Reasonable Use -- Mattson -- Remand Revised`nc. 199,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Ken and Sharon Mattson
DECISION UPON REMAND
Critical Area Reasonable Use
PLN2023-0013
As directed by a December 20, 2024 remand order from Snohomish County Superior
Court, the November 5, 2024 Decision Upon Reconsideration of the above -captioned
matter is revised to require 1:1 mitigation as opposed to the 3:1 mitigation imposed by
the November 5, 2024 decision.
The 3:1 mitigation was imposed in the Decision Upon Reconsideration based upon the
Applicant's initial reconsideration request. The Applicant revised its reconsideration
request three days later to propose 1:1 mitigation. However, the mitigation plan
forwarded to the Examiner with the reconsideration request still proposed 3:1 mitigation
and the reconsideration addendum was not readily apparent amongst the other
background reconsideration materials. As determined in the Decision Upon
Reconsideration, the 1:1 mitigation is all that is required by the Edmonds Community
Development Code and the most that can be legally required of the Applicant.
The Applicant judicially appealed the 3:1 mitigation requirement, which resulted in a
stipulated Snohomish County Superior Court remand order requiring 1:1 mitigation.
The Superior Court Order was distributed to the parties of record for comment. Two
comments were received disagreeing with approval of the variance. One commentator,
a fisheries biologist, asserted that the proposed mitigation plan lacked sufficient detail.
The Applicant's mitigation plan was prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting LLC.
The plan includes several pages of habitat assessment, mitigation specifications,
monitoring requirements and performance standards as required by ECDC 23.40.130.
However, the plan is still based upon 3:1 mitigation and will have to be revised to
reflect the Applicant's proposed 1:1 mitigation. A condition of approval requires that
the plan be revised to be consistent with the proposed 1:1 mitigation areas as found
necessary by City staff to conform to the City's critical area ordinance mitigation
requirements. As conditioned, the proposed mitigation is found to conform to the
City's critical areas ordinance.
Reasonable Use Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Decision Upon Remand
The 3:1 mitigation imposed by the Decision Upon Reconsideration of this matter is
revised to 1:1 mitigation. The Applicant's Acre Environmental Consulting LLC
mitigation plan shall be revised to reflect the Applicant's proposed 1:1 mitigation,
including the areas where the mitigation area will be located, and any other information
found necessary by staff to conform to the City's critical areas ordinance.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2025.
Plu A.Olbrochts
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by the
Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Reasonable Use Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision