HE decision Exhibits B-O.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: RON MCCONNELL HEARING EXAMINER
K
From:°� �✓ ,�, ,
Larissa Kawa
moto
Project Planner
Date: October 2, 1999
File: AP -99-185 & S-98-108 & V-98-109
Appellant: Meadowdale Community Council
Drew Wojtanik, President
Hearing Date, Time and Place: October 7, 1999
City Hall, 3rd Floor Meeting Room
1:00 P.M.
Table of Contents
Section Page
l : '1 7
A. SEPA APPEAL. INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................
2
B. SEPA CHRONOLOGY..................................................................................................................................2
C. RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL........................................................................................................
2
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................2
A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ............................................................................................
2
B. ECDC COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION..................................................................4
C. ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL. ISSUES..............................................................................................................
4
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS...........................................................................6
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION...............................................................................................................
6
B. APPEALS......................................................................................................................................................
6
2117M5 ,�
AP -99-185 SRP.doc / October 2, 1999 /Staff Report
ME ./d each Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 2 of 7
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to the unusual environmental issues with the subject site, staff required an Environmental Impact
Statement to address geotechnical concerns and potential impacts to the wetland stream and hydrology. An
appeal of the Final Environmental Impact Statement was received during the City required appeal period.
This report addresses the SEPA Appeal issues only. A separate report has been prepared for the project
application. The processes have been consolidated into the one open record hearing permitted by the State
of Washington Regulatory Reform Law.
A. SEPA Appeal Information
1. Appellant: Drew Wojtanik, President of the Meadowdale Community Council.
2. Site Location: 160XX 72nd Avenue West (see Attachment 1)
3. Request: Appeal of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a proposal to
subdivide a 3.7 -acre parcel into 4 single-family lots. The application also includes variance
requests for the following:
A critical area variance to allow construction of 4 homes within a Steep Slope Critical
Area and elimination of the required buffer and setback.
Elimination of the 15 foot building setback from a wetland buffer for lots 3 and 4.
Reduce the standard flag lot setback (10 feet in the RS -20 zone) for Lots 1 & 2 to allow
construction of the homes closer to the access easement.
4. Review Process: Hearing Examiner conducts an open record public hearing and makes
final decision of the FEIS appeal and the entire project proposal.
5. Major Issues:
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15A.
(Environmental Review, SEPA.
B. SEPA Chronology
1. Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Work was issued on
February 26, 1999.
2. GeoGroup Northwest was selected on April 23, 1999 to produce the document.
3. Draft EIS for 30 -comment period was issued on June 22, 1999.
4. Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued on September 1, 1999.
5. Appeal of the Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed on September 15, 1999.
C. Recommendation
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends
DENIAL of the FEIS appeal.
A. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) — Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11
a) Facts:
(1) WAC 197-11 Part 8 DEFINITIONS
(a) Section 197-11-782 defines the term "PROBABLE" as:
"Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in "a reasonable
probability of more than a moderate effect on the duality of the
AP -99-185 SRP.doc / October 2, 1999 / Staff Report
W vd each Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 3 of 7
environment" (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely
impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are
remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability
test.
(b) Section 197-11-786 defines the term "REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE"
as:
"Reasonable alternatNe" means an action that could feasibly attain or
approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower enviromnental cost or,
decreased level of environmental degradation. Reasonable alternatives
may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to
control impacts, either directly, or indirectly through requirement of
mitigation measures.
(c) Section 197-11-794 defines the term "SIGNIFICANT" as
(1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more
than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity (WAC 197-11-330) and
does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may
vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and
duration of an impact.
The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood
of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of
occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would
be severe if it occurred.
(3) WAC 197-11-330 specifies a process, including criteria and
procedures, for determining whether a proposal is likely to have a
significant adverse environmental impact.
(d) Section 197-11-797 defines the term "THRESHOLD DETERMINATION"
as:
"Threshold determination " means the decision by the responsible official of
the lead agency whether or not an EIS is required for a proposal that is not
categorically exempt (WAC 197-11-310 and 197-11-330(1)(b)).
b) Fact: WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process states:
"An EIS is required for proposal or legislation and other major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The lead agency decides
whether an EIS is required in the threshold determination process as described
below. "
The following are specific subsections of WAC Section 197-11-330 which are
applicable to the subject appeal.
(i) Section 197-11-330(3) In making a threshold determination, the
responsible official shall take into account the following, that:
(a) The same proposal may have a significant adverse impact
in one location but not in another location (Section 197-
11-330(3)(a)).
(b) A proposal may to a significant degree adversely affect
environmentally sensitive or special areas such as the loss
or destruction of historic, scientific, and cultural
AP -99-185 SRP.doc / October 2, 1999 / Staff Report
Me, - d,! :ach Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 4 of 7
resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and
scenic rivers, or wilderness (Section 197-11-330(3)(e)(i)).
c) Fact: WAC 197-11-408 identifies the process for scoping.
The lead agency shall narrow the scope of eve7y EIS to the probable significant
adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures.
Invite agency, affecting tribes, and public comrnent on the DS (Section 197-11-
408(a)).
Idents reasonable alternative and probable significant adverse enviromnental
impacts (Section 197-11-408(b)).
Eliminate from detailed study those impacts that are not significant (Section
197-11-408(c)).
B. Environmental (SEPA) Compliance with the ECDC
a) Facts:
(1) The project site is identified on the City of Edmonds Environmental Sensitive Areas
map pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15A.280. SEPA is automatically imposed for
developments within a Sensitive Area.
(2) ECDC Section 20.15A.140 adoptions by references a number of sections found
within the WAC.
(3) ECDC Section 20.15A.150 outlines the preparation of the EIS.
(4) ECDC Section 20.15A.240 sets forth the procedural requirements related to an
appeal of the adequacy of a final EIS.
(5) ECDC Section 20.15A.250.E. states: "All relevant evidence shall be received during
the hearing of the appeal. The procedural determination by the city's responsible
official shall carry substantial weight in an appeal proceeding."
C. Environmental (SEPA) Appeal Issues
1. Issues raised by the Appellant and Staff Response:
Appellant concerns are summarized below from their letter of appeal (see Attachment 1).
a) Appellant Issue: Inadequate notice to the neighborhood resulted in staff's omission of
two subject of concern from the EIS review, namely traffic and wildlife habitat.
(1) Staff Reponse: ECDC Section 20.15A.170 provides the public notice guidelines. As
with all proposed land use and SEPA actions, a mailing list of property owners and
residences within 300 feet is supplied by the applicant as part of the application
package. Both the DS and scope were mailed to those on that list. Posting the site
during the EIS scoping did not occur because it is not required and the public hearing
on the project was to be held as part of the project decision and not just on the
environmental review.
b) Appellant Issue: The current substandard condition of 72"d Avenue West will be
intensified by additional vehicular trips on the dead end street. Impacts from noise, air
pollution, inconvenience, congestion and hazards are expected if the subdivision is
approved. Portions of 72"d Avenue West are substandard by 4-8 feet. Unless the street is
widened to comply with the City's standards, the additional traffic generated by the
proposed short plat would clearly be "materially detrimental" and "injurious" to our
selves and to the value of our properties.
(1) Staff Response: Staff determined that the potential traffic generation of the proposal
was not a significant environmental impact. The addition of 3 new, single family
AP -99-185 SRP.doc /October 2, 1999 /Staff Report
Me. vd -ach Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 5 of 7
residential homes typically does not trigger a traffic analysis requirement by the
Engineering Division.
c) Appellant Issue: An Urban Biologist from the Department of Fish and Wildlife should be
retained to determine whether or not there may be sufficient cause to add the impacts to
Wildlife Habitat to review under the EIS.
(1) Staff Response: The EIS notice and Scope was sent to the State Fish and Wildlife for
review and comment. No comments were received. The west facing cliff is shown
on the critical areas map as habitat area. Staff determined that since no development
activity was proposed for that area, no comments from Fish and Wildlife, and no
public comments notifying staff of a wildlife or habitat concern were received, it was
not included in the EIS Scope.
d) Appellant Issue: The FEIS appears to equate the City's "Landslide Hazard Line" with the
"top of bank". While the two different designations are often in the same location they
are clearly in very different location in the vicinity of the proposed development. There
are substantial differences between the City and proponent's surveys; even the directions
of their slopes are significantly different. No field data was provided in the FEIS and the
points of elevation surveyed on the ground and the extent of the surveyor's interpolation
of elevations between points is unknown. Because the proponent's surveyor works for
and is paid by the proponent, and because critical differences between the City and
proponent's surveys serve the proponent's interests, we believe the objectivity and
accuracy of the proponent's survey remains very much in question. To help us better
understand and resolve the significant discrepancies between the City's topographic
surveys and that prepared by the proponent's consultant, we believe that the proponent
should be required to provide the City with a copy of his surveyor's field data identifying
the number of points shot and their respective elevations.
(1) Staff Response: Confusion between the "Landslide Hazard Line" and the "top of
bank" originated from the Meadowdale Beach Community Council's comment letter
on the DEIS dated August 23, 1999. Geo Group Northwest Inc. was attempting to
respond to their concerns about development within the Landslide Hazard Area
verses the Steep Slope Area. Building permits are attainable for properties that are
within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area pursuant to the regulations found in
ECDC Section 19.05. The Steep Slope Hazard area is regulated under the Critical
Area chapter (ECDC Section 20.15B.) where property could potentially receive
approval for development if specific criteria are met.
The Critical Area chapter requires a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor to
determine the location of the "top of bank" for the purposes of establishing buffer
areas. Because the survey is generated by a licensed professional, the field data is
not asked for as part of a subdivision application.
e) Appellant Issue: Evidence of their (Geo Group Northwest Inc.) incomplete and erroneous
understanding of the property make is more difficult for us to trust the opinions and risk
assessments. The slide referred to in the Geo Group Northwest Inc. response letter as
being 1,000 feet away was in fact, only 300 to 350 feet away on the same stretch of bluff
and in the very same designated landslide hazard area as the proposed development. It is
very difficult for us to rely upon Geo Group Northwest Inc. opinion that there would be
no new additional risks posed by these most recent movements in the landslide complex
when Geo Group Northwest Inc. appears to be so unaware of just when and where these
movements occurred. We believe either a deep-seated fault(s), future sloughing or a
combination of the two will eventually undermine the proposal's building foundations and
request that the current study be expanded to respond convincingly to risks suggested by
this previously omitted information.
(1) Staff Response: Geo Group Northwest Inc. was hired by the City to analyze the
geotechnical and wetland/stream/hydrology issues related to the development of the
subject site. After performing extensive soil tests in each of the areas proposed for
AP -99-185 SRP.doc / October 2, 1999 / Staff Report
N. w'; :ach Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 6 of 7
construction activity, a licensed, professional engineer from the firm concluded that 4
homes and access could be built with minimal adverse impacts. Factual evidence has
not at this time been provided which shows the data or recommendations within the
EIS to be erroneous.
f) Appellant Issue: While the proponent and Geo Group Northwest Inc. claim that the pool
and spa would be properly engineered and include a "leak containment and evacuation
system," we have serious doubts about the long-term wisdom of permitting such a
precedent.
(1) Staff Response: Staff agrees that pools/spas are not proper uses in an area that
requires variance requests to even construct the primary residence let alone any
structure outside the setback identified by the EIS. There doesn't appear to be
sufficient room on any of the lots to accommodate a pool. If the Hearing Examiner
grants approval of the preliminary subdivision, staff recommended establishing a
covenant prohibiting outdoor pools/spas (see Sequoia Ridge staff report).
g) Appellant Issue: Storm drainage maintenance schedules and responsibility. How could
those who would be impacted by the development's storm drainage system be assured
that the reasonable precautions listed in the FEIS will be taken?
(1) As part of the original subdivision application, a conceptual storm drainage plan was
provided. A final design is not required until prior to recording of the plat. The City
Engineer approves the final drainage plan. Design and installation of the system will
be reviewed, approved and inspected pursuant to City regulations. Because the
improvements will be on private property, maintenance is the responsibility of the
property owners of the subdivision.
h) Appellant Issue: Three and a half years ago the City's Engineering Division claimed they
had no discretionary authority to waive the City's street standards and formally opposed
the last short plat's compromise design as inadequate for the two additional lots proposed.
The same Engineering Division is now contending that the Hearing Examiner's limited
decision in that case has given them the discretionary authority to decide that the same
compromise design that they originally opposed is now sufficient to serve traffic
generated by two more lots.
(1) Staff Response: It is the intention of the Engineering Division to be in attendance at
the public hearing to provide testimony regarding the appellant's claim.
i) Appellant Issue: The required variances do not meet the City's criteria.
(1) Staff Response: It is difficult to determine if the appellant is referring to the critical
area variance or the setback variance or both. The EIS was intended to provide
information as to the project impact on the environment the adjacent properties and
whether it was even feasible to construct, not to evaluate whether the project met the
variance criteria. The FEIS is a technical analysis of the potential impacts to the
proposal to the specific concerns identified in the scope. Staff responses as to
whether the proposal complies with the various criteria for variances are included in
the project staff report.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Appealing the SEPA decision
Section 20.110.040 states that an appeal before the Hearing Examiner of a SEPA decision
constitutes a final decision and shall be appealable only to the Snohomish County Superior Court.
AP -99-185 SRP.doc / October 2, 1999 / Staff Report
IV. ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity
2. Letter of Appeal
1. Staff
2. Applicant
3. Agent
4. Chuck Warner
5. Meadowdale Beach Community Council President
Me, ✓d each Community Council Appeal
File No. AP -99-185
Page 7 of 7
AP -99-185 SRP.doc /October 2, 1999 /Staff Report
J
Vicinity Map
Sequoia R•. - Plai
160XX 72nd Avenue West
rid
Tuesday, September 14, 1999
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Sequoia Ridge 4 -Lot Subdivision
Dear Mr. McConnell:
SEP 15 19
99
PERMIT C0V1,TE
R
After carefully considering the Proponent, John Thoresen's proposal for his "Sequoia Ridge" 4 -lot
subdivision, we the undersigned neighbors, owning property shown shaded on the accompanying map,
have decided to appeal Geo Group Northwest, Inc.'s (GGNI) Final Environmental Impact Study, and the
Engineering Division's waiver of the city's requirement to widen 72nd Ave. W.(north from its
intersection with 164th St. SW to the Johnsons' property). We have also concluded that the four -lot
subdivision proposal can not meet the city's criteria for its many necessary variances and request that
you deny the proposal's Development Application.
I. Appeal of the Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS)
Our appeal of the FEIS is based on the city's failure to give its impacted citizens proper notification of
the staff's determination of the scope of the environmental impact study, the study's subsequent
omission of two subjects of critical concern to the impacted and our findings of questionable errors,
discrepancies and recommendations within the study itself.
A. Inadequate Notice
Because the city's staff failed to give the neighborhood adequate notice, the staff's omission of two
subjects that are of critical importance to those most directly impacted (Traffic and Wildlife Habitat)
from the scope of its EIS went unchallenged. Because most of the people sharing the dead -ended part of
72nd Ave. W. live further than 300 feet from the proposed subdivision, the staffs notice of their
"Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS" was simply not mailed to
most of the people who would be most directly impacted by the development's additional traffic. While
the arbitrary 300 -foot limit may be sufficient when a proposed subdivision fronts on a through street, it
is not sufficient when located at the far end of a dead -ended street. The impacted should be notified and
everyone living along the substandard, dead -ended street would be directly impacted by the increased
traffic proposed by the subdivision.
Because a "160XX 72nd Avenue West" address was given by the proponent for property that abuts
1612272 nd Avenue West, even those who received the staff's notice were initially confused about the
project's actual location. One neighbor went so far as to ask a friend who is a commercial real estate
broker with three computer programs that access tax record data bases to make more than twelve
searches for the property's location without success. Apparently even the city's staff finally realized
there was a problem with the address because their September 1, 1999 "Notice of Development
Application & Hearing Examiner Hearing" changed the Project Location to read "South of North
Meadowdale Beach Rd (a few blocks south of the property) at approx. 72nd Ave. W. On September 9,
1999, just one week before the Hearing Examiner's hearing, residents within the 300 foot radius
received the staff s erroneously dated "Corrected Project Location" notice offering their third
description of the proposed project's location which read "South of North Meadowdale Rd. at
approximately 72nd Ave. W."
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page two
Few of us have any planning experience and when we read or heard about the staff's "Determination of
Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS" most were relieved that the city decided that
the development had a significant impact and was requiring an environmental impact study.
Unfortunately, most of us also presumed erroneously that the subdivision's negative traffic impacts on
our already substandard street would naturally have to be one of the more important subjects of the
study.
Since notices printed in the newspaper and posted at the Library rarely awaken anyone's interest, and
since most of us live more than 300 feet from the proposed subdivision, most of us had no way of
knowing the scope of the EIS would ignore our interests. When questioned why the city had not posted
any signs requesting comments on the scope of the EIS, the staff's Contact Person said it wasn't the
city's policy. If true, we strongly advise the city to reconsider their policy since this stage of the process
appears to be so critical in determining what the city considers relevant to their investigation,
recommendations and ultimate judgements.
Because it is the city's policy to post a sign(s) alerting residents of a Hearing Examiner's Hearing and
because the subdivision would most assuredly cause residents living along our street to suffer significant
negative impacts, we find it very curious that the city did not post any sign on our street announcing the
Hearing Examiner's Hearing even after they were asked to do so. What makes this even more curious is
that the staff decided to satisfied their legal obligation by posting a single sign along North Meadowdale
Rd. where few of us living along 72nd Ave. W. would ever see it.
B. Study of Adverse Traffic Impacts Omitted
Because the proposed subdivision is located at the far end of a dead ended street that is already
considered substandard, everyone residing along the street would suffer several adverse impacts caused
by the proposal's additional traffic. These impacts are expected to include more noise, air pollution,
inconvenience, congestion and hazards, particularly in the street's 14 -foot wide middle portion.
Principal hazards are expected to include vehicles trying to pass each other and visually obstructed entry
onto the street from steep driveways along the street's 14 -foot wide middle portion. Additional hazards
are expected to impact the residents of several neighboring streets as well as the residents along 72nd
Ave. W. who depend upon the very steep and often treacherous intersection between N. Meadowdale
Rd. and 164th St. SW as their principal point of entry and departure in and out of the neighborhood.
Over the Engineering Division's objections but with the support of neighbors living along the street, the
Hearing Examiner approved a four lot short plat (with no setback variances) located near the far end of
72nd Ave. W. nearly three and a half years ago that added two lots to the street. The developer of that
short plat negotiated a compromise design eventually acceptable to both the residents and the city that
left the street in an improved but still substandard condition. The southern 150 feet of the street is mostly
four feet less, the middle 200 feet of the street is approximately eight feet less and the northern 200 feet
of the street is mostly five feet less than the city's 22 foot wide standard.
While only eight of its fourteen legal lots are currently developed, the improved streetcanalready seem
overburdened on occasion. Because the proposed short plat would only intensify our problems by
adding approximately 16 more trips a day (based on the state's average projection of 8 per household)
on top of the approximately 48 daily additional trips already expected, traffic conditions along the
narrow, dead ended street could ultimately become untenable. Unless the street is widened to comply
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page three
with the city's standards, the additional traffic generated by the proposed short plat would clearly be
"materially detrimental" and "injurious" to ourselves and to the value of our properties.
C. Study of Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Habitat Omitted
Although the subject property comprises approximately 3.7 acres of woodlands and wetlands that appear
to have been left relatively untouched for centuries, although the property connects with other relatively
untouched areas that connect with known and protected wildlife habitats, and although the second
purpose listed in the Legislative findings of the ECDC's chapter on Critical Areas is to "Protect unique,
fragile and valuable elements of the environment including streams, wetlands, wildlife and its habitat,"
the Planning Division seems to know little about the property's value as a wildlife habitat and omitted
the subject altogether from the scope of the proponent's EIS. According to the Responsible Oficial, the
State Department of Fish and Wildlife is routinely notified of all proposed developments but according
to that department's Urban Wildlife Specialist, they typically only check to see if a proposal impacts any
fish bearing streams. Unless someone notifies them that there is a species listed as "Endangered",
"Threatened", "Sensitive" or "State Candidate" on the property, no one from the department investigates
the proposed development's impacts. As of August 25, 1999 there are 159 "Species of Concern" in
Washington State. During separate discussions on the subject with two different planning officials, only
two species were identified (the Bald Eagle and Chinook Salmon). Given their apparent unfamiliarity
with the subject, it is difficult to expect our planning officials to know whether the proposal would have
any significant adverse impacts to protected wildlife or their habitats. It certainly is not enough to
assume that any proponent would know about or voluntarily list a protected species on their
environmental checklist.
Since planners should not be expected to have the technical education and experience needed to
administer this part of the subdivision process effectively, we ask that you consult directly with an
Urban Biologist from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine whether or not there may be
sufficient cause to add the subject to the required EIS. It should be noted that Pileated Woodpeckers are
known to live in the vicinity of the subject property and with further scrutiny the habitats of other local
"Species of Concern" may be found as well.
D. The Study's Questionable Errors, Discrepancies and Recommendations
We are compelled to take issue with a few of the findings included in the Final Environmental Impact
Study (FEIS) prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. (GGNI). Because GGNI has already responded to
our August 23, 1999 letter that identified some of our concerns, we begin by responding to a few of their
responses.
"Response IIa" "The topographic data presented on the site plan (including the location of the
top of the bank) was generated under the supervision of, and was stamped by, a licensed professional
surveyor in the state of Washington. Therefore, the setback distances can be measured from the labeled
top of the bank using the topographic data provided by the proponent.
The contours on the proponent's site plan differ in detail from those shown on the Landslide Hazard
Map, due to differences in the methods and scales used to prepare the two maps. The Landslide Hazard
Map was prepared on a U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle base map which uses stereo
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page four
pair aerial photographs, while the site plan presented by the proponent is based on actual ground
surveys, which is much more accurate. "
The FEIS appears to equate the city's "Landslide Hazard Line" with the "top of the bank." While the
two different designations are often in the same location they are clearly in very different locations in
the vicinity of the proposed development. Since the city requires a 65 -foot buffer and setback from
geologically hazardous areas as well as from the top of steep slopes, the proponent's setbacks would be
substantially less than recommended in the FEIS and virtually non-existent for proposed lot 2.
