./ cJa �� p eV\J o Address/Location: 93 Pine street, Edmonds, WA 98020 \ hc�� v 1 2. Property Tax Account Number: None o 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): as a 21 acres c� N 4. Is this site currently developed? FJ Yes ❑ No J If yes, how is the site developed? Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use (MP-1) Condominium Complex 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. w r 0 Flat to Rolling: No slope on/ to the site or slopes generally less than 15% (a vertical o rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). rL F1 Moderate: Slopes present on/ to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical o rise of.10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet). d N Steep: Slopes of greater than 40% present on/adjacent to site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a J horizontal distance of less than 25-feet). a m. 6. Have there been landslides on or .near the site in the past? ❑ Yes YNo U) m If yes, please describe: E 7. Site contains areas of year-round standing water? in Yes (approx. depth: ) 1' ❑ No Detention pond 8. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? ❑ Yes (approx. depth: ) `En No If yes, what season(s) of the year? 9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? ❑ Floodway ❑ Floodplain NO 10, Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ❑ Yes `LI No If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? ❑ Year-round ❑ Seasonal (time of year: ) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site? ❑ Yes 5?'No Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 364 2.2.a City Staff Use Only 1. Zoiung: 3. SCS . apped soil te(s): 3. tical Areas inventory or C. map indicates qri cal A ca on . site- 4. Site within desifma.ted North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)? ✓� DETERMINATION R 3CAL AREA RESENT WAIVER Reviewed by: r () Date: Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 2 of 2 Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 365 2.2.a ,nC. i gy1 Critical Area Map CRA2020-0191 Point Edwards Development (except 50 Pine) Attachment 20 Q Scale 1 inch = 300 feet Packet Pg. 366 2.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS December 15, 2020 Ms. Bel Johnson Point Edwards Homeowners Association 85 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT EDWARDS, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Johnson: This letter report presents our observations, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed landscape management plan for the north slope of Point Edwards in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of this letter report is to satisfy City of Edmonds code report requirements for a geologically sensitive critical area. The requirements for this letter report are contained in Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). The scope of our services included a review of existing information provided by you and publicly available geologic information, site visits with you on January 2 and February 4, 2020, and the preparation of this letter report. You authorized our services on November 25, 2019, representing the Point Edwards Homeowners Association (PEHA), by signing our proposal. This geotechnical evaluation was prepared by Mr. William Laprade, a licensed engineering geologist in Washington State. Mr. Laprade has practiced in Western Washington for 47 years. He has performed slope and other geologic hazard evaluations throughout King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties for public and private clients, and has authored or co-authored numerous publications on the local geology and landslides. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Point Edwards is located on a north- and west -facing slope in the southwest corner of Edmonds, as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Several condominium buildings are situated on gently sloping ground but then the ground surface steepens, very steeply to the west and moderately to steeply to the north. The site has been divided into the west slope and the north slope. Vegetation management has previously been permitted and performed on the west slope. The subject proposal is for the north slope, as shown in Figure 2. 400 North 34th Street ■ Suite 100 ■ PO Box 300303 ■ Seattle, Washington 98103-8636 ■ 206 632-8020 ■ Fox 206 695-6777 ■ w sha nonwilso . ■ Attachment2-1 Packet Pg. 367 2.2.a Ms. Bel Johnson Point Edwards Homeowners Association December 15, 2020 Page 2 of 5 =III SHANNON WLSON The level to moderate slope on the north side of the residential buildings is comprised of a grass lawn, walkways, and shrubbery. The steep slopes immediately north of the lawn are inclined at 50 to 70% (Figure 3) and covered with thick undergrowth and scattered trees. The total slope height, the property line to the residential buildings, is about 50 feet. On the western side of the project area, this slope continues down to the property line. On the eastern side of the project area, a large (300 by 100 feet) detention pond occupies a bench in the slope. Slope inclinations immediately below the pond's embankment range from 40 to 55%, although much of the ground in areas E6, E7, and E8 is nearly flat. A tree inventory was prepared by Thomas Rengstorf & Associates (2015) and is the basis for the landscape management plan. Please refer to Sheets L104 and L105 of the tree inventory for detailed information. These sheets were used to construct Figure 2 in this letter report. In addition to the trees, several areas of thick blackberry vines were observed, particularly west of tree No. 468. The landscape management plan for the north slope includes pruning, removals, creating wildlife snags, and replanting of a variety of trees, shrubs, ferns, and groundcovers. Of the 261 trees, 86 will remain untouched. Over the next three years, the PEHA will removed 45 trees and replant 45 trees, a one-to-one ratio, as well as planting 417 other plants. The work will be accomplished in three phases over the three-year period. One of the stated reasons for breaking the work into phases is to reduce impacts on the ground, such as disturbance of bare ground. Additionally, 28 trees will be coppiced, 78 trees pruned, and 24 snags created. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geologic conditions in and around the project area are shaped by deposition during two previous glacial and interglacial episodes, going back to about 125,000 years ago (Troost and Booth, 20081). Although the plateau to the south of the subject slope is underlain by till from the last glaciation, the slope is underlain by alternating layers of sand, silt, and clay of the Whidbey Formation, an interglacial deposit from two interglacial periods ago (Smith, 1 Troost, K.A. and Booth, D.B., 2008, Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area, Washington, in Baum, R.L.; Godt, J.W.; and Highland, L.M., eds., Landslides and engineering geology of the Seattle, Washington, area: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology XX, p. 1-35. 104587-001-L1 f-Rev2/wp/10 Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 368 Ms. Bel Johnson Point Edwards Homeowners Association December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 5 19752). Both of these geologic formations have been overridden and compacted by thick glacial ice. They are therefore very dense or hard. The north slope was extensively modified for the construction and operation of an oil tank farm that previously occupied the site. Therefore, the upper few to several feet of the slope are likely disturbed. Soils on the north slope are Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam on 25 to 70% (NRCS, 20193). This is consistent with our observations at the site. The adjoining flatter ground at the toe of the north slope is classified as Urban land, because it has been disturbed. Seepage was observed in the flat area to the north of the detention pond. This is believed to be seasonal and seepage from the unlined detention pond. Although not observed on January 2, 2020, we understand that seepage has been observed to the west of tree No. 468 in the past. Several map sources of slope stability were consulted for this assessment. No landslides were noted on the Washington Department of Natural Resources landslide inventory map. No landslides were found on the Snohomish County landslide areas map. Slopes were classified as unstable on the Washington State Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlas within about 200 feet to the west of the subject slope but not in or adjacent to the subject slope. Most of the north slope qualifies as a geologically hazardous area according to the criteria in Chapters 23.80.020 and 23.80.030 of the EMC. It is an erosion hazard, because the Alderwood/Everett soil (25 to 70% slopes) is classified as severe to very severe (NRCS, 2019). It is classified as a landslide hazard area, because the inclination of many portions of the slope are 40% or steeper, as shown in Figure 3. Individual field clinometer readings of slope inclinations are presented in Figure 2 and confirm the presence of the steep slopes. 2 Smith, M., 1975, Preliminary surficial map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West quadrangles, Q Snohomish and King counties, Washington, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 1:24,000. 3 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2019, Web soil survey: Available: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/, accessed Jan. 13, 2020. 104587-001-L1 f-Rev2/wp/lkn Attachment 21 1Packet Pg. 369 2.2.a Ms. Bel Johnson Point Edwards Homeowners Association December 15, 2020 Page 4 of 5 IIISHANNON 6WILSON There are no known seismic hazards on this site. The low marshy area to the north of the Point Edwards property has soil conditions that would be susceptible to liquefaction in a strong seismic event. SITE OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following observations were made during our site visit on January 2 and/or February 4, 2020. The letters in this text correspond to those in Figure 2. Site A is a 50% slope with two Scots Pine (Nos. 469 and 470) that are designated for removal. Because the root systems of these trees are important to the stability of this slope, we recommend that they be replaced with two trees with equivalent root systems. Site B is wet ground at a gentle to flat inclination. It appears that the seepage may be coming from the detention pond, in which case this is seasonal seepage. Some of the alders in this area are back -tilted, but no signs of slope instability were observed on the detention embankment or on the slope to the north of it. We understand that some of the alders will be coppiced and others replaced with dogwood and vine maple. The intervening ground will be covered with nine varieties of shrubs and three varieties of ground cover. This is suitable, in our opinion. Site C is a 38% slope with two cedar trees (Nos. 146 and 158). The trees are straight, and no signs of slope instability were observed. ASSESSMENT OF GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The descriptions of geologic hazards in EMC 23.80.20 and 23.80.030 and our field observations confirm that this hillside is a geologically hazardous area (landslide and erosion). We did not observe signs of active slope instability or active erosion. In our opinion, the work described in the vegetation management plan will not reduce the stability of the slope or increase erosion. To the contrary, the plan will increase the stability and reduce the potential for erosion compared to its present condition. Pursuant to EMC Chapter 23.80.060, the alterations of these geologically hazardous areas and associated buffers: Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre - development conditions, 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas, 104587-001-L1 f-Rev2/wp/I1,,n Attachment 21 Packet Pg. 370 Ms. Bel Johnson Point Edwards Homeowners Association December 15, 2020 Page 5 of 5 2.2.a HISHANNON MILSON 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions, and 4. Are deemed safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington. Pursuant to EMC Chapter 23.890.070, the alterations: 1. Will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions, 2. Will not decrease slope stability, and 3. Will not adversely impact other critical areas. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON William T. Laprade, LEG Senior Vice President WTL/wtl Enc. Figure 1- Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site Plan Figure 3 - Slope Map 104587-001-L1 f-Rev2/wp/Ikn - Attachment 21 1Packet Pg. 371 ♦ ?4 s%�• Dayton. St �' � -� � ��■ ��` ; i s FM W. IBM ry. r ' l' 4�, s Wwtl■wa �u—,. ■ o ' . MT r' ` ■ i •r Woodway_ K> Aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, downloaded on G _ 0 O (6 J 2.2.a VV- rtr`� -.� �- ' �I .` A - - - " - ------_-- --- ra'r �C ' _• - y' POND .............-.................- ----- ........................................ ............... .... ••.. ♦ ...... ............. f -------- ,� `lam t �'.. �- -- ---------- ............ ------------ -• ..................... 700 x , - - .' LEGEND Ground Surface Contour 2 Slopes 40% Or Greater 0 a� a y NOTE J 'Percent Slope' and 'Ground Surface Contours' derived from LIDAR, 2017. 3 w 0 v LO 0 O 0 N Co N Z J d E U r 3 0 a a� N w W E U) LO s c 0 25 50 0 N 0 N Z Feet J a E Point Edwards Owners Association Edmonds, WA Q SLOPE MAP November 2020 104587-001 SFMNON asWILSON, INC. FIG. 3 Packet Pg. 374 2.2.a WETLANDS(*) WILDLIFE Environmental Consulting CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT POINT EDWARDS HOA INCORPORATED CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR: Point Edwards Homeowners Association Attn: Bel Johnson 93 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020 PRFPARFn RY' Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. 7721-153rd Street SE Snohomish, Washington 98296 (425) 337-6450 November 10, 2014 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 375 2.2.a TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 2 RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 3 CRITICAL AREAS IMPACT DETERMINATION 4 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT 5 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED 6 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 376 2.2.a INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted a Critical Areas reconnaissance site visit on the Point Edwards condominiums property. For reference, the maintenance office location is located at 93 Pine Street, situated within the incorporated city of Edmonds, Washington. The site is currently developed as a large condominium complex, primarily comprised of developed areas and associated maintained lawns and landscaped areas. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. was retained to conduct an evaluation of the subject property in relation to the City of Edmonds Critical Areas Regulations outlined in Chapters 23.50 (Wetlands) and 23.90 (Wetlands and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted a site visit to the property on October 17, 2014 for the purpose of conducting a Critical Areas reconnaissance of the property, pursuant to ecological professional industry standards and City of Edmonds requirements and standards. Specifically, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. was retained to determine if any wetlands, streams, or associated protective buffer areas regulated by the ECDC exist on the property. In addition to assessing the northern portion of the Point Edwards property, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also visually assessed the surrounding properties within approximately 200 feet to the north of the property to the extent feasible without accessing adjacent properties due to a lack of legal access. Please review the RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION section of this report for further information. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS TO CONDUCT THIS CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION The following provides a brief overview of my experience and credentials to conduct this Critical Areas evaluation. I am the Founder, Owner, and Principal Wetland and Wildlife Ecologist of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. I attended the University of Montana where I graduated cum laude with a degree in Wildlife Biology. As of 2014, 1 have 13 years of direct experience as a professional Biologist/Ecologist in western Washington and 17 years of overall experience completing natural resource assessments among many different ecosystems across the western United States. I have worked as a professional Biologist/Ecologist for federal, state, and county environmental agencies, as well as several private environmental consulting firms with specialties in wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and wildlife habitat. In my 17 years of experience, I have specialized in review of proposed land use and building development permit applications as they pertain to Critical Areas (wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, and habitats of protected fish and wildlife species). Much of that experience came as a Senior Reviewing Ecologist for King County DDES and a Regulatory Biologist for Snohomish County PDS. I am listed on several Preferred / Qualified Consultant Rosters throughout western Washington. I am highly experienced with the required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington state wetland delineation methods. In addition to the wetland delineation certification, I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology and have 9 years of experience in the use of the required Wetland Rating Form for western Washington. I am trained by the Washington Department of Ecology to determine Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) locations for rivers, streams, and lakes. In addition to my expertise related to wetlands and streams, I have many years of experience conducting surveys of special status wildlife species in the Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) November 10, 2014 Page 1 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 377 2.2.a western U.S. I received certifications from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for terrestrial wildlife habitat assessments and wildlife surveys of special status wildlife species in Washington. Over the past 17 years, I have conducted literally over 1,300 biological I ecological assessments in different capacities on properties with many habitat types and zoning designations, from small, urban properties (0.25 acres) to large, rural properties (up to 2,000 acres in size). I have been selected by several local city agencies to provide on -call 3rd-party environmental reviews of proposed projects for compliance with local Critical Areas Ordinances and the FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment requirements. METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. used methodologies described in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Washington Department of Ecology Publication #08-006-001, April 2008) to make a determination regarding the Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM) located on the subject site. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. used the routine methodologies described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997) to make a determination regarding the presence of any regulated wetlands. In addition, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Supplement"). The Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and all subsequent versions. The Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, this Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three -factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and presence or evidence of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three -factor approach discussed above requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the site characteristics for making a wetland determination include the following: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover); 2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and 3.) Examination to determine if adequate hydrology exists for sufficient durations during the early part of the growing season in the same locations as the previous two steps. Per industry standards, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined the areas of interest identified by Ms. Bel Johnson, Point Edwards Landscape Manager. Per industry standards and City requirements, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. also assessed the nearby properties adjacent to the project site's northern boundary, to the Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. November 10, 2014 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) Page 2 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 378 2.2.a maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed assessment of Critical Areas on adjacent properties was not possible due to lack of legal access, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. conducted a review of all readily available information to assess the presence of off -site Critical Areas in close proximity to the subject site. The evaluation of adjacent properties is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist off -site which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and potentially affect a development proposal on the subject property. In addition to on -site field reviews, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined aerial photographs and topographical data (elevation contours) on Snohomish County's Snoscape system. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) were also evaluated as part of our consultation and evaluation of the subject property. RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION No regulated wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitats of importance, or associated protective buffer areas were located on the subject property. However, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did locate a few areas that appear to meet wetland parameters which were unintentionally created from previously non -wetland areas. As part of our consultation, Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. examined State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents that were submitted to the City of Edmonds for review in 2003 and 2005. These SEPA documents were submitted to the City in conjunction with the proposed Point Edwards condominium development. Section 3.a.(1) of the submitted 2003 SEPA checklist states clearly that no regulated wetlands were located on -site prior to development of the condominiums, and the 2005 SEPA document submitted to the City as part of the Point Edwards proposal referred to the 2003 SEPA document as well. The City of Edmonds approved the Point Edwards project in part based on those SEPA documents, thereby agreeing with the project proponents that no regulated surface waters existed on -site prior to the development of the site with the Point Edwards condominiums. In addition, it is in our professional opinion that the non -regulated areas which currently display some wetland parameters were unintentionally created due to their landscape position in relation to the unlined detention pond and the off -site asphalt driveways along the northern property line. All of the areas that currently display wetland characteristics are located down -gradient from the artificially constructed detention pond, and the water from the detention pond likely leaks from the detention pond, travel subsurface, and then re -surface in the locations that are currently displaying some wetland characteristics. In addition, one of the non -regulated areas that currently displays wetland characteristics is located immediately adjacent to (south of) an asphalt road/driveway area on the Unocal property to the north of the Point Edwards property. The Washington State Wetlands Delineation Manual (1997) states that "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non - wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway." Based on the information gathered and reviewed for this project, it is apparent that no regulated wetlands are located on the subject property, and that all areas which may currently display Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. November 10, 2014 Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) Page 3 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 379 2.2.a wetland characteristics were unintentionally created by the construction of the detention pond and/or the asphalt driveway/road along the northern property line. The SEPA documents which were submitted to the City of Edmonds in 2003 and 2005 (and subsequently approved by the City of Edmonds) provide strong evidence that no regulated wetlands are located on the property. While no regulated wetlands or streams were located on the project site, there are regulated wetlands and streams located north of the Point Edwards property on Snohomish County tax parcel 27032300409400. The off -site wetland is Edmonds Marsh, and Edmonds Marsh appears to be located approximately 220 feet from the nearest potential project location. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did not have access to the property which contains Edmonds Marsh in order to accurately rate the wetland using the Revised Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington. However, pursuant to section 23.50.040.F.1 of the ECDC, the largest potential wetland buffer width (associated with a Category I wetland) in the City of Edmonds jurisdiction equals 200 feet, measured from the wetland boundary. Therefore, it appears that the buffer from the off - site Edmonds Marsh would not extend into the future proposed project area because Edmonds Marsh appears to be farther than 200 feet from the any future project area. Snohomish County's SnoScape map system, StreamNet, SalmonScape and WDFW PHS maps depict two fish -bearing streams being located to the north of the Point Edwards property (on Unocal property). Both of these streams are mapped as Shorelines of the State (Type S streams) on Snohomish County's SnoScape map. Based on map research, Willow Creek is the stream which is closest in proximity to the Point Edwards property, and Willow Creek appears to be located approximately 280 feet to the north / northeast of the potential project area at its closest location. Pursuant to the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code (Chapter 23.90), Type S streams require a standard buffer width of 150 feet, measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the stream. Therefore, the buffer associated with the off -site Type S stream (Willow Creek) would not extend into the project area. CRITICAL AREAS IMPACT DETERMINATION Based on the information discussed above, it is the professional opinion of Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. that no regulated wetlands, streams, or associated buffers are located on the Point Edwards property. This determination is a result of detailed review of the previously approved SEPA documents associated with the property, review of the City of Edmonds' current Critical Areas Regulations, and review of several publicly available map systems and online resources. Based on our determination that no regulated wetlands, streams, or buffers are located on the project site, it is our professional opinion that no adverse environmental impacts will occur to any such regulated Critical Areas or associated protective buffer areas as a result of any future project activity on the subject parcel. However, we do recommend that temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices (TESC BMP's) are installed north of any proposed project activity on the Point Edwards property in order to ensure that no sediment is able to travel north from the site toward the off -site wetland and streams. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) November 10, 2014 Page 4 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 380 2.2.a LIMITATIONS AND USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report is supplied to Bel Johnson at Point Edwards Owners Association as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat conservation areas regulated by the Edmonds Community Development Code exist on the site or within close proximity of the site which would affect any future permit requirements or future proposed activities on the site. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. Please note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did not have legal access to traverse adjacent properties and determine the extent, location, and classification of Critical Areas on adjacent properties. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Puget Sound region. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report. 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. If such conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon those conditions. Please note that Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. did not provide detailed analysis of other permitting requirements not discussed in this report (i.e. structural, drainage, geotechnical, or engineering requirements). The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. upheld professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, the work associated with this proposal shall not commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable agencies. If any questions arise regarding this review, please contact me directly at (425) 337-6450. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Scott Spooner Owner / Principal Wetland & Wildlife Ecologist Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) November 10, 2014 Page 5 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 381 2.2.a REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating sVstem for western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. PHS on the Web. Web -based interactive map administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Website last visited for this project on November 3, 2014. SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Website last visited for this project on November 3, 2014. Snohomish County Landscape Imaging Interactive Map (SnoScape). Snohomish County GIS Center in conjunction with Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. http://gis.snoco.org/maps/snoscape/index.htm. Website last visited for this project on November 3, 2014. Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Chapters 23.90 (Wetlands and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) and 23.50 (Wetlands). City of Edmonds, Washington. StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission http://www.streamnet.org/. Website last visited on November 3, 2014. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. the Corps of Engineers Wetland (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR-10-3, Inventory Wetlands Mapper Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Wetlands & Wildlife, Inc. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report Point Edwards HOA (City of Edmonds, WA) November 10, 2014 Page 6 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 382