Lewis tree NOV and penalty.pdf'U. Lb✓
CITY OF EDMONDS
1215 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www,edmondswa.oy
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Location of Violation (Address and/or description of location): The violation occurred on and
immediately south of the property addressed as 18910 Soundview Place, Edmonds, WA (tax
parcel # 00498400000400).
Issued To: Jeff Lewis and Edmonds Tree Service
Address of persons/entities This Order Is Issued To:
Jeffrey Lewis Edmonds Tree Service
18910 Soundview Place Steve Schlecht
Edmonds, WA 98020 7427 — 201s' Place SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Code Section Violated: Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.160 Review
Criteria, ECDC 23.40.220 Allowed Activities within Critical Areas, ECDC 23.80.040 Allowed
Activities within Geologically Hazardous Areas, and ECDC 23.90.040.D Development standards
for streams.
Description of Violation: Mr. Lewis is in the process of an extensive remodel of an existing
house at 18910 Soundview Place as part of building permit BLD20150148. As was identified
through critical area reports submitted with the building permit, Fruitdale Creek runs across the
neighboring parcel to the south roughly parallel to the subject site at the bottom of a short
steep slope. As a condition of development, stream buffer mitigation was required near
portions of Mr. Lewis's south property line, including removal of invasive species such as
English ivy, blackberries and several Holly trees in addition to replanting with native species.
Mr. Lewis contracted with Edmonds Tree Service to perform that work. In addition to the
approved work, however, additional trees were cut or removed.
According to the arborist report submitted by Mr. Lewis from Arbor Options (dated July 29,
2015), a total of five trees were removed and eight trees were cut or pruned by Edmonds Tree
Service. Exhibit A includes a description of the species, size, and activity on each tree as
summarized from the arborist report. All of the tree cutting activity occurred within 50 feet of
Fruitdale Creek.
Since the slope near where the cutting occurred is a potential landslide hazard as defined by
the City's critical areas regulations (ECDC 23.80.020) and is also located within a stream buffer
as defined by ECDC 23.90.040.D, the area is subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.40 ECDC —
Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions, Chapter 23.80 ECDC — Geologically
Hazardous Areas, and Chapter 23.90 ECDC — Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
ECDC 23.40.220 details activities that are allowed in critical areas and critical area buffers in
general, ECDC 23.80.040 details activities that are allowed in geologically hazardous areas, and
ECDC 23.90.040.1) notes that no alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted
unless consistent with the provisions of the City's critical area regulations and the specific
provisions in ECDC 23.90.040.D. The additional cutting of vegetation on the slope and the
stream buffer that was not part of the approved mitigation plan associated with BLD20150148
does not fall under any of the allowed activities identified in ECDC 23.40.220 or ECDC 23.80.040
and is not consistent with the provisions detailed in ECDC 23.90.040.D. ECDC 23.40.160
requires any alteration of a critical area to be reviewed and approved, approved with condition,
or denied based on criteria established in ECDC 23.40.160 and the City's critical area
regulations. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.320, "Alteration" means:
...any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining;
channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing
vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance;
discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface
water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing
landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
With the exception of the four Holly trees that were to be removed as part of the previously
approved critical area mitigation plan associated with BLD20150148, the additional tree cutting
activity detailed in Exhibit A is an unauthorized alteration within a critical area.
M'' o et r Penalty: ECDC 23.40.240.E — Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement
— establishes that violations of the critical area code are subject to penalties set forth in ECDC
18.45.070 and 18.45.075. ECDC 18.45.070.13 establishes a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $1,000 penalty for a tree of up to three inches and $3,000 for a tree three inches or
more. Pursuant to ECDC 18.45.070.C, the fines established in ECDC 18.45.070.13 are tripled for
clearing which occurs within any critical area or critical area buffer, or public right-of-way.
Exhibit A details the trees that were cut and the subject of this violation as well as the monetary
penalty assessed for each tree. Mr. Lewis provided an arborist report that detailed the tree
numbers, species, diameter at breast height (dbh) from which the City then prepared Exhibit A.