According to GGNI the proponent's survey should be considered more credible than the city's simply
because the proponent's survey was prepared by a licensed surveyor and shot on the ground rather than
from the air. There are substantial differences between the city's and proponent's surveys; even the
directions of their slopes are significantly different. Since both surveys were presumably prepared
"under the supervision of, ...and stamped by, a licensed professional surveyor in the state of
Washington," differences between the two probably result from how points of elevation were shot and
who shot them.
While agreeing that ground surveys can be more accurate than aerial surveys, we do not believe that
they are always or necessarily more accurate. No field data was provided in the FEIS and the points of
elevation surveyed on the ground and the extent of the surveyor's interpolation of elevations between
points is unknown. The FEIS itself concedes that the proponent's failure to provide any surveying data
for the very steep west bank introduces uncertainty into GGNI's estimates. An alleged 15 -foot setback
from a cliff the surveying team considered too dangerous to survey leaves little room for error. Because
the proponent's surveyor works for and is paid by the proponent, and because critical differences
between the city's and proponent's surveys serve the proponent's interests, we believe the objectivity
and accuracy of the proponent's survey remains very much in question.
Because the proponent's plan requires so many variances and is made even more tenuous by GGNI's
discovery that the width of the proposal's roadway easement from 72nd Ave. W. may require the
buildable areas of lots 1, 2 and 3 to move 5 feet closer to the edge of the bank, the accuracy of the
proponent's survey is of critical importance to everyone impacted. To help us better understand and
resolve the significant discrepancies between the city's topographic surveys and that prepared by the
proponent's consultant, we believe that the proponent should be required to provide the city with a copy
of his surveyor's field data identifying the number of points shot and their respective elevations.
Response IIe: "Based on information obtained from the City, the landslide that was referred to was
located roughly 1, 000 feet south of the site on the west part of the property at 16202 — 72"a Avenue West.
This landslide occurred in February 1998. The cause of this landslide is in dispute. The location of this
landslide relative to the site, does not pose any new or additional risk associated with the proposed
development of the site, in the opinion of Geo Group Northwest, Inc. "
Evidence of their incomplete and erroneous understanding of the property makes it more difficult for us
to trust GGNI's opinions and risk assessments. "Roughly 1,000 feet" from the most hazardous part of
the proposed development would place the massive, 12,000 square foot landslide (approximately 30 feet
x 400 feet) that occurred less than two years ago roughly two blocks away (south of 165th Place SW)
rather than one property away. The slide was in fact only 300 to 350 feet away on the same stretch of
bluff and in the very same designated landslide hazard area (3A05) as the proposed development. GGNI
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page five
should also be aware that there is currently another very large crack (visible for more than 40 feet in
length by 2 feet in depth) similar to the one that preceded the 1998 slide that is located at the top of the
bluff only 150 feet from the proposed development.
While the cause of the 1998 landslide may be in dispute, the fact that it happened is not. The subject of
the 1998 slide was raised in our letter to correct another erroneous statement by GGNI concerning the
history of landslides in the area. According to GGNI "The most recent movements in the landslide
complex (iri 1946, 1955-56, and 1970-71) have occurred in the middle and western portions of the
complex, away from the site." The most recent landslide happened in 1998 not 1971. Evidence of a
large new fault line approximately 50 yards away from the most hazardous part of the proposed
development, on the same stretch of bluff in the same designated hazard area is not what most would
consider "away from the site". Unfortunately, its very difficult for us to rely upon GGNI's opinion that
there would be no new additional risks posed by these most recent movements in the landslide complex
when GGNI appears to be so unaware of just when and where these movements occurred.
If there were no risks of soil movement that could undermine the foundation piles recommended for the
houses along the edge of the cliff, why does GGNI's say on page 38 of the FEIS that "The geotechnical
monitoring can also include inspecting the steep west -facing slope for indications of soil movement
during construction."? Until it can be proven otherwise, we believe either a deep-seated fault(s), future
sloughing or a combination of the two will eventually undermine the proposal's building foundations
and request that the current study be expanded to respond convincingly to risks suggested by this
previously omitted information.
Proponent's request to permit a 400 square foot swimming pool and 300 square foot spa:
While the proponent and GGNI claim that the pool and spa would be properly engineered and include a
"leak containment and evacuation system," we have serious doubts about the long-term wisdom of
permitting such a precedent. Why should the proponent be given the right to endanger or devaluate his
downslide neighbors' properties by perching approximately 2,800 cubic feet of water in two concrete
containers on the edge of a landslide hazard area? How will the city assure the endangered property
owners below that the so-called "leak containment and evacuation system" is functioning over the pool
and spa's 100 -year lifetime and at what cost to the taxpayers? Will the city inspect the system on a
regular basis or will they simply pass the responsibility on to the proponent and his successors? Could
the property ever be as safe with the pools as it could be without them in the event of an earthquake or
even a serious leak? What public benefit could possibly offset the risks?
Storm Drainage System:
According to the FEIS, the proposal's "storm drainage system elements (catch basins, oil/water
separator, drain line, and outfall area) should be inspected and maintained to ensure their ability to
function properly." Catch basins and oil/water separator should be inspected monthly, the oil/water
separator should be cleaned semi-annually, and the drains and lines should be cleaned annually. If the
monthly inspections reveal that more inspections are needed the EIS recommends that the maintenance
schedule be adjusted accordingly. Because faulty storm drainage systems have often been the principal
cause of landslides on steep slopes, and because all four of the proposed lots are located on steep slopes,
storm drainage system maintenance would be critical to the safety of those living in and around the
proposed subdivision. Will the city simply expect the downslide neighbors to trust the proponent and
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page six
his successors with this important responsibility? How could those who would be impacted by the
development's storm drainage system be assured that the reasonable precautions listed in the FEIS will
betaken?
II. Appeal of the Engineering Division's Waiver of City Street Standards
Three and a half years ago the city's Engineering Division claimed they had no discretionary authority
to waive the city's street standards and formally opposed the last short plat's compromise design as
inadequate for the two additional lots proposed. The same Engineer Division is now contending that the
Hearing Examiner's limited decision in that case has given them the discretionary authority to decide
that the same compromise design that they originally opposed is now sufficient to serve traffic generated
by two more lots.
We, the impacted neighbors living along the street who supported the last short plat application do not
believe the Hearing Examiner's previous decision granted any such discretionary authority to the city's
Engineer Division. Nor do we believe that the Hearing Examiner's decision was intended to mean that
any additional lots could be added to the substandard street without requiring its compliance with the
standards.
The city's Engineering Division made a very similar judgement or misjudgment four years ago in a case
that provoked the Goodman Appeal (AP -95-100). Because several neighbors had previously indicated
that they didn't want the street widened, and because the city didn't want the street widened along just
one parcel unless there was some prospect that the entire street could be widened in the future, the
Engineering Division decided not to require compliance with the street standards. Goodman appealed on
the grounds that the street was hazardous and that the subdivision shouldn't be exempted from the street
standards. The Hearing Examiner partially upheld the appeal by requiring compliance along the
proposed development's frontage.
In the current case Lots 1-3 have no street frontage and to create a safe condition for the additional
traffic proposed, the entire street would need to be widened. If it is impossible or impractical to widen
the street any further, the Engineering Division should deny the proponent's application for the new
short plat. If it is possible to widen the street, the Engineering Division should require the developer to
comply with the city's standards.
III. Required Variances Do Not Meet City's Criteria
The city requires a 50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot building setback from geologically hazardous areas along
the western edge of the proposed subdivision. Because this 65 foot buffer and setback can only be
reduced to 10 plus 15 feet for a total of 25 feet if the proponent can prove that the alteration will have no
adverse impact on the site, city or any private party, the proponent needs a variance to realize his plan to
build even closer than the prescribed minimum on lots 3 and 4. If the buffer and setback is measured
from the city's Landslide Hazard Line, the proponent also needs a variance to eliminate the buffer and
setback requirement altogether for lot 2 and possibly 3 and 4. In addition to those needed to build into
the landslide area, several other variances are required. Lots 3 and 4 require the elimination of the city's
15 foot building setback from the wetlands buffer and lots 1 and 2 need setback variances to locate their
buildings closer to the access easement.
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page seven
The proponent contends that the strict application of the law would deny him all reasonable use of his
property. He argues that subdivision is normally a reasonable use and that the proponent would be
allowed to subdivide the property into eight lots if only it was flat, located far enough away from a
geologically hazardous area, and did not contain a stream or so much wetlands. We believe this
argument is specious and akin to claiming that if only any other condition was different than it is, the
result would be much better. It is precisely because the site has the conditions that it has that it is
protected and that any development of it is limited.
The proponent continues this line of reasoning by arguing that the "maximum use" of his property is the
same as "all reasonable use" of his property. The only way the proponent can squeeze four houses onto
his property is by winning several variances. Such a proposal defies the very first criteria listed in the
city's handout on short subdivisions which states "Where environmental elements, such as trees,
streams, ravines or wildlife habitats occur, any proposal shall be designed to minimize significant
adverse impacts to these elements." Because the proposed 4 -lot plan maximizes the use of the
proponent's property, it would necessarily maximize rather than minimize the development's significant
adverse impacts.
The proponent also argues that the granting of the many variances needed to permit the 4 -lot proposal is
"the minimum necessary" and "will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated". Given the
development's many adverse impacts and the neighborhood's nearly unanimous opposition to it, this
argument seems possibly even less plausible than the first. Since, according to the FEIS, "it is highly
unlikely that any vegetation (including trees) located between the wetland buffer and the steep slope
buffer and setback could be spared from removal during construction," the proponent is essentially
asking permission to obliterate about an acre of nearly pristine woodlands and wildlife habitat that took
centuries to create. Despite the fact that the entire region has suffered unprecedented rainfall and
landslide activity during the past three years which many believe could be evidence of what is just the
beginning of a permanent shift in weather patterns, the proponent is also asking permission to push the
legal envelope so he can cross the city's landslide hazard line and build within 15 or less feet of the
precipice. In addition to the extensive destruction of wildlife habitat and the questionable sanity of
building so close to the edge, there are also the many adverse impacts that would undoubtedly flow from
adding more traffic to our substandard street.
All reasonable use does not mean maximum use. Because the proponent would be allowed to develop
one residence on the existing lot without subdividing it, he would not be denied all reasonable use of his
property. To claim that his 4 -lot development proposal would not be "materially detrimental" or
"injurious" to the surrounding neighborhood is nonsense. In addition to the loss of the woodlands and
wildlife and the very chilling effect such setback variances would have on the safety and value of
properties located within as well as beneath the proposed development, everyone living along the very
substandard and dead -ended portion of 72nd Avenue West would be force to suffer even more traffic
related inconveniences and hazards. Given its many serious adverse consequences and risks, we believe
the proposal's many required variances do not meet the city's criteria and urge you to deny the
subdivision application.
Respectfully,
Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
City of Edmonds
September 14, 1999
Page eight
1. Wilie & Ruby Wellin on
2. Mark & Penny Westland
3. Arthur &
4. Valentin & Linelle Milatchkov
5. Phi & Mariam Lehn
0
7. Drew
& Linda Duffy
8. Dave & Kate Wells
9. Rita Stillings
10. S tt & Joyce Wright
11. Rolf & Marilyn Toberer
7109 164th St SW
16318 71 PI W
16222 71 PI W
16220 70 PL W
16202 72 Ave W
1623 8 72 Ave W
16306 72 Ave W
72 Ave W
16342 72 Ave W
7211 164th St SW
16214 72 Ave W & 16209 70' Pl. W.
u
a-sv 7900
tatt20
581@ TU 119
1 -11 7329
-49 Q
4
13&12 1-148
1
Ix
IA -N7
iSao, 1.31 - -=-4
tNTLRCEPTUR SYSTEM to w J6c'�k99; 16 78
t-44
A�tbt
t
-4t
YLb
i
J62l9
46225
1
�rt1i�3 , Y
ld f'c2
16232
H62
16317
16345
16MO
ItB x
16319
110,9' ��
l6
l6
t-47
r ,
1-49
1-48
alrMirl
tNTLRCEPTUR SYSTEM to w J6c'�k99; 16 78
t-44
A�tbt
t
-4t
YLb
i
J62l9
46225
1
�rt1i�3 , Y
ld f'c2
16232
H62
16317
16345
16MO
ItB x
16319
110,9' ��
l6
l6
t-47
t
1-49
1-48
E,CEIVE
Pik M-fl,,w DEPtl
July 3, 1099
Karissa K.awamota
Office of the City Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA` 9SQ20
Dear Ms. Kawamoto:
As the current President of the IVleadowdale Com nity Council, and oa behalf of the Council, I
wish to go on record to express our concerns for the proposed development of the newly
identified-buildiaglots located_at-tiv—,extre= north= en&af 72.nd .Avenue West =E mou&, As
a council we understand that a portion of the Johnson property, that was donated on behalf of the
Joh"" to Edmonds Community has. su6 div lots
and possibly named the Sequoia Ridge. We wish to express our concerns as to how these lots
may be developed and, more imp , ra Ub_tl= acc,.ess x (72ud.A.v W.)
itself. We ask that we be informed, by the City, in advance, on any proposed alterations, or lack
thereof, of the rid.
Stvera years- ago-, we as a cover ly want c" record to- resist tli&widenin,& of oui read: the
Lehn property was sub -divided into three additional building lots. However, our position at that
time was limited to that sub -division o be a�blanka apXQyal
regarding any other potential development along our street.
Therefore; woad that vibe e any is for our- street that w -g be
informed prior to any decisions on such issues by the City. Please forward all such information to
me- at the address listed below.
Sincerely,
"#ewMWo}tapik
resident,
Meadowdale Community Council
16306 72nd Ave. W.
EXHIBIT C
File •S-98/108N-98-
109/AP-99-185
': 1: •.
• ••
SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT PLAT SEP 13 1999
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 30 PERCEMIT COUNTER
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, or the size or nature of the critical areas,
the strict application of this title would deprive tl:e subject property all reasonable use
of the property.
The majority of this property contains slopes over 30% which would make it virtually
impossible to build on the site without having some development on slopes over 30%. A
geotechnical report on development of the slopes over 30% indicates that such
development can be conducted within safe and appropriate soil and slope stability
standards. The geotechnical report has concluded that the area proposed for
development is the most suitable portion of the site for construction from a soils,
geologic and drainage perspective. The EIS includes an independent geotechnical
evaluation of the site that also concludes that development is proposed in the most
appropriate portion of the site from a geotechnical standpoint. In addition to the steep
slopes, the site contains a wetland that is being preserved, together will wetland buffers.
The critical areas and their required buffers cover almost the entire site and would
preclude any development consistent with the RS - 20 zoning.