Each tree was assessed a base fine under ECDC 18.45.070.13 depending on the specific activity
associated with each specific tree. All fines established pursuant to ECDC 18.45.070.13 are
tripled due to their location within a critical area and/or critical area buffer. While a range of
possible monetary penalties could be appropriate in a case like this, the mid-range penalty
amount proposed is supported by: (i) the plain text of the ECDC with respect to unauthorized
alterations within a critical area, (ii) the egregiousness of the violation in that several of the
trees were not on Mr. Lewis's property, (iii) Edmonds Tree Service knowledge of tree cutting
permit requirements, (iv) Mr. Lewis's responsiveness in submitting information after the
violation, and (v) the fact that all of the trees that were cut without permit (except for the Big
Leaf Maple) have a high likelihood of survival according to the arborist report. The total civil
monetary penalty assessed for the above -referenced violation is $6,900.00.
This Notice is imposed without prejudice to any other civil, criminal, injunctive or other remedy
and/or penalty available to the City.
Corrective Action: In addition to the monetary penalty imposed above, the following corrective
actions are required:
1. The Mitigation Plan prepared by Arbor Options, dated July 14, 2015 must be
implemented by October 31, 2015. Permission must first be obtained from the adjacent
landowner to the south and the two replacement vine maples must be installed on the
slope near where the Big Leaf Maple was removed.
2. The vine maples are subject to the monitoring and maintenance plan included with the
Critical Areas Report and Proposed Mitigation Plan for the Lewis property by Wetlands
& Wildlife dated March 24, 2015, which is associated with building permit
BLD20150148.
Note: Mr. Lewis and/or Edmonds Tree Service must pay the monetary penalty of $6,900 by
September 28, 2015. This decision is appealable to the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner by
filing a complete appeal application including written notice of appeal with the Development
Services Director no later than Se rtember % 2015 at 4:00 Ori. The appeal filing fee is $705.
Date Posted: Date Mailed: Date Served August 26, 2015
Issuing Party Shane Hope Title Director, Development Services Department
Signature 2---
Exhibit A
Base Fine
Treble Fine
ECDC
ECDC
Tree No
Species
Diameter
Ukelihood of Survival
Activity
._...F-.�
18.45.070.B
18.45.070.0
..
1
Willow
70'
��
High
On adjacent property;
pruned lower 3' feet,
limbed up on north side
of tree
S50
$150
2
Leyland cypress
5.T"°
High
........ _--...
Topped by 3-5' and side -
limbed 34
S50
5150
3
Leyland cypress
54'
High
Topped by 3-5' and side -
limbed 3-4'
1 $50
$150
4
Leyland cypress
6.0""
High
Topped by 3-5' and side -
limbed 3-4'
$50
$150
. _-
5
__.........�
Leyland cypress
6,9"
.....
High
Topped by 3-5' and side -
limbed 3-4' _............
$50
5150
6
.......
Old stump
n/a
.
n/a
Small water sprouts
removed
$0
$0
7
Cherry
13"
High
Uncut - supported Tree 8.
Tree 8 was cut to remove
weight on Tree 7
SO
SO
8
Douglas fir
14"
High
On adjacent property;
previously fell over in
critical area. Top of Tree 8
was removed near where
it leaned on Tree 7
$0
SO
9
_---
Holly
V
n/a
.............
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
w-.._...-..
$0
_..�,,_
SO _..._._._
10
Holly.....
11
n/a........._-�..
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
SO
$0
11
Holly
12"
�...IT
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
$0
$0
12
Holly
_...
14 "'
n/a
Removed as part of
approved mitigation plan
_..�
$0
$0
13
..------
Bigleaf maple
8.5" &
n/a
On adjacent property;
4.3"
removed to 1.5' stump.
stems
Two stems had significant
lean to the east - may
have been considered
hazardous. Sprouts should
be allowed to regrow and
be maintained. 2 vine
maples to replace
adjacent.
$1,500
$4,500
14
Douglas fir
12"
Medium -High
On adjacent property; by
photo, topped at level
below previous top on
adjacent parcel -
additional corrective
pruning recommended
5500
$1,500
.....a. .....
15
..W..... __�
English laurels
n/a
High
On adjacent property;
pruned - on monitor list
of WA State noxious weed
list; King County weed of
concern
$50
5150
Total Fine
$6,900