2. The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the
development proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is situated, or contrary to the goals and purposes of this chapter.
The site development has been reduced from 8 to 4 building sites that are clustered on
the least steep and most developable portion of the site. The total area of development
has been kept to the minimum necessary to build four residences and obtain vehicular
and utility access. The vast majority of the slopes and wetland area is to be preserved in
their natural state with Native Growth Protection controls. The geotechnical report
verifies that the proposed development can be achieved within acceptable standards with
controls established for drainage control, utility installation, grading, foundation design
and re -landscaping of the site. The drainage from the property will be tightlined in to the
existing drainage system below in North Meadowdale Road. The vast majority of the
site will remain undisturbed and in its current condition. The EIS looked at the potential
to reduce or eliminate impacts of the project and provides additional mitigation measures
to control impacts to the sensitive areas on the site. The residences are being built
respecting site topography and minimizing grading. Drainage is being controlled to
minimize erosion and sedimentation. Graded areas and resulting slopes are being
replanted.
EXHIBIT D
•S-98/108N-98-
109/AP-99-185
' 1 '
1 . ••
Robert Chave, Planning Manager
121 5th Ave. No.
Edmonds, WA 98020
September 12, 1999
RE: File #S-98-1.08 & V-98-109
It is without reason that we are determined to destroy
every little bit of natural flora and fauna space, to
desecrate all waters and streams, and to do this so
completely that we crowd as much concrete as possible
into the space of each one hundred fifty year old trees
and their surrounds.
I would cry if I were asked to approve building one (1)
house on this beautiful piece of land, and to suggest
that four (4) houses be crammed together is completely
incomprehensible to me. The builder will be long gone
and counting his money while the city is left to deal
with those suffering the direct consequences of erosion
and pollution.
I feel it is fool by to even think of this proposal
as anything but a calamity for the land, the neighborhood
and the native plants and animals that call it home.
PLEASE, PLEASE be very thoughtful in your decision.
Most respectfully,
EXHIBIT E
Ph 11is H. Wiggins
File Nos. -98/108N-98- 1601 4th Pl. V?.
109/AP-99-185 Edmonds, 1>7A 98026
P.S. I understand not everyone received a notice of the
address correction. This could make a big difference.
3
ROBERT A. ANDERSON M.D.
614 Daniels Drive NE
E. Wenatchee, WA 98802-4036
Tel/fax (509) 886-3708
E-mail nhMSN.com
September 10, 1999
Mr. Jeff Wilson
Planning Department
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This concerns the planned hearing for Sequoia Ridge, 9:30 a.m., Thursday Sept. 16, 1999. We
are the developers of the Lorian Woods Planned Unit Development immediately contiguous to
the subject property on the West.
Our concerns include:
1. The subject property is extremely wet. It is difficult to believe that the building sites rimming
the property on the South and West can be truly located on stable land free of the wetlands,
which occupy the majority of the site.
2. There is a great deal of moisture beneath the North-South ridge, which runs most of the
length of the West boundary of the property development and the East border of the Lorian
Woods development. Our East slope is likewise extremely wet, the entire hillside being fed
by underground springs and watercourses, the locations and courses of which shift several
times a year. We have high anxiety about the effect on these underground water sources
should the subject property be developed with four homesites. We believe it is impossible for
anyone, even a Riparian Engineer, to predict what effect the development may have;
significantly decreasing or increasing the flow of water onto the Lorian woods property are
distinct possibilities.
3. We have concerns, and need assurances that the developers, owners, and the City of Edmonds
are prepared to indemnify the developers and owners of lots 1, 2, and 5 of the Lorian Woods
development should any untoward results occur. We could foresee that increased water flow
might adversely complicate the ability to site homes and obtain building permits for lots 1, 2,
and 5, and/or greatly increase the cost of creating design safety on those sites. The Lorian
site has been stable for years. One hundred -year-old conifers on our East slope give
testimony to that. We have an intimate knowledge of the stability since 1962, the date of
property acquisition. Even with the severe weather circumstances and the unwise clearing of
the trees and ground cover by adjacent property owners in the winter of 1993 resulted in only
minor flow of mud into one catch basin.
EXHIBIT F
File •S-98/108N-98-
109/AP-99-185
•: 1: •
0• ••
The Sequoia site is located within the declared unstable zones of land in Meadowdale. We
believe that the added weight of four sizable homes on the ridge above lots 1, 2, and 5 of
Lorian Woods, given the known water -saturated subsoil beneath and tree clearing and loss of
any of the anchoring root systems will bring greatly increased hazards of large earth
movements which could render our homesites unusable. The balance of the elements of the
satisfactory status quo would be threatened, and adverse changes would surely bring on the
challenge of litigation. We should all stand forewarned about possible adverse
circumstances.
We believe that the present plan for four homes cannot mitigated these concerns and we are
opposed to the development in its present form.
Sin e�ely yours,
lobert A. and Joann M. Anderson
Lorian Woods Homeowners Association, Inc.
16119 73rd Pl. West
Edmonds, WA 98026
9/14/1999
Ron McConnel
Hearing Examiner
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. McConnel:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RE: Sequoia Ridge, 4 Lot Subdivision
We are the nine families who are the property owners of Lorian Woods and the immediate down
slope neighbors of the proposed Subdivision. We are adamantly opposed to that portion of the
Sequoia Ridge proposal which refers to lots 2 and 3, the two houses which are to be built on the
lip of a 110 foot to 130 foot cliff, actually a razorback ridge, above our property. We are also
categorically opposed to any swimming pool or spa construction on the ridge. We wish to
present a brief series of comments on the proposal as it refers particularly to those two lots.
First, we need to point out in advance that standing on our lots and looking up you see that the
two houses in question are to be built on the lip of a steep sandy cliff, which is the result of an
ancient slide. If you climb up to the proposed building sites and look east you will see that
there is a very steep drop to a deep valley behind the cliff. In other words, these two houses
are being sited on. the very top of an extremely narrow ridge. On pages 13 and 14 of G1061 it is
stated that the slope to the east is "58 percent' and to the west it is "178 percent." A glance
at a topographic map shows the contour lines are closer together on that portion of the cliff
above which building is proposed than almost anywhere else in the vicinity, and that they slope
down both to the east and to the west. We can assure you that a misstep in either direction
would be catastrophic.
Second, we wish to point out that you are being requested by the developers to waive all of the
most logical rules of the planning profession, and to get exemptions, waivers and variances
with regard to:
• Setback from wetland buffers
• Building a road to cross a stream in a wetland
• Building above an area of known landslide hazard with extensive groundwater seepage
and silty soils (G-1061 para 3.3.2.)
• Building on soils with high erosion potential (G-1061 para 3.4.1.)
• Building on soils subject to liquefaction in an earthquake (G-1061 para 3.4.3.)
• Buffers for hazardous areas, erosion, landslide and steep slope
We are opposed to building on lots two and three of the sites in question unless the following
points are settled in advance:
1. We need to be indemnified in perpetuity by the developer, the current owners, the eventual
property owners and the city against personal injury, or loss, or damage to our property by
structures, water flow, work or activity on the cliff above our lots. There have been major
slides both north and south of this portion of the cliff within the past few years, the nearest
being _less_ than 300 feet away. At least two undocumented mudslides have occurred directly
under these sites in 1997, and we do have photos of these slides which we would be happy to
share with you. There is constant effluent of sand and subsoils from this cliff in all weather
conditions which comes down all the way to the road in our property. Having followed with
EXHIBIT C
File Nos. -98/108/-98-
4 f10/A D_00_1 Qr.
interest the disputes regarding previous slides on other portions of this same cliff, we want to
head off any problems. Please assure us in writing that such indemnification is in effect so i t
is not necessary for us to take future problems through the courts.
2. We need to see a complete plan for the measures that will be undertaken to secure the c I i f
under lots two, three (and to a lesser extent under lot number four) against slides, which are a
frequent problem on this cliff face. As mentioned above, two recent mud slides occurred
immediately under the proposed building sites for lots two and three, and have not been noted i n
any reports we have seen. Test pits dug on our lots directly under the cliff indicate that our
soil is very wet and is composed of clay and a residue including buried logs from previous
slides. As noted in the report, this soil will probably liquefy in case of an earthquake in the
area, weakening its power to hold the cliff which weighs heavily behind it, and possibly giving
way disastrously. As the load on the cliff will be vastly increased with the weight of the
dwellings, and particularly proposed swimming pools and spas, we need to know where soldier
piles will be placed, how many, how far apart, to what depth they will they be sunk. We need to,
know the details of whatever retaining wall will be constructed to hold the hill in place. Upon
what will the footing of this wall rest? The slope is composed of sand and clay with a marked
contact plane between the layers, so the base of the retaining wall may need to rest on bolsters
at the base of the cliff. There is no disputing the fact that gravity and erosion are acting upon
the ridge, both to the east where a stream has cut deeply into the loose sandy soil, and to the
west, where there are innumerable seepage springs that never dry out, even after months of dry
weather. Erosion, water seeping through bared earth, and the lateral stresses of construction
will weaken one or both sides of this sharp ridge. When that happens we do not want our uphill
neighbors' houses to fall on top of ours.
3. The slope in question is very wet, and perforated throughout. This is referred to in the
second paragraph on page 17 of G-1061. Lots 5 and 6 of Lorian woods are perpetually wet from
the runoff issuing from this cliff. We will need to see a water flow study undertaken by
qualified riparian engineers that traces the many springs and streams that come out from under
the cliff from their origins to their destinations. This study should certainly be completed
before any site preparation is permitted or any ground cover is removed, since these actions
will lead to more rapid flow-through of water and more damage to the already eroding and
highly porous cliff face. Construction on the lip of this cliff will undoubtedly upset the water
table and underground water flow patterns for the entire ridge. The result of this study should
be a comprehensive plan for capturing the water that falls on, or flows through, the Sequoia
Ridge Development. We will need to see plans for interceptor drains to channel resultant
outflow through sturdy and well -mapped pipes and plans for building reliable systems to flush
these pipes of detritus and plans to dispose of the water in an environmentally acceptable
manner, hopefully skirting our property below, not crossing through it.
4. We must see a plan for measures that our uphill neighbors will take to hold the cliff in place
where trees are to be removed on our property for their convenience. We bring to your attention
the fact that our properties are all regarded as class 2 wetland and that the outflow on the
north side of the properties in question is a class 2b stream. The environmental impact on the
plant and animal life in this area must be minimized and this has not been adequately addressed
in any plans that we have seen. Once there is an adequate plan for preserving the diversity and
concentration of flora and fauna in the area, we still expect those who wish to improve their
view to pay for the planting and nurturing of replacement vegetation, to insure that habitat is
preserved and the cliffside is stabilized.
5. We would like a written guarantee that any construction that does take place on the ridge
Should in n0 way impact -our ability to complete our construction on our lots. We want to note
that even though our plots were pre -approved by the City of Edmonds when Lorian Woods was
sub -divided, one of our owners has had an application in process for over twelve months, and
has been awaiting review by the geologist all that time. We are told that this application is
taking so much time because of geological sensitivity, so it is amazing to us that the
application for building above us has moved forward so swiftly.
6. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship for the city to grant a variance. No such hardship
has been demonstrated. The one house alternative is sufficient and can be undertaken with no
further approval (G-1061 3.6.4).
7. Even if you only permit the one house alternative, we strongly oppose clearing of any sites
this Fall, after September 16th and just prior to the September 30th deadline. Once the
surfaces of these sites are opened up by scraping off the topsoil, any rain that lands on the
ridge will percolate down through the sandy soil and will further weaken the front of the cliff.
Denuding the ridge should only be done in the late Spring, after the rainy season is past, and the
surface must be replanted and drainage must be focused away from the front slope as soon as
possible, but no later than 30 September of the same year.
We are aware of the letters from the concerned residents of 72nd Ave. West and wish to add our
voices to theirs. They are presenting a joint enclosure with all of our properties marked as
well as theirs. Unless their objections and ours can be overcome, we endorse a one lot
development alternative for the property in question.
Dennis and Susan Chiavelli, Owners, Lot #1, (805) 652-6501
Joann and Bob Anderson, Owners lots #2 and 9 (509)886-3708
Seung and Heyoung Ch ng, ner , Lot #3 (425) 742-7090
Bob and aren Walsh, Owners, Lot #4 (425 742-2794
Dave and T elma Finnig Owners, Lot # 5, (770) 329-1152
c i
(20 6) 136-1 230
Ch and Ui C on Pak, Owners, lot# ,
May Neering, Presiyent of Associa ion and owner lot #7 (425) 742--94,
oan /an Steve
ll9 nson, Owners, Lot #8, (425) 743-6576
Bill and Barbara Derry, Owners, Lot #10, (425) 742-2814
Mark E. Thometz
Kathleen J. Johanson
7309 N. Meadowdale
Edmonds, WA 98026
Wednesday, September 15, 1999
Ms. Karissa Kawamoto
Project Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Sequoia Ridge Partners, 160XX 72nd Avenue West
Dear Ms. Kawamoto:
We will be unable to attend in person, so we provide this letter for submission at tomorrow's
Hearing Examiner hearing on the referenced residential project. We have reviewed the EIS
and staff report on this proposed SFR subdivision which requests a critical area variance to
allow construction of four homes within a Steep Slope Critical Area; elimination of the required
buffer and setback; elimination of 15 foot building setback from a wetland buffer for lots 3 and
4; and reduction of the standard flag lot setback for lots 1 and 2 to allow construction of the
homes closer to the access easement.
What most concerns us is the loss of stream bed and wetlands. According to the EIS, the
critical area variance relates to elimination of 2,298 square feet of wetland buffer for a roadway
and driveway; disturbance of approximately 3,750 square feet of wetland buffer for storm and
side sewers, utilities; and loss of 1,010 square feet of stream and stream buffer habitat to
accommodate a driveway crossing.
We are not anti -development, but believe that
The property in question contains steep slopes,
stream capacity or wetland should be allowed
downstream property owners.
property should be developed within the law.
a stream and wetland habitat. No reduction in
due to the potential for slides and runoff to
In the past 13 years we have endured three landslides which were not minor in scope. All were
the result of storms with magnitudes greater than the engineering standard used for the
building codes. I believe we have endured at least two 100 years storms to date.
Civil engineering is not an exact science. So if the
safeguarding wetlands and steep slopes is granted,
developer and future Sequoia Ridge residents can
neighbors.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
variance to the engineering standards
and future slides occur, the City, the
expect legal action from the downhill
EXHIBIT H
File •S-98/108N-98-
109/AP-99-185
•. 1 •
••
•
Ron McConnel
Hearing Examiner
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. McConnel:
June 14, 1999
RE: Sequoia Ridge
We own the property north of the property north of the proposed developement
and are concerned about the impact of the Sequoia developement and the long term
impact of changes in environmental policies which were well thought out to supposedly
protect adjacent properties.
e
While I cannot dispute the findings of the experts, it does appear that they have minimized
the recent slides in the area . Geologically the 25 years cited is but a few seconds in the
time clock of catastrophic events. No mention has been made of fact that the hills to the
north and south of the area are saturated with water and various slides have been attributed
to failure of old drainage systems. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter from the Lorian Woods
Homeowners Assoc.are especially appropiate. At a very minimum there should be specific
restrictions on any additional additions such as swimming pools and hot tubs.
Th6 destruction of trees due to construction should be carefully monitored for the impact
to loss of the water absorbtion thru the trees needs.
Sincerely,
f�nri M.Loboudger../
15920 72nd Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98026
EXHIBIT I
File Nos. -98/108/V -98-
109/A-99-185
«.�ii�� it+rte ■�r�
Im
s
STAT£ O
,n
< � x
Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard • Mill Creek, Washington 98012 • (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066
September 30, 1999
Karissa Kawamoto
City of Edmonds
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Sequoia Ridge Partners 4 -lot subdivision at Meadowdale Road at 72"d Ave. W, File #S-
98-108, V-98-109, AP -99-185 and impacts to wildlife habitat
Dear Ms. Kawamoto:
This short plat has come to my attention through neighbors living within the vicinity of the
proposed development. After visiting the site today, it is my opinion that there is a need for a
more adequate investigation of wildlife and wildlife habitat on this site. The vegetation is mixed
deciduous/coniferous containing mostly old, large deciduous trees. The checklist of animals on
and around the proposed development does not include some species known to be in that area.
I have observed bald eagles in the Meadowdale area frequently and have suspected a nest in the
vicinity for some time. The bald eagle should, without question, be listed on the checklist of
animals on and around this site. The site contains potential, if not active, bald eagle perch trees
and, viewing from 72"d Ave W on the Meadowdale Rd. side, appeared to have at least one
potential nest tree. A search should be conducted on and around the site next year beginning in
February for bald eagle use including perching and nesting.
Other species observed in the vicinity that should be on the list are great blue herons, pileated
woodpeckers and band -tailed pigeons. The site contains habitat used by these birds. All three of
these species are WDFW Priority Species. The pileated woodpecker is a State Candidate Species
for listing. Looking into the site from Meadowdale Rd, at least one tree can be seen that has
pileated woodpecker sign. A thorough search should be done for pileated woodpecker foraging,
roosting and nesting sign. A nest search should be conducted next spring/summer for nesting
pileated woodpeckers. If pileated woodpecker sign is detected, great consideration should be
given to retaining a section of the forest containing those trees.
The habitat on this site is important wildlife habitat because it is unique in its age, therefore the
important for its size of trees, and becoming more rare. Many species, including those already
- mentioned, depend upon larger, older trees to nest and/or forage.- When this habitat disappears,
those species will likewise disappear.
EXHIBIT K
File •S-98/108N-98-
109/AP-99-185
• 1 •.
. .
Please notify me if there is any evidence or presence of any of the above species on this site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Patricia A. Thompson
Wildlife Biologist
cc. Ted Muller, WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist; Jeffrey S. Wilson, Edmonds Planning
Supervisor; Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner; Drew Wojtanik
8
9.
10
12
13'
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE APPLICATION OF SEQUOIA RIDGE
PARTNERS,
Applicant.
No. S-98-108 and
No. V-98108
(Ap-99-185)
COMMENT REGARDING
VARIANCE REQUEST
COMES NOW Care Planning Associates, (the "Guardian") Successor
Guardian of the Person and Estate of Mary E. Janeway, and in
response to the Application by Sequoia Ridge Partners for a
variance request makes the following comments.
1. Identity. Care Planning Associates is the Successor
Legal Guardian of Mary E. Janeway pursuant to order entered by the
Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington under cause no. 86-
4-0562-1. A copy of the letters of guardianship issued by the
Clerk of the Snohomish County Superior Court is attached hereto.
Mary E. Janeway is the beneficial owner of the residential real
property and improvements located at 16105 75th Pl. W., Edmonds,
Washington, the ("Janeway property").
2. Property location. The Janeway property is located
directly downslope from the proposed development site.
3. Portions of Application on which Comments Based:
a. Requests for variance regarding:
i. elimination of the critical area buffer and setback
requirements;
COMMENT REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST - 1
EXHIBIT 0
File Nos. S -98-108/V-98-109/ 1•: 1•'
AP -99-185
HENRY H. JUDSON IN
ATTORNEY A7 UW
101 YESLER WAY, SLRT6 602
$BATTLE WASHING, MN 90104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ii. elimination of the 15' building setback from wetland
buffer for proposed Lots 3 & 4; and
b. Request to construct an in -ground pool and spa on
the property.
4. Material Reviewed. The Guardian has had the opportunity
to review the Planning Division Advisory Report, Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations, the Applicant's Hearing Memorandum
and other material provided by the applicant at the public hearing
on October 7, 1999, and the comments from adjoining landowners.
The Guardian is mindful of Edmonds Community Development Code
Sections 20.85.010 (A) and (E).
5. Comment. The Guardian acknowledges that one other
development separates the proposed development from the Janeway
property. However, after viewing the Janeway property and noting
the degree of ground saturation apparent, the Guardian is
particularly concerned with the variances requested above due to
the degree of the slope, the ongoing seepage and overall saturation
of the land, as well as the potential for damage due to slides and
other earth movement. The Guardian takes the position that the
maximum buffers and setback requirements should be maintained in
order to secure the property and maintain its stability in relation
to surrounding properties, particularly those down-slope. the
Guardian is also particularly concerned with the ramifications of
installation of an in -ground pool in a critical slope area which
could easily be subject to slide activity.
COMMENT REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST - 2
HENRY U. JUDSON III
ATTORNEY AT LAW
101 YFSLER WAY, SVITP 602
SEATTLE wAslwx =N MN
VVl .T JJ 11,U T'JI I -
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of October, 1999.
, -�/' ;?/;-, I P, � t Z' 4 � - � - "?�
Henry �H`J son III, WSHA # 11869
Attorney d'Or Care Planning Associates
Guardian of the Person and Estate of
Mary E. Janeway
COMMENT REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST - 3
HENRY H. JUDSON IN
ATTORNEY AT UW
101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 60'
SEAME, WAS WN=N 981 a
V V 1 . -[ J' 1 ,. v 1' J I I-
STIPFRIOR COURT OF THF.. STATE ON WASHING
IN ,AND FOR &NOHONIZSH COUNTY
Guardia:aship of
tlIr112�' E. JANEWAY
Incapacitated Person
J �
-rsiv
Ij P Ii I l•V• 1'1�.
Case No. 86-4-00562-1
LITTERS OF GUARDIANSHIP
(LTftGDN)
WHEREAS,
CARE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
lias been by order of the Superior Court, heretofore made and entered, appointed Guardian of tl>,c
person and estatc of said incapacitated person and Leiters of Guardianship having ordered to be issued,
and said Guardian having qualified.
BE IT KNOtW That we do hereby authorize the said above named to act as Guardian of rhe
person and estate of said incapacitated person_
Datcd: October 1, 1999
PAM L. DANIELS, Cleric of Superior Court
BY -
Deputy
CERTIFICATE
I, PAN! L. DANIELS, Clerk of the Snohonush County Superior Court, certify that the above and
foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Letters of Guardianship in the above named case and were
entered on: October 1, 1999
I further certify that these letters arc now in full force and effect.
—
PAM L. DANIELS, Clcrk of Superior Court